The controversy over President Barack Obama continues with an interesting twist: Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (ret.) and active U.S. Air Force reservist Lt. Col. David Earl Graeff are supporting the litigation. On July 8th, Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor. The government is now claiming that the lawsuit is “moot” since Cook doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan. Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.
The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants. It was an unfortunate decision to revoke these orders. The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter. The optics are perfect for those alleging a grand conspiracy to conceal Obama’s birth certificate (which has been viewed as third parties) and hide his alleged foreign born status.
For the full story, click here.
I say try the man for dereliction of duty. Maybe an Article 15 would be appropriate under the circumstances.
“Cook in turn has added a claim to this lawsuit that he was retaliated against for his lawsuit after he was terminated at Simtech Inc., a Department of Defense contractor.”
Well la tee da, should not all us us be so lucky: First) Still employed by the DOD and earning benefits and pay; Second) Working for a DOD Contractor, being paid and earning Social Security credits, humm, not a bad gig; and Third) Refusing to Follow Orders as Commanded by the CIC? Maybe a Section 8 would be more appropriate.
What does he think he is?
Mike Castle (R-DE) asked about Obama Birth Certificate
Yes, Obama should fight the issue, not continuously bury it. Then again, maybe – just maybe – he has something to hide.
Can greater minds than mine explain this to me? If President Obama’s mother WAS a U.S. Citizen (and there is no dispute there, from what I understand), then President Obama could have been born inside the Kremlin — or on the Moon for that matter — and still be eligible to stand for the presidency, correct? I don’t agree with him on many things, but it seems like this illegitimacy argument is beyond foolish.
I’m guessing that this retired Major General wasn’t curious one bit about Commander Codpiece’s mysterious National Guard papers.
Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?
Argue it on the merits.
If this is how the govt. wants to deal with it, then every soldier ought to join this claim and get out of being sent to any one of our many illegal and immoral wars.
And, the soldiers should all get it in writing that they will never be deployed. At this point I suspect our govt. will argue on their case on the merits, but if there’s a chance of people not being sent to war, I’m all for taking it.
One has to be amazed by the inanity of all this. First of all, as George mentioned, it doesn’t matter where Obama was born, he’s a citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. Secondly, and this is the part causes me outright laughter, these lunatics call this a conspiracy to elect a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, etc. Now, if you were going to try to subvert the American system would you really select a half-black man born in the early 1960′s of a white mother, give him a Muslim name and fully expect he’d become President of the United States? You’d have to first plan Clinton’s daliances in order to get a completely incompitent and maleable GWBush elected, plan and execute the 911 disaster and the failures of the Iraqi invasion and the implosion of the economy. Even Dick Cheney isn’t that conspiratorial.
View the video and comment on its contents.
The controversy is the difference between a natural born U.S. citizen v. a U.S. citizen. To become POS, one must be a Natural Born U.S. Citizen.
Requirements for a Natural Born U.S. Citizen
1) Born on U.S. soil
2) *Both* parents must be U.S. Citizens
Accordingly, Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen but was subject to British rule. Therefore both of Obama Jr.’s parents were *not* U.S. citizens and Jr. is *not* a *Natural Born* Citizen.
There is no question whatsoever that B.H. Obama is a U.S. citizen because one of his parents—his mother—was a U.S. Citizen.
Professor Turley, given your status as a constitutional scholar, what is your position regarding the Natural Born U.S. citizenship requirement for the U.S. Presidency v. the naturalized or ‘plain’ U.S. citizenship?
Vince Treacy, please consider addressing this specific controversy.
<>
What’s really curious is that the military has done such a bad job explaining why Cook’s orders were revoked.
Apparently, because Cook volunteered for duty in Afghanistan, he has the right to change his mind. By filing his suit, the military obviously concluded he had changed his mind, and accordingly revoked his orders to deploy.
The fact that Cook volunteered, then filed his suit, certainly speaks to his motives.
The issue is as ridiculous as was the “Swiftboaters” game in the Kerry candidacy and no doubt funded by the same crackpots.
I’m not surprised that an Air Force General and Colonel have got involved in this given the fairly successful attempts to Christianize The Air Force Academy in Colorado. Remember to the long history of air Force Kookery exemplified by General Curtis
LeMay, who wanted to H Bomb Cuba and Russia during the missile
crisis.
The Air Force has always had an overrated sense of their own importance, given that no wars have ever been won solely, or partially by air power. It’s the guys on the ground the Infantry and the Marines who win the wars, backed up by the men of the Navy, who win them at sea.
Finally, Jonathan’s point about why the Army dropped the orders, rather than allowing the case to go through is a good one. All it did was add fuel to this addled fire.
To me rcampbell’s perspective on this is the best one. This is perhaps the least probable of conspiracy theory surmises and if some evil group really planned this then we are all in trouble because they would have to have had strong psychic as well as superb analytical powers.
There is more evidence than the birth certificate. Evidence shows Barack Obama was an Indonesian citizen in the US on a student visa even after his parents were divorced when he was over 18 years old. That is why he did not register for the selective service, he was not required to, being a foreign citizen. Then he had to create one for the campaign when questions were asked.
The charges and evidences against Barack Obama are on my website, court style:
http://www.divine-way.com/forgery_evidences_sss_reg_colb_birth_cert_for_obama_impeachment.html
and
http://obama-birth-cert-forged-sss-impeach.blogspot.com
A copy was sent to Barack Obama and US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Both were sent about 2-11-09. Barack Obama clearly thinks he has something to hide.
Email the president that you want this controversy ended, http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ The president, administration and Congress, and media will only press the president to quickly end this controversy if the people press them for a quick end. He should easily be able to end this controversy with proofs he has held as hidden. The president is open for blackmail from his own administration and others who have his records: Kenya, Pakistan, Indonesia, classmates and faculty at his colleges etc. This is serious and he cannot get out without prayer.
No matter what this won’t go away. It will become the “Vince Foster suicide” of this administration in the eyes of wingnuts. As for Cmdr Codpeieces National Guard Service, it’s clear that the mainstream media let itself be muzzled on that one.
Mike Spindell hit it right on the nose. This is a swiftboat attempt to discredit the President and to derail or slow down the health care reform and other issues from being successful. The business of being an objector on the grounds that the President does not have the right to be President is BS. What standing does a soldier have to object to the President’s status as President? My understanding of the CO requirements is that an individual applying for that status must show that he/she is against all wars on moral and ethical grounds and not idividual policies or wars. I had a friend during the Vietnam war that applied and received his CO status and was only able to claim the moral and ethical grounds. Also, once you are in the military it is far higher standard to be successful in obtaining the CO status. I have to agree that the administration should have proceeded to prosecute this individual or to deny his claim, but his legal ability to withdraw his request to be deployed is a legitimate one.
Why would an honorable man continue to fight so hard to hide information about his birth? Why? –How long does one stand on “you can’t make me”?
The one document that should put an end to the controversy must be the same one that will create a greater controversy.
Mr. Turley
As the supposed pre-emminent constitutional scholar, why don’t you explain to all of us the issues surrounding ‘what is a natural born citizen according to the constitution?’ ‘What court cases and congressional actions have declared a natural born citizen to be.’ , ‘what the assetions are in these claims and lawsuits.’ , and why Obama has refused to date to answer any of these challenges on the merits and in fact has spent close to or more than 1 million dollars weaseling around them on standing grounds or other technicalities.
If these questioners are so absolutely wrong and misguided, please show that with facts and evidence rather than laughter, denials and scorn.
Don’t the people have a right to know?
regards…
rafflaw,
You are, to some extent, wrong. I personally believe that Obama is a “natural born” US citizen, but I’m extremely bothered by his refusal to address the issue.
It’s not – at least not in all cases – swiftboating. Obama’s response to this issue has been unconscionable.
The Bush National Guard story cratered under the weight of the patently phony, Microsoft Word-generated “official” documents that Dan Rather so naively and willingly proferred. If the Obama citizenship controversy issue is merely a figment of the far right’s imagination, then why doesn’t the President just end it once and for all by tendering his birth documentation to independent, reputable forensic document examiners for authentication? What’s so hard about that??
I tend to agree with Jim Byrne (above) on this one.
Guys, this is *not* about conspiracy theories.
There is one simple question that needs answering. Is it a constitutional fact that a U.S. Citizen must be born on U.S. soil AND specifically, are *both* of his/her parents required to be U.S Citizens?
Who among us posting here would not tender whatever documents required, answering this question for the last time. I know that I certainly would. As a Federal LEO, I had to reveal virtually everything about me, every relative who worked for the govt., and my clearances were thoroughly reviewed every 5 years.
Rcampbell:
“Now, if you were going to try to subvert the American system would you really select a half-black man born in the early 1960’s of a white mother, give him a Muslim name and fully expect he’d become President of the United States?”
———————————————
you lefties are very crafty! lol.
Even I, as a non-left winger, think Obama is a US citizen by virtue of his mothers citizenship no matter where he was born.
Vince Treacy has laid this to rest a long time ago, give up neo-cons, paleo-cons, ultra-cons, acme-cons, pseudo-cons, faux-cons, sino-cons, anglo-cons, bi-cons, gay-cons.
Okay, put another way, every fool, imbecile, idiot, common person, or genius will agree that Obama is a U.S. Citizen.
However, the U.S. Constitution specifically states Natural Born Citizen–a more stringent requirement for POS. Is B.H. Obama a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen? Yes, Virginia, he definitely is a U.S. Citizen, and no, there is no ‘Santy Clause’.
Don’t you think that the Bush/Cheney machine would have done the oppo dirty work after, for example, the ’04 Obama keynote at the Dem convention?
Seems like they coulda stopped Obama in the starting gates BEFORE the election.
This is going into UFO/Clintoon American Spectator bullshit.
Article II of the Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the phrase. However, the Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part, that all persons born in the United States are citizens. Hawaii became a state approximately two years prior to Obama’s birth. Therefore, if he was born in Hawaii, he is a natural born citizen of the U.S., regardless of whether both of his parents were actually from Krypton.
I am also bothered by the constant harangue that the president could clear up all of the uncertainty by simply producing his original birth certificate. First, whose uncertainty? Am I required to produce some sort of proof of a fact to satisfy the irrational speculations of people with an agenda? Since when does it become the obligation of the victim of a rumor to disprove the rumor? Suppose I were to use the internet to spread a rumor that Sarah Palin is actually the love child of the first President Bush and that her candidacy for the White House is being financed by a Bush-Saudi cabal. I am confident that I could eventually enlist many believers on the web. Does any rational person believe that it would then be incumbent on the elder Pres. Bush and Gov. Palin to submit to DNA testing to disprove the rumor?
Second, even were the original long-form certificate of Pres. Obama’s birth enshrined in glass and placed on public display in Independence Hall, the stories of forgery and duplicity would persist. After all, there are still thousands of Holocaust deniers running about, some of them on this site.
We may have to tolerate irrational and unreasonable people in this life, but we need not indulge them.
“The addition of a retired major general and active colonel will have more of a promotional and legal benefit for these litigants.”
************
It has about the same effect as Lindbergh joining the America First movement. Big splash, little wave, and more revealing of the attitude of the member, than the efficacy of the cause.
Mike A:
“We may have to tolerate irrational and unreasonable people in this life, but we need not indulge them.”
*********
Very well said.
the terrorist must be removed– i recommend waterboarding with acid
Jonolan,
The President did “prove” he was born in Hawaii. At least according to the State of Hawaii!.
Mike A.,
What is this about Sarah Palin being related to George the First? That is big news! Who was her mother then?
rafflaw 1, July 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Jonolan,
The President did “prove” he was born in Hawaii. At least according to the State of Hawaii!.
Mike A.,
What is this about Sarah Palin being related to George the First? That is big news! Who was her mother then?
The answer to that question is classified as a state secret.
Shuuush, her mother is a secret. No one can tell that she is Georges half blood. The Force will be out and surround your dwelling with crafts that have strobe lights that appear to throb as they circle the craft. Usually they come in threes but no less than two at a time.
He mothers name is not Barbara nor can George’s be revealed either at this time. It is to be kept a state secret as long as it could possible endanger anyone alive that is familiar with the Kennedy assassination. That as well was conducted by the same people that have knowledge of the whereabouts of Sarah and Georges mother.
I hope not all was compromised as a result of the display of this message.
This is the end of this message.
Mike Appleton stated:
“Article II of the Constitution specifies that a president must be a “natural born citizen,” but does not define the phrase.”
________________________________
That is the crux of the problem and the cause of the ruckus. Why would the Framers of the Constitution make a special case for a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen v. an ordinary U.S. Citizen? From what you are stating, it does not matter what Article II states, the birthers must concede to the 14th Amendment.
I have dealt with this issue of Congress not stating environmental law specifically enough and then leaving too much deference to the government to decide what Congress intended. The result is often disingenuous, arbitrary, and capricious decisions, which end up in costly/lengthy lawsuits.
The Framers erred when they did not clearly define the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.
I just don’t understand what’s so hard to comprehend here about Obama being a citizen. He was born in Hawaii, that was proven, hence since Hawaii is (and was at his birth time) part of the US, he is a US citizen by the 14th amendment. This is regardless of parental citizenship.
Ask the children of illegal immigrants that were born in this country – they’re citizens. Obama’s parents weren’t even illegal – he was legally here, she was a citizen – but that doesn’t even matter. What is the only common exception to citizenship by birth – children of diplomats…certainly doesn’t apply. And whatever someone above said about -both- parents having to be citizens, that’s definitely not true.
Overlord,
Should I be watching for the black helicopters now?
jenbrooke,
The issue is *Natural Born* Citizen. View the video above posted by BVM.com and pay attention to the the case of John Sidney McCain III where the *both* parents statement is raised.
The Cook case is weird on a number of fronts. I knew bunches of Reservists in a previous government job and none of them were surprised when the government deployed them overseas for training or duty- it went with the job that you got deployed where ever the government wanted you to go. Unless that’s changed there shouldn’t even be an issue about it. That’s what a discharge with prejudice and loss of benefits is all about (for a refusal) or, if valid, a hardship discharge is all about.
Both government contractors and in-house employees have conditions of employment that have to be met. When you apply for a job or promotion with the government or a contractor (I’ve been both.) you get the opportunity to state weather or not you will travel.
The promotion announcements (in DOD and Intelligence) state that the position requires travel (though the language was moving to the word “deploy” when I left employment to distinguish between domestic and foreign.) and often which theater or country you would be expected to travel to and weather it was hazardous duty or not. They made it black letter clear not to apply if you weren’t prepared to travel. A deployment to a hazardous theater could effectively double your pay and some positions had as a wage-grading component and critical function that one travels to hazardous countries.
The only way not to suffer the ill effects of a later reconsideration on your part (which could be as little as reassignment, demotion if it was a matter of promotion, or as great as termination) was to be able to prove that a valid, legally recognized, life changing event transpired after you signed up and before you got your orders. That generally came down to some physical handicapping condition or family situation. That kind of proof was generally the proof needed to mitigate probable termination down to reassignment/demotion.
Those life changing events had to be obvious and/or disclosed at the time they happened to have some traction too, you couldn’t sit on a position for 4 years knowing that you couldn’t travel due to a family situation and not tell your chain of command. That constituted bad faith at least, and lying by omission if they wanted to bring that to bear..
Cook wasn’t blind-sided. Cook was just gaming the system, as I saw happen more than once personally.
Former Federal LEO,
Seeing that the U.S. Constitution was constructed primarily to define State/Fed relations, as in the original preamble read “We the States…”, I thought the Obama/Citizenship issue was closed as soon as Hawaii settled the matter.
And BTW, what do you mean there’s no Santy Clause?
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
The Law of Nations (1758), Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212
Now, who thinks “natural-born” status has been resolved?
Do any of these “birthers” have any evidence AT ALL that Pres. Obama was born somewhere else?
I think the Burden Of Proof should be on THEM.
All of our Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, are certain that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen.
Why should a bunch of loonies call the tune? I think Obama should COUNTER SUE them for libel. Lets see what they’re holding, if anything.
Miserable Fools.
Childers denies being part of this suit. He claimed he signed up as a plaintiff on another motion and she “signed” him up on the Cook case without his permission.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/779856.html
There are some intelligent people writing on this thread about their suspicions. I don’t get why you can’t get the concept that this is blatant propaganda, blown out of proportion by rich
kooks who would finance any campaign they could against any Democratic President or aspirant? This technique started in 1988 with Dukakis and Willy Horton and hasn’t abated since, as the cast of characters has changed. This is the techniques of the “big lie,” first named by Joseph Goebbels, which is that if you repeat any lie often enough, most people will come to view it as fact.
In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?
Mike S.,
What is “the rule of law”?
Sorry Mike, I should have answered your question first.
“In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?”
I don’t know. Our transparent President is not that transparent.
I don’t think anyone would argue that he has spent over $5000.00 to keep this hidden, when it would cost him less than $100.00 to get the vault copy released.
Can you tell me why it is worth more to keep it hidden? One good reason will do.
Jim,
Please! The figures thrown around as to what he’s spent always start with a million$. I hang out a lot with a successful lawyer friend. He probably would charge $5,000 to appear in court on a minor litigation. $5,000 to deny the propaganda machine the ability to perpetuate their big lie isn’t unreasonable and what’s more you must know it.
“Can you tell me why it is worth more to keep it hidden? One good reason will do.”
Because the President and his advisors are smart men, who know the history of this “swiftboating”/Vince Foster/Paula Jones tactic, they are playing hardball with it. If they begin to started challenging the validity of each silly charge, all they end up with are arguments about whether their refutations are true and it further perpetuates itself. As Vince and Mike A have stated in other contexts, the birther movement will not be dissuaded by truth, because that is not their interest. They are not neutral upholders of constitutional purity, but partisan hacks who will sling fecal
matter in all directions hoping to make it seems less than the crap it is by sheer repetition.
Mike S.,
We need to start with things to which we will both agree:
1. We have a written Constitution.
2. Article II of that Constitution requires that the President meet 3 criteria to be qualified.
3. One of those qualifications is that he must be a “natural born citizen”.
4. We have no choice but to adhere to the requisites of our Constitution.
Do you agree with the 4 points presented above?
Yes I do agree with those 4 points. However, Jim he has already proved his case, the State of Hawaii agrees and contemporary birth announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers add further proof. The Federal Election Commission is satisfied, as have been the courts.
As to your questions Jim I’ve got too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you are not aware that you are throwing up a smokescreen, since at this point the burden of proof has been met and there is no credible evidence on the birther side to discredit it. You will notice that no one on the birther side, or its’ supporters has shown me where the well used accusation that President Obama has spent million$ covering this up came from. Just another piece of excrement thrown up and parroted and re-parroted by people like Orly Taitz.
However, perhaps you also believe that Vince Foster killed himself and John Kerry was falsely awarded the Silver Star. Meanwhile a wacko billionaire like Richard Mellon Scaife, who’s never accomplished anything in his life save for being born to the right family, sits in his mansion and cackles. Within two years my bet is that Ms. Taitz either has her own FOX TV program or is running for congress. By then we’ll be discussing whether or not Michelle Obama’s Law degree is a forgery, if she cheated on her bar exam and whether her husband was involved in the first WTC bombing.
Mike S.,
Since you agree that the President MUST BE (as in -we have no choice) a natural born citizen of the United States; how are you defining “natural born citizen”?
What is the source of your definition?
Jim,
I refer you back to Vince Treacy’s monumental research on this, through the course of many threads. I’m not playing in this because as i’ve clearly stated there is no there, there. I might get back in the game when someone answers my question which is: Where does the oft repeated charge that The President
has spent million$ covering this up come from? If this unattributed statement can’t be answered, then it becomes crystal clear the nature of the game the birther movement is playing.
Mike S.,
If you ignore the facts, because you’re more interested in the motive for asserting the facts, you’re ignoring the rule of law.
We know that John Jay was familiar with the writings of Emmerich Vattel. (See Madison’s instructions to John Jay, Dated Oct. 17th, 1780)
We know that John Jay was the one who suggested the adoption of “natural born citizen” in our Constitution. (see letter dated July 17th, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention.)
John Jay was so revered that he became the first CJ of the U.S. Supreme Court.
As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.
Vattel’s definition requires that the father must be a citizen of the United States.
“it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
If we ignore this, are we not ignoring our own Constitution? Are we, in effect, saying our constitutional provisions are ridiculous…so we should ignore the Constitution? Is that not the same thing as ignoring “the rule of law”?
Jim,
To expand on Mike S’s last comment, I originally came to this blog to debunk the claim the President Obama is not a natural born citizen (specifically, that his father’s status as a British subject did not invalidate his natural born status). Dr. Taitz, Berg, Dinofrio, et al. have put forth the legal interpretation that both parents must be citizens in order to be natural born. On a thread around the time that the SCOTUS was denying cert to Dinofrio there was a thread in which Vince Treacy (and others) put forward a legal argument refuting that interpretation (which seemed more persuasive to me, although I am admittedly not a lawyer). This leaves the birthers in the position of trying to make an argument for a legal interpretation which the SCOTUS appears uninterested in (having denied cert on several cases). As Mike S. pointed out, the charge that the President has spent some large amount trying to keep his records secret – a charge I have seen repeatedly made in birther circles – doesn’t seem to come from any source and is thus dubious. Mike is right that this whole thing stinks of the “Big Lie” technique.
Jim,
So if President Obama’s father was a citizen then he is natural born? I would argue that you just lost your point – if it was only necessary for the father to be a citizen to transmit NBC status, then by that pesky amendment that gave women the right to vote (should have know that would come back to bite us in the ass…) his mother being a citizen is sufficient. Any of the lawyers around here care to verify this or tell me I’m crazy?
Jim,
How about this quote “… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.” –Attorney General Edward Bates
Or from the ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject” (The court was applying English Common law, in a ruling about because Natural born wasn’t defined in the Constitution).
Slartibartfast,
The amount of money spent by Barack Obama is irrelevant to the legal question of qualification. The claimed “million dollars spent” only serves to bring attention. -the shock factor of “spent a million dollars!” -on what? Makes people take notice.
How much did Barack Obama spend? -Who cares?
Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.
Do we follow the Constitution -because it’s the law; or do we ignore the Constitution -because we like the guy?
Jim,
The money spent is irrelevant to the main question, but the questions Mike and I raised indicate that something smells funny…
You said:
Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.
You don’t get to decide this, the SCOTUS does and they don’t see this as an issue that should be heard before the court thus they must consider the issue unimportant (unlikely) or they must not find the arguments put forth by Dr. Taitz, et al persuasive. We follow the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS and every indication is that President Obama is eligible to serve in that office.
“How much did Barack Obama spend? -Who cares?”
Jim,
I may be an old fart but my memory so far is good. Aren’t you the one who threw in whether The President “lied” about being in school when he met his wife and defended it by saying that if he lied it is indicative of his nature? How come the birther movement apparently lying about million$ spent is irrelevant in determining their good faith? Jim you are simply not going about this in a straightforward manner and you are smart enough to know it. The birther movement, which you appear to support, is spreading unproven lies and disinformation and you are choosing to support their fantasy. You claim merely being a person interested in the constitution. Perhaps this is so, but if it is why are you so reluctant to acknowledge lies when you see them, even if they don’t help your case?
“The claimed “million dollars spent” only serves to bring attention. -the shock factor of “spent a million dollars!” -on what? Makes people take notice.”
With this statement you seem to admit that the birther movement is lying for a hyperbolic effect and you condone this?
Gyges,
The Court was not addressing the natural born citizen requirement of Article II. In addition the determination of a natural-born subject is not the same as a natural born citizen.
As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.
Jim:
““it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.””
What about the mother? Back then women were not given equal status so they are ignoring the possibility that the mother would be a citizen.
Jim,
I have a feeling that there is no evidence or quote that ANYONE could put forth that would satisfy you.
Mike S.,
You’re focusing on the trivial BS in order to avoid the important stuff.
One lie is relatively meaningless, but it is still a lie, and reflects upon the general truthfullness of the one who tells it.
I presented a constitutionally mandate qualification, and a reliable definition that would indicate that President Obama does not meet the constitutional qualification. Everything else is just meaningless fluff.
Either you want to follow the Constitution, or you don’t.
You have become distracted by that which is meaningless. Did Obama lie about where he met his wife? -It would appear so. -Is that relevant to meeting the constitutional qualifications? -No. Can the “birthers” prove that President Obama spent over a million dollars to hide his birth certificate? Probably not. Does that have anything to do with meeting the constitutiional qualifications? -No.
A far as i know am aware this part
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
…would be news to the Supremes (TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS) as they have ruled against bestowing citizenship on “immigrants” with USC fathers even with DNA evidence, mothers yes, but not fathers…
seems that men can make “potential” “citizens” more easily than women, so children ARE NOT citizens naturally following the “condition of their fathers” or alone by “tacit consent”. but that is a separate issue…
my only point here is what you are quoting may indeed be written in the Law of Nations but there are exceptions and it isn’t necessarily the law of the land. so before you use that as the base of the birther arguement we need to see how that has been qualified by SCOTUS and present interpretations of the law.
Born to a USC mother (touch of gold) IN the US seems like that would be a shoe-in arguement for “natural born citizen” as he didn’t have to naturalize, adjust or apply to have his citizenship approved or acknowledged, it was “natural” at birth. That is what i would consider a definition of “natural born citizen”. Make sense? If he had been born to a USC father outside the US it would have been a different story based on the law (based on current immgration law).
I am not a lawyer, but this is just my 2 cents..
Jim Byrne, your comment on Vattel is simplistic and woefully incomplete. You make it appear that at the time the Constitution was ratified, The Law of Nations was the only treatise to have touched upon the issue. Hence, you assert that we must analyze the problem “under the definition I have provided.” You ignore any other writers, such as Blackstone, for example, who defined a “natural-born subject” as anyone born “within the dominions of the crown of England,” and who therefore owed allegiance to the king.
Furthermore, The Law of Nations was written in French. The phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in Vattel’s treatise, nor in any of several English translations in existence as of the time the Constitution was adopted. Therefore, why do you believe that your definition was in the minds of the Framers?
IS,
Citizenship and natural born citizen are two very different things.
Natural born citizen had to do with loyalty to one’s country. Even today, in most American households, the father dictates the direction of the household. In the time of our Constitutional Convention, there were few exceptions to that rule.
While it is true and accepted that every child born to a woman within the United States is by virtue of the 14th Amendment a citizen of the United States, that does not have bearing on the allegiance of the child.
If a child has an Iranian father, but the child is born in the United States, going to be brought up with loyalty to Iran or the United States? Who knows? -I’d say it could go either way.
Now if a child is born in the United States, to a father who is a U.S. Citizen; do you think it is more likely that the child would remain loyal to the United States? I’d say the odds increase dramatically.
–I’m not claiming that Barack Obama is not loyal to the United States, and I don’t think most “birthers” would make that claim either. What I am claiming, is that we have a Constitution, and, whether we like it or not, that Constitution sets forth a few qualifications. We either have a President that meets those qualifications, or we do not. If he does not, are we best to ignore the Constitution?
Mike A.,
The word “subject” in French, is “sujet”. The word “citizen” in French, is “citoyen”. -I don’t think they had any trouble translating.
If the Framers would have intended to use the word “subject”, I think they would have done so. A “subject”, in constitutional law, is one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws. Men if free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. (See Black’s First Edition (1891))
Mike A., S. et al.
What Jim B. and I are trying to discuss is the *Natural Born* U.S. citizenship requirement for the POTUS (POS). Please forget the Birther arguments because we all agree that Barack Hussein Obama II is a U.S. Citizen.
The discussion I am interested in is a constitutional clarification regarding Natural Born. This is a blawg sponsored by a Constitutional scholar and I am a bit perplexed that Prof. Turley will comment on doggie stories but will not weigh in on this issue of the U.S. Constitution, at least give us some hint in his original essay. Perhaps he did with this statement, “The Administration should have fought the lawsuit on the merits rather than try to moot the matter.” That way he left us to grapple with the issue, thereby providing him with “fodder” for his class lectures on the subject.
I see this question arising in the future when the ever-increasing Hispanic populace–or other ethnicities–might support a presidential candidate whose parent(s) were in the country illegally when he/she was born.
Mike Appleton, I requested earlier above, does the subsequent 14th Amendment make the Natural Born requirement in Article II moot or null and void?
Bob Esq. I understand the State issue you raised and that might be the answer to this all. That is, the Framers perhaps left the definition of Natural Born up to the States’ discretion. Regarding Santy Clause, the Easter Bunny, Gawd et al. I will leave that to others’ discretion, as I do with the Birthers’ rights, but then I do consider them all within the same realm of fantasy.
Reiteratively, this for me is about Natural Born as stated in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and not the Birther issues. Therefore, please do not denigrate my position with aligning me—or perhaps others such as Jim Byrne—with the Birthers’ lost cause. Everyone here espouses the importance of the U.S. Constitution and that is what I am interested in; not suspicions.
“As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.”
now is this one of those situations that if the framers or those at the time didn’t give the mother the same “equal rights” as the father then in modern times they should not be afforded those rights unless a specific amendment is passed? that kind of originalist?
The framers intended the notable “citizen of the family” bestows natural born citizenry? again, not a lawyer, but i would imagine that those rights a father has/may have had at the times of the framers are equally possessed by the mother in modern times in conjunction with equal rights of women. in fact, as in my example in some situations the pendulum has swung the other way…
the father allegiance thing is kind of far-fetched don’t you think? do you think you can stand up and argue that in a courtin the US today? especially when the father didn’t raise the child?
again. I would argue that “natural born” means not naturalized (i.e. your citizenship was passed by a qualified parent without the need to naturalize or adjust status in any way). His mother can do that.
the definition of “father favorite” issued from the Law of Nations is out of date given the current recognition of women as equal citizens. are you suggesting there are legal qualities that a man/father can bestow that a woman can’t? i think you are on the wrong end of that one. literally. certain cases would unfortunately prove the oppisite. see above TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS
granted that case involved a child born OUS. but to a Male USC. just an example of how things aren’t as the Law of Nations says.
FFLEO,
I was commenting on the natural born citizen issue and for what it’s worth, I agree with the interpretation that the 14th amendment overrides the natural born citizen clause of article II (and I think that this is what President Obama means when he says he is a citizen via the 14th amendment).
I must compliment the governement posters here. High points for coreography and to one in particular, timing!
According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
Leo C. Donofrio
Jim B,
Apparently, in the opinions of at least 5 of the justices, that argument is persuasive since the SCOTUS decided not to hear Donofrio’s case.
I have a novel idea and I’ve said it before. Supposedly his original BC is in a vault or where ever the spokesman from Hawaii says they have personally seen and verified that they hold it. If Obama doesn’t want to release it, why not let some independent forensic examiners go and look at it. Then they can say we have seen and verified that Hawaii holds President Obama’s original according to state policies and procedures. Oh and maybe they could add and it shows Obama’s original birth place of Hawaii. Which by the way was NEVER said in the original statement from Mrs. Okubo (I think thats right) all she said was we have seen and verified that they hold his BC according to state policy and procedure. You would have thought they would of added, and he was born in Hawaii.
Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election. They are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
“What Jim B. and I are trying to discuss is the *Natural Born* U.S. citizenship requirement for the POTUS (POS). Please forget the Birther arguments because we all agree that Barack Hussein Obama II is a U.S. Citizen.”
FFLEO,
Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US? I can see that you do, but I don’t think Jim has acknowledged that at all. While the topic of discussion in an abstract sense of the law might be an interesting one, this is clearly not the same sense that Orly Taitz, the General, Colonel and Major take it in. They clearly believe that the President is illegitimate. The entire birther movement believes that and the outcome they seek is the removal of the President. Given that, also not doubting your sincerity for one second, I really think that the topic of this thread is not a legal discussion in the abstract and I’m unwilling to go there because what I see is the repetitive propaganda of the “illegitimacy machine” that is financed by the likes of Scaife and run to perfection by the Atwaters, the Roves and the Norqvists via their tools like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck.
Let me be very clear on this. To me this is the basest of treason in that the will of the American People is being thwarted by a plutocracy of privileged heirs and abetted by their bought off minions. GW Bush did not win the Presidency due to voter fraud in the State of Florida and backed up by a SCOTUS led by Scalia who presented a decision that went against all his supposed legal principles. The 2004 vote was also tainted in Ohio, by their dishonest Attorney General and the fact that GW Bush already held the reins of power and SCOTUS had already showed how they would roll (over).
Now in 2008 a Democratic President wins so handily that the election couldn’t be rigged, so we go back to the days of Bill Clinton and the massively endowed attempt to make him illegitimate. In an instructive side note poll results have shown that about 75% of American males define “having sex” as engaging in intercourse. “I didn’t have sex with that woman” was in fact a true statement in the minds of most American males. Nevertheless the blood lust of this plutocracy was not fed by just disgracing the man and his family, no they had to try to impeach him.
If this sounds like an angry diatribe FFLEO, it is, but my anger is not directed at you. It is directed at the hypocrites who claim to love this country and pretend to follow its’ constitution, some are in, or have worn uniforms, When the truth is they only want to kiss the behinds of those they consider their betters and reap the rewards forthcoming from such a debasement. The man is legally the President of the US and no torturous logic, or parsing of verbiage will make that change.
However, the more this continues, the more the flames of the ignorant’s hatred is fed, the more likely that the guns will come out. This is the possible legacy and purpose of the birther movement and to me that is the path of treason and chaos, leading to the end of whatever Republic we have left.
“You’re focusing on the trivial BS in order to avoid the important stuff.”
Jim,
You’re the one focusing on the trivial BS and parsing words and facts to play word games and pretend you’re discussing serious matters. You brought up the Michelle/Barack meeting in a silly little way to bolster your unstated belief the man is a liar. Jim, as I’ve said before you are good rhetorically, but I’m just as good, as are most of the other regulars here. The difference with me though is I’m a fan of how Alexander dealt with the Gordian Knot. Jim, the Vattel gambit was frankly as silly as it gets and yet I’m sure you think you were making a serious point. That was dealt with by Mike A and Slartibartfast, for instance, but you just ignored and/or disparaged their points, with poor refutations.
You are so good though, that even a wise old fox like FFLEO gets fooled about where you’re coming from. Am I wrong well then just make the clear statement, as he has, that the legal President of the US, with no qualifications, is Barack Obama.
If I’m wrong and you do acknowledge this, I will of course be truly humbled in my error and offer you my sincere, unvarnished apology for ever doubting your sincerity.
Now I do have to apologize in any event because I read FFLEO wrongly. I re-read his statement and saw my mistake as being that he was only acknowledging President Obama’s
citizenship. Silly me for thinking therefore that there was some separation from the birther movement and FFLEO’s position.
Sorry, FFLEO, as much as I like and respect you, if you do not feel that Barack Obama is the legitimate and legal President of the US, then you become part of the birther movement and all its’ excesses. This movement has created this issue with their tissue of lies and innuendo and if you give credence to part of it, you support the whole. That the way it works because what the “Big Lie” depends on is people of good will giving credence to parts of their argument, thus sanctifying the whole. An example would be those Germans who believed: Well those Jews aren’t bad people, but why do they control our money and make us poor.
As I stated in different words above, this movement is a watershed issue, that will determine the future of this country and in my opinion credence to the birther movement will destroy the last vestiges of freedom we have. Think of the mindlessness of Buena Vista Mall. Imagine him armed and then consider the consequences of his thought processes.
Today we learn that the President is refusing to release a critical report on the state of our economy, which contains essential facts. These facts could tell us alot. Just like the birth certificate he won’t release them. More openness and transparencey
I bet he was good playing Hide and seek
six months later
Mike Spindell wrote:
FFLEO,
“Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US?”
________________________________
Yes, until the Supreme Court of the United States decides differently.
The best treatise of this issue occurs in this primer:
________________________________
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
_________________________________
The previous Supreme Court cases (e.g. Minor v. Happersett (1874) and a full discussion of the topics, including Pres. Chester Arthur (not a Constitutional Natural Born Citizen) is presented.
Mike, there is never any need to apologize for anything I posit or whatever you might misread or misinterpret. The Supreme Court needs to answer this question because it will continue to arise even after Pres. Obama leaves office in 1 or 2 terms.
This is important to me because legislators and the judiciary need to get the laws right to begin with and explain the terms and reasoning to prevent disingenuous bureaucrats the ability to randomly and independently determine what a law means or what the judges or legislators intended the law, rules, regulations and policies to mean. I mentioned this earlier and the deference given to bureaucrats needs to be reined in by the formation of good, sound, well-defined, logical laws, Acts, policy, directives, etc. that do not need the courts’ involvement to reinterpret the wrongful acts committed my governmental officials in long and costly lawsuits.
FFLEO,
I think this is exactly why JT said this case should be argued on its merits. Glad to hear from you again and hope you are well.
Mike S.,
Great work in tossing the stale birthers arguments in the garbage where they found them. I know I can’t get my original birth certificate here in Illinois. I can only get a certified copy of it. The State of Hawaii has already certified the authenticity of the document so Bdaman and BVM can return to planning their next Tea Party.
Hi Jill,
I am fine. I do not have air conditioning in my home and the temps over the last 4 days have averaged 114 degrees with a high of 117. My computer desk temp is 104 degrees plus at those ambient temps. I have a computer hardware system monitor and if the core internal temps exceed 70 Celsius (158 F) I shut my computer off. Therefore, I spend most of my time outdoors, as I did during my career.
Rafflaw so Bdaman and BVM
Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election. They are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
Bush and Cheney are War Criminals and guilty of many other crimes.
Bush stole the 2000 election Obama hijacked a country.
Bdaman,
Where is your proof that Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election? And I am not talking about the birth certificate crap. Where is your evidence for anything that you said? I’m sorry. I forgot that the neocon, tea partying crowd doesn’t deal in facts. My bad.
rafflaw 1, July 20, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Bdaman,
Where is your proof that Obama and Biden were not qualified for 2009 election? And I am not talking about the birth certificate crap.
**************************
If Obama is not qualified and he was born on America soil. I have a hell of a Question is McCain even in the running as he was born in an area that was not even a territory, state or possession of the US? Ok, that is just a pure accidental question.
AY,
I do believe that the Panama Canal Zone was a US possession of the US back when Grampy McCain was born.
McCain’s status is detailed in the video above.
FFLEO,
I disagree with the video in that I don’t believe both parents are required to be citizens at the time of the birth on U.S. soil. -I think the mother can be of any citizenship. However, the father must be a U.S. Citizen.
Since Congress only has the authority to create uniform rules for naturalization (the process of making an alien a citizen), I believe they lacked the authority to redefine the definition of natural born in order to include John McCain. -Remember..that was a NON-BINDING resolution.
As such, the referenced “American Citizen(s)” from the video would also be a declaration that exceeds the constitutional authority granted to Congress.
Without the non-binding resolution, is there any other place that would require both parents to be citizens?
Some of the Plaintiffs
Captain Pamela Barnett, §
Lt. Colonel Richard Norton Bauerbach §
Captain Robin D. Biron §
Colonel John D. Blair, §
Captain Harry G. Butler, §
Chief Warrant O. Thomas S. Davidson §
Lt. Jason Freese, §
Commander David Fullmer LaRoque, §
MIL officer US Army Lita M. Lott, §
Major David Grant Mosby, §
MSGT Steven Kay Neuenschwander, §
State Representative Frank Niceley, TN §
SFC E7 Robert Lee Perry , §
Colonel Harry Riley, §
Sergeant Jeffrey Wayne Rosner §
MSGT Jeffrey Schwilk, §
Captain David Smithey, §
Lt. Commander John Bruce Steidel, §
Cmdr. Douglas Earl Stoeppelwerth §
Thomas J Taylor, §
Captain Neil B. Turner, §
LCDR Jeff Graham Winthrope, and §
Lt. Colonel Mark Wriggle, §
Jim B,
As I said before, if the father’s citizenship is sufficient, then the mother’s is as well by the 19th and 14th amendments (unless you don’t recognize these amendments as part of the constitution…)
Rafflaw: I was parroting BVM’s posts, hello earth to Rafflaw, come in Rafflaw. Thats why I started the comment like this
so Bdaman and BVM which was copied from one of your comments.
Executive order 13489 signed Barack Obama Jan 21 2009
From the Executive Order text:
Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise
of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection
(a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive
privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.
Not only is the CINC playing hide and seek, he makes his own rules.
Has anybody heard from Vince, not one comment on this thread.
Vince you out there buddy. Engage,engage do not eject.
Slartibartfast,
The 14th Amendment has to do with citizenship, and the 19th suffrage. We’re talking about natural born citizen.
What are you using as the definition of “natural born citizen”?
Mario Appuzzo has now filed his Plaintiff’s Brief Opposing Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Mike and Vince get back with us and give us your opinion please.
Oh and you to Prof. Turley
Jim B,
If the father can transmit (natural born) citizenship, then by the 19th amendment (making women full citizens) and the 14th amendment (making all citizens equal) so can the mother.
Slartibartfast 1, July 21, 2009 at 10:49 am
Jim B,
If the father can transmit (natural born) citizenship, then by the 19th amendment (making women full citizens) and the 14th amendment (making all citizens equal) so can the mother.
*****************************
Hey, here is a little secret, and don’t share this with anyone else ok. The 19th Amendment only applied to white women. They were the only ones that could not vote. The 13, 14, and 15 amendments only applied to “minorities” another little ole secret for ya, Susan B. Anthony, never paid the 100 dollar fine imposed against her for voting in New York when she knew she did not have the right to.
Now don’t tell anyone else. FYI, women had the right to vote in the Utah territory until they join this great ole union. The first female congresswoman hailed from either Montana or North Dakota, even before she had the right to vote for herself. Go figure.
“Mike and Vince get back with us and give us your opinion please.”
bdaman,
I can’t talk for Vince, but he’s a working attorney and probably is busy. In any event he has across a number of threads exhaustively and correctly rebutted every issue that came his way. To no effect, or even honest dispute of his rebuttals. As for me above I made my position on this well known, but since the birther people fail to engage it, or simply ignore it, to me the effort becomes pointless. Even though you and I agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, I feel we have engaged each other fairly and have had constructive debate. Say what one will about you, I believe that you honestly try to engage with people and I respect that.
Others, however, really do play rhetorical games and cover their game playing well. to deal with them I would have to de-construct their posts line by line continuously. Part of their technique is to ask supposedly “honest” questions, which in fact are really not too cleverly constructed traps.
What shows their true colors though is that they take great pains to reveal as little as possible about their real beliefs and couch themselves in the cloak of just fair minded inquiry. The tedium of tracking down every little rhetorical thrust, only to have my refutations/citations ignored, or dismissed really gets boring because their work is so essentially dishonest.
This is to me is the extent of the birther movement and the rich plutocracy that is supporting its “stars.” My original birth certificate in NYC was lost after my parent’s death. Two of the copies I received officially from the City of New York, were also lost through the years. The copy I have now is a poorly defined Xerox. It’s funny how when I’ve had to produce it on official business, like mortgages, passports, etc. no one has ever questioned its’ authenticity.
You can go on line and see a copy of President Obama’s birth
certificate. You have Hawaiian officials attesting to its’ validity. You have contemporaneous newspaper birth announcements and each document is treated by the birthers with caviling and caveats. We want to see more is their battle cry. As Vince said at one point and he was perfectly correct they will never be satisfied.
The reason for this is that this is not about whether the President is a “natural born” citizen, it is about de-legitimizing him as President. This is not a movement coming from people who give a rat’s ass about our Constitution, it is about people who are trying to maintain a plutocratic aristocracy in this country and are rich enough to find partisan fools on the make, like Orly Taitz, to front for them.
That some of their supporters are truly people concerned with constitutional government is true, but what separates them out is a willingness to acknowledge that President Obama is duly elected, until a SCOTUS judgment that will never come because even with a Republican Majority on SCOTUS, they understand that this case has no merits. Understand though that although FFLEO acknowledges this, Jim Byrne refuses to.
Perhaps I’m wrong and should give him the benefit of the doubt, but since Jim likes to pose and re-pose questions, rather than answering those put to him, I’ll go with my interpretation for now.
When he posits that the writings of Vatel, from the 1750′s should be indicative of the founder’s intent, he is dredging up the esoteric in defense of the undefendable. Vatel wrote at a time when women were considered their husband’s property, rather than full citizens. That has changed in American jurisprudence. Perhaps he will next argue this “Constitutional” fact:
“Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population – in that population, slaves, called “other persons,” are counted as three-fifths of a whole person.”
On might posit that in Jim’s view President Obama, being black (the only legal race for slavery in the US)is only three-fifths of a whole person and therefore can’t be President. Now while we’ve had subsequent amendments over ruling this methodology, the “natural born” citizen argument is of the same quality, when it stoops to making Vatel, a Frenchman, into John Jay’s inspiration. There is no end to the tortuous logic and you know what, if I was one the other side of the fence, or perhaps just liked to argue, I could come up with much better reasons to make the same case. I wouldn’t, however, because the entire birther movement is a hoax of Machiavellian proportion, supported by a bunch of wealthy Plutocrats.
Slartibartfast,
“If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
Opinion of CJ John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175
As such, I don’t agree with your interpretation that the 14th and/or 19th Amendments had any effect on “natural born citizen”.
Again, I ask; what is your definition of “natural born citizen”?
What is the source of your definition?
“Do we all agree that President Obama is the legal President of the US?”
Yes until the Supreme Court of the United States decides differently.”
FFLEO,
You old conservative coot, you know I would never doubt your
honesty, or your devotion to truth. You are in the parlance of old folks like us(and the Mafia unfortunately) a stand up guy. I always enjoy reading your posts, whether I agree with them or not.
It is really hot out by you and I’m not sure I could stand the weather, even if I did back in the day on my cross country wanderings. It’s hot down here to and my A/C is blasting, a fact that my fixed income will have to absorb when the energy bill comes in next month. I may not envy your weather, but are you far enough away from town to see the full sky? Being a City boy and going out west, I would eschew my tent and lay in my sleeping bag staring up at the magnificence of the heavens I had never seen at home. Sometimes I would even be lucky enough to have a woman sharing her bag hooked up to mine. While that was nice, the wonder of the heavens brought an ecstasy even greater. I remember watching meteor showers on a hill near Rapid City in 1977. Oops there I go rambling on again with no point.
Jim Byrne 1, July 21, 2009 at 11:11 am
Slartibartfast,
“If any other construction would render the clause inoperative, that is an additional reason for rejecting such other construction, and for adhering to the obvious meaning.”
Opinion of CJ John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 175
********************
I have confusion about how this case, which was written in or published as written in 1801 or 1803 has any applicability to the current discussion other than the Sct has the last say in the interpretation of the laws of the land. As you will notice I do not write “SCOTUS” as it is a term that I did not learn to write with.
If you will look at history at this time “we had a great fight” amongst the leaders at the time and some centered about when the Sct was going to be called into “term”.
You cannot very well have a Sct make bad decisions for your administration if they are not writing opinions. That is also the case where it was stated that the Sct does not write advisory opinions as they are the supreme law of the land, yawnnnn.
Has anyone seen Buddha or heard from him?
Mike S.,
“but what separates them out is a willingness to acknowledge that President Obama is duly elected”
Can one be duly elected, and still not meet the constitutional requirements to be President?
BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.
Mike S said, Even though you and I agree on some things and strongly disagree on others, I feel we have engaged each other fairly and have had constructive debate. Say what one will about you, I believe that you honestly try to engage with people and I respect that.
Mike thanks, I’ve been debating whether or not to respond and I just wanted to say I’m sorry about last week. I sincerley apologize for my outburst. I do play games Mike or try to be funny, lifes to short. There are other times when I get serious and get to the nuts and bolts. Here’s the thing, you said,
Quote: You can go on line and see a copy of President Obama’s birth
certificate. You have Hawaiian officials attesting to its’ validity.Un Quote
But thats the whole point, a SELECT group of people got to touch it and smell it. People say this group are non partisan. I don’t know that. Then the COLB is pasted all over the internet and people say see, I told you he was born here. Then we have the statement from Hawaii which stopped short of confirming anything.
The official statement says we have seen and verified that we have President Obama’s original certificate in accordance to state policy and procedure. It would of been nice if they would of added that, IT CONFIRMS HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. It doesn’t read it yourself and tell me what it confirms.
Mike I am sorry to say this but I don’t believe in the outcome of presdential elections. After the 2000 election and all the circumstances surrounding this one I think it’s rigged. I don’t believe he was duly elected as much as I do he was duly selected. I’ve said it before, until there is proof beyond a resonable doubt I will continue to believe that.
You said, The reason for this is that this is not about whether the President is a “natural born” citizen, it is about de-legitimizing him as President.
Mike this is about President Obama letting a situation he could of resolved long ago get out of hand.
The man is hiding something Mike and he is screwed either way now. He is losing the trust of the American people. He is damned if you do damned if you don’t. If he releases the BC now, people will say what the hell took you so long. If he doesn’t this issue will not go away. He will continue with a cloud over his head of distrust. I believe that if the whole BC issue is settled then the two parents must be citizen will go away. People will be willing to move on and wait the next 3 1/2 years out.
Jim,
How about this construction? Do you believe that President Obama is legally the President of the United States at this present time, without any encumbrances. Is that more clear? Remember this thread discusses whether these officers are legally obligated to follow the President’s orders and their suit alleges that he lacks the authority because he was not eligible to be President and is thus not legally President.
“a SELECT group of people got to touch it and smell it. People say this group are non partisan. I don’t know that”
bdaman,
If you asked for my birth certificate what do you think you would get? Mine is long gone and all that is left is a copy of a copy. By the way the hospital I was born in in Brooklyn doesn’t exist any more. I am saying that I have seen more than enough proof and corroboration to convince me that this whole thing is yet another de-legitimization trick being paid for by the plutocracy.
“Mike I am sorry to say this but I don’t believe in the outcome of presdential elections. After the 2000 election and all the circumstances surrounding this one I think it’s rigged.”
There could be some valid reason to not believe that our elections are rigged. I sometimes suspect that myself. Other than Orly Taitz though what are “all the circumstances surrounding this one?”
“Mike this is about President Obama letting a situation he could of resolved long ago get out of hand.”
bdaman,
I wouldn’t have handled it differently if I was President Obama, actually I would have dealt with it less respectfully.
This is about propaganda games and not the constitution.
“The man is hiding something Mike and he is screwed either way now. He is losing the trust of the American people.”
bdaman his ratings are fine given all the crap the MSM has floated out and the people will continue to support him. The reason is that America has turned in its’ thinking, check out Ruy Texeira, who predicted this past election years ago.
“I believe that if the whole BC issue is settled then the two parents must be citizen will go away. People will be willing to move on and wait the next 3 1/2 years out.”
The settling of the BC issue even by SCOTUS will stop nothing, just as the settling of Vince foster didn’t stop the attacks on Clinton. As for 2012 the President will handily win reelection, unless the wacko’s in this country don’t get him killed. I lived through the deaths of both Kennedy’s and MLK. I know what the Plutocratic Hate machine can resort to if they think they’re being thwarted. The real problem is this group is more crazy and bloodthirsty than they were in my youth.
Bdaman,
However, a final word. I’m well aware that both party’s are controlled by money and that money controls the country. There is a difference in outlook though by the plutocrats who run this country. That difference is that one side believes in fully screwing the people to enrich themselves and the other side believes that if you give a little to the people the whole thing will function better. sort of like the difference between France and England before the French Revolution.
Until we’re in a position to get rid of the plutocrats in general, with the prayer of the Who about not being fooled again if we do, then I would prefer having the Democrats in power. The Republican’s are far too greedy and murderous and have in their greed destroyed this country’s most important asset, our industrial base. Bill Clinton, of course helped with that, but essentially it was that dumb “B” Movie actor, his minions and GE, followed by GHW Bush, who turned us into Hessians in Iraq I and GW Bush into war criminals in Iraq II.
“BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.”
Jim,
Perhaps you’re right and he was asking for Mike A, however, given that this is not, nor never has been a legal issue, but is merely a political one given highly dubious legal color in an attempt to confuse, I feel fully qualified to step into the breech.
“BTW -I think bdaman was asking Mike A. or Vince to weigh in. He was interested in legal opinion.”
That is correct I was looking for Mike A and Vince. Vince has not posted one comment since thursday of last week. I hope he is ok #1 and #2 I like to here what he says.
But I’m glad you responded Mike S it gave me an in for my apology
Hey Jim B, I have a question for you. Did you comment on stories over at newsvine on the BC issues?
Mike S. said; “given that this is not, nor never has been a legal issue”
There’s where you went wrong Mike. This is a legal issue. I fully believe that you don’t think it is, but you are confused. You’re more than happy to abide by our Constitution when it supports your needs, but when it imposes a restriction that you consider to be unfair, you’re more than happy to trash it.
What’s the difference between the list of Plaintiffs supplied above, FFLEO, myself, and you? -Other than you, the rest of us operated/operate under the authority of the President. We took an oath to support and defend our Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere in our oath did we swear to ignore the Constitution when it didn’t fit our needs.
“Do you believe that President Obama is legally the President of the United States at this present time, without any encumbrances”?
No. Given the information provided by Barack Obama, and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen; I do not believe that Barack Obama meets the natural born citizen qualification of Article II.
I’d be kind of disingenuous if I believed otherwise; wouldn’t I? I’d be guilty of playing “the game” if I didn’t believe what I presented; wouldn’t I?
Since I am not in a position to make decisions for others, I don’t ask that anyone else take my position.
When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.
bdaman said “Did you comment on stories over at newsvine on the BC issues?”
Not that I can recall. If you’re talking about something recent; I don’t think so. –I’m getting old, but I think I would remember. (at least I hope so)
Mike Spindell & Jim Byrne,
Have you had a chance to read this detailed information at the link below? If not, it would be well worth your time. Remember that Pres. Obama is not the first non-Constitutional Natural Born Citizen to become president; Pres. Chester A. Arthur was the first.
Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer
Last revised: June 5, 2009
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
FFLEO,
I read that yesterday after you posted the link.
If an unconstitutional act is so from the beginning, and therefore, any official act performed by the (acting) President would not have valid; how do we undo time?
Jim,
I am not a lawyer, but from the info that i can put my hands on…
As long as you don’t have to naturalize you are a natural born citizen (hence 14th amendment wording “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”). Natural born citizens can’t have their citizenship taken away, save for treason etc.(INA Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]), they can, however recant (see recent gitmo case of USC “encouraged” to recant in order to be released), i imagine that is the reason for the distinction… if you naturalize there are still ways you can have it yanked against your will (INA Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451] ), therefore someone that is not a natural born citizen is not eligible lest something happen that strips their citizenship. how hard is this?
“Since Congress only has the authority to create uniform rules for naturalization (the process of making an alien a citizen), I believe they lacked the authority to redefine the definition of natural born in order to include John McCain.”
well, congress does have the authority to define the rules, and has in the INA, that make people born in states that weren’t part of the union at the date of the constitution natural born citizens … unless you want to say you have to be born in the eastern US to be a citizen at birth. In the INA Congress defines the eligible dates for localities bestowing US citizenship by birth, i.e. natural born (as opposed to those who have to “naturalize”).
I would consider THAT the authority to define “natural born”,”native born”, “at birth” or there would be a few more past presidents that didn’t meet the standard besides Arthur.
Sec. 303. [8 U.S.C. 1403] covers McCain (Canal zone births after 1904,.. oh wait how old is he? ahahah)
Sec. 305. [8 U.S.C. 1405] covers Obama as a Hawaiian birth after 1900
Here are ways you can lose it…
INA: ACT 349 – LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN
Sec. 349. [8 U.S.C. 1481]
Note the Wording…. “Native born” vs “Naturaliized Citizen”…
INA: ACT 340 – REVOCATION OF NATURALIZATION
Sec. 340. [8 U.S.C. 1451]
That is how i see it as defined. do you have reason to trump the INA? or are you going to try to take down the entire immigration & nationality policy of the US as established by congress in your attempt to say Obama isn’t a natural born citizen?
you seem to be going all the way back to Vattel because it suits you. There is more recent language clarifying this issue for the US made by OUR Congress. BTW the more recent amdendments don’t render the clause inoperative, they clarify. the Law of Nations is binding as definition why and how? sounds a little bizarre to say the US Congress can’t define Natural Born but some Frenchman can for once and always. Even more bizzare after the recent comments of GOP senators warning Sotomayor about consulting any foriegn law in deciding matters involving the US Constitution.
UNLESS your entire point is that he was a born via c-section, and is therefore not natural born, and if that is the case then i (might) give up.
Mike S you said his ratings are fine given all the crap the MSM has floated out and the people will continue to support him.
The number of people who think Obama can improve the economy is down a sobering 19 percentage points from the euphoric days just before his inauguration. The same for expectations about creating jobs. Also down significantly: the share of people who think he can reduce the deficit, remove troops from Iraq and improve respect for the U.S. around the world, all slipping 15 points.
On overhauling health care, a signature issue for Obama, hopes for success are down a lesser 6 points.
Add it all up, and does it mean Obama has lost his mojo? Has yes-we-can morphed into maybe?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32049471/ns/politics-white_house
One of the little-explored issues relating to the controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born” citizen s the impact of his move to Indonesia as a child.
The implications of his move as a child to Indonesia and apparent adoption by an Indonesian citizen who married his mother are not clear.
Jerry Fuller and Mike Persons of the passport services division of the U.S. State Department say such a move for a child, coupled with the apparent adoption, could impact a child’s birth status.
That includes the possibility of a change in the listed location of the birth, a change in the names of the parents on the birth certificate, and others. Without a doubt, officials said, the result could be a dual citizenship if that nation recognized dual citizenship at the time through a stepfather. Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship.
This document lists Obama as Barry Soetoro, a citizen of Indonesia and his religion is listed as Islam. According to the U. S. State Department, “Indonesian law does not recognize dual nationality for adults over 18 years of age. Because of this law, U.S. citizens who are also documented as Indonesian nationals may experience difficulties with immigration formalities in Indonesia and furthermore, holding dual citizenship may also hamper the U.S. Embassy or Consulate’s ability to provide consular protection to dual national Americans. In addition to being subject to all Indonesian laws affecting U.S. citizens, dual nationals may also be subject to other laws that impose special obligations on Indonesian citizens. In July 2006 the Indonesian Parliament passed new legislation allowing children under age 18 to maintain a foreign nationality as well as Indonesian citizenship. Parents whose children hold both Indonesian and U.S. citizenship may experience difficulties with entry and exit immigration procedures until the new law is fully implemented.”
The question is, how does the fact that Indonesian law prohibited dual citizenship affect Obama. It certainly isn’t clear.
There is a further question about the implications of Anna Dunham also becoming an Indonesian citizen — what if the entire Soetoro family were citizens of Indonesia?
lrhf97,
“Natural born citizen” is a legal term of art. It’s not as simple as vaginal delivery on U.S. soil. It relates to an inherent belief of the Founders, that one whose father is a citizen will pass down the associated loyalty, as a supplement to the loyalty normally attributed with one who is born on the land. This is a two-part test for loyalty.
As Vattel states; “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
That makes a lot of sense to me.
You must think of this in the context of the time in which it was written into our Constitution. -We had just fought a war for our independence. This country was now ours, and as our lead negotiator with other countries, we wanted to make sure that the loyalty of the President was secured by using a two-pronged approach.
Jim they don’t want to here that. They don’t understand that Claire McCaskill tried to change the constitutions clause on NBC the evidence is here.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=4
They don’t want to here how some guy breached Obama’s passport file and was found executed. Obamas passport was the main target and info was erased. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
They don’t see the connection of how Mccain was a puppet of thier distraction by tellin him, John buddy we want this to be a fair election and we are gonna back you up with senate resolution 511. Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
and 5 Co-Sponsors
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Barack Obama
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
How nice those democrats are just keepin the playin field nice and level. Oh and look there’s Claire again stickin her nose in a NBC issue. She wanted to do away with it and now what ever she can do to help ol Johnny out.
They don’t want to here about his forged Selective Service card.
http://www.debbieschlusseldotcom/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html I spelled dot out, JT doesn’t allow multiple links
They don’t want to here about acorn and voter fraud.
All they want to here is that, he’s the messiah, he can solve anything, he’s gonna be the best president ever. He’s gonna give me free health care and stop global warming. Don’t forget that all the muslims will love us now because he can unclench fist.
It’s our turn to spend the money you guys had your chance for eight years. You decided you wanted to spend it on war and military machines. We will spend the money how we see fit it’s our turn. If Bush hadn’t of stole the 2000 election in the first place Al Gore would have already taken care of all of this. It’s our turn to spend the money.
Jim they don’t want to here that. They don’t understand that Claire McCaskill tried to change the constitutions clause on NBC the evidence is here.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1131&posts=4
They don’t want to here how some guy breached Obama’s passport file and was found executed. Obamas passport was the main target and info was erased. http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html
They don’t see the connection of how Mccain was a puppet of thier distraction by tellin him, John buddy we want this to be a fair election and we are gonna back you up with senate resolution 511. Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO]
and 5 Co-Sponsors
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Barack Obama
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA]
How nice those democrats are just keepin the playin field nice and level. Oh and look there’s Claire again stickin her nose in a NBC issue. She wanted to do away with it and now what ever she can do to help ol Johnny out.
They don’t want to here about his forged Selective Service card.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/11/exclusive_did_n.html
They don’t want to here about acorn and voter fraud.
All they want to here is that, he’s the messiah, he can solve anything, he’s gonna be the best president ever. He’s gonna give me free health care and stop global warming. Don’t forget that all the muslims will love us now because he can unclench fist.
It’s our turn to spend the money you guys had your chance for eight years. You decided you wanted to spend it on war and military machines. We will spend the money how we see fit it’s our turn. If Bush hadn’t of stole the 2000 election in the first place Al Gore would have already taken care of all of this. It’s our turn to spend the money.
bdaman,
I try to stay away from claims like “They don’t want to hear”. I found that to be unnecessarily insulting to the independent thinking capabilities of intelligent people. -I think most people here are extremely intelligent (bias perhaps, but intelligent nonetheless.)
I’ve spent most of my adult life troubleshooting and determining the best course of action to resolve the problem. I tend to focus on what is important and relevant. -The items that you posted are definately of interest. However, they are not relevant to the constitutional qualifications of the Office of President.
Please don’t think I’m being dismissive. You have exposed some very interesting items. I just think the best course of action is to focus on the topic at hand.
Very well said Jim, I am not an attorney, in most court procedings I’ve seen on TV. Alot of times they have to build a case on circumstantial evidence and then connect the dots on why someone has broken the law. They give it to the Jury and they decide. Thats all I was trying to do. Be out all day,keep up the fight
Gee, I leave town for a few days, and look what happens.
George and rcampbell. Birth to a single US citizen parent outside the US does not automatically confer citizenship. The parent must meet certain residence requirements that have changed over the years.
FFLEO. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that a natural born citizen have two US citizen parents. Please show us the words. This was confirmed by the Wonk Kim Ark case that held that a person born in the US of noncitizen parents was a citizen by reason of birth, not naturalization.
I have pointed out that Donofrio’s thesis that Obama was subject to Kenyan jurisdiction or has Kenyan citizenship at birth does NOT translate into a two-citizen parent requirement. Suppose Kenyan law at the time said that only persons born in Kenya had citizenship? Then anyone born outside Kenya would NOT have been under dual jurisdiction. So you do not even have stated Leo’s argument correctly.
Mike A., Mike S., gyges. Right.
Professor Turley. Cook volunteered for deployment. He could have changed his mind at any time. Then he filed a lawsuit to stop deployment. That was pretty good evidence that he had changed his mind. How could the Army possibly defend on the merits? If they agree to his request for an injunction to stop the deployment, then they have to cancel his orders. There was no possible way for this case to present a case or controversy to the court. There was simply no basis for jurisdiction.
As I said earlier, he was like the guy who sued for an injunction to stop himself from chopping down his own tree.
Jim Byrne. Sec. 212 is not in the Constitution, was not written into it by the framers and not ratified by the people in conventions, so it does not settle anything about the Constitution.
Scholars mostly look to the British common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and that provided for citizenship on the basis of place of birth. A court so held even before the 14th Amendment was ratified.
Vince,
Welcome back. Work or vacation?
–I have no problem with citizenship being bestowed upon one who is born on U.S. soil.
I don’t think that’s what the Framers intended when they used the term “natural born citizen”. They could have easily stated that the president must be born on U.S. soil, but they didn’t.
I’m open to exploring other definitions of “natural born citizen”.
Vince T., welcome back to the latest installment of “Reinventing the Wheel.” Every birther argument I have seen asserts that a Swiss legal scholar is the only legitimate authority on the citizenship issue. I don’t know why, but they appear to believe that the Commentaries on the Laws of England was a work unknown to the Founders. This debate has found its way into three or four different threads on this site so far and I am convinced that a pronouncement by Scalia himself would be unsatisfactory to the opposition. I am expecting at any moment that someone will raise the issue of the unlawful abolition of primogeniture.
–I have no problem with citizenship being bestowed upon one who is born on U.S. soil.
I don’t think that’s what the Framers intended when they used the term “natural born citizen”. They could have easily stated that the president must be born on U.S. soil, but they didn’t.
I’m open to exploring other definitions of “natural born citizen”.
***********************
How about Slavery and all of the other stuff going on at the time. Natural, meaning “whether or not “colored men” can be citizens of the United States.”
“I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ….” In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
########
This is a dead issue hear? I could have said here, but do you hear that it is a dead issue.
The “birthers” are not giving up although they should. Last night Liz Cheney joined them. I think they are on a mission to invade the blogs and get their message out.
Swarthmore mom 1, July 22, 2009 at 9:43 am
The “birthers” are not giving up
************
I think you are correct. How is this morning going?
Swarthmore Mom, Liz Cheney is simply positioning herself to run for public office so that she can contribute to the wonderful legacy left by her father.
I am going to repost from another thread to clarify the underlying facts of Cook’s suit and to expand a little on my post above.
These facts may not be clear to readers from the summary at the top. There it is written that “Cook filed the suit July 8th in federal court demanding conscientious objector status and a preliminary injunction based upon his claim that President Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States. He argued that, since Obama cannot serve as president of the United States, he cannot order him to deploy as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
“What is curious is the decision by the military to suddenly revoke the deployment orders of Cook. That served to fuel the growing movement spreading this rumor.”
The reader might get the impression that 1) Cook was ordered to be deployed to Afghanistan, 2) he filed suit to stop the deployment, 3) arguing that Obama was not a natural born citizen, and 4) as a result of the lawsuit, the Army cancelled his orders to prevent a ruling on this issue.
That is not how it went down. In fact, 1) Cook volunteered for deployment and 2) had the right to revoke his application at any time up and until deployment; 3) he then filed suit to stop the deployment; and 4) the Army reasonably concluded that a soldier who had sued to stop his deployment no longer wanted to go overseas and 5) cancelled his orders.
This is clear from the news reports. So where is the lawsuit? Where is the case or controversy?
Maybe Cook should have gone on active duty and then refused to obey a lawful direct order to get on the plane. That might or might not have been a case, but he did not, and there is no case.
If he suffered employment retaliation, he has to go the Labor Department under the federal veterans employment protection statute. It cannot be raised this case.
As for the retired General, he has no standing or interest in the case at all. Please, someone tell him that you can sue to challenge your own tax assessment, but not your neighbor’s. Can a PI attorney explain to him that you can sue if you yourself are run over, but not if someone else is run over.
Here is the article that makes it clear that he volunteered to go on active duty.
QUOTE Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.
“A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.
Sandra, at July 20, 2009 at 7:54 am on General did not join suit.
Thanks, Sandra, for a great catch. The General is not on the case, so the jury will disregard my para on his lack of standing. It continues to apply to any and all other innocent bystanders.
This General is a lot smarter than Cook, and infintely smarter than Orly.
nice one…
Vince takes the true lawyer/Judge/Justice tract and instead of joining in the birther arguement wraps up the case on standing and the smaller albeit core issue before the birther reasoning can even enter the conversation.
brilliant!
i love that kind of resolution. shows you are concentrationg on the law and not the issue. not all lawyers do that unfortunately.
I-97, wrong! I have addressed the issues here.
Obama has produced a valid birth certificate. He was born in Hawaii in the United States.
He is a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth in the US, and that status is NOT affected by the fact that his father was Kenyan.
Obama is the President of the United States of America.
I have supported all of this here and on many other threads, as the regulars will attest.
Vince,
Let’s say; a Saudi couple visiting the U.S. has a child born on U.S. soil, while visiting…and they take their child with them to grow up in Saudi Arabia. The child returns to the U.S. when he/she is 30 years old, and, at 45 runs for/ and is elected President.
Do you think the loyalty of that person could be legitimately questioned?
“[I]t is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.” -dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Fuller (joined by Justice Harlan) United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Always important to distinguish between the Opinion of the Court and the Dissent.
Those are remarks in a dissenting opinion.
Quotes from the estimable Mr. Byrnes,
“Why would an honorable man continue to fight so hard to hide information about his birth? Why? –How long does one stand on “you can’t make me”?”
MS: This is a clear political, not legal statement.
“The Law of Nations (1758), Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212
Now, who thinks “natural-born” status has been resolved?”
MS: Mr. Vatel’s book would not have been authoritative because British Common Law and Statutes would have first preference. Also it is bizarre to use as a reason since it did not recognize the rights of women, who were considered chattels. Times do change, Constitutional Issues do evolve, even if certain people recognize the evolution only when it suits their political views. Scalia anyone, or perhaps Jim Byrne?
“Mike S.,
We need to start with things to which we will both agree:
1. We have a written Constitution.
2. Article II of that Constitution requires that the President meet 3 criteria to be qualified.
3. One of those qualifications is that he must be a “natural born citizen”.
4. We have no choice but to adhere to the requisites of our Constitution.
Do you agree with the 4 points presented above?”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/
MS: Given agreement on the above, where does the fact that Monsieur Vatel wrote a tome, that John Jay purportedly read have to do with our Constitution, except in the sense of people with political objectives who lack substance and need to sound as if they’re authoritative? By the way the link below the quote shows where you got Vatel from, the “estimable” professional poker player, retired lawyer and money hungry (see website to donate) Leo C. Donofrio.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/two-minute-warning-vattel-decoded/
“Sorry Mike, I should have answered your question first.(You)
“In that respect could somebody please show me where the “fact” came from the the President has spent million$ in lawyer’ fees to keep this hidden?” (quoting me)
I don’t know. Our transparent President is not that transparent.”(You)
MS: Another purely political answer by you Jim to a legitimate question dealing to one of the major lies spread by the people you support
“One lie is relatively meaningless, but it is still a lie, and reflects upon the general truthfulness of the one who tells it.”
MS: Jim your hypocrisy is showing. How is it that the oft repeated claim of those you follow, Obama has spent million$ covering this up, has no bearing upon their general truthlessness? It doesn’t because this isn’t about the constitution for you Jim it is decidely political, but you choose to hide that to make yourself seem a fair observer. Nice pose, but it doesn’t fly.
“Does he meet the standard of qualification set forth in the Constitution, under the definition that I have provided? -No.”
MS: And your definition is based on a book written in the 1750′s by a Swiss citizen. That isn’t Constitution Jim it’s political. By the way have I mentioned that while not a lawyer I went to Law School for 2 1/2 years (albeit at night)
and there I learned that the background of our jurisprudence comes from British Common Law and Statutes. These legal standards were decidedly not similar to the legal theories practiced in Europe. However, when one plays political games any port in the storm, I guess.
“As the high court has never addressed the definition of natural born citizen, we must look to a definition that existed prior to adoption of our Constitution. -That is the only way to interpret what the Framers would have considered.”
MS: So we should look at Monsieur Vatel in determining the intent rather than to British conceptualization? Idiotic and lacking historical understanding and by the way don’t throw Voltaire at me as an influence, I’m quite aware of the history. However, what really is wrong with your statement Jim is the part about interpretation. That kind of thinking about the Founder’s thoughts. That method of interpreting the Constitution allows for people, Federalist Society anyone, to give free reign to whatever fantasies are driven by their inability to separate their political beliefs from reality. Politics again Jim.
“We know that John Jay was familiar with the writings of Emmerich Vattel. (See Madison’s instructions to John Jay, Dated Oct. 17th, 1780)”
MS: Interesting word choice “familiar with” because it doesn’t say believed in or fervently supported. A man as erudite as Jay was also familiar with the doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings and may have commented in letters about it to anyone. He may hqave even thought there was some minor applicability. More political claptrap Jim and no direct link to the issue, except by smoke and mirrors.
“As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.”
MS: No we mustn’t to be willing to accept Vatel’s definition. While you state it confidently as if it is clearly logical, it in fact isn’t logical at all and truthfully downright silly. Using the reasonable person standard, I doubt if you’d get more than 2% of Constitutional lawyers alone to agree with you and I’m being generous in that estimate.
“According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
Leo C. Donofrio”
MS: Mr. Donofrio is a retired lawyer, professional card player and man on the make for a buck. He is also decidedly
Republican and decidedly political as the link below from the website carrying his blog until at least November 2008 shows.
Jim protest all you want that this is serious stuff, but your own words, your lack of candor and your answering questions with questions clearly indicates that this too for you is political, but it suits you to be disingenuous about it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/bloggers-forum/index
I’ll deal with your last snarky reply in my next post.
While it is true that dissenting opinion is of no precedential value, it does provide us with the interpretations of two judges of the U.S. Supreme Court.
We are left with a decision. Do we ignonre the opinions of two Justices of the Supreme Court, and only recognize the partisan opinion presented by Vince, Mike A. et al, or do we recognize that further non-partisan interpretation should be explored?
“This is a legal issue. I fully believe that you don’t think it is, but you are confused. You’re more than happy to abide by our Constitution when it supports your needs, but when it imposes a restriction that you consider to be unfair, you’re more than happy to trash it.”
Jim,
I’m not at all confused and neither are you. You may have the ability to deceive yourself to think you are being fair but you’re not. Actually though I dealt with that in a previous post, which is unfortunately “awaiting moderation” due to the amount of links and so this post will probably appear first.
As for saying that I abide by the Constitution when it suits my needs. You cite an 1850 tome by a Swiss as your basis for knowing the intent of the Constitution. Now of course you got that from Leo C. Donofrio, that retired lawyer, professional poker player, erstwhile Republican and con man for a buck who couldn’t get SCOTUS to accept his suit. Thin at best Jim and clearly not the person I’d go to for Constitutional Theory.
“What’s the difference between the list of Plaintiffs supplied above, FFLEO, myself, and you? -Other than you, the rest of us operated/operate under the authority of the President. We took an oath to support and defend our Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic, and nowhere in our oath did we swear to ignore the Constitution when it didn’t fit our needs.”
I have your word that you were in the service. If you actually served in combat, more credit to you. After that your comment becomes insulting. You don’t know me Jim. you know little of my life or the struggles I’ve been in to do my part to make this country a better place. If you served directly in combat, yes than you put your life on the line. However, to a lesser extent so have I. Don’t claim, however, that being in the military gives anyone the right to claim special status when it comes to following the Constitution.
George Bush and Dick Cheney swore a similar oath and both of them trashed the Constitution and were equally derisive of it.
Most of those people who you linked yourself with above voted for those draft dodging traitors, not once but twice, so I guess that their duty to their oaths had flexibility.
“No. Given the information provided by Barack Obama, and Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen; I do not believe that Barack Obama meets the natural born citizen qualification of Article II.”
Again we revert to the authority of a Swiss writer to interpret our constitution. Jim you are so clearly full of it.
This is all about politics for you and you are front and center in the mainstream of the birther movement.
“When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.”
I may not have been in the service Jim but I more than understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful order and my career, income and family suffered for it on more than three occasions. In only one of them as the Chief Contracting Officer for the NYC/HRA Adult Services Administration (read Colonel), with 450 million$ in contracts under my purview, I refused a direct order of my Executive Deputy Commissioner (read two star General)to give a no-bid contract that was phony but had been asked for by Mayor Giuliani’s people. I never talked to the man again and he was about to fire me when the HANAC contracting scandal broke and the contract I refused to do was withdrawn. Nevertheless, I had to leave that Agency for another job which was equivalent to a Majors in pay and perks. So I took a demotion for my principles.
That was one of three times I put myself on the line for the law and principle and suffered greatly for it. Also too, in 1966 after graduating college I tried to enlist in the Air Force, where I was guaranteed OCS, but was rejected for high blood pressure. A good move since I have had extensive heart trouble since then.
How many unlawful orders did you ignore in your military career Jim? We both understand the obligation, but as you well know some in the military put their career advancement ahead of the niceties of legalities and their own personal morality. People like Major Cook even like to play pretend to advance their political feelings. Jim, deny it all you want but this is only about politics and relying on 18th Century Swiss for constitutional insight and 21st Century legal hacks does nothing to disprove it.
The Opinion of the Court is the law and by virtue of the Supremeacy Clause is binding on all federal and state courts and on federal and state legislatures, until reversed or changed by a later decision, or by an Amendment.
As for the Saudi child, anyone can “question” his loyalty, but he can run for President. It is up to the people to decide. If is is a problem, propose a constitutional amendment. It is not easy to take away citizenship.
“Do we ignonre the opinions of two Justices of the Supreme Court, and only recognize the partisan opinion presented by Vince, Mike A. et al, or do we recognize that further non-partisan interpretation should be explored?”
Jim,
Be honest enough to cut the crap why don’t you? You are more partisan than those you accuse, except that you are also too disingenuous to admit your bias.
There is a lot of concern about the meaning of natural born citizen. To aid an informed discussion, there is a student law review note by Jill Pryor available:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
And a CRS Report on citizenship of children born to alien parents in the United States:
http://www.ansarilawfirm.com/docs/U.S.-Citizenship-of-Persons-Born-in-the-United-States-to-Alien-Parents.pdf
Since the term “natural born citizen” was not defined, it is best to start with the words themselves. The Constitution expressly authorized the naturalization of foreign citizen, and allowed natural born citizens to be President. So, to start with, there were two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized.
To qualify to be President, then, a person had to be a citizen, and had to be a citizen by reason of or by virtue of birth rather than by naturalization.
It does not say born in the U.S.A. Jill Pryor (at 97 Yale Law Journal 881) found an early draft by Hamilton that said no person should be eligible for President unless he ”hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” So they meant citizen by birth, not merely citizens born on US soil.
The first Congress included children born to citizen parents overseas within the meaning of natural born citizens. I (like Tribe and Olson) think that McCain was eligible under this rationale, as well as by his birth on a US territory.
It is important to look at the purpose or rationale of any legal rule, and to ask what benefit or bane was the motivating force. Our main aide here is Jay’s letter, which is clearly concerned with grown-up generals or princes seeking power after being naturalized by a compliant Congress. The letter expressed no concern about infants or babes.
The framers knew that common law existed, and the first Congress referred to it by name in the 7th Amendment. So it is appropriate to look to the common law for help in interpretation, and common law included all persons born in the realm as citizens by birth.
So there it is: a “natural born citizen” includes all those born on US soil as well as those who are citizens from birth by virtue of their parents. They are all eligible to be President. Other citizens are citizens by naturalization, and not eligible.
FFLEO,
Followed your link and this to me is the most interesting and telling answer:
“21. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers’ understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
This sums it all up and it is conclusive in showing that this is about politics. You understand, I know, that this conclusion is based on their interpretation of Emerich de Vattel, who died in 1767, 9 years before the revolution. A question for you is would he be your “go to” guy on US Constitutional matters? He wouldn’t be for me and actually I’d prefer the works of François Vatel (1631 – April 24, 1671)who has just as much bearing on the US Constitution.
Mike S.,
I was never given an unlawful order. As such, I had no reason to disobey one. I also had no reason to question the authority of my President, or my superiors…If I would have had reason, I would have questioned such authority/legitimacy.
Why would I select Vattel? Did I just pick it out of the blue? Is there no document that would provide support for the use of his definition?
(As I have posted earlier) James Madison quoted Vattel in a letter to John Jay. John Jay, in a letter to George Washington, while Washington was presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommended that only a “natural born citizen” should be permitted to be POTUS.
Were the Framers concerned with loyalty? -Very much so.
Byrne QUOTE As such, and unless some other definition of “natural born citizen” was floating around at the time of the Constitutional Convention (I am not aware of any others), we must be willing to recognize the definition presented by Vattel.
Vattel’s definition requires that the father must be a citizen of the United States.
“it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
UNQUOTE
I do not see a definition of natural born citizen in there. It just defines citizen.
Mike S, good post, but it is even worse than you say; Vattel was 1758, not 1850. He knew the law of the Swiss. He was not a framer or a Supreme Court Justice.
Also, Jay was not a member of the Constitutional Covention. His letter did not quote or cite Vattel. And, as stated many times, he was concerned with generals and princes in arms, not babes in arms.
Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
That is Vattel’s definition. It is not in the Constitution of the United States. If the framers had intended that result, they had to put the words “born to parents who are citizens” in the Constitution for all to ratify. They did not. The just put in the words “natural born.” The words were not put into the 14th Amendment, either.
This parental argument was dreamed up in 2008 after Obama produced his birth certificate. It is new. No one ever made it before. No one ever used it against Arthur, whose father was not a citizen. It is not in any civics text. There are entire threads on this over at Obamaconspiracy.com.
Even the nuts who say a woman cannot be President (because the 19th only granted the vote, not the right to be President) can find a civics text years ago saying that the Pres must be a he. But the birthers are still looking for this one.
And I have shown that Donofrio’s argument does not support this. He hangs his had on dual citizenship, not on a two parent rule.
The tho-parent rule is second stage birther nonsense.
If Obama was born in the US, then he was and is a natural born citizen.
Jay’s letter wanted a “strong check on the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our National Government.”
Read it. He was worried about Foreigners.
Not about someone who has been a citizen from birth.
Not about the number of his citizen parents.
Read it again.
“The first Congress included children born to citizen parents overseas within the meaning of natural born citizens. I (like Tribe and Olson) think that McCain was eligible under this rationale, as well as by his birth on a US territory.”
Vince,
You are either being intentionally deceptive, or you are unprepared to participate in this dicsussion -as demonstrated by the quote above.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed, and superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795. The natural born citizen portion does not exist in the 1795 Act.
SO you think McCain was eligible by means of a an Act of Congress that was repealed before even he was born. (and that was a long time ao)
Byrne QUOTE Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
If we ignore this, are we not ignoring our own Constitution? Are we, in effect, saying our constitutional provisions are ridiculous…so we should ignore the Constitution? Is that not the same thing as ignoring “the rule of law”? UNQUOTE
This passage just assumes what it tries to prove. The Kenyan citizenship of Obama’s father does NOT “by definition” indicate that he cannot be a natural born citizen. The natural born citizen definition includes, at the very least, all citizens born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction. The only exclusions are for ambassadors, invading armies, and indians.
Obama was subject to the jurisdiction of the US from birth, subject to its laws and power and control. He met all the qualifications at birth. The 14th Amendment did not include the phrase “and not subject to any foreign power” that had been included in the civil rights act. This is an effort to read back into the Constitution a requirement that was expressly considered by Congress and rejected, and that was never ratified by the people. That is a fundamentally flawed manner of statutory construction and reasoning. See the CRS Report linked above and other threads searchable with the term Donofrio.
We are not ignoring the Constitution. Some are trying to insert their own personal policy predilections into the Constitution, with no support in the language or purpose of the document. They are the ones ignoring the rule of law.
Once again, the two-parent rule is not in the Constitution. Even Leo Donofrio cannot support that rule.
The fact that one parent was a citizen of another country did not disqualify Arthur, and does not disqualify Obama.
Byrne, I cited that law for the intent of the framers, based on the acts of the framers who served in first Congress.
Washington presided at the Convention and approved the Constitution, and then signed this law. I do not think he would have signed an unconstitutional law.
Go the the treads searchable for mccain and natural born citizen to find complete treatment of McCain. Of course the law was repealed, but others have followed. Look at the research tools I have linked.
I invite any onlookers to look at my posts over the past two years and see if I am deceptive or unprepared. I just post what I know. I have not called anyone names, impugned anyone’s ability or motive, or even asked for their legal credentials.
The 1790 law stands for the propostion that at the time of adoption, the framers believed the term natural born citizen could include children born to US citizens beyond the seas. Jill Pryor has all the footnotes.
“Do you think the loyalty of that person could be legitimately questioned?”
Jim,
Your letting your politics show. This is about the man’s legitimacy as President, not about his loyalty, or is it in your mind. Bad example to make your case with and still be considered to be seeing this impartial of political beliefs.
“I was never given an unlawful order. As such, I had no reason to disobey one. I also had no reason to question the authority of my President, or my superiors…If I would have had reason, I would have questioned such authority/legitimacy.”
So I can assume from your answer to my question that you were never involved in combat. I also see that in your career you never bucked the trend and thus probably made good career moves. I have Jim and I paid the price for doing the right thing, therefore how dare you state:
“When you understand the obligation to ignore an unlawful (or illegitimate) order, you may understand my position.”
I understand it a lot more than you Jim because I was willing to put my career on the line for principle. I’m glad you never had to, but then I guess you really couldn’t understand those of us who did.
Vince,
1850 was a typo, I should read these posts of mine more clsely.
Byrne QUOTE Barack Obama Sr. was a citizen of Kenya, (I don’t think that is being disputed) which, by definition, would indicate that Barack Obama Jr. could not be considered to be a “natural born citizen” of the United States.UNQUOTE
QUOTE Jim Byrne 1, July 16, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Vince,
I concur. The 14th does ensure that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of parental citizenship, would be considered a natural-born citizen, and therefore meet that qualification requirement of Article I. UNQUOTE
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/
Give me a while to get back to you on these.
Quoted without comment
paratrooper508th
Jul 15, 2009 10:11:58 PM
I have a hard time understanding why this coward volunteered and then backed out, being a so called leader, he is a embrassment to the state he is from and the U.S. Army, who lowed the standards for him to get in?, and this so called lawyer what rock this crawl from under?, I speak as a combat veteran, two tours of duty in Vietnam, both times I volunteered, so what give this scumbag the right too say no too what he asked for, coward
unquote
From: http://www.military.com/news/article/anti-obama-gis-afghan-orders-revoked.html
Dr. Conspiracy said it best:
QUOTE Obama’s book stating his father’s nationality has been on the bookshelves for over a decade.
Why did NO ONE even mention that he wasn’t a natural born citizen because of that before June of 2008? That’s because until the smear campaign and the propaganda, no one in the country thought citizen parents were a requirement. The whole redefinition issue was created out thin air by Obama opponents, and many of you were fooled into thinking that you knew something all your life that you never heard before last June.
I challenge you to find a US Civics textbook published in the past 200 years that says a US president must have citizen parents. Now explain to me why you can’t find one.
And if it is in no textbook, then where do you think anyone would have gotten the idea that there was a parental requirement? They read it on the Internet AFTER June 2008, and after Obama had shown his birth certificate, requiring the smearbots to come up with a new strategy. UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/a-comment-at-the-natural-born-citizen-blog/
Vince,
Wow. I’m impressed. I’d like to drop you on an unsuspecting birther blog and watch the fireworks
Vince T., welcome back again, with a vengeance. I recall learning in seventh grade civics that a child born in the United States is a citizen of this country. Of course, that was in 1958, when people still ate white bread and lived under white institutions and paid homage to the god of “separate but equal.”
I have racked what remains of my brain in an attempt to determine a motivation for what has become hysteria in certain quarters (see the video on the Delaware town hall meeting that’s all over the web). The comments have variously included references to “Kenya,” “Muslim father” and “loyalty,” as well as repetition of the “I want my country back” mantra. In all fairness, it adds up to a combination of irrational fear, racial prejudice and xenophobia. Instead of using this as an opportunity to remind Americans of the diversity that has created a strong nation, politicians have instead capitalized on the widespread ignorance of the Constitution in this country in a partisan effort to destroy a presidency, a goal most recently repeated by the great senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint.
It is no more possible to convince hardcore haters that they are wrong on this issue than it is to convince the White Aryan Resistance that the Holocaust actually happened. There is a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. I no longer desire to exchange views with those occupying the latter category.
Mike A, I don’t go to those sites because they edit (censor) any posts and they get your email, which I do not want to give them..
Also, someone posted that I am a practicing attorney, but I do not want to leave any mistaken information standing, or to seem to confirm it by not answering it, so my status is retired lawyer, not practicing lawyer.
Try convincing a moon shot doubter that Armstrong landed on the moon. Some of the moonies are also birthers.
Vince, you’re right. I watched the moon landing on TV in 1969 in absolute awe. Now I understand that Whoopi Goldberg, of all people, raised questions about it on “The View” because she wondered who was holding the camera.
I am dismayed at the posts herein that evidence so much passion coupled with so little information. For those people interested in actually tackling a fascinating issue: the question that millions of Americans are pondering, from both political parties, is what exactly is a (1) natural (2) born (3) citizen.
Secondly, is the current president?
To opine without knowledge of the issue is just, well, stupid.
At the very least, find out what the phrase “natural born citizen” means, how it is defined and the possible differing constructions that well-intentioned scholars hold and then, and only then in my opinion, base your opinions thereon.
Most of the messages posted here demonstrate the writer’s ignorance of the complicated issue and are just silly hyperbole or, worse, knee-jerk emoting that contribute nothing to the discussion.
Honestly, learn, think, understand and find out why good minds are dismayed by the possibility of this issue.
Jill writes:
Argue it on the merits.
If this is how the govt. wants to deal with it, then every soldier ought to join this claim and get out of being sent to any one of our many illegal and immoral wars.
good point and I will keep this in mind should a draft ever be reinstated.
Kelly, most of us who have been “opining” on this issue have done so on three or four different threads. Most of us have also read a great deal of material on the issue. Implicit in your comment is the suggestion that you are knowledgable on the subject. Why don’t you give us the benefit of your opinion and rationale?
Kelly, please read the posting above at July 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm and the law review note and CRS Report link there, and you will find an abundance of information on what exactly is a natural born citizen.
In other posts, here and on other threads, I have made it clear that Obama is a natural born citizen and is the President of the United States.
Even the Pope thinks so.
Slartibartfast. Thanks.
“I am dismayed at the posts herein that evidence so much passion coupled with so little information.”
Kelly,
I’m dismayed that you would write without reading and basically make a statement as stupid as that. The issued has been wrapped up and settled and if you think the question is open then it is you who are uninformed.
“Honestly, learn, think, understand and find out why good minds are dismayed by the possibility of this issue.”
Honestly Kelly, you don’t have a good mind, but it is not to late to educate yourself.
Vince,
if you read my posts you would know that i completely agree with you. i know you had a lot to read to catch up, but i am on your side. Just thought i would mention it.
My post about you was in reference to how you neutered Cooks attempt bring the birther arguement to court. he ran out of gas through his and his lawyers own incompetence because the facts that were supposed to lead to that issue implode.
I have been lurking for a few months but had to post in this thread because Jim Byrne’s comments were about to make my head blow up. I have not seen your posts in other thread only this one. Obviously you didn’t read mine except the last one and took it the wrong way (like i said, there was a lot to catch up on), no worries.
Vince,
Game, set and match. You have once again simply outworked and out thought the opposition. You are my hero and I’d say I’d like to be Vince Treacy when I grow up, but unfortunately I’m older than you are. My compliments and my respect.
When any of you are interested in providing a definition of natural born citizen, that we could reasonably attribute to the mindset of the Framers, please post it.
For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin. In 1775, he observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
Samuel Adams in 1772 wrote, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution”
Then in 1773 during a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution. John Adams as so taken by the clear logic of Vattel that he wrote in his diary, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” These arguments were what inspired the clause that dictates how the Constitution is amended. The Framers left no doubt as to who had the right to amend the constitution, the Nation, (that is the individual States and the people) or Legislature (which is the federal government.)
In the Federalist Papers number 78, Alexander Hamilton also echoed Vattel, and both of the Adams, when he wrote, “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.”
Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel, quoting prolifically from the Law of Nations. The Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the Law of Nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the Statues passed under the color of English Common Law, must be interpreted from the standpoint of its consistency with the law of nations. This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.
“When any of you are interested in providing a definition of natural born citizen, that we could reasonably attribute to the mindset of the Framers, please post it.”
Jim,
Gutless copout showing who you really are. You were beaten to a pulp by Vince and others, factually, logically and rhetorically, but not man enough to admit it. To me that means that for you it was always political and your version of politics is riddled with disingenuous and hypocrisy. You’re good
Jim, but you’re not in the league of some of the people here, of whom I’m among the least.
Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen
lrhf97, right, thanks, I have caught up with your posts. Keep posting. We need you.
And Vince,
As to my concurrence with the 14th Amendment. -If you continue to read that same thread, you will see that I retracted my concurrence.
Jim Byrne
1, July 17, 2009 at 10:14 am
“—Unfortunately, as I am reminded, that would indicate that even though one who was born in within the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a citizen at birth, they may not be eligable to serve as POTUS if the parents were not U.S. Citizens.”
“For further proof on the question of Vattel’s influence we only need to look at Benjamin Franklin.”
Jim,
Poor rejoinder again. None of the quotes are pertinent and I’m aure that the founding Father’s knew of Vattel, that proves nothing.
“Then in 1784 Hamilton arguing for the defense in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington extensively used Vattel”
The constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 three years after the case you cite. Come on Jim, man up and admit the fact that this is all about your political beliefs and you don’t like our President and will attach yourself to any crumb to try to de-legitimize him.
Beware Jim, those you align yourself with include crazy people, some of whom have weapons. The consequences of your behavior may be indirectly contributing to possible treason.
Perhaps though, despite your self control and denials, you would welcome such a consequence? Just remember after FDR was elected, General Smedley Butler was approached to initiate a coup by Prescott Bush and other industrialists. There was an assassination attempt on FDR, but the assassin missed and killed Mayor Anton Cernak instead. I remember the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK done by the same type of people you align yourself with and support. You are playing in dangerous waters Jim and covering yourself with rotting seaweed in the process.
“This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.”
And who was the architect of the Judiciary Branch of our Government? –Why none other than John Jay. He was the principle author of the oft-forgotten Judiciary Act of 1789.
“This concept of Vattel lead to the creation of the Judiciary branch of our government to insure that Congress could never legislate away the provisions of the Constitution.”
Back to Donofrio for your comments again Jim? You running out of thoughts? It sure looks like your balloon is losing its’
hydrogen.
Mike S.,
I’m sorry, but you are acting like a crazy man. Do you ever focus on the subject in front of you? Do you often go off on wild tangents?
What do JFK, FDR, MLK, and some mayor, have to do with the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Thanks for the laugh.
“as to my concurrence with the 14th Amendment. -If you continue to read that same thread, you will see that I retracted my concurrence.”
Jim,
Nobody cares about the minutiae of your flagging thought process, you’ve been destroyed factually, logically and rhetorically, not to mention being exposed as a deceitful partisan.
“I’m sorry, but you are acting like a crazy man.”
Au contraire Jim, a crazy man is defined as one who keeps losing and continues the same strategy.
“What do JFK, FDR, MLK, and some mayor, have to do with the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution?”
It has to do with the potential treason that you are encouraging with your nonsense.
Can’t keep up with the flip-flops by Byrne. First he needed parents for citizenship at birth, then he did not, and then he retracted his retraction. Okay. Have to deal with the position of the day.
None of that stuff Byrne pasted up from the net on Vattel’s influence seems to have mentioned a framer or founder actually citing or relying specifically on his natural born citizen stuff. Can’t find it in his source, either.
Appuzzi is really out of his depth. In his brief, linked above, he cites Vattel for the “common law definition” of natural born citizen. Vattel himself would be surprised to be called a common law jurist.
Just to repeat. It is the birthers who are trashing the Constitution by trying to put their own personal partisan position into it, when there is no support in its language or intent.
Repeat, the birthers are trashing the Constitution. The Constitution, read as a whole, allows anyone who is 35 and has resided in the US for 14 years to run for President, as long as he or she was born a United States citizen. In different words, if a person is a citizen by birth rather than naturalization, that person may try to be elected President.
The birther-Donofrio arguments are too tenuous and remote to come anywhere near to altering the plain language of the Constitution and its intent.
Mike S.,
Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.
Alexander Hamilton was one of the people who suggested the natural born citizen clause. He recommended that no person be President unless he “be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Found by Jill Pryor, see1988 Yale Law Journal 881, at 889. Link above.
They took his proposal. Natural born citizen is defined as a person who was born as a citizen of the United States.
Since Obama was born a citizen of the United States under the rule of the 14th Amendment, he is eligible.
“Appuzzi is really out of his depth. In his brief, linked above, he cites Vattel for the “common law definition” of natural born citizen. Vattel himself would be surprised to be called a common law jurist.”
In fact, the framers rejected the notion that the United States was under English Common Law, “The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” –George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Vince,
I case you didn’t know it, Hamilton’s ideas were regularly rejected. He got mad, and went home, missing out on most of the convention, only to return for the committee of style.
Byrne, I said that Vattel was not a common law jurist, and I am right, and he is not an authority on any common law concept.
The United States and the individual states did receive common law slectively, and some terms in the Constitution, like Bill of Attainder, can only be understood by referring to the common law. See the 7th Amendment to find out about civil jury trials.
So don’t quote Mason out of context to refute something I did not say.
And there is no need for an attack on Hamilton. In this instance, they took his draft nearly verbatim, so your generalization does not hold.
Jim Byrne July 22, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Mike S., Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.
Mike, I should be so lucky.
One more time.
Natural born citizen is defined as a person who was born as a citizen of the United States.
There are a lot of prior threads on this topic at this site. Readers can use the search window at this site for terms like donofrio, mccain, birth and natural born citizen, or just google those terms and Turley.
The links to the other threads do not seem to want to be posted at this time.
Time to feed the dog and the cat.
Natural Born Citizen… Does that mean if your born by Cesarean you’re ineligible? I’m only half joking! You could make a legal case out of that, no? (don’t shoot me…)
Hidflect,
Not only that, but you could kill MacBeth.
Jim Byrne, there was no common law in this country at its founding other than English common law. George Mason’s comments notwithstanding, where do you think American common law came from?
I don’t know where you live, but Section 2.01 of the Florida Statutes, adopted by the first Florida legislature in 1829, provides as follows: “The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, that said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.” I believe that virtually all other states (with the exception of Louisiana) adopted a similar statute.
In his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” published in 1833, Joseph Story notes the following: “The universal principle (and the practice has conformed to it) has been, that the common law is our birthright and inheritance, and that our ancestors brought hither with them upon their emigration all of it, which was applicable to their situation. The whole structure of our present jurisprudence stands upon the original foundations of the common law.” (Chapter XVI, paragraph 79).
And we shouldn’t forget the 7th Amendment, which preserves the right to trial by jury “in suits at common law” where the damages exceed $20.00. What “common law” do you think the Framers were referring to?
“Natural Born Citizen… Does that mean if your born by Cesarean you’re ineligible?”
Hidflect,
Don’t give them ideas.
Jim Byrne, I just checked the site from which you were extensively quoting, birthers.org. I was surprised to discover that it is an anonymous site, one of those sites where unnamed people hammer the president about transparency, but who take great pains to make certain that their own identities are not disclosed. That is problem for me because I have an inherent distrust of rumor mongers. It is one thing to anonymously post one’s opinion on an issue. It is quite another to promote as authoritative a site whose origins, promoters and funding sources are completely unknown.
Organizations which purport to be reputable don’t need to wear white robes and hoods.
“Mike S.,
Have a good day. I will ignore any further commentary from you on this thread.”
Au revoir Monsieur Vattel, and thank you for the most amusingly bad reasoning of the week. Perhaps since you’ve eliminated the Common Law from consideration and replaced it with a Swiss, you might try looking at the Code Napoleon and surmise that John Jay foresaw it in a psychic vision? No, that’s no good, it’s makes more sense then your original argument and you’re all about the nonsense.
Vince,
Tag you’re it. Truth be told I was beginning to lose it. When I’m faced with faulty reasoning, abject denial and a refusal to notice points made I lose patience. Also truth be told you do a much better job then I do on this, without the hysterics.
“I was surprised to discover that it is an anonymous site, one of those sites where unnamed people hammer the president about transparency, but who take great pains to make certain that their own identities are not disclosed.”
Mike A,
This is what was getting me so annoyed. The game being played is so obvious and yet some of its players like Byrne claim earnestness and impartiality. From now on, as Mr. Byrne wishes, you can be the Mike on this thread tearing his tissue of lies.
One more time.
Natural born citizen is a legal term of art. Vince’s claims are not supported by definition. His opinion is, his opinion. -Much the same as my opinion is just my opinion.
My opinion is supported by two former Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Vattel was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert. He was councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.
Vince Treacy, Thank you for the discussion and the new links. Not all of this was repetitive from your other posts on other threads, most of which I read. I learned a lot from this discussion and that is why I specifically requested your and Mike Appleton’s comments. Thanks Mike A.
Jim Byrne, your posts were worthwhile and elicited comments that were informative and without which this discussion would not be as complete and interesting; continue on, Mike Spindell has his BP under control and we older guys are a bit set in our ways.
I am now convinced by the evidence and reasoning what the Framers intended a *Natural Born* U.S. Citizen to entail. Too bad, they lacked specificity in their definition. This discussion illustrates why it is important for legislators and the judiciary to define—clearly and unequivocally—the foundation of all laws when made and when laws are contested and then adjudicated, judges must write clear, unambiguous, and detailed opinions to serve as a clear-cut guides as preventatives to legal misunderstandings and then unnecessary lawsuits.
Mike Spindell, thanks for your contribution to this thread and for taking the time to read the material at the link although you have already made your mind up over this issue. Contrary evidence is critical and often helpful to one’s own counterarguments.
BVM.com, thanks for the video, “Exactly What IS a Natural Born Citizen?”, which got me started asking specific questions.
“Vattel was a philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert. He was councilor to the court of King Augustus III of Saxony.”
Now that’s a real good citation for how we should interpret our Constitution and right out of Wikipedia to boot. You’re really a deep one JB.
As to the common law of nations, we thus have Dr. Franklin’s authority for the statement that the members of the Continental Congress referred to and accepted Vattel’s famous treatise, as the measure and standard of the duties of the colonies, soon to become free and independent States.2 We could, however, dispense with his authority, inasmuch as the common law of nations was then regarded as an intricate part of the common law of England, and adopted as a system by the adoption of the common law. For does not Blackstone inform us, in his Commentaries, that “the law of nations (when ever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is hereby adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.”
from “The United States of America” by James Brown Scott (1920)
In Re Baiz ( 135 U. S., 403)
Some of you may be interested in reading the online snippet, provided by the University of Pennsylvania, of “The Law of Nations as part of the Natural Law of the United States”
It was written in 1952 by Edwin D. Dickinson (former Dean of the University of California School of Law)
Why did NO ONE even mention that he wasn’t a natural born citizen because of that before June of 2008? That’s because until the smear campaign and the propaganda, no one in the country thought citizen parents were a requirement. The whole redefinition issue was created out thin air by Obama opponents, and many of you were fooled into thinking that you knew something all your life that you never heard before last June.
Thats because behind the scene Claire McCaskill was doing her best to change it and this is the first time in history other then Chester Aurthur there was a suspect. The guy has been groomed to be president. He wasn’t elected, he was selected.
This is making it’s rounds again, I’ve seen it before, but it’s the first one I’ve seen that someone hasn’t added thier BS to it. The first go around required a retraction from Mr. Suttons family and then on fight the smears. You can’t acccess fight the smears anymore but it said in effect that Mr Sutton is old has health problems and basically he don’t know what he’s talking about. I say he does.
Vince nice to see you back, I really, really enjoy your passion. OUTSTANDING. by the way the first paragraph above was you. I haven’t been using the quote unqoute button since you’ve been gone. Did you hear, one of my post set Buddah off and it brought him back from the dark and into the light and he’s posting again. See I have some good points.
Nice to see you back Vince I was getting concerned.
Mike S writes:
Jim,
Gutless copout showing who you really are. You were beaten to a pulp by Vince and others, factually, logically and rhetorically, but not man enough to admit it. To me that means that for you it was always political and your version of politics is riddled with disingenuous and hypocrisy. You’re good
Jim, but you’re not in the league of some of the people here, of whom I’m among the least.
me: lets also not forget that the framers designated that an african american was not a citizen but 3/5 of a whole person and that they had no rights to marry or emancipate or vote and in many instance it was illegal for them to be literate. much has changed since then but the way I see it, this whole birther business would never have happened if Obama had been white with all the same other circumstances, born in Hawaii with a father with foreign birth.
Hey Jim B when I said keep up the fight I didn’t mean start one. Remember the quote from Gahndi.
Even if you are in a minority of one the truth is still the truth. It looks like you were in the minority today. You are not alone my friend and just like Obamas polls are going down the birther issue is heating up. Expose the truth.
I’m not into the two parent gig, Law of Nations, Vattel stuff. I’m into why Mr. Transparency ain’t so Transparent. Especially after he signed the executive order on FOIA the very first day, which in effect says you can look up anybody else, just not me.
I smell a rat
GWLawSchoolMom Quote: this whole birther business would never have happened if Obama had been white with all the same other circumstances, born in Hawaii with a father with foreign birth.
Really so when Donofrio filed and included in his suit McCain and Calero you think that.
You think this is a race thing or it has now turned into one. Do you think that all birthers are racist or do you think that the only people who are pushing the issue is white? Just curious
These “birthers” are nothing more than direct descendents of the Know Nothing Party.
Barack Obama is the sharpest guy we have had in the White House in many years. His capabilities far surpass his immediate predecessor. I may not agree with some of his political beliefs, but those are just a drop of rain in the sea. Further, I believe in a democracy. -The people have spoken. No honorable man would interfere with that for dishonorable reasons. -Contrary to the claims of some; I would not.
If removed, due to a failure to qualify (my contention); what happens? -While removal would be unprecedented, I believe the Twentieth Amendment would be controlling. -As such Joe Biden would be our next President. I think Joe’s a heck of a nice guy, but I also think he would be a gaff machine…something we surely don’t need right now.
I wouldn’t trade Barack for Joe unless I didn’t have a choice. I don’t believe I have a choice.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.” -Thomas Jefferson
bdaman writez: Really so when Donofrio filed and included in his suit McCain and Calero you think that.
You think this is a race thing or it has now turned into one. Do you think that all birthers are racist or do you think that the only people who are pushing the issue is white? Just curious
look, I really don’t care who files what law suit. it seems clear to me that this is a race thing and that it all started with the whack jobs that palin attracted to the mccain campaign…like that crazy woman who said she though Obama was a terrorist and McCain had to talk her down saying that Obama was a decent guy and that he wasn’t an arab.
“The people have spoken. No honorable man would interfere with that for dishonorable reasons.”
When you lie with pigs you get dirty. The birther movement is not and never has been an honorable movement. It is bought and paid for by people who want to de-legitimize the President. Its’ “great” legal minds Mr. Donofrio and Ms. Taitz are kooks at best, but most probably self-serving frauds. In back of this movement is no doubt racism and the shock that our President is a black man. This movement is being stirred up by the pundits of the talk radio circuit and by the farthest out of Republican legislators.
The end result of it if it keeps going on, will be frustration with every succeeding lost/dismissed lawsuit by birther minions. Convinced that President Obama was installed by a huge conspiracy to put a “foreigner” in the White House, those among the birthers who are the craziest, Aryan Nation, KKK perhaps, will try violent means to “save” their country and perhaps may succeed.
Despite what torturous logic is brought to bear the overwhelming proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that the President is a “natural born” American citizen and thus legitimately the President of the US. When GW Bush was installed as President by SCOTUS in a decision made that was so putrid, it said within its own body, that it was not to be used as precedent. Antonin Scalia’s son was hired by the law firm that represented Bush, but our “esteemed” jurist refused to recuse himself and rendered a decision overruling the Florida Supreme Court, directly counter to his every professed legal belief. However, when 9/11 occurred the honorable people in opposition to the phony election rallied around Bush and gave him support, until his deceit and incompetence became all too apparent. Honorable people do not support the birther movement, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Shakespeare in Marc Antony’s funeral oration is a good source for this as Antony said “And Brutus is an honorable man.” There is nothing honorable about ther birther movement and thos who give them succor can not count themselves honorable.
P.S. Based on knowledge not leeched from Wikipedia, or Donofrio, but from my own reading through the years, Vattel was a Natural Philosopher, whose chief influence was Liebniz.
Gottfried Liebniz was a genius rivaling Isaak Newton and who actually co-invented Calculus with Newton, although Newton got the credit. Both were giants in the Natural Philosophy Movement which led to “The Enlightenment.” In that respect Liebniz probably outshone Newton who was obsessed with alchemy all of his life. Our founders were overwhelmingly Natural Philosophers and so of course would be familiar with Vattel as they would be aware of all the works of others in the movement and as men of The Enlightenment. To pick out Vattel as a particular influence on their thinking is cherry picking at best and more probably disingenuous. One simply looks for a Natural Philosopher who might by some stretch makes their case and lo and behold the one chosen was widely read and commented on.
This is extremely interesting.
The U.S. Supreme Court Reports present Justice Joseph Story (in 1814) indentifying Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says” –and goes on to quote Vattel’s definition of citizens.
I guess Justice Story was trying to “de-legitimize the President”.
It was Chief Justice John Marshall, not Justice Story, who quoted Vattel with approval in his concurring opinion.
Jim Byrne, I continue to be bothered by your insistence that we are somehow bound by the views of one writer on the issue of what constitutes a “natural born citizen.” You will recall that I earlier cited Blackstone, but you rejected his definition on the basis that there is a distinction between a “citizen” and a “subject,” and asserted that the Founders would have used the word “subject” rather than “citizen” in the Constitution had they agreed with Blackstone.
I believe it is important to remember that the Founders were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. Although the terms “subject” and “citizen” share a common characteristic, a duty of loyalty or allegiance, the word “citizen” is more appropriate to our form of government and has its origins in the Roman republic. Indeed, you will recall from your student days that at one time the most important boast one could make was “Civis romanus sum” (“I am a Roman citizen”).
In any event, I went home last night and pulled out my volumes of Kent’s “Commentaries on American Law,” first published in 1827. I note that Mr. Kent acknowledges the contributions of Vattel on the law of nations, as well as those of Grotius, Burlamaqui, Montesquieu and others, but makes no reference to Vattel in his discussion of natural born and naturalized citizens, relying instead upon principles of English common law. (Although not relevant here, I would argue that the Founders were much more deeply indebted to people like Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes and Hume than they were to Vattel.)
Kent writes that “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” (Lecture XXV, Vol. II, p. 33). “It is the doctrine of the English law, that natural born subjects owe an allegiance, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and which cannot be devested (sic) by any act of their own.” (Id., pp. 35-36). By contrast, “An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States,” (with certain exceptions). (Id., p. 43). Thus aliens can become citizens only through an applicable naturalization procedure. “A person thus duly naturalized, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of natural born subjects, except that a residence of seven years is requisite to enable him to hold a seat in congress, and no person, except a natural born citizen, is eligible to the office of governor of this state, or president of the United States.” (Id., p. 57).
Kent is referring to the state of New York, where these lectures were given, and to the naturalization acts then in effect. The point, however, is that he uses the phrases “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” interchangeably.
On the subject of the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president, Kent observes, “The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained the age of thirty five years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, this restriction will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome.” (Lecture XIII, Vol. I, p. 255).
I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary. If one is born in the United States, one may be properly described as “native born,” a “natural born subject” or a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, since the president was born in the United States, he was and is constitutionally eligible for the office he holds.
I offer the foregoing as cumulative to what I and others (particularly Vince Treacy) have previously posted. If you remain unconvinced, I will have to leave it to others because I have exhausted my intellectual capabilities. And if you nevertheless subscribe to the Hawaiian forgery-conspiracy branch of birtherism, I have nothing at all to say.
Thanks for the correction Vince.
Mike Appleton. Excellent discussion. I will print it for reference.
On the terms citizen and subject, I believe that British and Commonwealth jurisdictions have moved away from the term “subject” in favor of “citizen” in the wake of the decline of the non-ceremonial aspects of the monarchy. Tribe and Olson suggested that “citizen” and “subject” are often used interchangeably. In a very technical sense, certain non-citizens may be subjects, but I doubt if any of that is relevant to natural born status.
On the common law, the Constitution draws its meaning from many of common law terms and concepts that existed at the time of adoption. To my mind, the best example is habeas corpus. The Constitution at no point defines this term, and does not even list it as an enumerated power of the new government. It is simply provided in Art I, sec. 9 that habeas corpus shall not be suspended except for rebellion or invasion. The Constitution assumes that the privilege exists and will continue to exist. The Clause cannot be understood withour reference to the common law writ of habeas corpus.
So it is not surprising to me that Chancellor Kent looked to the common law for guidance.
Mike Appleton wrote:
“I suggest that the Founders did not define the phrase “natural born citizen” for the simple reason that they did not believe a definition was necessary.”
________________________________
The simple addition of, perhaps, “that is, not a naturalized U.S. citizen” would have saved a lot of the today’s consternation and Pres. Chester Arthur’s concern, apparently to his deathbed.
Lawyers, legislators, and judges et al. need to use precise and unequivocal language to forestall most anticipated problems since the law is predicated on reasonableness. Without all of the facts and discussions, the *natural born* question is one a reasonable citizen could have cause to question. However, once the evidence is presented–as here and elsewhere–all reasonable citizens should accept that President Barack Obama Jr. is a natural born U.S. citizen based on the current available evidence.
I will admit that I had not known about Arthur’s situation until this discussion and learned about it while reading the Primer to which I earlier linked.
Thanks to all for their extra effort in this discussion.
A serious take on this whole issue, giving due deference to the birther movement from America’s most Trusted Newsman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
I thought Jon Stewart had more investigative ability. He is certainly shallow on the birth certificate issue.
Lou Dobbs is more intelligent!!
Don’t believe the overwhelming lies of the easily fooled and sellouts.
Mike, that is a great link. It makes Dobbs look like an idiot — he seems unaware that Kitty Pilgrim answered his questions — ON HIS ON NETWORK, ON HIS OWN SHOW.
Continuing the list of frivolous suits, take a look at Judge James Robertson’s decision in Hollister v. Soetoro.
The judge issue a show cause order to determined whether to sanction attorney Hemenway. (He later settled for a reprimand since Hemenway was over 80 and not likely to repeat the behavor).
Robertson is the same judge who refuse to let Orly Taitz file a case in D.C. Orly later filed in California because she could find NO D.C. attorney willing to join her as co-counsel.
http://media.ledger-enquirer.com/smedia/2009/07/14/11/obamcase2.source.prod_affiliate.70.pdf
“Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume: 3 January 1, 1776 – May 15, 1776″
Benjamin Franklin to James Bowdoin
“My dear Friend, Philada. Mar. 24. 1776 Inclos’d is an Answer to the Request from the Inhabitants of Dartmouth. I have comply’d with it upon your Recommendation, and ordered a Post accordingly.
I have put into Mr Adam’s Hands directed for you, the new Edition of Vattel When you have perus’d it, please to place it in your College Library.
I am just setting out for Canada, and have only time to add my best Wishes of Health & Happiness to you & all yours. Permit me to say my Love to Mrs Bowdoin, & believe me ever, with sincere & great Esteem, Yours most affectionately B Franklin”
“Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 22 November 1, 1784 – November 6, 1785″
Elbridge Gerry to Timothy Pickering
“I am in Want of the following Books from Messr Jackson & Dunn, & wish to know whether I must send the others to Phila., or deliver them to any Friend of those Gentlemen here. The Books wanted are Vattel’s Law of Nations. Burlamaqui’s principles of natural & political Law 8 vo. Burlamaqui’s Law of Nations if the Reputation of it, is equal to his other works. “
The 1760 English translation of the “Law of Nations” uses the virtually the same Vattel definition as has been previously posted. –The one that requires a natural born citizen to be the offspring of citizen(s). (I say virtually, because the letter “s” is represented by “f”.)
Some good history on the definition of “natural born citizen” can be found here.
http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/
Thanks for the link, Vince. So, what did Judge Robertson really think?
Vince Treacy and Jon Stewart are my heroes!
Jim B,
I think that “The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is a great book but what relevance does that have? I’m sure that the founding fathers looked at all of the books on national law they could get their hands on – why should we enshrine one of them as definitional to the constitution?
“I think that “The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” is a great book but what relevance does that have? I’m sure that the founding fathers looked at all of the books on national law they could get their hands on – why should we enshrine one of them as definitional to the constitution?”
Previously I posted a link to the U.S. Supreme Court Records. That document covers 5 thru 9 Cranch (our early Court cases). A word search of that document reveals that Vattel is identified 30 times; Montiesquieu twice, and Blackstone only 7 times.
When looking at the law, I find it reasonable to look at who those interpreting the law looked at.
Feel free to perform your own search. Make sure you count the occurences…not just the pages.
BVM writes: I thought Jon Stewart had more investigative ability. He is certainly shallow on the birth certificate issue.
Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a journalist. you should catch him live someday. he’s hilarious.
Professor JT:
Would the COLB stand as proof in your court?
Can you answer without losing your MSNBC gigs?
What do you think of the case on its merits?
Hear ye, hear ye. What say you JT?
Jim B,
I wont be doing my own search and I take you and Vince at your word – that’s not my kind of research. I just don’t see why you’re putting such faith in one non-canonical source on such a significant issue when, at the bare minimum, a majority of the people who’s opinions matter disagree (or the SCOTUS would have heard one of the cases that were considered by the justices). To me, you are just lending credence to Mike S’s arguments and you haven’t yet put a dent in the edifice that Vince has built.
“The certification of live birth, which, as WND reported recently, is not even considered by the U.S. State Department to be a document with which you can obtain a passport, let alone establish a constitutional standard of “natural born citizenship” and qualify to serve in the White House.”
You can’t even get a drivers license in Hawaii with it.
http://www.wnd.com
BVM, the World Nut Daily is wrong.
The COLB is the ONLY birth certificate that Hawaii now issues, and is good for everything, including Hawaiian Home Lands, drivers license, and passports. Hawaii no longer issues certificates of live birth or long-form certificates, so how can they be required? The COLB states on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth.
Find someone who received anything other than a COLB lately. Find someone who could not get a passport with it.
The COLB is a fool’s document! Fool’s ID!
This country is full of fools! Obama knows his constituents.
Call the State Dept. and verify it.
http://www.honolulu.gov/csd/vehicle/dlrequirements.htm
Hawaii only accepts a “State Certified Birth Certificate with both parents listed or State Certified Birth ID Card.”
NO COLB !
BVM,
A valid COLB is accepted when applying for a driver’s license.
You have been beating this dead horse for ages, bvm. The COLB is by definition a birth certificate that lists both parents, and Obama’s COLB says on the bottom that it is a certificate and lists his parents.
The website nowhere says “No COLBs.” Those are your words. You don’t live in Hawaii, anyway.
And you used to claim that Home Lands would not accept a COLB. Well, they do now, despite an obsolete web site. You have yet to acknowledge that particular fact.
And the State Department will accept a COLB issued by Hawaii, since that is all Hawaii now issues, and a lot of Hawaiian like to travel.
So get over it.
Theh BC is trivial considering that Obama has been a War Criminal / mass murderer for years. Can a mass murderer get a drivers licence in HI?
BVM,
To the best of my knowledge (I haven’t done any research), I don’t think being a felon would prevent someone from being elected POTUS. It would be a good reason to remove one from office, if the felony occured while in office, but I don’t think a prior felony would present a bar from holding the Office of President.
Vince may be able to provide better information on that subject.
North Carolina will not accept Obama’s COLB for a drivers license. They require a Certified or original birth certificate. Will your state?
BVM, gee, I guess Obama’s lucky that he doesn’t have to get a North Carolina driver’s license. And I guess all of us are lucky that the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles doesn’t determine presidential qualifications under the Constitution.
Yes, the NCDMV is good. They are trained well to reject ‘no value’ documents.
Jim Byrne, it does not matter how frequently a publication is cited. It’s a question of what it’s cited to support. Your methodology is equivalent to asking everyone in the room to raise their hands if they’ve heard of Vattel, and then guaging his authority by the response. Have you actually waded through volumes 5 through 9 of the Cranch law reports and read the cases in which Vattel has been cited? I confess that I have not, but it should be remembered that Vattel’s main interest was in formulating from natural law principles rules for the conduct of nations in the pursuit of war, peace and international trade relations. Thus he was frequently cited in commercial disputes. I suspect that the cases you reference deal primarily with commerce and maritime issues. If I’m wrong, slap me down.
To me, it’s an uncomplicated English common law analysis. The Founders were not concerned with one’s parentage. That’s why naturalized citizenship was fine for congressional candidates. But they wanted to make certain that future presidents had roots in American soil, meaning that they were born here. That Vattel is literally the only scholarly authority for the birthers’ position is reason enough to suspect the agenda.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to see Obama is a fraud.
Print out a copy of Obama’s COLB and drop by the DMV in your city … see for yourself. They won’t accept it as proof of birth. They aren’t Obama fools
Mike A.,
Perhaps this will provide some guidance.
“It is therefore to be expected that when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone’s Commentaries; and, when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them.”
“The United States of America” by James Brown Scott (1920)
Who is this James Brown Scott?
He founded the law school at the University of Southern California, and was its dean. He was dean of the college of law at the University of Illinois (1899-1903), professor of law at Columbia, and professor of law at George Washington University (1905-06).
BVM, you’ve established your Einstein observation quite satisfactorily. Thank you.
Jim B,
Forgive me for addressing just a couple of points on your recent post, but Vince can (and has) addressed most of them far more ably and easily than I ever could. The SCOTUS has addressed this issue – by not hearing cases which were reviewed in conference they have implicitly said that there is no need for them to review this issue. If it would precipitate a constitutional crisis I would think that the justices would consent to hear the case (if only to clearly state that Barack Obama was eligible to be president). That they saw fit not to do so in multiple cases heard in conference speaks volumes to me. Additionally, while you’re interpreting the constitution in the framer’s mindset, please look at all of it. You cannot assert a constitutional difference between men and women without ignoring the 19th amendment and the intent of those that wrote it! By your own arguments, (President) Barack Obama would have received NBC status from his mother. It seems to me that for any interpretation of the constitution to be valid in light of the 19th amendment, the sexes of his parents cannot matter.
Have a gorgeous evening!
BVM,
I have a North Carolina Driver’s License! Do I get to be president when you throw Obama out?
Ask the military when they take him into custody.
Is it just me or did BMV just predict a coup d’état?
The military has the authority and duty to arrest Obama.
Jim Byrne, I believe you have misinterpreted Prof. Scott. Under traditional legal definitions, the “law of nations” is what we refer to in modern jurisprudence as “international law,” public law governing the relationships among sovereign states. That’s why I stated earlier that Vattel’s primary interest was in developing natural law principles to guide relations among states. The phrase “municipal law,” although its Latin root is “municipium,” meaning a provincial town, does not relate to city government. It describes the internal or domestic law of a sovereign state. The law governing the qualifications for a presidential candidate is part of the municipal law of this country. But the phrase is a bit archaic. The Constitution represents the supreme “municipal law” of the land. See, e.g., Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Vol. I., Lecture XX, pp. 419-420.
Slartibartfast,
“The SCOTUS has addressed this issue – by not hearing cases which were reviewed in conference they have implicitly said that there is no need for them to review this issue. If it would precipitate a constitutional crisis I would think that the justices would consent to hear the case (if only to clearly state that Barack Obama was eligible to be president). That they saw fit not to do so in multiple cases heard in conference speaks volumes to me.”
You’re misunderstanding the role of the appelate court. What is presented to the Supreme Court are errors of the lower court. In these cases, it was the lower court’s determinations of standing that was appealed to the Supremes. The justices of the Supreme Court determined, by not granting cert, that the lower court’s decision to dismiss for lack of standing was correct. The Supreme Court has never addressed the merits of the case. (i.e. They never addressed the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama. Alll they did was determine that the person bringing suit had not been directly harmed)
“Additionally, while you’re interpreting the constitution in the framer’s mindset, please look at all of it. You cannot assert a constitutional difference between men and women without ignoring the 19th amendment and the intent of those that wrote it! By your own arguments, (President) Barack Obama would have received NBC status from his mother. It seems to me that for any interpretation of the constitution to be valid in light of the 19th amendment, the sexes of his parents cannot matter.”
The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote. While voting is one of the benefits of citizenship, the Amendment itself does not define/redefine natural born citizen.
Gyges, I don’t know about predictions, but I’m relatively certain that BVM is advocating a coup d’etat.
Jim B,
Throw the 14th into the mix then – do you still think women are 2nd class citizens constitutionally?
Jim Byrne and Slartibartfast, as a technical matter the Supreme Court’s declination to hear a case does not constitute approval of the appellate court determination or of the reasoning of the appellate court judges. It means only that the Court has decided not to hear the matter for reasons which are generally not disclosed, thereby allowing the appellate court decision to stand. When the Supreme Court declines review, that does not mean that the appellate court decision is the law of the land. That’s one of the reasons that there are numerous conflicts among the circuits on various points of law.
Mike A.,
“The law governing the qualifications for a presidential candidate is part of the municipal law of this country.”
Can you provide support for that position, or is it just your opinion?
Lecture XX is irrelevant, as it deals with the various laws of the states -not of the Union.
Kent really doesn’t say much about the qualifications of the President. He suggests that anyone born on U.S. soil can be president. I disagree. Kent does not discuss why he thinks a natural born citizen is the same as a native citizen.
Mike A.,
I appreciate your clarification on effect of the Supreme Court refusing to grant certiorari. I refrained from getting into too much detail with SBF. (I’m tired of typing slartibartfast) :>)
I just wanted SBF to know that the Supreme Court had not really decided anything about Obama’s qualifications.
“Throw the 14th into the mix then – do you still think women are 2nd class citizens constitutionally?
I still think the 14th Amendment has no direct effect on the natural born citizen clause. However, it does convince me that anyone, regardless of race or gender, are determined to be citizens by birth on U.S. Soil.
I would not consider a child, the offspring of foreigners, to be elligable for the Office of President, simply because they were born here.
Now my turn for a question.
Do you think a child of foreign parents, born on U.S. soil, then wisked away to their parents homeland, and brought up in the traditions of their parents country, who returns to the U.S. at age 45 and runs for President at age 60, would have more deep-down loyalty to this country, or the country in which the child was raised? Do you think that person might be inclined to favor his parents country over another?
Jim B,
Let me be clear: Are you maintaining that a father can transmit NBC status and a mother cannot? I think that interpretation is unconstitutional via the 14th and 19th amendments.
Mike A,
Thanks for clearing that up. The fact remains that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a case on Obama’s citizenship and declined to do so.
“Let me be clear: Are you maintaining that a father can transmit NBC status and a mother cannot? I think that interpretation is unconstitutional via the 14th and 19th amendments.”
I’m stating that the definition of “natural born citizen”, which I believe to be controlling as to the qualifications of the President would not grant natural born citizen status by virtue of the mother alone being a citizen.
FYI -Something mandated by the Constitution itself, cannot, by definition, be unconstitutional.
” The fact remains that the SCOTUS had the opportunity to hear a case on Obama’s citizenship and declined to do so.”
No. They had the opportunity to hear a case on “standing” and declined.
Jim B,
Can the father alone transmit NBC status?
“Can the father alone transmit NBC status?”
Yes. That would go along with Vattel’s definition.
I know it doesn’t seem fair, and the law should be fair. However, the way we correct an unfair attribute of the Constitution is by Amendment. -As we have done with the 14th and 19th Amendments.
Currently, in my opinion, we are ignoring the Constitution in order to appease the masses. -It is good for the government to fear the citizens, but it’s not good to avoid the Constitution in order to make people happy..even if it’s the majority that are being made happy.
Jim, it is not fair, but luckily it is not the law. Neither father nor mother can transmit NBC status. A citizen can only have that status by being born a U.S. citizen, being a citizen by birth.
Vince,
You should really learn to preface your opinions with “In my opinion” or something of the like.
Or I can omit such notice of opinion, and state that; In fact it is the law.
Vince, did you vote for President Obama? If so, are you really expecting us to believe that you are impartial?
Why wouldn’t I take you at your word? -You state that Hawaiian officials have verified Obama’s COLB. -That is not the truth.
They have verified that they have Obama’s original “certificate of live birth” in the vault, but have not verified that the information contained on the COLB matches the information on the vault copy. -To me, a statement made with the intent to deceive, is the same thing as a lie.
And the 14th did in fact amend the natural born clause. The 14th overturned Dred Scott, which said that at the time of Declaration and the Constitution, a black man had no rights a white man had to respect. It held that a black person could not be a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. Before the 14th, a black man could not even sue or vote or be a natural born citizen, but after the 14th, an African American man or woman who was born an American citizen like Obama could be elected President.
The Constitution is not amended like a statute, with a clause saying section blank is hereby amended by inserting these words or to read as follows. Just as Art I and the amendment requiring direct election of Senators must be read together and harmonized, so also Amendment 14 must be read together with the NBC clause, because it did amend NBC to change the definition of citizen in that clause to include Black Americans.
No, Jim, the officials who issued the COLB signed and sealed it certifying it as an official record. If they lied, they left themselves open to prosecution. I just do not think that happened. No one can prove a negative, but the liklihood is diminishingly small.
You can label it opinion all you want. No one is making you believe me. But the COLB is an official document. And I have posted numerous links that objective journalists and others have posted that verify its validity. They have taken the COLB and photographed the seal and signatures. We have more proof of Obama’s birth than most other Presidents.
Also, there should be some clarity. Is the COLB a forgery? Is it authentic, and actually issued by the Hawaiian government, but falsely states that Obama was born in Hawaii when their records show he was born elsewhere.
The birthers have candidly acknowledged that they fully expect any underlying records to show that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is why they have invented the 2 parent theory.
My postings can stand on their own. I have read even more scholarly treatment of this subject, and everything confirms my postings so far.
Dear Jim Byrne,
You wrote: “The U.S. Supreme Court Reports present Justice Joseph Story (in 1814) indentifying Vattel “is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says” –and goes on to quote Vattel’s definition of citizens.”
Ah, but your cite of Story’s comment leads to one of the most disappointing discoveries the Birther’s ran across after trumpeting the Constitution’s verbatum use of the expression “Natural Born Citizen” from Vattel’s work. Turns out no English translation of Vattel’s work used that expression until 1997, a decade too later for any claim that it was adopted verbatum from Vattel by the Framers.
Story reveals as much in the SCOTUS case you quoted from, “The Venus”, a more complete citeing of which would have continued, “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
Notice the oft quoted line “Natural Born Citizen” is not there YET, because translations undisputed by Vattel while he was still alive (considered more authentic I suppose by Story, even in 1814), used the expression “Natives or Indigenes” Go to Justia’s site and call up “The Venus” and page search for “Vattel” – the second hit will get you to my longer cite.
Consult a book expert on 18th and 19th Century works and you will discover that later editions and translations often misleadingly quote the original year of the work’s publication.
The French language would have provided “Citoyen de naissance” if Vattel had intended that expression.
Apuzzo has pretended to state this little detail doesn’t matter.
The Dumas editions Franklin received are among the “pre NBC” verbatum translations. The plot thins.
BenjiFranklin
Jim,
1997 NOT 1997! Sorry typo.
Benji
“They have verified that they have Obama’s original “certificate of live birth” in the vault, but have not verified that the information contained on the COLB matches the information on the vault copy.”
You really think they examined their records, and THEN allowed a fake COLB to be circulated? Go over to Leo Donofrio’s site and see what he thinks of that idea.
This is getting to the point of Moynihan’s quip: Everyone is entitle to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.
I can no more prove the COLB to you that I can prove to bdaman that Armstrong landed on the Moon. It is only my opinion that men landed on the Moon 40 years ago this week?
Also, Benji, the quote was from Marshall not Story.
Jim,
I menat to type Seventeen Ninety Seven, not 1997!
Benji
1797. [?]
Jim B,
“… as we have done with the 14th and 19th amendments.” Exactly. I am arguing that if your interpretation of Vattel is correct, then by virtue of these amendments Barack Obama received NBC status from his mother (since Vattel (according to you) established that only 1 parent is required and in light of 14 and 19 there is no distinction between men and women in the constitution). Why not just make things easier for yourself and admit that President Obama is the legitimate holder of his office?
Mike A writes: to me, it’s an uncomplicated English common law analysis. The Founders were not concerned with one’s parentage. That’s why naturalized citizenship was fine for congressional candidates. But they wanted to make certain that future presidents had roots in American soil, meaning that they were born here. That Vattel is literally the only scholarly authority for the birthers’ position is reason enough to suspect the agenda.
me: thank you. at last, an explanation that makes sense and allows us to move on. this whole birther thing is getting frustrating and tiresome and only adds to my belief that this whole thing is racially motivated.
Vince,
No one has a right to be President. You must be elected and meet the qualifications. Those qualifications do not descriminate against a protected class.
Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not affected. In addition, Vattel’s definition does not descriminate against a protected class?
BVM writes: Print out a copy of Obama’s COLB and drop by the DMV in your city … see for yourself. They won’t accept it as proof of birth. They aren’t Obama fools
you really don’t ever get tired of this, do you? One might expect that any normal person, finding such opposition to a crazy idea would either drop it or go find other like minded folks instead of doing what you do.
let me ask you this: would you be so involved in this hysteria if Obama were white?
Vattel’s definition was not affected by a constitutional amendment, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
When did the people ratify Vattel?
Wow!
Gyges writes: Is it just me or did BMV just predict a coup d’état?
hmmmm….. I don’t think its just you…. unless BVM doesn’t know that the military works for the president…..
“When did the people ratify Vattel?
Wow!”
*************
Viva, Vattel! oops, that was Zapata.
GWLSM said “to my belief that this whole thing is racially motivated”
OK. I’ll play the game. Let’s say it is racially motivated. But just in case; let’s also say that it’s politically motivated, anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-lawyer, anti-hope and anti-change, et al. I don’t want to miss any.
So what? A legitimate constitutional question about the qualifications of the President exist for the first time in our life, a question that should be decided…once and for all, and you want to ignore it? Why? Don’t you trust our Court?
If you have that little faith in our system of laws, you might as well give up. The only correct decisions aren’t just those with which you agree.
Tell me. Why do you think the President would endure all this controversy just to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from public view? Think about it. Who would let this continue when it can be so easily resolved? Haven’t you figured out that there is more to this than our President wants us to know? If his BC is as he claims…he should be proud to show it. -One call to the Governor of Hawaii and I’m sure it would be released.
In turn…When did the people ratify the common law of England?
When did the people ratify Judicial Review? At least in my case the words exist to be defined.
“The people” did not ratify the Constitution. It was adopted by members of the state conventions. While I don’t have information from all the states, I can tell you that North Carolina had 268 attendees. Could 264 people in North Carolina have been familiar with Vattel? That would be reasonable. Many people on the plantaions studied the law.
JB: “The people” did not ratify the Constitution. It was adopted by members of the state conventions.”
That’s right. And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President.
Look people don’t you get it already? BVM is just a moron, who did call for a coup d’etat. Jim Byrne, however, is something else entirely. He is playing a game and he’s got you playing on his board, so he keeps going and no matter how logically you demolish his foolishness, he just dances around it and gets you repeating points where you’ve already demolished his idiocy with many posts before. As I showed by dissecting his posts this is someone who has an axe to grind but is so dishonest and dishonorable that he plays games with us.
You see the disingenuous always have an advantage in a debate with the earnest. The why is obvious. He doesn’t hesitate to dissemble when each of his points are destroyed. What can we learn though about Jim Byrne despite his penchant for disingenuity?
1. He is a birther, but more cerebral than the norm, that is obvious.
2. He believes in interpreting the Constitution strictly based on the Founder’s Intent view, which would put him four square with the Federalist Society.
3. He believes that Constitutionally women are less than men despite the 19th Amendment which he interprets in a most curious manner.
4. He is perhaps a creature of the crazy right wing, but perhaps too he could be a libertarian. You see we can’t know because that is part of his game.
5. He professes to be a military man and even has used it as a club to express some higher knowledge of truth by his service. If he was in the military he did not serve in combat.
6. You will never win a debate with him, even though his points are weak and stupid, but simply because he ignores it when he is bested. If you think I’m wrong read all of the posts on the thread and see where when a telling point is made he simply responds in a non-responsive fashion.
We all must remember that this is a man who claims monsieur Vattel was the primary influence on our Constitution, which is a concept of monumental stupidity, save for the fact that its’ beholder is a true believer in his Federalist Society polemics. The society was begun by a group including Edwin Meese, Robert Bork, Ted Olson and Steven Calabresi, and its members have included Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Jr. and Samuel Alito. You know the society by its founders, who are true believers in their dogma, but many of whom have shown that despite the dogma, they also like to enrich themselves and take opposing points of view when it suits their politics. They are disingenuous men like Jim
Byrne.
However, were that all,one could justly say that well one may disagree`with them, but they’ve got their right to their opinion. That would be true as far as it went were it not for the fact that at root their beliefs are anti-democracy. Count the times Jim has alluded to this and I take him at his word.
The Federalists and Jim basically believe in the rule of plutocracy, an elite, because the unwashed masses don’t have the intelligence to govern themselves. Look back again to his musings on the 19th Amendment and ponder if you will what is behind it.
Now many have questioned his kindred spirit BVM’s word construction that seemed to call for a military coup and you were right to do so. Don’t be too sure that this isn’t also Jim Byrne’s game, but he is somewhat smarter than BVM, who is an idiot. A coup is the end game of the birther movement, pure and simple. If you think this is folly then check out the life of General Smedley Butler, who testified to congress that he was approached by a group of wealthy industrialists urging him to lead a coup against FDR. The committee he testified before in its final report took his charges as credible.
While Vince, Mike A and Slartibartfast are able debaters, I too have some skills in that area and frankly Jim is any easy
person to take apart, other than he concedes nothing, so entrenched is he in his delusion of righteousness. However, at some point it became obvious to me the game he was playing, which includes his sincere beliefs, but doesn’t include the ability to absorb contrary viewpoints. At that point I realized that by taking his nonsense seriously, you are giving him more credibility and recognition than he deserves. You cannot out debate someone who will never admit defeat and instead claim victory, despite having their ideas demolished.
We may all be justly proud of our debating skills, but never forget that debate only works when all the parties to it are honorable and honest. Without that the demagogue always wins simply because the demagogue is bound by no rules of fairness.
If you think I’m being melodramatic think back on the last 29 years, it actually goes back much farther of course, and see how the national discussion has gone, observing how demagoguery has carried the day. Jim Byrne is a demagogue and so your sterling proofs fall on deaf ears. By the way when you agree to disagree with him, you are then giving his nonsense credence.
This is a good conversation. I always like people picking up the “Devil’s Advocate” baton for the sake of a quality debate and I doubt anyone really thinks Obama is illegitimate as a N.B.C. Surely?
hidflect,
Read all of Jim Byrnes post’s and discover that yes he does think the President is illegitimate.
Bob,Esq. said; “And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.
Honest people don’t hide information that would provide a defense unless the information contaains something they don’t want the public to know. This whole..because I don’t gotta bullcrap is childish. President Obama needs to stop hiding. -Or should we call him Dick Cheney II?
From the JAG Hunter:
FEDERAL ARREST OF TREASONER OBAMA IS CREDIBLY REPORTED TO OCCUR IN 60 TO 90 DAYS!
Reports have been coming in for several days that the IMPOSTOR OBAMA will be placed under federal arrest in anywhere from 60 to 90 days for TREASON!
WELL DONE to AMERICA’S GRAND JURIES!
OBAMA’S is to be the first of tens if not hundreds of arrests of OBAMA’S TREASONOUS CRIMINAL ASSISTANTS!
Details emerging suggest that military commanders are refusing to obey OBAMA’s orders recognizing OBAMA as a TREASONOUS foreign born domestic enemy.
Congressman / Judge Ted Poe says COLB is not a birth certificate, Obama has not produced a birth certificate.
The people ratified the Constitution through and by means of conventions called for the purpose, and have rataified all amendments either by legislature or convention. This country is a “representative” republic. That is how the people act.
The real issue can be reframed. When was Vattel ratified as part of the Constitution by any means whatsoever.
And one more time. To understand the meaning of many terms in the Constitution, consult the common law at the time. If someone wants a civil jury trial, it must be a suit a common law. 7th Amd. What is a suit at common law? Consult the common law.
MODERATORS
BVM FELONY IDENTITY POST SHOULD BE REMOVED
It violates the rules of civility at this site.
It contains no reasoning, only wild charges that are false, inflamatory and possibly defamatory. The posting charges treason, criminal activity, and mutiny in the armed forces, wrongly, and with reckless disregard of truth or falsity.
The fraudulent fake “grand jury” was summarily kicked out of court in the District of Columbia.
Folks here should take a look at military.com. A lot of posters there, like the paratrooper quoted above, were severely underimpressed by civilian citizen Cook who sued to stop the deployment he himself “volunteered” for.
“Congressman / Judge Ted Poe says COLB is not a birth certificate, Obama has not produced a birth certificate.”
That is a lie, and lies will be challenged here. The COLB is a legal birth certificate, valid in Hawaii and all other states.
The BIG LIE technique. Keep repeating a lie until people bleieve it.
And since this is a legal blog, here is the defintion from federal law of the standards for a birth certificate:
SEC. 7211. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
Contents
(a) Definition.–In this section, the term “birth
certificate” means a certificate of birth–
(1) for an individual (regardless of where born)–
(A) who is a citizen or national of the
United States at birth; and
(B) whose birth is registered in the United
States; and
(2) that–
(A) is issued by a Federal, State, or local
government agency or authorized custodian of
record and produced from birth records
maintained by such agency or custodian of
record; or
(B) is an authenticated copy, issued by a
Federal, State, or local government agency or
authorized custodian of record, of an original
certificate of birth issued by such agency or
custodian of record.
The COLB meets all of the requirement of this section, enacted as part of the terrorism laws to standardize birth certificates across the country.
It was issued by an agency, by the authorized custodian, based on the birth records of the agency.
From Military.com
“Officer Calls Obama ‘Usurper’ President”
http://www.military.com/news/article/February-2009/officer-calls-obama-usurper-imposter-president.html?col=1186032325324
Byrne, is there any scholarly research in the records of the debates of the 13 ratifying conventions that has found any indication that the conventions considered Vattel on the issue of natural born citizen?
“With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.”
When and where did this “refusal” take place? Any links or cites?
Once again, Hawaii does not issue any so called vault or long form certificates to anyone any more, and I have linked to the sources.
The campaign has released everything that the state will release.
The COLB that was released is in full compliance with the existing federal law, quoted above.
Byrne has said that Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii, because his father was not a citizen.
So what is the point of seeing the birth records?
Even if more records are released and prove birth in the US, he will still challenge Obama’s legitmacy.
So the question: Why the concern about the certificate?
The burden was on Obama to prove birth, He produced the evidence. He had nothing to hide. None of the other canditates showed any certificate at all.
Is everyone really sure that G W Bush was natural born? How do you know? Seen his bc? Because he is a very credible person?
The COLB will be valid for all purposes under the proposed bill if Obama chooses to run for reelection in 2012, because it is valid under existing federal law.
Of course, no one HAS to “beleive” any of this.
A computerized image of the Certification of life birth for Mr. Obama and Certification of Selective Service in statements from experts, show these documents to exhibit numerous signs of forgery. Adding to the forgery charges for 50 ststes there are numerous counts of suspected fraud, voter fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, corruption of a public official, intimidation, interference with the system of justice, social security fraud, tax fraud, perjury and other related crimes.
Please see http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1 and http://www.orlytaitzesq.com for evidence.
I second Vince’s call for BVM’s censure.
He’s had his spam, er, say.
Bil, welcome back to this thread. I am very sorry for your loss.
BVM, Nothing that Orly Taitz says can be relied on. Most of her court pleadings contain patently false information. She is still telling courts that Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1961 when an official State Dept notice said they could get visas.
“Bob,Esq. said; “And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
Byrne: That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
Bob is telling the truth. Byrne has no basis to call him a liar, and personal attacks like that do not belong here.
I have posted the federal law. The COLB has been examined by independent reporters. It is an official document that is prima facie evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and because he was born a US citizen, he is a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.
BTW, BVM is a shopping mall, not a person, so he she or it cannot by definition be the subject of a “personal” attack. lol
Byrne: “When did the people ratify Judicial Review?.”
I do not think you want to go down this road. You seem to say that the words judicial review are not in the Constitution, so they could not be ratified.
Then you say “At least in my case the words exist to be defined.”
What words? You claim that a NBC must have US citizen parents, or a US citizen father, or maybe even natural born US citizen parents. But those words are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and were never ratified.
There is nothing that says the President must be a natural born citizen “born to citizens.” There is nothing in the contemporary records to support this. We know the framers were concerned about foreign born grown up princes or generals. And the 14th Amendment settled all doubts by saying that all persons born or naturalized are citizens. You are either a citizen by birth or a citizen by naturalization, one or the other, and if you are born here, subject to our jurisdiction, then you are a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen.
How do you find the meaning of habeas corpus in the Constitution? Bill of attainder? Corruption of blood? Marque and reprisal? Look at the common law. Even poor ignorant Apuzzi looked for the common law definition of natural born citizen. He just looked in the wrong place. He looked in Vattel for the common law. Vattel was not a common law authority.
The birthers are trashing the Constitution by trying to put words and requirements in it that are not there, and were never intended to be there. This entire parental requirement argument itself is less that a year old.
“Keep your stinking paws off my Constitution you damn dirty birthers!”
The synopsis posted by Mike S. pretty much hits the nail on the head. If one reviews the posts on this and other threads relating to the birther controversy, certain patterns emerge:
1. The accusers are all anonymous.
2. While defenders of the president’s legitimacy have cited numerous historical and legal sources, the accusers, including Mr. Byrne, continue to rely on a single statement from a single author on a matter wholly unrelated to the constitutional provision in question.
3. The accusers, including Mr. Byrne, repeat in verbatim fashion what is published on anonymous web sites, but never resort to original sources for any of their debating points. I would be willing to bet that Mr. Byrne had never even heard of Vattel prior to this controversy and has never read any of his work.
4. The accusers, including Mr. Byrne, refuse to respond to any questions posed by others, choosing instead to either change the topic or repeat what they have already said. There are a number of instances on this thread in which Mr. Byrne, after I and others had responded in detail to one of his queries, has declined to address questions posed to him.
5. The accusers make assertions which they know to be false. In the case of Mr. Byrne, he has falsely stated that the law of nations is the basis of the internal laws of this country. He has also falsely stated that English common law is not the foundation of American jurisprudence and constitutional principles.
6. The accusers embrace as a hero a lady with a mail-away law degree whose legal credentials are as phony as her hair color and who is already the subject of pending bar disciplinary proceedings in California.
7. The accusers wrap their arguments in the flag, claiming to be motivated solely by patriotism. As Samuel Johnson reminded us almost 300 years ago, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
8. The accusers have used emotionalism unfettered by logic to stir the anger of the ignorant and the fearful. Did anyone note the pathetic appeal of the woman in the Delaware town hall meeting video, a woman whose entire argument was the tiny flag she held in her hand, her father’s service during World War II and her own birth certificate issued to her, as she said, by the United States government?
9. The accusers have enlisted the assistance of the most wretched of haters, people such as “BVM the Unknown,” who openly call for a military takeover and who are so delusional that they actually believe that U.S. marshals will be ringing the door bell at the White House in a few weeks with an arrest warrant. In the past, such people were typically admitted for observation by trained psychiatrists.
But perhaps most galling of all, the accusers continue to insist that if the president had nothing to hide, he would simply “come clean” to satisfy their hunger for the truth and erase their fears of usurpation. What presumptuous nonsense! No man has either a moral or legal obligation to “prove” his innocence of the fabricated claims of lynch mobs. No man has either a moral or legal obligation to dignify bad faith by acknowledgment or response.
Reason and logic are the only tools for honest debate. We are fools if we believe we can engage in serious discussion of serious issues with the residents of Bedlam.
Very well said, Mike.
In the meantime, birthers, please direct me to the long form vault birth certificates of G H W Bush and G W Bush showing date and time and hospital of birth, names of delivering physicians or midwives, names and birth dates and citizenship of both parents, and names of all family pets.
What’s that? You say that no one has questioned their natural born status?
Well, I am questioning it.
Now, cough them up.
Vince said; “Byrne, is there any scholarly research in the records of the debates of the 13 ratifying conventions that has found any indication that the conventions considered Vattel on the issue of natural born citizen?”
DO you really want to go there? Are you willing to apply your premise to all things in our Constitution? If record of debate, at the state conventions, on a single subject of the Constitution, does not exist, or the origin of the wording was not discussed, are you willing to consider that portion to have never been ratified?
Debate -at the state conventions was limited to those particular provisions in which there was confusion or disagreement.
Just so you don’t claim that I wouldn’t answer your question; I have no record of Vattel, or any other author, being discussed at the state conventions with regard to the subject of natural born citizen. However, the U.S. Constitution was adopted as a complete piece of work. As such, we must look to the records of the Constitutional Convention. Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.
Byrne: “Vince, did you vote for President Obama?”
None of your business. You don’t have to believe anything I say, anyway, since I do not care what you believe, or who you voted for, and I am not posting here for your benefit.
I am posting for all the other readers of this blog, not for you, and I address your posts only to correct them so that misinformation does not go unanswered, and my posts stand on their own merit, not on authority.
“Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.”
Where was Vattel used on the issue of natural born citizen at the Constitutional Convention?
“Records of the Constitutional Convention indicate that Vattel was recognized and used…even in the Declaration of Independence.”
Just to clarify for the readers, the Constitutional Convention adopted the Constitution, not the Declaration.
BVM,
You are a moron and a traitor and I assume that people will be coming to lock you up soon. Lucky for you it will probably be for a mental institution, rather than a Federal Prison. You don’t realize that you are calling for a military coup? You are really that ignorant.
Vince,
I am posting for all the other readers of this blog, not for you, and I address your posts only to correct them so that misinformation does not go unanswered, and my posts stand on their own merit, not on authority.
Byrne: “I am posting for all the other readers of this blog….”
Very well written, and on this point, I agree with you.
“Where was Vattel used on the issue of natural born citizen at the Constitutional Convention?”
One need only look at the words in order to find the source.
I have repeatedly asked for presentation of an alternative source. None has been provided, and none will be provided.
Bob,Esq. said;
“And the STATE of Hawaii, i.e. acting on EQUAL FOOTING as the 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES, has certified that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen to serve as President”
Jim Byrne: “That’s an outright lie Bob. Hawaii has not certified that Obama is qualified as a natural born citizen to serve as President.
With Obama’s refusal to permit the Governor of Hawaii to release his birth certificate from the vault, I’m even willing to question his status as a citizen.”
Oh yes they did.
Sorry Jim, but Birth Certificates didn’t exist at the time of the framing or ratifying of the constitution; they didn’t come into existence IN THE WORLD until 70 years later. Thus your ‘added’ requirement of producing a ‘birth certificate’ to prove Natural Born Citizenship is wholly of your own making; since the Founders NEVER CONTEMPLATED IT NOR REQUIRED IT.
Accordingly, even if your claim is true, that Obama somehow blocked the revelation of this birth certificate, such alleged concealment of a CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT DOCUMENT is meaningless in light of the STATE OF HAWAII’s standing to certify that Obama is qualified to serve as President.
STATES elect presidents. Accordingly, unless you can find a state that agrees with your allegations that Obama is not a NBC, it would appear you have no standing to waste word one to the contrary.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Bob
Vince said; “In the meantime, birthers, please direct me to the long form vault birth certificates of G H W Bush and G W Bush showing date and time and hospital of birth, names of delivering physicians or midwives, names and birth dates and citizenship of both parents, and names of all family pets.”
I am all for both Bush’s providing their certificate of live birth. I’ll just on board, Vince. If Barack Obama is to provide his, all living former-Presidents should be required to provide theirs.
That’s reasonable.
Just one further word to signify the stupidity of this debate by Jim, his pals the Federalists and the birthers. Monsieur Vattel was a good man and disciple of Liebniz, a great man and great genius. He was primarily a philosopher. A Natural Philosopher.
Natural Philosophy was a movement that gained impetus around 1650 all over Europe and Britain and was a reaction to the despotism of monarchies and religion. It was the springboard of the Enlightenment and the sciences and our Founding Fathers were predominantly followers and/or Natural Philosophers. It was from this modernist idea that sprang the American Revolution.
Jim and his pals use Vattel, but in truth are opponents of the Enlightenment and thus Natural Philosophy that spawned it. That is part of the age old American debate between plutocrats like Jim and the Federalists and people who are intellectual descendants of the Enlightenment.
This is not only the irony of this whole debate, it also highlights the ignorance of Jim and his birther comrades. Notice I used ignorance rather than stupidity. Jim is far from stupid, but he has little idea of the concepts he deals with, not out of incomprehension, but directly caused by the disability of not being able to see any point of view besides his own rigidly held beliefs. This is ignorance, whether it be in Jim, Anton Scalia, Robert Bork or even many Left Wing radicals like Howard Zinn. Unfortunately, in this dangerous world smart men who are ignorant, are ignorantly lethal.
Mike Appleton,
Thought you might like this:
Jon Stewart Eviscerates The ‘Birther’ Movement (VIDEO)
“In a lengthy opening segment, Jon Stewart took on “birthers” last night, mocking their internal leadership and the media figures and politicians who support them. ….”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/23/jon-stewart-eviscerates-t_n_243383.html
Vince T., Jim Byrne is misrepresenting once again previous posts on this blog. I specifically cited him to Blackstone and his response was that “citizen” and “subject” are not the same thing. I then explained that the Founders used the word “citizen” rather than “subject” because they were forming a republic rather than a monarchy. I also cited references to Chancellor Kent’s work and to that of Joseph Story, which he ignored. I asked if he had read any of the cases in the Cranch law reports citing Vattel, and he did not respond, meaning that he hasn’t read any of those cases and has no idea what the context was for any of the citations he refers to. To give Mr. Byrne a little bit more of historical context, but with the knowledge that he will ignore it, I refer him to the early North Carolina case of State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 122, in which the court noted that in the United States the word “citizen” is analogous to the word “subject” in the common law, and that our use of the former term has resulted from our changing the form of government.
Hey you Obama fools:
I hope and expect soon Obama will be arrested by the military as an usurper, traitor, war criminal, forger, etc. At that time the members of Congress, et al who served as his
co-conspirators will be arrested too. Then a Military Commission will be appointed to function as a care giver government until new elections are held.
BVM, I believe you are confusing the U.S. with Honduras. Keep your geography straight.
“Then a Military Commission will be appointed to function as a care giver government until new elections are held.”
Buena Vista Mall is a traitor to the United States and I suspect an agent of anti-America terrorists.
Jim Byrne is a supporter of Buena Vista Mall.
Thanks for removing any doubts about the Coup issue.
In looking up more on coup, I found an interesting thing about Coup d’état: what Julius Caesar, and Napoleon were Coups. There is such a thing as a self coup, that is one in which the establish government takes on extra non-constitutional powers with the help of the military.
Byrne; “One need only look at the words in order to find the source. I have repeatedly asked for presentation of an alternative source. None has been provided, and none will be provided.”
Everybody. How does one find a source by looking at words?
He has repeated asked for an alternative source to Vattel. He has been repeatedly been referred in great detail by Mike Appleton and others to the existing common law at the time of the Declaration and the Constitution. Under the common law, all persons born in the realm were citizens. The common law is the source of the meaning of many of the terms in the Constitution, and that includes natural born citizen. We still have not seen any framer who referred to Vattel on citizenship. It is just assumed that since Vattel’s books were in the States, then he was the source of the meaning of the clause. That is a long, long, loooooonnnng leap from premise to conclusion. It is an Olympic record in conclusion jumping.
And Benji Franklin above performed a valuable service for everyone when he discovered that the stuff that Vattel wrote and that Story or Marshall read may not even have been translated into English until 1797.
And finally in the post above about sec 212 at July 19, 10:40 PM, Byrne quoted Vattel:
“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent….I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” That doctrine is not the law in the United States, and has never been the law in the United States, even though it may have been Swiss law, since I think Vattel was Swiss. So why is anyone looking to Vattel as authority? When Vattel wrote “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” he was perhaps talking about the Swiss and other continental countries. He could not possible be talking about the United States in 1758. The Constitution as first adopted did not address the issue of citizenship, leaving that to the states under the federal system, but state laws recognized persons born in the United States as citizens. So the reliance on Vattel is misplaced.
He can find abundant information at obamaconspiracy.com.
One just has to look in the right places.
“Looking for love in all the wrong places.”
We call for the arrests of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, et al for Treason, War Crimes, Fraud and a multitude of other charges.
To give just one more example of Orly’s idiocy, here is a typical filing:
Q
(33) However, Barack Hussein Obama, in order to prove his constitutional eligibility to serve as President, basically needs only produce a single unique historical document for the Plaintiff’s inspection and authentication: namely, the “long-form” birth certificate which will confirm whether Barack Hussein Obama was in fact born to parents who were both citizens of the United States in Honolulu, Hawaii, in or about 1961.
UQ
Anybody, anybody, out there got a birth certificate that lists the “citizenship” of the parents?
We will wait.
BVM=moron and traitor
Is Orly Taitz a US citizen. She seems to have a thick un-American accent. Where are her papers and is she here legally?
BVM, please call. Your room is ready.
I call for the arrest and prosecution of BVM for unlawfully converting to his own use and benefit the acronym of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
O.K. Mr. Appleton, but what about Jesus? Where was his father born? Was Jesus a NBC of anywhere?
Byrne himself linked to a guy named Greshak who actually posted Blackstone’s commentary on the laws of England. That is clearly an alternative source to Vattel. Why does he say no one has shown an alterntive to Vattel?
quote
William Blackstone at Oxford…
THE firft and moft obvious divifion of the people is into aliens and natural-born fubjects. Natural-born fubjects are fuch as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, fuch as are born out of it.
Also, there is the following passage from the same work:
Natural allegiance is fuch as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth. For, immediately upon their birth, they are under the king’s protection; at a time too, when (during their infancy) they are incapable of protecting themfelves.
Mike A.,
Yes. I read other citations of Vattel in Cranch. The most applicable is Chief Justice Marshall’s recognition of Vattel on the subject of citizens.
I provided you with the Black’s Dictionary of Law, First Edition (1891) definition of subject to demonstrate the legal difference between subject and citizen. Here; I’ll repost it.
“A “subject”, in constitutional law, is one that owes allegiance to a sovereign, and is governed by his laws. Men of free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.”
Are you really suggesting that a North Carolina court’s decision should be controlling?
When I drive thru North Carolina am I a subject or a citizen? I am subject to their laws, but I don’t have the right to vote. Clearly, their must be a difference between subject and citizen.
Jim Byrne, don’t be silly. I specifically stated that the North Carolina decision was intended to provide “historical context” for the point that in applying the English common law definition of citizenship, the Founders treated the words “subject” and “citizen” as essentially interchangeable. The court in the North Carolina case acknowledged that understanding.
Byrne, try to learn from Mike before asking questions.
The definition from Black’s says that people are “subjects as well as citizens.”
Think about it. Some persons are both subjects and citizens.
But how about a lawfully admitted resident alien awaiting citizenship? That person is a subject, since she has left her old country and is fully subject to the laws of the United States. She is not yet a citizen. So that is the difference.
Also learn that the state court decisions were controlling on citizenship before the 14th Amendment.
And subject and citizen can be interchangeable. The British jurisdictions are now using citizen in place of subject to get away from the idea of subjecttion to a monarch.
BTW, still not addressing the fact that Vattel does not seem to be relied upon in the Cranch reports on the topic on natural born citizenship. Just because he is right on one topic does not make him right on everything.
Finally, still not anwering the point that there WERE sources of the meaning of “natural born” other than Vattel. He was not the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET that wrote about the topic, or whose writings were available to the framers.
Still waiting for anybody with a long form BC that lists the citizenship of parents.
Jim Byrne, one further point. We do not have “subjects” in this country in the monarchical sense, as you well know. We also have two tiers of citizenship, in recognition of the limited sovereignty of the individual states. Therefore, your reference to being “subject” to the laws of North Carolina while not being a “citizen” of that state has no relevancy to the issue.
Vince and Mike A.,
I believe that the term “natural born citizen” is a term of art. As such, the words cannot be separated. It is evident that Vince and Mike A. do not consider “natural born citizen” to be a term of art. The question is; will a court of law agree with their conclusion or my conclusion? -That is yet to be determined, and will not be decided on this blawg.
IF, a court determines that “natural born citizen” is a legal term of art, they will look for a definition of that EXACT TERM. Vattel’s is the only one that matches that EXACT TERM.
A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning. Terms of art abound in the law. For example, the phrase double jeopardy can be used in common parlance to describe any situation that poses two risks. In the law, Double Jeopardy refers specifically to an impermissible second trial of a defendant for the same offense that gave rise to the first trial.
The classification of a word or phrase as a term of art can have legal consequences. Since this has been a recent topic of discussion on Professor Turley’s Blawg, let’s examine Molzof. In Molzof v. United States, 502 U.S. 301, 112 S. Ct. 711, 116 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1992), Shirley M. Molzof brought suit against the federal government after her husband, Robert E. Molzof, suffered irreversible brain damage while under the care of government hospital workers. The federal government conceded liability, and the parties tried the issue of damages before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Molzof had brought the claim as executor of her husband’s estate under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346(b), 2671–2680 [1988]), which prohibits the assessment of Punitive Damages against the federal government. The court granted recovery to Molzof for her husband’s injuries that resulted from the Negligence of federal employees, but it denied recovery for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life. According to the court, such damages were punitive damages, which could not be recovered against the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. According to the Court, punitive damages is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning under state law. Congress was aware of this meaning at the time it passed the FTCA. Under traditional common-law principles, punitive damages are designed to punish a party. Since damages for future medical expenses and for loss of enjoyment of life were meant to compensate Molzof rather than punish the government, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit.
States elect presidents.
Individuals lack standing to intervene in issues between the states.
Birth Certificates are non-dispositive and ultimately constitutionally irrelevant.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-status/#comment-69625
Jim Byrne writes: OK. I’ll play the game. Let’s say it is racially motivated. But just in case; let’s also say that it’s politically motivated, anti-christian, anti-muslim, anti-lawyer, anti-hope and anti-change, et al. I don’t want to miss any.
me: what makes you think that smarter people than you and I have not already authenticated the president’s legitimacy? and why do we have to throw in all these other ways of looking at what is motivating this birher stuff? if you followed the campaign at all and I did, there is a large straight line from all those hysterical anti-obama folks at palin rallies screaming that he is an arab and a terrorist to this. they failed. he was elected and sworn in and all they can do is wait 4 years. maybe 8. and even then, who is there to take his place? which uptight, screwed up, republican adulterer do you have in mind? some one from The Family? those holier than thou shamelessly craven polls who believe that god is their bitch?
ask yourself this: if Obama were white would this be happening? I dont think so
Jim: So what? A legitimate constitutional question about the qualifications of the President exist for the first time in our life, a question that should be decided…once and for all, and you want to ignore it? Why? Don’t you trust our Court?
me: do you? The Court already decided it wasn’t going to hear this. And Obamas birth certificate was already authenticated. its done. its over. He is the president. don’t like it? that is your right. Find anothe candidate. Work for him or her and maybe you will be successful in 2012. anyway, do I trust the court? no. hell no. I like some of the decisions they have made and I dislike others. Roger Taney who wrote the majority in the Dredd Scott decision was an unreconstructed bigot who created the basis for all modern race relations and it all comes to race in American, every time. A black president calls a police action against a decent moderate head of a Harvard black studies department stupid and looky looky…. it is suddenly a lightening bolt for every flag waving anti-black voice in american who will certainly use this in the mid-terms as proof that Obama is a militant who wants black men to rape their sisters.
Jim: If you have that little faith in our system of laws, you might as well give up. The only correct decisions aren’t just those with which you agree.
Me: huh?
Jim: Tell me. Why do you think the President would endure all this controversy just to keep the vault copy of his birth certificate from public view? Think about it. Who would let this continue when it can be so easily resolved? Haven’t you figured out that there is more to this than our President wants us to know? If his BC is as he claims…he should be proud to show it. -One call to the Governor of Hawaii and I’m sure it would be released.
Me: it has been solved. its over. you wanna call the governor of hawaii? knock yourself out.
Bob,Esq.,
The election is not being challenged. Your point is therefore moot.
Does the Constitution provide for the possibility of one being elected, but not meeting the qualifications? -See the Twentieth Amendment.
GWLSM said; “if Obama were white would this be happening? I dont think so”
Yes it would. I would hold the same position.
MIke S writes: Jim Byrne, however, is something else entirely. He is playing a game and he’s got you playing on his board, so he keeps going and no matter how logically you demolish his foolishness, he just dances around it and gets you repeating points where you’ve already demolished his idiocy with many posts before. As I showed by dissecting his posts this is someone who has an axe to grind but is so dishonest and dishonorable that he plays games with us.
Me: Mike. this is the way I see it. everyone needs a hobby and this is Jim’s. It’s also my hobby and there have been lots of folk here who dont care for my opinions either. At the end of the day he is the one stuck with a president he doesn’t like and stuck talking to people he doesn’t respect. I’d say that is a collossal waste of time, but, who am I to tell Jim how to spend his days? I kind of like his sense of outrage and love standing on the side of the winner for a change. After 8 years of Bushco, this feels really good.
MIke: You see the disingenuous always have an advantage in a debate with the earnest. The why is obvious. He doesn’t hesitate to dissemble when each of his points are destroyed. What can we learn though about Jim Byrne despite his penchant for disingenuity?
me Nah.he doesn’t have an advantage. he is just persistent. perseverating, if you will.
1. He is a birther, but more cerebral than the norm, that is obvious.
2. He believes in interpreting the Constitution strictly based on the Founder’s Intent view, which would put him four square with the Federalist Society.
me: maybe he’s a racist too. I don’t care about that. he has no power here or anywhere else. so he’s annoying and doesnt get that his ideas only make him laughable. this does not win him anything. not even respect.
Mike: 3. He believes that Constitutionally women are less than men despite the 19th Amendment which he interprets in a most curious manner.
me: well we are. until we earn what men earn, until we can raise our children with enough to eat everyday, until we can go where we want and do what we want and say what we want without being called bitches or whores for having ideas that men have, for being successful, we are not equal. the constitution might grant us equal rights. doesn’t mean we have them.
Mike:
6. You will never win a debate with him, even though his points are weak and stupid, but simply because he ignores it when he is bested. If you think I’m wrong read all of the posts on the thread and see where when a telling point is made he simply responds in a non-responsive fashion.
me: i don’t debate. I just respond with my own ideas. I’m not in it to win I just like writing about stuff. JIm is not my enemy. I don’t want to invite him for cocktails. He doesn’t seem like my kind of guy. He isn’t temperate, doesn’t have a sense of humor. probably isn’t very good looking.
I don’t respect him. But I don’t care if he comes here or not. For every Jim who comes here there are thousands of others who do not. I learned a longtime ago that some people like this for the combat. some like it for attention. some like it to control others. some do this to make friends. Me? I like it for the entertainment and to hear the ideas of people that I really respect. sadly I also get to hear the ideas from people I don’t respect and who do not entertain me.
in the end. shouldnt it just be fun?
Vince asks: Anybody, anybody, out there got a birth certificate that lists the “citizenship” of the parents?
We will wait.
me: just went and checked. nope. just mom’s name and dad’s name. address. little raised seal in corner. place of birth. date and time, footprint. name.
my name, gwlawschoolmom.
anyone want to deport me? tell me I can’t vote?
Jim Byrne:
“The election is not being challenged. Your point is therefore moot.”
While you may have used the term ‘moot,’ you’re not at all familiar with the doctrine of Justiciability are you? How exactly are you harmed in the same degree as the states of this union by Obama not being a NBC?
“Does the Constitution provide for the possibility of one being elected, but not meeting the qualifications? -See the Twentieth Amendment.”
Actually, that did happen in 2000, when SCOTUS appointed Bush thereby triggering the 12th, 20th, 22nd & 25th amendments.
That too would have been a battle between the States; but it didn’t happen.
You on the other hand suffer from the delusion that you, as an individual, enjoy as much standing as a State with equal footing as the 13 Original Colonies. Get over yourself.
Jim Byrne posted a legal discussion, starting with “A term of art is a word or phrase that has a particular meaning….”
I liked it better at one of the many websites where the verbatim discussion has also appeared, for example:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Term+of+Art
There is another legal term of art that folks should know about: plagiarism.
QUOTE Passing off someone else’s work as your own, whether word for word or merely the creative ideas. This can amount to copyright infringement if permission has not been obtained from the copyright owner for use of the expressive elements of the work. Even if permission is granted, putting your name on someone else’s work is still plagiarism and is unethical within artistic, scientific, academic and political communities. UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/F88F0800-C164-445B-8AC254D1108F4E5A/alpha/P/
Bob,Esq.,
“You on the other hand suffer from the delusion that you, as an individual, enjoy as much standing as a State with equal footing as the 13 Original Colonies. Get over yourself.”
Where did you get the idea that I have claimed standing?
By the way
With 49 States having assented to Hawaii’s assertion that Obama is a natural born citizen…
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Assuming you had the same standing as a State on the issue you attempt to raise, your argument fails to rise any higher than multiple forms of argumentum ad ignorantiam. 50 dollar philospher speak for horse shi+.
There is another legal concept: a distinction without a legal difference. The distinction between natural born subject and natural born citizen is a distinction without a difference, since the terms citizen and subject in context meant the same thing.
The courts are not likely to limit an inquiry about NBC to exact matches, and will usually look for legal substance rather than verbal form in resolving an issue.
Also, “natural born” may well be the legal term of art here.
Bob esq
next time… a spew warning, please…although it is jon stewart so I should have known that my cosmopolitan would be sprayed all over my computer screen.
Have fun kids. I have beeter things to do than be personally attacked.
If you want to have a group of “pile-ons”, that is your choice, and Professor Turley’s choice.
I will return if/when personally invited to do so from Professor Turley.
Good day.
Jim Byrne writes: Yes it would. I would hold the same position.
me: where were you 8 years ago? 4 years ago? 16 years ago? ever think to check that Bush’s BC was valid? reagan’s?
no. of course not. they looked american. they talked american. they were/are white. oh and republicans. right thinking men. uptight. just your kind of guys.
Byrne: “I will return if/when personally invited to do so from Professor Turley. Good day.”
OK
For bil, gyges and all other science fiction buffs out there, I can now get back to BBC America, Torchwood, Children of Earth, 5-part series this week and DVD by the end of July, maybe SyFy later. Great, great TV SF.
Jim Byrne: “Have fun kids. I have beeter things to do than be personally attacked.”
I didn’t attack you personally, I personally showed you how dumb your argument is.
Vince,
I never thought Science Fiction in general translates well to visual media. The focus tends to be too much on “look at how cool this is” as opposed to “look at this great plot that uses fantastic elements to highlight some aspects of humanity.” Lem would tell you that’s just a problem with American Sci-fi in general.
You guys give BVM a hard time but he knows what he is talking about. FEMA NLE 09 starts next week. They are preparing for a wide range of scenarios. Even if you do not live in a hurricane prone area stock up on your provisions. Martial law is just around the corner. Listen to BVM now and believe him later. I may Bdaman but you is daman.
There are two scenarios that FEMA is concerned with. These two scenarios has promted FEMA to produce a document called the C and R report. This document was said to have been circulated among senior members of congress including Nancy Pelosi. It’s called C and R because C stands for Conflict and R stands for Revolt, these are the two scenarios. Under the conflict scenario, this is where the United States defaults on the loans made by China and other countries and the United States effectively cancels it’s debt starting a major conflict with those countries. If anyone believes that China just lent us money under the current economic conditions as a goodwill gesture, I got news for you. China recieved assurances, plus collateral.
The R scenario is one where taxes are levied at such a high rate that Americans in this country revolt.(can you say T-Party) Now it has been said that these bills (cap and trade, health care) that are trying to be passed, are tax generating bills. The money collected from higher taxes would go quickly to pay down the debt. This maybe why they are trying to rush everything thru without reading it.
Just a note: The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team known as BCT to the Northern Command’s U.S. Army North will augment FEMA and federal law enforcement. This Brigade will be given the Army’s full arsenal of non-lethal weapons to train with. These weapons are designed for command and control of unruly crowds or mass protesters.
“Byrne: “I will return if/when personally invited to do so from Professor Turley. Good day.”
Now why would JT bother to do that. Exactly what does this guy think he offered?
“Me: Mike. this is the way I see it. everyone needs a hobby and this is Jim’s. It’s also my hobby and there have been lots of folk here who dont care for my opinions either.”
GWLSM,
What I was doing was done for my fun and was quite purposeful. Many people get away with being disingenuous because people, generally thinking well of others, do not confront the lies and just focus on the arguments. Jim was getting far too much pleasure playing his games and my purpose was to disturb his fun with some fun of my own. To be honest I think I nailed who he is which is a Federalist Society type, who hates the President and therefore attempts to discredit him with the “big lie” technique. As you suggested he may well be an intelligent racist, as if that isn’t an oxymoron. I made him uncomfortable and he finally refused to engage with me.
He didn’t finally quit though because of me. Vince, Mike A Bob and SBF (sorry guy your pseudonym is just to long and for some reason I can’t memorize the spelling)just completely demolished every argument he proffered and he finally was too frustrated by it. Someone like Jim is not used to being challenged because you can bet in personal conversation he is a bully. Nevertheless, he rose above troll in my estimation because he at least has some ability to think. However, I am quite serious in believing that the birther movement is pushing either towards assassination, or coup, or both. This offends me and fills me with dread and loathing.
“There are two scenarios that FEMA is concerned with. These two scenarios has promted FEMA to produce a document called the C and R report.”
bdaman,
I have more respect for you than I do the ravings of BVM. Understand though he is talking about a military coup to remove the President and take over the country. I’m not a fan of FEMA by any means, but I think you are talking about two different things.
Gyges,
I couldn’t agree with you more about scifi (don’t get me started about SyFy).
Mike S,
No worries about the name, it’s not important. I only use the first letter of your last name anyway…
Bdaman,
Make sure you and BVM pack enough supplies into your doom bunker.
Jim B,
Goodbye. Sorry that your ideas were so thoroughly and completely refuted (and thanks to Vince et al. for refuting them). Better luck next time.
Slart,
Have you ever been to Lem’s official website? http://english.lem.pl/ There’s a gallery of his drawings. I’m fascinated by doodles of people known for their creativity in other areas. His are fantastic, and remind me of some underground graphic novel’s I’ve seen (yup, I’m that much of a geek). Stravinski’s doodles may be my favorite though, there’s a REALLY cool series of geographic interpretations of famous composers music.
Mike S writes: GWLSM,
What I was doing was done for my fun and was quite purposeful. Many people get away with being disingenuous because people, generally thinking well of others, do not confront the lies and just focus on the arguments. Jim was getting far too much pleasure playing his games and my purpose was to disturb his fun with some fun of my own. To be honest I think I nailed who he is which is a Federalist Society type, who hates the President and therefore attempts to discredit him with the “big lie” technique. As you suggested he may well be an intelligent racist, as if that isn’t an oxymoron. I made him uncomfortable and he finally refused to engage with me.
me: I think you were generally thoughtful, calm and deliberate in your posts. Don’t think that I was criticizing you — I wasn’t. Jim and people like him love to see how many people they can get to jump up and down and then try to make them jump faster, or on one leg. I’m glad you had fun. the big lie is a useful advertising tool, but worse than the lie is the myth.
you: He didn’t finally quit though because of me. Vince, Mike A Bob and SBF (sorry guy your pseudonym is just to long and for some reason I can’t memorize the spelling)just completely demolished every argument he proffered and he finally was too frustrated by it. Someone like Jim is not used to being challenged because you can bet in personal conversation he is a bully. Nevertheless, he rose above troll in my estimation because he at least has some ability to think. However, I am quite serious in believing that the birther movement is pushing either towards assassination, or coup, or both. This offends me and fills me with dread and loathing.
me: of course he didn’t quit because of you. he does this from time to time as we’ve already seen. this time his departure was quite operatic with the
rof will have to invite me back: nonsense. he’ll be back when he thinks that there is something to come back for.
i never thought he was a troll. I just think that his ideas and opinions can be narrow and not well thought out. maybe he is a bully. maybe he just writes like one.
Hey Slart, remember the old adage, it’s better to have it and not need it then it is to need it and not have it. Just sayin, The govt just bought a boat load of swine flu vaccines, 195 million doses. If you haven’t seen my post on those you need to see them. The boxes come with a warning: Buyer beware
Mike thanks for the compliment, not much of one considering whom I’m up against, (no disrespect BVM) Mike I said FEMA was preparing for a wide range of scenarios, the two I’ve given you are the only two that I know come from a reputable source.
Awwww,
Did you boys run off the troll again?
lol
He should have stayed away the first time he “r-u-n-n-o-f-t”.
All must learn to agree with the liberal mind. We know best.
GWLawSchoolMom,
There’s nothing worse than a joke with footnotes.
No wonder Obama’s ‘Obot fools’ are upset.
From http://www.WND.com
“WASHINGTON – The latest AOL online poll shows 82 percent of respondents saying Barack Obama should release his birth certificate.
This finding in spite of a veritable media barrage in recent days of unsubstantiated claims ranging from all Hawaiian birth certificates were destroyed to it already has been released. ”
Get ‘em Lou!
Lou Dobbs, the birth certificate has been released, and you can see it at any time. You fool!
The polling report is from World Nut Daily, a wholly owned subsidiary of the millionaire putting up the billboards, Joseph Farah, and is a completely biased source. An online poll is inherently unreliable because it is not based on a representative sample. A poll question can be biased, for example, have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no.
A Mall cannot be a natural born citizen.
A Mall is a terrible thing to waste.
Excerpt message from Orly Taitz website:
“Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001. They are lying, see the ACTUAL e-mails from the State of Hawaii, Vital Records on my blog. How could the Gov. of Hawaii state they have Obama’s origional on file as per the regulations in Hawaii in 2008, if they destroyed them in 2001?”
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” Sir Walter Scott
By the way the Orly Taitz website is now among the top 2% of all the web sites in the world according to the traffic (after only 3 months of existence) http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
“By the way the Orly Taitz website is now among the top 2% of all the web sites in the world according to the traffic (after only 3 months of existence)”
**********
“No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
–H. L. Mencken
There are always a lot of hysterical accusations by bvm on this site.
Here are some facts.
Orly said “Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001.” That is a lie. It is not the MSM saying this. It is Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department, who said that in 2001, the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless, and paper documents were discarded. Everyone can read below and judge.
If you look at my postings, I have said that Hawaii has released the only birth certificate that it can release, a “Certification of Live Birth.” No one can get any other type of birth certificate, neither a long form nor a “vault copy” nor any other. The COLB meets the legal federal definition of birth certificate that I posted above.
Where’s the birth certificate? In front of you. Open your eyes.
The head of CNN told Lou Dobbs that the story is dead. Kitty Pilgrim showed that Obama has proven his birth on DOBBS OWN SHOW when she substituted.
Dobbs, prepare for award of “Worst Person in the World.”
Now for the sources; judge for yourselves:
QUOTE
Original Message —–
From: Klein, Jon (CNN)
Sent: Thu Jul 23 19:00:44 2009
Subject: Important re birth certificate
I asked the political researchers to dig into the question “why couldn’t Obama produce the ORIGINAL birth certificate?”
This is what they forwarded. It seems to definitively answer the question. Since the show’s mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead – because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.
Thx
*****************
*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless. *Paper documents were discarded* The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
———————
Transcript from Lou Dobbs Tonight – 07.23.09
DOBBS: ….And a number of Americans are asking, why not? The left-wing media has attacked me because I simply asked the question. Meanwhile, the state of Hawaii says it can’t release a paper copy of the president’s original birth certificate because they say the state government discarded the original document when the health department records went electronic some eight years ago.
That explanation, however, has not satisfied some critics. Joining me now, Roland Martin. He’s CNN contributor, syndicated columnist. And joining us as well, Congressman Ted Poe.
UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/jon_klein_on_birthers_it_seems_this_story_is_dead_122546.asp
Watch this space for more birthing myths falling from the sky and crashing and burning.
This is from the Orly Taitz site: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3350#comments
“syc1959 says:
July 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
The issue with the MSM is they are trying to cover-up and act ignorant. I have been screaming that there are THREE (3) versions of the COLB that have been posted. WHY NO ONE HAS BEEN ASKING THESE HOSTS LIKE LOU DOBS, “WHICH VERSION OF THE COLB ARE YOU REFERING TOO?”
HERE ARE THE THREE FORGERIES
#1 – posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – no seal, evidence that it is a computer graphic
#2 – posted on FactCheck – has an invalid SEAL from the State of Hawaii
#3 – posted on FactCheck – has no seal whatsoever
See my video on this!!
Read my blog
http://nobarack08.wordpress.com
The State of Hawaii has stated they NEVER issued an Obama COLB in 2007 or 2008. So how can three versions of a document that Hawaii never issued be authentic!
Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001. They are lying, see the ACTUAL e-mails from the State of Hawaii, Vital Records on my blog. How could the Gov. of Hawaii state they have Obama’s origional on file as per the regulations in Hawaii in 2008, if they destroyed them in 2001?
This is from the Orly Taitz site;
“syc1959 says:
July 24, 2009 at 11:33 pm
The issue with the MSM is they are trying to cover-up and act ignorant. I have been screaming that there are THREE (3) versions of the COLB that have been posted. WHY NO ONE HAS BEEN ASKING THESE HOSTS LIKE LOU DOBS, “WHICH VERSION OF THE COLB ARE YOU REFERING TOO?”
HERE ARE THE THREE FORGERIES
#1 – posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – no seal, evidence that it is a computer graphic
#2 – posted on FactCheck – has an invalid SEAL from the State of Hawaii
#3 – posted on FactCheck – has no seal whatsoever
See my video on this!!
The State of Hawaii has stated they NEVER issued an Obama COLB in 2007 or 2008. So how can three versions of a document that Hawaii never issued be authentic!
Now the MSM is saying that Hawaii destroyed all the origional records in 2001. They are lying, see the ACTUAL e-mails from the State of Hawaii, Vital Records on my blog. How could the Gov. of Hawaii state they have Obama’s origional on file as per the regulations in Hawaii in 2008, if they destroyed them in 2001?
Here is more evidence that Hawaii has released the birth certificate and that it is the official record:
QUOTE
Born identity
Birth certificate styles adjust to fit times and regulations
By June Watanabe
POSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Jun 06, 2009
Question: What is the state’s policy for issuing a “Certification of Live Birth” versus a “Certificate of Live Birth”? My first, second and fourth children received certificates, but my third and fifth children received certifications. Why the difference? The certificate contains more information, such as the name of hospital, certifier’s name and title; attendant’s name and title, etc. The certification has only the child’s name, date and time of birth, sex, city/island/county of birth, mother’s maiden name, mother’s race, father’s name and father’s race. Why doesn’t the state just issue certificates? When did it stop issuing certificates? Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?
Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
We found a discussion of “the truth about Obama’s birth certificate” on the Web site FactCheck.org — http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.
The organization describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
It says a “certification of live birth” is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. Information included in the document might differ from state to state.UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
“Do you smell that, son? Denial in the morning . . . smells like insane paranoia.”
So Mall, if I may call you that, do you get any other secret messages we should know about? Surely the voices in your head have other topics of discussion aside from Obama’s birth certificate.
Congressman / Judge Ted Poe says COLB is not a birth certificate, Obama has not produced a birth certificate.
Obama, where is the birth certificate?
Posted by Vince Treacy on July 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM,
“She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth ‘as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.’”
Which case was that Mr. Treacy?
Vince Treacy has on a number of occasions referred to http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“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.”
Today, at 9:55 AM, Vince Treacy posts information that Obama’s original birth certificate has been destroyed.
Which is it? In possession or destroyed?
To all of you complicit in Obama’s forgeries;
The word is Sun Yat-sen was born on 12 November 1866, in CHINA. HE HAD a HAWAIIAN COLB. Are you going to say HE was born in Hawaii?
roflmao
Now that’s a hoot.
Yea Vince which is it. Ladies and Gentleman Vince will be right back after he checks to see what Dr. Conspiracy tells him next.
Buddah Check the Global Warming post
BIRTHER: Welcome back, Jim Boyle. Did you write this yourself? What if the original birth certificate is on record in electronic form “in accordance with state policies and procedures”? Haven’t your read section 7211 of the federal law yet? Why not come crawling back under your real name?
Everyone else. See section 7211 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, mandated minimum standards for birth certificates and provided a defintion. See pdf: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/108-796/titlevii_implement_911_recs.pdf
You will see that it has a definition and sets national standards. The are not issuing your father’s birth certificate anymore. The standards are tied into the anti-terrorism program
Or look at PL 108-458 118 Stat 3825-26
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf
Sources linked to provide context .
Hawaii was not even a territory, let alone a State, and was not apart of the United States when whatever happened to Sun took place.
Birther/Boyle keeps asking irrelevant questions to avoid the relevant. The Supreme Court case is irrelevant. It would be hard to locate given the limited description available. Boyle has not shown any court case anywhere in the country that has said the COLB, or any COLB, is not valid. Why not?
But, everyone, please read: The state official with statutory authority over the records has stated that he has”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.”
A COLB has been issued in accordance with state law. It says Obama was born in Honolulu. It is certified as an official record of state records, and complies with 7211.
No a radical skeptic will say that he will not believe until he goes into the state agency itself.
Sure. A lot of people do not believe that Armstrong did not land on the moon because THEY WERE NOT THERE AT THE TIME. Fine.
One more time. Obama has released his birth certificate. It is the only certifate issued to anyone.
BVM, that forgery stuff is nonsense. It has been discredited. I have posted the links discrediting the forgery nonsense. Why not post your bigfoot video while you are at it? Why not come out of hiding?
A note for BIRTHER /TROLL/ Byrne, lurking, and for anyone else still here: he wants to know about the Supreme Court case in the article. Now, I NEVER asserted there was such a case. I said that the state now issues only COLBs and that so called “certificates” of live birth, long forms, or vault copies are no longer available to Obama or anyone else.
I posted a news article to support my statement. Others here know that I hate to see things taken out of context, so I posted the ENTIRE article. BTB has questions about a part of the article I did not rely on. Fine. He studiously ignores the facts I have posted and supported. Fine.
He just refuses to accept the official’s statement. Fine. I do not care.
For everyone else. Officials have inspected the underlying records on file in their department. They have issued a COLB stating that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961. The COLB certifies that the facts on its face are true representations of the facts in its records. It says on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth.
Obama has released his birth certificate.
There is no other certificate that can be issued.
“She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth ‘as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.’”
Which case was that Mr. Treacy?
Vince Treacys response: Q The Supreme Court case is irrelevant. It would be hard to locate given the limited description available. UQ
A statement made by the spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health is irrelevant, or is that only the parts we choose to find irrelevant? This spokesperson can supposedly find supporting U.S. Supreme Court ruling, but a retired D.C. lawyer cannot? AMAZING
Will Vince Treacy take a position? Which is it? In possession or destroyed?
THIS IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AVOIDING THE ISSUE
How do we know that? The above statement makes it so.
VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE
From the Chicago Tribune
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/30/nation/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30
“Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.”
It appeared similar, but she WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY of the certificate released by the Obama Campaign.
Vince would have us all believe that the authenticity has been confirmed by the Hawaii Officials.
Vince,
I agree with your guess that birther is old JB, back in a new pseudonym, but with the same format. What it says in essence was that most of what little he stated about himself was also untrue. I’m actually thinking Byrne was an attempt by BVM to show a less insane side, but it is hard to imagine that on his best day BVM could act in any way rationally.
Birther,
Jimbo, you certainly are gutless with your new appellation, but not good enough to hide your writing style, or smart enough
to make a valid point. The only thing that I must complement is that you’ve come out of the closet finally show your true self.
Jim Byrne, retired military indeed! Just some pimply faced college sophomore, with rich parents, who are simply horrified that a Black man is President. You’re a good little boy and always try to mimic your Mom and Dad. If you’re lucky some day you’ll get admitted to a quality Law School, like say Regent.
Buddha writes: “Do you smell that, son? Denial in the morning . . . smells like insane paranoia.”
hahahaha good to have you back Buddha
Mike and Vince, I’m sure the moderators at the site watch IP addresses. It would be easy to figure out who’s who when posting. Whether they do it or not remains a question. Vince I’m sure that you would get an e-mail stating as such on the request of it remaining confidential
BIRTHER/TROLL/Byrne should learn some law. Under the Constitution, all of the other states are bound to give full faith and credit to an official Hawaiin public record, including a birth certificate. Art. IV, sec.1.
”Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
The Supreme Court is sworn to uphold the Constitution, so it is bound by the official public records of Hawaii. Congress has express power the manner by which those records shall be proved. Everyone can read section 7211, linked above, where Congress did prescribe those rules, and the COLB meets those requirements.
That stupid bill to require birth certificates, as introduced, did not even define the term, and so the courts would have to apply the definition in 7211. Under its terms, the COLB is valid, so Obama, unique among ALL present and former candidates, has already complied with the proposed bill for 2012..
BTB does not even seem to realize that I never said there was a Supreme Court decision. I just posted the article. Someone in the article said it. Under the Constitution, however, any Supreme Court ruling would have to sustain the COLB. Life is too short for me to waste anymore time for an anonymous troll asking idle questions that are irrelevant, anyway.
These BIRTHER arguments are getting so specious that it is not surprising that he, she or it does not want to sign them anymore. The link to the Trib is from last year, for crying out loud.
And the stuff is getting wilder “VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE”
No! As a matter of law, the time for court cases is long past, since a President has been sworn. It is no wonder that each and every one of the more than 40 court cases has gone down the drain. The Constitution expressly provides that this is now the sole responsibility of Congress. Read it, BTB: “The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Art. 1, sec. 2 That says sole power, as in the only power, to impeach and remove a President. No courts may apply.
BTB can write to his Member of Congress, not to this blog. That Member is the only one who can bring a bill of impeachment, and there is no court in the land that can remove a President or challenge his qualifications after he is sworn in. An impeachment inquiry can uncover any information in the country.
Jim Byrne is gone? I’m disappointed. I’ve literally spent hours attempting to explain the purpose and meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause using logic, reason and original sources, just as Vince T. has. The response has been passages cribbed from secondary, tertiary and sometimes wholly anonymous sources. (Vince cooly called Mr. Byrne on that, so the latter’s departure from our friendly family is really Vince’s fault). And now Mr. Byrne is gone? And will only return if personally invited by Prof. Turley? Where is my special invitation? I guess players only love you when they’re playin’.
Of course, Lou Dobbs is to journalism what BVM is to logic and Orly Taitz is to law, pretentious but inadequate. Were Prof. Turley or some other nationally known person to ask Mr. Dobbs the basis of his intense hatred of hispanics, he would react in anger and outrage. Does anyone believe an appropriate response would be, “Why are you so upset, Mr. Dobbs? I’m merely asking the question.”
I don’t know whether Birther is Mr. Byrne in disguise, but the tone and style are eerily similar, and the disjointed approach to argument is identical. However, the posts of Mr. Byrne, BVM and a few others are the best evidence of why the dispute can never be resolved to the birthers’ satisfaction. Consider the following:
1. The controversy began as a rumor and was spread, and continues to be spread, by people who refuse to identify themselves, despite their self-serving and vaunted commitment to the Constitution.
2. As the rumors spread through the internet, sensationalist journalists picked up on it, not because they had done any independent research on the issue, but because they live and die on ratings and can smell blood at a hundred paces.
3. A couple of crack-pot lawyers saw an opportunity for self-promotion and initiated lawsuits which they knew in advance would fail. After all, if Orly Taitz actually had a clue, there would be dozens, if not hundreds, of lawyers around the country who would have lent their support. So where are all the amicus briefs? Is that the sound of crickets? The truth, of course, is that no legitimate attorney is going to file a written argument supported by citations to worldnet daily or birthers.org and because all of us who practice law understand that the documents already presented by the president’s defenders are admissible in any court of law in the country as proof of the truth of their contents.
4. The ignorant and fearful among the population react as they always do to rabble rousing, grabbing their American flags, pitchforks and ropes. Their lack of knowledge about the issue is truly astounding when you read their comments on the various anonymous birther sites. For example, when Taitz was given an opportunity to amend and the court instructed her to serve the U.S. attorney a couple of weeks ago (rather than doing what he could have done and thrown her out on her butt), there was excitement and back-slapping congratulations all over birther world, prompted by a combination of gross ignorance and Taitz’ trumpeting about her great “victory.” We all know where that led.
5. All of the anonymous posters continue to express their faux indignation over their perception that the president is refusing to come clean and allay their fears. Please.
6. After the last final order of dismissal has been entered and the last appeal has fallen flat on its face, the birthers will conclude that the conspiracy is now complete and that America has been lost to a black, socialist Kenyan. Unless, of course, there is a call to arms and revolution, with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh remaining safely ensconced in their guarded studios, exhorting the mobs to storm the White House Bastille and “take our country back.”
The sad truth is that the internet now provides what used to require robes and hoods, a forum for the expression of hatred and lies, where the accused cannot even identify the accusers, let alone confront them, while the media purveyors of political filth can deny their own complicity with a simple, “I was only asking the question.” Or, as was expressed by the California city councilman last week, “I am not a racist. I was merely forwarding the racist jokes that had been forwarded to me.”
So to Mr. Byrne, Mr. Birther, Mr. BVM and others of their persuasion, understand that we know you desire not to preserve the Constitution, but to destroy a presidency. We know that you will wear your robes and hoods throughout the process so that you can hide your cowardice while you exhort the less informed, the less sophisticated and the less educated to scream at the town meetings, send outraged letters to their representatives and flood the telephone lines of the Limbaughs the Becks and the Hannitys with pleas for assurance that the black imposter will be at last deposed. And when it is done and you have lost, you will crawl back into your holes, where you will nurse your bitterness and wait for a new opportunity.
CNN/U.S. president Jon Klein sent an email to a handful of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” staffers last night regarding the coverage of the so-called Birthers and the validity of Obama’s eligibility.
In part, Klein writes, “It seems this story is dead — because anyone who still is not convinced doesn’t really have a legitimate beef.” Klein asked CNN researchers to dig into the question of why Obama couldn’t produce the original birth certificate. The researchers contacted the Hawaii Health Dept. and confirmed that paper documents were discarded in 2001 when the department went paperless. That reportedly includes Obama’s original birth certificate.
If Klein’s statement is true, then this official statement, dated October 31, 2008, from state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is false:
“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.”
If what Klein says is true, Fukino is lying. If what Fukino says is true, Klein is lying. It’s one or the other, isn’t it?
Klein may be the king of the dung heap at CNN, but this story is far from dead.
The simple fact, that Klein, Chris Matthews, Brian Williams, John Stewart and even The New York Times, are addressing the eligibility issue on a daily basis now is clear evidence that the eligibility question is never, ever, going to go away. It will dog Obama until he goes back to Chicago — or releases his bona fides.
The Times writes, “Advocates of the issue, who are sometimes called Birthers, have succeeded in calling attention to themselves through frequent calls to talk radio shows, e-mail messages to news organizations and a videotaped question at a Congressional town hall. The Associated Press said that Obama’s citizenship status had been one of the most popular topics for the wire service’s ‘Ask AP’ column.”
A few months ago, Birthers numbered in the hundreds. Now, they number in the millions. Millions of Americans are demanding — “Obama, show us the birth certificate”
Unquote
Answer: * You are an Obama Fool *
Jim Byrne,
This natural born topic thread would not have ‘progressed’ without your input and I thank you for that. My best estimation is that you are not a coward, but your grandstanding departure here does not bode well for your cause or your reputation. Once before, I sided with you in a similar instance regarding your departure and there is no reason now why you should not return on your own, albeit your request for a special invitation was transparently pretentious. You are far from a troll and your comments elicit replies while other commenters’ requests stand idle and unanswered; that alone should demonstrate your contribution to this blawg.
At some point in any debate, one must concede or proclaim that—regardless of the debate’s ‘winners or losers’—sometimes a person simply has a ideology with which they cannot part and that appears to be your position. The *natural born U.S. citizen* question has been answered to my satisfaction and I am a champion of expressing contrary opinions and presenting contrary evidence—up to the point when such contradictory evidence becomes self-contradictory and no longer valid through its refutation by counteracts of sound logic, reasoning, and evidence.
When the 14th Amendment is fully considered, along with all of the other discussion and available evidence, I cannot understand why any reasonable person would not consider President Obama a natural born U.S. citizen unless such persons simply had a strong, unwavering bias against the man, irrespective of the facts. Although I voted for him, there are plenty of valid reasons to be upset without questioning his legitimate birthright.
Regarding the “piling on,” BV mall-wart is man enough to hang in there still and he has been putdown more times than a dirty plug nickel…
Jim I second FF Leo, What happened was you were trying to fight a gang, you were surrounded. I’ve been beat up here plenty of times. You were the one who pointed out to me that if you agree here your a good guy here, if you don’t, your a neocon, troll,ect ect. FFleo makes a good point about BVMall. Thats why I give BVMall plugs from time to time because he’s like the little kid that keeps getting pushed around. It would be nice if BVMall would write some comments, but hey, to each is own. Jim look at me and Mike S. Look at me and Buddah. I’ve told both sorry and I love you and in return, well, they still haven’t told me that they love me, but thats ok, maybe one day. Even Vince, which he won’t talk to me anymore, but thats O.K. I still love him. I get mad sometimes to. Bottom line Jim, if your waiting for JT to say please come back, forget it. Vince would be the only one he would do that to. Trust me, I already tested the waters on that one and JT let me know in no uncertain terms that thats his boy. Vince must send him apples. comeback Jimmy
Looks like Klein is backing off his earlier statements. Man this thing is like a huge Zit that’s gonna pop and oooze out everywhere. Now that cook PLANTED him self in the middle of this, and Judge Carter making his comments last week, I can just feel it. If I could squeeze it myself and make it pop I would.
Greg Sargent spoke with CNN’s president Jonathan Klein about Lou Dobbs, and the demands from some liberal groups that Dobbs be punished for giving airtime and credibility to birthers.
“Look, Lou’s his own show, and CNN in general has repeatedly and thoroughly reported on the facts behind this situation,” Klein said to me, adding that Lou had merely hosted “a few conversations with people representing a wide range of opinions.”
Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
Asked if CNN is concerned that Dobbs’ repeated granting of airtime to theories the network has conclusively debunked amounts to overkill and could harm CNN’s credibility, Klein brushed off the possibility. “We respect our viewers enough to present them the facts and let them make up their own minds,” he said, adding that what Dobbs does is “his editorial decision to make.”
Hey Vince how bout a knock, knock, Joke
Knock, Knock
Who’s There?
Kenya
Kenya Who?
Kenya just show us the damn original birth certificate.
hahaha… good one.
May this thread never die. Its testament as a “living document” to the thrust-and-parry of blogging is invaluable…
Buddah, you say it’s about the rule of Law. Obama, just like Bush thinks he is above the law.
U.S. Transfers $200 Million In Violation of Anti-Terrorism Act
The Obama Administration has transfered $200 million directly to the Fatah PA in violation of the criteria of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.
The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 has very specific criteria that the Palestinian Authority must be in compliance with in order to recieve any U.S. funding.
“U.S. Transfers $200 Million In Violation of Anti-Terrorism Act”
While you’re at it, why not mention the $3 Billion given in aid to Israel in violation of the law banning financial assistance to any country with nuclear missiles. At the bottom of all these acts is always some legal fiction that makes it OK. Remember, nearly all these people are lawyers.
It has been said that the president of MSNBC is playing the ‘race card’ on Obama’s ineligibility now and thus causing the babbling of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the subject. This could explain why I don’t hear JT speaking on the merits of the eligibility case. MSNBC might give him the boot. And I don’t hear the big picture of the war crimes coming from MSNBC. They need to be discussing the Wars of Aggression too of which torture is a part. That road would lead to Obama’s door also.
Obama doesn’t need a birth certificate to be arrested for war crimes, mass murder, torture,maiming, fraud, forgery and many other crimes.
Hidflect, Thank you, while we here are in the worst financial crisis since the great depression we are giving money away while borrowing. Why not cut the middle man out and just say hey China could you give so and so some money for us, that way all we will owe you is the interest.
MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media have suppressed the Truth about the U.S. Wars of Aggression and the Truth of Obama for years.
The U.S. Government and Obama have become the modern day Nazis.
BVM the Prof. has, in his own words has denounced the president.
Quote:
I supported Obama. However, he has abandoned not only campaign promises but basic principles of human rights and civil liberties in these policies. Democrats are showing the same cult of personality that destroyed the Republicans in their blind loyalty to George Bush.
The Obama Administration continues its retention and expansion of abusive Bush policies.
President Obama has already adopted or expanded many of the most controversial Bush policies on executive privilege, detainee treatment, termination of privacy lawsuit, and other matters. Now, he has adopted the identical position of Vice President Dick Cheney in seeking to withhold visitor logs to the White House. Unquote
These are just a few. So my overall take is Prof. Turley is a very fair man but he also understands that the baby needs new shoes.
While he may not show it on TV one day his conscience will prevail, give him time. Attitudes and Opinions are like the tides, they come and go.
From Orly Taitz Esq.
Selective Service certificate
Please visit my blog http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ and read my dossiers in archives.
One important item in dossiers #1, 3 and 4, is a statement by the Federal agent Steven Hoffman, showing that there are multiple signs of forgery in Obama’s selective service certificate: a stamp, that is a wrong stamp for that year, a form number, that is wrong for the year, a date, which is wrong. On the top of the document the serial number starts with 08, which according to agent Hoffman typically means a year (meaning created in 2008), underneath in explanations there is an 8 added in front of the number and it looks like it was created in 1980, the year Obama was supposed to be registered for the service. Accompanying letter states that the registration was done in September, when Obama was thousands of miles away in Occidental college.
The icing on the cake is the fact that it supposed to be accompanied by a birth certificate, however the description says that no birth certificate was provided, which invalidates the document. If one is not properly signed for selective service, he is not eligible for work in the executive branch and of course presidency it the pinnacle of the executive branch – that means Obama is not eligible.
“Mike S. Look at me and Buddah. I’ve told both sorry and I love you and in return, well, they still haven’t told me that they love me,”
bdaman,
I know you did say you were sorry at one point, but you needn’t have been, we’ve both come at each other hard. I did acknowledge to you that I respected some of your views. I don’t remember though you specifically saying you loved me. It’s highly possible I missed that post because I get at least 50 E mails on a lax day regarding followup comments so I could have overlooked it.
There are people on this site that I love in a cyberspace way and Buddha is one of them. This is not about being in total agreement with him, because we have some areas where we strongly disagree. However, he is someone who shares similar views to mine and we’re both Sci-Fi fans and I love his sensibility. I’m flattered that you love me, but as I’m not insincere I can’t say I love you back. However, I do like you and I do respect some of your views which are concurrent with my own.
Why is like not translated into love then becomes a question I must in fairness answer. I am unfortunately a serious old fart and I do believe that the very concept of America and our Constitution are under attack by fascism and I don’t mean by President Barack Obama. Some of your views give what I see as aid and comfort to the enemies of the rule of Law and constitutional government. This is not about conservative and liberal because I also love FFLEO, the old coot, also in a cyberspace way. There is much we disagree on but if the real battle for this country ever materializes, he and I would be on the same side despite our political differences.
I’m really not sure if I could say the same for you, although I acknowledge that you are a good man. I can understand for instance your defense of Jim Byrne, because he does have some talents. BVM, however, to me has no redeeming value and basically is an agitator, for I know not what. You and I share similar cynicism about government in general, in the sense that the whole edifice can be corrupt, where we differ greatly is that I see you more accepting of it in the sense of “Well what can you do, that’s the way it always is and always was.” Now maybe I’ll concede I’m getting you wrong, but that’s my current view. As for me while I’ve seen more than enough to make me cynical I continue to adopt a hopeful, optimistic position because it gives me a reason to fight my ailments and to stay alive to fight for a better world, in what limited way I can. I also believe that one’s outlook can have a positive effect on ones physical condition and given my prognosis I lead a surprisingly full life.
From Orly’s site:
Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency is exploding on the Internet
STATS
July 26th, 2009
There are different web stats. Latest 7 day survey shows that out of over 20 million sites, this site to ranked 162,308, which means it is in the top 0.8%, less the 1%. It means that 99.2% of all the web sites in the world, many of which existed for years and years, have less traffic than this site, that exists only 3 months (my previous two sites were tampered with).
Another interesting piece of statistics is that readers spend on average 7 seconds on different sites. They typically scan. On this site they spend 3.2 minutes on average.
What it all means, is that the issue of Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency is exploding on the Internet, that Obama’s hired Nazi Brown shirts in the media. like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Kitty Pilgrim, Geraldo Rivera and Jon Stewart cannot stop this avalanche. It is only the matter of time until there is a Senate and Congressional hearing, judicial determination of his illegitimacy and criminal investigation of ones that are aiding and abetting this massive fraud and treason. This includes our governmental officials, Democratic National committee, some members of Congress and Senate, law enforcement officials and judges and presidents and vice presidents of major networks as well as anchor men and reporters and talk show hosts, who intentionally defrauded American citizens.
How soon it will all happen, depends on each and every one of you: please go to the town hall meetings with each and every elected and appointed official, confront them and demand immediate judicial hearing and criminal investigation of Obama. Make signs and stand in front of the White House, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, Federal Buildings, Governor’s mentions, all the major media outlets. Blogging and talking is not enough. Get off the couch, bring some food and drinks with you, bring your i-pods and video cameras, bring all your friends from church, co-workers, relatives. More people demonstrate, more people confront officials and media – sooner we’ll end this nightmare.
Thank you Mike S and I love you not only in cyberspace but as a human being. This shows that two people can have disagreemnets, different points of view, different up bringings and at the end of the day still have civility. I hope that Jim B is lurking. Jim I love you to.
P.S. It was Jim, look at me and Mike S. look at me and Buddah
So bvm is now calling people Nazis.
Despicable.
The U.S. Government, Obama, many of mainstream media, et al have violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials.
bdaman,
What Mike said. I don’t think you’re necessarily a bad guy, but you do espouse some really bad ideas at times. If side choosing comes? I could elaborate, but the essence of Mike’s response sums up my sentiments as well.
The mall is posting stuff calling named individuals in the media nazi brown shirts and making accusations of violations of Nuremburg law about private individuals who hold no govermental posts at all. All of those accusations are false and malicious and possibly legally defamatory.
It is my personal opinion that accusations like that do not belong on this site. They violate all rules of civility, are inflammatory, and do not contribute in any way to to the ongoing discussion.
I respectfully request that the sentence above including the words “hired Nazi Brown shirts” be deleted.
Mike S, BIL, gyges, well I watched the end of Torchwood, Children of Earth on BBC America, and I think for once TV nailed it – great SF, exciting like the first Star Wars, Alien and Aliens, and CE3K. SF does not always make it to the screen, but this time the have the writing, acting, sets, locations, music and direction, with a great first contact theme. It repeats today Sun. 7-26 from 2 to 8 on BBC America, and DVD and Blueray is on the way.
It is really very simple:
If they have conspired in violating the War Crimes laws as the Nazis did … you call them Nazis.
Vince,
Thank you. I’m heading to my DVR right now, since I was curious about, but missed the series. Good catch and in the nick of time for me. Done. With my wife out of town I have something to watch this evening.
bdaman writes: Klein said that Dobbs has repeatedly stated that he believes that Obama was born in Hawaii, and has simply been examining the “phenomenon that for some people this won’t go away.”
so this won’t go away and Dobb’s constant harping has no effect? Dobbs is a neutral guy reporting the phenomenon? if Dobbs decided to report real news this would go away. although maybe not. maybe because of Dobbs and others like him this thing now has a life of its own. and it isn’t a nice life. it doesn’t do anything to bring the country together and shouldn’t that be a goal?
anyway it isnt like there is a shortage of real news instead of this repulsive display of partisan sour grapes.
Vince,
I watched Torchwood CoE last night as well and I have to agree. Simply an excellent story, well played and produced. My respect for Russell Davies as a writer most certainly went up a notch and the usually strong Torchwood cast out did themselves. The 4-5-7 are an appalling adversary. Especially given that in terms of artifice they are a reflection of ourselves. This was every bit as good as E&M’s version of Battlestar Galactica and that is very high praise indeed. Dramatic, poignant, relevant scientifically and sociologically in theme, it is what every S/F series should be or at least aspire to become. It transcends genre. No tawdry pretender this. We as a species have a concept for this.
Art.
To All Involved in the making of Torchwood: Children of Earth:
Bravo. Well done one and all. My hat is off. This is a standing ovation.
lol
4-5-6
Bad fingers!
Buddah Got some learnin for ya over at the GW thread. You pointed out that I’m a slow learner, lets see how quick an old dog like you can learn new tricks.
FFLEO,
I sincerely appreciate your call for continued participation. However, this is JT’s bailiwick, and if he desires to have a child’s playground, where personal attacks and innuendo are considered acceptable behavior, that is his choice to make. My choice is not to play on that playground.
I have established a hotmail account, should anyone desire my opinion. The username is JBonJT. -I suggest than any who have a desire to setup an account of your own, in order to maintain anonymity.
As for the 14th Amendment securing your position –I just want to make sure that you are aware of the position taken by John Bingham (known as the architect of the first section of the 14th)
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” -March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.
The second part of that statement being that Congress has no authority to deny citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, whose parents are U.S. Citizens.
I suspect that Barack Obama Jr.’s original birth certificate contains information indentifying him as a British subject by virtue of his father’s status. Controlling English law for that period would have required such.
Per factcheck.org –http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
”When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
Make no mistake about it; Barack Obama Jr. had dual citizenship at birth. The BNA and the 14th Amendment both applied.
Can one born with dual citizenship be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.? –I think John Bingham would object to such a proposal.
bdaman,
Keep up the good fight! I also appreciate your extension to remain.
Don’t expect to overcome political bias any faster than we have managed to overcome racial bias. The politics of today is the racism of yesterday. The slave-owners subconsciously knew the truth (that the color of one’s skin had nothing to do with one’s abilities), but were unwilling to acknowledge such because of the loss of power that would result. As you know, we have paid the price for too many years. Today, it is political power that blinds the activists. –Take notice of how Vince, after it was demonstrated that the COLB had not been validated by Hawaiian Officials (contrary to his earlier claims), wants everyone to recognize that it must be given full faith and credit. I would agree that a validated document should be given full faith and credit, but it is the validity of that document that must be resolved before doing so. –In addition, why rely on a generated copy when the original is reportedly in the vault? –Vince would tell you that a 1625 letter to the Pope is authentic, solely because it has an accompanying certificate of authenticity, while refusing to acknowledge that the certificate of authenticity could be forged. (Today, most COA’s have a holographic seal to help ensure authenticity) –Anything, originally generated by computer, can be generated by a skilled graphic artist)
BVM,
Keep posting the hyperlinks. Persistence overcomes resistance. -If I may suggest; try to stick to the topic. The war criminal suggestions only succeed in helping those that wnat to avoid the subject at hand to do so more easily.
I won’t be replying to any further comments, without JT’s intervention. FFLEO has been around the block a few times. I’m sure he’s aware that when an attorney represents a client, they do so to the best of their ability, regardless of the facts. Facts that hurt their case are avoided if possible. –Ask any attorney, on the record, about the scumbag landlord they are representing, and they’ll try to convince you their client is the best thing since sliced bread. Bias is part of their game…eventually, for some, it becomes part of their life.
Okay, Jim Byrne; thanks for the explanation. You must know that Prof. Turley does not read all of the thread comments; therefore, I suggest that you attempt to contact him directly to ensure that he is fully aware of your complaint.
Regardless of any ad hominem attacks—real or imagined—this topic has been very worthwhile.
bdaman,
I didn’t say slow.
I said “difficult”. Ask any teacher. They’ll be glad to explain the distinction, but it runs to flexibility of thought, not rate of retention or inability to reason. Different people learn in different ways. Had I meant slow I would have said slow. I didn’t mean to imply you can’t learn. There are plenty of people who can’t either from lack of capacity or lack of desire. I did not mean to imply you were either of those. However, it is also a psychological fact that some people have more difficulty changing their minds once made than others no matter what evidence or logic they are presented with that challenges these beliefs. Sometimes this state of thought remains fixed, sometimes it just takes longer to change, and then there is always the chance of epiphany. Manifestations of this can be as mild as ordinary obstinacy or as serious as a impairing learning disability or even debilitating delusional denial. I think you’re more toward the obstinate end of that scale. You have shown some evidence of being perhaps logic/evidence resistant, but not logic/evidence proof. For an example of the logic and evidence proof, BVM and some of the more egregious trolls that have been through here provide ample examples (in every meaning of the term example). If you were to take any other meaning for difficult as I used it, I can see how you took it as insult (as I suspected you would, hence my previous apology), then I again apologize.
I am unlikely to do so a third time given this clarification.
I see some people just can’t keep their word.
That says a lot about a person.
Oh no Buddah, my comment was in a fun southern country slang. Thats the problem with just words. Your explanation of, “it is also a psychological fact that some people have more difficulty changing their minds once made than others no matter what evidence or logic they are presented with that challenges these beliefs. Sometimes this state of thought remains fixed, sometimes it just takes longer to change, and then there is always the chance of epiphany”, is on point. Keep this in mind when you read over at the GW thread.
Buddha: “I didn’t mean to imply you can’t learn. There are plenty of people who can’t either from lack of capacity or lack of desire.”
Buddha, you should have used a semicolon:
I didn’t mean to imply you can’t learn; there are plenty of people who can’t either from lack of capacity or lack of desire.
Oops, does this belong on the new corrections page?
Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight: “Tell me I’m wrong baby! And I says ‘I can’t cause you’re not.’”
I discussed the issue of being born subject to any foreign power last year one of the Donofrio threads, retrievable with the term Donofrio in Search above. This will expand upon that treatment.
The note at the end of Bingham’s statement states “Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.” In legal scholarship, this means that the statement concerned Revised Statutes sec. 1992, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The abbreviation “Cf” stands for “Confer,” a scholarly signal that the citation is not directly related, but can be compared. [law students, check the Blue Book]. So Bingham was talking about a different law, the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th Amaendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differed from the 14th Amendment by including “not subject to any foreign power” and excluding Indians not taxed, while the 14th Amendment omits both.
Now, that Civil Rights Act, as codified in section 1992 of the Revised Statutes did say that all persons born in the U.S., and “not subject to any foreign power,” were citizens. Source: http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-1868.pdf
[scroll down to page 350].
But that phrase was omitted from the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was first introduced in the Senate on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the resolution passed by the House. It read “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” Senator Howard introduced the citizenship clause, and stated “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Howard later offered an amendment to include “or naturalized.”
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
Howard excluded persons born who were foreign and alien children of ambassadors. The courts have consistently held that ‘subject to the jurisdiction” requirement narrowly excludes children of diplomatic representatives, as well as children of alien enemies in hostile occupation. The debates were in conflict over the citizenship of children born of alien parents. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Amendment, objected to the inclusion of Chinese. Senator Conness had no objection to guaranteeing the American-born children of Mongolian parents civil rights and equal protection. The Supreme Court resolved any question conclusively in Wong Kim Ark.
John Bingham was a Representative at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Citizenship clause was not a part of the House version of the proposed amendment when he made his statement on March 9. His remarks on March 9 concerned the Senate bill 61, “an Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindications,” which when enacted became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, codified as section 1992. He was not discussing the 14th Amendment, so his remarks are not part of its history and do not support its interpretation. Bingham’s statement had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. He was describing the Civil Rights Act.
Source: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage
It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that a court will not interpret a law to include a provision that Congress had before it and expressly considered, and then did not include in the law. See, for example, the Steel Seizure Case,Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The President argued that he had authority to seize the steel mills in war time because of a national emergency, but the Court found that Congress had express considered this possibility and instead had enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, requiring the President to seek an 80 day cooling-off period injunction in federal court in cases of national emergencies.
Under this fundamental principle, the Wong Court declined to read back into the 14th Amendment a requirement which the Congress had expressly omitted.
Any one unhappy with the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is free to bring a case to the Supreme Court urging its reversal, or to propose a constitutional amendment limiting birthright citizenship. The NY Times reported that the Republicans wanted to change the rule of birthright civlization in 1996.
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/07/us/citizenship-proposal-faces-obstacle-in-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=2
The Bingham statement is lovingly repeated all over the birther web. Anyone can google the words and find them. Once again, a quick paste-up of a quotation is palmed off as the scholarship of the putative author. Bingham does not provide any authority in the language or history of the 14th Amendment for the Donofrio theory of dual citizenship. The myth of Bingham’s authority is now engraved on their minds. But my analysis is here for any to follow.
The note at the end of Bingham’s statement states “Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.” In legal scholarship, this means that the statement concerned Revised Statutes sec. 1992, The Civil Rights Act of 1866. The abbreviation “Cf” stands for “Confer,” a scholarly signal that the citation is not directly related, but can be compared. [law students, check the Blue Book]. So Bingham was talking about the Civil Rights Act, not the 14th. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differed from the 14th Amendment by including “not subject to any foreign power” and excluding Indians not taxed, while the 14th Amendment omits both.
Now, that Civil Rights Act, as codified in section 1992 of the Revised Statutes did say that all persons born in the U.S., and “not subject to any foreign power,” were citizens. But that phrase was omitted from the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was first introduced in the Senate on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the resolution passed by the House. It read “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” Senator Howard introduced the citizenship clause, and stated “every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Howard excluded persons born who were foreigner and alien children of ambassadors. The courts have consistently held that ‘subject to the jurisdiction” requirement excludes children of diplomatic representatives, as well as children of alien enemies in hostile occupation. The debates were in conflict over the citizenship of children born of alien parents. Senator Cowan, who opposed the Amendment, objected to the inclusion of Chinese. Senator Conness had no objection to guaranteeing the American born children of Mongolian parents civil rights and equal protection. The courts have consistently held that intent of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was to exclude alien and foreign children of diplomatic representatives, as well as of alien enemies in hostile occupation. The Supreme Court resolved any question conclusively in Wong Kim Ark.
John Bingham was a Representative at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted. The Citizenship clause was not a part of the House version of the proposed amendment when he made his statement on March 9. His remarks on March 9 concerned the Senate bill 61, “an Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights and furnish the means of their vindications,” which when enacted became the Civil Rights Act of 1866, codified as section 1992. He was not discussing the 14th Amendment, so his remarks are not part of its history and do not support its interpretation. Bingham’s statement had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. He was describing the Civil Rights Act.
It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that a court will not interpret a law to include a provision that Congress had before it and expressly considered, and then did not include in the law. See, for example, the Steel Seizure Case,Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). The President argued that he had authority to seize the steel mills in war time because of a national emergency, but the Court found that Congress had express considered this possibility and instead had enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, requiring the President to seek an 80 day cooling-off period injunction in federal court in cases of national emergencies.
Under this fundamental principle, the Wong Court declined to read back into the 14th Amendment a requirement which the Congress had expressly omitted.
Any one unhappy with the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark is free to bring a case to the Supreme Court urging its reversal, or to propose a constitutional amendment limiting birthright citizenship. The NY Times reported that the Republicans wanted to change the rule of birthright civlization in 1996.
The Bingham statement is lovingly repeated all over the birther web. Anyone can google the words and find them. Once again, a quick paste-up of a quotation is palmed off as scholarship. Bingham does not provide any authority in the language or history of the 14th Amendment for the Donofrio theory of dual citizenship. The myth of Bingham’s authority is now engraved on their minds. But my analysis is here for any to follow.
I discussed the issue of being born subject to any foreign power last year one of the Donofrio threads, retrievable with the term Donofrio in Search above. This will expand upon that treatment.
Bob, Esq.
“Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college.” — Kurt Vonnegut
I have to disagree with Kurt.
To me, the semicolon is the 2000 Year Old Man’s nectarine of punctuation.
Half a peach, half a plum; it’s a hell of a fruit.
Here is the source for RS 1992
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/expatriation-RS1999-1868.pdf
[scroll down to page 350].
This is the source for Sen. Howard’s statement introducing the citizenship clause:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
And here is Bingham, talking about the law, not the amendment, middle column, second full paragraph. Go to previous page for start of statement:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
Hey Vince, now that you guys have succesfully ran Jim B off I dedicate this song to your discussion.
From http://www.WND.com:
“Obama’s birth certificate is not the only document at issue. WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.”
bvm has pasted up more junk from World Nut Daily. None of that stuff is relevant to the birth issue. He has no adoption records because he was not adopted, since he was born to and raised by his birth mother. None of the other so-called records are relevant to the birth issue. Does the Nut really believed that he does not have a passport?
In asking about law review articles, bv and bd should also be aware that the lead articles in the Harvard Law Review are written by professional lawyers and scholars, and only edited by the students, so that the primary role of the editor in chief is to edit, not write. Student-written material at Harv. L. Rev. (unlike Geo. Wash. L. Rev.) was unsigned for many years, so there is no public record of the student writings of many of the members of the law review staff.
So much ignorance and misinformation, so little time.
The Nut really has its pants in a knot now, because Ann Coulter — yes, that Ann Coulter — has dismissed the Obama birthers and their myths.
The latest from the reporters as Politifact.com, who have updated their coverage of the birther myths:
QUOTE ON: Obama’s birth certificate: Final chapter
By Amy Hollyfield
Published on Friday, June 27th, 2008 at 5:21 p.m.
UPDATE, July 2009: It’s been a year since we published this article, and Obama’s birth certificate is still the subject of much speculation. So on July 1, 2009, we published two Truth-O-Meter items exploring new aspects of the controversy. In one, we explored whether a White House spokesman lied when he claimed Obama’s birth certificate is actually posted on the Web, and the other one examined whether a bill in Congress would protect Obama from having to release his birth certificate.
Here’s our original story as published in June 2008:
SUMMARY: Since we published Obama’s birth certificate, questions about its authenticity have been frequent and fierce. After reviewing the evidence, we’re confident in our rulings.
….
On June 13, 2008, Obama’s campaign finally released a copy, while launching a fact-check Web site of its own, Fightthesmears.com. The site is a direct response to allegations about Obama that won’t go away: He’s Muslim. He took the oath of office on a Koran. He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance. PolitiFact has researched all of these accusations and none of them are true.
When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us. UNQUOTE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
BTB. repeat: “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” the Hawaiin state official said.
The COLB has been validated by state officials.
The story that “White House spokesman Robert Gibbs “lied” when he said President Obama’s birth certificate is posted on the Internet” is false. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/01/worldnethttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/daily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/
It is a lie that a pending bill will prevent release of Obama’s birth certificate:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/01/chain-email/e-mail-claims-free-flow-information-act-would-prot/
BTB (BIRTHER/TROLL/Byrne) “Make no mistake about it; Barack Obama Jr. had dual citizenship at birth. The BNA and the 14th Amendment both applied. Can one born with dual citizenship be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.? –I think John Bingham would object to such a proposal.”
If Bingham were alive. If Bingham were around, he would have to deal with the fact that his statement was about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, not the 14th Amendment.
The dual citizenship issue was discussed here last year, and shot down completely, on two Donofrio threads, retrievable with the term Donofrio in Search above. Leo went all the way to the Supreme Court on this one, when he was disguised in rock and roll clothes and dyed hair, and the Court turned him down last December.
Vince Treacy:
Do you believe Hitler was a good man?
Do you think he was born in Germany or Hawaii?
Vince:
Do you believe a mass murderer is a naughty person?
VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE
*******************************************************
This was posted on Saturday. Vince Treacy decided to ignore it. Today Vince Treacy makes another claim that the COLB has been validated by Hawaiian Officials.
From the Chicago Tribune
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/30/nation/chi-birth-certificate-30-oct30
“Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.”
It appeared similar, but she WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY of the certificate released by the Obama Campaign.
Vince would have us all believe that the authenticity has been confirmed by the Hawaii Officials.
ONE MORE TIME
It appeared similar, but she WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CONFIRM THE AUTHENTICITY of the certificate released by the Obama Campaign.
bdaman writes Hey Vince, now that you guys have succesfully ran Jim B off I dedicate this song to your discussion.
no one ran Jim B off. he chose to leave.
“VALIDATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A COURT NOT A WEBSITE”
See bdaman, Jim wasn’t run off, it’s just that his game was discovered and his nonsense debunked. Now he posts under birther, which is the first honest thing he’s written since he joined us. All the rest was posing and pretense.
Mike S.,
I am glad I read most of the stuff on my phone. When I see birther I can just skip and delete.
“Do you believe Hitler was a good man?”
BVM,
If someone like that would come back you would be goosestepping behind him, with your arm raised in a Nazi salute.
Only he wouldn’t be calling himself a National Socialist, but a Christian.
The circumstances are closing in on the traitor.
Orly’s new friends on Facebook: Eric Cantor, Republican whip, second ranked Republican congressman has joined congresswoman Mary Bono along with Benjamin Netanyahu.
From Orly:
To me it means that the leadership of the Republican party understands the importance of the issues and legal cases I brought forward. I hope more congressmen and senators join and either become additional plaintiffs or bring to the House and Senate judicial committee hearings the issues of Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency as well as suspected illegal activities by Obama and his supporters.
Chair of Republican National committee Michael Steele is now Orly’s friend on Facebook along with congresswoman Cynthia Lummis, WY
Obama the fascist and his minions will soon be arrested.
BTB: “I suspect that Barack Obama Jr.’s original birth certificate contains information identifying him as a British subject by virtue of his father’s status. Controlling English law for that period would have required such.”
BTB is now an erudite English solicitor and an expert on controlling English and Kenyan law in 1961? Ha!
Although BVM is usually thorough in presenting his laundry list of missing documents, I note that in his recent posts he has failed to mention the president’s high school basketball stats and his immunization records. Do we know for certain that Pres. Obama was vaccinated against small pox? Do we as a nation really want to take the risk of small pox in the White House?
BTB is cropping those quotes again:
Q Chicago Tribune
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Obama birth certificate rumor debunked
By James Janega
October 30, 2008
A persistent rumor circulated by opponents of Barack Obama in recent weeks questions the authenticity of his birth certificate from Hawaii, despite the fact that the Obama campaign debunked the rumor in June.
In the Tribune’s political blog “The Swamp” last week, reporter Mark Silva produced a copy of Obama’s birth certificate and addressed the birthplaces of both presidential candidates.
Sen. John McCain, Silva wrote, “was born to American parents, his father serving as a submariner in the U.S. Navy at the Coco Solo base in the Panama Canal Zone when and where young John Sidney McCain III was born. Barack Hussein Obama II – and yes, he actually has joked that he got his middle name from people who never thought he’d be running for president – was born in Hawaii, in 1961, and has a birth certificate to show for it.”
Conservative critics have suggested that Obama may have been born outside the U.S. and is not a “natural born citizen” eligible for the presidency. But they present no evidence that he was born anywhere other than Hawaii.
In June, the Obama campaign released an electronic copy of the certificate bearing the seal of the State of Hawaii Department of Health and showing that Barack Hussein Obama II was born to mother Stanley Ann Dunham in Honolulu at 7:24 p.m. on Aug. 4, 1961.
Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.
“It looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate,” Okubo said. UQ
BTB very conVEEENiently omitted the part that said it looked “exactly the same as” her own birth certificate.
Read the article. The rumor was debunked.
BTB has been debunked.
Orly currently is representing approx. 170 military members including commissioned officers in a lawsuit to force Barrack Obama to produce his birth cirtificate, proving that he is eligible to hold the position of President.
It is legal to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.
Obama is NOT the president. Obama is NOT the Commander of the Military.
Birther’s insistence that validation should be by a court and not a website illustrates one of the great fallacies common to all birther complaints, the view that they have created a justiciable controversy. If they can ever figure out how to actually plead a cause of action, Birther might have a point. But if they are going to continue to pin their legal hopes on scholars of the caliber of Orly Taitz, they will suffer continual disappointment.
Perhaps Birther could also clarify the irony in his belief that websites are not appropriate forums for settling what he believes to be a bona fide controversy, but are nevertheless credible sources for establishing that a bona fide controversy exists at all.
Vince, thanks again for your citations. I don’t know where you’re finding the time, but I certainly appreciate your efforts. I now know more about John Bingham than I ever actually cared to know.
I agree that it is legal to dissent, resist and disengage from three illegal wars. I also agree that people have a right to challenge Obama’s status as president in a court of law and to state their case in a public forum. I never believed GWB was legally president. This belief was shored up by examinations of actual vote counts and voting fraud that took place in 2004 here in Ohio. BVM, I think you’re arguments have been refuted here, but I do not challenge your right to maintain them or try to prove your case in a court of law. I think Orly is completely mistaken to hitch herself to the Republican party. Our illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were begun by Bush and Cheney, who are not known Democrats. To believe that the Republican party is for truth and justice is naive and factually mistaken.
There are MANY dems, repubs. and independents wanting Obama arrested. His crimes will be addressed by all political parties
Hopefully this will lead into war crimes prosecutions with new administration. First let’s go after the most prominent mass murderer – OBAMA.
Mike A: I’m beginning to wonder where Vince gets the time as well, I’m hot on the trail.
Vince I took your advice, are you sure CF means confer
Most of you know I like to quote Mahatma Ganhdi here’s one
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Vince,
Thank you for your continuing scholarship. You have compiled enough debunking material to write a book and a very instructive one it would be. Also, thank you for making my night alone last night so enjoyable. By cluing me into Torchwood in the Afternoon/evening. Watched it all last night, sans commercials, since after your tip I DVR’d it. Fabulous and what’s more I find myself still thinking about it and the issues it raises today. How come the Brits do science fiction so well and we Americans screw it up by focusing more on special effects than plot?
BVM, actually the most prominent “mass murderers” according to your definition of that phrase are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Had you been equally vehement during their administrations, you might have actually had some credibility.
BVM,
How do you respond to the claim that Orly Taitz is not a natural born US citizen, or perhaps an illegal alien? Have you noticed her accent? Why would you be so anxious to follow the lead of a suspected foreign terrorist? Have you seen her birth certificate, law degree or real estate license? While we’re at it could you post your birth certificate and inoculations record on your website? How do we know that you are not a legal US citizen, not a mid Eastern terrorist and not trying to infect this country with strange diseases? While we’re at it why is it that you never reply in any sense to the work here of Vince, Mike A, or SBF, that have proved you wrong? I think you seriously need to look into the fact that you might not be a real human being, but a computer program on some foreign server.
You might not even be a real person, but a good piece of software.
More legal nonsense from BTB, Leo and Orly legal chocolat factory of misguided lost causes, this time the notion that a “quo warranto” can be brought against the President.
Per wiki, quo warranto functioned as a court order or writ to show proof of authority, for example, by demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office. It literally meant “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”
The D.C. Code has a law on this in Title 16, 3501. “A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.” (Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n).)
The problem for the birthers is that the AG has to ask for the writ: “The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.” 16-3502. Of course, an interested person can apply to the court for the writ if the AG declines. 16-3503. The court can order the office holder ousted and excluded. 16-3545.
It may leap out at the reader that this stuff must be filed in the District of Columbia, but this did not stop Orly, who filed her motion in the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA!! Huh! Oh, she said, D.C. Federal Judge Robertson would not let her file because SHE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE DC BAR. None of the tens of thousands of lawyers admitted in DC could be found to be co-counsel. So she filed a motion in California?
The next part is that the AG must file for the writ. To say the least, it would appear that General Holder might be somewhat reluctant to take this step. So also for anyone else at Justice, or, for that matter, anyone who is not out of his or her Vulcan mind. Some of the birthers have by-passed this. None have yet come up with sufficient facts to get anywhere.
And they are not going to.
This DC law may apply to a lot of lower public officials, but it has no application whatsoever to the President, because it is completely inconsistent with and contrary to the impeachment provisions of the Constitution, and the Constitution, not the DC Code, is the supreme law of the land.
Art II, Sec. 4, says that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” That’s it. Removal is by impeachment. Write your Member of Congress. Now Leo, ever observant, has said that the clause does not say that the President can be removed “only” by impeachment. Tough luck, Leo! Article I, sec. 20 says that the House has the “sole Power of Impeachment.” That is “sole” as in “only” and “exclusively” to all readers for whom English is not their third or fourth language.
Impeachment is defined as the accusation that a public official should be removed from office, and the official is removed if convicted after a trial of impeachment. Impeachment is the means of removal, and only the House can propose the removal of an officer by impeachment.
So quo warranto is another forlorn, frivolous, and fantastic avenue of relief for the demented birther legal theorists.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. 1968, p.289 defines “Cf.” as abbreviated form of latin “confer,” compare. Directs reader’s attention to another part of the work, case, volume, etc where contrasted, analogous or explanatory views or statements may be found.
Vince T., I will be surprised if Orly Taitz is not sanctioned by the court when it dismisses the quo warranto petition. It is a legally frivolous pleading and she either knows, or should know, that she is seeking the wrong remedy in the wrong court. I suggest that birthers will need to make additional contributions to her to cover this.
The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT state that the only method of removal of the President is by impeachment. The Constitution only restricts impeachment to the House.
A Petition for Quo Warranto may be filed by a third party ONLY after the AG refuses.
Has a petition been present to the AG?
http://defendourfreedoms.org/AttorneyGeneralwarranto.htm
If the petition was filed in the wrong venue the remedy is to transfer not dismiss.
Look .. There is Mike the Foolish Jew wearing a swastika.
Black’s
QUO WARRANTO.
In old English practice. .A. writ. in the nature of a writ of right for the king against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order to determine the right.
It lay also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise having never had any grant of it, or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. BI. Comm. 262.
In England, and quite generally throughout the United States this writ has given place to an information in the nature of a quo warranto,” which, though in form a criminal proceeding, is in effect a civil remedy similar to the old writ, and is the method now usually employed for trying the title to a corporate or officer franchise, or to a public or corporate office.
BVM,
Will you post videos that equate Bush/Cheney and the young people who believe in them to Hitler and Hitler youth? As Mike A. pointed out, Bush and Cheney would be war criminals under your definition. Are you consistent enough in your philosophy to post these videos to this site? I’m certain they exist and I would like to know if you are serious about challenging war crimes or only a partisan hack.
Personally I see no need to bring Hitler into the discussion at all. However, if you have integrity of belief you will post the same videos aimed at Bush/Cheney and their young supporters. Let’s see if you do.
Birther, if you actually practiced law instead of simply pretending to know something about it, you would recognize that intentionally misfiling a petition because one is not admitted to practice in the court in which the petition should properly be filed is a sanctionable matter. Ms. Taitz could have retained counsel to file properly and submitted a motion for admission pro hac vice. She has continued to ignore rules of procedure, as well as substantive law, wasting court time and causing unnecessary attorneys’ fees to be incurred. In addition to authority under the rules, a judge has inherent authority to sanction lawyers for procedural abuse. The judiciary has exercised extraordinary patience with Ms. Taitz.
“QUO WARRANTO.
In old English practice. .A. writ. in the nature of a writ of right for the king against”
birther,
What’s this nonsense about quoting English Law? What does Monsieur Vattel has to say. He’s the real authority?
Vattel’s Law of Nations, Book I, Section 51
“If the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws, the prince, on exceeding the bounds prescribed him, commands without any right and even without a just title: the nation is not obliged to obey him, but may resist his unjust attempts. As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression.”
“Look .. There is Mike the Foolish Jew wearing a swastika.”
Unlike you I’m a loyal American citizen and not an Islamic Traitor/Terrorist like you. Why won’t you show your birth certificate and why do you hide under a pseudonym for a bankrupt money making scheme? Why do you hate America?
From Buena Vista Mall Website:
“We are an activist music company involved with getting broad publication of “The Truth about God”, ending the war, abolition of death penalty, free universal healthcare, stopping – big money control of the media / corporate corruption and we are working for a fair music market. Also, we only wish to market the best music available with emphasis on intelligent lyrics and betterment of society.”
How would you know what are intelligent lyrics?
What music have you published?
Who are your real backers, since you support Orly Taitz, whose backed by Republicans?
Buena Vista Mall is in truth a traitorous front organization claiming to be activists, when all they are is paid propagandists, in the pay I think of Satanists. They are the tools of the Dark One and no doubt representatives of the
Anti-Christ.
It is quite telling that a website that purports to be a record company, made up of musicians, list within it no names of musicians, no records made, no jingles or any other accomplishments. Yet with no indication of any accomplishments they requests donations. Real companies or non-profits don’t do that. You are just some young man or woman who put up a website, expressing deranged views and who has no accomplishments in life to speak of. You musical instrument is probably the Kazoo, or maracas. Then again you may be a front organization for Satan and his backers. No one will ever know because you are unwilling to share true information, that you think others are required to share. As usual with you BVM, you just can’t cut it.
All here, especially the lawyers should read Orly’s letter for a good laugh. In includes this little gem: “With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.” Run that one through the translating computer again.
For law students, Orly’s letter is a good lesson, since it shows how not to do something in a manner that borders on malpractice, and shows that nothing is totally worthless, because it can always be a bad example for someone else.
Proof of possible malpractice? The statute clearly says that the remedy for the failure of the AG to act is not to appoint a special prosecutor, or to request leave from the Supreme Court, but to file with the District Court. Repeat for the West Coast: FILE WITH THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Quote § 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.
Except that Orly cannot file in the District Court for D.C. because she is not a member of the D.C. Bar, has been refused permission to file pro hac vice, and cannot find co-counsel. Unquote.
The military relators should immediately consult their JAG lawyers, or private counsel experienced in military law, for advice on how badly they are being represented, in order to preserve their military careers.
BIRTHER TROLL BOYLE clearly has no concern for the military personnel involved in this farcical application for a writ, for anyone truly concerned with their welfare would have long since advised them walk away from Orly and to seek independent counsel, as did Leo Donofrio to his credit.
All military personnel, consult JAG or independent counsel BEFORE getting caught up in birther nonsense.
If anyone is concerned about this issue, the proper, protected avenue to eapress concern is to write to your Member of Congress.
Vince Treacy,
As the self-proclaimed authority on all things law related, can you tell us what law these military members have or will have violated?
Do you need a link to the UCMJ?
Are Reservists subject to Courts Martial?
Are retired officers subject to Courts Martial?
Are you the uneducated nimrod we see on the eveining news making wild claims that somebody broke a law that never existed?
BVM writes: It is legal to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.
tell ya what…. do this…. buy a bus ticket to Washington DC, take your guns and a copy of your birth certificate and go to the White House. Try to get into the Oval Office. Use force if necessary and be sure to keep screaming that it is legal to dissent and resist and that Obama is not the president.
we won’t see you back here any time soon after that but your name will be in the newspapers and all over the TV machine and you will be famous for about a day. then you will disappear and so will everyone else who thinks that Obama is not really president because he doesn’t have the kind of birth certificate you think he ought to have.
Birther, your last reference to Vattel provides good advice for a monarchy. Although the distinction could easily have been forgotten during the Bush-Cheney years, we still live in a republic, at least nominally.
Birther T. Boyle says “The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT state that the only method of removal of the President is by impeachment. The Constitution only restricts impeachment to the House.”
That is from Donofrio. The Constitution provides for removal by impeachment by the House and trial and conviction by the Senate. The House not only has the “sole” Power of Impeachment, but the Senate has the “sole” power to try all impeachments and to remove officers by conviction by two thirds of the Senators present. If the President is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside. The framers used the word “sole” twice in the same Article on the same subject to make themselves clear.
It is nonsense to think that this constitutional process for removal of the President, with the oversight of the Chief Justice of the United States, may be by-passed by a single District Court judge. BTB, Esquire, keeps painting himself into smaller and smaller legal corners.
Why didn’t they use the word “sole” in Art. II, sec. 4? Think about it. That article applies to the President, Vice President and “all civil officers of the United States.” The President, Vice President, and Judges and Justices of the courts have tenure and may only be removed by impeachment. Other civil officers, such as cabinet members, serve at the will of the President and can be removed at any time for any reason. But they can also be removed by Congress by impeachment if they are corrupt and the President refuses to fire them. That is why article II does not use the word “sole” and why impeachment is the sole means of removal for the President, Leo.
So, BIRTHER BOYLE, give them your phone number and bar membership number and advise them yourself.
BVM: “Look, Mike the Foolish Jew…”
Man, where the fuck do you get off tracking that kind of filth into the Professor’s house?
When I retired I stated at my retirement luncheon that ‘yesterday was the last day I had to deal with crazy people and talk to them as if the had something to say.’ I stay away from discussions started by crazy people and it’s why a thread like this has little interest to me. Not being a lawyer and actually having to deal daily with the long-term implications of every jot and tittle in a law, decision, its precedents or intent as elaborated in the founders documents I can just use the short form of assessment: sore losers.
Birthers are just the current public incarnation of the racist, sexist, fundamentalist, hard right base of the Republican party. If any white man (short of Arnold Schwarzenegger) had won the election this thread nor the larger discussion wouldn’t even be taking place. Sore losers.
Then, to top it off, you use the last refuge of a foundation-less argument: name calling of the most base sort. Shame on you.
And to think I actually had to read about 2/3s of this thread to see if there was some rational explanation for the reference; some posted literary or historic reference that may have given it context as irony or farce… you wasted my time (Not that some of it wasn’t interesting.) just to get me back to my departure point. Sore losers. Bah, humbug.
“If the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws,”
Jimmy boy,
The pretend ex-military man couldn’t care less about the risk these officers face to their careers, because he himself has never served, but lied about it to give him more authority. He is also showing himself to be the behind sniffer of plutocrats, by continuing to quote a man whose very career depended on being supported by the aristocracy, a disciple of a greater man who was also supported by aristocrats, as influential on the Founding Fathers, who opposed aristocracy and threw off its’ bounds.
“Are you the uneducated nimrod we see on the eveining news making wild claims that somebody broke a law that never existed?”
Ah, nimrod nice word, there Jimmy boy, get it from your Thesaurus to give your nonsense the sheen of intellectuality?
What makes you such a joke is that by calling Vince that you are showing the defense mechanism of projection, because in your deepest recesses you know you’re really writing about yourself and your leaders the Taitz/Donofrio combine. Let me explain projection for you since you are so not self-aware that it might be a hard concept for you to get.
Projection is when you loath a characteristic in yourself and so imagine (project) that it is the characteristic of others who you deem yourself inferior to. It builds you up, while you attempt to take another down a peg, when you know in fact the other is better than you. Fake names, fake personal history, fake arguments combined with a tendency to lie. You are one really sick puppy, down on BVM’s level and awash in neurotic self-hatred that you can’t resolve. Get help birther
boy, I recommend Cognitive Behavioral Therapy which is highly effective with self-loathing, obsessive neurotics. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
lottakatz,
I agree with you. The response from BVM crosses the line.
Who started it?
“Mike Spindell
1, July 27, 2009 at 9:35 am
“Do you believe Hitler was a good man?”
BVM,
If someone like that would come back you would be goosestepping behind him, with your arm raised in a Nazi salute.
Only he wouldn’t be calling himself a National Socialist, but a Christian.”
If Mr. Spindell opens the door he should expect like responses.
Even Republicans are running from the nonsense. On the Hill, GOPers Vaughn and Inhofe are not birthers –
From FireDogLake: QO Mike Stark has been up on the Hill all week …and in his spare time, he decided to ask Republicans if Barack Obama was born in the United States. Not only do they not want to answer — they run.
He asks Republicans Tom Price, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeff Fortenberry, Charles Boustany, Aaron Schock, Greg Harper, Mike Coffman and others what they think. Tim Murphy hides, looking at pens for 20 minutes to try and avoid him.
Mike and Brave New Films cameraman Brett Vauhn finally got Arizona congressman Trent Franks to admit without equivocation that Obama was born in the United States, and that his birth certificate is valid. UQ http://firedoglake.com/2009/07/27/mike-stark-on-capitol-hill-know-your-birthers/
“Another reporter asked Inhofe spokesman Jared Young whether the Senator questions Obama’s legitimacy as President. He answered:
“No. His focus is on issues.” http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/breaking-inhofe-does-not-question-obamas-legitimacy-as-president/
Vince writes: rom FireDogLake: QO Mike Stark has been up on the Hill all week …and in his spare time, he decided to ask Republicans if Barack Obama was born in the United States. Not only do they not want to answer — they run.
He asks Republicans Tom Price, Thaddeus McCotter, Jeff Fortenberry, Charles Boustany, Aaron Schock, Greg Harper, Mike Coffman and others what they think. Tim Murphy hides, looking at pens for 20 minutes to try and avoid him.
Mike and Brave New Films cameraman Brett Vauhn finally got Arizona congressman Trent Franks to admit without equivocation that Obama was born in the United States, and that his birth certificate is valid
well then, there you are. sane people are everywhere…even congress.
BIRTHER/Jimmy boy,
Do you really believe that BVM asked me the Hitler question without the knowledge I was Jewish? You really are a schmuck, aren’t you?
BuenaVistaMall.com
1, July 27, 2009 at 9:03 am
Vince Treacy:
Do you believe Hitler was a good man?
Do you think he was born in Germany or Hawaii?
Glory Hallelujah! Birther/Jimmy boy finally got one right. Yes I was wrong it was addressed to Vince and I interceded. My bad. The difference though between you and me though birther boy, is when I’m proven wrong I acknowledge it, that’s the difference between an adult and a child.
From http://www.repubx.com
By JB Williams Monday, July 27, 2009
Division in the Ranks
Today, I report that four more have filed “treason” charges against Obama, similar to that filed by Commander Fitzpatrick last March.
Richard M. Keefner of Illinois, retired Marine Gy Sgt. Bob Pinkstaff, retired Marine Sgt. Phillip Wolf and retired Marine Colonel Edward Schriber, have all filed formal criminal charges of “treason” against presumed president Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro. Copies of their charges can be viewed here: riseupforamerica.com
An increasing number of soldiers are refusing Obama orders for recall and deployment. Obama is indeed losing control of the US Military. Above all other Americans, the men and women who volunteer and proudly take an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution by serving in the US Military, have a right to know without any doubt, that their orders are legal and constitutional.
BVM,
Private citizens cannot file criminal charges. Retired Sgts. are private citizens.
I am reading the charges have been filed.
http://www.uscourts.gov/UFC99.pdf
Page 30
“How do I file a criminal case?
Individuals may not file criminal charges in federal courts. A criminal proceeding is initiated by the government, usually through the U.S. attorney’s office in coordination with a law enforcement agency. Allegations of criminal behavior should be brought to the local police, the FBI, or other appropriate law enforcement agency.”
BVM, with whom have the “charges” been filed? With the Citizen’s Grand Jury in Georgia?
It doesn’t matter the damage is done. FEMA NLE 09 is underway. This year the United States welcomes the participation of Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom in NLE 09. The NLE 09 scenario will begin in the aftermath of a notional terrorist event outside of the United States, and exercise play will center on preventing subsequent efforts by the terrorists to enter the United States and carry out additional attacks.
I think they are practicing at the border, my bad it’s still open. Then they must be practicing for attacks from right wing extremist, my bad again t-parties are over.
HHUMM why the participation of foreign troops in a FEMA/Homeland Security event. Could understand if it was a military exercise. Any thoughts BVM
The on again off again Donofrio is on again going off again about Obama is Guilty on at least two counts of false swearing. When was that trial. It’s the first i heard of it.
Hey BVM can answer this, If Pakistan attacked Turkey from the rear, would Greece help?
It looks like they are all retired and filing federal treason charges.
http://www.riseupforamerica.com/newtreasoncomplaints.html
Oh and If they did should they file charges against the Pakinanny Prime minister as a war criminal and then charge him with treason.
I hear Obama has been praying alot lately. I can only imagine it goes like this. Please don’t arrest me, please don’t arrest me Amen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1201905/Obama-I-used-pray-night–I-pray-ALL-time-devotionals-BlackBerry.html;jsessionid=BD2A9B803E9BE16860ADE19DBD01E9E8
Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord the White House I keep. And if ther is a Coupe before I awake, I pray it’s a Deville for Michelle’s sake.
I have just reviewed the criminal complaints on riseupforamerica.com. Unless the complainants are completely unhinged, a possibility I do not rule out, the complaints fall into the category of libel per se. The U.S. attorney will place them in a nutcase folder and nothing more will be heard about them. The complainants in the meantime can periodically squeeze into their faded uniforms and participate in tea parties and White Citizens’ Council rallies.
Mike thanks for taking the time to review it. How does it fell knowing you wasted it.
Being a birther is the political equivalent of having a superfluous nipple – amusing but ultimately of no consequence as it’s useless. As in non-functional. A pretend nipple. As the Germans would say, a Nippleganger.
You boys want to meet the Tooth Fairy? I can arrange it for a modest fee. In fact, for such a discriminating and intelligent customer base, I’d be glad to offer all my pimping services for any imaginary character in public domain. A Mall is a great place for that kind of business.
Then perhaps I could interest you in a bridge. It’s in New York. Slightly used, but I’ll give you a discount.
If any of you are scared of the monster under your bed, don’t worry, he’s just as real as your ridiculous claims. I can also arrange a meeting with him for a small fee, but I warn you now. He’s not a birther. He thinks you guys are imaginary characters. He refuses to believe humans can be this stupid in the face of evidence and the law in a matter that the SCOTUS found so ridiculous, it passed on granting cert. I keep telling him that humans are far stupider than he gives credit, but just keeps telling me I don’t know enough gnomes. So I told him, “Yeah, but I do know some trolls.”
‘Nighty night, all the little childrens in birther-land. You need to get some sleep. Tomorrow is New Dead Horse Day. It’s traditional that you find another one to beat. This one has had it.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
Obama has not waged war against the United States, nor adhered to their enemies, nor given them aid and comfort, and anyone who says so is a liar, and as noted, possibly committing libel.
No treason within the meaning of the Constitution has happened. The so-called complaints are incoherent and illiterate, have no basis in fact or law, and not one of them even mentions any statutory or constitutional definition of treason. They are the product of total ignorance.
No wonder bvm posts these links anonymously.
So just kindly shut up with these hate-filled potentially libelous charges. They are turning this thread into a hate site. The bvm can post anything it wants on its own site.
You know . . . treason.
That thing Bush Co. did by protecting the nation that attacked us on 9/11 (his family business partners) by subverting our military for their personal private gain by attacking not only a third country that not only didn’t attack us, but acted as a check on Iran.
9/11 was manned by Saudis. Paid for by Saudis. Operated by Saudis from bases in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.
And Bush Co. protected them. They even used our resources to whisk many of the Saudis, including Bin Laden relatives, out of the country as quickly as possible after the attacks.
You know . . . providing material aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during a time of war.
Yeah.
Treason.
There’s plenty of room for talking about treason.
If BVM gets himself sued in the process, that’s just gravy.
Buddah Bush didn’t protect them, he assisted them in thier efforts. You of all people as edumacated as you are especially in relations to the suns activity should know this. Some men you just can’t reach
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
I wholeheartedly encourage the U.S. Military to dissent, resist, and disengage from the two illegal, immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama is NOT the president. He was not elected legally. He is a warmonger / war criminal, mass murderer, traitor and guilty of many other crimes. The right and duty of the military and
all authorities is to arrest him and remove him from office.
TO THE U.S. MILITARY:
———————
OBAMA’S ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW ILLEGAL ORDERS. IT IS YOUR OBLIGATION TO RESIST.
CNN wrong once again – birth record not destroyed – Hawaii contradicts network boss’ claim that Obama certificate no longer exists
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily http://www.WND.com
Directly contradicting CNN chief Jon Klein – who ordered host Lou Dobbs to quit discussing President Obama’s birth certificate – the Hawaii Department of Health affirmed that no paper birth certificates were destroyed when the department moved to electronic record-keeping.
“I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department,” Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. “When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don’t destroy records.”
more at WND.com
Buddah writes: Being a birther is the political equivalent of having a superfluous nipple – amusing but ultimately of no consequence as it’s useless. As in non-functional. A pretend nipple. As the Germans would say, a Nippleganger.
I am so glad you are back
BVM did you buy your bus ticket to DC yet? clean and oil your guns? pack your map from the bus station to the white house? plan how you are going to break into the oval and force the president to submit to citizen’s arrest? what are you wasting time on this blog for when there is real work for you to do?
BVM Vince has already told you the only one Obama can give he has produced. Hawaii has Obama’s original certificate, it was personally seen and verified by Dr.Fukino. It can not be seen by anyone else. No one can see it, it’s a secret. Hawaii won’t even allow Obama to see it. Why don’t you get it?
Is a copy of a Van Gogh worth more than the original? No, but as long as nobody knows it’s a copy it’s priceless. SHHHHHH
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17727971/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-37-Defendants-Reply-to-Plaintiffs-Opposition-Brief-to-Defendants-MTD
If military people disobey orders because of bvm, where can they reach it afterwards when they face the consequences?
bvm is fiction. It has no name, address, phone number or birth certificate. Anyone in the military who follows it’s advice will be left holding the bag. They will have nothing to turn to but a url.
Military people are smart, too smart to heed a mall, especially when the power behind the mall spews hatred and lies, but is too cowardly to show its face or identify itself.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and no attention at all to whatever is behind the mall.
Do not take advice from a mall.
Corsi is a swift boater writing for the Nut, a site paid for by a millionaire that openly solicits funds from birther nuts.
Here is a real newspaper report. Read it for yourselves.
The director of the Department of Health in Hawaii has personally seen the original vital records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Hawaii has officially verified that Obama was born in Hawaii.
That should explode the birth certificate myth. The birthers are now free to move around the galaxy with Leo’s flimsy little legal theory that Obama was a dual citizen, a theory discredited here last year before the Supreme Court shot it down.
QO Updated at 2:57 p.m., Monday, July 27, 2009
Obama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writer
In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawai’i's health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.
Despite Fukino’s statement today, the issue continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the national airwaves to the blogosphere.
A congressional resolution introduced by Hawaii Rep. Neil Abercrombie commemorating the 50th anniversary of Island statehood was postponed today apparently because of a “whereas” clause noting Obama’s Hawaii birthplace.
The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;” has been construed by some who believe Obama is not a U.S.-born citizen as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship.
So-called “birthers” denounce the notion that Obama was born in Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, despite court rulings and statements by Fukino and Hawaii’s Republican governor, Linda Lingle.
Abercrombie’s office had already issued a statement today announcing the House’s unanimous approval of Abercrombie’s resolution when Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann rose today to object to the vote, saying there was not a quorum present.
Before Bachman’s objection, Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert had said some birthers believe the resolution “means the House of Representatives is on the record that Hawaii is the birthplace of the president of the United States.”
The House later voted unanimously 378 to 0 to approve the resolution.
“Fifty-five people didn’t vote for whatever reason,” Abercrombie spokesman Randy Obata said.
“Apparently there was no objection in the final analysis.”
Bachman ended up voting in favor of the resolution.
UQ, source:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090727/BREAKING01/90727082/Obama+Hawaii+born++insist+Isle+officials
BIRTHER T (Big Bertha) Boyle quoted Black’s definition above, but without comprehension: “QUO WARRANTO. In old English practice. A.writ in the nature of a writ of right for the king against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order to determine the right.”
What is wrong with this picture? Well, the writ was FOR THE KING and it was against anyone who claimed an office, franchise or liberty. It challenges anyone not legally holding office from the King. It did not and could not challenge the King himself.
In the Middle Ages, peasants Leo and Orly could not bring the writ against the King. That would have been ridiculous (and dangerous). In the 21st, lawyers Orly and Leo cannot bring the writ against the President, because the President is the Head of State, removable only by the democratic process of impeachment, not by a cabal of unelected judges.
Some inferior officials may still theoretically be subject to the obsolete writ, but it has never been applied to federal judges, who have life tenure and have been removed exclusively by impeachment for the entire history of the country. Two Presidents have been impeached, but none has ever been subject to the writ.
Orly’s and Leo’s notion is frivolous in the extreme. The Constitution provides for impeachment of the President, solely by Congress.
Hey Vince Check out USA today looks like they added a little.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a NATURAL BORN American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Sorry missed it the first time
Also keep in mind her first statement was on official paper. Until the Hawaii DOH releases an OFFICIAL statement does what Fukino said become an official part of the record.
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/pressdate.html
That link don’t go there.
Try: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
INCREDIBLE BREAKING NEWS!!!
Dr. Fukino, a medical doctor with an undergraduate in psychology
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/admin/directorbio.html
makes this statement.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
INCREDIBLE medical doctor can tell us what a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court could not.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874)
INCREDIBLE = Not Credible = Dr. Fukino
Its like it just came to her. FUK I NO
That dang horse leather ain’t gonna be good nuff for shoes if you keep tanning it this much.
Vince:
Your efforts at casting pearls before swine are courageous and right-thinking. However, even you must tire of explaining the most elementary concepts, and foisting off the most ridiculous assertions. I nominate you for the blog “St. George Award” for sallying forth to slay dragons who, while breathing considerable fire, are both blind and dumb.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Stgeorge-dragon.jpg/300px-Stgeorge-dragon.jpg
The quo warranto dreamed up by Orly, Leo and BTB is a stupid, stupid idea.
From the good people at Obamaconspiracy.com:
No quo warranto against a President
The learned counsel who immediately preceded me, has contended that a Senator cannot be considered as an “officer,” because there could be no quo warranto to remove him from his place, if he held it improperly, nor mandamus to place him in it, if unjustly kept out. But surely this cannot be a well founded argument, for if it be, it applies as well to the President, the Judges, the Secretaries, and the Commander-in-Chief of the army, as to a Senator. Not one of them could be removed by quo warranto or replaced by mandamus. Did any one ever hear of a quo warranto to remove a Colonel of a regiment ? Was a quo warranto ever brought in England against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a Secretary of State, or a Lord of the Admiralty ? Certainly not, and yet that these are officers, will not be denied. The truth is, Mr. President, that the doctrine of quo warranto and mandamus, as far as it relates to officers, is confined exclusively to certain local municipal officers, of a subordinate nature, who are placed, by the common law of England, under the superintendence of the Supreme Court of Justice; to which, from the nature of their offices, recourse could most conveniently and effectually be had, for their punishment, their removal, or their reinstatement. But this reason did not extend to the great officers of the State, of the army, or the navy, or to any of their subordinates. They could best be punished, removed and replaced, in a different manner, and by a different authority. To them, therefore, nobody ever dreamt of extending the power of the Supreme Courts by quo warranto and mandamus: and yet nobody ever, on this account, thought of denying that they were ” officers,” which, however, would be just as reasonable, as to contend that a Senator of the United States is not an ” officer,” because he cannot be removed by quo warranto, w admitted by mandamus. I admit that it would be absurd to talk of an office from which a man could not,be removed, however flagitious his conduct; or into which, when entitled to it, and improperly kept ont, he had no means of obtaining admission. But a Senator may be removed by a vote of expulsion ; and if duly elected, but not returned, may obtain his seat by a petition to the Senate.
Francis Wharton State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams 1849
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response-to-eligibility-primer-part-2/#more-3756
“INCREDIBLE medical doctor can tell us what a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court could not.”
birther/jimmy boy/liar about military service/racist
The above quote and post sums up why you are such a liar and a schmuck. Can it really be that you draw this conclusion from the Doctor’s statement? That is what your movement needs to do.Parse every particular word to come up with some minor thing to hang your stupid theories on. At the end you make fun of Dr. Fukino’s name, unlike you she’s been educated,not un-educatable. So it occurs to me that what we are really seeing is a bigot and a racist, who supports this whole thing because you can’t abide a black man in the White House.
It is a significant pattern that I’ve noticed with the likes of you. First they make posts that portray themselves as merely reasonable people interested in the truth. As the debate ensues though, their reasonable veneer begins to crack and what shines through is the underlying prejudice and radical hate of America, which doesn’t meet up to the rigidity of your standards. That is no doubt why you dote so much on law propounded in the era of Kings. you long to be under the boot of a higher authority and dream of following orders. For all I know BDSM may be at the root of your problem. You would be a difficult case for a mental health professional to handle because while there may be sympathy for your disorder, there would also be disgust with your true nature.
HuH? the link I provided is where official press releases are given. When we see an official press release like the one you linked to it will then be an official part of the record. I will point out that WND has the same article and if anyone was going to dismantle the claim she said it, it would be them.
Question The last several days I’ve had problems viewing this site. I get no smooth scrolling, I get delayed typing while commenting and the computer freezes. I do not have the same problems on ANY OTHER SITE I VISIT. Is anyone else having the same problems?
BIRTHER BOYLE, any doubts in Minor were resolved in Wong. From your joke on her name, you sound like an 8th grader. It does not cast you in a good light.
So, Mespo, when is the award ceremony?
Let’s just see Obama’s BC and other documents for proof then we can all move along in getting all the Nazis out of our government. Obama and Michelle, et al need to settle in with their rehabilitation programs in the prisons.
I am glad The Mall can be here with you. This site is plagued with a tremendous amount of mis-information (lies). But it will all come to light soon and many of the people here will scurry like humiliated rodents but we will not gloat (too much)
This is beautiful. Josh at TPM notes that the birthers who voted that Obama was a natural born citizen last night included Bill Posey, sponsor of the bill to require candidate birth certificates, and co-sponsors Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, John Culberson, Bob Goodlatte , Randy Neugebauer, and Ted Poe.
Morons.
Vince Treacy says “BIRTHER BOYLE, any doubts in Minor were resolved in Wong. From your joke on her name, you sound like an 8th grader. It does not cast you in a good light.”
BUT his own link, the one provided by Vince Treacy on 1, July 28, 2009 at 9:11 am says that the Wong Kim Ark did not make it clear.
“In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’).”
Vince’s link
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response-to-eligibility-primer-part-2/#more-3756
Vince Treacy
1, July 28, 2009 at 9:54 am
“This is beautiful. Josh at TPM notes that the birthers who voted that Obama was a natural born citizen last night included Bill Posey, sponsor of the bill to require candidate birth certificates, and co-sponsors Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, John Culberson, Bob Goodlatte , Randy Neugebauer, and Ted Poe.”
Why didn’t Vince provide a link?
BECAUSE A LINK WOULD DESTROY HIS LIE!!!
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/07/birthers_flinch.php
They voted that Obama was born in Hawaii. THEY DID NOT VOTE THAT OBAMA WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
You know what bothers me is here we have Fukino again making the statement she has seen and verified. Well why is she the only one allowed to see. Reminds me of this movie.
It is not a lie, BIRTHER BOYLE. Babies born in Hawaii in 1961 were natural born citizens. It follow as day follows night, except for a grad of Google School of Law majoring in cut and paste up.
Correction, it should have been addressed to BIRTHER BYRNE.
BTB is still wrong. If they voted that he was born in Hawaii, they have also necessarily voted that he was a natural born citizen. Otherwise, WHY DID THEY INTRODUCE A BILL TO REQUIRE BIRTH CERTIFATES as proof of natural born status? Not one of them has embraced Leo’s and your theory of dual citzenship, or the two-parent theory, or citizenship through the father but not the mother, OR THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BOTHERED TO REQUIRE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN 2012.
The point of their bill was to require birth certificates so that the people would know if the candidate was born a citizen. There is nothing in there about foreign jurisdiction or allegiance. The birth certificate settles it under their bill.
Now they have voted that Obama was born in Hawaii. They HAVE TO now concede that his certificate is valid, and that he is a natural born citizen. They have no choice.
Everyone, read TPM. Really grasping for straws, Byrne.
Vince Treacy,
You have been caught too many times to count.
“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time till at length it becomes habitual.” -Thomas Jefferson
You are well-aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has questioned the natural-born citizen clause of Article II, with regards to those born of foreign parents (Obama’s father was foreign), yet you continue a claim (without merit) that a vote supporting Obama’s birth in Hawaii is a vote on his natural-born citizen determination. IT IS NOT!
“Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom” Thomas Jefferson
BTW, I will be watching this space to see if BIRTHER BYRNE, US NAVY, has any comment on bvm’s “I wholeheartedly encourage the U.S. Military to dissent, resist, and disengage from the two illegal, immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” and “Obama is NOT the president. He was not elected legally. He is a warmonger / war criminal, mass murderer, traitor and guilty of many other crimes. The right and duty of the military and all authorities is to arrest him and remove him from office.”
The BILL (House Resolution 593) voted on yesterday was a Bill to recognize the 50th Anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood. The Bill contained a statement that Obama was born in Hawaii.
H Res 593 is a NON-BINDING RESOLUTION. It carries no weight. It’s just like the Bill that determined John McCain’s status.
It’s a meaningless part of the show and Vince Treacy knows that.
The Bill requiring birth certificates is HR 1503.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.01503:
Well, well, well. BIRTHER BYRNE thinks he has a “gotcha!”
QHOTE ON Vince Treacy says “BIRTHER BOYLE, any doubts in Minor were resolved in Wong. From your joke on her name, you sound like an 8th grader. It does not cast you in a good light.”
BUT his own link, the one provided by Vince Treacy on 1, July 28, 2009 at 9:11 am says that the Wong Kim Ark did not make it clear.
“In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen (SCOTUS in ‘Wong Kim Ark’).”
Vince’s link
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response-to-eligibility-primer-part-2/#more-3756 UNQUOTE
Just one small problem here. At the link, the quoted paragraph was not written by Dr. Conspiracy, but by a writer named Stephen Tonchen, an internet birther. The entire link is a REFUTATION of that paragraph. Neither Dr. Conspiracy nor I agree with that statement. He only quoted it to discuss it. We agree that “While US v. Wong did not decide the natural born citizen question, the majority opinion leads inevitably to the conclusion that those born within the United States (except the children of ambassadors) are our natural born citizens, without regard to the citizenship of their parents.”
Dr. Conspiracy’s discussion is recommended to all.
Wong led inevitably to the conclusion that those born in the US are natural born citizens. Wong resolved the doubts. Don’t like it? Change it in Court or by Amendment.
Sorry, BTB.
Read it over, everyone. Why stop at birth certificate if the person must not only be born in the USA, but must also have no foreign parents?
The NECESSARY implication is that the birth certificate is sufficient, and birth in the US is sufficient, to establish natural born citizenship. The finding does not mention that two US parents are needed, or that the baby must not be subject to foreign jurisdiction.
The Leo-Orly-BTB theory seems completely unknown to the drafters. BTB should expend efforts on contacting the sponsors to amend their bill.
A BILL
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDING.
Congress finds that under section 5 of article II of the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF CANDIDATE’S ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.
(a) In General- Section 303(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act (2 U.S.C. 433(b)) is amended–
(1) by striking `and’ at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and inserting `; and’; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(7) in the case of a principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President, a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under section 5 of article II of the Constitution.’.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the election for the office of President held in 2012 and each succeeding election for the office of President.
Wow! BTB says I am a liar. Well, always have to consider the source.
BTB “You are well-aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has questioned the natural-born citizen clause of Article II, with regards to those born of foreign parents (Obama’s father was foreign), yet you continue a claim (without merit) that a vote supporting Obama’s birth in Hawaii is a vote on his natural-born citizen determination. IT IS NOT!’
There was no lie, BTB is simply ignorant of the law. The question of citizenship of children born to foreign parents in the US was not before the Minor court, which ruled that women could not vote, requiring the later passage of the 19th Amendment.
The Minor Court said, but did not rule, that children of US parents are citizens by birth. It did not say that “only” children of US parents are citizens by birth, and did not say that children of non-citizens were “not” citizens from birth. Language not needed to resolve a case is non-binding dicta. It left the issue to be decided later. Wong Kim Ark resolved that children of alien parents are citizens by birth. That is the majority decision, and is binding until reverse by the Court or Constitutional Amendment.
BTB relied earlier above on two dissenting justices.
In this case, five is more than two, so five rules.
So many quotations pasted up from the web.
So much ignorance, so little time.
BIRTHER,
Other commenters have strongly suggested that you are Jim Byrne commenting under a new pseudonym. Can you unequivocally refute—with suitable evidence—that their suspicions of you being the former Jim Byrne are definitely wrong?
Vince Treacy,
Regardless of your required reiterations of this topic, your efforts are not wasted because this blawg section is becoming a good source of reference. I must say that, among others, your wry comment “Do not take advice from a mall.” was especially humorous. However, I disagree with your quest for BVM’s censorship. Paraphrasing—as Prof. Turley has stated elsewhere—we want such people to speak out to show up on the radar. In addition, I am still learning new bits of information from within the arguments’ replications.
I see by the old clock on the wall that it is time to mosey along and leave the birthers in the old corral. Lieutenant Commander Captain Admiral Jim BIRTHER TROLL Horatio Hornblower Byrne US Navy is starting to call me a liar (after also calling Bob Esq. a liar), and further rational response is clearly futile. I have maintained my policy of not calling posters liars or morons or any other demeaning names. (That does not apply to Members of Congress).
Looking back, I think his quo warranto argument has been refuted. He thought Major Cook would have standing to sue, but I correctly predicted the case would fail. He pasted that quote by Rep. Bingham from the web twice, but it was clearly a statement about a different bill. The Donofrio theory of dual citizenship (because of Kenyan citizenship) was refuted here last year, and the Supreme Court declined to take Leo’s case. The two-parent theory is not supported by Leo’s argument, but it has also been refuted. I think Wong Kim Ark is the law. He never got around to explaining how his discussion of “punitive damages” matched postings on the web word-for-word, and I hope Midshipman Byrne did not turn in work like that at Boat School. I will look for reaction to bvm’s call for mutiny. I think it is fair to say that Hawaiian officials have now verified that Obama was born in Hawaii, and most Members of the House now believe, by virtue of their votes, that he was born there as well. He never addressed the fact that the COLB is now the only certificate that Hawaii issues, so they cannot release a “certificate” or long form or vault copy. He still may want them to open the original records to him, but he may say that those are forgeries too, and there is no way to argue with that. I think the anonymous forgery theorists like truthdude and Polarik have been refuted, that independent Pulitzer Prize winning reporters have seen and verified the COLB, and that it is authentic. Boyle may never agree, but so be it. It took the Pope hundreds of years to agree with the evidence that Galileo wanted to show him.
FFLEO, thanks. I don’t care if birther and Boyle say anything about their online names. You and anyone else can post any questions at all about the topic, and I will try to find some answers or links.
Vince:
“So, Mespo, when is the award ceremony?”
**********************
If I ever get my kitchen done, we can have the awards ceremony there. I ‘ll order up the dragon, and we can get Orly Taitz, Esq. to parachute in without the chute! Patty C can organize the caterers, and we can probably get JT to MC, or maybe even, hope against hope, Lewis Black. Black tie, or course. Here’s my favorite funny man:
Honolulu Advertiser
July 28, 2009
Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists
By Dan Nakaso
Advertiser Staff Writers
Hawai’i's Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama’s original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
“We don’t destroy vital records,” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. “That’s our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records.”
The Health Department’s director reiterated yesterday that she has seen Obama’s birth records.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen,” Fukino said in a statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008, over eight months ago.”
Fukino tried on Oct. 31 to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in Honolulu’s Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital. The birthers insist that Obama was not born in the U.S. and is therefore ineligible to be president.
Despite Fukino’s statement yesterday — and several court rulings and statements by Hawai’i's Republican governor, Linda Lingle, the issue continued to resonate from Capitol Hill to the blogosphere.
A congressional resolution introduced yesterday by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawai’i, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Island statehood was temporarily postponed because birthers objected to a clause noting Obama was born in Hawai’i, said Dave Helfert, an Abercrombie spokesman.
The line “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;” appeared to be construed by birthers as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship, Helfert said.
As the issue came to a vote yesterday, Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann rose to object, saying there was not a quorum present.
The House later voted unanimously 378-0 to approve the resolution. Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution.
original form exists
Mainland media has also continued to focus attention on the birthers. CNN’s Lou Dobbs last week demanded Obama’s original birth certificate. That was followed by CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein telling staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the issue is a “dead” story, according to a Los Angeles Times report.
In an e-mail, according to the Times, Klein wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate no longer exists because Hawai’i officials had discarded paper documents in 2001 — a claim denied yesterday by Isle health officials.
In 2001, Hawai’i's paper documents were reproduced in electronic format but “any paper data prior to that still exists,” Health Department spokeswoman Okubo said.
Okubo would not say where Obama’s original birth certificate is, but said “we have backups for all of our backups.”
“Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations,” Okubo said. “With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver’s license.”
One thing that remains unclear is whether Obama has a copy of the original 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, or if he would even be allowed to see it if he asked.
Hawai’i's disclosure law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes 338-18) states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part on any such record … ”
The law further states that the Health Department “shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
Those who have “direct and tangible interest” are generally limited to the person named in the record, the spouse, parent, descendant, or personal representative, or by someone who is involved in marital, parental or death litigation involving the named person’s vital record or other legal reason established by a court order, and various official agency or organization representatives, including the state director of health, according to the law.
format changed
The standard “Certification of Live Birth” that Hawai’i health officials now issue — and was posted on Obama’s campaign Web site — has less information than was required on the “Certificate of Live Birth” that Eleanor Nordyke was issued for each of her twin daughters on Aug. 5, 1961.
Nordyke was in labor at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the same time as Obama’s late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Nordyke said. She gave birth to twins the day after Obama was born, Nordyke said, and her daughters later attended Punahou School with Obama.
The modern-day birth certificates issued to anyone seeking their Hawai’i birth records have spaces for the names and races of the parents, as well as information such as the time of birth.
Nordyke’s 1961 birth certificates required much more information, such as the ages, occupations and birthplaces of the babies’ parents.
There was a box to determine whether the mother’s address was “on a Farm or Plantation,” and the signature — but not the name — of the “attendant” was required, as well as boxes to determine whether the attendant was an “M.D.,” “D.O.,” “midwife” or “other.”
Birthers have failed to get state and federal courts in Hawai’i, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, Georgia and Mississippi to force Hawai’i officials to produce a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, with many of the courts agreeing with Lingle’s administration that birth records are confidential.
In October, the Hawai’i Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus on behalf of Internet columnist Andy Martin. The court ruled that Martin did not have a “direct tangible interest” in seeking Obama’s birth certificate.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court — without comment — declined to hear arguments in another case alleging Obama did not meet the Constitution’s citizenship requirements.
first mention
In November 2008, The Advertiser reported that the first published mention of the future president appeared in a Sunday Advertiser birth announcement that ran on Aug. 13, 1961:
“Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, 6085 Kalanianaole Hwy., son, Aug. 4.”
The identical announce- ment ran the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
Birthers wave off those birth announcements, saying that Obama family members 48 years ago could have phoned in false information to both newspapers.
Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.
Birth announcements from the public ran elsewhere in both papers and usually included information such as the newborn’s name, weight and time of birth.
“Take a second and think about that,” wrote Robert Farley of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning Web site PoliticFact.com on July 1. “In order to phony those notices up, it would have required the complicity of the state Health Department and two independent newspapers — on the off chance this unnamed child might want to one day be president of the United States.”
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280345/Hawaii%20officials%20confirm%20Obama’s%20original%20birth%20certificate%20still%20exists?GID=oc4onLOVnbg56pPc2/scNBYxvt8yvewDUvaP6W4SCK4%3D
Vince T,
I came to this site a couple of months ago looking to debunk birther myths (specifically the requirement of 2 citizen parents for natural born status a nuance mostly ignored by the media) and found the facts presented by you and other posters very helpful, but what you have done on this thread is nothing short of amazing. It is probably fortunate that Jim B/BIRTHER, bdaman, and BVM all lack the self-awareness to realize just how badly they have been beaten down in this thread, but I think that the rest of us are impressed by the no-holds-barred legal smackdown you’ve inflicted on the birther movement. As long as President Obama has lawyers half as smart as you he’s got no need to worry about this (really, as long as he’s got someone better than Orly Taitz on the payroll he’ll be fine…). Well done.
Jim B/BIRTHER, bdaman, and BVM,
Are you guys aware of how thoroughly every single argument you’ve advanced has been shot down by Vince? After reading this thread the only conclusion that a rational person can come to is that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the US and the legitimate president. Can any of you leave the state of denial that you are living in and admit the truth or was Mike S correct in his speculation that this has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with your personal dislike for President Obama? It’s okay to disagree with his policies but questioning his legitimacy in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just pathetic.
Yes Slart, I have given Vince props many many times. I have personally seen and verified that this debate will not stop short of the American public seing and verifying his original birth certificate. As I stated above why is Fukino the only one allowed to see it. If it is what it is then whats to hide. I believe he was born in Hawaii I believe he’s a natural born citizen, but I also believe there is something on the birth certificate he doesn’t want anyone to see. Eventually the truth will prevail, it always does. In the last six months we are finding out more and more about Bush and Cheney. Look how long it took to figure out the Chester Author Biography. Before all of this, I had no idea who Chester Arthur was. The truth will come out, hopefully sooner than later. Kinda like Global Warming look how long Gore has been pushing his “The science is settled there will be no more debate” wagon (HIS WORDS) now we know he is a profitier.
bdaman,
There you go questioning motives again… As to why Fukino is the only one allowed to see the original birth certificate, you should take that up with the state of Hawaii, but as far as I’m concerned privacy laws are a good thing and if President Obama has something to hide on his original long form birth certificate (which I doubt) then he has every right to keep that information to himself as it has been legally established that he is a natural born citizen of the US and eligible to be president. The information that we are finding out about Bush and Cheney comes from government documents (released under FOIA, I assume) and people talking (mostly stirred up by the dueling Bush and Cheney legacy tours). I don’t know who’s going to talk about the president’s birth certificate (especially since it would be a crime for any Hawaii official to do so) and there is no basis for a FOIA request here. It is unlikely that the American public ‘seeing and verifying’ the original birth certificate would do anything to stop the birther’s irrational quest for reasons suggested by Mike S and Mike A (among others) on this thread. I applaud you for having the honesty to admit that President Obama is a NBC, but I really think you should go the last step and admit that there is no real controversy here or any information that the public has a right to know being suppressed. I did a report on Chester A. Arthur in middle school for a history class and my only lingering impression of the man is that he has got to be in the running for the least interesting POTUS so far…
Vince,
It’s a little off-topic, but I was wondering about the frequent birther claims about all of Obama’s records being sealed. Do you know if this is typical behavior for political figures or if the president is being unusually secretive? (or if the birther’s are just making it up…)
Sl, Thank you very much. I forgot to mention the Vattel issue. We should all thank Mike Appleton, who did the digging to show that the common law, and Blackstone, governed the framer’s views of citizenship, not Vattel.
SL “It’s a little off-topic, but I was wondering about the frequent birther claims about all of Obama’s records being sealed. Do you know if this is typical behavior for political figures or if the president is being unusually secretive? (or if the birther’s are just making it up…)”
That is on the topic, and a good question. I think it is a question for the electorate, not for lawyers. All politicians have a record and some disclose more than others. It is up to the voters, not to the courts. I posted that answer on another thread, in answer to FFLEO, that I think questions about education and other records are for the electorate, now for 2012 election. I do not think Obama was any different from any other candidates on that matter, but it is not my expertise, so others can chime in.
On birth records, Obama issued a BC. I do not think any other candidate did. I know McCain did not, and the BC on the web is a forgery. See Dr. Conspiracy over at ObamaConspiracy.com. If anyone has seen any other presidential or candidate BCs, feel free to share.
This topic started here a year ago, but the focus was on McCain, because he WAS born outside the 50 United States. Everyone assumed there was no issue for Obama because he was born in the US.
And he was
Sl;”I did a report on Chester A. Arthur in middle school for a history class and my only lingering impression of the man is that he has got to be in the running for the least interesting POTUS so far…”
As BIL woould say, LOLROTF
The Hawaiian Department of Health Director does not have the authority nor ability to make a call on Obama’s ‘natural born citizen’ question.
His documents must be examined by experts of the court.
Still he is not qualified as his father was not a US citizen. Simply Obama is not qualified to be president. The most important reasons for his disqualification are that he was / is a Warmonger / War Criminal, Mass Murderer, Forger, Thief, Guilty of Fraud, Treason and Many Other Crimes.
Obama should be arrested and removed from office. He is NOT the president. He is a criminal and should not have been on the ballot.
“Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent”
by Marjorie Cohn – from DefendUSx July 08, 2009 16:12
“Marjorie Cohn is a Distinguished Law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego where she’s taught since 1991 and is the current President of the National Lawyers Guild. She’s also been a criminal defense attorney at the trial and appellate levels, is an author, and writes many articles for professional journals, other publications, and numerous popular web sites.”
“Her record of achievements, distinctions, and awards are many and varied – for her teaching, writing, and her work as a lawyer and activist for peace, social and economic justice, and respect for the rule of law. Cohn’s previous books include “Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice” and “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law.”
“Her newest book just out, co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd (a recognized expert on military administrative law), is titled “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent.” It explores why US military personnel disobey orders and refuse to participate in two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also explains that US and international law obligate them to do so.”
“Rules of Disengagement” goes into courtrooms where military personnel “have spoken out, arguing that (today’s) wars are illegal (and immoral) under international (and US) law.” It’s a “practical guide” providing “specific discussion(s) of applicable regulations and laws” for readers “to form their own conclusions and consider their own options.” Above all, it’s a way for honorable young men and women to dissent, resist, and disengage from two illegal, immoral wars, in hopes many others will follow their example.”
Obama was elected illegally. He is NOT the president. Obama is a Warmonger / War Criminal. His orders are illegal. The U.S. Military does not have to follow illegal orders. Obama is an Usurper Imposter. He is NOT the president.
BVM,
So what teacher taught you to play kazoo? What music have you published? What musicians work with you and finally just what is it the Buena Vista Mall has done except solicit donations?
Donofrio is one witty guy, From his blog
Most readers of this blog know that I personally believe Obama was born in Hawaii and can prove it any time he sees fit. I have always believed that the BC issue was a smokescreen to control awareness of the fact that Obama was a British/Kenyan citizen at the time of his birth through his father who was never a US citizen.
This fact alone – as the Supreme Court made reference to in the Minor case (see below) – raises doubts as to whether a native born US citizen with a dual foreign nationality at the time of his birth can be President. The BC birther conspiracy theory has clearly and effectively shielded from view the true issue – which is a legal question, not a conspiracy theory.
But with our Government trying to sanitize Obama’s eligibility today in Congress by attempting to pass H. RES. 593 , I’ve come up with a new mantra for the BC birthers:
WHERE DO WE PLACE THE PLAQUE?
H. Res 593 states:
Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii;
If they’re going to make that assertion so boldly and codify it in a Congressional Resolution then the American people, especially Hawaiian citizens, deserve to know exactly where in Hawaii Obama was born. Right?
This will be a source of State pride and also revenue for the municipality which can claim the exact spot where Obama was born.
H. Res 593 is intended to celebrate Hawaii’s entering the union. It makes great pomp out of its factual assertion that the 44th President of the US was born in Hawaii. So let’s not stop there. If the Congressional record will state Obama was born in Hawaii, it should also tell us where exactly in Hawaii he was born.
Honolulu is a city. But his birthplace is a spot, a certain address. That’s what we need. Because otherwise we can’t memorialize the spot. So here comes your mantra:
WHERE DO WE PLACE THE PLAQUE?
It doesn’t seem fair to the citizens of the municipality where Obama was born to deprive them of a plaque stating “this is where the 44th President was born.”
Most birth-sites of Presidents are given special distinction – some are protected and maintained by the National Park Service as National Historic Sites. For example, the place of birth for Teddy Roosevelt is a National Historic Site.
Why should Hawaii get the raw end of the stick?
Considering his historical run as the first African American President, doesn’t the place of Obama’s birth deserve to be declared a National Historic Site?
Of course, if Obama states unequivocally where he was born then historians will be able to thoroughly research that claim. And that’s all good because I’m sure Obama wants this cleared up. So let them make the Congressional resolution – just demand that the exact spot in Hawaii is made clear.
Was it a hospital? Was it in a house? If so, which house?
Is Congress really going to pass a resolution saying Obama was born in Hawaii without knowing where exactly in Hawaii he was born?
So listen up BC birthers, this is your new mantra:
WHERE DO WE PLACE THE PLAQUE COMMEMORATING OBAMA’S BIRTH?
It’s a respectful question. It’s not mean spirited. It doesn’t involve a conspiracy theory. And it will generate revenue and tourism for the people in the town where Obama was born. It will also provide something concrete for those concerned about his eligibility to properly research. Seems like a win win for everybody.
Just ask Obama to have a little love for the municipality where he was born by confirming once and for all his exact birthspot? What’s wrong with a little love, Pres?
11 Comments »
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, weighing in on an issue the White House described as “fictional nonsense,” said Monday he did not know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States and qualified by birth to be president.
“I believe those people who are concerned about his birth certificate, about whether he is a citizen and qualified I encourage them to do that,” the Oklahoma Republican said of a group pursuing the issue.
Inhofe, however, stressed repeatedly during a brief interview that is not an issue he has taken on.
“My concern is to deal with things I can deal with now, which is stopping the cap and trade, keeping Gitmo open and stopping socialized medicine,” he said.
Still, Inhofe’s stance on the Obama birth certificate issue has drawn attention.
Comments by the senator were reported by Politico in a story on how Republican lawmakers are expecting to hear from a “small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.” …
“I don’t discourage them from going ahead and pursuing that,” Inhofe said.
The official statement by Dr. Fukino is now on the web:
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Huff Post tube video
“The Running of the Birthers,” the potential Emmy Award winning video, was first posted here above at July 27, 3:32 PM.
To update the other information, Inhofe spokesman Jared Young was asked whether the Senator questions Obama’s legitimacy as President. He answered: “No. His focus is on issues.”
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/breaking-inhofe-does-not-question-obamas-legitimacy-as-president/
Leo must have dyed his head again.
Obama was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.
David Farrar at the rightwing site Free Republic recently came to the conclusion “that Obama would be a ‘natural born’ U.S. citizen if his father was Obama Sr., a British subject and Kenyan national at the time of his birth.”
He now has over 280 responses. The posters are up in arms!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2299780/posts
Obama has violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials therefore OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS ARE NAZIS.
BVM, since violations of those laws are also violations of the laws used to prosecute police officers in Texas a few years ago, I guess that means that Obama and his minions are also police officers. Is that correct?
Goerge asked:
“Can greater minds than mine explain this to me? If President Obama’s mother WAS a U.S. Citizen (and there is no dispute there, from what I understand), then President Obama could have been born inside the Kremlin — or on the Moon for that matter — and still be eligible to stand for the presidency, correct? I don’t agree with him on many things, but it seems like this illegitimacy argument is beyond foolish.”
SCOTUS states in the Minor case, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Furthermore, with this decision, the most on point as to the definition of natural-born citizen in SCOTUS history, the court raised doubts as to the citizenship of native born citizens with foreign parentage.
The issue now is that Obama admits he was British at birth. The question is whether we are going to allow persons who were once citizens of other nations to be Commander In Chief.
Leo, that question has already been asked and answered at this site, above at July 28, 2009 at 12:39 pm
The question of citizenship of children born to foreign parents in the US was not before the Minor court, which ruled that women could not vote, requiring the later passage of the 19th Amendment.
The Minor Court said, but did not rule, that children of US parents are citizens by birth. It did not say that “only” children of US parents are citizens by birth, and did not say that children of non-citizens were “not” citizens from birth. Language not needed to resolve a case is non-binding dicta. It left the issue to be decided later. Wong Kim Ark resolved that children of alien parents are citizens by birth. That is the majority decision, and is binding until reversed by the Court or Constitutional Amendment.
It is exceedingly strange that you can discuss the issue of the citizenship of children born in the United States without mentioning Wong to your readers.
Nice to see you here Leo. If you continue posting here Vince will be your fevered debater.
Under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. In the age of McCarthyism, jobs, livelihoods, and liberty were lost to secret allegations by nameless accusers, before the Supreme Court outlawed that practice.
According to wiki, “McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.” Originally coined to criticize U. S. Senator Joe McCarthy, “McCarthyism” soon “took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.”
bvm is nothing but an accumulation of soulless electrons on a server, spewing reckless false and anonymous charges without a scrap of substantiation or evidence. It is not worth the electricity to emp it, and its malicious charges and allegations do not deserve the dignity of an answer if it does not identify itself.
Leo can’t blip answers here.
If the police officers violated the War Crimes law of the Nuremberg Trials they they are NAZIS AS OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS.
The War Crimes law of the Nuremberg Trials is also part of the U.S. Constitution so Obama and his minions have also violated the Constitution and U.S. War Crimes laws.
Obama is one of the biggest criminals in history along Bush, Cheney, Biden, Hitler and Goering.
For the record, I answered George’s actual question above, and it can be found at Jul 22, 8:30 AM.
George and rcampbell. Birth to a single US citizen parent outside the US does not automatically confer citizenship. The parent must meet certain residence requirements that have changed over the years.
From Leo’s site, in bold:
“It’s hardly a fringe concept to expect and demand that the Commander in Chief was never a citizen of another nation.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/the-relevant-obama-admission-2/
We didn’t do so badly with George Washington, Leo.
BVM,
Still waiting for your answers as to what instrument you play, who are the other muscians affiliated with you, what music you’ve published, what records, or any other work you have produced, that gives you the right to solicit funds or business. To be honest I think you don’t even have an office and hang out at the food court of the mall listed below, where I understand they have good free wifi.
http://www.lbvfs.com/
Someone, above, asked about Leo’s charge that Obama had been guilty of falsely swearing, twice.
Well, Leo has changed his story, and now it is just once. Leo’s claim? “Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history [Minor v. Happersett] directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.” http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/obama-is-guilty-on-at-least-two-counts-of-false-swearing/
Leo, Obama is a better constitutional lawyer than you.
In fact, he is a far more brilliant, experienced and knowledgeable constitutional lawyer than you.
He, I am sure, was aware, unlike you, that the Wong case later held that children born of alien parents in the United States are citizens by reason of their birth, and concluded, in good faith, along with the vast majority of constitutional scholars throughout history, that they are natural born citizens of the United States, eligible for the Presidency if they are 35 years old and have resided here for 14 years.
Mike, thanks for your interest but we have all the business we want currently.
We like the food court and free wifi idea
and the single guys can watch the single gals !! woooooo woooo
Over at his blog, Leo is quite proud of his quote from Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874): “By its own words it raises doubts as to native born persons born of foreign parents. In one paragraph it strips the O supporters of their 14th Amendment argument and denies that native born = natural born. This is not my opinion, it’s a direct SCOTUS quote.”
Leo might have given readers some authority more recent than 1874. Here is a case from last year denying an individual standing to sue to remove McCain from the NH primary:
Those born “in the United State, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1989), and this eligible for the presidency, see Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (dicta).
Hollander v McCain 566 F.Supp 2d 63, 66 (D.N.H. 2008)
http://media.nashuatelegraph.com/assets/08NH129P.pdf
See Schneider: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1.” 377 U.S. 163, 165.
Also see Wong: It was the law before 1866:
“Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional [169 U.S. 649, 675] amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.” 169 U.S. at 674-75.
And mort from Wong: It was the same after 1866 and the words “not subject to any foreign power” were omitted from the 14th Amendment
By the civil rights act of 1866, ‘all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,’ were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright; or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children or foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country, nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the civil rights act, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ gave way, in the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, to the affirmative words, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ 169 U.S. at 688.
“Ain’t nobody here fraid of no Minor case.”
The conservatives out there ought to read, reflect upon, and take to heart today’s posting at the National Review. Obama has released his real birth certificate. There is no secondary document, only state records used to generate it. This is the certificate needed for a passport. It has been verified by reporters and state officials, and it is identical to the so-called vault copy.
Repeat, this not from main stream media, but from NR, founded by William Buckley, the most prestigious, long standing conservative publication in the country.
Quote:
The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.
If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced—the document is formally known as a “certificate of live birth”—bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate—which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy.
Unquote
Read the entire posting at:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=
Summary judgment for Mr. Treacy. Unfortunately, we have no authority to award him well-deserved attorney’s fees.
Did somebody say Blackstone?
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .
“When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.”
Welcome aboard, Blackstone.
Thank you, Sir William.
How do you think your quoted writings affect the topics of our discussion?
Whereas Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) has not provided proof of his U.S. citizenship he is declared an Undocumented Immigrant or Illegal Alien and is guilty of Treason and Mass Fraud against the American people. The U.S. Military is resisting this usurpation and his arrest is imminent.
Is 2005 Obama ethics violation connection to big Donor George W. Haywood connected to swine flu scare? One of Obama’s biggest donors, Haywood owns almost 6 million shares of bio firm AVI Bio Farma Inc. Bio Farma will be one of the big producers of Swine Flu vaccine. United States just purchased 200 million doses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
Illinois received a ZERO rating in a report released on Wednesday that concludes the state is worst in the nation when it comes to information available online about how federal stimulus money is being spent. The worst in the country. “This will be the most transparent administration” Barack Obama
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/States-rate-poorly-on-apf-2683281390.html?x=0&.v=2
Obama’s personal doctor says Obama health care plan has no cost control, and will be really expensive- “bound for failure”
Maybe he will tell us if the president is healthy. After Obama fires him.
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/obamas-personal-doctor-in-chicago.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Obamacare-could-kill-AARP-8036046-51988312.html
Isn’t it time to put the Birther nonsense to bed?
It looks like Leo responded to Vince’s claim about Kim Wong Ark and the 14th Amendment.
Here’s the link.
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
Rafflaw yes it is time. Now all we need to know is where to put the Plaque.
The posting Bdaman 1, July 29, 2009 at 9:58 pm does not belong here, because it is about health care.
The posting “Bdaman 1, July 30, 2009 at 7:03 am Are Birthers Nuts?” at “Offcer Admits” should be at this thread:
Are Birthers Nuts?
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/29/are-birthers-nuts/
BIRTHER BYRNE,
I have already seen Leo’s post, and it will be answered here.
It belongs at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States.
The Birther issue has exploded in popularity on the Internet and onto mainstream media!
FactCheck.org has posted “The Last Word? We Wish,” July 28, 2009:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/the-last-word-we-wish/
bvm has in the past made the charge that the COLB was not recognized by the Hawaiian government, nor by the Home Lands agency.
Both charges have been proven false. Home Lands accepts the COLB, which is also good for all purposes in Hawaii, including a driver’s license, good for a U.S. passport, and good under the full faith and credit clause for a fishing license in North Carolina.
Do not expect bvm to acknowledge its mistakes.
Postings by Bdaman , July 29, 2009 at 9:52 pm , Bdaman , July 29, 2009 at 9:53 pm , and Bdaman , July 29, 2009 at 9:55 pm are also about health care, not birth.
“Whereas Barry Soetoro (a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama) has not provided proof of his U.S. citizenship”
BVM,
Are you an American citizen, or some foreign terrorist trying to destabilize America? We have no proof that you’re not and considering your treasonous statements there is good circumstantial evidence. Your website purports to be:
“About Us
We are an independent label located in Winston-Salem, NC.
History
Our group consists of musicians, radio and TV people who share a dream of Truth and beautiful music.
Goals
We are an activist music company involved with getting broad publication of “The Truth about God”, ending the war, abolition of death penalty, free universal healthcare, stopping – big money control of the media / corporate corruption and we are working for a fair music market. Also, we only wish to market the best music available with emphasis on intelligent lyrics and betterment of society.”
Yet you offer no names of “musicians, radio and TV people”
affiliated with you, which given the nature of media is quite peculiar, unless you are lying and there is no one there but you. Strangely, for a site soliciting business you also list no accomplishments or successful projects. Yet you solicit donations, but what are people supposed to donate for? I’m coming to believe that you are a foreign terrorist acting against this country and I have forwarded your link to Homeland Security to have you checked out. A copy is also being sent to the Attorney General in North Carolina requesting that your “business” could possibly be a fraudulent scheme. While I can’t, thus won’t say for sure that this is true of you, I think it is my duty as a citizen to inform the authorities of your suspicious behavior and the possibility that your organization is falsely soliciting donations. Have a nice day.
bdaman,
do you realize that you are cornering the market for posts that are non-sequitors?
All the Pro-Obama tripe here doesn’t rise to the level of hogwash.
It is obvious Obama cannot prove his U.S. Citizenship. Therefore he is an undocumented immigrant. He should be arrested immediately.
Mike, thanks for distributing the Mall’s site address.
If you would like to send further emails here is a list:
http://www.buenavistamall.com/EmailAddresses.htm
Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll be sending them to the right places and not a list of the other people you pester but just ignore you.
Yes I know Mike, but hey, if you guys can talk about aliens, BVM can post what he post, I might as well go in my own direction.
Yes, by all means. Sent them to the ‘right places’ Please send as many as you can. Thanks again
Glad to be of service, as Buddha would say.
Vince, I really don’t think you can deny that my prediction that I made, in which I said the BC issue was heating up, has done just that. Although I am convinced the president was born in Hawaii, I will tell you, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Mark my words. It’s coming. Either the original will be produced or a court case is going to set this issue on fire. Listen to me now or you will have no choice but to believe me later.
I forgot to add if thats your real name.
In case you miss this on the other thread.
Bdaman
1, July 30, 2009 at 10:45 am
Vince while you are acting as the Blog Police can you tell us Where Buddah’s and Mike Spindle and others discussion of Aliens goes. Which thread do they belong under. For someone who seems so smart as you, you sure act childish when it comes to how people are suppose to comment. your quote un quote your wanting to censor BVM accusing others of posting under a different name ect. ect. I will go out on a limb and say you are not who you say you are. I am willing to bet that you have taken on the Idenity of Vince Treacy lawyer from DC when in fact that aint you. Prove me wrong Vince.
U.S. military personnel are disobeying orders and refuse to participate in two illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Imposter Obama is a Warmonger / War Criminal. Here are some of the U.S. laws he and his minions have violated;
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441
§ 2441 > War Crimes
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.— The circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.— As used in this section the term “war crime” means any conduct—
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a grave breach of common Article 3 (as defined in subsection (d)) when committed in the context of and in association with an armed conflict not of an international character; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
(d) Common Article 3 Violations.—
(1) Prohibited conduct.— In subsection (c)(3), the term “grave breach of common Article 3” means any conduct (such conduct constituting a grave breach of common Article 3 of the international conventions done at Geneva August 12, 1949), as follows:
(A) Torture.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind.
(B) Cruel or inhuman treatment.— The act of a person who commits, or conspires or attempts to commit, an act intended to inflict severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions), including serious physical abuse, upon another within his custody or control.
(C) Performing biological experiments.— The act of a person who subjects, or conspires or attempts to subject, one or more persons within his custody or physical control to biological experiments without a legitimate medical or dental purpose and in so doing endangers the body or health of such person or persons.
(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
(E) Mutilation or maiming.— The act of a person who intentionally injures, or conspires or attempts to injure, or injures whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, by disfiguring the person or persons by any mutilation thereof or by permanently disabling any member, limb, or organ of his body, without any legitimate medical or dental purpose.
(F) Intentionally causing serious bodily injury.— The act of a person who intentionally causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, serious bodily injury to one or more persons, including lawful combatants, in violation of the law of war.
(G) Rape.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force wrongfully invades, or conspires or attempts to invade, the body of a person by penetrating, however slightly, the anal or genital opening of the victim with any part of the body of the accused, or with any foreign object.
(H) Sexual assault or abuse.— The act of a person who forcibly or with coercion or threat of force engages, or conspires or attempts to engage, in sexual contact with one or more persons, or causes, or conspires or attempts to cause, one or more persons to engage in sexual contact.
(I) Taking hostages.— The act of a person who, having knowingly seized or detained one or more persons, threatens to kill, injure, or continue to detain such person or persons with the intent of compelling any nation, person other than the hostage, or group of persons to act or refrain from acting as an explicit or implicit condition for the safety or release of such person or persons.
(2) Definitions.— In the case of an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3)—
(A) the term “severe mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2340 (2) of this title;
(B) the term “serious bodily injury” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(F) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 113 (b)(2) of this title;
(C) the term “sexual contact” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(G) in accordance with the meaning given that term in section 2246 (3) of this title;
(D) the term “serious physical pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) as meaning bodily injury that involves—
(i) a substantial risk of death;
(ii) extreme physical pain;
(iii) a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or bruises); or
(iv) significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; and
(E) the term “serious mental pain or suffering” shall be applied for purposes of paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with the meaning given the term “severe mental pain or suffering” (as defined in section 2340 (2) of this title), except that—
(i) the term “serious” shall replace the term “severe” where it appears; and
(ii) as to conduct occurring after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the term “serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)” shall replace the term “prolonged mental harm” where it appears.
(3) Inapplicability of certain provisions with respect to collateral damage or incident of lawful attack.— The intent specified for the conduct stated in subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) or paragraph (1) precludes the applicability of those subparagraphs to an offense under subsection (a) by reasons of subsection (c)(3) with respect to—
(A) collateral damage; or
(B) death, damage, or injury incident to a lawful attack.
(4) Inapplicability of taking hostages to prisoner exchange.— Paragraph (1)(I) does not apply to an offense under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (c)(3) in the case of a prisoner exchange during wartime.
(5) Definition of grave breaches.— The definitions in this subsection are intended only to define the grave breaches of common Article 3 and not the full scope of United States obligations under that Article.
Bdaman,
Well I guess the jig is up. Yes I am really Vince Treacy, what you are unaware of is that my Grandfather Judge Crater was abducted by aliens. Buddha, is actually Siddhartha Gautama, an immortal who has been alive for at least 3,000 years, but only began preaching 2,500 years ago. Now while our discussions were off topic, admittedly, given the alien and immortality issues raised by our revealed histories, they are relevant in a universal sense.
“wanting to censor BVM”
Find me one instance where I have asked for BVM’s censorship and I’ll forgive your lousy attempts at irony and humor.
Mike S, not you Vince, he is constantly telling me what I can and can’t do. Hence, Blog Police I can’t post this here, have to use quote unquote, ect ect. He acts childish while presumably knowing case law. I SEE no other person here complain about anybody else in the way he does with the exception of the chick thats a drunk and tried to run Jill off or whomever.
“July 30, 2009 at 8:04 am It looks like Leo responded to Vince’s claim about Kim Wong Ark and the 14th Amendment. Here’s the link
Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.”
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/
Leo tells us that one passage from Wong has “long been confusing for me,” but that “it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent.” He then quoted an edited, uncited passage.
QUOTE The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’UNQUOTE
Here it is, cited, in full:
QUOTE The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ UNQUOTE 169 U.S. 649, 694-95 (emphasis supplied to show portions quoted by Leo), http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Now let’s listen to Leo, quoted in full so that nothing is taken out of context or twisted.
QUOTE ON It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
Have another look:
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
Do you see the difference?
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to.
– The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
“…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
But that’s not what they said.
- By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
- But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
- This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
QUOTE OFF
At the outset, note the Court’s words that ”The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” There are two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized here. The case settled the legal principle that children of alien parents who are born here are citizens by birth. Citizens by birth are natural born citizens who can be President, while citizens by naturalization cannot.
Now, Justice Gray said that a citizen or subject of another country, who is domiciled here, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Grey quoted with approval Coke’s words that the allegiance is strong enough to make a natural subject, and the alien’s issue here is a natural-born subject and child. So Gray concluded that any child born to an alien here is a natural-born subject, and his child, and as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. I think his words mean that the natural born child of a foreign subject is the same kind of citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.
Leo writes QUOTE Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said: “…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
UNQUOTE
The problem here is that Leo snipped out the part of the sentence in Gray’s opinion that describes the child of that alien as natural-born, as a “natural-born subject, ”and thus distorted its meaning by his editing.
It would have been redundant for Gray to say “as much a natural born citizen as the natural born child of a citizen” when he had already described the child in the same sentence as “natural-born”.
Leo says that Gray “compares two children – on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien [and] – on the other hand, he mentions the ‘natural-born’ child of a citizen.” Leo omits the fact that Gray had already described the child of the resident alien as “natural-born.” Gray said that the natural-born subject who was the child of an alien is just as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen. The words “just as much a citizen” say that both are the same kind of citizens, of equal dignity in all respects, with no distinctions, so that both can be President.
And do not get side tracked by the terms “subject” and “citizen.” Almost everyone in American, except for diplomats and hostile alien occupying forces, is a subject as well as a citizen, in the sense that a “subject” or “national” is subject to its laws, rules, regulations, and courts, including arrest, subpoena, and jurisdiction. Those subjects who were born or naturalized here are also citizens, while resident aliens awaiting citizenship, and non –resident aliens like students, are subjects but not citizens. So, depending on the context, subject and citizen are interchangeable.
The child of an alien born here is a natural born subject (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” 14th Amd, cl. 1) who is also a citizen by birth, and therefore a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency. The child of two citizens born here is also a natural born subject (“subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” 14th Amd, cl. 1) who is a citizen by birth, and therefore a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.
In short, Gray said that the natural born child of an alien is just as much a citizen as a natural born child of a citizen.
Readers here will no trouble arranging Gray’s words, just as long as they look at all of his words, not just the ones that Leo want to give them.
“Mike S, not you Vince”
bdaman,
I’ve already told you: I am Vince.
At his own site, Leo Donofrio is master of his domain. He moderates all posts, snips the stuff he does not like, requires that you give him your email, posts the comments in gray on black background, and puts his own repostes in gold and bold.
He has come to the Turley blog, but his last post was an embarrassment. He did not even understand the question asked about overseas birth to a single citizen parent, and pasted up his Minor quote about US born children of aliens. He has not been back.
In one post today he says “They compared the native born child of an alien to the natural-born child of a citizen and decided both were entitled to the same rights of citizenship, but they clearly indicated that only one was natural-born.” No, Leo. Readers here now know that Leo is wrong. Anyone can see that the Court, in the stuff Leo left out, compared “natural-born” child of the alien to the natural born child of the citizen. Apples to apples. There is no “native born” in there, Leo.
Let Leo come to the Turley blog, a level, neutral playing field, with no delay of posts and no censorship or snipping, with black type on a white pages, and all disputes under the jurisdiction of Professor Turley, who Leo says he respects.
I am Vince.
No, I am Spartacus!
Now I plead; please, back on topic.
Bowing to your command, Spart.
Thank you kind, intelligent Spock for considering my *plea* which was not a command.
Vince Treacy said “There are two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized here.”
And then there is a subset of those born here.
1. Those that are citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment. (Still just citizens)
2. Those that are born here, and their father was a citizen of this country.
“And do not get side tracked by the terms “subject” and “citizen.” -NOTE TO READERS: Vince wants to DIRECT you. Take notice of his post. He arrives at conclusions without establishing how he arrived at the conclusion. i.e. Vince stated “At the outset, note the Court’s words that ”The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” There are two kinds of citizens, those born here and those naturalized here. The case settled the legal principle that children of alien parents who are born here are citizens by birth. Citizens by birth are natural born citizens who can be President, while citizens by naturalization cannot.
TAKE NOTICE: Vince made a statement of his opinion that is contrary to the opinion of Leo. Vince tries to portray his opinion as fact. It is not. It is JUST VINCES OPINION.
“And do not get side tracked by the terms “subject” and “citizen.” LAW STUDENTS LOOK IN YOUR DICTIONARIES. Does the legal definition of “subject” match the legal definition of “citizen”? Of course not.
I hope readers will grasp just how insidious, undemocratic and bizarre is Leo’s position that a sitting President of the United States could be removed by writ of quo warranto based on his idiosyncratic theory of dual jurisdiction.
Here is what would happen.
The single District Court judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia could issue the writ and order the President removed, to be replaced by the Vice President.
An appellate panel could affirm by 2-1 vote.
The Supreme Court could affirm by a 5-4 vote.
The Court would not even have to issue an opinion on Leo’s theory. The affirmance could be per curiam without opinion.
Even worse, six Justices could vote to deny cert. without opinion.
There may not even be a Supreme Court decision discussing his notions one way or the other.
So. Everyone else thinks the two-thirds of the Senators present must concur in conviction and removal (Art I, sec. 3, last cl.).
But not Leo! Leo would allow eight or nine judges and Justices to set aside the votes of tens of millions of people.
A recipe for a coup.
Fortunately, Leo’s theory is crackpot. If the writ is good for anything, it is only for city officials and minor muinicipal functionaries. I have already posted an excerpt from a 19th century treatise on this.
Leo’s theory is a plot for a very bad science fiction movie.
Excuse me, but where exactly did I say the word “fact”? Just asking.
It is a fact that Leo cropped a quotation.
The rest is my opinion. The readers can judge.
Law students, do get back to us to discuss “citizen” and “subject” and “national.”
We all would be interested.
“Even worse, six Justices could vote to deny cert. without opinion.”
Oh how we cry when justice works against us, but when justice works for us, it’s all good.
Vince, did you cry about the Court not granting Cert when the cases that you didn’t want to be heard weren’t heard? I’ve looked, but I just do see that comment from you.
Also, my emphasis did not make it to the site when I pasted the Court’s FULL quotation.
“But not Leo! Leo would allow eight or nine judges and Justices to set aside the votes of tens of millions of people.”
The Court would not be “setting aside the votes of ten million people”.
The votes would still stand. The qualified president, Joe Biden, would hold the office.
The Twentieth Amendment provides a constitutional answer to your dilemna.
Vince, your statement would suggest that the instant majority should trump the Constitution. Is that really what you mean?
Stop changing the subject, BIRTHER BOYLE.
Do you or do you not want less that a dozen unelected judges to unseat a President?
I do not care what you say, or whether you answer at all.
I will answer your question. I do not want the courts to exercise the power to remove this or any other President, because that would be unconstitutional.
If there is a problem, the Constitution says that removal of the President is by Impeachment and conviction by two-thirds of Senators present
.
The House has the SOLE power to impeach, and the Senate the SOLE power to try and convict and remove. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
The courts dismissed all those cases because they were frivolous, failed to state a legal claim for relief, presented no case or controversy, were filed in the wrong courts, by parties with no standing to sue, and for many other reasons.
The Constitution did NOT give the courts the power to unseat the head of another branch of government. It cannot unseat a Senator or Representative, because that is reserved to each House. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
The courts cannot unseat a President, because that is reserved to the impeachment process. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
The people did not elect Biden President.
What planet are you calling in from?
“Vince, your statement would suggest that the instant majority should trump the Constitution. Is that really what you mean?”
No, the majority voted in accordance with the Constitution. The majority voted for Obama for President, not for Biden or anyone else.
Birther Boyle’s theory is completely undemocratic.
Nine judges plus a Vice President could reverse an election.
To set the election aside would trump the Constitution.
To adopt the cockamamie theories of Leo, Mario, Orly and birther would trump the constitution.
I have written before that the birthers are trashing the constitution with this theory that the President must be born to two US citizen parents.
That is not in the Constitution. They are trashing it by trying to put their own words in there.
No one yet has pointed to any words that require or imply any such requirement.
Gee, just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water Jim Byrne reappears as birther, not a shark mind you, but a big, ugly jellyfish.
Yea thats what they said Bush V Gore. Do you think the court would go agaisnt tens of millions of people. Good one Vince.
The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election. The Twentieth Amendment states that “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
If the vote was constitutional, so are the results of that vote.
Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/20218458/detail.html#
“Officers Run Background Check On Obama; Placed On Leave”
Bdaman,
You have a problem with this? Why? If not why post it?
“The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election.”
Well birther/Jimmy boy you finally get something right. For you a 2% hit rate is probably very good.
BIRTHER ”The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election. The Twentieth Amendment states that “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. If the vote was constitutional, so are the results of that vote.”
BirtherBoyle is grasping at straws, The time for the sentence quoted has passed. Read 20th Amd, sec. 3. IF, AT THE TIME FIXED FOR THE BEGINNING OF A TERM … the President elect shall failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.” The beginning of the term is long past. Nothing like ripping words out of context.
In fact, the voters consented in advance to Joe Biden as President, but if, and only if, the Presidency becomes vacant BY EXPRESSLY DESIGNATED EVENTS. The Vice President may become President in case of removal of the President from office by death (numerous occasions) or resignation (Nixon). 25th Amd, sec.1. The VP becomes Acting President under sec. 2 or 2, if the President is unable to discharge his duties.
No one consented to the VP to become President because of a court order by a single District Judge, affirmed by as few as eight appellate judges and Justices, and nothing in the Constitution expressly or by implication allows such a procedure. The quo warranto QW process would be extra-constitutional, and illegal under the Supremacy Clause. Congress had no authority under the Constitution to enact such a procedure statutorily to remove constitutional officers.
Do Leo and birtherBoyle also have the crazy idea that a QW could be used to remove a Member of Congress, in the teeth of Art 1, sec. 5, that “each House may … with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” Of course not. And a QW cannot be used to remove a federal judge. For 220 years, impeachment has been the exclusive means for removing judges, who “hold their offices during good Behavior.” Art. III, sec. 1, and QW has never been used.
READ THE CONSTITUTION!
(BTB still has not answered whether he supports removal of a President by court order of a single unelected judge, affirmed by unelected judges. I am not holding my breath. I do not think he wants to answer that question. As to Bush and Gore, neither of them was President at the time. I think the history books show that Clinton was the President back then. No one suggested a QW in the Monica affair).
Mike S.: “The people voted for Obama as President, and Joe Biden as Vice-President. The Twentieth Amendment was in place at the time of that election.”
“Well birther/Jimmy boy you finally get something right. For you a 2% hit rate is probably very good.”
No, Mike, he completely and totally screwed up again. It is the 25th Amendment, not the 20th, that now provides for VP succession to the Presidency during the President’s term. It also provides for VP succession in case of the removal of the President form office. The terms of Art. II clearly say that the President “shall be removed from Office on impeachment … and conviction.”
There is no provision for removal by court order, and any such provision would be unenforceable under the Constitution, since it would be beyond the authority of Congress and the courts.
READ THE CONSTITUTION!
This is getting embarrassing.
And for those scoring at home, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution provides that the Electoral Votes are counted under the direction of the President of the Senate (the VP), and their determination that a President has qualified is final. There is no role for the courts in the 12th Amendment.
Vince,
Glad to have you around to take care of business. I should have known better than to trust him on anything.
Another lie by Leo: “My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.”
Obama was never “governed” by Great Britain or Kenya at birth, and never admitted that. Leo is making it up.
Obama had citizenship from GB and Kenya. He was NEVER “governed” by Great Britain Kenya at birth or at any other time. He was never subject to their laws, rules, police power, regulations, court jurisdiction, or any other of the elements of jurisdiction. He was a conditional citizen by virtue of his birth overseas to a Kenyan citizen, but that citizenship lapsed when the conditions were not met by age 21. This has all been set forth. Leo and the birthers persist in twisting and distorting this information.
Obama was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus was born a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen. He has been a natural born citizen of the United States for all of his life. He was never subject to the jurisdiction of GB or Kenya.
QUOTE when Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…
2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963. So The Rocky Mountain News was at least partially correct. UNQUOTE
But the paper failed to note that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982. UNQUOTE
Source: factcheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Sorry Vince, but I’ve totally lost track of the score (although I wonder if there should have been some sort of mercy rule). Thanks for pointing out exactly what Birther/Jim B and Leo are advocating it really lays the motives and hypocrisy of the birthers bare – they want to correct what they (falsely) see as a coup by President Obama by staging a judicial coup of their own. Stay classy, guys…
Birther, I have noticed a tendency in your posts to simply repeat the statements of others without any sort of independent analysis or research of your own. As far as I know, “Donofrio on Constitutional Law” is not a publication.
Vince T. was eminently correct in pointing out that Mr. Donofrio has a habit of selective quotations, by which I mean quoting a portion of a paragraph so that the context is missing and left to be supplied by Mr. Donofrio. What he did with the Wong Kim Ark decision is a good example. I can assure you that this sort of thing is unprofessional, intellectually dishonest and very irritating to judges.
You have also raised for the umpteenth time the red-herring of the “citizen-subject” distinction. It has already been explained to you by persons on this site, with reference to specific original sources, that the underlying English common law rule of citizenship was adopted by this country (as was much of English common law). In a monarchy, children born within the country and subject to the jurisdiction of the crown are called “subjects.” In the United States, a constitutional republic, children born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. are called “citizens.” There is nothing mysterious or complicated about it. You have refused to address that point in any of your posts, preferring instead to simply restate what you said before, as though monotonous repetition of a false argument miraculously converts it to the truth. Indeed, it is for that reason, that the birthers have essentially been reduced to citing each other as authority. Are you genuinely surprised that serious-minded jurists have no interest in listening to unsupported redundancies passing as argument?
Vince T. has done an incredible amount of work on this issue because battling absurdity requires more time and patience than does dealing with logical arguments of rational people. That’s why lawyers prefer to deal with other lawyers rather than with pro se litigants, who are routinely maddening. Most of the people on this site genuinely welcome well-reasoned alternative views of the law and justice. Try presenting some.
Lou Dobbs?
How about Jon Stewart Presents: Cable News Right Wing Crazy Contest,
brought to you by Josh Marshall’s TPM:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3077133
Here are more laws OBAMA / BIDEN and their NAZIS have violated. These are part of the U.S. Constitution.
Principles VI and VII of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950
Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
Crimes against peace:
Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law.
The Congressman Castle / Obama birth certificate video is up to 772,336 views!! BO’s lack of birth certificate is burning up the wires on the Internet!!
From Orly’s site:
“Over 44,000 saw an official Colbert video, probably 10 times more saw the reprints- and all this happened in 1 day!!”
BVM, taped car accidents get even more hits on YouTube, but I’m still not convinced that car accidents are the most important thing happening on any given day. Of course, if I were selling corn flakes, my views might be different.
Vince said “Do you or do you not want less that a dozen unelected judges to unseat a President?”
What I want or don’t want is not the issue.
The law is the law.
You don’t seem to understand that an act repugnant to the Constitution has no authority. Removal of an illegitimate president is not the removal of the president; it is the removal of the actor.
BirtherBoyle says “The law is the law.”
How would you know the law? Up above, you sounded as if you never got past the 20th Amendment in your reading.
Vince,
An act that is repugnant to the Constitution has no force or effect from the onset. The swearing in of a illegitimate president is an act repugnant to the Constitution.
I believe the 20th will apply.
We’ll have to see what the District Court Judge determines.
If one of the states had the balls to enforce the provisions of the Constitution (as the Framers would have expected), we would have a need to worry about the decision of a lone judge. If a state were a party, the Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction.
type-o
“we would have a need” should be we wouldn’t have a need.
BIRTHER/BOYLE.
READ THE 25TH AND THEN COME BACK.
I have found more stuff at Leo’s site. He derives the authority for the quo warranto law from the District of Columbia Clause of the Constitution. This is preposterous. The District Clause, also known at the Seat of Government Clause, only gives Congress authority over the affairs of the District and its Government. It is a municipal power, giving it the role of an all-powerful state legislature and city council for the District. The District Clause might authorize a statute that allowed the court to remove a meter reader or school principal or stuff like that. It is not authority for legal removal of officers of the National Government. That authority has to be found elsewhere in the constitution.
The District Clause does not confer powers over the National Government. Professor Turley is now the nation’s foremost constitutional authority on the District Clause. He has concluded that it does not allow Congress to authorize a voting House Member for the District, nor two Senators, because the Clause does not allow Congress to alter the structure of our federal government. It follows that the Clause does not authorize a court to remove tenured federal judges, Members of Congress or the President. The structure of the Constitution reserves their removal to Congress
Turley was also called as an expert on Impeachment ten years ago. I doubt if he thought at the time that quo warranto was a substitute for impeachment. His GW Law Review article is linked on this site:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/02/18/too-clever-by-half-the-constitutional-argument-against-the-current-voting-bill-for-the-district-of-columbia/
This idea is almost as disturbing as Leo’s account of his trip here to DC in disguise to file with the Supreme Court. Some of his reasoning is bizarre: “The [quo warranto] Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.” Say what? The Constitution is reprinted in the DC Code, but that does not expand the authority of the District Clause.
I have to modify a posting above. Leo thinks that there would be a jury trial, so that 12 DC jurors would be added to the 8 or nine judges needed.
I would like to be called for THAT jury duty.
His last sentence below is correct in stating that Congress is “the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President,” but not for Leo’s reasons. Congress has that authority under the Impeachment Clauses, which are the exclusive means of removing a sitting President. How do we know? What part of the word “sole” does Leo not understand?
QUOTE FROM LEO DONOFRIO’S SITE, NATURAL BORN CITIZEN: There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possess Article 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States. The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.
District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected. In Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia. The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:
“The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”
Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President….
UNQUOTE
BIRTHER/BOYLE. “We’ll have to see what the District Court Judge determines.”
I PREDICT IN WRITING THAT THE JUDGE WILL SAY CASE DISMISSED.
SIGNED
Vince Treacy, July 30, 2009
KathyW July 20, 2009 at 12:11 am
‘Do any of these “birthers” have any evidence AT ALL that Pres. Obama was born somewhere else?’
Nope.
An interesting read:
Alexander Hamilton
BIRTHER,
Are you a licensed attorney? The reason I ask is that you are debating with at least 2 attorneys who use their *natural born* names. Having attorneys speak on legal issues lends authority and credence to what they posit. While that does not guarantee that they are always correct, they are willing to place their credentialed reputations on the line against your abject anonymity.
Thanks.
We know the Prof is. Who else is a licensed attorney.
WARNING UPON ENTERING THIS BLOG:
Ever picked up a rock and there were many creepy, slimy bugs under it? Well, you have picked
up a rock by entering this blog to find many creepy, slimy OBAMA NAZI sympathizers. Law
students / lawyers, all take note as they try to justify OBAMA the MASS MURDERER / WAR
CRIMINAL..
Here is the Colbert video link which was scrubbed off Youtube:
“Stephen thanks Orly Taitz for being one of the few people willing to compare the Obama
administration to Nazi Germany.”
“Obama is completely illegitimate for presidency because he is not a natural born citizen.”
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/229691/july-28-2009/womb-raiders—orl
y-taitz
Do not go to troll bvm’s links.
THERE MAY BE A VIRUS
It’s the old virus fear tactic to keep you from learning the truth. Don’t be fooled by these fools.
Vince Treacy
1, July 29, 2009 at 3:31 pm
The conservatives out there ought to read, reflect upon, and take to heart today’s posting at the National Review. Obama has released his real birth certificate. There is no secondary document, only state records used to generate it. This is the certificate needed for a passport. It has been verified by reporters and state officials, and it is identical to the so-called vault copy.
Repeat, this not from main stream media, but from NR, founded by William Buckley, the most prestigious, long standing conservative publication in the country.
Vince that was the wrong link, here is the correct one. Law students take note please.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=
The slimy Obama bugs are caught in the sunlight and they are squirming and scattering.
Thank you, bdaman, for the new link.
My link connected to the NR editorial when I tried it a minute ago. I hope both links are good.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=
webguru and the slimy Obot bugs stepped in Obama poo. Don’t let them track it into your living room.
Okay BuenaVistaMall, your last several posts are completely inappropriate and lend nothing to the discussion.
“Here is the Colbert video link which was scrubbed off Youtube:
“Stephen thanks Orly Taitz for being one of the few people willing to compare the Obama administration to Nazi Germany.”
“Obama is completely illegitimate for presidency because he is not a natural born citizen.”
BVM,
This alone shows how ignorant you are and how much anything you do is not worthy of respect or being taken seriously.
Stephen Colbert is a satirist of the Right Wing and in this case the birther movement. His character is a takeoff on Bill O’Reilly. A satirist makes fun of ridiculous opinions sometimes, by pretending to agree with them. If you watch his show regularly and don’t understand that then you truly are a moron. BTW the reason his clip was removed from YouTube is a dispute that Comedy Central, for whom Colbert works, has with Youtube about running clips from their shows.
BVM, You really should take some time off to educate yourself, if you are going to make yourself look as stupid as you do for taking Colbert’s satire as a real comment.
TPM is reporting a Kos poll that 77% of Americans believe Obama was born in the US, with only 11% saying he was not.
This is really good news for the birthers, putting them way ahead if the Apollo moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists (the “mooners”). Wiki reports that a 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the American public doubted the Moon landing.
Score card:
Birthers, 11.
Mooners, 6.
(Wiki says “Officials for Fox television stated that such skepticism increased to about 20% after the February 15, 2001 airing of that network’s TV show titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, seen by approximately 15 million viewers,” but that is nothing but the Fix Noose, so pay no attention. Birthers kick Mooner’s ass!)
Leo says he is a retired lawyer but a great poker player. He must bluff A LOT.
At his own site, Leo is master of his domain. He moderates all posts, and snips the stuff he does not like,
On one post, above at July 30, 2009 at 12:23 P.M., Leo Donofrio said that the Court in the Wong Kim Ark case “compared the native born child of an alien to the natural-born child of a citizen and decided both were entitled to the same rights of citizenship, but they clearly indicated that only one was natural-born.”
Of course, he could only say that because he had deleted, snipped, cut, and eliminated the PART OF THE JUSTICE’S SENTENCE in which that very Justice had said that a child born here to an alien was NATURAL-BORN.
He can get away with that at his own site.
But here at the Turley blog, we call legal bluffs. We check sources, citations and quotations.
We turned over Leo’s down and dirty hole card.
The magic words “natural-born” leaped out.
Leo lost the argument — and the pot.
THE COURT:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ 169 U.S. 649, 694-95.
LEO’S VERSION:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
This is picking off low-hanging fruit, but it is just too much fun.
At Leo’s site today, someone finally quoted the full passage to him. He said QUOTE Your comment assumes “natural born subjects” are the same as “natural born citizens”. They are not. When read in context with the other passages I quoted, espcially Gray’s reliance on Binney, it becomes clear that those who were deemed natural born subjects under British law would – at best – be deemed basic “citizens” under US law – not natural born citizens. UNQUOTE
Mike Appleton has settled his hash on this issue of subject and citizen. When the framers used the term natural born citizen, they were basing it on the concept of natural born subject in the British common law. The kept the concept of natural born, but changed the term “subject” to “citizen” because there was no longer any monarch to be subject to. Mike has gone over this over and over. The concept of being natural born was adopted directly and unchanged.
Where does the Constitution mention the words “basic citizens”? Where does the concept of basic “citizen” come from? Nowhere. Leo must be working from a different document. There are two kinds of citizens, those who are citizens by birth and those who are citizens by naturalization. The citizens by birth are natural born citizens. There are no other kinds of citizens recognized in the Constitution.
Finally Leo refers to words “When read in context….” But Leo DOES NOT READ WORDS IN CONTEXT. He just LEAVES THEM OUT.
I am reposting Bob’s post on another thread on “Obama Political Appointees” because it is a good one, and so that it will be available to the folks following the issue here:
Especially this: “Why, in this country, is it always the religious right that won’t take anything on faith?”
Bob,Esq.
1, July 31, 2009 at 4:28 pm
‘Birthers’ must be stopped
No matter how dumb, the people who are questioning whether Obama was born in the U.S. could eventually cause real problems.
By Bill Maher
July 31, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-maher31-2009jul31,0,622151.story?track=rss
FLASH! The World NUT Daily is now “reporting” that Obama is the Antichrist.
BIRTHER, please come back and explain this one to us.
I am not going to link to this nonsense. Google.
America will rise up against Obama. He is losing control of the military now and his plan is
crumbling. What will he do to try to retain power? It appears he is wanting to impose martial law for his dictatorship. Your president is one of the biggest criminals of history and he has a nuclear arsenal. We hope the military will arrest this mass murderer / war criminal soon.
Hey guys, as a public service to you, I know there are alot of people looking for work. FEMA NLE 09 just finished up and these adds are starting to pop up.
Job DetailsCity: Pensacola/Panama City
State: Florida
Country: USA
Company Name: Army National Guard
Job Category: Legal/Law Enforcement/Security
As an Internment/Resettlement Specialist for the Army National Guard, you will ensure the smooth running of military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility, similar to those duties conducted by civilian Corrections Officers. This will require you to know proper procedures and military law;
Read that again: those duties conducted by civilian Corrections Officers. This will require you to know proper procedures and military law;
Apply here http://www.ihispano.com/job/employer/481986/view/detail/results/army-national-guard/pensacolapanama-city/florida&nosearch=0?from=SimplyHired&utm_source=SimplyHired&utm_medium=jobboard&utm_campaign=SimplyHired
http://www.nationalguard.com/careers/mos/description.php?mos_code=31E
Let us not forget this little tid bit
Madsen was a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.[1] He was an intelligence officer in the US Navy[2] and a communications security analyst with the National Security Agency[3]
Madsen edits the Wayne Madsen Report, which he describes as following in the tradition of Drew Pearson’s and Jack Anderson’s famous “Washington Merry-Go-Round” syndicated column and columns by I.F. Stone. Among others, his columns have appeared in The Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Columbus Dispatch, Sacramento Bee, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
In 2001 Madsen was denied a press pass as an Internet journalist to cover the first inauguration of George W. Bush. He said about this:
“Perhaps the Republican fat cats and party elders who plan such events miss the days when reporters from Look, Life, the Washington Evening Star and the New York Herald-Tribune swarmed around new administration officials, with notebooks in hand and a pocket full of dimes and nickels. Maybe these old-timers miss the days when a disagreeable story destined for the next day’s papers could be headed off at the pass by a midnight phone call to a publisher or editor.”[4]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10504
The last five posts have nothing to do with the birth issue.
Sorry Vince but since you ran Jim B off there is no one for you to debate on the issue. looks like it’s me and BVM is who you’re left with.
No response to postings that are not about the birthers.
According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya not in Hawaii.
Vince,
You are a man of great focus and commitment. I bet you’re a helluva poker player. And not that Texas Hold ‘Em crap either, but real poker.
Kenyan Ambassador admits Obama born in Kenya
BVM,
Went against my better judgment and watched your latest video.
What a deceitful piece of crap it was. Of course from her perspective Barack was born in this village because he was his fathers son and the Obama family has been for generations of that village. It was another mistranslation by the fools you follow, as was the specious legal claims at the end.
What all of you BC ninnies don’t realize is the truth that Barack Obama was born in the caves of Mars and is an alien shape shifter, as am I. We Martians are gradually replacing the human race and I can tell you this because you have no credibility, so no one would believe you anyway. We have a pod waiting for you too, but maybe we’ll leave you around for last,
so you can see the error of your misplaced hatred.
“Sorry Vince but since you ran Jim B off there is no one for you to debate on the issue. looks like it’s me and BVM is who you’re left with.”
bdaman,
I appreciate your sacrifice but is BVM really the person you want to be aligned with? I mean don’t you see how that destroys your own credibility?
There you go, birthers!
It’s a documentary.
Buddha,
The first and best version. Clearly Kevin McCarthy’s greatest role. Is BVM next?
Obama Born In Kenya? His Grandmother Says Yes.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/3074
“Someone is lying. According to Obama’s Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room. -This, according to several news sites and Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg (see video below) who is, surprisingly, a life long democrat himself. Berg is the former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and he has an impressive background in his activities as a democrat, but his support for the party seemingly stops when it comes to his trust in Barack Hussein Obama.”
Why the Founding Fathers Were “Birthers”
By JB Williams Saturday, August 1, 2009
The label of “birther” is fast becoming a noble badge of honor for millions of Americans who are not willing to let their Constitution die without a good ole patriot’s fight!
The leftist Obama propaganda press would love for you to believe that “birthers” are just a bunch of “crazy racists” that number in the hundreds, and that they have NO basis to demand proof of whom and what Barack Hussein Obama really is…
But the “birthers” actually number in the millions and the basis for their demands were set in stone by the men who wrote and ratified the US Constitution. If millions of American “birthers” are “right-wing nuts,” they are in good company with men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin.
Bvm says “Someone is lying.” It is right for once, since it is bvm and its sources that are lying.
Lying swift boater, and swift boating liar, Jerome Corsi made up the story that the grandmother said Obama was born in Kenya. Corsi has NO PROOF and based his charge on a falsely translated tape.
More false info from bvm. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams and Ben Franklin never said or wrote anything about the natural born citizen issue. Only John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were on the record. Jefferson was not even at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia. Hamilton SAID that a person would be eligible if he “now be a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States,” and the Convention adopted his draft. So JB is out to lunch.
Berg is a 9-11 conspiracy theorist who has developed a national reputation for filing failed lawsuits on the birther issue, and is now openly feuding with other birthers. The birthers are now arranged in a circular firing squad, with Leo, Orly and Berg taking potshots at each other.
BIL, great GREAT clip!
Catch cameo by Kevin at the opening of Nimoy’s remake.
Thursday’s WSJ weighs in on the birthers:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html
As usual, it covers many points already made here at the Turley blog.
There is another WSJ item yesterday. This will be eerily familiar to folks reading this blog since last December:
QUOTE A child is not a natural-born citizen unless both parents are U.S. citizens. That this is false should be obvious. It is uncontested that Obama’s father was an alien. Thus if both parents had to be citizens in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen, the question of Obama’s eligibility never would have come up. He would have been ineligible right off the bat and would not have run for president. The birth certificate and place of birth would be irrelevant.
Nonetheless, the birthers have blown a lot of smoke around the meaning of the phrase “natural-born citizen,” and we are here to clear it up.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the president must be a “natural born citizen” (or, in an obsolete provision, a citizen in 1788), but it does not define the term. The original interpretation relied on British common law, under which, as Justice Horace Gray noted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), “every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, established this principle as a constitutional right: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Aside from the children of foreign diplomats and (theoretically) military occupiers, the only U.S. natives not to be natural-born citizens were Indians born on reservations–and this exception was abolished by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Other statutes have extended natural-born citizenship to some children born overseas to U.S. citizens. There is a theory that these statutes are unconstitutional–that the Constitution, in granting natural-born citizenship to those born on U.S. soil, thereby denies it to everyone else. Although this view is eccentric, it is an open legal question. According to the State Department’s Consular Affairs Manual (at page 9 of PDF), “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” Since Obama was born in the U.S., HE IS IN ANY CASE A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN BY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. By contrast, John McCain, born in Panama, is a statutory natural-born citizen.
Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning. As Chief Justice Morrison Waite noted in Minor v. Happersett (1874):
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
No doubt some birther somewhere is fervidly developing “proof” that Obama hatched from an egg and thus is not a citizen. Where is the shell? UNQUOTE, EMPHASIS supplied, source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322281597739634.html
Please note the WSJ’s description of the native citizen requirement: “ ‘Eccentric’ is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest.”
Leo is pretty unhappy with the Journal over at his blog.
For the Turley folks, you all read it here first.
“Hamilton SAID that a person would be eligible if he “now be a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States,”
Vince,
It occurs to me that since Hamilton was an ambitious man and he was born in I believe the West Indies, he might have had a personal stake in broadening this definition, rather than constricting it.
Right, Mike. And the Convention (with George Washington presiding over it) adopted his draft, the people ratified it state conventions, and it is now the law, Leo, so buckle up!
Vince,
I must say again what a service you’ve done here in dealing with this specifically and all the other topics you’ve commented on. You do the research, your logic is impeccable and you are indefatigable in your pursuit of the truth. We are blessed with many fine minds here and that’s what makes it so
engrossing and enjoyable. You, however, are by far the hardest worker at it and the most tenacious. You were our lead counsel on this one, with Mike A aiding the defense and your specific contribution was beyond yeoman.
Around the bend with Leo. At his site, Leo just played the Nazi card on August 1st. Headed by a photo of a Nazi with swastika armband, Leo says “This is the tactic employed by the Wall Street Journal and it’s straight out of Joseph Goebbel’s original playbook.”
Gee, Leo, it is possible to disagree with someone on a point of law without calling him Nazi.
Leo and BeaVerMan should remember the prime directive on Internet debate — the first one to say “Nazi” loses the debate.
I appreciate the honored reference, but it should be observed that I was outvoted.
If you would kindly refer to the records of my first draft of our Constitution, you will see that our first suggestion for Article IX, Section 1
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
>b>was not accepted, and instead, the more restrictive “natural born citizen”, sugested by our soon-to-be first Chief Justice, John Jay, was adopted.
Alas, if “born a citizen of the United States” was to have the same meaning as that of “natural born citizen” we would have had no need to change my original suggestion.
For those interested in reading “in context”, I invite you to look at page 407 of my works.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Dm0FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407&lpg=PA407&dq=%22hereafter+be+born+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States%22+%2BHamilton&source=bl&ots=s6a4fGDolB&sig=K063NZIEWeaqsInb-bnTgoE6orQ&hl=en&ei=q610SsWEIY7mMdiJnLEM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Alex,
You might want to pay attention to the First Draft of Having Any Damn Sense at All where it says that “first drafts” are “not final drafts” by definition. Guess which one is the law? Psssst . . . it’s not the first draft. You do know the difference between a bill, a committee revision, a final version put to vote and a law, don’t you?
Apparently not.
Your homework is to write a comparison between the editorial processes of publishing and legislative processes contrasting both processes from inception of project/bill to final draft for publication/enacted law.
Then again, I shouldn’t expect a high performance brain from someone pushing the birther agenda. Perhaps I should expecting catastrophic failure. Here’s a hint in the PR department, trolls: there is a difference between “getting traction” and “being an object of ridicule”. They both get you attention, but one is not the kind you want. It is ironically the exact kind of attention you deserve.
Be thankful it’s just your ignorance of how laws are actually crafted that is on display. I have it on good authority that the original 11th Commandment was “Thou shall not be a jackass nor pimp for stupid ideas.” What’s that? There is no 11th Commandment? The Hell you say!
Well there is in the FIRST DRAFT!!!!!!
Does your mom let you out of the house with that clown logic or does she make you wear one of those human leashes? I’m thinking you might even need to wear protective gear with such a fine display of logic and legal reasoning as to refer to the first draft of anything as an authoritative source as to the letter of the law. Who needs statutes, regulations and case law when we can rely on first drafts.
Pure ‘effing genius, sport.
That is one of the stupidest lines of attack you birthers have tried yet.
Thanks for the laugh.
Birthers vs. Nazis
What does Obama have in common with the Nazis that allows him to be called a Nazi?
They both have violated the law that was used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the
Nuremberg trials.
Obama is a War Criminal
Obama has murdered and maimed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children
Obama is a Mass Murderer
Obama and his followers are Nazis.
You remember what happened to Hitler and the Nazis don’t you?
Buddha Is Laughing
Excellent rant proclaiming personal ignorance. Sport!
Your “Vince Treacy” quoted me out of context, but omitted the source.
As you so proudly proclaim, he was quoting our first draft. He was quoting a less restrictive policy that was not adopted. We had no intention of permitting the children of aliens to hold the highest office.
Sorry, Alex. H., but somehow I do not think that you are really Alexander Hamilton, but just someone posting under his name, like Blackstone up above.
I wrote “Hamilton SAID that a person would be eligible if he “now be a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States,” and the Convention adopted his draft. So JB is out to lunch.”
The full context was: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
What exactly was left out that changed any meaning? Nothing. I paraphrased “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he” as “Hamilton SAID that a person would be eligible if he…,” and then quoted him verbatim. No change in meaning. Fair summary. No operative words omitted. My quotation from Hamilton’s proposal was not taken out of context, but carefully placed in its context.
In fact, at this site John Jay’s letter about the “admission of Foreigners” into the government many times has been fully quoted many times. It shows that their concern was the danger of grow-up, adult foreign alien princes or generals or other such individuals taking power. There was worry about support for the second and third sons of King George as a leader. There is no contemporary evidence of concern about infants born of immigrants growing up to be President. I am sure Alex will find that evidence if it exists.
In the meantime, others can look at scholarly treatments, like Jill Pryor, “The Natural Born Citizen Clause,” vol. 97 of the Yale Law Journal, page 881 (1988). Jill was one of the first scholars to highlight Hamilton’s suggestion. Jill wrote that Hamilton’s draft had two distinct ideas, one that current citizens would not be excluded from the Presidency, and second that the President must be born a citizen. 97 Yale L.J. at 889. Both of those ideas were embedded in the Natural Born Citizen clause as adopted in the final constitution. The words “natural born citizen” are the words contemporaries used to convey the idea of a person who was a citizen by reason or and by virtue of their birth, rather than by naturalization. Neither of the ideas in Hamilton’s draft was rejected – both were adopted. The convention did not reject his ideas, but expressly adopted the concept that a President “must be a citizen from birth.”
I do not think the poster will find any evidence in the writings of the framers that they “had no intention of permitting the children of aliens to hold the highest office.” No scholar has yet unearthed any fear of infants born of immigrants in a new nation that depended on its immigrants for growth and development.
And, of course, it should be noted that Obama does not fit the category of those “children of aliens” that Alex decried, since his mother was a natural born citizen of the United States. Try to find some framer who said that a child of an American citizen, born on American soil, was not a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.
Jill’s article came to attention last year on the issue of McCain’s eligibility. It has a lot of information about the Clause:
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
BVM:
“Birthers vs. Nazis
What does Obama have in common with the Nazis that allows him to be called a Nazi?
They both have violated the law that was used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the
Nuremberg trials.
Obama is a War Criminal
Obama has murdered and maimed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children
Obama is a Mass Murderer
Obama and his followers are Nazis.”
************
And if I say it a million times, it becomes true. So, there!
Per Jill Pryor:
“To succeed where the traditional approach has failed, this Note pursues a broadened scope of inquiry, examining all of the constitutional provisions related to defining citizenship and presidential eligibility. It treats the clause not as defining by itself whom the framers meant to include’, instead, it recognizes Congress’ role, through legislation, to determine who is a natural-born citizen.P Finally, it argues that a broadened inquiry should consider why a “bright line” prospective test might be more consistent with other structural principles of the Constitution.
The Legislative powers are enumerated. Congress was never, ans should never, have the authority to define the qualifications for the president. Ms. Pryor’s suggestion is preposterous.
MR. Treacy,
If you are endorsing Ms. Pryor, would you please provide us with the text of our Constitution that you believe supports her suggested role of the Legislature to determine who a natural-born citizen is? It is accepted that the Legislature has been empowered to create uniform rules for naturalization. However, their power in this area is limited to that role.
Amendment is the proper constitutional method to redefine the qualifications for the office of the president of the United States. Permitting such to take place by asimple Act of LEgislature would be reckless. Congress is far too partisan to be granted that much authority.
Would you really want a Republican controlled Congress to define the qualifications for that office?
Alex,
I don’t care what you’re quoting it for, sport.
You’re still not seeing the context of your problem.
An appeal to authority must actually appeal to authority. And you know what an appeal to authority is, don’t you? It’s that time worn last tactic before “I know you are but what am I”. It’s a tactic you use when you don’t have anywhere else to run to, you know, LIKE EVIDENCE or, I don’t know, ACTUAL LAW, to support your wild ass claims.
So put that in your Pryor and smoke it, Mr. Bad Logic.
There’s plenty to be pissed at Obama about. Personally I find it hilarious that nitwits like yourself waste so much effort on such a futile thread of attack. Nice going, Sissyphus. There’s a huge difference between “fighting the good fight” and “beating the bishop”. I guess that’s all you’ve got though since the other things you birther half-wits to be pissed at Obama about would all require that your masters go to prison for a very long time too.
Have fun pulling at your leash.
Alex, this is familiar tactic. Faced with evidence from a source on one point, you attack the source on an unrelated point. BirtherByrne used to do this. When I cited an official in Hawaii who said that the COLB was the only certificate issued by that state, he attacked me for something unrelated that she said, and never addressed the iissue.
Ignore the point, launch a counterattack on a different matter, get the attention away from your own failure to mount a coherent argument.
Now, I quoted and cited and give a full link to a scholar on the issue of natural born citizen. Alex ignores the evidence and attacks an unrelated issue of naturalization. Fine, but irrelevant, BTBA.
BIL, whoever is posting seems unaware of the elements of statutory construction.
Whenever a law or constitutional provision is unclear or ambiguous, it is necessary to examine the rationale for the law, to determine its purpose, and to find the problem that was addressed. If a law could have two meanings, it is the meaning that is consistent with its rationale and purpose that is chosen.
So some argue that the NBC excludes children of aliens even if they were citizens from birth, while others say it excluded only naturalized citizens. But we know its purpose and rationale from Jay’s letter. It was aimed at adult foreign leaders, who could come to America, become naturalized, and move into the Presidency.
The “children of aliens” theory is inconsistent with the history and aim of the NBC clause. Since the framers were concerned with naturalized citizens taking power, it would be inconsistent with their purpose to give the NBC the narrow reading of the birthers.
Finally, if Alex really were Alexander Hamilton, it would be really galling if he had the nerve to exclude the children of aliens. He was an alien himself, born in the West Indies, before became a citizen. It is galling to hear a FOREIGN-BORN founder railing against alien children like a nativist.
Fortunately, the real Alexander, as has been proven, opened the Presidency to any child born in the United States after the adoption of the constitution.
I have a quick question? Why, does this issue merit so much attention? It is a NON-Issue just like when Bush/Cheney stole the two elections.
I hope that the person arguing for the COLBs Invalidity never runs for elected office. They have not a clue of how this process really works.
The good Dr. Conspiracy is warning us that Orly’s site, linked in some postings above, may contain some malicious attackware, so be careful:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/orly-attack-site/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-cv- 04083
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE :
:
Plaintiff :
vs.
:
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL :
:
Defendants :
AFFIDAVIT OF REVEREND KWELI SHUHUBIA
I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows I am an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya. I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa, working with the American bishops sitting upon the Continental Presbytery of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa. I am fluent in Swahili and in English. I am a former teacher in Kenya, and travel extensively in the ministries of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa throughout Kenya,Uganda and the Sudan.
It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya. Senator Obama’s grandmother still resides in the village of Alego-Kogello, approximately 37 miles from Kisumu City. On October 16, 2008 I went to interview Ms. Sarah Obama at her home. Ms. Obama’s home was flooded with people who were celebrating Senator Obama’s success story. Ms. Obama’s home was heavily guarded by Kenya Police. Prior to the interview with Ms. Obama, I took pictures of Ms. Obama, her grandson who was present and other family members.
During my interview of Sarah Obama; I called Bishop Ron McRae in the United States from my mobile number. I advised Bishop McRae that I was present with Ms. Obama in her home, and wished for him to speak with her. Bishop McRae informed me he would call me right back, to avoid the international costs on my personal mobile phone. Bishop McRae subsequently called me back; Bishop McRae requested permission to electronically record his telephone conversations with Ms. Obama, to which I agreed.
Due to bad telephone connections Bishop McRae had to call me back three [3] times, before we were able to continue our conversation. The telephone interview conducted by Bishop McRae was conducted on loud speaker (speaker phone). During the interview conversation, one of Ms. Obama’s grandsons’s and myself acted as Swahili translators, and as Bishop McRae talked to and questioned Ms. Obama, we would translate what Bishop McRae said to Ms. Obama in Swahili, and then we would translate her Swahili responses to Bishop McRae in English. Ms. Obama can fluently speak Swahili in her native dialect, but cannot read or write. Bishop McRae asked Ms. Obama specifically, “Were you present when your grandson Barack Obama was born in Kenya?” This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she specifically replied, “Yes”. It appeared Ms. Obama’s relatives and her grandson, handling the translating,, had obviously been versed to counter such facts with the purported information from the American news media that Obama was born in Hawaii. Despite this, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present andwitnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States. When Ms. Obama’s grandson attempted to counter his grandmother’s clear responses to the question, verifying the birth of Senator Obama in Kenya, Bishop McRae asked her grandson, how she could be present at Barack Obama’s birth if the Senator was born in Hawaii, but the grandson would not answer the question, instead he repeatedly tried to insert that, “No, No, No. He was born in the United States!” But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya. A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto as EXHIBIT “A”.
I left Kisumu City and traveled to Mombosa, Kenya. I interviewed personnel at the hospital in which Senator Obama was born in Kenya. I then had meetings with the Provincial Civil Registrar. I learned there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to Barack Hussein Obama, III in Mombosa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. I spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret. I was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if I wanted further information
The above related facts are true and verifiable to the best of my personal knowledge before God Almighty, whose I am and whom I serve.
I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: October 30, 2008
Kweli Shuhubia
John 3:30
Philippians 3:19-21, 29, 30
BREAKING NEWS!!!
Orly has what appears to be a certified copy of registration of birth for Obama from Kenya!!
She is verifying it with Motion for rogatory discovery to authenticate Kenyan Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama. It looks very real!!!
Objection. Hearsay. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801: “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the Declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The statement is offered to prove the truth of a statement made by the grandmother, who is not in court to be confronted or cross-examined on the truth or falsity of her assertion.
Objection sustained. Lawyer Berg’s proffer of evidence is inadmissible.
Orly has probably been snookered by another forgery.
Let’s wait and see what develops. Do not go to her site to check on this, go to World Nut Daily or some other birther nuthouse.
bvm says “It looks very real!!!” Yeah, sure, a mall is always the best judge of evidence in a courtroom. Ha!
Looks real to me!!
Kenyan Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama;
http://www.BuenaVistaMall.com/kenya-bc.jpg
News Flash!!!
Small Mall submits grand mal-evidence.
This story is like a lifelong human virus that just will not die.
grand mal-evidence
lol
I imagine the government can verify it pretty quickly … if we can trust any of the traitors around it.
Vince Treachy:
“Orly has probably been snookered by another forgery.”
**********
Well I hear she got her retainer on this case from a certain Nigerian official who simply needed a few thousand US dollars to free up millions locked up by a Nigerian contract review board. And it only cost Orly $21,000.00.
Hey BuenaVistaMall,
Can you guarantee that if I click on your links to your Mallsite that your site is free of *malware*? I understand that since you are a Mall that you might offer *Mallware*, but I mean could I get a computer virus from your site links?
I can guarantee I have not put any malware on my site. No one to my knowledge has ever gotten any malware from my site.
I have 2 firewalls on my computer and 2 security programs which I run frequently and a major hosting company with much security.
I have been coming here several months posting with no problems of malware.
uh huh
You can scan a website for malware before visiting the site.
Follow this link; enter the URL; the website will be checked for you.
http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/default.aspx
BVM thanks.
Dog thanks for the link.
Congratulations! LinkScanner Online did not find any exploits. (on BVMs link to the birth cert.
mespo writes: Obama is a War Criminal
Obama has murdered and maimed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children
Obama is a Mass Murderer
Obama and his followers are Nazis.”
************
And if I say it a million times, it becomes true. So, there!
me: I checked with my mom, who was actually there, in Europe in 1937 and guess what? she says Obama is nothing like the Nazis she saw everyday. I think I’ll believe what Mom says.
BVM and his/her ilk have no idea what Nazis are unless they are having special meetings in basements with arm-bands, a few swastika flags, a subscription to one fascist newsletter or another and/or maybe a kid in prison in the aryan nation.
fyi
Motion for rogatory discovery to authenticate Kenyan Birth … This site may harm your computer.
Aug 1, 2009 … 17 Responses to “Motion for rogatory discovery to authenticate Kenyan Birth Certificate of Barack Hussein Obama”. Liz says: …
http://www.o*r*l*y*taitz*e*s*q.c*om/bl*og1/?p=3583 – 11 hours ago
SITE MAY HARM COMPUTER * added
BVM,
I accessed your link and zoomed in @ 150% on the Registration of Birth. Given the advancements in forensics where experts can age paper and type, etc. this is going to be an interesting development.
I refuse to go to the Dentist/lawyer’s website, so if she has more close-up photos of the document or other information, please consider placing them on your site, with links, if that is acceptable and appropriate. Again, I consider this as contrary evidence and worthwhile to consider and debunk, as the case may be, especially by the attorneys commenting here. This blawg is a good source for cataloging the full range of topics regarding this issue; or nonissue, as most people consider it to be.
Link scan performed on Orly’s Blog (URL left out to prevent accidental access):
Congratulations! LinkScanner Online did not find any exploits.
Scanned:
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Avast Antivirus with Network Shield did display a security alert.
I don’t recommend visiting Orly’s site unless you have a good antivirus with a realtime network scanner.
If you’re not sure, don’t do it. Curiosity killed the cat.
WorldNetDaily has broken the story with more photos;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
Anyone interested in reading the motion can safely do so here:
http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/2009/08/email-from-dr-orly-taitz.html
Thanks Dog. The Alan Keyes site “looks good” to my expensive Antivirus software.
BVM, I have not checked your link yet.
Bvm posted an affidavit dated October 30, 2008, introduced by Attorney Phil Berg, above.
No only is it hearsay, it is not even written by a real name. Bishop Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym (false name), just like BVM. What’s the “Bishop’s” his real name?
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/what-you-dont-know/#more-1869
Mespo said “Well I hear she got her retainer on this case from a certain Nigerian official who simply needed a few thousand US dollars to free up millions locked up by a Nigerian contract review board. And it only cost Orly $21,000.00.”
The Kenyans have learned a lot from the Nigerians, and hearing how gullible the birthers were, began selling a phony Obama Kenyan birth certificate on eBay a month ago. Birthers are boosting the Kenyan GDP with their dollars. The new slogan is “Sell it to the Birthers!”
Prediction: latest Kenyan birth certificate will be exposed as a forgery. Let’s wait and see what happens.
BVM, your wnd site link has some good photos of the alleged certificate.
Hard to give credence to a guy who opens his statement by lying about his name:
“Rev. Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym, so that cannot be a legal affidavit. If it were common knowledge in Kenya that Obama was born there (and he wasn’t born there), then someone in the reputable media, such as the MSM or the foreign press, such as AFP or even the press of Russia or China would have picked up the story. ONLY WND claims that files were sealed in Kenya. No one else has reported that there are files, or that there were any files sealed.”
http://silviaterigi.blogspot.com/2009/07/african-media-obama-returned-to.html
No matter how good the forgery looks, it is still a forgery because Obama was not born in Kenya, and any certificate showing him born there HAS to be a forgery on its face. The Kenyan birth myth is a tissue of lies spread by bvm, world nut, and the rest of the birthers. They lie and distort and conceal information from everyone. bvm has spread the lie about the grandmother’s statement that Obama was born in Kenya. Why would anyone believe its statements about the security of its websites?
Here is some information, from HuffingtonPost and a blog, that the birther nuts do not want you to know:
QUOTE
THE LIE: Obama’s grandmother, Sarah Obama, said Obama was born in Kenya.
THE TRUTH: Sarah Obama has made no such claim. According to David Wiegel at Slate:
On Oct. 16 [2008], an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah Hussein Obama, the president-elect’s 86-year-old paternal step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was “present” when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says “yes.” McRae contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly–”Was he born in Mombassa?”–and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.
If this lie has been so thoroughly debunked, why does WND persist in telling it? Apparently because, as Jerome Corsi detailed in a July 6 article, WND claims to have “affidavits” by McRae and one of the translators, Rev. Kweli Shuhubia, “an Anabaptist minister in Kenya, who is the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptist Conference in Kenya,” making the claim.
But those appear to fly in the face of the full interview, as conducted by another translator, Vitalis Akech Ogombe — which McRae was present at. A transcript of that segment of the conversation, as reported by Alex Koppelman of Salon:
MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?
OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.
MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.
OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.
MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.
OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.
WND has never reported this part of the McRae interview on its website, nor has it ever mentioned Ogombe.UNQUOTE
When translated by a person with a real name, no one at any time or any place said that Obama was born in Kenya.
The above excerpt is from WorldNetDaily’s Obama Birth Certificate Lies, by
Terry Krepel, at Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/worldnetdailys-obama-birt_b_245973.html
An extended version appears at ConWebWatch:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/worldnetdailys-obama-birt_b_245973.html
Vince writes: No only is it hearsay, it is not even written by a real name. Bishop Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym (false name), just like BVM. What’s the “Bishop’s” his real name?
maybe BVM is the bishop. in that case, do you wanna be a cardinal? I’ve mostly stayed away from this discussion because it makes me feel like I will bleed from my eyes — but you’ve done an amazing job with this Vince.
I have an “in” with the WorldWide Jewish Banking Conspiracy and we are always looking for new faces. I think you are our kind of guy.
If the Kenyan BC can be authenticated (we must wait and see), our lady, America has been deceived.
Here’s an appropriate song. (listen to the words)
The alleged Kenyan BC has a space requesting the father’s signature, but no signature can be seen.
Don’t worry. The “Kenyan Birth Certificate” may “look real,” to bvm.but it’s a fake. It is not dated in 1961, but Feb. 17. 1964. 1964? What the frak?
It says “Republic of Kenya,” but it appears that name may not have been adopted by the new country until the constitution was amended in October 1964, and did not exist as an official name in February 1964. The “comparison” copy at World NUT Daily right now crops out part of the official date. That creates a lot of suspicion right there. Why not show it in full?
The certificate states that the entry exists at the Birth Register of Coast Province, Republic of Kenya, Book 44B, Page 5733. But the Republic of Kenya did not exist in 1961, so it would be difficult for there to be a Birth Register for the Coast Province of the Republic of Kenya for that year.
Thanks to the folks at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/Fake-Obama-Kenya-birth-certificate
At that site, cindiloohoo also posted: “Kenya was in transition from Independence in December 1963 to being declared a Republic (with it’s new form of government) in December 1964. During this time it was a Dominion. Mombasa was part of Zanzibar in 1961 (when Obama was born) and was ceded to Kenya on December 12 1963. So any forgery would have to be Zanzibarian.”
If it is genuine, why does Orly not present it to the responsible law enforcement agenies? Why not invite Politifact.com to come in and examine it? Answer: Because it is probably another publicity stunt.
Considered legal advice: Do not send any money to anyone in Kenya for birth certificates. Do not buy genuine Rolex on the sidewalk for $100.00. Do not invest in undiscovered original Picassos sold by mail order.
BIRTHER: “The alleged Kenyan BC has a space requesting the father’s signature, but no signature can be seen.”
Nice catch, B!
Vince,
I think the wording across the top explains everything.
-The Republic of Kenya
“Certified COPY of Registration of Birth”
This is a low-tech COLB.
–Now if Orly could only get THREE websites to authenticate it; that would trump the TWO that have authenticated the Hawaiian COLB. :>)
The COPY was signed by Joshua Oduya. Now known as Colonel Oduya of the United Nations, his career on “Torchwood” has blossomed. (Well, four episodes)
I hereby nominate Vince Treacy for the prestigious Job Medal. I simply would not have had the patience and fortitude to put in the amount of effort required to constantly beat back the reality deniers.
After following this thread for weeks, reading the varied nonsense on the sites frequented by BVM, Birther and others of their persuasion, the rantings of Limbaugh, Fox News, Lou Dobbs, various “I can’t say for a fact” Republicans and, most recently, World Net Daily’s exclusive expose of the president as Antichrist (a position which until now fundamentalists had pretty much reserved for popes), I have concluded that my original sense of this controversy was correct. Therefore, I have painstakingly reviewed many of the public statements concerning the president and have derived a list of words and phrases with translations to finally explain all we need to know about the birther movement. A portion of that list follows:
Kenyan=n*gg*r
foreign-born=n*gg*r
Nazi war criminal=n*gg*r
not one of us=n*gg*r
community organizer=n*gg*r
Moslem terrorist=Moslem n*gg*r
socialist=n*gg*r
usurper=n*gg*r
reverse racist=n*gg*r
uppity=n*gg*r
Antichrist=n*gg*r
And, of course, there is the favorite current chant of the right:
take our country back=get the n*gg*r out of office
If one simply substitutes the translation for the word or phrase, one can easily understand what is being said. This saves time and the energy normally required to respond. That will enable us to reserve our efforts to engaging in honest discussions with honest people over honest concerns.
Is that spelling rule, i or e before or after gg? I forget.
Obama is going down and now comes the little racism rant and whine. Go tell it to Dr. Alan Keyes (he’s black you know) and all the other black birthers.
You need another sermon from Rev. James David Manning. You might note he is black and has mostly black congregation.
Orly’s cake is melting in the rain, I don’t think that she can take it, it took so long to make it.
It is looking like a sting to entrap Orly and her devoted followers (bvm). A lot of jokes are embedded in the cert.
From the net: “Very important. i need verification that E. F. Lavender was British colonial registrar in Mombasa,”
Try this: Babycare Pricelist. … Handwash E F Lavender 250Ml. 2.98. Thanks to obamaconspiracy.com for this one.
From Democratic Underground QUOTE
These were just upon first glance and took me a total of about 20 minutes to find:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18018714/03118509265
1) The photograph has three resolutions embedded. The highest resolution is for the paper. The second highest resolution is the fabric background. The lowest resolution is the text.
2) Mis-spelled the name of the village that Obama’s father was born in as “Kanyadhinng” instead of Kanyadhiang”.
3) Gave the age of Obama’s father as “26″. He was born in 1936 and thus could not have been older than “25″.
4) The certificate number is given as “47,044″ which is remarkable considering that Barack Hussein Obama was 47 years old when he was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States.
5) Most damning of all, the font used is Schmutz, which was invented in 1995. UNQUOTE
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6204062&mesg_id=6204062
And a sincere tip of the hat to birther for catching Colonel Oduya from the great, great BBC SF series Torchwood: Children of Earth.
Possible explanation from Phil
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6908
This explains it all
Here we go:
Ann filed for Divorce Jan. 20, 1964 (Inauguration Day – what are the odds?), and the date was set by the presiding judge for the trial to
commence 30 days after Obama SR would have responded to his notification, sent to Cambridge, Mass (Cambridge – what are the odds? ).
Judge Samuel P. King who granted the divorce – last I heard was retired and alive (for now) in his 90s in Hawaii — MAY or MAY NOT have
asked to see the Marriage Certificate. BUT, I bet Judge King asked to see Obama JR’s Birth Certificate to confirm Ann’s claims that Obama
SR was in fact the father. That is “standard” policy to have a Birth Certificate in case the mother asks for child support from the
father (or Welfare) later after the divorce. Judge King probably told Ann to produce a birth certificate before or at trial, which would
have been sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 HAD Obama SR answered his notice that was sent to Cambridge.
When Judge King wrote the order on Jan. 23, he had his clerk notify Obama SR via what’s referred to as a “knock and nail”. That is, the
postman leaves the notification on the door for (generally) 10 days and retrieves it after that time passes — signed or unsigned. That
order was sent on Jan. 23 via airmail from Hawaii and was probably posted on Obama SR’s door Jan. 27-28.
Obama SR’s notification was unsigned by him and apparently IGNORED — either he didn’t want to accept it OR he was NOT at that location.
However, Judge King granted the divorce to Ann Obama (which changed back to Ann Dunham) exactly 60 days from when the original order was
request by Ann by default.
NOW, my guess is that Judge King asked to see Obama JR’s Birth Certificate before he’d be willing to grant the divorce, either at trial
or by default on March 20, 1964. Ann probably didn’t have the birth certificate when she filed on Jan 20. That’s when this birth
certificate would have been generated — before trial for the 1964 divorce.
Important side note: the Certificate issue date of Feb 17, 1964, is JUST A FEW SHORT MONTHS AFTER KENYA BECAME INDEPENDENT on Dec. 12,
1963. TO THIS DATE, this may be the only certificate on Kenyan file today if British documents were sent to the UK for archiving leading
up Kenya becoming an independent nation.
If you note the date on the Certified Copy, it was created by the Registrar in Kenya on Feb. 17, 1964. The Kenyan Birth Certificate would
have been issued in the midst of the divorce — AFTER the divorce was filed by Ann in Hawaii on Jan. 20, but BEFORE the divorce was
granted by Judge King on March 20.
Furthermore, it’s quite plausible that once Ann actually had this Kenyan birth certificate in her hands, and the divorce was granted on
March 20, her attorney, George Kerr, counseled her on Hawaiian birth certificate “loopholes” and told her how to file for a Hawaiian
“Certificate of Delayed Birth” to get Welfare or OTHER support for young Obama as a child of a non-supporting foreign national.
As Hawaiian law allows, that CODB could have been “upgraded” later to a “Certificate of Live Birth” in the 60s or 70s, which would then
be a “root document” of the shorter “Certification of Live Birth” we see today presented as proof of birth from Barack Hussein Obama II.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of the Kenyan birth certificate itself, not knowing how or from whom Orly obtained the birth certificate
(the chain of evidence). It may have been obtained quite surreptitiously from the only filed Kenyan birth certificate record copy
requested — likely generated from the 1964 divorce.
It’s QUITE possible that all other copies of this Kenyan birth certificate may have been scrubbed from Kenyan archives, but this one may
have survived in a lone Vital Statistics office somewhere in Kenya not known about until now.
HOWEVER — the dates DO “line up” for the Kenyan Birth Certificate to be REAL.
Well First of all, Thank you Mike Appleton you have used the word in your mind at least a dozen times and just cause you used an asterik you think thats politically correct. Your an ASS.
Secondly as I said a few days ago things were coming to a head. Whether or not the document is real or fake it only adds fuel to the fire. I am leanning more to it’s a fake. I say this because we know Major Cook was a plant, I think this document is a plant. As I said before, Orly has a few smart retired military men in her corner, one from the intelligence service. A war of reverse physcology is being waged right now to force Obama’s hand. This document is going to allow for more speculation to brew and here’s why. The longer this document floats out there and can not be confirmed to be authentic, the more pressure will be applied to Obama to have independent forensic investigators allowed in at the health dept. in Hawaii. If he doesn’t the plot will only thicken.
Bdaman, that should read “You’re an ass.” Political correctness doesn’t interest me. The racism behind all of this nonsense is blatant. I don’t care how many black ministers you trot out. And it isn’t the plot that’s thickening. It’s the skulls of people who would not accept the truth if the delivering obstetrician came back from the dead. The idea of having independent forensic investigators involved is simply the next step. If that proved unsatisfactory to birthers, they would propose something else. There will not be an independent forensic investigation. The Georgia citizen’s grand jury will accomplish nothing. The tea parties can continue for the balance of Obama’s term for all I care. The only thing I find surprising is that so many people can behave with such abysmal ignorance, yet without the slightest trace of embarrassment.
Mike A:
“The only thing I find surprising is that so many people can behave with such abysmal ignorance, yet without the slightest trace of embarrassment.”
***********
As one of my favorite fictional characters, JR Ewing, said, “Sue Ellen, it takes brains to be scared.” So it seems to be the case with embarrassment. By the way, quite admirable aplomb in dealing with the insult!
Mike practice saying the word over and over so it becomes second nature for you. That way you might slip and say it out loud one day and someone turns and smashes your skull to bits.
Gee, Bdaman, I appear to have struck a nerve. Good. Now see if you can follow this:
1. When arguments are presented with substance and clarity, they deserve a response that is respectful and is directed to the merits.
2. When it becomes clear over a period of time that the arguments are being presented in bad faith, they lose their entitlement to respect.
3. One of the tests of bad faith is the repetition of claims based upon unsubstantiated rumors, particularly when the authorities submitted in support of the rumors are either other publishers of the rumors or anonymous web sites.
4. Another test of bad faith is the repetition of an argument that has already been refuted without an effort to respond directly to any of the points in the refutation.
5. Once the patterns of bad faith are established, it is time to look into the motives of those who are spreading the rumors.
6. Evidence that the rumors are being spread by the same people who insisted during the presidential campaign that the election of Barack Obama would mean (choose one or more), the end of America as we know it, the ascendancy of black liberation theology to a place of prominence, the turnover of the country to an apologist for Muslim terrorism or the death of free market capitalism, strongly suggests that the primary motivation is to delegitimize the election results.
7. The geographical demographics of the promoters of the rumors, and of the politicians who have endorsed them while expressing an unwillingness to become personally involved, points directly to racism as a motivating factor.
8. When all of this is coupled with the fact that not a single reputable attorney has signed on for the battle, the conclusion become inescapable, at least for rational individuals.
There you have it. Racism once again wrapping itself in patriotism, as it has historically, to justify hatred and absurdity. If you don’t like that conclusion, so be it. And if I am wrong, I will personally assign to you all of my interest in the millions of dollars presently being held for me in various Nigerian bank accounts. I have it on good authority that you will simply need to pay the FedEx delivery charges up front.
The World Nut Daily’s smoking gun has become its own mushroom cloud.
As of 9:15, Monday morning, Aug. 3d, there is no change in their article to note the charges that their smoking gun has blown up in their faces.
Hoist by their own petard [translation, blown up by their own gun, not hoisted up on their own "petard"].
The Kenyan so-called birth certificate sure looks like another forgery
Do not, repeat, do not expect bvm to admit this, even after posting twice that it looked real to it. Instead, it pasted up an incoherent posting that it did not write itself, and that is all over the net and filled with unfounded speculation about divorce proceedings in 1964.
This is its way of gloating?
This is its victory lap?
Birther: “This is a low-tech COLB.” Keercher “we have two images on the Internet… the Kenyan Ambassador has confirmed Obama’s birth in Kenya, and the President’s grandmother testified that she held the baby in Mombasa.”
Here is a very concise reply from Dr. Conspiracy:
QUOTE As with most birther misdirection, a little bit of truth is mixed with lies to fool the credulous.
The truth is that they are both pieces of paper on the Internet, but there are differences.
Kenyan Birth Certificate:
1. Very low resolution photos, making it relatively easy to fake.
2. The claim that Obama’s grandmother said she held him in Mombasa is a bald-faced lie.
3. The Kenyan Ambassador denies ever saying that President Obama was born in Kenya.
4. We have no idea where the document came from (no provenance)
Hawaiian Birth Certificate
1. Confirmation of registration and Hawaiian birth by state health department
2. High-resolution scans and photos, more difficult to fake, examined by independent news organization
3. Birth announcement in 2 newspapers
4. Clear provenance, campaign officials say it was ordered from Hawaii, and it was presented by (then) Senator Obama himself.
UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/a-tale-of-two-images/
Mike A,
Thank you. That was the first time I’ve done a spit-take with coffee in weeks. Well played, sir.
Vince,
I think you left out only thrown and manual projection weapons. If I may offer this advice, remember this one word when grammatically and stylistically grappling with “hoisting upon a gun/nuke versus traditional pole arms” issue: Bayonet.
Alex still has not gotten back to the source of “We [Alexander Hamilton and the framers] had no intention of permitting the children of aliens to hold the highest office.” I must reluctantly conclude that he is not the real Alexander Hamilton, but just someone posting anonymously.
According to Professor John Yinger, Hamilton warned implicitly, early in the Convention before the natural born citizen clause was introduced, against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States, and said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.”
It appears that Hamilton, an immigrant himself, was not in favor of restrictions on immigrants, and would have favored a broad reading of “natural born,” not a narrow one that excluded children born in the U.S. to alien immigrants.
This is made clear by looking at his entire suggested draft: The full clause was: “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
Note the words that are not there. He did not say “born to citizens” or “citizen parents” or “citizen” father. He did not say born in the United States. He said “born a citizen of the United States.”
The words exclude a narrow category of naturalize citizens from the Presidency and Vice Presidency. At the time, just about everyone born in the United States was born a citizen, except for the child of the British Ambassador. Just about everyone born in Britain became a British subject, except for the child of the American Ambassador.
The evidence shows that Hamilton favored the immigration of aliens to the United States.
Source and context: http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/testimony.htm
QUOTE The first draft of the Constitution that contained the Electoral College also was also the one that first contained the clause restricting presidential eligibility to natural born citizens.(3) This joint appearance of the Electoral College and the denial of presidential eligibility for naturalized citizens is somewhat ironic. After all, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running to the President through the Legislature. However, the long debate about eligibility requirements for legislators apparently left the Founders uncomfortable with prospect of eliminating all eligibility requirements in the process of presidential selection. As a result, they added the natural born citizen requirement even though it was no longer needed.
This addition may have been controversial. In fact, two of the most influential Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, argued against it, at least implicitly, earlier in the Convention by warning against any provision that created second-class citizens. Hamilton pointed out the “advantage of encouraging foreigners” to come to the United States. Then he said: “Persons in Europe of moderate fortune will be fond of coming here when they will be on a level with the first citizens.” Madison agreed with Hamilton. “He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us.” UNQUOTE, footnotes omitted.
From http://www.WND.com
“WND was able to obtain other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison, and the form of the documents appear to be identical.”
Mike the only nerve you struck was the hateful nerve. You choose to use a word that all by itself with no context or explanation is a word of hate. You use the term freely, while I have been on the hateful end of the word. I have an open mind, I know the document is probably fake. I am a long time reader of Dr. C. But what you have done and like Rich cares has done in he’s recent comment on Dr. C. is to glorify the word. Whats wrong with just using black man. Why do you have to use such a hateful word. Does this get your point accross better or somehow gives validity to your thought, like thats’ what it is, they dont’ want to see a XXXXXXX in office. Why can’t you say black man. Thats all Mike. I promise you no matter how you use the word, once the word is said, thats all anybody hears.
bvm: “WND was able to obtain other birth certificates….”
This is pathetic.
The comparison document shown on the Nut Daily was just as phony; it was supposedly issued by the “Republic of Kenya” in February 1964, when the Republic did not exist until December 12,1964. The Nut was refreshed at 9:58 AM EST, it STILL did not answer any questions about the charges of forgery.
AY: “I have a quick question? Why, does this issue merit so much attention?”
AY, I am just trying to answer some questions for the readers out there.
BIL, re: “bayonet”: lol, rotf, doacooaslsh [doubled over and carried out on a stretcher laughing so hard!]
Vince, I’ve seen this coming for over a month. What is tomorrow?
Does it make sense yet
“The racism behind all of this nonsense is blatant. I don’t care how many black ministers you trot out. And it isn’t the plot that’s thickening. It’s the skulls of people who would not accept the truth if the delivering obstetrician came back from the dead.”
Mike A,
As this has dragged on and on the inescapable conclusion that you have voiced eloquently is behind it all is racism. That Alan Keyes, Rev. Manning, or even bdaman himself may be black does not alter the fact that this is a racially motivated and fueled attack on the President. US history when it comes to racism is replete with code words used by bigots, to deny the bigotry of their policies. “Separate but equal” was never equal. “Law and Order” meant keep black people in their place and was part of the Nixon “Southern Strategy.”
bdaman’s:
“Whether or not the document is real or fake it only adds fuel to the fire. I am leanning more to it’s a fake.”
His seemingly reasonable statements are countered by a whole host of his posts bent on adding fuel to the flames of the birther movement, but not taking full responsibility for his positions. for instance when Jim Byrne said goodbye, bdaman
lamented that it was just he and bvm, left to carry the standard.
There have been a couple of other supposed “seekers of truth” on this thread that added fuel to the birther’s flame, but also disavowed full support. One of the tactics people with racial problems have used through the years is to espouse racist positions via supporting mis-named racist positions, “affirmative action” comes to mind and when called on it to deny the bigotry underpinning their position.
Mike it’s because I, unlike you have an open mind to EVERYTHING
I often look at polls to see where I fit in.
Rasmussen published this poll May 04, 2007.
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Well I’m 100% convinced
Daily KOS/Research Poll on July 31, 2009.
A whopping 58 percent of Republicans either think Barack Obama wasn’t born in the US (28 percent) or aren’t sure (30 percent). A mere 42 percent think he was.
I think he was born in Hawaii, but I still don’t understand why Ms. Fukino is the only person in the world who holds title to personally seen and verified and now knows he is a natural born American citizen.
I also understand the art of how and when to attack. The art of focusing on the strong and defending the weak.
As a truth seeker you like to be able to present both sides of the argument until one argument becomes stronger than the other. I am neither republican nor democrat, but I can tell you I’m sure glad I’m not a democrat.
Nut. Refreshed. 11:56 AM EST. Silent on charges of Kenyan BC forgery
A Nut is a terrible thing to waste.
Why the “Birther” Movement is EXPLODING!
by JB Williams
source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13295
Demonstrated by plummeting approval ratings only six months into office, the American people have seen enough of Obama’s “global” agenda, at odds with American interest, and what was once “hope” for “change” six months ago, has become fear, anger and discontent. Obama took office six months ago with a +28 point strong approval rating. Six months later, Obama finds himself at a -12 point approval rating, an unprecedented 40 point swing!
The Obama administration has named more unelected Czars in six months than pre-Soviet Russia named in its thousand year existence. They have forced industries into bankruptcy only to emerge the property of the federal government. They are ramming Marxist laws through a leftist congress so fast that members of congress don’t even have time to read them before they pass.
Members of congress are now afraid to hold town meetings for fear of being attacked by angry constituents who have had enough of watching DC elitists run roughshod over the other side of the aisle, the states and the American people.
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090731/pl_politico/25646)
There are TWO reasons why the “birther” movement is EXPLODING instead of going away, despite daily attacks and name calling from the lamestream press.
The Constitution, including Article II – Section I either stands or it doesn’t.
The people are watching the utter hourly destruction of their nation in Washington DC and they need a peaceful way to end that destruction legally, before things become violent.
The flaw in the left’s plan to change the Unites States into a secular socialist One World Order is they have foolishly underestimated the desire for freedom and liberty in the hearts and minds of most Americans.
They have miscalculated… The 22.4% of the population who voted for Marxism in the last two election cycles thought that they won the right to shove Marxism down the throats of every American. They are horrifically mistaken…
By launching a heavy handed all-out assault on individual freedom and liberty from every possible front at breakneck speed, they have sent the nation into shock and dismay. Even many, who foolishly voted for the mystery messiah last November, are now jumping ship after watching him make a mockery of the US Constitution and the principles and values that made America the greatest free nation ever known to mankind.
The people need to right the ship and remove every anti-American fraud from the halls of the federal government before things get really ugly. Afraid to confront their constituents, law-makers are running for cover. When representatives stop listening to the people they work for, the people will stop talking and start acting!
If Obama is a “constitutional” president, he is going to have to prove it and fast. If not, he is going to have to leave the people’s White House, in handcuffs if need be! The issue will not go away. The Constitution stands or all bets are off!
Every member of his administration and his party who had knowledge of, participated in or provided cover for the greatest hoax every perpetrated on the American people, must step down with him.
The people will have to figure out what to do next, but one thing is certain, – this “silent coup” will not stand much longer. The walls are closing in and Obama & Co. are trapped in their own massive web of deceit.
People do NOT spend a million dollars to hide something that there is no reason to hide.
The inescapable reality is this… – We have an unconstitutional resident of the White House and a whole lot of people working around the clock to keep him in office, for God only knows what purpose.
Although 22.4% of Americans don’t seem to care about that, millions of American “birthers” do, as did the Founding Fathers.
Sooner or later, Obama is going to have to prove that he is legitimate. The longer it takes for him to come forward and do so, the more dangerous the situation will become, as citizens grow increasingly angry over the utter destruction of their country.
The truth exists in Obama’s official birth, adoption, college and passport records. Nobody hides the truth unless the truth will expose a lie…
Even Obama’s political allies had better start calling for the truth and fast, or they will sink with him! The Founders had it right and on that basis alone, so do the “birthers.”
We’re keeping a list of all who have chosen badly…
No answer from bvm about the forged Kenyan certificate that it said looked real.
It just changes the subject, and troll-posts JB Wms, who himself has no clue about the “The Constitution, including Article II – Section I” and the founders.
Obama has released his birth certificate.
Birthers, all, please name any other past or probable candidate or president who has released a birth certificate, and provide a link. Clue, the one for McCain showing birth in Colon is a forgery.
Everyone is waiting.
Vince Treacy said; “I must reluctantly conclude that he is not the real Alexander Hamilton, but just someone posting anonymously.”
Brilliant deduction Mr. Treacy.
My role in creation of our Constitution has been greatly exagerated, as was my role in its ratification.
I left the Convention after attending only the first of three months of debate. My first draft for a constitution, from which you quote, was never presented to the delegates of the convention in Philadelphia. It was never the subject of debate. My ideas on how to establish our new form of government were not acceptable to most who attended. Upon notice from General Washington, for whom I have great respect, I returned only to sit on the Committee of Style.
The “first draft” of, what has become “our Constitution”, was submitted on August 6th, 1787 while I was in New York and not a participant. Should you like to review it, here’s a link:
http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0806.htm
The influence of the Federalist Papers, written by Mr. Madison, Mr. Jay and myself, was limited to New York. Federalist #78, to which many in the legal profession often refer, was not published until June 14th, 1788. This was after eight of the nine required states had already ratified the Constitution.
My reported take on the Judiciary is often confused. As has been demonstrated, the majority of those at the state conventions could not have been familiar with Federalist #78 when they ratified the Constitution, as it had not yet been written.
The legal professions convoluted view of what is now known as “judicial review” is astounding. Mr. Ellsworth insisted that such power not be present in our final draft. The delegates, many having personally fought for their independence from unelected authority, were not about to relinquish control of their new country without the ability to restrict such should it be used in a manner not commensurate with the views of the elected representatives of the people.
Mr. Ellsworth, an experienced jurist, granted the Supreme Court the power to rule on Acts that are repugnant to the Constitution when he authored the Act to establish the federal judiciary. a.k.a. “The Judiciary Act of 1789″. I ask you to review the Twenty-Fifth Section of that Act.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm
In 1831, upon recommendation of President Andrew Jackson, the House of Representatives initiated an effort to repeal the twenty-fifth section.
Here you may view the House Journal:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llrd&fileName=010/llrd010.db&recNum=506
In the most famous case of Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court stated;
“In the first, it is our duty to ascertain if this court has jurisdiction, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, to review the case from the State court; and if it shall be found that it has not, the case is at end, so far as this court is concerned; for our power to review the case upon its merits has been made, by the twenty-fifth section, to depend upon its having jurisdiction; when it has not, this court cannot criticise, controvert, or give any opinion upon the merits of a case from a State court.” Where did the case come to the Supreme Court from? A. “THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri.”
As evidenced above, the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1856, knew full-well, that the courts residing in the states, be they state or federal courts, were all considered to be state courts.
It wasn’t until 1887, in the case of Mugler v. Kansas, that the Supreme Court made claim to Marbury as the source for the power of judicial review. Flawed doctrine? Power grab by the Court in an attempt to solidify a power granted by Act of Legislature from further efforts to repeal it? Or just the errors of history that occur with the passage of time? We will likely never know. It should be noted in 1887 we had our first justice that had a formal legal education. Perhaps the error occurred as a result of his education.
Please ask the members of the legal profession to stop distorting history.
More on Leo Donofrio’s quo warranto idea, discussed above July 30, 2009, at 6:44 PM.
This is from an excellent site: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com [note that is is nativeborncitizen, wordpress, not natural born citizen].
Leo claims that a District Court in DC could remove a President with a writ of quo warranto. His claim is ludicrous. Congress has no power to give that kind of authority to any court. Congress even rejected the idea of allowing court challenges to the CANDIDATES in presidential election, and rejected the proposal. It is fundamental that a statute cannot be interpreted to provide an power that Congress considered granting and rejected. If it rejected court challenges to candidates, then it could not at the same time have favored court challenges to sitting presidents.
QUOTE
NY Times 1882- Reporting on Quo Warranto and trying the title of the President
The New York Times, on June 20, 1882, published an article explaining that an attempt by Congress to allow the title of the President to be tried by Quo Warranto had been defeated. Most relevant are the comments by Mr. Hewitt who “did not approve the bill, and he remarked that be was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution”
ELECTING THE PRESIDENT
AN ELECTORAL COUNT BILL WHICH WAS PROMPTLY KILLED.
MR UPDEGRAFF’S -SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SENATE BILL-DEGRADING THE OFFICE BY MAKING IT A SUBJECT OF LITIGATION — THE SENATE BILL RECOMMITTED.
WASHINGTON, June 20.-The action taken by the House to-day shows that it will be difficult to frame an Electoral Count bill which will meet the approval of that body, and still more difficult to frame one that will be actepted by both House and Senate. The bill reported by Mr. Updegraff, from the select committee charged with the subject, which was published in full some time ago, was rejected by a vote of 93 to 100, and the bill which has passed the Senate failed to be advanced to its third reading, and was recommitted by an almost unanimous vote.
The part of Mr. Updegraff’s bill which aroused the strongest opposition was that which provided that the defeated candidate for the Presidency might appeal to the courts after the votes bad been counted and his opponent declared elected. The sections in question provided that the claimant might proceed bv quo warranto in the United States Circuit Court by filing complaint within 10 days after the declaration of his rival’s election. The defendant must answer and plead within 20 days, and the trial must begin within 30 days after the service of the summons. Provision was also made for appeal to the Supreme Court and for enforcement of judgment by a writ addressed to any Marshal.
Mr. Bowman opposed this part of the bill because it degraded the office by making it a subject of litigation before a jury. Mr. Browne. of Indiana, argued that the question of the title of Electors should be settled in the most direct way, in the States, by State courts. under State laws, and that this settlement should be final. He also suggested the abolition of the Electoral College. Mr. Hammond, of Georgia, denounced the bill, and declared that it ought to be called ” A bill to raise hell in the United States.” Mr. Hewitt did not approve the bill, and he remarked that be was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution. Mr. Carlisle thought that Congress should be the final judge. The part of the bill relating to the quo warranto proceedings
was stricken out, and then the remainder was rejected. The Senate bill was then recommitted.
UNQUOTE, source:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/ny-times-reporting-on-quo-warranto-and-trying-the-title-of-the-president/
Of course, President can be removed, short of revolution, by impeachment. Mr. Carlisle correctly thought that Congress should be the final judge.
That word you keep using . . . exploding . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.
Did BVM really post that. That is the longest post from him I’ve ever seen and it does not have the trade mark off War criminals, need to be arrested for war crimes ect ect.
Mike A writes: Bdaman, that should read “You’re an ass.” Political correctness doesn’t interest me. The racism behind all of this nonsense is blatant. I don’t care how many black ministers you trot out. And it isn’t the plot that’s thickening. It’s the skulls of people who would not accept the truth if the delivering obstetrician came back from the dead. The idea of having independent forensic investigators involved is simply the next step. If that proved unsatisfactory to birthers, they would propose something else. There will not be an independent forensic investigation. The Georgia citizen’s grand jury will accomplish nothing. The tea parties can continue for the balance of Obama’s term for all I care. The only thing I find surprising is that so many people can behave with such abysmal ignorance, yet without the slightest trace of embarrassment.
me: see this is, at last, the response that will be with reasonable people for the foreseeable future. It doesn’t matter what kind of proof is offered. The birthers are rooted in their moronic interpretation of one kind of certificate vs. another because they just don’t want Obama to be President and simply cannot believe that any part of white America does either. they will never let go. they will never stop. and now they added their death to seniors paranoia to the health insurance reform bill. this is swift boating.
this is using the myth to obscure their lie.
Article from http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/08/obamas-kenyan-birth-certificate.html
Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate
Barack Hussein Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate has apparently been found, according to former Israeli Prime Minister senior editor and translator Avi Lipkin, showing Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. California attorney Orly Taitz has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.
Avi stated, “Obama’s father and half brother were members of a Kenyan tribe and Obama belongs to that tribe and in the eyes of the Islamic world, Obama is viewed as a Sunni Kenyan Muslim, whose loyalty must be to the King of Saudi Arabia. This is the greatest deception ever pulled on Americans that Obama is not a Muslim because if your father is a Muslim, then you are a Muslim.”
The document published in WorldNetDaily lists Obama’s parents as Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Obama, formerly Stanley Ann Dunham, the birth date as Aug. 4, 1961, and the hospital of birth as Coast General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
No doctor is listed. But the alleged certificate bears the signature of the deputy registrar of Coast Province, Joshua Simon Oduya. It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964. Other birth certificates from Kenya for purposes of comparison appear to be identical. … “There is no doubt that Mubarack Hussein Obama (Barack is short for Mubarack) is the son of a proud member of a Sunni Muslim tribe in Kenya, the same tribe that massacred Kenyan Christians a few years ago.”
In the article Avi also wrote, “There is no debate, either, that his (Obama’s) white mother remarried a second husband, also a Sunni Muslim, who lived with Obama in Indonesia for a number of years. Obama attended a madrassa (Islamic school) until age 11 and prayed at the local mosque. According to the Islamic faith, if a father was a Muslim, so is the son, Obama,” Lipkin concluded in the article.”
“Lies, lies, damn lies, statistics, and bvm paste ups”
Yet another paste-up by bvm.
Checked at 7:01 PM, EST, not even the NUT is defending this forged lying piece of trash against the overwhelming evidence of fraud on its face. Just google fake obama kenya birth certificate and see for yourselves.
Get over it, bvm, bda and the rest. This “certificate” may have been a deliberate hoax to delude the likes of you.
“The image is part of the extremely ill-informed conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Mombasa—conveniently, one of the more Muslim parts of the country.
“This has always been a red flag for conspiracy theorists, so it deserves some explanation. Barack Obama Sr. was born and educated in Nyanza Province, in southwestern Kenya, on Lake Victoria. This is the area where Obama’s family lived and continues to live; Sarah Obama, the step-grandmother of the president, lives in Nyang’oma Kogelo, a small town in the province. But Mombasa is a city on the Indian Ocean, a thousand miles to the east. It didn’t even have an international airport until 1979. And the city wasn’t even part of Kenya when the future president was born. Mombasa was a part of Zanzibar until December 12, 1963, when it became part of the newly independent Kenya.
“The new forgery? Why, it claims that the president was born in Coast General Hospital in Mombasa.”
Credit to The Washington Independent. Full discussion at http://washingtonindependent.com/53494/birthers-latch-onto-forged-kenyan-birth-certificate
Anyone still believe bvm and Avi about that Muslim stuff?
Yet another reason, if anyone still needs one, to disbelieve bvm and anything it posts.
Salon.com: [QUOTE ON]
Update: Two British professors who specialize in African history have e-mailed Salon to point out another apparent error in the purportedly Kenyan document. The certificate’s header reads Coast Province — but according to the professors, at the time the document is dated, what are now known as provinces were called regions.
“Writes Dan Branch, an assistant professor of African history at the University of Warwick:
It seems highly implausible and certainly a hoax. I have not seen any documents from this period in early 1964 that uses the heading of Republic of Kenya — unsurprisingly given Kenya was not a Republic until December 1964. Moreover, the label of ‘Region’ was being used in early 1964 instead of ‘Province.’ While some of the old colonial forms may have still been in circulation, which would have used ‘Coast Province,’ these would have been headed as ‘Colony & Protectorate of Kenya.’
As for his qualifications to judge the document and the header on it, Branch e-mails, “I”ve been working in the Kenyan archives on late-colonial and post-colonial history for the past eight years.” [UNQUOTE]
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya/
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we give you the ONE, the ONLY, the GREATEST, ORLY TAITZ!!!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32274609#3227460
Well….
Birthers proven right: Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate found
August 3, 2:42 AM
http://Examiner.com
Excerpt:
Many Obama supporters have naively claimed that the birther movement has been ridiculous because there is no way the government would allow such a thing to ever happen. Obviously, this discovery raises the question of who allowed this to happen and how honest the American government truly is to its people. Who are the Obama administration and the government really working for?
The answer to this question can be found by answering another: who funded Obama’s campaign, which was the most expensive campaign ever? Here’s a start: his top contributor was Goldman Sachs, who just profited $12 billion last quarter after being a primary recipient of Obama’s bailout money.[8] Another primary recipient and top 5 Obama-funder was JP Morgan Chase, who profited $2.7 billion last quarter after receiving bailout money.[9] And the list goes on. Obama works for the interests of big bankers like a reverse Robin Hood: steal from the poor, give to the really rich. And the really scary reality to research is who owns these banks.[10] In fact, the same people that funded Bush into office funded Obama, who also funded McCain and the Clintons.[11] One would have to be extraordinarily naïve to think that such funding wouldn’t come without a price. After doing the research, it becomes clear that Obama is just a puppet of bankers and hasn’t turned out to be the “savior” he was purported to be. It will be interesting to see what the mainstream media discloses about this.
BVM,
Do you have comments on your Birther Queen’s MSNBC interview?
(Other than I bet she was hot when she was young?)
“There’s only one thing wrong with BVM’s baby.
“It’s ALIVE!”
There’s only one problem with BVM’s link to the Examiner.
It’s a lie!
IT DOES NOT SAY THE KENYAN CERTIFICATE IS REAL.
Its headline says: “Alleged Obama Kenyan birth certificate deemed fake.”
Read it and weep, BVM. http://www.examiner.com/x-16327-Clark-County-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m8d3-Alleged-Obama-Kenyan-birth-certificate-deemed-fake
(BTW’s server is having problems with its machine-generated postings, since they have less and less to do with its topics. The latest post says “Birthers proven right: Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate found” but the paste-up nonsense has NOTHING to do with the forgery issue. Something in the circuits got fried when the moonshine spilled on it).
Just when you think it can’t get any funnier, it gets even funnier.
Not even the Nuthouse is still supporting the forgery that bvm loves so well.
World Nut Daily says it had a “journalistic responsibility” to post the forgery:
“Our goal, as always, is to seek the truth. This is not our document. It is evidence that has (sic) presented in a high-profile court case. And, thus, I believe we had a journalistic responsibility to publish it — just as I think every other news organization does.”
And, as far as I can see, this gem IS NOT EVEN POSTED ON THE NUT’S OWN SITE.
It is provided here, thanks to the Washington Independent.
http://washingtonindependent.com/53598/worldnetdaily-we-had-journalistic-responsibility-to-post-forged-document
This is too easy. It is like catching fish in a barrel . . . USING DYNAMITE.
I am beginning to suspect that bvm is actually a bunch of guys in a GW Law dorm who created it to provoke the posters on their Prof’s blog.
Finally, FINALLY, the Nut notes the phoniness of the forgery: Posted: August 03, 2009 9:02 pm Eastern.
“There’s a slow, slow train comin’ up around the bend.”
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/slow-train
Did anyone notice in the intro to Orly the anchor says live from Tel Aviv. I wonder what she is doing in Israel. Is it possible that she is now working with Mossad and Mossad is investigating. It is no secret that Israel dislikes Obama. Maybe they saw the antichrist posting on world nut. Today Netanyahu had some very sharp words for the Obama administration. If there is an intelligence service to get to the bottom of it, Mossad would be the one. Very interesting
Vince,
I saw the Orly interview this AM only to find you’d beaten me to the punch. My reaction?
I had to double check to make sure it was MSNCBC and not SNL. I laughed so hard I scared one of the cats.
Orly is quite a character, I’ll give her that, but credible enters into the equation no where that I can see.
Well, well, well!
They found the original that was the basis for the fake Kenyan birth certificate. The credit goes to Politijab, but it can be compared online at:
http://www.stinque.com/2009/08/03/throw-another-forgery-on-the-barbie-mate/
and at
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/comparing-the-forgery-and-original/
G.F. Lavender was made into soap as E.F. Lavender. Hindmarsh became Mombassa. J.H. Miller became M.H. Miller. Looks like Oduya came in the Tardis to sign the fake.
From down under: “Sceptics soon traced the bogus birth certificate and found it to be a forgery. The document turns out to have been based on the birth certificate of an Adelaide man called David Jeffrey Bomford.” Read it all at:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2646009.htm
Written prediction: The birther will blame the entire Kenyan forged birth certificate on Obama and his minions. They will say the President and the conspiracy planted it to discredit the birthers. © 2009.
Read it here first.
It doesn’t matter about the birth certificates.
“Obama is Not the President of the United States”
Obama is a War Criminal. He has been a War Criminal for several years in funding, conspiring and waging Wars of Aggression. He should Not have been placed on the ballots. He should Not have been certified by the Congress. Obama should Not have been sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. These acts were unconstitutional, felonious and treasonous. Obama could be arrested at any time by the U.S. Government, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. for War Crimes and a multitude of other charges. Our political, civil and military leaders along with the mainstream media have perpetuated and built a “Big Lie” for years. It is on the scale that Hitler and the Nazis used to deceive the German people. Obama is one manifestation of that Lie.
The U.S. Government has committed a War of Aggression which is a War Crime under international law. War Crimes are the worst crimes in the world.
Congress and President Bush had no right to engage the U.S. in a War of Aggression.
A War of Aggression against Iraq violated the United States Constitution, the United Nations Charter and the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The U.S. Government has violated the same law used to prosecute and convict the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials.
The U.S. Government and leaders are guilty of crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Any vote of endorsement served as a ratification of War Crimes.
Funding a War of Aggression is complicity and ancillary conduct to War Crimes. Each vote was a War Crime.
Upon entering the Senate in 2005 through April 2007 Obama voted for every war-funding bill that came before him. Obama, despite his anti-war rhetoric, has cast at least 11 votes for war-funding bills.
On 6/26/08 Obama voted for passage of H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, a war- funding bill.
The list of War Criminals includes all those in Congress who voted to invade Iraq, those who voted to fund the war and the continuing occupation and all the political, civil and military leaders of America responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have all conspired in War Crimes. Many of the people in Obama’s cabinet and in his administration are War Criminals. Very few in the Bush Administration and Congress are NOT War Criminals. They are murderous fascists!
Obama is a fascist, murderous imposter who should be arrested and removed at once from the Office of President. Obama and co-conspirators are guilty in the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. Some estimate as many as 1,400,000 Iraqis have died due to the US-led war. Obama approved funds which were used to buy bombs and bullets to murder and maim tens of thousands of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani children.
Many of the countries who have signed the Torture Treaties (about 155 countries) are preparing to arrest American War Criminals who come within their borders. We need to have a mass trial in Washington and try all of them for War Crimes. Purge the government and other leadership of the War Criminals! Purge the government and other leadership of the Murderous Fascists! It is Time to Arrest, Charge, Try and hopefully Convict the political, civil and military leaders of America most responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and murders in Pakistan! Americans, Now is the Time to come to the aid of your country!
Here are some of the crimes with which they could be charged:
A crime against peace [waging aggressive war]
Complicity in a crime against peace
Genocide*
Conduct ancillary to genocide*
Crimes against humanity*
Conduct ancillary to crimes against humanity*
War Crimes [there are 33 separate war crimes listed in the legislation]*
Conduct ancillary to war crimes*
Murder
Conspiracy to murder
Incitement to murder
Conspiracy to commit a crime against peace
Conspiracy to commit genocide
Conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity
Conspiracy to commit war crimes
Conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm
[* The ICC in the Hague can only prosecute these 6 categories of criminal offence.]
The following War Crimes laws need to be enforced;
Proxmire Act
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441§ 2441 War crimes
Federal Statute 18 USC 241
Did BVM just give up on the birthers? Oh my!
BVM,
Have you really no shame?
“It doesn’t matter about the birth certificates.”
It mattered enough to you about the birther controversy to devote many, many posts towards defending it. Now that it has been shown to be false, rather than admit your error, you fall back on your old standby. If you were wrong about the birther controversy and refuse to admit it, why should you be trusted in anything you write?
Just as starters, Obama has committed War Crimes for years in 3 countries – Iraq, Afghanistan
and Pakistan.
Obama is one of the biggest criminals in history along with Bush, Cheney, Biden, Hitler and
Goering.
Oh my but that is painfully transparent.
And the Mall just exploded.
Buddha,
You should have some sympathy for BVM, his little mall heart is breaking… he’s probably having trouble seeing his computer through all of the tears.
As someone who has watched the birther movement since before the election, I must say the the past 2 days have been by far the most entertaining. All of the frenzied activity at birther blogs is hilarious regardless of the position they take on the fake Kenyan birth certificate (which is itself funny in how bad a fake it is). This is like Christmas, Easter, and the Rapture all rolled into one for some of these people – I just hope they can take the disappointment when they wake up and find they’ve been left behind, they have a lump of coal in their stocking, and there’s still a corpse in the tomb…
“Vince Treacy 1, August 4, 2009 at 8:58 am
“Written prediction: The birther will blame the entire Kenyan forged birth certificate on Obama and his minions. They will say the President and the conspiracy planted it to discredit the birthers. © 2009.
“Read it here first.”
QUOTE ON Black Lion says:
August 4, 2009 at 12:37 pm
…
Debunking Obama’s thugs in the media
Recently Obama’s thugs in main stream media came up with this Bomford report in order to stop my efforts in exposing and prosecuting Obama. Though typically I don’t have time to waste on each and every dumb obot, since it got to National TV and my children”s friends called my children, I’ll spend a few minutes to debunk the obots: UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/kenyan-birth-certificate-proven-fake-no-doubt/
WHERE’S MY CIGAR?
Oh, Hell. No cigar. Orly herself said it and posted it long ago. Black Lion was just pasting it up without attribution (!) I just could not go to her damaged site.
QUOTE: This site may harm your computer.
Aug 2, 2009 … The following transaction was entered by Taitz, Orly on 8/1/2009 at ….. Debunking Obama’s thugs in the media. Recently Obama’s thugs in …
w*ww.o*rlyt*aitze*sq.c*om/b*log1/ – Similar UQ
“Meet Orly Taitz, Queen Bee of People Obsessed With Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate”
http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-18/news/orly-taitz
She does not like to be called “Queen of the Birfers.”
Right on the money, Slart:
“The Great Disappointment was a major event in the history of the Millerite movement, a 19th century American Christian sect. William Miller, a Baptist preacher, prophesied that Jesus Christ would return to the earth during the year 1844. A more specific date, that of October 22, 1844, was calculated by Samuel S. Snow. Jesus did not appear as expected on the appointed day and as a result October 22, 1844, became known as the Great Disappointment.” Wikipedia
UH O, this thing has a lot of twist.
You may have jumped the gun there. The Bomford/Australian certificate image seems to have disappeared from all the “debunking” articles. Check out post 1,139 about 2/3rds down the page, re the Kenyan coat of arms emblem:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?q=1&;page=1132#1132
Looks like the Aussie cert was copied from Taitz’s, and not vise-versa.
“Koyann (Steve Ellis), who fabricated the fake “Australian” certificate, didn’t take the time to replacte the crest, instead he cropped the upper part of the template, as you can see: the words “South Australia” are cut in half. It’s clear that he used the Kenya image as template and not the other way around. The typed letters are not distorted by the paper creases as they should.”
…
It’s looking a lot more like the so called “Aussie” version is a fake.
For one thing, the folds between the Kenyan doc and the Aussie doc are different not only in number but also where they are located on the documents.
Furthermore:
1) The referring page: http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg has been taken down. As hashttp://www.bomford.net/worcestershire (earlier tonight, it had a message on it saying the bomford b.c. had been taken down.
Look at that bomford version. Zoom in and look at the lettering on the doc where the folds are. There seems to be no distortion at all (especially the bottom portion). In other words, the letters “float” over the folds. Discussion found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ … =1019#1019
Information on the guy who reportedly forged the Aussie version: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=1019#1019
UH O, this thing has a lot of twist.
You may have jumped the gun there. The Bomford/Australian certificate image seems to have disappeared from all the “debunking” articles. Check out post 1,139 about 2/3rds down the page, re the Kenyan coat of arms emblem:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?q=1&;page=1132#1132
Looks like the Aussie cert was copied from Taitz’s, and not vise-versa.
“Koyann (Steve Ellis), who fabricated the fake “Australian” certificate, didn’t take the time to replacte the crest, instead he cropped the upper part of the template, as you can see: the words “South Australia” are cut in half. It’s clear that he used the Kenya image as template and not the other way around. The typed letters are not distorted by the paper creases as they should.”
…
It’s looking a lot more like the so called “Aussie” version is a fake.
For one thing, the folds between the Kenyan doc and the Aussie doc are different not only in number but also where they are located on the documents.
Furthermore:
1) The referring page: http://www.bomford.net/worcestershire/images/DavidJeffreyBomfordBirthCertDoc65.jpg has been taken down. As hashttp://www.bomford.net/worcestershire (earlier tonight, it had a message on it saying the bomford b.c. had been taken down.
Look at that bomford version. Zoom in and look at the lettering on the doc where the folds are. There seems to be no distortion at all (especially the bottom portion). In other words, the letters “float” over the folds. Discussion found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ … =1019#1019
Information on the guy who reportedly forged the Aussie version: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2307402/posts?page=1019#1019
And then there’s this
I’ve found lists of participants at 2 international conferences, one hosted by the UN, in which a Richard Bomford attended with a Richard Bamford email address, as someone working for the Aussie Governent, Regional Unit for the Environment, in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
Richard Bomford is listed as the domain holder for Bomford.net where this David Jeffrey Bomford Certification of Registration was found.
The problem is that Richard Bamford was just involved in a massive fraud case adjudicated in Australian on July 10th of this year.
Bamford seems to go by the name Bomford.
Also GIM International lists Richard Bomford as a GIS expert. It is my understanding that GIS information experts have software to produce maps and edit images of such quality, that forging a BC would be child’s play.
So the Bomford could be the fake; as its provenance is in doubt.
As far as I know, date stamps on images can also be faked. So that proves nothing. So can lead codes and other identifying facts.
There are a number of inconsistencies in the Bomford and Kenyan BCs. On the Bomford there is no tilting of the typed line at the bottom of the page, on the Kenyan there is. Only an expert could avoid the tilting problem when typing on the final inch of a single page of paper. Yet the Bomford has raised capitals, which often occur when typing fast on a typewritter and not fully depressing the capital shift key. The Kenyan does not have this problem.
The currency in Kenya was shillings. “d” in English currency means pence or cents. The Aussie has a seal different from the crest; the Kenyan seal is indiscernable. Both have the capital O instead of the zero for the number Zero and the capital O. Both seem to use the same typewriter font. Its a 25 years not a 26, because the loop for the 5 is larger not small and squat like the six.
Dream on.
Bdaman,
Seriously, what point are you trying to make overall? I’ve read all you’ve written on this thread and you are truly all over the place.
Bdaman, I had intended to respond yesterday to your last post on my use of the “word,” but making a living seems to constantly interfere with following this site.
I certainly agree that the word is among the vilest, most demeaning expressions in the English language. I chose it for its viciousness because I am convinced that it most accurately describes the opinions of the birthers and others of their persuasion regarding the president. I thought it obvious that it was used in that context.
I have closely followed presidential elections since becoming enthralled during the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960. The most recent campaign was the most blatantly racist since George Corley Wallace futilely called upon the ghost of the Confederacy in 1968. The evidence is almost overwhelming. A few examples:
1. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Rep. Ga.) describes Mr. Obama as “uppity.”
2. Rep. Steve King (Rep. Iowa) argues that voters should remember the “Hussein” in the president’s name because terrorists “will be dancing in the street) if he is elected.
3. Rep. Geoff Davis (Rep. Ky.) calls the candidate “boy.”
4. Jeffrey Frederick, Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party, tells voters that Mr. Obama is a “terrorist.”
5. Lee County Sheriff Mike “Bull Connor” Scott, armed and fully uniformed, warns voters against “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally in Florida. (We’ve all heard the refrains familiar at Palin rallies).
6. Rep. Paul Brown (Rep. Ga.) claims that Mr. Obama is a “Marxist.”
7. Diane Fidele, President of the Chaffee Community of Republican Women (California) sends out more than two hundred “Obama bucks,” phony food stamps in $10.00 denominations bearing the image of Mr. Obama flanked by barbequed ribs and watermelon.
8. Marcia Stirman, Chairman of the Republican Women of Otero County (New Mexico) sends out a letter charging that Mr. Obama is a “Muslim socialist” and reminding voters that “Muslims are our enemies.”
9. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of the gang excoriate Mr. Obama for his relationship with Rev. Wright based upon the latter’s commitment to black liberation theology, which they absurdly equate with hatred of whites. Liberation theology, of course, simply recognizes that a commitment to God requires a commitment to social justice. It is the same teaching that resulted in the killings of priests and nuns by right wing extremists in South America in the ’70s and ’80s (supported by our government, of course). Christian fundamentalists were particularly vehement on this issue as well, because everybody knows that true religion isn’t about justice; it’s about achieving material wealth as God’s reward for righteousness.
I could go on, because the list is endless. When the tactics failed, the strategy of fear and intimidation continued after the election. Politicians began to blame the president-elect for the financial collapse even though Pres. Bush was still in office. Sales of weapons exploded as a result of warnings that the new president would take everyone’s guns. As soon as the last inaugural ball was over, Republicans began to criticize the president for not having solved the recession. Right wing forces enlisted hordes of undereducated, frightened citizens to attend “tea parties,” haphazard gatherings where people milled about grousing almost incoherently about real or imagined threats to “our way of life.” These pathetic picnics provided recruiting opportunities for various white supremacist groups, the numbers of which continue to grow.
Then the birthers began in earnest, convinced that if they could do nothing about the election results, they could nevertheless attack the very legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The rumors continued to spread on anonymous web sites, and the web sites began to trumpet their own credibility by citing other anonymous web sites as authority for their own deliberate lies. The sites have now become mobs in virtual world, demanding the removal of the “usurper,” convening “citizen’s grand juries” to indict the president and literally endorsing armed insurrection should he remain in office.
And now we see the politics of hatred and destruction taking aim at health care reform, scaring people with images of euthanasia of the elderly and forced sterilization of the young, dispatching modern-day brown shirts and idle “tea party” adherents to trash public town hall meetings and shout down any efforts to explain what the administration is attempting to do.
All of this has been fomented and financed by right wing forces of hatred. I know what it means when Glenn Beck says “we need to take our country back.” I know what it means when Rush Limbaugh says that the president is a “reverse racist.” I know what it means when the birthers shout “he is not one of us.” I know what it means when they spit out the words “community organizer.” To translate these phrases as “black man” gives raw bigotry a dignity it hardly deserves. BVM has summed it up well when he earlier noted that, “It doesn’t matter about the birth certificates.” The birth certificates have never mattered, after all.
Finally, I note that you appear to take pride in having a mind “open to everything.” That is not a mark of a liberal mind; it is the mark of an indiscriminate one. A liberal view of individual freedom and dignity within the context of an ordered society requires thoughtful discernment. That means that there are certain beliefs that are not worthy of consideration. It means that there are certain ideas that are not debatable. Racism is among them. I am no longer willing to treat as respectable opinion the euphemisms that continue to pour from the mouths of those whose real agenda is the destruction of the presidency.
Mike A, thanks for the response. As I watch video’s of town hall meetings T-Parties ect ect. I do notice a lack or non existence of ANY black Americans holding signs and shouting, this is not to say we haven’t in the past. Everything that you have described is accurate and to the point. It happens both ways though. I remember the treatment Bush recieved and please do not confuse me with defending Bush either. You might think I’m crazy but this is one of the things I like about BVM. He calls everyone a war criminal and I agree with him Bush, Cheney, Obama ALL of them. Over 500 of them in Washington. They are all war criminals. Thats a whole nother subject.
Mike your point is well taken but think about this, I’m 99.99% sure OJ killed his wife. The small doubt I have is when I rode by the murder seen in 95 if you travel five minutes one way your in one of the toughest Mexican neighborhoods, five minutes the other wat, your in posh Brentwood. Had Mark Furman never uttered that word, the prosecution would of got a conviction. Regardless how Mark Furman used it in his context he was still labeled a racist and I promise you most black Americans feel he planted the evidence cause he was a racist. Don’t lower yourself to someone elses standard. When you use racist terms you yourself become one.
Bdaman,
OJ did not do it. It was his Son I tell you.
Mark, temporary turrets, I tell you. Never ever been a racist cop in LA. So it had to be temporary turrets.
BVM:
“It doesn’t matter about the birth certificates.”
************
It sure sounds the goat and cabbages defense to me, as in the farmer sues the goat owner for the goats affinity for cabbages. The animal owner promptly replies:
‘You had no cabbages.’
“ ‘If you had any cabbages, they were not eaten.’
“ ‘If your cabbages were eaten, it was not by a goat.’
“ ‘If your cabbages were eaten by a goat, it wasn’t my goat.’
“ ‘And if it was my goat, he was insane!’ ”
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!
The World NUT Daily is still defending the forgery. The NUThouse abounds with lies, innuendo and distortions.
Do not follow their links to Orly’s site.
There was a paste-up from the net, saying that David Bomford’s certificate was the fake, and that it had to be forged because “Richard” Bomford did something wrong.
Sorry, but the Bomford cert was on his website for two years before Orly copped her fake, and it was captured and preserved. It looks like David has pulled the plug on his site since the travesty unfolded, maybe for privacy reasons.
For crying out loud, Orly fakes her hair color, and still believes her fake Kenyan birth certificate will be believed!
Just as Orly’s forgery exploded on the web, TPM exposed a wingnut lobby agency that forged letters to Congress supporting their campaign against health care. More liars and cheats.
Meanwhile, wingnut mobs of thugs and goons are shouting down American citizens who are just trying to speak, listen and learn at town meetings.
Vince T., since the fraud in this instance was so readily discoverable, it is evident that Ms. Taitz made her filing without conducting any investigation whatsoever. This ought to expose her to a serious sanctions order as well as to additional bar disciplinary penalties.
From http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
kitau says: “I happen to be Kenyan. I was born 1 month before Obama at Mombasa medical center. I am a teacher here at the MM Shaw Primary School in Kenya. I compared my birth certificate to the one that has been put on by Taitz and mine is exactly the same. I even have the same registrar and format. The type is identical. I am by nature a skeptical person. I teach science here and challenge most things that cannot be proven. So I went to an official registrar today and pulled up the picture on the web. They magnified it and determined it to be authentic. There is even a plaque with Registrar Lavenders name on it as he was a Brit and was in charge of the Registrar office from 1959 until January of 1964. The reason the date on the certificate says republic of Kenya is that we were a republic when the “copy” of the original was ordered. I stress the word “copy.” My copy also has republic of Kenya.” August 3, 9:04 PM
I think Bdaman is one of the most intelligent people posting here for seeing the War Criminals.
Is it racist to say Hitler was a mass murderer because he was white? No, and it is not racist to say Obama is a mass murderer because he is black.
“I could go on, because the list is endless. When the tactics failed, the strategy of fear and intimidation continued after the election. Politicians began to blame the president-elect for the financial collapse even though Pres. Bush was still in office.”
Mike A,
Your two posts on the racist undertone that has been aimed at our President and the rising tide of racism in the US impelled by media whores and certain Republicans caught the tone perfectly. Racism has again become respectable here, as long as it is couched in nebulous terms, whose intent is obvious to anyone. In the recent Gates incident for instance, the reaction to his purportedly berating Crowley was swift and derisive. The theme in essence was “who is he to act like that?” “Uppity” being the operative adjective. Had a similar incident involved a wealthy white man, or perhaps a famous white Harvard Professor, there would have been far less a rush to judgment by the media and the public.
You and I, because of our ages, remember back to a different time in this country when “segregation” was de riguer and lynching an unfortunate occurrence greeted by a “what can you do?” attitude. While things have definitely improved greatly
over the last 40 years since Dr. King’s murder, there remains a hardcore of racist feeling in this country. The percentage
of Black unemployment and as part of the prison population is far too great to be explained by coincidence. The portrayal of humans of color on TV and in the movies, for the most part resemble silly stereotypes of the many people of color I have worked with, or called friend in my life.
We are now in an era where to explicitly confront racism, as you did so well in your first of the two posts, off times is greeted with nonsense like “he’s playing the race card,” as if there is no “race card” left to play. However, this is a case of “don’t get me started” because we see a similar kind of this very stereotyping of Latinos, Native Americans, Indians and Muslims, as commonplace today.
The entire birther movement is a racist enterprise at its’ roots and those who give it credence and support, either are too stupid to understand the game, or share the same bigotry.
“Everything that you have described is accurate and to the point. It happens both ways though. I remember the treatment Bush recieved and please do not confuse me with defending Bush either.”
Bdaman,
First of all Bush was the first President selected by SCOTUS, rather than elected and the votes, or lack of same in Florida were more than odorous enough to cast him in suspicion. Secondly, the treatment started after Bush had initiated an illegal war, that he had lied about. Thirdly, the protests he did face were overwhelmingly silent and the protesters were to a person arrested on the spot. Not a good comparison.
“You might think I’m crazy but this is one of the things I like about BVM. He calls everyone a war criminal and I agree with him Bush, Cheney, Obama ALL of them. Over 500 of them in Washington. They are all war criminals.”
BVM is a mechanistic moron, who doesn’t engage here in the give and take of discussion, but 98% of the time posts propaganda for his point of view. Do I agree with you that the Congress bears some blame for Iraq and for the various war crimes, yes I do. However, the perpetrators were the Bush/Cheney Crime Family and their minions. From before the election BVM was equating Barack Obama with Adolph Hitler, for his votes that continued budgeting the troops, that is his basis for calling almost all of Congress war criminals.
Were they wrong in doing so, I think they were, but the real war criminals were again the Bush/Cheney Crime Family. In the end the biggest problem with BVM is he/she offers a situation where the only solution is armed insurrection, hardly a viable move against the most powerful armed forces in the world. Criticizing everything, but offering nothing is merely
a form of mental masturbation and I expect BVM is experienced with masturbation in all its’ forms. His beliefs in war crimes trials in places like the Hague are beyond ridiculous.
“Regardless how Mark Furman used it in his context he was still labeled a racist and I promise you most black Americans feel he planted the evidence cause he was a racist. Don’t lower yourself to someone elses standard. When you use racist terms you yourself become one.”
Well Bdaman while I believe that OJ had a part in the murders,
I believe overwhelmingly that the jury made the proper decision and not because of the amount of Blacks on the jury.
I watched almost every day of the trial on TV, an Agency I was with was being merged with another and a co-worker and I having no work to do, brought a small TV in to watch it. The standard for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and that case was not proven. Forget Furman and the “evidence’
and look at the 45 minute time frame alone and you come to reasonable doubt if you actually watched the trial, rather than depending on news clips and reporters condensations. By the way as a football fan I never could stand OJ, because to me he was always overrated and a phony to boot.
Now as to Mike A’s use of the “N” word, to me its was perfectly acceptable and necessary in the context of his post.
This jarring word must be used to expose the underlying racism of these movements and their disdain for anyone they don’t deem white. The shock cuts through the niceties of debate, because what’s underneath that polite debate is disgusting. The treatment of Black people in this country has to rank among the greatest human crimes in history and remember I’m stating this as a Jew, steeped in the Shoah. The
crimes against Black people in the US continue, albeit at a lesser rate, but with a similar end result and the hypocrisy used by those that justify them is monumental.
For instance the constant talk about single parent families, with its implication that Black men are irresponsible. During
slavery concerted effort was made to destroy the strong African culture of the slaves. This included the family dynamic and two parent families were consistently broken up to reinforce this. After the Civil War, the constantly making
the image of the Black man into the stereotype of a clown who
was irresponsible, ignorant and shiftless, help prevent many Black men from being seen as significant parts of families. When Public Welfare came in, the specific regulations stated
that the man could not be in the home, or the family was ineligible, leading to a further marginalization of the Black man and preventing him from fulfilling a father’s role.
At the same time this marginalization of the Black man acted against the psyches of many who were driven to nihilism and
lack of self respect by the negative stereotyping. The strength of the African American culture and the sheer talent of their populace has resisted this heroically and so yes there have been many success stories and many strong two parent families. However, the overall effect and the witless
stereotyping drawn from it by even respected academics like the late (and to me unlamented) Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan, has been racist and destructive.
Lest you think this is some screed by just another la-di-da
white liberal, let me disabuse you of that. I was involved politically with Black people in the 60′s and dealt with communists whose slogan back then was “Black is Right,” as they tried to hi-jack the civil rights movement for their own ends. I was schooled by Black men/women who showed me that there was an element of racism in me that I hadn’t seen. That element was I tended to look at all individual Black people as downtrodden and in doing so, denied them the right to be just people rather than symbols. As with all people there were good and bad. This lesson was taught to me first by the head of the Black Caucus of my Union, a wise and courageous man, who later took on certain Black demagogues who tried to hi-jack the Union, which was at the time an act of great courage.
In my case Bdaman, my first lesson in segregation came in the 40′s when I was four, from my mother. My parents were radicals for the time politically and I was taught the evils of all bigotry. This is something that has informed my life and it is among my strongest convictions that all bigotry is evil. That said I think you mis-read the meaning and intent of Mike A’s post.
Mike I don’t have time to read your entire post but i will, But First WTF http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gZlu6LJFzxm3evzE67DJgyKgLTVg
The only places for these troops is home. Why do we need to deploy. More troops to Afganistan, Chances of an early withdrawl from a fucking war we were lied to, 3000 people lost thier lives because of a fucking blind eye. This is ridiculous, we will be seen as a threat to South America. With the exception of Chavez I think South America has been holding it’s own. More deaths and more deaths. This has to stop.
Mike S., thanks for your comments. They very accurately sum up my attitudes. I have to admit, however, that when I first started learning about race back in the ’60s, I honestly believed that the 21st century would dawn on a post-racial America. Boy, was I naive.
Mike A writes: Bdaman, I had intended to respond yesterday to your last post on my use of the “word,” but making a living seems to constantly interfere with following this site.
I certainly agree that the word is among the vilest, most demeaning expressions in the English language. I chose it for its viciousness because I am convinced that it most accurately describes the opinions of the birthers and others of their persuasion regarding the president. I thought it obvious that it was used in that context.
I have closely followed presidential elections since becoming enthralled during the Nixon-Kennedy debates in 1960. The most recent campaign was the most blatantly racist since George Corley Wallace futilely called upon the ghost of the Confederacy in 1968. The evidence is almost overwhelming. A few examples:
1. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Rep. Ga.) describes Mr. Obama as “uppity.”
2. Rep. Steve King (Rep. Iowa) argues that voters should remember the “Hussein” in the president’s name because terrorists “will be dancing in the street) if he is elected.
3. Rep. Geoff Davis (Rep. Ky.) calls the candidate “boy.”
4. Jeffrey Frederick, Chairman of the Virginia Republican Party, tells voters that Mr. Obama is a “terrorist.”
5. Lee County Sheriff Mike “Bull Connor” Scott, armed and fully uniformed, warns voters against “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally in Florida. (We’ve all heard the refrains familiar at Palin rallies).
6. Rep. Paul Brown (Rep. Ga.) claims that Mr. Obama is a “Marxist.”
7. Diane Fidele, President of the Chaffee Community of Republican Women (California) sends out more than two hundred “Obama bucks,” phony food stamps in $10.00 denominations bearing the image of Mr. Obama flanked by barbequed ribs and watermelon.
8. Marcia Stirman, Chairman of the Republican Women of Otero County (New Mexico) sends out a letter charging that Mr. Obama is a “Muslim socialist” and reminding voters that “Muslims are our enemies.”
9. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of the gang excoriate Mr. Obama for his relationship with Rev. Wright based upon the latter’s commitment to black liberation theology, which they absurdly equate with hatred of whites. Liberation theology, of course, simply recognizes that a commitment to God requires a commitment to social justice. It is the same teaching that resulted in the killings of priests and nuns by right wing extremists in South America in the ’70s and ’80s (supported by our government, of course). Christian fundamentalists were particularly vehement on this issue as well, because everybody knows that true religion isn’t about justice; it’s about achieving material wealth as God’s reward for righteousness.
me: language has no morality. It is merely a description of what we see and feel, taste and hear. It it illustrates how we think and communicates our feeling and beliefs to others. So you used a certain depiction of the “N” word… a word that was commonly used in the black and white comedy world without much commotion for years… but now ignites any discussion of race as if the word itself is the repository of all racism toward african americans.
I believe as you do, that there is a considerable and growing voice of racism in this country. it is shameless in its determination to hide behind civility and manifest itself by wishing everything from death to the President to failure of his administration. If they didn’t want a black president they should have worked harder to find a white candidate that could win.
there will be backlash against these voices of hate and it will come, and is coming, from all communities.
I mean, John McCain, who has not voted against a single supreme court nominee ever, in all his years in the Senate, voted against Sonia Sotomayor. tell me race had nothing to do with it.
your use of the N word was nothing more than an illustration of what happens when we give a word all the power without acknowledging the sentiment behind it
It may be too early and I may be too optimistic, but it appears this thread is finally over and the birthers have left the field. Orly’s breakdown and the forged birth certificate finally ran them out of their steam. My guess though is that they’ve gone and joined the health care debate and we see their ilk trying to disrupt Town Hall meetings as they continue to display their hatred of democratic behavioral norms.
Mike,
The problem with arguing over somebody’s personal God of the Gaps is that there will always be a small whole of “yeah but we don’t know about…” for them to fit it in.
One thing that struck me most about the bits and pieces that I read of this conversation was how the arguments put forth by BDAman and BMV were straight out of the Young Earth Creationist playbook. Using out of date information, claiming “well they can’t explain this,” without bothering to check if it could be explained, etc.
It’s amazing how the same patterns of thought seem to pop up over and over in various discussions. Our common evolutionary past shapes the way we think more then most of us are willing to admit.
Gyges,
How true. I’ve just finished a book that talked about the so called “axial age” (900 to 200 BCE) where the great religions and philosophical beliefs of the Greeks, Jews, Chinese and Indians arose and influenced the rise also of Christianity and Islam. What was so damned interesting about reading of the history back then and the use/misuse of these evolving doctrines, was how things have not really changed at all and we face the same problems, albeit in a more technological context. I’ve stated it elsewhere, though the idea is hardly my own, that our society is almost identical in structure with that of the Apes and Chimpanzees.
Sorry, I’m having problems with my computer on this thread. It’s really weird, my computer at home freezes up on it. I can post comments problem free everywhere else. Would like to respond some where else if possible. If someone wants to pick a story that doesn’t have a thousand comments, we can pick it up there, if not I’m sure it’s gonna come up again. There are still pending cases and I think a few more have just been filed. You know I was thinking, when you look at a problem or situation you look for trends or patterns. Several things came to my mind.
Executive Order on FOIA signed first day
Refuse to release Whitehouse log
Refuse to release details Clunkers program
Refused to release AF1 photo’s
Refused to release abuse photos
Refused to accept Gitmo findings
Refused to release documents on wiretapping
Refuse to pursue Bush’s lost E-mails
Reufes/Opposes torture investigations and release of reports.
This with the rest of the items he refuses to release.
I say in his first six months he’s doing just about the same as the last eight years. Just refuse to release, forgot, can hold detatinees to life imprisonment with or without due process and refuse to release. By the way if you think this is fishy in anyway please contact the Whitehouse and let them know I posted this.
Bvm pasted up “Kitau” above at August 5, 2009 at 9:47 am with a link to Orly.
DO NOT GO TO THE BVM LINK TO ORLY’S SITE. It may still be unsafe
“Kitau” seems to be nothing but another fake name, pen name, pseudonym or whatever it is called, and posted its fiction as a comment at Urban Legends, About.com.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2009/08/03/birther-wackiness-continues-with-release-of-obamas-kenyan-birth-certificate.htm?r=94
Poor Kitau’s English language reading ability is a little challenged. Its next post was: [quote]
THIS JUST IN. OBAMA MAKING EMERGENCY FLIGHT TO COME HERE. WONDER WHY?
PM depart Andrews Air Force Base en route to Nairobi, Kenya
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/appt/2009appt/august/
[unquote].
The moron linked to the site of Hillary CLINTON’S s flight to Africa, not Obama. Oops.
Just another fake BeaVis Mistake.
This just in from World NUT Headquarters: “NEW YORK – The Kenyan birth document released by California attorney Orly Taitz is probably not authentic, according to WND’s investigative operatives in Africa….”
Posted: August 06, 2009 11:03 am Eastern
The rest of the article is blurred by the drool on the type….
The operatives filed in crayon….
Andy Martin (a law grad never admitted to any bar)may know who provided the false document:
“I suspect the KBC may be a forgery that was created by Obama himself, as part of his admissions package to Occidental College. Obama forged the KBC to falsely claim Kenyan birth as part of his ‘affirmative action’ application to Occidental.”
Note prediction above, Aug. 4 at 8:58 AM
Another birther nut pins the fake on Obama
Vince T., thanks for keeping up with the lastest birther conspiracies. You have a real knack for staying a couple of days ahead of them. I didn’t realize that World Nut had “operatives.” I thought they were staffed by moonlighters from National Enquirer. I must take issue with you, however, on your comment regarding Andy Martin. After reading his quote, I am convinced that he’s been admitted to a number of bars.
Judge to Orly: Yooooou’re OUTTAH here!
http://images.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/06/birth_certificate/03118539619.pdf
STEEERIKE ONE: Lacks proper notice.
STEEERIKE TWO: Improper form and format.
STEEERIKE THREE: Description of motion conflicts or differs from that which counsel entered on court’s e-docket.
Oops, catcher dropped strike three, but Orly is still out om the throw to first:
She did not list her California State Bar Number!
NO BAR NUMBER?
What the frak?
Vince T., et al., I just learned that the 10th Circuit has tossed another birther suit. Craig v. United States, 10th Cir., case number 09-6082. It came out of the Western District of Oklahoma and Mr. Craig was pro se. The order describes the claim as frivolous, but was not generally unkind. Instead of straightforwardly pointing out that Mr. Craig is a moron, the court noted that his argument was “somewhat difficult to distill.” Maybe he needs to add more grain alcohol next time around.
Doh!
Nice catch Mike A. You beat me to it.
Excerpt from http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6995
Contrary to widespread media reports, Hawaiian health officials have not publicly released President Obama’s original, “long-form” birth certificate, state officials confirm to Newsmax.
Many media reports have insisted the president’s actual birth certificate is available on the Internet for anyone to download. It is not.
Barack Obama’s “certification of live birth,” was issued by the state of Hawaii and was posted first on the Obama presidential campaign Web site.
Such a certification sometimes is called the “short form” — some agencies accept it as an equivalent of a birth certificate, some do not.
The document is essentially a summary of the actual long form birth certificate. The certification does not list the attending physician, the address or hospital where the delivery took place, or the parents’ occupation. Typically, this information is included on the birth certificate.
Newsmax asked Janice S. Okubo, communications director for Hawaii’s State Health Department, whether the department had released any of the president’s vital records to anyone other than the president or a direct relative. Doing so would constitute a violation of HRS 338, Section 18, the Hawaii law intended to protect personal information and prevent identity theft.
Okubo’s response: “The Hawaii State Department of Health complies with state laws” — meaning no public release of the document has occurred.
Throughout the so-called “birther” controversy — birthers suspect Obama was not born in the United States and therefore is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president — anchors and reporters have assumed wrongly that Obama’s “certification of live birth” contains the same information as an original, long-form birth certificate:
MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews interviewed Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., on July 21, lambasting him for co-sponsoring a House bill that would require presidential candidates to submit documents to establish their constitutional eligibility to serve as president.”What you’re doing is appeasing the nut cases,” Matthews said. “As you just pointed out, this [bill] won’t prove or disprove whether Barack Obama is a citizen. By the way, let me show you his birth certificate” — Matthews held up a document — “That’s the way to deal with this: Mail a copy of this certificate to the wacko wing of your party, so they see it and say, ‘I agree with this. It’s over.’”Matthews held up Obama’s certification of live birth — not his birth certificate.
Talk host Rachel Maddow stated on June 11: “This baseless, mouth-breathing, whack-job theory became such an issue during the presidential campaign that Mister Obama did actually release a certificate of his birth from Hawaii, showing that he was born in Honolulu in 1961. And yet, the ‘birther’ movement persists.”What the Obama campaign released was the certification-of-live-birth summary.
In response to a question from correspondent Les Kinsolving on why the president doesn’t simply release his long-form birth certificate, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs replied incredulously: “You’re looking for the president’s birth certificate? It’s on the Internet.”
CNN anchor Rick Sanchez recently held up a document for cameras to zoom in on. “This is a reprint of his birth certificate . . . or as it says here, certificate of birth.” The document presented by Sanchez was clearly marked “certification of live birth.”
Craig v. United States. Tenth Circuit.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
“In Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, we explained that “[d]ismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would only be justified if ‘that claim were so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely
devoid of merit’ or ‘frivolous.’” 95 F.3d 959, 965 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 199 (1962)). Having carefully reviewed Mr. Craig’s amended complaint, we find that it is “very plain,” Baker, 369 U.S. at 199, that his “alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es” falls within this
“wholly insubstantial and frivolous” category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant. See Davoll, 194 F.3d at 1129.”
Craig v. USA, Case No. Case No. 09-6082, (10th Cir. Aug. 5, 2009) @ p. 5
BVM’s long paste-up from right side of life is a tissue of lies and half truths and distortions. It is falsely labeled, since rsol is actually itself pasting up from Newsmax.
One more time. The ONLY certificate that Hawaii now issues is the computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB). It no longer issues the long form or vault copies to anyone, no matter who asks. The COLB is accepted by all federal agencies, since it is a standard birth certificate under section 7211 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-454.
BVM used to claim that Hawaii Home Lands would not accept it, but that is false. That agency does accept the COLB. Since everyone in Hawaii now gets the COLB, it is good for all purposes there and in the other 49 States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
Again. A certification and a certificate are synonyms. They are words that mean the same thing. They are interchangeable. A certificate is a certification, and a certification is a certificate.
BVM is really hilarious. He stops the quotation just as Rick Sanchez holds up a document marked as “certification of live birth.”
HE DELETES THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE:
“The certification of live birth qualifies an individual to receive a passport, a driver’s license, or otherwise establish residency for official purposes, Hawaii says.” http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_hawaii_birth_papers/2009/08/06/244836.html
Yet another cropped quotation from BVM.
The old long-forms had other information, such as the hospital and perhaps a doctor or delivery nurse. BUT NONE OF THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE PRESIDENCY. If the certificate shows that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, then he is qualified to be President. And the official certificate, legally issue, shows his birth in Honolulu.
One more time. The ONLY certificate that Hawaii now issues is the computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB). It no longer issues the long form or vault copies to anyone, no matter who asks.
“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.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Tangible- Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
Interest- right, title, or legal share in something
One More Time, Obama is the most powerful person in the world. He has the codes to all nuclear launch facilities. He most certainly can choose at any time to have Hawaii release the original. He chooses not to because you never want a good crisis to go to waste. We are now seeing protest that are turning violent. All this from a man that hailed to be the most transparent when actually he hides behind a thin veil. The one person who can put an end to all the controversy chooses to allow the controversy to grow larger and now violent. The goal is martial law and to stamp out any resistance to his policies. History repeats itself.
Olbermann on the meltdown at World Nut Daily in the No. 1 story on Countdown. Just as predicted above, the cert was faked to trap gullible birthers.
The controversy will not go away, no matter how many records are released, because the birthers have promised to keep it alive no matter what the President does. Here is the proof in the faq written by Tonchen at
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref20
[quote on] 21. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers’ understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens. [unquote].
There it is. This has been posted here again and again, and bd and bvm and birtherBoyle just refuse to see it.
The birthers say Obama “can choose at any time to have Hawaii release the original. He chooses not to because you never want a good crisis to go to waste. We are now seeing protest that are turning violent.” If any protest turn violent, it will be the birthers’ fault.
They say “The one person who can put an end to all the controversy chooses to allow the controversy to grow larger and now violent.”
They are lying. They have said that the release of the original will “Definitely not” end the eligibility controversy, and the proof of this is posted above. There are similar challenges to Obama’s eligibility by Donofrio and by many others all over the birther sites on the web.
One more time. The controversy will not go away even if any and all birth records are released, BECAUSE THE BIRTHERS WILL NOT LET IT GO AWAY. The birthers are lying when they say that more records will answer the question. Obama cannot ever end the controversy by releasing documents, because the birthers will never recognize him as President.
The birthers can say this stuff over and over again on their own cracked sites, but here at the Turley blog, their lies are exposed and refuted.
Yes it will go away, with the exception of Judge Carter, every other judge including justices have thrown out any challenge. If the president chooses to release the original and it conclusively shows for all the world to see, and just not Fukino, no person except a natural born idiot would still think that by the time their case was heard the president would be voted out of office unless of course he successfully pulled a Zeleya
The birthers can say this stuff over and over again on their own cracked sites, but here at the Turley blog, their lies are exposed and refuted.
One more time. The ONLY certificate that Hawaii now issues is the computer generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB). It no longer issues the long form or vault copies to anyone, no matter who asks.
No matter who ask, you believe that to be the truth, and your suppose to be a lawyer.
“Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
“Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
“Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
In case you didn’t understand it.
“Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
“[H]is “alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es” falls within this “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant.”
“[H]is “alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es” falls within this “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant.”
“[H]is “alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es” falls within this “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant.”
What part of that didn’t YOU understand?
Or is that point only on your head for decoration and seducing garden gnomes?
“[H]is “alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es” falls within this “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant.”
Only have to say it once.
The Supreme Court held that children born in the United State of alien parents are citizens of the United States by birth. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649.
Citizens by birth are natural born citizens eligible to be President. Citizens by naturalization are not eligible.
What’s the point?
Point:
““Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
**********
To my knowledge, SCOTUS has never ruled that Mount Rushmore is in South Dakota. Do you truly doubt that it is, or that unless SCOTUS says so it is not?
Willful ignorance is the least attractive kind.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/reverieart/3026142094/
Buddha:
“What part of that didn’t YOU understand?”
***********
All of it.
–
Or is that point only on your head for decoration and seducing garden gnomes?
***********
That’s a coffee spitter. May I use that line?
There will never be a court ruling on NBC status, at least not while Obama is in office. They can file case after case. He will be voted out of office before any such decision would or could be made, unless of course he uses the National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
You wonder why he’s not trying to prosecute Bush. Bush left him with all sorts of goodies to play with. He’s like a little kid, I’m the president, I can do what I want. If I don’t want to release my long form BC, I don’t have to, so there.
One more time
“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.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Tangible- Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
Interest- right, title, or legal share in something
mespo,
The gnome line is yours to use without reservation. Enjoy.
“The one person who can put an end to all the controversy chooses to allow the controversy to grow larger and now violent. The goal is martial law and to stamp out any resistance to his policies. History repeats itself.”
bdaman,
You are indeed a puzzle. There are times you at least defend your cause well, others where you profess neutrality and finally
many instances where you simply go completely off of the deep end.
My interest is not in whether you like our President, or his policies, since your position on both is quite clearly in the negative. When you take it too the extreme of thinking that he is going to impose martial law, then you slip into the frightening. The likelihood of that scenario, being led by a moderate Democrat, which is all President Obama is, lies well into the realm of pure fantasy. Where it becomes frightening is that you are showing yourself to be in that small, vocal minority that believes the very foundations of our country are being attacked, by the mild (too mild for my liking) policies of a barely left of center administration.
Beyond you and those like you, lie the real crazies who take such talk seriously and they do have weapons. You are playing a small role in inciting these crazies and giving them reason to finally cross the line into total insanity and start shooting. If that comes about you will have played a small role in creating chaos in the US and then leading us to consequences you don’t have the ability to imagine. Perhaps chaos is your aim, but be very careful what you’re wishing for because the Law of Unintended Consequence in the areas you swim in, is an absolute.
Vince,
Earlier on this thread you mentioned that the birthers often make the claim that President Obama has spent $x on lawyers for eligibility claims but never provide a source for that figure. I found a page that claims that FEC filings show that Obama for America has paid the law firm Perkins Cole in the neighborhood of $1 million since the election and thought you would be interested (http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=5762). Is this amount out of line for what you would expect the Obama campaign to pay for legal expenses? (If, as I suspect, it isn’t, that’s a sad commentary on the litigious nature of our sociecty.)
bdaman,
Given everything that Vince has dug up, do you really believe that the documentation that has already been disclosed or attested to is insufficient to legally demonstrate that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen eligible for the presidency? It is certainly your right not to vote for him if he doesn’t release documents that you think that he should, but the patient and exhaustive research done by Vince leaves anyone who still clings to the birther arguments with their motives exposed. Logic, Occam’s razor, and the law all agree that he was born in Hawaii and eligible to be POTUS. To argue otherwise in the face of all of this speaks to motives other than a concern for the sanctity of the constitution and the most obvious of these (as Mike A. pointed out) is racism. While I don’t believe that you personally are a racist, your arguments are providing cover for those who will never accept a black man as president, but want to avoid the appearance of racism. Given the polarization in our politics today and the violent invective and racial code words being thrown around by the right-wing media and blogosphere, I think that it is incumbent on any patriotic American to say “Stop, this is not who we are – I may not have voted for him, but he’s my president and I hope he does a good job” (After which, they should feel free to discuss any objections they have to President Obama’s policies at length…). This atmosphere has already resulted in the death of Dr. Tiller and the guard at the Holocaust Museum and unless the far right wing stops its dog-whistle politics and the incitement of fear and hate, I’m afraid the body count will grow much higher.
Mike S writes to Bdaman: My interest is not in whether you like our President, or his policies, since your position on both is quite clearly in the negative. When you take it too the extreme of thinking that he is going to impose martial law, then you slip into the frightening. The likelihood of that scenario, being led by a moderate Democrat, which is all President Obama is, lies well into the realm of pure fantasy. Where it becomes frightening is that you are showing yourself to be in that small, vocal minority that believes the very foundations of our country are being attacked, by the mild (too mild for my liking) policies of a barely left of center administration.
Mike, good to see you up and around.
bdaman is getting to sound more and more like those Lyndon Laroche people hanging out at my local grocery store with Obama posters sporting that little Hitler moustaches preaching to passers by that Obama is getting ready to open concentration camps. while all these people are entitled to their opinions it is getting dangerously close to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. When asked how much they get paid for their freak show they refuse to answer. when asked where they live they refuse to respond. when asked who coached them on their talking points they become nasty. so they stand there shouting that Obama is going to raise their taxes and make them stand in line for medical care and force them into death camps.
my parents knew from real death camps. this talk is more than an insult to people who know what real nazis are. and you know what? my parents are not afraid of obama putting them in a concentration camp. they are afraid that the people outside the grocery store will start a riot that puts them in the hospital.
oh they have great insurance. medicare plus the insurance my dad gets. he can’t retire and at 85 struggles everyday because they need the coverage they get for my mothers many health problems. if they had to settle for the medicare HMO offered in their state they;d have been dead a decade ago.
They are my test audience for why we need health insurance reform.
Not the 30 year olds outside the grocery store who are rabble rousing for a living.
Slart,I think very little Obama money has gone to the defense of birther suits. Nothing in the Perkins filing, which birthers have posted here earlier on other threads, is itemized for the birthers. Lawyers who supported Obama have volunteered much of the legal defense.
Many of the suits were against governmental bodies or officials, so federal and state lawyers have defended them. The individual states had to defend against Leo’s suit last year, up until the Supreme Court denied review, as well as the similar one by his friend Cort. The U.S. Attorney has to defend Kerchner’s suit against, among others, Pelosi and Cheney. Look at Craig v. United States, above Aug. 7, at 7:23 PM. It was another baseless suit against the government, wasting court and attorney time.
The government has no choice in defending suits in which the court has no jurisdiction. It would be unconstitutional to let a cause go forward if there is no case or controversy. Some suits are based on outright lies, like Orly’s suit based on the admitted forgery of Kenyan birth certificate, so they have to be defended despite the cost.
So a lot of the money spent has just been taxpayer dollars flowing down the drain on frivolous birther suits. Other money had to be spent to counter outright fraud, like the Kenya myth. The million dollars is just another unsupported birther myth.
Incidentally, at that rsol site there is an old (April 2009) discussion of a letter by Perkins lawyer Bob Bauer to attorney Hemenway in the Hollister case, telling him that his client’s suit was frivolous. Well, the court actually ruled later that the case WAS frivolous, and Judge Robertson ordered sanctions against Hemenway because of his participation in a frivolous suit. His Honor let Hemenway off with a warning because of his age, 83 or something. That was money well spent by the campaign, and the birther should have taken the advice that the Obama campaign paid to give him and his attorney. Hemenway should have listed to Bauer.
Slart, Vince will have you believe the money spent was campaign related and Obama has spent zero dollars on court cases because there is no proof.
Slart no matter what I believe or don’t the issue at hand is what people believe or don’t. You have a percentage of people that have a doubt. The doubt can be wiped away to the smallest fraction of a percent by removing it. How do you do that? Not by fighting lawsuit after lawsuit.
Mike it is very clear whats going on here. The right and the left are putting the lines in the sand. When members of SEIU beat down a black man and the president doesn’t say a word about it except to ask fellow citizens to nark on one another it’s clear to me.
GW I’m sorry your folks are strugglin, mine to. Sounds like your not to happy with government medicare. Under the new system your folks would get counseling with a prepare to die pamphlet.
Here is a quick link to Hollister v. Soetoro and the written reprimand of the lawyer.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13613272/ORDER-Finding-Rule-11-Violation-in-Hollister-v-Soetoro-March-24-2009
Not a nice note for that attorney’s golden sunset years.
Where did you find this Vince, please give us your source. NY Times or Dr.C.
. Lawyers who supported Obama have volunteered much of the legal defense.
The government has no choice in defending suits
So Obama’s refusal cost the taxpayer because government attorneys get paychecks.
So far, over 50 frivolous suits have been dismissed or are pending dismissal.
When birthers stop filing frivolous lawsuits, the spending will stop on all sides.
Or the president can release what he is refusing to release.
Sorry forgot, no one accept for Fukino is allowed to see it. Not even the president. I wonder when some right wing extremist will kidnap her, waterboard her for the information on it. You know these right winger people are crazy, look at the holocaust guy.
bdaman writes: GW I’m sorry your folks are strugglin, mine to. Sounds like your not to happy with government medicare. Under the new system your folks would get counseling with a prepare to die pamphlet.
me: B…. this is why you are getting a reputation as a moron.
my parents are old. for a very long time medicare was great and for the most part it still is.
what you and idiots like you call “prepare to die” is simply a living will. I’m 58 and have one. so does my squeeze. all this does is make our wishes known so that our kids don’t have to guess what we want or fight over it.
for instance I want a Jewish, kosher, burial. I want my kids to sit shiva for a week. I also want to be an organ donor. I also don’t want my life prolonged on endless life support if I am brain dead. It’s all there in my living will along with who gets power of attorney if I can no longer make legal/medical decisions. My parents and siblings have living wills and so do my idiot inlaws.
if you have been hospitalized in the past 20 years you are asked if you have a living will or if you’d like a social worker to help you prepare something that will cover your choices should you have a negative outcome. its the responsible thing to do.
why burden your kids with these decision? don’t you think that things will be hard enough for them should you die suddenly or linger from a long protracted illness? unless of course you are completely alone in this world.
Bdaman,
What has the president refused to release? He hasn’t been asked to release anything by any relevant authority. I hope this doesn’t come as a shock to you, but I sincerely doubt that President Obama spends any time reading birther blog posts. He has released a document which asserts that he was born in Honolulu and the authority in charge of the records has confirmed its veracity. Vince has pretty thoroughly destroyed the “natural born requires two citizen parents” argument and I pointed out that if (NB) citizenship can flow from the father alone, then it can flow from the mother alone as well. The Indonesian citizenship/adoption thing is so frivolous as to be laughable. Even a really good attorney would be hard pressed to get this issue to be heard by a court (much less the supreme court) let alone avoid being laughed out of court once there and I haven’t seen any evidence that there are any good lawyers on the birther’s side. A majority of voters elected Barack Obama and he is the legitimate president of the USA and with regard to the economic and international relations aspects of policy he’s doing or trying to do pretty much everything he said he would (and I agree with Mike S. that he’s not as liberal as I would like, too) and there are some indications that his economic policies are working. So if you’d like to engage in rational discourse, that’s great, but continuing to maintain that the birthers (in any flavor) have a valid argument shows that you aren’t interested in rational discussion, gives cover to pathetic racists, and will probably get you painted with the same brush as the wingnuts you are trying to legitimize.
Obama and his Nazi rats don’t realize the numbers of the national and international resistance.
Obama you have a Big Surprise coming! Obama and his slugs didn’t factor in the Internet sufficiently, a great miscalculation! It is the whole world against Obama and his Nazi rats. Don’t count on the U.S. Military Obama. They see your true colors. You and your rats are traitors. The military will come for you.
Obama and his Nazi rats = War Crimes, Forgery, Fraud, Treason, etc.
Congress = War Crimes, Fraud, Treason, etc.
Supreme Court = War Crimes, Fraud, Treason, etc.
DNC = War Crimes, Fraud, Treason, etc.
Slart, he knows that there is a percentage of the country that have issues over his original birth certificate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. He is well aware of what is going on in birther net. An honorable man would come out and say, I know some of you have your doubts, I have nothing to hide, I am as Transparent as I said I would be, here, here it is. That would be an act of someone at least making an attempt to unite the American people, what he is doing by not doing so is continuing to keep it divided. Remember this one United We Stand, Divided We Fall. I’m pretty sure the country is becoming more divided everyday.
The current spate of dismissed lawsuits should remind the citizenry why we need competent lawyers.
I understand that Ms. Orly has a law degree from an unaccredited law school, although as long as she passed the California Bar she can practice law in CA only. Surely, that does not mean that anyone claiming to be a self-taught lawyer can apply to take the CA bar exam and then if he or she passed the bar, they could practice law, does it?
“The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny”
Why are so many dismissed for lack of standing?
Take a good look at what has happened to standing.
http://www.constitution.org/duepr/standing/winter_standing.htm
STOP OBAMA / BUSH / CONGRESS, ET AL = THE US WAR CRIMINALS
————————-
Posted Orly’s site by MindBender26
Behind the scenes, at many military bases across the country and around the world, a not-too
quiet challenge is developing against Barack Obama and his questionable qualifications to be
President of the United States.
Most FReepers are familiar with the ongoing civil litigation against Obama. Plaintiffs claim he
is not constitutionally qualified to be president because he does not meet the legal description of
a “natural-born citizen.”
Obama’s lawyers have never entered pleadings on the MERITS of the plaintiffs’ cases. They
oppose the plaintiffs’ suits on the issue of “standing.” They claim the plaintiff’s do not have a
right to sue. Generally, that “standing” claim is well-founded. Giving every citizen the right to
sue the president would be a nightmare. Can you imagine George Bush defending 10,000,000
individual suits by Dems over the war in Iraq?
But recently, one plaintiff had a strong chance of being given “standing to sue.” The plaintiff
was an Army Reserve Major, Stefan Frederick Cook, from the Tampa area. His call-up to active
duty positioned him as a person who could demonstrate the likelihood of real damages if Obama
was not a legally-elected president. Cook could be killed, wounded or even charged as a war
criminal if Obama was not legally the president.
He sued, claiming Obama was not legally qualified to be President, not legally qualified to order
him to do anything.
The judge was set to begin preliminary hearings when the government lawyers dropped a legal
bomb. They canceled Maj. Cook’s orders for the obvious purpose of denying him standing. With
Major Cook longer on activation orders, the case was moot and was dismissed by the judge.
This hugely significant legal surrender by the government was noticed by every lawyer in the
country watching this issue. It also immediately became an enormous topic of conversation in
every barracks in America. If Obama was willing to cancel one soldier’s deployment orders
because of a court challenge to his right to be president, what would he do the next time
someone raised the issue?
As a result, service members and lawyers began action immediately. It is believed that as many
as 100 lawyers are preparing to file litigation such as Maj. Cook’s. This litigation would be in
many courts across the country and put a huge strain on the Obama-DNC legal team. Do they
cancel 100 sets of orders this week, only to face 1000 suits next week?
Even worse, sources close to some of the potential litigants tell me that at least four lawyers,
including one very well known conservative Vietnam veteran-lawyer, are seeking enough clients
so they can petition the court for the establishment of a Class of Plaintiffs in a proposed class
action case. If that happens, then every military service member on orders for SWA would be
covered.
At that point, Obama has no viable legal option. He has proven himself unwilling to try the case
on its merits, and willing to cancel orders to avoid having to face discovery. How can he be
POTUS and CINC if he cannot issue orders to the military he claims to command?
From there, every time Obama tries to act under color of law in any matter, military of not,
someone sues and Obama’s action ceases.
This is an important turning point in a case of incredible constitutional and legal significance.
More total nonsense.
No one, including Obama, ever ORDERED Cook to active duty.
The moron Cook VOLUNTEERED for active duty.
He could have withdrawn his VOLUNTARY request at any time up until he reported.
BUT NOOOOOOOOOOO!
Instead, he sued to stop the deployment that he had VOLUNTEERED FOR.
Any rational person would say that a guy who was suing to stop his deployment did not really want to go.
So they cancelled his orders.
As they say in the Army, big f***ing deal.
Of course he had no standing, because his entire dispute was with HIMSELF.
You cannot sue to stop yourself from yourself. If only dispute is with yourself, there is no basis for a lawsuit. That is not a case or controversy, and the constitution does not give the federal courts any jurisdiction whatsoever over non-cases and non-controversies.
It would be unconstitutional for the courts to take such cases.
The pasted article NEVER, EVER, mentions the fact that Cook volunteered.
Lots of military people, both active and former, know this and have an extremely low opinion of Cook. See military.com for many of their comments.
V.T wrote:
“You cannot sue to stop yourself from yourself.”
________________________________
Classic….
“Can you imagine George Bush defending 10,000,000 individual suits by Dems over the war in
Iraq ?” YES, what a beautiful thought. .. And 10,000,000 individual suits against Obama or
many class action suits against Obama. The whole Marine Corp. suing Obama! Each service
could have a class action. WOW…. Obama, here comes discovery !!! the veil will be lifted to expose an imposter!! I already know he is phony else he would have brought out the “long form” BC by now along with all his hiden records and not spent all the money trying to cover them up.
Talk about money.
The birthers are spending most of the money. The birthers include millionaire Joseph Farah, who bankrolls World Nut Daily and puts up billboards.
No one knows how much they are spending.
They keep up a drumbeat at their sites for contributions, busily separating a lot of gullible people from money that they can ill afford to give away to nuts.
Most of the stories that Farah and others put out are completely false, like the fake forged Kenyan birth certificate that Farah and the Nut proclaimed was the “Smoking Gun.”
What were they smoking when they posted that one?
Barry needs to go ahead and turn himself over to the authorities. It will be better for the
country and him.
Lawyers and law students, here is Orly’s August 3d complaint on behalf of Cook.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/cook-v-simtech-doc-9-motion-for-rehearing/#more-3645
Law students, do not try this at home or in the classroom or courtroom. It is an example of what not to do.
Lawyers, ROFLYAO.
Orly attached the forged Kenyan birth certificate as Exhibit B.
Thanks to Native and Natural Born Citizen blog.
“Barry needs to go ahead and turn himself over to the authorities.”
BVM,
Given the escalating insanity of your harangues lately I think it would be good if you turned yourself into your local in patient mental health facility. A mind, even one so diseased as yours, is a terrible thing to waste.
In his affadavit, Cook calls the Army “a band of impressed private chattel slaves, little distinguishable from an outlaw organization of terror or piracy.“
Well, F. him and the horse he rode in on.
He manages NOT to mention that he volunteered.
Service was by “Charles E. Lincoln, Law r & Legal sistant To Attorney Orly Taitz, • quire, For the Plaintiff Major Stefan Frederick Cook.”
There are reports that Lincoln is neither a law r nor a lawyer, and that he has been inside. He said: [quote] So yes, indeed, between December 9, 2007 and February 2, 2008, I was privileged to see the inside of seven prisons (from the comparatively happy position of an illegal arrestee, not even falsely charged with any genuine crime, nor correctly but sincerely charged with any fake crime. I knew my time in the custody of the Marshals was finite, no matter how long it seemed. [unquote]
The Bar in Texas knows him: “CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN [#171793], 44, of Cedar Park, Texas was disbarred Jan. 11, 2004, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.”
One or two other States have followed suit.
Thanks to http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=1024
“Major” Cook is in dire need of a new lawyer and a new law r, sooner rather than later.
Vince,
That was absolutely one of the best laughs I’ve had in weeks.
“In our Anglo-American adversarial system of adjudication, Judge LAZZARA was the only adversary, acting directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, as part of a VERY consistent custom, pattern, practice, and policy of concerted government denial of redress or resolution on this issue of supreme public interest and importance) by an impartial judge without connections of any kind to the parties or histories of litigation in this case.”
That was funny. This? This almost made me wet myself.
“Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment of Dismissal of his complex litigation against the United States Department of Defense and others in the executive branch which concerns not merely the President’s place of birth but also, and more importantly, the procedure for an officer to challenge the civilian chain of command and thus the procedural means by which an officer may uphold his oath of office and statutory duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States and to obey ONLY lawful orders.”
[M]ore importantly.
roflmao
Thanks for sharing!
BvM ‘rote’
“Barry needs to go ahead and turn himself over to the authorities.”
_______________________________
I think that *you* need to stick a fork in you to *turn yourself over* because you are *done* crispy on this side of Obama’s issues.
When Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama), et al go down are any of you here worried about being
indicted for complicity or providing cover for their many counts of War Crimes, Treason,
Forgery, Fraud, etc.? You might want to give that some thought… There is plenty of evidence
here.
Thousands of people will be participating in arrests of Soetoro’s crime family. You might
be arrested and in the dock like Nuremberg Trials.
There are credible sources of military connections saying Barry will be arrested in 30-60 days.
http://cbs3.com/topstories/president.barack.obama.2.1119198.html
BVM wrote: “Thousands of people will be participating in arrests of Soetoro’s crime family. You might be arrested and in the dock like Nuremberg Trials.”
I can just imagine BVM’s jackbooted dreams…
BVM wrote: “There are credible sources of military connections saying Barry will be arrested in 30-60 days.”
Who’s credibility is being staked on this? As far as I am aware you do not have any credibility whatsoever with anyone here. If anyone else thinks that BVM’s statement has any credibility at all, I’ll apologize and wait 30-60 days to laugh hysterically…
Bdaman,
What is your point with that post – that a police officer acted inappropriately and the matter is being handled correctly?
PARALLELS of Hitler and Obama;
For those who like Country Music;
BVM, so who’s gonna indict, the Georgia “citizen’s grand jury”? Your comments are becoming increasingly weird, whether you understand that or not. In any event, I’ll be happy to be a co-conspirator for indictment purposes. What exactly do I have to do?
Vince T., your comments on Cook suing to stop himself were hilarious. It reminded me of Woody Allen’s examination of himself in “Bananas.” Only Allen is a better logician than Cook. Now if we could only purchase a sense of humor for BVM.
A RED FLAG of WARNING!!
Road to Nazism and Communism
Did someone say Nazis, er, um, PNAC?
http://pr.thinkprogress.org/2009/03/pr20090331/index.html
If you’re going to make the accusation Mall, at least point it in the right direction. Obama is guilty of many things, but being a Nazi isn’t one of them. He’s a lying, suck up, two-faced weasel and big pharma just bought him off clear as day.
But he’s not a Nazi.
Not even close.
But PNAC? Yeah, those boys are real contenders to bring back the Reich. Obama is just another duplicitous K St. whore. He’s a wooden nickel. PNAC goes straight to evil, do not pass Go, do not collect $200 evil. As in if there is a Hell, all the members will be there playing canasta with Hitler and his lackeys.
I guess you boys down at the Mall have a problem with proper use of any word that starts with the letter “N”, don’t you? You either are afraid to use them and use crazy arguments about citizenship or you misuse them terribly as in the case of Nazi. I think there may be lead paint at the Mall. You should stop licking the walls. We know it’s hard for you to stop touching yourself, Mall, but I wouldn’t steer you wrong. The lead is bad for your melon.
Speaking of bad melons, your birther crowd is dissipating now, Mall. And you know what empty malls attract, don’t you Bueno Pollo?
That’s right.
Zombies.
Lots and lots of zombies. That would explain a lot about your recent posts. You’ve got the zombies, Bueno Pollo Mall. Only a mindless zombie would fail to differentiate between a garden variety corrupt sell out politician and actual war criminals. You better do something about that before the Health Dept. shuts down your food court. Zombies are very unsanitary.
You better call the only man who can help you.
Time to call George Romero, Bueno Pollo.
You need professional help.
Whenever proven fully, completely, and totally wrong, always change the subject.
Getting back to the subject, have not heard much from bv and bd lately on that forged Kenyan birth certificate.
Fast forward to 3:59:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99VNB2O1&show_article=1
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.48695b3bcaf3273e2beb85abcb2dfe3d.861&show_article=1
There is going to be a bunch more cooks if this escalates.
Buddha,
I would think that Buffy Summers would be the best choice to fight zombies in a mall…
bdaman,
Fortunately, the brave men and women of our military are much better than you give them credit for. Although I fear that Dr. Taitz, esq. will ruin the careers of those unwise enough to become her client.
Today’s Doonesbury:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html
Slart, again
An honorable man would come out and say, I know some of you have your doubts, I have nothing to hide, I am as Transparent as I said I would be, here, here it is. That would be an act of someone at least making an attempt to unite the American people, what he is doing by not doing so is continuing to keep it divided. Remember this one United We Stand, Divided We Fall. I’m pretty sure the country is becoming more divided everyday.
My point to the police post is as I said when the first two officers did the same. How many more of them are out there?
I’ve heard several people comment it’s about this and it’s about that. A few have said the motive is to hurt the president our harm the president. What if some whack job actually tried or succeeded in attempt in doing so because the president decided he would not do the honorable thing by releasing the original BC. Would it have been worth it? is it worth it to allow more speculation. We have already seen a deranged individual kill someone in the museum incident. We’ve seen a conspiracy hatched, we’ve seen as Vince and I have pointed out that Major Cook was a plant, we’ve seen the courts time wasted over what all seem to be deemed either no standing or frivolous. We’ve seen Olberman attack Dobbs and Dobbs attack Olberman. Countless hours spent on the internet by both sides in a debate over a BC. Come on. The excuse of the president doesn’t have to release the original has gotten old. Do the honorable thing Mr. President and show us that you and you alone can put an end to all doubts. As I said before, no person except a natural born idiot would still think that the president had something to hide.
In order to bring this thread up to date, the retired General denied that he had authorized Taitz to add him to the suit. On the other hand, the authorization that he signed was extremely broad, and he may not have fully understood the implications of the document he signed.
The document is similar to other pleadings and writings by Taitz and her non-lawyer, disbarred, former convict Lincoln. “Not being a lawyer, I was not aware that other subsequent court filings, in such cases as Major Cook, might also tie me to such subsequent cases. I have notified Dr. Taitz that I am no longer a plaintiff in any motion she might process.”
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=1129
In the case itself, Taitz tried to amend the complaint to add two additional parties, Maj. Gen. Carroll Dean Childers (Retired) and Lt. Col. David Earl Graef. The court rejected the attempt:
[quote] The Court finds that Major General Childers and Lt.
Col Graef do not have standing to pursue their claims. They have
alleged no concrete particularized injury. They simply maintain
that they do not believe President Obama is eligible to serve as
President of the United States, and that hypothetically they “may”
one day be subject to orders while he is Commander in Chief. They
have no standing orders to report to duty. They are under no order
for future deployment. They have made no showing that they will
not have a process available to them to protest any orders should
they be issued. Their political claim does not give rise to a case
or controversy to be heard in federal court. [unquote]
So the General never made it into the suit.
In sum, Cook sued the Army and lost. His employer discharged him. Orly then added the employer to the suit, but lost again. She moved for the judge to recuse himself, and for reconsideration. The case was Cook v. Simtech, Inc. The plaintiff was Stefan Frederick Cook. Defendants were Simtech, Inc., Larry Grice, Defense Security Services, Louis B. Wingate, Robert M. Gates and Barack Hussein Obama. Case no. was 8:2009cv01382.
The case was dismissed, and the motions also dismissed as “frivolous and wholly without merit.” Here are the orders:
ENDORSED ORDER denying Motion for Recusal as frivolous and wholly without merit. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009.
ENDORSED ORDER denying as frivolous and wholly without merit Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter Judgment and Motion for Rehearing re: Order on Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/6/2009.
The opinion explaining the dismissal is online at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17438806/Cook-v-Good-Obama-DOC-10-Dismissal-Order
[quote]. To make the record complete and easily accessible to the
parties and other persons interested in the Court’s oral ruling
today, the Court files this written order that puts in writing the
oral order that the Court issued from the bench at the conclusion
of the hearing today on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support
of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to
serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that
federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual “cases
and controversies.” By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual
“cases and controversies,” our founders wisely established a
separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow
citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected
branch, should not inject itself into purely “political disputes,”
and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates
which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.
The Courts have therefore consistently held that in order to
have legal “standing” to pursue a claim in federal court, a party
seeking federal jurisdiction must establish the following three
elements: 1) that he has experienced an “injury in fact” that is
concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, as opposed to
merely conjectural or hypothetical; 2) that there is a causal
connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct that is
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that a
favorable decision will likely redress the complained of injury.
In this case, Major Cook cannot satisfy these elements. His
orders have been revoked. He is not being deployed to Afghanistan
or Iraq. He is under no present order to report anywhere. There
is no evidence that he is subject to future deployment. Any such
contention is sheer speculation and entirely hypothetical. Thus,
he has suffered no particularized or concrete injury. There is no
causal connection between any conduct by the defendant and any
alleged injury. And the only remedy he sought from this court,
avoiding deployment, has already been provided, and thus there is
no remedy that this court may provide that will redress his alleged
injury.
Based on all of these reasons, Major Cook does not have
standing to pursue this action. Thus, no case or controversy
exists under the United States Constitution, and this Court
consequently has no subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted.
Recognizing that his opportunity to air his grievance over the
President’s eligibility to serve as President of the United States
was slipping by, Plaintiff’s attorney seeks to rescue the claims
with two arguments: First, she argues that the Court should
exercise jurisdiction because the complained of conduct is “capable
of repetition, yet evading judicial review.” Second, she seeks to
amend the complaint to add two additional parties, Maj. Gen. Carol
Dean Childers (Retired) and Lt. Col. David Earl Graef. Plaintiff’s
efforts to maintain this political controversy in federal court
must fail.
First, there is no evidence that Major Cook is likely subject
to future deployment orders. In fact, the evidence is to the
contrary. He is not likely to be deployed in the future.
Therefore, it is speculation that he will be under the command of
President Obama as a member of the United States Military. Second, there is no evidence that he would not have an opportunity to have any future claim reviewed. There is simply no evidence that this claim falls within the narrow “capable of repetition, yet evading review” principle of federal jurisdiction.
Second, the Court finds that Major General Childers and Lt.
Col Graef do not have standing to pursue their claims. They have
alleged no concrete particularized injury. They simply maintain
that they do not believe President Obama is eligible to serve as
President of the United States, and that hypothetically they “may”
one day be subject to orders while he is Commander in Chief. They
have no standing orders to report to duty. They are under no order
for future deployment. They have made no showing that they will
not have a process available to them to protest any orders should
they be issued. Their political claim does not give rise to a case
or controversy to be heard in federal court.
This Court has a duty to follow the United States
Constitution. That Constitution limits jurisdiction to actual
cases and controversies. To extend jurisdiction beyond its limits
would be a violation of that very Constitution upon which Plaintiff
relies in support of his claims. This the Court refuses to do. [unquote]
This is a very lucid explanation of the foundation of the “standing” requirement in the actual constitutional language denying the federal courts jurisdiction (that is, the power to decide and to compel obedience to their decisions) to “cases” or “controversies.” The federal courts do not have a free-wheeling writ to question any or all hypothetical or possible questions that may arise. The limited powers of the federal government and its separation of powers do not allow such a powerful right of interference in the affairs of the other executive branches, of the states, or of the people.
So, to invoke judicial power, the party has to have a real dispute, must state a claim that arises under the laws or Constitution of the United States, have a real injury has occurred, that the violation caused the injury, and shoe that a court remedy is available.
A federal court that violated the case or controversy requirement would not only be wrong, but would be without jurisdiction, and would find its rulings overturned on appeal.
Vince T., thanks for the update. I hope that there will now be a motion filed seeking the imposition of sanctions against Ms. Taitz for her repetitious filing of frivolous pleadings.
What Mike A said.
Mike, there is a 30 page complaint that was filed in California with the Bar. See:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/orly-taitz-complaint-to-the-state-bar-of-california/#comment-2134
That site has a link to a pdf in Adobe.
She is not admitted to any other bar in the United States, and I do not think that her law school diploma allows her to sit for the bar in any other State.
She was denied pro hac vice in D.C. and could not secure co-counsel, thus sparing D.C. the spectacle.
I do not know what can be filed in this case of Cook v. Simtech, in the Middle District of Georgia.
The folks at Public Policy Polling have taken a look at the birthers. More of them believe he was born in Indonesia than in Kenya. Some concede that he was born in Hawaii, but do not think Hawaii is a state.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/08/deeper-look-at-birthers.html
[quote] Wednesday, August 19, 2009: A deeper look at the birthers
After we conducted polls over the last couple of weeks finding significant numbers of ‘birthers’ in North Carolina and Virginia, we decided to take the question national but also drum down more specifically on where exactly the people who think Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States do think he’s from.
The answer is that 62% of Americans think Obama was born here, while 24% think he was not and 14% are unsure.
10% of the country thinks that he was born in Indonesia, 7% think he was born in Kenya, and 1% think he was born in the Philippines.
That leaves 20%, which includes at least some people who correctly believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but who don’t consider Hawaii to be part of the United States. You read that right- 6% of poll respondents think that Hawaii is not part of the country and 4% are unsure.
It’s hard to say what the rest of that 20% thinks. We did ask them if they thought Obama was born in France and while less than half a percent of respondents did, two thirds of that remaining 20% said they ‘weren’t sure’ whether Obama was a Frenchman.
So who are the birthers?
-62% are Republicans, 20% are Democrats, and 18% are independents
-57% are conservatives, 33% are moderates, and 9% are liberals
-56% are men, 44% are women
-86% are white, 7% are Hispanic, 4% are black, and 3% are other races
[unquote]
Interesting results, Vince T. Was there a geographic breakdown? I would bet Southern white conservative males figure prominently in the ignorance category.
Vince,
Great catch as usual. Interesting figures to ponder.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_819513.pdf
This wasn’t a survey of “birthers”, it was a survey of 909 Americans.
Only 62% of respondents reported believing that Obama was born in the United States.
The pollers DID look at birthers. The birthers among the pollees were so ignorant that more of them believed he was born in Indonesia than Kenya, and some of them did not know that Hawaii is a state.
If, in fact, only 62 percent of Americans believe Obama was born in the United States, then that is stark testimony to the power of birther lies.
Like the lie about the fake Kenyan birth certificate spread over the net by World Net Daily, financed by millionaire Joseph Farah, and by frequent posters at this site.
Vince,
when you own the MSM you control the debate and even the so-called liberal outlets helped to propagate the disinformation. The more I think about it, the more I’m coming to see that the greatest threat to the US is a Pravda like media that sets the terms of debate.
Vince,
Excellent catch in addition to being a damning statement about the quality of education these people received. Hawaii isn’t a state? Oh please.
are you all still arguing over this? How long does it take to prove this?
This is just more of the same old invalid birther legal nonsense. Leo Donofrio has been flogging this for over a year, and the Supreme Court rejected him. It is discussed thoroughly on threads at this site that can be searched in the search window under “natural born citizen.” There is more detailed discussion at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/
There is no basis in law or fact for the requirement that a natural born citizen have two U.S. citizen parents. The law that he recites applied to children BORN BEYOND THE SEAS, NOT TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
The draft by Hamilton made anyone born in the US after the adoption of the Constitution eligible for the Presidency, and the use of natural born citizen embodied this concept. The founders used a phrase that was based on the common law, and according to Blackstone, all born in the realm were natural born.
The 14th Amendment says that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. The Wong Kim Ark case held that children born in the U.S. are natural born citizens even if their parents were aliens not eligible for citizenship.
The arguments ignore the fact that the framers were concerned about adult foreign citizens taken power after being naturalized, not about infants born in the U.S.
There is no language in the Constitution to support the conclusion, and there are no Supreme Court cases either. There is no basis for a distinction between “born citizens” and natural born citizens.
The conclusion is false. Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States.
The guy speaking does not even identify himself. If he wants to come here and debate the issue, welcome. Otherwise, this is just a dropping by a troll.
The gist of the argument is that no one can be a natural born citizen if they were somehow subject to the jurisdiction of another country at birth, because of their parentage. This requires that a person be born in the US, be subject to its jurisdiction, and not be subject to the jurisdiction of any other country.
But we have pointed out over and over that LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT WAS BEFORE THE CONGRESS WHEN IT PASSED THE 14TH AMENDMENT. It had been in the Civil Rights Act, passed two months before. Congress omitted that language from the 14th Amendment. It made all persons born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction (that is, all except children of ambassadors and hostile occupying armies) citizen from birth.
So there is no basis in law for this theory.
Mr. House, I strongly suggest that you spread your intellectual manure in another field. This topic has already been thoroughly analyzed on this site by people who actually know what they are talking about. Take your tinfoil with you.
Justice Story weighs-in on citizenship.
Femes Covert = Married Women
“The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.”
“But more mature reflection has satisfied me that I then gave too much weight to natural law and the suggestions of reason and justice in a case which ought to be disposed of upon the principles of political and positive law and the law of nations.”
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
Here we have one of the most respected jurists in the history of the United States relying on the law of nations for the benefits of citizenship.
You see, English common law did not recognize the benefits of citizenship. English common law was not the law of the United States at the time the Constitution was ratified. English common law is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
Hamilton’s “first draft” was never debated, nor presented, to the Constitutional Convention.
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”
As can be seen above, Jefferson is equating citizenship of the child to that of the parents, and not the land.
Ask yourself this: If the Framers wanted to ensure that only someone who was simply born a citizen of the United States could be the Commander in Chief, why did they use the term “natural born citizen” for which the law of nations provides the only definition?
This has all been discussed. These are all ill-informed ideas. The English common law was the law of each colony. At the time of the revolution, the common law was received by each state, became the law of each state, and prevailed until changed by statute of court decision. Common law was mentioned by name in the Bill of Rights for jury trial, and concepts like bill of attainder in the Constitution itself can only be understood by looking at the common law.
Hamilton’s draft was the source of the grandfather clause for citizens of the US at the time of adoption, and the source of the concept that all born hereafter in the US would be eligible. He was a member of the Convention, not some European international lawyer.
The common law, not the law of nations, provided the meaning of natural born. And Story’s decision is irrelevan, since it did not deal with the natural born citizen clause. In 1830, it was long, long earlier than the 14th Amendment and Wong, which did provide that all children born in the US are citizens by birth.
Once again, for the nth time, Jay’s letter warned about an adult foreign prince taking power after naturalization. THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF THE FRAMERS. They were never worried about infants. They were worried about grown-ups.
House has not addressed any of these issues.
“Justice Story weighs-in on citizenship.
Femes Covert = Married Women”
E.F. House = Jim Byrne = birther. Same style of argument same tired old points, same stretching of history. If they’re not one in the same they’re getting their talking points from the same demented playbook.
Where else could we have garnered such valuable history lessons sparked by and inspired from the baseless foundation of a House?
Sir Treacy,
A review of this thread indicates that Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia Citizenship Statute has not been discussed. This is contrary to your claim that “[t]his has all been discussed”.
The law of the sovereign states was never the law of the nation.
ENGLISH common law is not mentioned in the Constitution or any Amendment to the Constitution.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Mr. Mason was the inspiration for the Bill of Rights found in the first Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Bill of Attainder was permitted in English common law, but is adverse to the law of the United States.
Hamilton’s draft “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
The second part “or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States” WAS NOT ACCEPTED by the delegates. Why not? It was simple and to the point. Why did the Framers choose “natural born citizen” instead of “born a citizen of the United States”? The Framers were learned men. Most of them were lawyers. The answer is as simple as the reason for the change. They wanted a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis. They wanted only a “natural born citizen”; a term of which only one definition existed at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
“And Story’s decision is irrelevan, since it did not deal with the natural born citizen clause”. Neither does Wong Kim Ark.
Mr. House, you need to read the entire thread and raise a new issue or new argument. What you have posted does neither.
E.F. House has joined the discussion. The first point is about a quote from Justice Story.
Holmes posted, at Aug. 21, 8:27 AM: [quote]
Justice Story weighs-in on citizenship.
Femes Covert = Married Women
“The incapacities of femes covert provided by the common law apply to their civil rights and are for their protection and interest. But they do not reach their political rights nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.”
“But more mature reflection has satisfied me that I then gave too much weight to natural law and the suggestions of reason and justice in a case which ought to be disposed of upon the principles of political and positive law and the law of nations.”
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
Here we have one of the most respected jurists in the history of the United States relying on the law of nations for the benefits of citizenship. [unquote]
This is an interesting quotation, but it is important to look at the full decision. Here is a link:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships24.html
In the second to last paragraph, Story stated: “In either view of this case, and we think both are sustained by principles of public law, as well as of the COMMON LAW, and by the soundest rules of interpretation applicable to treaties between independent states, the objections taken to the right of recovery of the plaintiffs cannot prevail. [EMPHASIS added]
So, here we have one of the most respected jurists in the history of the United States relying on the common law, as well as international treaties, to resolve a question of the benefits of citizenship.
The quotation from Shanks was taken selectively, and does not imply that the common law should be disregarded in interpreting the Constitution.
House made several statements about the common law.
“You see, English common law did not recognize the benefits of citizenship. English common law was not the law of the United States at the time the Constitution was ratified. English common law is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.”
“ENGLISH common law is not mentioned in the Constitution or any Amendment to the Constitution.”
“‘The common law of England is not the common law of these States.’ George Mason one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Mr. Mason was the inspiration for the Bill of Rights found in the first Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Bill of Attainder was permitted in English common law, but is adverse to the law of the United States.”
A lot of weight is placed on the term “common law’ without even defining it. Briefly, the common law was the law embodied in the decisions of the English King’s courts, as distinguished from statutory law enacted by the legislature, and from decisions in courts of equity or canon law. It was probably called this in England, because those decisions were “common” to the entire country in the Middle Ages, not just to a single manor.
The English common law had been the law of each colony. At the time of the revolution, the common law was received, that is, adopted, by each state, and after that became the law of each state. The common law prevailed until changed by statute or court decision.
Common law was mentioned by name in the Bill of Rights for civil jury trial, and concepts like bill of attainder in the Constitution itself can only be understood by looking at the common law.
No source or context was provided for Mason’s quote, but here is a link:
http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt
Mason, who opposed the Constitution, seems to argue that the King’s power to make certain kinds of treaties ceding parts of the empire was limited by the common law of England. He argued that there was no such limit on the treaty power of the president and the Senate, since the common law no longer applied in the United States. The common law therefore could not limit the treaty power granted by the Constitution. Because of this, he wanted certain kinds of treaties to be approved by a three-fourths vote of all branches of the legislature.
This is a far cry from saying that the former common law of England, as adopted by the states and enforced as state law, did not apply in the U.S. He did not say that. And his statements did not deal with the issue of the use of common law concepts to interpret the constitution. Mason’s statement has been spread on the birther web without any source or context.
Mason was taken out of context. English common law governed the colonies until the Revolution. When they became States, that common law no longer prevailed, but each state received the common law and made it state law. The meaning of each state’s law still had to be learned by looking at the English common law.
So the common law of England WAS the law of the colonies until the Revolution. It was not the law of the States after the Declaration of Independence, but its terms and doctrines were adopted by the several states. To determine the law of a state on a subject not covered by a state court decision or law, the common law was consulted. The common law of each state consisted of the English common law court decisions received at the time of independence, together with the subsequent state decisions, as modified by statutes enacted by state legislatures.
The English common law writ of habeas corpus is expressly mentioned in the Constitution. The constitution expressly provided that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except in cases of Rebellion or Invasion. The only way to understand the meaning of the words “habeas corpus” in the Constitution is to consult the common law. So it is simply wrong to say that English common law is not mentioned in it. See Art I. Sec. 9 cl. 2.
The Seventh Amendment used the actual words “common law” when it provided that “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved.” So how can it be said that the common law was not mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments? The English common law precedents had to be consulted as a matter of necessity to find the meaning of the Amendment.
The remark about the bill of attainder is typical of this misconception. The Constitution banned bills of attainder. Art. I, sec. 9, cl.3. To determine the meaning of that ban, the courts had to consult its common law meaning as a legislative enactment that inflicted punishment on a named individual. English common law was consulted to find out what the Constitution did or did not prohibit.
Similarly, Article I, Section 10, banned any state law impairing the obligation of contracts. The common law precedents had to be consulted to determine if an obligation had been created by contract and was protected by this Clause.
Blackstone described the common law understand of “natural born.” It is necessary and appropriate to consult common law authorities to discern the meaning of that term.
House wrote: “’And Story’s decision is irrelevant, since it did not deal with the natural born citizen clause’. Neither does Wong Kim Ark.”
In Shanks v. Dupont, Ann Shanks had been born in the colony of South Carolina. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether she lost her citizenship when she married an English officer during the Revolution, and moved to England where she lived until her death.
The state court had ruled that she was still an American when she died. Story reversed, holding that she had become a British subject by marrying the English officer and moving with him after the war to England.
Nothing in the case related to her status as a natural born rather than a naturalized citizen, or to the citizenship of her parents
Wong, on the other hand, necessarily dealt with the natural born citizen clause, even though the issue of presidential eligibility was not before it, simply because Wong was not running for President.
Every scholarly discussion of the natural-born issue has discussed the holding of the Wong case. See the link for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
The 14th Amendment says that all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. The Wong Kim Ark case held that children born in the U.S. are even if their parents were aliens not eligible for citizenship.
On page 694, the court stated that the child of an alien domiciled in the US is “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” That is as clear as it can get. It is agreed by all that a child of U.S. citizens who is born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. The Court in Wong held that that the child of an alien born in the U.S. is “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Therefore the child of the alien born in the US is a natural born citizen.
It is the NECESSARY IMPLICATION of the holding in Wong that a child born in the US is a natural born citizen, even if his or her parents were aliens at the time of birth, because that child is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.
I repeat. Story’s decision in Shanks is irrelevant, since it does not deal with the issue of citizenship by birth, or the natural born citizen clause. The holding of Wong does in fact deal with U.S. citizenship by birth, and is a key decision in the interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.
House wrote “Hamilton’s ‘first draft’ was never debated, nor presented, to the Constitutional Convention.”
House also wrote [quote] Hamilton’s draft “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States”
The second part “or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States” WAS NOT ACCEPTED by the delegates. Why not? It was simple and to the point. Why did the Framers choose “natural born citizen” instead of “born a citizen of the United States”?
The Framers were learned men. Most of them were lawyers. The answer is as simple as the reason for the change. They wanted a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis. They wanted only a “natural born citizen”; a term of which only one definition existed at the time of the Constitutional Convention. [unquote]
The draft by Hamilton may not have been formally presented, but it contained many of the features of the final Constitution, and was an important source for the framers. Poster Alex Hamilton gave us a link to the draft above. Hamilton, unlike Mason, supported the Constitution and gave us much of the Federalist Papers.
Hamilton’s proposal would have made anyone “born a citizen of the United States” eligible for the Presidency. The words are important. He did not say born in the United States. He did not say born of U.S. citizens.
His words applied to anyone who became a citizen at birth, by reason and by virtue of their birth, rather than by naturalization. The words were broader than “born in the U.S.” which would have limited eligibility to native born citizens. It opened eligibility to foreign born children of U.S. parents if Congress so provided.
The use of the term natural born citizen” fully embodied Hamilton’s concept and language. There was no change in the fundamental meaning. The founders used a phrase that was based on the common law, and according to Blackstone, all born in the realm were natural born, as well as those born to English parents outside the realm.
“Natural born citizen” was a broader term than “born in U.S.” or “born of citizens,” since it allowed the inclusion of more persons than just those born in the United States, such as children born beyond the seas to US parents. It covers anyone who is born a citizen, that is, who is entitled to citizenship by birth rather than naturalization. It includes persons born within the United States (usually called native-born citizens) and can include persons born outside the United States to U.S. citizen parents, depending on the circumstances.
Hamilton’s draft was the source of the grandfather clause for citizens of the US at the time of adoption, and the source of the concept that all born hereafter as citizens would be eligible. He was a member of the Convention, not some European international lawyer.
This interpretation is actually consistent with one of Holmes’s statements: “They wanted a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis.”
The definition drafted by Hamilton, and the same concept as adopted by the framers, included both children born on U.S. soil (jus soli) and those born elsewhere to U.S. citizen parents (jus sanguinis) if provided by law.
Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. McCain is a natural born citizen because he is a citizen by virtue of his birth, not naturalization, since he was born overseas to United States citizen parents.
House wrote “Ask yourself this: If the Framers wanted to ensure that only someone who was simply born a citizen of the United States could be the Commander in Chief, why did they use the term “natural born citizen” for which the law of nations provides the only definition?”
There is no need to speculate about the intent of the framers. It was clear from Jay’s letter, and the history of the Convention, that they feared an adult foreign prince, like one of the sons of King George III, taking power after becoming a naturalized citizen. The framers address the problem first by limiting the Presidency to natural born citizens. This limited the Presidency to person who became citizens by birth, rather than by naturalization, in order to prevent a foreign leader from sweeping to power in a popular wave of support. They also set up the Electoral College as a second barrier to the danger of popular sentiment.
House argues that the law of nations provided the only definition of natural born citizen. But this argument has an unstated assumption that the concept of “natural born citizen” is indivisible. But the phrase has several components. The words “natural born” modify citizen. So it is logical to look to the meaning of “natural born” at the time of the Constitution.
The term “natural born” was found in Blackstone, and it included all children born within the realm. The framers adopted the concept of “natural born,” but replaced “subject” with “citizen” because Americans were citizens, not subjects. A person born within the realm of England had been a natural-born “subject” of the King of England. A person born within the U.S. was a natural born “citizen” of the United States.
House wrote “They wanted only a ‘natural born citizen’; a term of which only one definition existed at the time of the Constitutional Convention.”
There was, in fact, more than one definition of “natural born” at the ti
House wrote “A review of this thread indicates that Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia Citizenship Statute has not been discussed. This is contrary to your claim that ‘[t]his has all been discussed.’”
As Ambassador to France, Jefferson was not at the Convention, and there is no evidence that his views were raised at the Convention. Two points should be made about the statute: first, the provision that limits citizenship to whites was repealed by the 14th amendment; and, second, the provision requiring that the father or mother be citizens was repealed by the 14th Amendment.
The statute has very little relevance to the discussion.
House also wrote “The law of the sovereign states was never the law of the nation.”
The laws of the several states have always been an integral part of the laws of the United States as a nation. The laws of our nation consist of the laws of the 50 states and the laws of the federal government.
Paraphrasing the patient, persistent, perpetual, and precise lawyer V.T., a House—similar to a Mall—is a terrible thing to waste.
Thanks, FFLEO.
However, I would not put House’s ideas in the same boat with the bvMall’s spewing of hatred and venom, since the ideas were presented politely, and were deserving of a substantive response.
I have learned a lot from these discussions, and I know of at least one national scholarly authority on these issues who has learned some stuff from this thread, and I hope others have done the same
Typo at 9:32 am: “There was, in fact, more than one definition of “natural born” at the ti[me.]
Always use care when you clip and pas[te].
Sir Treacy (quoting Wong Kim Ark) says “the court stated that the child of an alien domiciled in the US is ‘as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen’”.
Pepsi is as much a cola as Coca Cola.
Had the Court made that statement, Sir Treacy would interpret that to mean that Pepsi is Coca Cola. It would draw the same absurd conclusion. A conclusion we all know to be false. Does anyone here believe that Pepsi is Coca Cola because they are both colas?
Sir Treacy follows with “[t]hat is as clear as it can get. It is agreed by all that a child of U.S. citizens who is born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.”
Let me repeat Sir Treacy’s statement again. “It is agreed by all that a child of U.S. citizens who is born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen”.
Congratulations! You finally got it. Your subconcious mind revealed what your concious mind chose to withold.
One more time. “It is agreed by all that a child of U.S. citizens who is born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen”.
The Court had the opportunity to declare that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. They chose not to do so. The Courts comparative wording declares that a difference exists.
Did the Court state that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen? The answer is no. Why not? As Sir Treacy has stated “It is agreed by all that a child of U.S. citizens who is born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen”, and Wong Kim Ark was not the child of U.S. Citizens.
The common law of England is not the common law of the United States.
In 1798, Justice Chase had this to say in United States v. Worrall, 2 Dall. 384 C.C.D.Pa. 1798
“It is attempted, however, to supply the silence of the constitution and statutes of the Union, by resorting to the common law, for a definition and punishment of the offence which has been committed: but, in my opinion, the United States, as a federal government, have no common law; and consequently, no indictment can be maintained in their courts, for offences merely at the common law. If, indeed, the United States can be supposed, for a moment, to have a common law, it must, I presume, be that of England; and yet, it is impossible to trace when, or how, the system was adopted or introduced. With respect to the individual states, the difficulty does not occur. When the American colonies were first settled by our ancestors, it was held, as well by the settlers, as by the judges and lawyers of England, that they brought hither, as a birth-right and inheritance, so much of the common law, as was applicable to their local situation, and change of circumstances. But each colony judged for itself, what parts of the common law were applicable to its new condition; and in various modes, by legislative acts, by judicial decisions, or by constant usage, adopted some parts, and rejected others. Hence, he who shall travel through the different states, will soon discover, that the whole of the common law of England has been nowhere introduced; that some states have rejected what others have adopted; and that there is, in short, a great and essential diversity, in the subjects to which the common law is applied, as well as in the extent of its application. The common law, therefore, of one state, is not the common law of another; but the common law of England is the law of each state, so far as each state has adopted it; and it results from that position, connected with the judicial act, that the common law will always apply to suits between citizen and citizen, whether they are instituted in a federal, or state court.
But the question recurs, when and how, have the courts of the United States acquired a common-law jurisdiction, in criminal cases? The United States must possess the common law themselves, before they can communicate it to their judicial agents: Now, the United States did not bring it with them from England; the constitution does not create it; and no act of congress has assumed it. Besides, what is the common law to which we are referred? Is it the common law entire, as it exists in England; or modified as it exists in some of the states; and of the various modifications, which are we to select, the system of Georgia or New Hampshire, of Pennsylvania or Connecticut?”
Sir Treacy states “Hamilton, unlike Mason, supported the Constitution and gave us much of the Federalist Papers”.
Hamilton believed we had no need for a Bill of Rights. George Mason believed that without such we should not adopt the Constitution.
Hamilton lost that battle. Not only did we adopt a Bill of Rights, the importance of which has been demonstrated time and time again in our courts.
Hamilton wanted England all over again. That’s why he left the Convention, and that’s why most of his ideas for our new government were not adopted.
P.S. The hyperlink left by Hamilton, Alex was to the Framer’s first draft of our Constitution. That is NOT the draft created by Hamilton.
Q. Did you actually see my client bite off the victim’s ear?
A. No.
Q. So you did not actually see my client bite off his ear.
A. No, but I saw him spit it out.
House: “Did the Court state that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen? The answer is no.”
Maybe not.
But on page 694, the Court did state that the child of an alien domiciled in the US is “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.”
“As much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.”
If the court did not mean to say that Wong was a natural born citizen, just as much a citizen as the natural born citizen child of U.S. citizens, what in hell did it mean to say?
It meant to say that Wong was a natural born citizen.
I rest my case. It is now up to the jury.
House has a confused idea of Justice Chase’s opinion, due to a limited legal understanding.
The federal courts are not common law courts, and never have been. They are courts of limited jurisdiction. In general Article III, section 2, limits their judicial power to cases and controversies involving the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States. They cannot create or amend common law doctrines of tort and contract law. The term “federal common law” nowadays relates to the body of federal judicial decision interpreting and applying federal laws and the Constitution.
State courts, like state superior courts, by contrast, are courts of general jurisdiction. They have judicial power over everything that may be brought before them, unless state or federal constitutions or law excludes jurisdiction, or unless the parties are not under its jurisdiction.
State courts of general jurisdiction are in fact still common law courts. They can modify common law doctrines of negligence, for example, by adopting comparative negligence in the place of contributory negligence. Their decisions are the law of the state until modified, amended or repealed by the legislature.
So that is the common law in a nutshell. The paste-up from Justice Chase is simple taken out of context, and does not help the discussion of natural born citizen at all.
The federal courts have always consulted the common law to determine the meaning of terms adopted from the common law, like habeas corpus, bill of attainder, jury trial, and many others.
Hamilton and Mason were both good men. None of that has anything to do with the meaning of natural born citizen.
Hamilton’s draft is in 3 Farrand, Records of the Federal Constitution, page 617; see vol. 97 Yale Law Journal 889, notes 40-41. It is therefore part of the record of the Convention. House admits it was the source of the grandfather clause (Hamilton himself was foreign born). So why keep harping on the allegation that it was not formally presented. That is a waste of time.
Hamilton’s’ draft is now recognized by all scholars as a source of the clause. So what’s the point?
Mr. House, are you the same person as * E.F. House*? We have had some problem imposters, so I wanted to be clear about the consistency of your pseudonym.
I have read this topic since the start, I have learned a lot, and no one has wasted time with his or her contributions.
And, of course, Justice Chase was saying that the federal courts could not use the common law to create criminal offenses, and had no common-law criminal jurisdiction to create a definition and punishment of a criminal offense in an indictment.
That is a far cry from consulting the common law for the meaning of a term of the civil law.
James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791)
“The law of nature, when applied to states or political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation.”
“But, if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it must surely be highly necessary to those who are appointed, the publick servants and stewards of the commonwealth.”
“In the United States, a system of republicks, the law of nations acquires an importance still more peculiar and distinguished. In the United States, the law of nations operates upon peculiar relations, and upon those relations with peculiar energy. Well am I justified, on every account, in announcing the dignity and greatness of the subject, upon which I am now to enter.”
“On all occasions, let us beware of being misled by names. Though the law, which I am now to consider, receives a new appellation; it retains, unimpaired, its qualities and its power. The law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of obligation indispensable: the law of nations, as well as the law of nature, is of origin divine.”
“The opinions of many concerning the law of nations have been very vague and unsatisfactory; and if such have been the opinions, we have little reason to be surprised, that the conduct of nations has too often been diametrically opposite to the law, by which it ought to have been regulated.”
” The melancholy truth is, that the law of nations, though founded on the most solid principles of natural obligation, has been but imperfectly viewed in theory, and has been too much disregarded in practice.”
“The law of nations, properly so called, is the law of nature applied to states and sovereigns. The law of nations, properly so called, is the law of states and sovereigns, obligatory upon them in the same manner, and for the same reasons, as the law of nature is obligatory upon individuals. Universal, indispensable, and unchangeable is the obligation of both.”
“Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people. Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature’s God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all. How vast–how important–how interesting are these truths! They announce to a free people how exalted their rights; but, at the same time, they announce to a free people how solemn their duties are. If a practical knowledge and a just sense of these rights and these duties were diffused among the citizens, and properly impressed upon their hearts and minds; how great, how beneficial, how lasting would be their fruits! But, unfortunately, as there have been and there are, in arbitrary governments, flatterers of princes; so there have been and there are, in free governments, flatterers of the people. One distinction, indeed, is to be taken between them. The latter herd of flatterers persuade the people to make an improper use of the power, which of right they have: the former herd persuade princes to make an improper use of power, which of right they have not. In other respects, both herds are equally pernicious. Both flatter to promote their private interests: both betray the interests of those whom they flatter.”
James Wilson
-Signer of the Declaration of Independence
-Twice elected to the Continental Congress
-a major influence in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution
-one of the six original justices appointed by George Washington to the Supreme Court of the United States
House
a bit of advice: welcome to 2009. it’s time to join the modern world.
So?
What has this paste-up to do with natural born citizen?
Nothing.
“Mr. House, are you the same person as * E.F. House*? We have had some problem imposters, so I wanted to be clear about the consistency of your pseudonym.”
FFLEO,
There is no confusion House = E.F. House = Jim Byrne = birther. My
reasoning is that the writing style is the same, the points being made are the same, Vattel is even being brought in with the “Law of Nations” argument redux. Vince has trounced every argument “they” have put forth and yet they keep recycling their replies and making their lame cases. Interestingly, all of the cases they make refer to arcane legal interpretations. In this issue that is the only way birthers can move forward, since the whole thing is really quite settled law. While their slavish devotion to specious arguments has its annoyances, as you’ve inferred, the yeoman work by Vince has been so damn informative that it is worth following the thread as he demolishes all comers and we learn some really good legal history.
Vince,
I have to disagree with you, I think that House’s latest post is very much on point – as I understand it, it completely destroys the birther’s claims that ‘law of nations’ refers to Vattel and not, well, laws concerning multiple nations (not that you hadn’t done that already, but seeing him hoisting himself on his own petard was nice). I wish I could force every birther in the country to read this thread…
You are right, Mike. The law of nations was the term for international law and the treaties governing relations among sovereign states. Mike Appleton spelled this out for us.
In the Shanks case, above, a lot of the decision in fact depended on the interpretation of the Treaty of Paris. It seems that the treaty was negotiated to let everyone in the colonies after the war ended in 1783 have a choice between staying as an American citizen, or becoming a British subject and leaving. Ann Shanks chose to leave. That, and not the natural born citizen issue, is the reason Story discussed laws of nations.
The Americans were very clear that, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. would determine its own domestic (municipal) law.
Correction: “You are right, Slart”
Mike S, thanks again, I assumed BIRTHER and TROLL were Byrne, and that those posters would clarify any ambiguity — without losing anonymity — if they were not, and they never did deny it. Anonymous posters are okay. I have a friend who has to post that way because of his job, but he gets concerned if someone else uses the same penname. I have made no assumptions about EF House, since Byrne seemed to like to capitalize his troll names.
Franks said there was not enough evidence that Obama is not an American citizen. He did say there was a lot of conflicting evidence of Obama’s citizenship and that he was considering filing a lawsuit, the only congressman to do so. Franks asked why the president did not simply produce a birth certificate.
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles/2009/08/23/news/top_story/top1.txt
These videos keep getting better. To bad they don’t know how to hold a camera.
Tom Delay is a good person to take at his word. Sure he is . . .
http://www.congressproject.org/ethics/delacom3.html
The video: Already debunked by Dr. Conspiracy at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org
“The main point to keep in mind is that without any supporting evidence, a video on the Internet is nothing but a video on the Internet”
Even the World Nut Daily says that this is the same guy who tried to sell this “document” on ebay and had to pull it. Dates are in US format, not British. May not even have been filmed in Africa. Lucas Smith (who has a criminal record and has tried to sell his kidney) stopped talking to the World Nuts who offered to verify the cert.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/yet-another-kenyan-birth-certificate/
So the poster bda has pasted up another lie at the Turley blog.
Bda posted the fake Kenyan birth certificate above. Repeated postings showed that it was a fake, World Nut agreed that it was fake, and the fake finally posted his acknowledgement that he had faked it to hoax the birthers.
Bda defended it to the last. Bda has never come back to retract or amend any of those posts. Bda just lets lies die in silence.
So:
Bda posted lies when it posted the forged birth certificate.
Bda is now posting lies in the youtube video of another fake certificate.
“Franks said there was not enough evidence that Obama is not an American citizen. He did say there was a lot of conflicting evidence of Obama’s citizenship and that he was considering filing a lawsuit, the only congressman to do so. Franks asked why the president did not simply produce a birth certificate.”
Franks is considering filing a lawsuit? Why? He can simply file a bill of impeachment in the House of Representative, where he is a Member. Why doesn’t he.
Franks asked why the president did not simply produce a birth certificate.
Does he spend his time on another planet?
The issue came up in the 2008 campaign.
Obama produced his birth certificate.
No other candidate did.
Maybe he wants another birth certificate, but Obama produced the only certificate that Hawaii now issues to anyone who requests one.
Evidence? All the CREDIBLE evidence shows that Obama was born in the U.S. All the faked and forged evidence shows birth in Kenya, or Canada, or Krypton.
Some conflict.
So, start the clock running on the Member to file his little “lawsuit”.
Prediction in writing, 8AM Aug. 24, no lawsuit, no bill of impeachment.
Hey Vince, another surge coming up in about two weeks, stay tuned.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread494613/pg1
I’d like to give you birther trolls a term to think about, especially in light of what Vince has done to your arguments.
The term is “game of diminishing returns”.
Vegas is favoring Vince and so am I.
See you boys in two weeks.
bd: “another surge coming up in about two weeks, stay tuned.”
“Written predictions”™©:
Another surge of lies and forgeries.
Another surge of dismissals of frivolous court cases.
So our resident bigot/troll/phony black man has returned with other postings equally as peurile as anything previously done. To back him up we have the return of birther/Jim Byrne/Phony soldier, with some more. Proving even more that their only reason for visiting here is trolling. House will be back and perhaps BVM will make another appearance since the contributions to his phony organization may have left him tight. Let’s really lay it out though, without the patina of fair comment. All these pseudonyms represent rooters on the Republican Team. They exhibit the intelligence and logic of a pro football fan looking to the coming season and predicting a playoof for their 3 and 13 team because they signed a veteran quarterback, with potential, who has failed everywhere else. They backed the Bush/Cheney Crime Family with their money, their votes and their willingness to spill other’s blood. They lack an understanding of the constitution, preferring instead to be led by a “strong” leader, who will keep them from the pain of having to think too hard. They put “Hitler” mustaches on President Obama, not because they think him such, but because deep within their soulds they long for a return of Hitler to control them and vaguely aware of how sick their need to be dominated is, they project it on to someone who is the antithesis of what they really desire. Even if they do get paid for this as trolls it reflects personality defects in all of them and a discomfort with freedom. They
are in effect besides being racists, Anti-Americans, lacking even the awareness to know this about themselves. Their sex lives would probably make the pages of Krafft-Ebing, or De Sade.
I just looked at someone’s birth certificate, issued by a city clerk in August 2009. It does not say it is a “birth certificate,” but just “Record of Birth.”
There is no information about the citizenship of the child’s parents.
Way up above on this thread I asked if anyone had a cert that listed citizenship of parents.
So, the question is this: If citizenship of parents is so important, as birthers like House and Donofrio repeatedly assert, why is it not listed as an essential item of information on the standard birth certificates that are issued by the 50 States?
The answer is that citizenship of parents has no effect on the citizenship of infants who are born in the United States.
Those children are citizens by virtue of their birth on US soil, without regard to citizenship of parents.
They are natural born citizens.
Has anyone, ANYONE, out there ever seen a birth certificate that lists the citizenship of the parents?
Still waiting.
Who came up with this
If you question the BC your a Birther
If you question GW your a denier
If you question Cap and Trade your a do nothing dead ender
If you question the president your a racist
If you attend a T-party your a right wing extremist
If you post on a liberal site your a troll
I could go on and on but it’s obvious who the hate mongers are. People who call other people names, the same people who did the exact same for the last eight years. I agreed with alot of it. For you the shoe is on the other foot.
Yes, Mike thank you. You can try to bait me all you want, the only thing you will get from me, from now on, is praise and thanks. It is right to give praise and thanks, so thank you Mike. I hope you have recovered a 100% and stay in good health.
It’s part of my repentance.
BIRTHER (whomsoever that may be) is back with a link to a site with some kind of enhanced video of the blair-witch-project youtube video of yet another forged Kenyan birth certificate.
What is the point of this link? The cert is still too fuzzy to verify. It is clear enough, however, to show that the forger mixed up the US and British usage in typing in a fake numerical date.
A bucket of chopped liver can be put under a scanning electron microscope, but it will still be a bucket of chopped liver.
“Yes, Mike thank you. You can try to bait me all you want, the only thing you will get from me, from now on, is praise and thanks.”
Bdaman,
All I need to respond with is you calling me a “Christ Killer”
and making disparaging references to Fillipino’s. You are a bigot and in truth I think a liar for claiming to be of mixed race. My guess is that what’s mixed about you is your mind, which is awash in confusion.
Thanking you in advance for your praise, but coming from someone with your lack of morality, makes its value highly questionable.
“People who call other people names, the same people who did the exact same for the last eight years.”
For those who want to see the evolution from phony centrist, to out and out bigot and fundamentalist freak, I suggest you see his original posts on this site where he claimed to be against the Bush Administration and its’ policies. In his mind(?)the deception gave him credibility to attack the new Administration,
but he lacked the skill to keep the game going.
What all these nut jobs count on is people with short memories. Mine is a long one and what’s more after being nailed to the wall for his proven troll status, bdaman has let all his original phony pretensions slip, as he ponders where it all went wrong. He is what I call a pseudo-conservative, fundamentalist twit, not to be confused with real conservatives who actually use logic, can make cogent arguments and have valuable things to say.
Mike the Filipino comment was a joke that you and Vince obviously didn’t get, but thats OK. Thanks again my friend, my buddy, my old pal. I let you continue, you deserve it after what I said. Thanks again Mike, appreciate it. Hows the wife? Kids? hope they are all doing well, best regards.
For those who want to see the evolution from phony centrist, to out and out bigot and fundamentalist freak, I suggest you see his original posts on this site where he claimed to be against the Bush Administration and its’ policies. In his mind(?)the deception gave him credibility to attack the new Administration,
As the polls go, so do I
Today is the President’s third straight day with an Approval Index rating in negative double digits. He has never had four straight days with such low ratings.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
When I read articles like this, knowing that military men are now dying more and more everyday and the president just wants people to leave him alone while on vacation, thats when the majority realize that this president doesn’t know what he is doing and nor does he care. I can’t support someone like this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
“Mike the Filipino comment was a joke that you and Vince obviously didn’t get’
What you don’t get is that bigots make jokes about people’s ethnicity or race, once again proving my point about lack of sensitivity, hence bigotry.
“As the polls go, so do I
Today is the President’s third straight day with an Approval Index rating in negative double digits. He has never had four straight days with such low ratings.”
Lying again Mr. Bigot. Your original posts on this blog attacked President Obama, while his polls were high. Deceit and deception are in your blood, yet you profess Christianity, or is that merely another lie.
Sure do got alot of anger there Mr. Spinny. Your welcome, thanks again Mike. Glad to know I got your blood flowin. Be careful don’t want that muscle to over work itself. Maybe you should take your meds and laydown for a while. Get your wife to put your feet up.
Thanks Buddy, OL Pal
bdaman writes: If you question the BC your a Birther
If you question GW your a denier
If you question Cap and Trade your a do nothing dead ender
If you question the president your a racist
If you attend a T-party your a right wing extremist
If you post on a liberal site your a troll’
question me all you want. question the others too. I’m sure they don’t mind. Hell I question myself everyday. and yet I never once called you a denier. I called you a jew hater. there is a world of difference there. a denier is a jew hate who won’t even consider that the holocaust happened and hates jews. you are just an ordinary, run of the mill, unreconstructed bigot. and none of this has nothing to do with questions on my part directed at you.
I know who and what you are.
game. set. match.
GWLawSchoolMom, what ever you say, thanks for the comment
CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals – HELD (08.05.2009): 14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to natural born citizen status.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/craig-v-us-10th-circuit-court-of-appeals-held-08-05-2009-14th-amendment-native-born-citizens-have-no-constitutional-right-to-natural-born-citizen-status/
BD just posted a link to the latest gibberish on Leo Donofrio’ site.
BD seems to say that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held on August 5th that “14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to natural born citizen status.”
BD’s statement is false, because it does not describe the court’s decision correctly.
This case is not news at this site, since we posted a link to the actual decision above on August 7th at 7:23PM.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/CraigAppealDismissed.pdf
Very briefly, the District Court dismissed Craig’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court. So the court HELD that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that no claim for relief had been stated. That was the holding.
The court said that Craig, who had been born in the U.S. to citizen parents, had no legally cognizable right to be deemed “the First Legally recognized ‘Natural Born American Citizen’ or ‘the Last’ of them. The court said that this claim under the Constitution was “sufficiently attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous” that dismissal was not in error.
Attenuated, insubstantial, and frivolous
The court never held that native born citizens had not right to natural born status. The court never said that 14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to natural born citizen status. It never said that. Ever. Anywhere in its opinion. Anywhere.
Just another morning, another false posting.
Another day, another lie.
As Kurt would have said, “So it goes.”
Leo just posted about 1900 words of incoherent legal discussion of the Craig decision over at his site. Anyone can go and look at it at bd’s link. The words add up to nothing.
If he wants to continue this discussion, he can come to this site, where postings are not “moderated” by him, or snipped and censored, or dropped completely.
Leo says, “I will be publishing some incredible research on this issue by a group who has been forwarding me some rather incredible historical finds on this issue.” Promises, promises. We can hardly wait.
Start spreadin the news, Im leavin today. I want to be apart of it, NY, NY.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html?_r=2
Tom DeLay either a liar or moron.
Up above, in a tape posted on August 23, 2009 at 6:31 pm, he said he wants the President to produce his birth certificate.
The President has produced his birth certificate.
The campaign asked Hawaii for his birth certificate, and Hawaii sent out THE SAME KIND OF CERTIFICATE THAT IS SENT OUT TO EVERYONE, THE ONLY KIND OF CERTIFICATE THAT IT SENDS OUT.
It was given to the press and authenticated.
Hawaii officials have stated that their records show that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
So Obama has produced his birth certificate, and it shows that he was born in the United States.
So why is ANYONE still listening to this guy DeLay?
House, and others, have argued that the English common law cannot be used to interpret the meaning of natural born citizen. But the Supreme Court itself has used the common law to explain the meaning of terms used in the Constitution.
The prohibition on “ex post facto” laws, for example, uses a term that is not defined in the Constitution. See Article I, section 10, clause 1. In 2000, the Court said that the term required some explanation, because without explanation, it is “naked and unintelligible” and means nothing. Carmel v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 521 (2000).
Citing Justice Chase, the Court said that the necessary explanation is to be drawn from the English common law well known to the Framers: “The proscription against ex post facto laws ‘necessarily requires some explanation; for, naked and without explanation, it is unintelligible, and means nothing.’ Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386, 390 (1798) (Chase, J.).
In Calder v. Bull, Justice Chase stated that the necessary explanation is derived from English common law well known to the Framers: “The expressions ‘ex post facto laws,’ are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors.”
In 1798, Justice Chase (a signer of the Declaration) wrote: [quote] I shall endeavour to show what law is to be considered an ex post facto law, within the words and meaning of the prohibition in the Federal Constitution. The prohibition, ‘that no state shall pass any ex post facto law,’ necessarily requires some explanation; for, naked and without explanation, it is unintelligible, and means nothing.
…
The expressions ‘ex post facto laws,’ are technical, they had been in use long before the Revolution, and had acquired an appropriate meaning, by Legislators, Lawyers, and Authors. The celebrated and judicious Sir William Blackstone, in his commentaries, considers an ex post facto law precisely in the same light I have done. His opinion is confirmed by his successor, Mr. Wooddeson; and by the author of the Federalist, who I esteem superior to both, for his extensive and accurate knowledge of the true principles of Government. [unquote]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=3&page=386
Thus, in an important Supreme Court case handed down within ten years of the adoption of the Constitution, Justice Chase relied on the English common law and Blackstone, not the law of nations, to resolve the meaning of a crucial term of the Constitution. This further strengthens the argument that the meaning of the term “natural born” in the Constitution should be sought in the common law.
For those of you still keeping score at home, there is a GREAT birther story from the 19th Century, complete with links, at this site:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=2410
An 1884 article, no less.
“Birther lawyers are nothing if not colorful, even long dead.”
Nice job Vince! Shoot the messenger when you can’t refute the message.
Why don’t you try this on for size?
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
I have addressed all of this on this thread and at the “Donofrio” threads. Madison at the Federalist Blog is wrong. Everyone born in the US is subject to its jurisdiction, with the sole exceptions of children of diplomatic personnel and of hostile occupying forces. The words “not subject to any foreign power” were left OUT of the 14th Amendment, and courts cannot read back into an Amendment the words that Congress and the ratifying States deliberately chose to omit.
Bingham was not even talking about the 14th Amendment, which was not even introduced until several months later. The matter was settled by the Wong case, despite what the Federalist blog case may say, so either amend the Constitution, or pack the Court with nativist Justices.
…leaving town…won’t be posting for a while….
I said a couple of weeks, Didn’t think it would be this quick. It looks like Fox News has made a commitment to cover the court date with Judge Carter on September 8th. Orly’s timing in filing this case is to send a subliminal to Judge Carter, a former U.S. Marine. As the body count continues to rise in Afghanistan, many soldiers may use this as a way out. Something is gonna have to give, you can only stretch the trip wire so much before it goes boom.
Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September 5th, 2009 (Exhibit A). Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon. On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq. Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in Fort Benning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September 5th, 2009 until September 17th 2010. Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however as a US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain.
This is change, real change. After 42 years. This just made a lot of people raise some eyebrows.
Van Jones, most know him as a self described communist.This administration decided he should be Mr.Green Jeans, Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, “mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world” on the night after Sept. 11, 2001.
What kind of people has this man surrounded himself with.
The reason this is important is because Van Jones is now President Obama’s green jobs czar. He does not appear to have distanced himself from his past communist activities and is now part of the Obama administration’s push to turn Sept. 11 into a National Day of Service focused on the promotion of the radical environmentalist agenda.
bdaman,
Since Vince isn’t here right now, I thought that I would remind you that the only question that a rational person who has read this whole thread would have is will Captain Rhodes’ case be thrown out for procedural reasons (knowing Orly, this is how I’m betting) or will it be heard and thrown out on its merits? I mean, really, if the judge recognizes this as a legitimate case then he will likely have no choice but to recognize that President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States – how quickly do you think that you birthers will be marginalized then? And I’m sick and tired of right wingers casting aspersions on the courage of the brave men and women in our armed forces – you want to throw lives away casually by fighting as many wars as we can start during republican administrations, but once a democrat gets elected, you want the President stripped of the title of commander-in-chief. Well, our soldiers aren’t craven like you and they bravely put themselves in harm’s way following the orders of their lawful commander.
Or will the government simply withdraw the orders as they did with Cook.
bdaman,
Well, if Captain Rhodes is allowed to get out of her deployment, I’m sure they will. Do you think that we are stupid enough to believe your insinuation that something nefarious is going on if they do?
bdaman, two points:
1. Regarding Van Jones, who cares?
2. Captain Rhodes may have “severe reservations” about a lot of things, but the legitimacy of her orders is not one of them. She simply doesn’t want to go.
The attempts to litigate the absurd birther issue have long since ceased to represent a good faith legal challenge. Orly’s filings at this point constitute what is known in the law as abuse of process.
What is the over/under on how long it takes for Orly to get herself disbarred?
Slarti,
Given that the latest evidence indicates that Orly might actively being trying to piss off a judge, I’m thinking it’s starting to look much better than even money.
http://washingtonindependent.com/58010/another-day-another-birther-forgery
There’s nothing competent judges like more than some dipstick wasting their time. Let’s hope it comes before a competent judge.
And it’s been more than two weeks? Where’s that bombshell you were promising, you birther snapperheads?
What’s that? You don’t have one? Oh . . . this was is it, huh.
Not exactly a bombshell now is it?
Now what’s that phrase I used to hear as a kid all the time? “Not worth a popcorn fart.” Yeah. On the spectrum of explosive content, Orly’s latest fiasco is, well, you get the idea. And if you didn’t, there’s a phrase about “if brains were dynamite” that applies to both birthers in general but to Orly most very specifically.
Enjoy the fireworks???
Justice Carter recessed the court at 12.30 pst 9/8/09
His rulings
10/5/09 Defense Motion to Dismiss to be heard. Carter indicted only a very strong compelling reason would move him to dismiss at this point. He will review the defense’s 9/4/09 MTD. He wants to hear the case on it’s merits. Discovery to be ordered 10/5/09 if MTD is thrown out.
1/11/10 Pre Trial Set- procedural for other motions, depositions, scheduling, etc
1/26/10 Trial Date Set- Earliest available date for Justice Carter.
In a second ruling, Carter ordered that attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation can be added to the case to represent defendants Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson, who had been removed by an earlier court order. Drake, the vice presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Robinson, the party’s chairman, were restored as plaintiffs.
Gary Kreep spoke with a producer who works with Glenn Beck on Fox. Beck’s producer was seen interviewing Taitz for a probable segment on the Glenn Beck program.
Taitz and one of her co-counsels were at odds with each other in court as to how to represent their particular plaintiffs. Carter gave them a 15 minute time out in the hall to work out their differences, to no avail. Carter then so ordered a joint representation which requires mutual plaintiff attorney cooperation. Personality conflicts have no place in this utmost important case.
Carter complimented both defense and plaintiff counsel on exercising good re pore regarding “service notification”. It had been “problematic” in prior dealings.
The crowds demeanor can best be described as serious and determined. Their was only one outburst which caused an admonishment. “Our Gary” cat called during some defense dramatics. The FederalMarshalls called him and a few others down.
I did not promise a bombshell, what I said was things were going to heat up again, and it just got a little warmer today. Look for Glen Beck to turn up the heat like he did on Van Jones. Wait for it, it’s coming.
Mike Appleton 1, August 31, 2009 at 9:04 am
bdaman, two points:
1. Regarding Van Jones, who cares?
Answer: Nobody, he’s outta there, dismissed
You call this “warm”, Troll-boy?
You still need to re-evaluate. This isn’t warm, hot or even tepid. It’s frostily stupid.
The only thing that heated up is the chance for Orly to get disbarred.
Definition of ignorance: Someone who keeps doing the same thing despite the evidence that it is not working. This is generally the the province of bigots and the self-delusional.
sure, ok, what ever you say Mr. Sunspot
This week, by the end of the week, you will see that something that everyone feels in their gut is wrong but nobody’s really exposed it. It’s going to be exposed this week. And, you will see by the end of this week that people will go to jail.”
Glen Beck
Some may not be as aware as others, of the numerous suits that are ACTIVE against Obama.
In my opinion the next shoe to fall is the case in New Jersey. The Federal Judge in that case was to rule on the defense Motion To Dismiss between the time frame August 3, and August 17, 2009. Once the August 17th date was exceeded, I concluded the Justice was awaiting the events of today In Justice Carter’s courtroom.
Now I predict,any day now Kerchner v Obama will proceed. The race for discovery will be interesting to watch. Mario Apuzzo Esq. is very knowledgeable, 23 yrs in Constitutional Law. I don’t know if Apuzzo will best the 10/5/09 date.
(I said)
It’s gettin’ hot in here (so hot)
So take off all your clothes
I am gettin’ so hot
I wanna take my clothes off
Oh it’s gettin’ hot in here (so hot)
So take off all your clothes
I am gettin’ so hot
I wanna take my clothes off
Speaking of Sunspots, Mr. Sunspot, the latest from NASA
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm
I have reviewed Mr. Smith’s affidavit. It does not say what birthers would have us believe. Mr. Smith does not assert that the document attached to the affidavit is a true and correct copy of the president’s birth certificate. It states only that the document is a true copy of something given to him by an official whom he bribed. I expect that that is a true statement, which means that Mr. Smith is not exposing himself to a perjury charge. However, the document itself is not admissible as proof of its contents. Furthermore, Ms. Taitz will hardly be able to secure an appearance by the bribed official to testify to the authenticity of the document.
As usual, Ms. Taitz has not done her homework. For a few bucks we could probably get a Kenyan bureaucrat to produce a certificate proving that Dick Cheney was born in Nairobi. This case will go nowhere. When are the birthers going to find a lawyer who actually knows how to plead and prove a case? The answer, of course, is never. But the idea of a conspiracy, like hope, springs eternal to those occupying the border regions of reality.
bdaman,
You really don’t want to open the science discussion again. You’re simply too illiterate to win. So stick to the topic, birther troll. Or don’t you have something better to do like call someone a Christ Killer, you racist hack.
Mike Appleton,
You stated, “Mr. Smith does not assert that the document attached to the affidavit is a true and correct copy of the president’s birth certificate.”
You’re correct! It is not Mr. Smith, but Helton Maganga, the Chief Administrator of the Hospital, that is certifying the copy.
How do we know that Helton Maganga is the Chief Administrator?
http://allafrica.com/stories/200906180705.html
You go on to claim, “It states only that the document is a true copy of something given to him by an official whom he bribed.”
You beter read it again. The affadavit says nothing of the sort. You seem to insinuate that Helton Maganga, and the Kenyan Military Official, are one in the same. They are not.
Finally, you state “However, the document itself is not admissible as proof of its contents.”
Please support your claim.
Sure, ok Mr. Sunspot, It snowed yesterday at MT. Bachelor Sept 8 2009, September snow in Oregon. Gonna be a cold winter Mr. Sunspot.
The bitter pill is sometimes hard to swallow especially when you regurgitate it and it reminds you of how bitter it really is.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/56362312.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUqyE5D7UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs
Waiting for Vince, Where are you Vince. Dr.C has been writing alot so you should have lots of reference Material. Bring on the comments
How bout this Peer Review Mr. Sunspot are they illiterate or is it you are smarter than the average bear. Change from Buddah to Boo Boo, better yet Bullwinkle.
Sunspots Do Really Affect Weather Patterns, Say Scientists
A new study in the journal Science by a team of international of researchers led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research have found that the sunspot cycle has a big effect on the earth’s weather.
http://reason.com/blog/show/135747.html
How about you cherry pick to attempt to prove a natural phenomena that we can’t control some how equates to a manufacturing process that we CAN control?
That’s not science. That’s wishful thinking. And I’m not going to waste my time educating you on complex systems vis a vis climatic science and atmospheric composition as it relates to heat retention and albedo either. Gave that lesson once and so did Slarti.
I won’t because quite frankly you were too stupid to understand it the first time. This is evidenced by your responses, you broken record. Polly want a cracker?
So come on, you already look like a fool legally and ethically speaking, you Anti-Semitic Birther Troll. Make the picture complete and show us again how ignorant of mathematics you are. I’m sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for the opinion of a such a weak mind and crap analysis based on a desire to preserve the political and economic status quo in the face of facts that tell us to stay the course is to eliminate our species much sooner than later.
Good show. Kinda like a train wreck if the train were driven by a clown. So come on back when you can stay ON TOPIC, hammerhead. And the topic is BIRTHER NONSENSE. Stick to one delusion at a time and you might not be so confused all the time. But then again, probably not.
bdaman, your question involves rules of evidence. Since this is a federal case, it is governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence. As a general rule, documents offered to prove the truth of their contents are considered hearsay and are inadmissible, unless they satisfy one of the hearsay exceptions. This just means that documents must either be authenticated by testimony of a qualified witness (usually the custodian of the document) or must be self-authenticating under the rules. In this instance Helton Maganga did not sign the affidavit. Although Mr. Smith asserts in the affidavit that the birth certificate was signed by the hospital administrator, he is not legally competent to state that conclusion since he did not personally observe the document being signed and would have no personal knowledge as to the authority of Mr. Maganga. That is why I said that the affidavit means nothing more than that the copy attached to it is a true copy of something given to Mr. Smith.
In the absence of direct testimony by Mr. Maganga, the authentication of the document as a public record would require compliance with rules and statutes relating to self-authentication of foreign public documents. In general, Mr. Maganga would have to personally attest to the genuineness of the document under penalties of criminal prosecution in Kenya and his attestation would have to be accompanied by consular certification confirming Mr. Maganga’s official authority.
In sum, Mr. Smith’s affidavit is not admissible for any purpose. That is why I also stated that Ms. Taitz has not done her homework once again. She should never have placed Mr. Smith’s affidavit in the public record, but should have used it as a basis for conducting her own investigation and acquiring the appropriate documents authenticating the certificate. She could also have sought to depose Mr. Maganga in Kenya. Even assuming she can survive the motion to dismiss, I am virtually certain that she will be unable to meet her burden of proof. I am not joking when I say that she is looking at potential sanctions in this case.
Mike you are thinking of Birther
Buddah nice try but the proof is in the pudding and you cant have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat.
Mike Appleton said,
“Although Mr. Smith asserts in the affidavit that the birth certificate was signed by the hospital administrator, he is not legally competent to state that conclusion since he did not personally observe the document being signed and would have no personal knowledge as to the authority of Mr. Maganga.”
Mike, you are arriving at a conclusion based on assumption. How do you know that Mr. Smith did not see Mr. Maganga sign the document? It is likely that he did observe such. Mr. Maganga signed the document as the chief administrator of the hospital. Are you attempting to claim that Mr. Maganga was not the chief administrator?
A birth record would fall under Rule 803 “Hearsay exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial”
Mike Appleton and Birther. I am not of a legal mind. Could one or the both of you comment on the legalities of this discovery below. It is mentioned that it’s a violation of the Rico Act.
Pelosi signed two Official Certifications of Nomination for Obama and Biden at the DNC Convention last August. FIRST ONE (referencing the Constitution) SECOND ONE (WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION
http://www.sodahead.com/question/612985/pelosi-signed-two-obama-certifications-of-nomination-and-2nd-one-left-out-us-constitution-provision-will-this-lead-her-to-prison-for-fraud-under-the-rico-act/
bdaman,
I wouldn’t spend too much time on it. The document displayed is only certifying that the DNC has Obama to be their nominee for the November ballot. It is not a declaration that he meets the qualifications to hold the office.
Birther, Mr. Smith’s affidavit does not state that he observed Mr. Maganga signing the document. But even if he did, Mr. Smith is not competent to attest to Mr. Maganga’s official position. In addition, Mr. Maganga’s purported signature is not itself authenticated or sworn to in any manner. Your citation to Rule 803 is relevant only to the question of whether public records may be admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. There are still authentication requirements to be met. They have not been met in this instance. You also need to refer to Rules 901 and 902(3), as well as the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sections 3491-3494 and 3505. With all due respect, I have dealt with this issue in the past.
Although it may be meaningless, I noticed that the dates on the certificate are abbreviated as they would be in this country (e.g., 8/7/1961). I would have expected that the dates would have been abbreviated in the British style (e.g., 7/8/1961). I hope that Mr. Smith didn’t pay a very large bribe because I think the document is another forgery.
bdaman writes: This week, by the end of the week, you will see that something that everyone feels in their gut is wrong but nobody’s really exposed it. It’s going to be exposed this week. And, you will see by the end of this week that people will go to jail.”
Glen Beck
where are the adults? isn’t it time for them to come home from wherever they have been spending the past 6 months and do something, like ground glen beck for being reckless and irresponsible?
take away his stage? this isnt freedom of speech and it isn’t political theater. its irresponsible preaching.
bdaman, I checked the site. Whether the issue is legitimate or not is impossible to determine from your reference. However, it would have nothing to do with a RICO violation in any event.
Rule 1005. Public Records
The contents of an official record, or of a document authorized to be recorded or filed and actually recorded or filed, including data compilations in any form, if otherwise admissible, may be proved by copy, certified as correct in accordance with rule 902 or testified to be correct by a witness who has compared it with the original. If a copy which complies with the foregoing cannot be obtained by the exercise of reasonable diligence, then other evidence of the contents may be given.
Rule 902.(3) Foreign public documents. A document purporting to be executed or attested in an official capacity by a person authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation, and accompanied by a final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position (A) of the executing or attesting person, or (B) of any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation. A final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States, or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.
Thanks Mike and birther for looking at that.
One thing about Lucas Smith is apparently he has a lengthy criminal record. I’m always worried about a crook stating he is now reformed and wants to be honest. However I did see his rebuttal to WND’s assessment and must say he did prove his point. Sometimes it takes a crook to show you how not to get scammed. Like the reformed burglars on the discovery channel showing homeowners that they aren’t as safe as they think they are.
GWMOM, Glen Beck is exposing what is hiding behind the curtain. He reported extensively about ACORN. This is just the start of his campaign.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1224631.html
So hated is the fact that a Black man is President that our two resident trolls, proven liars both and one outwardly bigoted, just keep throwing the excrement up there praying for it to stick. How sad is it to realize that in their tossing, they wear no gloves and so fill themselves with the base elements they are throwing.
Both being ignorant of history do not remember Sen. Joe McCarthy, that two quart a day drinker of cheap rye, who couldn’t understand why people were angry at him since all he was doing was “just politics.” He is analogous to Mr. Beck, save that “Tailgunner Joe” actually saw battle, had a decent education and was elected a Senator. Mr. Beck, former DJ and purported graduate of a Community College, bears the similarity of believing that his lies, slander and incitements to violence are all just for ratings (politics) and shouldn’t be taken personally. That the bigoted liar of our two trolls constantly cites him, exposes that bigot as having even less intelligence than his TV mentor and certainly fewer scruples.
Lucas Smith speaks!!!
I’m sorry Mike, what did you say?
Mike Appleton and Birther anyone else for that matter. Here is a different read for what I brought up yesterday. From a legal standpoint where are we in this.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583
Tomorrow at 2pm hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes MD in GA
September 10th, 2009
I just got word from Ms. Sweeden, clerk for District Court Judge for the Middle District of GA. We were granted an emergency hearing for Captain Connie Rhodes, MD, flight surgeon, who is scheduled to be shipped to Iraq day after tomorrow on September the 12th. Capt Rhodes states that she is willing to go to Iraq, as long as she knows that the orders going down the chain of command are lawful orders. We asked this case to be certified as a class action case, as she represents a whole class of plaintiffs situated in similar position. The hearing will be tomorrow at 2pm in Columbus GA, Federal Building 1201 12th street. Judge Clay D. Land courtroom.
Judge Land was gracious and a real Southern gentleman in that he waived the technical requirement of a signature of the local counsel as a contact.
Looks like along with Judge Carter, this Judge is also being accommodating to Orly Taitz
Any predictions on the outcome from anyone?
Yeah.
That you’ll still look like a jackass racist troll for supporting a loser like Taitz yet again.
Oh, you meant outcome of the case . . .
Dismissed.
Much like you are.
Come on Mr. Sunspot you can do better than that.
Don’t have to, Mr. Racist.
It’s more than a jackass like you deserves.
bdaman,
You should ignore the wounded pit bull.
He’s just a disbarred attorney from Kansas City, KS.
His rather annoying demeanor is what cost him his license to begin with.
You should read some of the complaints that have been filed against this guy.
As long as he hides behind his little fat man avatar, he feels pretty smug. In the real world he’s a failure.
BIRTHER,
You’re just a dipshit troll, Jimmy, so let’s clear some things up.
1) Never practiced in KS. Never said I did. Never sat for the bar here. Never will. I just live here.
2) I quit. I wasn’t disbarred.
3) You have no complaints to read because I never had a complaint filed against me. Ever. If I had? You’re not smart enough to get my real name much less find them so you haven’t read jack shit, sport. Go on. Go try to find a filing for Buddha Is Laughing. The next thing laughing will be the clerks. AT YOU.
4) Your actions now are now approaching slander, bunghole. If you’d like I can subpoena the Prof to get your e-mail and IP and we can meet in court?
Naaaaa. You’re not worth the effort.
But you can still go fornicate yourself, Jim.
You two boys are the biggest losers to ever post here, bar none. Even crazy Wayne is not as big a loser as you two schills. So you say whatever you like. It has all the credibility of warm mule piss.
And that’s a fact.
I am shocked that the troll birthers are still throwing crap against the wall and hoping that it sticks. Let me say it very clearly and in small words: Obama is a citizen and he was born in Hawaii. Get over it or go away. Mike S,Buddha, et al, good job in handling the troll brothers.
“Your actions now are now approaching slander, bunghole. If you’d like I can subpoena the Prof to get your e-mail and IP and we can meet in court?”
ROTFLMAO
Your honor, he slandered “Buddha is Laughing”. LOL
See?
You’re so ridiculous even you find yourself funny.
Buddha,
I would enjoy a slander suit against the trolls!
To all that doubted me when I said things were going to heat up, it looks like it has. Might even be a little smoke starting. Remember where there is smoke, there is fire.
—– Original Message —–
From: Neil Turner
To: ‘Jeff Schwilk’
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 1:18 PM
Subject: Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery – immediately’;
Jeff;
I just talked to Orly:
She has 2 good news items that she is very busy with right now:
1. Judge Carter is ‘giving her expedited discovery – immediately’.
2. Judge Land will allow her to present before the court in GA. She is leaving now to fly to GA to appear before Judge Land at the Federal Building in Columbus, GA at 2:00 pm tomorrow (Friday, 9/11/09).
BIRTHER 1, September 10, 2009 at 9:37 pm
bdaman,
You should ignore the wounded pit bull.
He’s just a disbarred attorney from Kansas City, KS.
His rather annoying demeanor is what cost him his license to begin with.
You should read some of the complaints that have been filed against this guy.
As long as he hides behind his little fat man avatar, he feels pretty smug. In the real world he’s a failure.
NOT VERY GOOD AT SCIENCE EITHER.
All you need to know about the integrity of bdaman and birther:
bdaman: Has made false claims that he/she like the President is half black, in order to add dubious credibility to his rants. He
is also a bigot.
birther/Jim Byrne: Has made the false claim of having a military career, which in itself slanders all those who have truly served. This was also an attempt at credibility.
both: Are ardent ultra-radical conservatives who initially pretended even-handedness. True trolls down to the fact that neither is able to muster a cogent argument.
Blah Blah Blah, Troll, Birther, Racist, Right Wing Extremist, Bigot, Ultra Conservative, Lie’r.
Please add more,
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy And Facts Don’t Lie
Who here will attempt to debunk the article?
Or will they continue to shoot the messesnger? (a political tactic used by those who cannot attack the facts themselves)
OK Birther you are stealing my thunder
bdaman 1, September 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Mike Appleton and Birther anyone else for that matter. Here is a different read for what I brought up yesterday. From a legal standpoint where are we in this.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583
Thats OK it needs to be posted over and over again.
We know who the real lier’s are. They lie to themselves constantly and spew hatred as a cover.
Obama-birthplace lawsuit in O.C. plagued by infighting
September 8th, 2009, 1:20 pm · 136 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Updated at 3:55 p.m
http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/08/obama-birthplace-lawsuit-in-oc-plauged-by-infighting/21081/
When Carter finally got to her suit at 11 a.m., he started by thanking her for finally get her complaint properly filed, saying the process “seems never ending.”
Carter repeated said he was eager to get the matter settled.
“If President Obama fits the qualifications under the rules of the court, the longer the delay the more credibility it lends to the complaint,” he said. “If President Obama does not meet the court’s requirements, the delay also causes a problem.”
During this morning’s proceedings, Carter said he had not yet read the motion to dismiss the case. But he said such motions, when based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b), rarely succeed. That is the rule cited by West in his motion.
Where’s Vince? I know you want to comment, come on Vince. I thought soon as who ever you guys call Jimmy Boyle Birther started Vince would come out of hiding. Come out come out where ever you are.
bdaman writes: Where’s Vince? I know you want to comment, come on Vince. I thought soon as who ever you guys call Jimmy Boyle Birther started Vince would come out of hiding. Come out come out where ever you are.
oh grow the F up already.
sometimes people take vacations. sometimes real life events take precedence over blogging.
just because you have unlimited hours for this does not mean others do.
and finally? no one here answers to you. certainly not Vince.
just because you have unlimited hours for this does not mean others do.
and finally? no one here answers to you. certainly not Vince.
thanks for the comment
When this is all said and done, we will have three classes of people in the U.S.
1. Birthers.
2. Those that were unaware.
3. Those that actively attacked and mocked the birthers.
If the birthers are wrong, they will continue to be mocked. They will hide their heads in shame.
Those that were unaware, will likely continue to be unaware, no matter the outcome.
However, if it turns out that the birthers were correct, those that were presented with the information, and continued to mock the birthers, will be known as traitors to the United States of America.
Here comes the Judge
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633550/03118745409
Doesn’t the U.S. Attorneys office represent the people of the United States. Obama should have private attorneys handling this and paying with his own money. NOT THE TAX PAYERS
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19633559/03118746940
BDAMAN:
I dont want Joe Biden being president, knock it off.
It appears the story of Lucas Smith, the man who claims he obtained Obamas Original BC from Kenya is pretty slick.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109488
Neither do I, but Biden would only act as the president until a new one could be appointed.
bdaman,
“Biden would only act as the president until a new one could be appointed.”
I don’t think so. I think Biden would act as President until a new one was elected.
From the Twentieth Amendment:
“[I]f the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified”.
It is my understanding that Biden would remain acting-President until the next election is held, and the qualified winner becomes President, or until Biden resigns, or dies. If the latter were to occur the Twentieth Amendment would be controlling.
Biden could select Hillary to be VP, then he could resign and Hillary would become POTUS.
Oops.
Should be; If the latter were to occur the Twenty-Fifth Amendment would be controlling.
bdaman:
are you high re the kenyan BC?
see this link:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=108005
I dont think this is going to go anywhere, but you may get some people to believe you, the ones that wear white hoods or are bald.
I’ve looked into it and believe he is a NBC.
Byron
Judge postpones ‘birther’ hearing until Monday
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/836284.html
bdaman, I read the canadafreepress piece. It doesn’t really mean anything from a legal standpoint. That is, even if what he says is true, it would not void the election. At most it would require a correction to the paperwork. The writer also leaps to an erroneous conclusion regarding the meaning of the alleged error by asserting that it means that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements. Instead, the only conclusion to be reached if he is correct is that the papers required to confirm Obama’s eligibility have not been properly filed.
BIRTHER, your three classifications for those who disagree with your position don’t make sense. I understand evidence, but to date I have seen nothing but forgeries proffered to prove your case. If evidence should ever be presented to establish that Obama does not meet the constitutional requirements for the presidency, I will accept it as I do other court rulings. That will not make me a traitor. It will simply mean that I was misled. Finally, I note that I have made MANY mistakes in my life, for which I have always accepted responsibility (although sometimes only grudgingly). That is why I use my real name in my posts. I am not ashamed of my opinions or of my positions on the various issues that are discussed on this site.
Mike Appleton,
I agree. I don’t think it would void the election. However, I have not looked into the state laws that may have been violated. The fact that one copy does include the statement, and the other copy does not, does not bode well for the DNC.
As to my stated classes:
You stated; “I understand evidence, but to date I have seen nothing but forgeries proffered to prove your case.”
Tell me; what supporting evidence do you have that the Kenyan BC in the possession of Lucas Smith is a forgery?
Will you still consider it to be a forgery if I debunk your supporting evidence with historical records?
BIRTHER, my position has to do with the rules of evidence. As I previously noted, the document submitted by Mr. Smith is inadmissible as proof of the truth of its contents because it does not satisfy the foreign public records (or even the domestic public records) exception to the hearsay rule. It is not authenticated by the legal custodian of the birth records and is not accompanied by consular certification of the official position and authority of the legal custodian. Those are minimum requirements for admissibility. Until that happens, there is no evidence to rebut. In other words, the burden of proof remains with the proponents of the document at this point. That is not unique to this case; those rules are applicable to any evidentiary legal proceedings in U.S. courts.
With regard to historical evidence, I would love to see what you or anyone else has to offer.
BIRTHER, let me add something else. If I were counsel for the plaintiffs in this action, I would take a totally different approach. First, I would make certain that I could satisfy the issue of standing. Second, I would utilize procedures available under Kenyan law (including associating Kenyan counsel) to depose the custodian of records and every person whose name appears on the certificate, if those persons are still alive. I would also make inquiries of hospital employees and would compare the birth certificate furnished by Mr. Smith with a number of examples of contemporaneous certificates known to be valid for variations in form, content and signatures. When the issue is one of this importance, there is no such thing as too much preparation. Ms. Taitz has a tendency to be unprepared and very lax about procedural and substantive details. Those are very bad traits for a lawyer because of the impact on one’s credibility with a court. Even when a lawyer’s misstatement or misrepresentation is innocent, it has a tendency to make a judge skeptical about anything else the lawyer has to say. So the first rule of effective advocacy is to never present something as factual to a judge unless one is absolutely certain and has the evidence to support it.
Mike Appleton,
I will address your two latests comments one at a time.
First you determined that; “I have seen nothing but forgeries proffered to prove your case”. When I asked what evidence you have to support a claim that the Kenyan BC in the possession of Lucas Smith is a forgery, you provide no supporting evidence and change your position to that of claiming that the Kenyan BC will not comply with the rules of evidence. -There’s a big difference between calling something a forgery and claiming that it will not comply with the federal rules of evidence.
Are you withdrawing your claim that it is a forgery? If not, please support your claim.
You go on to say; “It is not authenticated by the legal custodian of the birth records”.
The legal custodian for that record is the Chief Administrator for the hospital from which it originated. If the stamp and seal is the customary certification, accepted in the courts of Kenya, it will likely prove to be sufficient here. (no matter how much we want to, we don’t get to make them change their ways)
You continue with; “[It] is not accompanied by consular certification of the official position and authority of the legal custodian”.
Federal Rule 902.3 provides an exception. “If reasonable opportunity has been given to all parties to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official documents, the court may, for good cause shown, order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them to be evidenced by an attested summary with or without final certification.”
Given the ease with which this document could be challenged, and the hardship endured in attaining it, the court will likely order it to be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification. -The court will consider; Whose privacy would be invaded by Obama being required to produce his vault BC to challenge the Kenyan BC? The OB that delivered him? Supposedly, Obama’s Hawaiian BC contains the same information.
I appreciate your suggestions for how to proceed. Many of them have already been accomplished.
You said; “I would utilize procedures available under Kenyan law (including associating Kenyan counsel) to depose the custodian of records and every person whose name appears on the certificate, if those persons are still alive.”
The attending physician is dead, but his daughter is a judge on the Kenyan High Court. I’m sure that she can provide documents for signature comparison.
The Motion for Rogatory was filed for the purpose of asking for assistance from a foreign jurisidiction.
I’m as interested in making sure this document is authentic as you are. I know you might not think that, and I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I am.
I will be happy to address specific claims of forgery, but I’m not going to lay all my cards on the table. My investigation leads me to believe the document to be authentic.
BIRTHER, I have two concerns. First, I previously mentioned the manner in which the dates appear on the document. They are written in the American form (month, day, year) rather than the British form one would expect (day, month, year). Secondly, I have been told that Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until 1963 and was not part of the British protectorate. I also have concerns about Mr. Smith personally due to his background, his willingness to break the law to secure the document and his efforts to sell it on eBay before patriotism or something else apparently got the better of him.
With regard to laying one’s cards on the table, that’s something I routinely do unless someone has already perjured himself and I am preparing for an appropriate impeachment opportunity. But since neither you nor I are involved in the litigation, your reluctance to reveal what you purport to know is inexplicable.
Mike fast forward to the two minute mark.
Parts two and three come at the end
Mike Appleton,
Kenya uses both date formats. I’d find the use of such to be a mess. When in long form, I have seen dd/mm/yr and mm/dd/yr. When abreviated, I have only seen them use m/d/y. Here’s the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date
And, since I don’t just trust wikipedia, here’s an Ebay auction for a stamp postmarked from 1906
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400041113527&_rdc=1
The question about Mombasa is easily settled by looking in a Brittish Publication from 1922 called “The Statesman’s Year-Book”. Here’s a link to the appropriate page http://books.google.com/books?id=TR8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=mombasa%20%2Bkenya%20%2Bprotectorate&as_brr=1&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20+kenya%20+protectorate&f=false
There you will see that Mombasa was a protectorate of the British Empire.
As far as cards on the table: You know I’ve done a lot of research on the merits of the entire case, including locating supporting evidence. I may provide support for Orly if asked. I wouldn’t want to give something away that may be beneficial to her trial strategy. I hope you understand.
My comment is awaiting moderation. -Oops. That’s what I get for trying to support it with links.
Here’s half
Mike Appleton,
Kenya uses both date formats. I’d find the use of such to be a mess. When in long form, I have seen dd/mm/yr and mm/dd/yr. When abreviated, I have only seen them use m/d/y. Here’s the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_date
And, since I don’t just trust wikipedia, here’s an Ebay auction for a stamp postmarked from 1906
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=400041113527&_rdc=1
As you can see, both date formats were used in Brittish Protectorates.
The question about Mombasa/Kenya/Zanzibar is easily settled by looking in a Brittish Publication from 1922 called “The Statesman’s Year-Book”. Here’s a link to the appropriate page http://books.google.com/books?id=TR8NAAAAIAAJ&dq=mombasa%20%2Bkenya%20%2Bprotectorate&as_brr=1&pg=PA183#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20+kenya%20+protectorate&f=false
There you will see that Mombasa was a protectorate of the British Empire.
As far as Lucas’ past and his willingness to break the law:
I don’t know the circumstances of his past. I can tell you this; I was no angel when I was younger. I just didn’t get caught. People change a lot from the time they’re teens and early twenties to their late twenties. They recognize that their future is affected by their past. Sometimes all it takes is a change of peers.
If Lucas’ wasn’t willing to break the law; Obama and his cousin (the Prime Minister of Kenya) would have potentially continued the perpetration of a fraud. -If this document is found to be authentic, would you still have a problem with how it was obtained? Or would you thank this man for protecting America?
I don’t know the motivation behind the Ebay auction. Perhaps he just wanted Obama to come clean. I sure wouldn’t find anything dishonorable about giving Obama a chance before you used the MSM or the courts against him. Would you?
As far as cards on the table: You know I’ve done a lot of research on the merits of the entire case, including locating supporting evidence. I may provide support for Orly if asked. I wouldn’t want to give something away that may be beneficial to her trial strategy. I hope you understand.
Mike, the Lucas Smith document could be a forgery in which he paid the administrator or some one who works for him to put the official stamp on it, ANYTHING is possible. The other thing that is possible is the president could place a call to the Hawaiin Dept. of Health and authorize them to release the original document. Instead we have an official from that Dept. who makes two statements claiming to have personally seen and verified that the state holds the original document in accordance to state policies and procedures. What is so secretive that only one person that we know of can claim they’ve seen the original document. Now we have four U.S. Attorneys at the tax payers expense trying to get yet another case thrown out on a technicality. The rumor mill is and is trying to be determined as fact, that ALL COLB’s from Hawaii regardless of where you were born in the Islands say Island of birth Oahu, County of birth Honolulu as in where the Department of Health is located.
The real question here is why does the president continue to allow this controversy to continue for almost a year now.
Senator Inhofe is quoted here and maybe it’s part of the whole skeem.
You, as a citizen, can say “this is unconstitutional.” File the lawsuit, go through the whole thing. Now, on the whole idea of the birth certificate for Obama, for example. You can do that. By the time you got a decision, it’d be ten years from now. And then the damage is already done.
http://washingtonindependent.com/58545/inhofe-its-not-worth-suing-obama-for-his-birth-certificate-because-it-would-take-ten-years-to-get-a-decision
Here is an interesting post at Free Republic about the governmental jurisdictions controlling Mombasa over the years. Mombasa is now part of the country of Kenya. In 1961, when it is alleged that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya was not a separate country yet. It was part of the British Protectorate of East Africa, and was not part of Zanzibar as the claim online in blogs to confuse issues. In 1961 what is now Kenya and what is now Zanzibar were both part of the British Protectorate of East Africa. Read the post at Free Republic for more details. Also, links are provided there to some neat historical maps.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2334186/posts
NH SECRETARY OF STATE AGREES TO INVESTIGATE
by John Charlton
Rep. Lawrence Rappaport, and his wife
(Sept. 12, 2009) — New Hampshire State Representative, Lawrence M. Rappaport payed a visit to Mr. William Gardner, the NH Secretary of State, on Thursday, Sept. 10th.
His stunning request: an investigation of Barack Hussein Obama’s presence on the NH 2008 Ballot.
Gardner’s stunning response: an investigation will commence.
I interviewed Mr. Rappaport by email, and asked him, on what basis did he make his complaint; he responded, “The basis for all of this is possible fraud. I don’t know what penalties will be assessed if fraud is proven.”
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/nh-rep-rappaport-requests-investigation-of-obamas-eligibility/
For those who say it’s racial
Some blacks now have doubts about Obama
By Star Parker on September 12th, 2009
According to the Pew Research Center, the president’s approval rating nationwide is now 10 points lower than last April. Included in this is a three-point drop in his approval among blacks.
You might say, Star, a drop in approval ratings among blacks from 95 percent to 92 percent is trivial. But I say not so.
If we assume this reflects the 16 million blacks who voted for Obama last November, a three point shift means there are about a half million blacks who now have buyer’s remorse.
bd says “The rumor mill is and is trying to be determined as fact, that ALL COLB’s from Hawaii regardless of where you were born in the Islands say Island of birth Oahu, County of birth Honolulu as in where the Department of Health is located.”
This is just another rumor. It is false. It may be spread far and wide on the birther web, but it is still untrue. The World Nut Daily keeps including in many of its articles the false statement that Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born out of state showing Hawaii birth.
Here are the facts for the readers. Hawaii has had a law since the 1980s permitting parents of minor children born out of state to be issued state birth certificates, provided that the parents meet a residency requirement. These certificates have to show the real place of birth. They cannot show birth in Hawaii, because that would be fraudulent, and the law specifically prohibits “fraudulent applications.”
It is also claimed that all certificates list birth in Honolulu, Oahu regardless of where the birth occurred. That is inherently ridiculous, and no proof is offered. Even if it were true, and it is not, so what? All of the islands are part of the U.S., so the COLBs would still prove birth in America.
Keeping to the facts, here is the full statute, citation, and link:
[§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.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Sources: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
According to wiki, birthers have “pointed to a provision of Hawaiian law that permits the issuance of certifications of live birth to those born outside the state or even outside the country.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
The implication is that Obama could have been issued a birth certificate in 1961 even if he had been born in Kenya. But this suggestion was rejected by Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.” That statement was quoted in the Washington Independent: http://washingtonindependent.com/51489/birther-movement-picks-up-steam
So the false statements just keep piling up.
bd says “The rumor mill is and is trying to be determined as fact, that ALL COLB’s from Hawaii regardless of where you were born in the Islands say Island of birth Oahu, County of birth Honolulu as in where the Department of Health is located.”
This is just another rumor. It is false. It may be spread far and wide on the birther web, but it is still untrue. The World Nut Daily keeps including in many of its articles the false statement that Hawaii will issue birth certificates for children born out of state showing Hawaii birth.
Here are the facts for the readers. Hawaii has had a law since the 1980s permitting parents of minor children born out of state to be issued state birth certificates, provided that the parents meet a residency requirement. These certificates have to show the real place of birth. They cannot show birth in Hawaii, because that would be fraudulent, and the law specifically prohibits “fraudulent applications.”
It is also claimed that all certificates list birth in Honolulu, Oahu regardless of where the birth occurred. That is inherently ridiculous, and no proof is offered. Even if it were true, and it is not, so what? All of the islands are part of the U.S., so the COLBs would still prove birth in America.
Keeping to the facts, here is the full statute, citation, and link:
[§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.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
Sources: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
According to wiki, birthers have “pointed to a provision of Hawaiian law that permits the issuance of certifications of live birth to those born outside the state or even outside the country.”
The implication is that Obama could have been issued a birth certificate in 1961 even if he had been born in Kenya. But this suggestion was rejected by Janice Okubo, director of communications for the Hawaii Department of Health: “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.” That statement was quoted in the Washington Independent.
So the false statements just keep piling up.
Vince I was just talking about you, matter of fact gave you a fine compliment. In short told all, with the recent mediation of Professor Turley on civility on another thread and because the Professor has time constraints, he may be better served by appointing a moderator. I chose you. Welcome back.
Alot of interesting questions have been popping up since the last time you posted. I won’t describe it a sense of temperature but I do believe the outer layers of clothes are beginning to shed an soon, we will have the bare naked truth. The Pelosi double document story is what has the clothes starting to fall to the ground. The ground is wet and there’s gettin ready to be a little mud slinging.
The focus now will shift to finger pointing and lies how this could of happen. The BC/COLB are no longer the main issue. Now you have alleged fraud in documentation, you have active cases questioning eligibility and members of the military questioning orders with some online attorney from Russia, no less, flying around the United States appearing in Federal Courthouses. I would roll on the floor laughing my you know who off, if she ever made it to argue in front of the Supreme Court and she’s licensed to be there. We are now one ring short of a three ring circus. Sing the circus song and use the word duped.
It really is sad the way that this really is but, it is what it is.
Anyways nice to have you back Vince
It’s guys like you that help me stand corrected.
It appears that Capt. Rhodes was prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing. She was threatened with a charge of AWOL and would be court martialed if she left the base to attend the hearing.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/164/story/836629.html?storylink=omni_popular
Six minute interview with the reporter from the ledger examining the BC and confirming parts of Mr. Lucas research.
It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.
Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.
Rhodes has already had a day in court in anotear fedral district court, and her claim was dismissed.
Read the article.
The hearing is set for today, Monday Sep 14.
Written prediction™ ®: case dismissed.
From the Ledger Enquirer
A U.S. District Court hearing to determine if a Army captain fighting deployment to Afghanistan because of the challenged the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency was rescheduled for Monday.
Capt. Connie Rhodes filed the complaint last week and Judge Clay Land granted an emergency hearing Friday afternoon in the Columbus federal courthouse.
Rhodes, a medical doctor who was with her unit in Fort Riley, Kan., did not attend the hearing. That prompted Land to reschedule it for noon Monday.
Ausprung said the Army would make Rhodes available.
Rhodes is scheduled to arrive at Fort Benning Saturday and deploy within seven days.
Rhodes’ attorney Orly Taitz — a national figure in the “birther” movement — was in Land’s court. Rhodes was ordered by her commanding officers not to leave Kansas, Taitz told the court.
“That is not the information I have from Fort Riley,” said Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington. Rhodes had not informed her supervisor, Ausprung told the court.
Land made it clear he wanted to hear from Rhodes.
“I am going to require her to appear, so I can ask questions of her,” Land said.
Taitz is so incompetent that she asked for a jury trial in an injunction proceeding. Jury trial is guaranteed in suits at common law (remember?), but an application for temporary restraining order is a proceeding in equity, not common law, and the right to jury trial does not apply. http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/page/2/
Rhodes, wherever you are, fire this lawyer now. She is totally incompetent and can ruin your career just as she ruined Cook’s.
Caught by Richey at Dr. Conspiracy” “I just noticed something about the Smith birth certificate which I missed before. The stamp identifies the hospital administrator as Helton Haganga, but the signature says Helton Maganga. Hmmm…”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/emergency-hearing-in-barnett-v-obama-in-ga/
Welcome back Vince. I see it didn’t take take long for you to resume posting your personal opinions as though they were fact. Is that standard for trial attorneys?
1. As to the rumor that all Hawaiian COLBs list Oahu as the Island of birth, and Honolulu as the county of birth; Vince Treacy states; “This is just another rumor. It is false.”
-Vince, Support your claim. You can’t debunk rumor with personal belief. Show us an Hawaiian COLB that supports your claim.
Over the weekend, I decided to look into what information has already been released to the American public, and what information is contained on a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate. In other words; what information, if released, would violate Obama’s privacy?
From what I can tell; If Obama has been completely honest with us, the only information, that has not already been released to the public, would be the name of the person who affirmed his birth (i.e. doctor, midwife, or other) and the signature of the local registrar.
Obama is currently spending taxpayer money to keep the name of the doctor who delivered him, and the name of the department of health employee that registered his birth, from being known
to the public.
Does that make any sense to you?
The name of the local registrar isn’t likely to create any controversy.
The name of the doctor; now that’s a different story. Just kidding! Who would care about the doctor that delivered him?
There is, however, another possibility. One that is sure to cause controversy. What if his birth WAS NOT affirmed by a physician? What if Obama’s birth was affirmed by Grandma Dunham? Now that’s something Obama would want to hide!
If Grandma Dunham affirmed his birth;
1. Obama’s declaration, that he was born at Kapiolani Maternity Hospital, would have been fabricated.
2. The possibility of his birth having taken place in a foreign country would be much more likely to be accepted.
We have two records indicating that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, (both of which, contrary to previous claims, are proving to be valid) and we have a birth record in the vault of the Hawaiian DOH. (of which, the name of the person who affirmed his birth has been hidden from the public.)
It’s time for Obama to come clean. If the records of Kenyan birth are true and correct representations, and Obama’s Hawaiian birth affirmation was signed by Grandma Dunham, we have a fraud in the White House. Tell Obama to authorize the release of the name of the person who affirmed his birth, and we will have the answer.
Here are all the reasons that point to a loss by Rhodes:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
____________________________________
CAPTAIN CONNIE RHODES, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLONEL THOMAS D. MACDONALD)
et al.
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
COMES NOW Defendants, by and through counsel, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, and respectfully submit their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and the accompanying Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction submitted by Plaintiff, Captain Connie Rhodes. In support of this submission, we rely upon Plaintiff’s Complaint, her Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, the following brief, and its attached exhibit.
I. NATURE OF THE CASE
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. is an active duty Army officer assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas. She is a medical doctor currently serving as a Flight Surgeon at Fort Riley. On August 25, 2009, the Army issued orders for Captain Rhodes to report to Fort Benning, Georgia on September 12, 2009, for deployment with the 501st Medical Company to Iraq. DEX A. Captain Rhodes comes before this Court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent her deployment to Iraq, claiming that the President’s legitimacy is “open to serious question” and compliance with her orders would constitute”involuntary servitude or judicially sanctioned rape of her individual autonomy.” Pl. TRO App. at 8. Captain Rhodes previously filed an application for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, challenging these deployment orders, also citing reservations regarding the legitimacy of President Barack Obama as the Commander-in-Chief. Rhodes v. Gates, et al., (No. 09-cv-703, August 28, 2009). On August 28, 2009, the Western District of Texas court denied Captain Rhodes’ application for a temporary restraining order, finding that she had no likelihood of success on the merits, there was no irreparable injury that she would suffer from compliance with her orders, and she failed to demonstrate that the issuance of a temporary restraining order would serve the public interest. Id.
As in her previous case in the Western District of Texas, Captain Rhodes fails to meet her burden for obtaining injunctive relief. First, she has no likelihood of success on the merits. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas has already ruled on the transactional facts that Captain Rhodes seeks to re-litigate here. Therefore, she is barred from bringing this cause of action anew in this Court. Moreover, even if her claim were not barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, her claims are nevertheless barred because they are nonreviewable under the political question doctrine and would require review by this Court of nonjusticiable military decisions. Given these impediments to Captain Rhodes’ claims, her request for injunctive relief should be denied, and her complaint should be dismissed.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Court were to find that Captain Rhodes claims were not barred, she does not meet the standard for injunctive relief. Captain Rhodes has failed to demonstrate that she will suffer irreparable harm from complying with her deployment orders. Captain Rhodes maintains that she has no objection to military service–only military service in Iraq. Captain Rhodes, as with every other service member in today’s military, voluntarily entered military service with full knowledge that she may be required to deploy overseas. As such, she cannot demonstrate that service in Iraq, as opposed to service at Fort Riley, subjects her to irreparable harm.
Moreover, the harm to the Army from the precedential effect of such an injunction far outweighs any speculative injury Captain Rhodes may suffer. Finally, the public interest does not lie with excusing Captain Rhodes from her obligation to comply with her orders. As such, her request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction should be denied. UNQUOTE
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/rhodes-v-mcdonald-doc-8-motion-to-dismiss/
This summary sets out all of the facts, and clears up a lot of distortions. My question is why the officer objects only to the order to deploy to Iraq. If her theory is correct, then EVERY order given to her every single day in the Army is illegal. She should protest by sitting naked in a tree like Yossarian.
Note that a suit has already been filed and dismissed in Texas. Normally, the remedy for an unjust or illegal dismissal is appeal. Yes, appeal. Appeal the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and if you lose there, then on to the Supreme Court on cert.
Orly is either incompetent (preferred hypothesis) or sees legal doctrines heretofore invisible to the entire legal profession.
MORE MISINFORMATION: COURTESY OF VINCE TREACY
“Vince states; “It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.
Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.”
THE TRUTH: At Fridays hearing the Judge asked where Capt. Rhodes was. He was informed by her attorney that she was not granted leave to attend the hearing. The Army Officer who attended the hearing said that was not the case, and that she would make Capt. Rhodes available for today’s hearing.
Either Orly and/or Capt. Rhodes is lying, or the Army Officer (attorney) is lying. Why would Capt. Rhodes lie? Why wouldn’t she want to attend the hearing? That wouldn’t make any sense.
We will likely never know what prevented Capt. Rhodes from attending (unless she submitted a leave request, and it was denied -a record with signatures).
Vince’s claim that bdaman’s information is “misinformation” may just be a misunderstanding on Vince’s part.
Vince continues:
“I just noticed something about the Smith birth certificate which I missed before. The stamp identifies the hospital administrator as Helton Haganga, but the signature says Helton Maganga.”
There is no way to conclude, with any accuracy, from the published, purposely distorted, Smith birth certificate that the letter “M” is acutally the letter “H”.
Vince, You and Rich (at Dr. Conspiracy) are grasping at straws.
Birther has a lot of opinions. It is my opinion that Orly was lying, and that Army lawyer Rebecca Auspring was telling the truth.
It is just not a fact to say, as bd did, that Cook was prohibited from the hearing, since the article said she would appear on Monday, and I wanted to clarify that point for the readers.
Cook said nothing since she was not at the hearing, so there was no reason to ask if she had a reason to lie. This is pretty weak stuff that birther is coming up with, grasping at straws. I am just trying to get some information out to the readers of this site.
Vince, take a minute to familiarize yourself with the players.
Major Cook was a different case. This is the case of Capt. Rhodes.
Being prevent from attending Firday’s hearing has nothing to do with attendance at today’s hearing.
“Cook was prohibited from the hearing, since the article said she would appear on Monday, and I wanted to clarify that point for the readers.”
According to Taitz, Rhodes was prevented from attending the hearing that took place last Friday.
The Army representative said that she would make sure Rhodes was present at the hearing on Monday (today).
It’s hard to clarify a point when you don’t know the players, and you don’t know the difference between Friday and Monday.
A little more research, and a little less copy and paste might be beneficial.
All readers. Hawaiian birth records have been examined by the officially legally authorized custodians. They have attested that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have twice issued official statements.
The COLB meets all the requirements of a legal birth certificate under United States law. See section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It is issued by the local government agency and the authorized custodian of record. It was produced from birth records maintained by the agency and custodian.
I have posted section 7211 many times. It is amazing to me that a debate continues over birth certificates at a legal blog without any reference to the legal definition of a birth certificate.
It is prima facie legal evidence of birth in the US.
It has been given to at least two news agencies for verification.
It shows Obama was born in the United States. He is eligible to be President.
If anyone else from Hawaii runs for President in 2012, and is asked for a birth certificate, they will have to ask the state for the certificate. They will get a COLB. The state issues no other form of certificate any more. They can then run against Obama, who, unique among all 2008 candidates, DID release his certificate.
Over against all of this, the birthers keep asking for the name of the hospital and witnesses and a myriad of other items. But these are just idle questions. They do not cast any doubt on the regularity of the public records
And, they are irrelevant to the issue of birth in the US.
The birthers are totally disingenuous, cynical and hypocritical on this issue. They have nearly all said in advance that they will continue to challenge Obama’s eligibility, no matter what or how many records he may released. They know the state records show birth in the US. They have admitted they still challenge him. So, many of them are just lying when they say that Obama can end the controversy by authorizing release.
They will still claim that he had to have two US parents, or that dual citizenship disqualified him. These claims, too, have been analyzed here and found wanting.
Finally, the different Kenyan birth certificates are such transparent phonies that even the World Nut Daily has disavowed them. One of them was only shown on hazy video, for crying out loud. They are going nowhere.
I am just posting this for the readers so that the bd and birther claims do not appear to be uncontested.
This is from Tonchen’s site. If anyone still believes the birthers when they say that Obama can end the controversy by releasing the long form or vault copy or underlying original records or whatever it is that they want, then read this over. The birth records will never end the controversy.
QUOTE ON
21. If President Obama’s birth certificate shows conclusively that he was born in Hawaii, would it end the eligibility controversy?
Definitely not! President Obama has stated publicly that his father was not a U.S. citizen. According to the birthers’ understanding of history and law, if his father was not a U.S. citizen, President Obama cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen, regardless of where he might have been born. If President Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen, but he would not necessarily be a Constitutional natural born citizen.
Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens. QUOTE OFF
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref20
“Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved, until the Supreme Court decides whether the U.S.-born children of non-U.S.-citizen parents are Constitutional natural born citizens.”
Then why avoid it? Is that how we resolve contraversies in this country? Do we use legal tactics to avoid legal decisions? Is that the way honorable people resolve disputes?
It’s nice to see that you (Vince) finally recognize that an unsettle dispute does exist.
The transparency and integrity of Obama is evidenced by his unwillingness to have the controversy resolved. Hide everything, and run from anything that may challenge his legitimacy has become his mantra.
Obama could not obtain a security clearance with the information he has made public. However, he has been granted the authority to make use of our nuclear arsenal solely on the basis of an unsigned piece of paper. That scares the hell out of me.
Further, “Regardless of what his birth certificate says, Obama’s presidential eligibility will never be settled or resolved”.
If it says that Grandma Dunham affirmed his birth; it will settle a lot.
Bd says Obama could not get a security clearance.
That is a false statement, and he has no support for it.
Obama could get a security clearance with the COLB, just like every other person born in Hawaii. I have posted the legal basis for this conclusion. The COLB meets the definition in section 7211.
There sure is a lot of confusion, most of it by bda and birthdaman. I never mentioned Cook, except to warn Rhodes of a similar fate. My posting had all the relevant information:
QUOTE Rhodes, a medical doctor who was with her unit in Fort Riley, Kan., did not attend the hearing. That prompted Land to reschedule it for noon Monday.
Ausprung said the Army would make Rhodes available.
Rhodes is scheduled to arrive at Fort Benning Saturday and deploy within seven days.
Rhodes’ attorney Orly Taitz — a national figure in the “birther” movement — was in Land’s court. Rhodes was ordered by her commanding officers not to leave Kansas, Taitz told the court.
“That is not the information I have from Fort Riley,” said Maj. Rebecca Ausprung, with the Department of the Army, Litigation Division in Washington. Rhodes had not informed her supervisor, Ausprung told the court. UNQUOTE
So Rhodes unit was not due in Benning until Saturday. It is not surprising that she could not make a Friday hearing. According to the Army attorney, Rhodes never informed her supervisor. Taitz is the only source for the idea that Rhodes was barred from court. The credibility of Orly Taitz is at an all time low.
So, readers, there was no credible evidence of a malign conspiracy to keep Rhodes out of court. Her unit was in TEXAS on the day scheduled for the hearing. She was not even in the jurisdiction of the Georgia federal court. She arrived Saturday. She may be in court Monday.
I am not going to spend much more time on this. Bd and birther can wrestle it to death. I will check back in after the case is dismissed.
“I never mentioned Cook, except to warn Rhodes of a similar fate”
At 10:24 AM today, you mentioned Cook twice. While I’m sure it was a mistake; nevertheless you did mention Cook.
Bd says Obama could not get a security clearance.
Where did I say that
It is said by bd that Rhodes was “prohibited by her superior to attend her own emergency federal hearing.” Wrong again.
Still more misinformation. The article expressly says that the Army litigation attorney would make Rhodes available for the Monday hearing. She will attend here own hearing.
Thats why the case was postponed until today from Friday. The judge wants her in court. She was prevented from doing so on Friday. She was told that if she did not meet with her superior on Friday she would be listed as AWOL and court martialed. She has given a sworn affidavit stating just that.
Vince,
You just quoted an article stating the Capt. Rhodes was in Kansas, then you declare that she was in Texas.
Is it Cook or is it Rhodes? Was she in Kansas on Friday or was it Texas?
Take a break. Familiarize yourself with the facts and get back to us.
Sorry, bd. As you well know, birther said it.
All readers. Hawaiian birth records have been examined by the officially legally authorized custodians. They have attested that Obama was born in Hawaii. They have twice issued official statements.
And the last statement provided from a SPOKESPERSON for the Hawaiian health dept. affirms the president is a natural born citizen even though no court in the rule of the land ever determined what a natural born citizen is.
Just trying to keep it honest Vince and I appreciate you involved in the debate.
Birther lets be civil Vince is the only one willing to stay actively involved in the debate.
Notarized statement from Cpt Connie rhodes MD, attesting to the fact that she was forbidden to leave the base and appear in court
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wft5MM5SDCM/Sq0RbrCEJLI/AAAAAAAAAzk/4_ZoBJtcn54/s1600-h/connie-rhodes-statement-621×1024.png
Vince,
You are CANNOT obtain a security clearance with only a COLB.
When applying for a security clearance, a thourough background check is completed.
You’re relying on Section 7211, which has to do with “Terrorist Travel and Effective Screening”. That’s all it has to do with.
Look at page 6 of the INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM
PREVENTION ACT OF 2004.
http://www.nctc.gov/docs/pl108_458.pdf
The finger pointing has begun
Reverse Analysis: Why Did Hawaii Get A Different DNC Certification Than Other States?
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/reverse-analysis-why-did-hawaii-get-a-different-dnc-certification-than-other-states/
Would Hawaiian Law, in effect at the time of Obama’s birth, permit Obama’s grandmother to affirm his birth in Hawaii?
The answer is yes.
If she did, would Hawaii have a birth certificate for Barack Obama?
The answer is yes.
How can this be answered?
Look at who affirmed his birth.
The answer is simple. The avoidance is incredible.
Hawaii can have a birth certificate on in the vault. It can even say that he was born in Hawaii. What would make us question that?
Answer: common sense. Would it be unreasonalbe for Obama Sr. to take his new bride to meet the family in Kenya during the summer break? Of course. As a proud Kenyan, would he maybe want his child to be born on his homeland? Sure.
It appears that Berg has jumped backed in.
On September 9, 2009, a subpoena was issued by the District Court of the United States, 3rd Circuit, and has been served via registered mail (#RE184168898US) on the Consulate General of Kenya in Los Angeles.
The subpoena commands him to produce and permit the inspection and copying of the Certificate of Birth of Barack Hussein Obama II.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/KenyaSubpoena.jpg
Question? how does the court issue a subpoena for a document that supposedly does not exist.
Greetings Honorable Consul General:
My office legally represents the United States (Federal Government) at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, in the case of Berg v. Obama et al., Appeal No. 08-4443:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/obama/third.circuit/nad02.htm
Please be advised that newly found evidence renders it appropriate formally to serve your good offices with a SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE, duly issued by the District Court of the United States for the Central District of California.
The purpose of this SUBPOENA will be to command your good offices to produce and permit inspection and copying of an authentic original of the attached CERTIFIED COPY OF REGISTRATION OF BIRTH of Barack Hussein Obama II on August 4, 1961 A.D., at Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa, Republic of Kenya.
Please be aware that there is a separate District Court proceeding presently underway in the United States District Court for the Central District of California which also seeks to compel authentication of said REGISTRATION OF BIRTH: Keyes et al. v. Obama et al., case number 8:09-cv-82 (USDC, Los Angeles, California, USA).
this is a very large file. It took over five minutes to load. The site is getting alot of traffic. Well worth the wait.
http://216.221.102.26/blogger/post/SUBPOENA-IN-A-CIVIL-CASE-served-on-Consulate-General-of-Kenya-in-Los-Angeles-(Obama-eligibility).aspx
http://www.nctc.gov/docs/pl108_458.pdf
We have been through this all before. The only form Hawaii issues is the Certification of Live Birth COLB. If it is not good enough for a security clearance for Obama, then NOBODY from Hawaii can ever get a security clearance. That is an extraordinary claim by birther, with no support. Does it seriously mean that anyone born in Hawaii who presents a COLB will be denied a security clearance?
Perhaps it means the investigator must go to the bureau of vital statistics to verify birth.
Well, anyone investigating Obama for a security clearance would have had to go to the state bureau in Hawaii. But those officials have already certified that the records show Obama was born in Hawaii.
Maybe it means that no mere certificate is valid for a security clearance, from any state, but that proves too much.
In any event, birther is wrong about the scope of the act. The act is not limited to travel documents. Page 190 of the pdf says that no Federal agency can accept a birth certificate unless it conforms to the new standards set up by the law. “No Federal agency.” So the law applies to all agencies, as the reader can verify.
A Hawaii COLB is valid in all 50 states under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution.
PS, Berg’s “subpoena” will go nowhere, because there is nothing to subpoena, since there is no Obama birth certificate in Mombasa, because he was not born there, or anywhere else in Hawaii, but was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, United States of America.
Maybe Obama’s father wanted him born in Kenya. Maybe his father wanted him born on Krypton and sent to earth to save all mankind. All kinds of speculation are possible.
Correcting typo:
PS, Berg’s “subpoena” will go nowhere, because there is nothing to subpoena, since there is no Obama birth certificate in Mombasa, because he was not born there, or anywhere else in Africa, but was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, United States of America.
Wrong Vince,
There is a Kenyan birth certificate, because that’s where Obama was born.
Dr. Ang’awa affirmed his Kenyan birth.
Who affirmed his Hawaiian birth? I’m waiting.
I’ve got a witness (maybe even multiples) saying that they attended the birth in Kenya, and I have two “signed” documents reporting such.
What do you have? Who was it signed by?
Who are you relying on? Factcheck? They have already been debunked. They, like Vince, don’t know the difference between a “certification” and a “certificate”.
While it is true that, via normal channels, a certification of birth is the only document made available. However, that doesn’t mean that a certified copy of the vault document could not be produced.
Let me repeat that: A certified copy of the vault document can be obtained. It is only Barack Obama who is preventing that from happening.
Vince,
Now you’ve gone and done it – Orly will be trying to subpoena the Kryptonian birth certificate by the end of the week… Welcome back. I don’t know where you find the time to do all of this research, but thank you for doing it.
bdaman, BIRTHER, et al,
Please try to think about things before you post them – did it ever occur to you that Hawaii got a different DNC certification because it was the state that President Obama was born in? Did you check to see if John Kerry’s MA form was different or Al Gore’s TN form? If not, you have a thin piece of data on which you are hanging an awful lot of supposition, if so, you have nothing. If you look back at this thread (you know, in your week or two of spare time
) you will find that in general Vince’s posts have been better argued, better supported, and showed a better understanding of the law than the posts he was refuting. It has been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Well, you guys have been making extraordinary claims (That the presidency of the USA has been usurped) with (at best) weak evidence. Vince on the other had, has frequently backed up ordinary claims with an abundance of proof. If someone with a truly open mind were to read this thread, do you honestly think that they would your arguments more compelling than his?
Sorry, typo in my last post. It should read: “…do you honestly think that they would FIND your arguments more compelling than his?”
Who affirmed Obama’s Hawaiian birth?
Who affirmed Obama’s Hawaiian birth?
Who affirmed Obama’s Hawaiian birth?
Until you can produce that, you have no witness.
Are you tring to claim that Obama witnessed his own birth?
There is no record of Obama’s mother ever being a patient at either of the two hospitals that Obama or his sister claim to be his birthplace.
Slart at this moment no one knows why the State of Hawaii was sent a different document than the other 49 states. Why the need for two different documents and Kerry and Gores cert has been verified that they do not contain the language legally eligible in the certification. The question is if there’s did not have it why the need for it in 2008 and only to Hawaii.
Birther:
those files could have been lost. it was over 40 years ago before computers, they had carbon paper then.
What do the 2000 and 2004 filings in Hawaii for Gore and Kerry say?
Did Hawaii question his NBC status, and the DNC wanted to assure them that he met the qualifications?
SO many questions. So few answers.
Byron,
That would be even more reason to have a “need to know” who affirmed his birth.
Birther you hit the nail on the head and with each hit the nail sinks further into the coffin.
Here’s the answer
Section 11-113 states:
(1) In the case of candidates of political parties which have been qualified to place candidates on the primary and general election ballots, the appropriate official of those parties shall file a sworn application with the chief election officer not later than 4:30 p.m. on the sixtieth day prior to the general election, which shall include:
(A) The name and address of each of the two candidates;
(B) A statement that each candidate is legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution;
[Hawaii does require the "legally qualified" language as quoted above.]
If the “legally qualified” language was in the prior certifications given to Hawaii by the DNC in 2000 and 2004 then this is a non-issue.
bdaman,
“Hawaii does require the “legally qualified” language as quoted above.”
So does every other state that I have found.
In the primary election the candidate himself/herself is required to sign a statement to that effect. However, in the general election, the candidates names are submitted by the Party.
I’d be interested in seeing what the RNC filed.
Without digging for the link the RNC filed legally eligible for MCcain in all 50 states but this may be because of Sen. Reso 511
The Senate Resolution has no legal force or effect. At best, it could only be used as defense for McCain in a fraud claim.
If you read the comments made by Leahy and McCaskill, you’d find them laughable.
Leahy seems to think that as long as your parents are U.S. Citizens, you can be born anywhere and be a “natural born citizen”.
“Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, said;
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen”.
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html
And these are the same people responsible for running our country? Someone should ask both of them if they ever bothered to do any research.
I doubt that Vince would agree with either of their statements.
I’m simply stating that they may have used the language as to affirm Sen Reso 511.
At it again, bda: “There is no record of Obama’s mother ever being a patient at either of the two hospitals that Obama or his sister claim to be his birthplace.”
Everyone, on another thread, bda claimed that Obama’s sister said that he was born at Queens hospital. He offered a source, the Rainbow newsletter, a high school paper, but THE ARTICLE NEVER QUOTED THE SISTER. The student reporter named the wrong hospital. Bda never responded to the correction.
So, it is a neverending task. A factoid is floated. It is refuted after long research. Then it is remorselessly floated again. This just in: bda is still wrong. More at eleven.
Same with this stuff about who affirmed the birth. I recently reviewed a series of birth certificates and the record of an investigation. The hospital is listed, but there is no name of a physician or of any other witness affirming birth, in either the officially certified records issued by the government, or in the records reported by the investigator. There is no such requirement in the Constitution or in the law.
The birthers still float the story of the two hospitals. It is false. Obama, family, and the hospital have consistently said he was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center. There are two hospitals in Honolulu, both named after Queens, and they can be confused. A newsweb article got it wrong again last year, and the birthers went into orbit.
For the record, Al Gore was born in D.C. where his father was in the Congress, not in Tennessee.
Where were these “birthers,” who claim to be the protectors of the constitution, when the Supreme Court violated the separation of powers doctrine at the highest level possible and, acting as an oligarchy of five, appointed a president? What would John Marshall call it …. oh yeah, TREASON TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Yet they still don’t accept that States elect presidents and have no idea what to do about Hawaii certifying that Obama is a NBC.
Pathetic
“There is no record of Obama’s mother ever being a patient at either of the two hospitals that Obama or his sister claim to be his birthplace.”
Vince,
There is no record of Obama’s mother being a patient at either of the two hopsitals. If you want to refute that statement, try using something that supports you claim. Since I can’t prove that something doesn’t exist, actually doesn’t exist, the burden must be placed on the one that claims such records do exist.
First it was Obama’s half-sister that got it wrong. Now, it;s the student that got it wrong. How does a student confuse Queens with Kapiolani? How would the student have even know of Kapiolani? -This was a 2004 interview. Obama’s own Senate Biography page stated that he was born at Queens.
You just don’t stop making things up; do you?
“Same with this stuff about who affirmed the birth. I recently reviewed a series of birth certificates and the record of an investigation. The hospital is listed, but there is no name of a physician or of any other witness affirming birth, in either the officially certified records issued by the government, or in the records reported by the investigator. There is no such requirement in the Constitution or in the law.”
Over the last few months, I looked at over 500 birth certificates, and everyone of them has the signature of the person who affirmed the birth. Since the records that you are looking at are an anomaly, why don’t you post them? I’d be interested in seeing these BCs with no affirmation. A record of a hospital birth exists, but has no witness to that birth. I’d be interested in the details of how such could occur. Redact what you need to and upload them to scribd.com. We’ll be waiting.
Screen capture of snopes
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQueens.bmp
More supporting Obama born at Queens.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaQueensHospital.jpg
Here’s a good article about the the many hospitals of Barack Obama
Vince claims;
QUOTE -”So Rhodes unit was not due in Benning until Saturday. It is not surprising that she could not make a Friday hearing. According to the Army attorney, Rhodes never informed her supervisor. Taitz is the only source for the idea that Rhodes was barred from court. The credibility of Orly Taitz is at an all time low.
So, readers, there was no credible evidence of a malign conspiracy to keep Rhodes out of court. Her unit was in TEXAS on the day scheduled for the hearing. She was not even in the jurisdiction of the Georgia federal court. She arrived Saturday. She may be in court Monday.” -UNQUOTE
Well Vince, what do you say to a letter from Capt. Rhodes?
1:20 into the video:
Judge questions Orly Taitz claims to have Obama birth certificate in hearing where Army officer fights deployment
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/839473.html
Judge Land will rule on Wednesday
Vince if we are allowed to view the long form it would be irrefutable evidence to exactly which hospital he was born in. It will also tell us weight, length time of birth and attending physician. If the president would of done so long ago there wouldn’t be any questions.
Thats right, only the spokesperson from the HDH can see it and affirm the president is a natural born citizen. SHHH TOP SECRET not classified for public discussion.
Vince are you o.k. I’ve scanned the thread and don’t see this questioned anywhere
Vince Treacy 1, September 14, 2009 at 3:02 pm
For the record, Al Gore was born in D.C. where his father was in the Congress, not in Tennessee.
Also you brought up the hospital stuff out of no where. I must be missing comments.
BIRTHER, as a technical matter, by filing an action a party submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court in which the action is filed. Therefore, he is subject to the orders of that court and is required to appear if ordered to do so unless a proper continuance motion is filed and ruled upon in advance.
Also, the burden of proof keeps coming up in this thread. That burden remains with Ms. Taitz until she establishes a prima facie case, which means securing the admission of the birth certificate she claims to be authentic.
I see Birther posted the you tube of the National Press Club.
Vince you used BDA is at it again. Please do not confuse me with birther, thats twice you’ve done that today. It may appear we are one and the same, but we are not.
Mike in the court room today Judge Land had this exchange with Taitz.
“Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz.
The judge pointed out that burden fell on Rhodes because she sought the restraining order to stop her deployment.
Isn’t it that the Constitution says that it is the candidate’s responsibility to prove eligibility to hold the office – not the public to prove the candidate is not eligible.
bdaman,
I mentioned Al Gore’s birthplace (which I mistakenly assumed was Tennessee). If you need to worry if someone is okay, I’d start a little closer to home (hint: look in a mirror). Do you read or watch the links you post? In the article about Cpt. Rhodes, the judge tells Orly that the burden of proof (that the president is unqualified) is on her – what does this mean? As I’m sure Vince could tell you, it means that in that court (and I suspect any other where the issue arises) Barack Obama is a natural born citizen until proven otherwise. As has been discussed here, Orly has no proof of her claim. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that she understands that she should have secured such proof BEFORE filing her case if she had any prayer of winning it. While I will admit that your persistence is impressive, don’t you see that your arguments have all been destroyed, the motives of the birthers (and you by association) have been laid bare, and the odds against one of these Kenyan birth certificates being recognized as valid by any court are astronomical. What I would like to know is why do you keep doing this?
bdaman,
The candidate was certified as qualified to be president (you can tell by the fact that he’s been doing the job for 8 months now…). If someone (like Captain Rhodes) feels that this qualification was fraudulent, then it is up to her to provide evidence that this is the case. Since in everything I’ve ever heard from Orly, she seems to be trying to get the courts to verify Obama’s qualifications (which, in a legal sense have already been verified) rather that addressing her burden of proof, the judge’s comments lead me to think that this case will not end well for the good Dr. Taitz, esq.
I will say that following this thread for the last 15 years (or however long it’s been around) has been a fascinating window into how both lawyers and non-lawyers see the law.
bdaman, Slartibartfast accurately answered your question on burden of proof. Apparently, the qualifying requirements involve the filing of certain documentation. That was done. Anyone wishing to contest the truthfulness of that must come forward with evidence that there was fraud in the qualifying process or that the candidate was born someplace other than what is shown on the certification papers. That is why I previously indicated that I would handle the litigation in an entirely different manner than Orly Taitz has done. She is consistently filing documents without lining up evidence in advance. Then she is unable to support her claims when she is called upon to do so. Whatever may be the merits of the claims, she has been completely incompetent in pursuing them. As you know, she’s even had problems with such fundamentals as valid service of process. I don’t know how much money has been donated for these battles, but until qualified attorneys are retained to handle these cases, the money is being thrown down a rat hole.
Slart do you not read my post. In the post above your post I asked Mike Appleton that question. I am a non lawyer, seeing how you’ve been following this thread could you please identify the lawyers to which you speak. That way when I have a legal question I can ask them. I’m pretty sure Mr. Appleton is but not sure of others. Doesn’t matter if they are still licensed or practicing just at one time they were. Please tell me.
Thank you Mike for your response.
Mike Appleton,
This case is very likely different than any case that you have litigated.
While it is true that, in most cases, the burden of proof in on the plaintiff. This case is quite different, and I wish Orly would have pointed that out to Judge Land.
“Who has the burden of establishing that the president of the United States is not eligible to serve in his office?” Land asked Taitz.
Here’s the answer Taitz should have given in reponse.
The people, as John Adams inscribed in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, are ever entitled to demand of their magistrates an “exact and constant observance” of the principles of the Constitution, above all, to exercise no powers not granted. We may not, therefore, shut our eyes to the issue of legitimacy.
The burden is on a claimant to point to the source of his power—failing which, it is a usurpation.
Rauol Berger
The source of President Obama’s power comes from being the duly elected, constitutionally qualified president. He has the duty to satisfy the court of such.
Mike Appleton:
are you saying the illustrious Ms. Tait is nothing but a scoundrel and con woman?
It sure is starting to look like that. Bdaman and Birther are probably just trying to get some bang for the bucks they sent her.
What are all of you going to do when the Kenyan government claims that Obama was born there? What then?
The birthers should have raised their questions to their Member of Congress and their Senators last December, when the electoral votes were counted in joint session. They should have made their claims of usurpation back then. Failing that, they now have no constitutional resource other than impeachment.
If Birther really has one or more authentic Kenyan birth certificates (and he does not, because Obama was born in the United States), then he is in the wrong forum at the Turley blog.
He should send the certs to his Member of Congress, since the House has the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sole power to remove a President.
Even if a court found that Obama was born in Kenya (and no court will so find), it could not order the President to stand down. All it could do would
Byron,
Maybe they just bought birther stock at Intrade. (Also, it’s Dr. Taitz – just because she’s an incompetent whacko is no reason not to give the dentist her due respect and spell her name correctly
)
bdaman,
When I referred to lawyers and non-lawyers on this site, I had no special knowledge of who is or isn’t on this blog. It seems reasonable to assume that a constitutional law blog has a fair number of lawyers in its posters and several posters claim to be lawyers or retired lawyers, including at least two who apparently post under their actual names, once of which appears legit to a cursory web search (but I admit I could have been fooled – who is Vince Treacy really?). I see differences in how some people respond here that I attribute to them being lawyers (as this also correlates with the people claiming to be lawyers, I’m comfortable with the assumption). If you don’t see a difference in the quality of legal scholarship displayed in the posts here, maybe you should try looking at this thread more objectively. My opinion (based in large part on reading this thread) is that Vince is right and the case will ultimately be dismissed (with a chance of some kind of sanctions on Dr. Taitz). Let me ask you another question (since you didn’t answer my first one): Do you think that a good attorney would file a case (much less go to court) without proof of the validity of the only evidence she has to support her claim?
Vince,
Nice to see you back on your “sole power” rant.
The Constitution never granted Congress the “sole” power to remove the President…especially one that fails to meet the qualifications.
Further, certification of a President, that fails to meet the qualifications is an unconstitutional act; a nullity. Who has the power to review and make that determination? The Supreme Court. I suggest you take a look at the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
slarti said;
“Do you think that a good attorney would file a case (much less go to court) without proof of the validity of the only evidence she has to support her claim?”
I know this was addressed to bdaman, but I’ll answer anyway.
How do you know that Taitz doesn’t have further proof as to the validity of the document? Do you really expect her to put her entire case on the internet?
Is asked everyone, and everyone avoided the issue like the plague.
What are you going to do when the Kenyan government claims that Barack Obama was born there?
“Vince, Support your claim. You can’t debunk rumor with personal belief.”
This has to be one of the stupidest statements ever to appear on this blog.
Example: Rumor, Hitler is alive and is writing under the screen name of bdaman.
Personal Belief: For Hitler to be alive today he would have to be over 115 years old. That seems a bit far fetched to think he is that old and writing in English on this blog, at this time.
Answer: You can’t debunk rumor with personal belief.
There is no requirement in the Constitution for height, weight, time of birth, attending physician or anything other than place of birth and age greater than 35, and Obama’s certificate says Hawaii, 1961. The Constitutional burden of proof has been met. There is credible, prima facie evidence that Obama was born in the United States in 1961.
They did not even have birth certificates at the time the Constitution was drafted.
All the stuff linked by Birther is old discredited news. He posted the old RSOL posting that includes a shot of the Rainbow letter. The yellow highlighted portion was written by the reporter, not quoted from the sister. This has already been explained to bda, and now it has to be explained to birther. To repeat, BOTH hospitals were named after Queens, and can be confused. That UPI posting was wrong, in error, and not factual, and that is why it was withdrawn; all that is posted is a captured view. Same with Snopes.
Of course, a hospital cannot answer questions about babies born in it because of privacy, but Kapi’olani’s newsletter proudly reprinted Obama’s letter of congratulations in which he said he had been born there.
BIRTHER, my problem is that Orly Taitz doesn’t have any proof. I don’t think that anyone expects her to publish her proof on the internet, but she has certainly welcomed the internet to publish her claims. On the other hand, one would expect her to submit her evidence to the court, but that hasn’t happened either. My belief is that it has not happened because she has nothing to present. I have no way of knowing whether she is a con artist or simply ignorant, but the judges in all of her failed efforts have displayed a lot more patience than any other lawyer of my acquaintance has ever enjoyed in a courtroom.
I do not know what part of the word “sole” that birther cannot understand.
There is nothing in section 25 that affects the sole power of impeachment.
Since you birther clowns are supplying a nearly endless supply of dead horses, I found you a gift.
Pastissada
2 pounds dead horse meat, preferably beaten to death by people with little or no sense about the rules of evidence or much else
2 ounces lard or porkback fat, a fatted politician may be subsituted
2-3 carrots, cut into slivers
2 sticks celery, diced
1 large onion, diced
4 cloves
a dozen coriander seeds
1 bay leaf
1 clove garlic (Omit if you’re using fat from a Neocon Republican, causes highly energetic reaction much like using the much harder to find True Vampire fat. If you must use Neocon fat, safety suggests making this dish outdoors. Think “Flaming Deep Fried Turkey”.)
2 bottles Italian red wine, one for the sauce and one to drink while cooking, extra bottle may be used to club, er, sedate the politicians you are harvesting fat from.
flour, enough to brown the meat with
1/4 cup olive oil
salt & pepper to taste
1 Tbsp. butter kneaded into enough flour to make a small ball
paprika to taste
Slather the meat with the lard and slivers of carrots. Dice the other vegetables and put them, with the meat and spices (except the paprika) in a bowl. Pour the wine over everything, then cover and marinate in the refrigerator for three days, turning the meat occasionally.
Pat the meat dry with paper towel (keep the vegetables and the marinade), flour it, and brown it in the oil over a brisk flame. Add the vegetables. When they’ve cooked for a few minutes, pour the marinade over the meat. Reduce the heat to a simmer and cook for about three hours. Once the meat is done, remove it to a platter saving the sauce that has been formed with the marinade.
Return the sauce to the fire, thicken it with the butter-flour ball, and season it to taste with paprika
Slart although we are discussing one case now, Capt. Rhodes,there are other active cases, other than Taitz. No, I do not think that a good attorney would file a case without proof of the validity of the only evidence she has to support her claim? However attorneys also represent people who commit crimes and do there best to get a not guilty verdict or the case thrown out on a technicality. So it depends on what your definition of a good attorney is. For example I know an attorney that for 15 grand can get someone out of their 4th DUI and get their license restored. Is that a good attorney?
Sorry, to your first question. Slart to me there is alot that points to fraud. There are alot of dots that are being connected right now and I’m not alone. In case you missed it there were upwards of 2 million people that marched on D.C. this weekend. The momentum is building. Look at Acorn in which the President is so closely aligned. Voter registration fraud cases, now they been taped in three different locations over the sex thing. Glen Beck says wait til you see the one they release tomorrow. It’s all connected for me, this whole ordeal will be exposed once all the dots are connected. Somebody somewhere is gonna slip up and the truth will come out.
Buddha thanks for the recipe I’m headed to the kitchen as we speak.
BTW, that is a real horse meat recipe absent the added funny parts. I bet it works well with beef too though.
Unless you believe in reincarnation
BIRTHER,
I don’t waste any time thinking about your question because I don’t believe their is any chance of it happening. If the SCOTUS ruled that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen that would certainly effect my opinion, but I can’t think of anything that would make me believe (as in faith without evidence rather than proof) that the president is ineligible for his office. As a scientist, I’m always trying to be open to different directions if new facts warrant a re-evaluation of my analysis, but I’m not holding my breath awaiting the arrival of anything new in this case and based on what I know now, I’m confident that Barack Obama is the legitimate president. As for Orly’s evidence or lack thereof, I agree with what Mike A said (except for the part about judges’ patience which I have no knowledge of) from what I’ve seen of Dr. Taitz, it seems that she is either incompetent or corrupt and I have no reason to suspect that she is corrupt.
Vince I know there is no requirement for that in the constitution but you got to put the rumors to rest. You see what happens with rumors is one person starts the rumor the next person expands it. Before you know it the earth is flat.
Since the question was raised by Slart, I will repeat what I posted two years ago, that I am a 1971 grad of GW Law. I am admitted to the DC Bar.
Buddha,
I’m a big believer that one should always use wine when cooking – added liberally to the chef as needed.
bdaman,
You say that there are a lot of dots being connected – I think you are making the standard mistake of the conspiracy theorist: you find a pattern in a bunch of disparate dots and race to tell the world about your newfound truth never realizing that the picture you were looking at is a Rorschach test. It wasn’t the 2 million birther march (also, I’ll look at several different sources before I decide who’s number to believe about the size of the protests), and the idea that ACORN is an evil organization on par with SPECTRE or CHAOS is a delusion spawned in the fetid swamps of FOX news propaganda machine – how many times do you think Mickey Mouse voted? And, just so you know, Glen Beck is either a total nutjob or he plays one on TV (and the radio), he is not in any way a journalist or a source of reliable information.
Vince,
And we should just take your word, and the word of the DC bar and George Washington University at face value? Just how gullible do you think we are? I was personally alive and over one year in age for the entirety of 1971 and I never heard about you graduating! The search for the real Vince Treacy is just getting started folks…
I don’t believe that there is an obligation on the part of anyone to “put the rumors to rest,” just as I believe that waiting for the connection of the “dots” is another way of saying that one has already bought into one or more conspiracy theories. Rumors are never put to rest; they simply go away when people lose interest.
What has happened here is that we have permitted rumors, allegations, suspicions and slander to be treated as respectable subjects of discourse. We have made it worse by insisting that the subjects of rumors somehow prove their falsity. This is nonsensical and contrary to both legal tradition and American notions of fundamental fairness.
Suppose that I started a rumor that someone with whom I have disagreed on this site is actually a pedophile who has been in prison and is using his anonymity to cover up his past and search for new victims. Suppose I then repeated the rumors on many different sites. Suppose I even created new sites devoted to pillorying the victim of my rumors. Then suppose I remarked that an honest person with nothing to hide would have come forward to prove that he was not in fact a child molester and would reveal his true identity, emphasizing that the victim of my rumors had failed to do that. Would I have the right to demand that the individual come forward and prove his innocence? Would I have the right to demand that it be proven to my personal satisfaction based upon my personal standards as to what constitutes acceptable evidence? Would I have the right to assert that the failure of the victim of my rumors to comply with my demands was itself proof of the truthfulness of the rumors? I believe that rational persons acting in good faith would agree that the only appropriate answer to each of the foregoing questions is “no.”
Nevertheless, what I have proposed is precisely what has occurred. Every single site promoting assertions on the birther issue is anonymous. Every single individual linking to those sites is anonymous. Every single person on this site who has commented favorably on the birther assertions has done so anonymously. Prior to the advent of the internet, people who engaged in spreading rumors were regarded as cowards. I see no reason to accord respectability to an abhorrent practice simply because it is performed electronically. Therefore, I have come to a personal decision that I will no longer comment upon, or respond to comments, from anonymous bloggers citing to anonymous sources. I am not attempting to convert anyone to my views. I am simply stating my position so that my failure in the future will be properly understood for what it is, a decision on my part not to participate in what I firmly believe to be a dishonorable enterprise.
After a while you just get sick of the misinformation.
If this was all on the up and up:
Obama would have released his COLB to the mainstream media..not the Daily Kos.
Factcheck wouldn’t call the certification a certificate.
Factcheck wouldn’t be lying about Obama’s dual citizenship.
Obama wouldn’t find a need to keep the name of the doctor who delivered him, or the local registrar from the public eye.
The Kenyan government wouldn’t be calling him a “son of the soil” of Kenya.
His grandmother wouldn’t have said that he was born in Kenya.
The Director of the Hawaii DOH wouldn’t be declaring that he is a “natural born American citizen”, when she his situation is still up for debate.
What do you have to refute the evidence? An unsigned piece of paper, and the word of somebody who was an unknown before the 2004 convention.
To not have a desire to see his vault certificate is reckless.
If you turned your children over to a person with that little background knowledge, and your child was injured by that person..you would likely be charged with criminal negligence.
BIRTHER,
Thank you for illustrating the phenomenon that I was describing to bdaman. You have thrown a bunch of facts, distortions, and logical fallacies at the wall and you are calling it a mural of a massive conspiracy. All of the things that you point to have been debunked or explained by (mostly) Vince on this thread and your overall implication (if (this was on the up an up) then (all this stuff wouldn’t have happened)) is a logical statement with no support whatsoever (and likely untrue) stated as undeniable fact. Do you really think that any rational person is going to believe all this crap? Especially when sitting right next to it is a thoughtful and thorough rebuttal of all your arguments and a debunking of all of your misinformation.
Mike A,
As usual, well said. As you can see, I will still engage with anonymous people (and, of course, I use a pseudonym myself), but I understand and respect your position. However, I think that it is important for misinformation to be called out lest any casual reader (as if any of those remain on this thread) wrongly believe it unopposed.
Mike you and I both Know that if the scenario you put forth the fictitious person you speak of would call you a liar, come forth and provide information proving otherwise then sue you for defamation. If it was me I would just call you a liar tneh commence to beating your ass.
In the case of the president, who was recently called a liar, as I have stated on this thread, a righteous man would come forward and say I know many of you have questions about my birthplace, I provided a COLB but you still doubted me, therefore I give you my long form proving once and for all, that I was born in Hawaii.
The question about his status at birth, he himself along with Factcheck as you know, has already been discussed. Most people are focused on the Long Form BC. If that was provided and it conclusively showed Hawaii to be the place of birth, it’s over.
Now ask yourself why the president of the United States would allow a constant and growing conspiracy that involves lots of time and money by the U.S. attorney’s office, his own personal money(There are claims of a million) and the trust of the American people to continue to fester when he could do the righteous thing. Seriously why would anybody let that happen.
Slart the left said there were tens of thousands. The press secretary said what march. The park ranger service said close to two million and a record. Believe what you wish.
From the first Federal dollar Acorn received up until the recent election, Acorn received approximately 56 million dollars. Now after the election Acorn was/is on tap to receive 10 BILLION thats with a B, of federal money, was lined up to run the census and as you well know, how you count the heads means which states receives the most money. Remember the republican nominee who withdrew from the Commerce dept when he found out Acorn was moving into the Whitehouse and was gonna run the census.
Yea, Acorn may not be as powerful, but they were and could still be on there way. Let us not forget that the president first big “community organizer” jobs involved ACORN. The president also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. The president worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN this year for voter registration efforts in which they are now named in various voter registration fraud suits along with this recent scandal.
ACORN canvassed for Obama this year. Is this the type of organization that should continue to apply and receive federal dollars? Should the president continue his meetings with this type of organization? There’s alot more to come on this and you will be surprised when it comes from the members of the community that Acorn is suppose to be helping. Go read my link above to Star Parker.
Mike A.
I find your argument persuasive.
I say we preserve this thread like a diorama encased in amber. A display of Vince’s kung fu to be admired both in both form and function. A testament to persistence and precision. None reading to this point doubt the victor if they are possessed of the slightest wit and honest disposition both internally and externally. Logic and the rules of evidence win the day.
Now that victory is secure, to further the play the game plays as you say. To debunk them and demolish their arguments is one thing. We risk diminishing the victory by lending them credibility in acknowledging this is even a discussion worthy topic any more.
I’ll address the birther issue no more.
Vince Treacy, I recently told someone out camera that you were owed a steak and a medal for your service on this thread. I meant that and more.
To the regulars and Professor’s students, I’d like to leave this parting thought.
All of the here regulars with law backgrounds have carried the yeoman’s load from time to time when the Art becomes the subject proper, but Mr. Treacy performed here with honor and distinction. While inspirational, all of the Professor’s student reading this blog should look to Mr. Treacy’s example as aspirational as well. He was dogged, methodical, logical, passionate and on point but he never lost his sense of humor or his sense of proportion.
I’d be proud to sit co-counsel or square against you in court any day, Vince. I just know on the opposing days, I’d be bringing the A+ game or I’d be getting a thrashing.
Mr. Vince Treacy, Esq., I salute you!
(I invite the student’s who have gained the value herein to take a moment and express their thanks to Mr. Treacy for his efforts and example. He’s earned it. And it’s good manners. Make mom proud.)
Mike A:
Right you are to say that no obligation rests on the aggrieved party to “put the rumors to rest.” Rumors are the currency of busybodies and those with weak minds. You could no more put rumors to rest than put to rest those with these afflictions–they are simply too ubiquitous.
Buddha:
“Mr. Treacy performed here with honor and distinction…. Mr. Treacy’s example as aspirational as well. He was dogged, methodical, logical, passionate and on point but he never lost his sense of humor or his sense of proportion.”
********************
As to Vince, we have come to expect nothing less. Bravo.
If any of you think bdaman and myself are here to win you over; don’t flatter yourselves. We know you are far too partisan to ever be an impartial jury.
We are here to refute your nonsensical claims.
One day we will see Obama’s vault certificate. That day America will know the truth.
Jimmy,
What you just said is an admission to the charges above.
You are nothing more than disingenuous propagandists engaged in an dishonorable enterprise. That you care not for winning the argument – and rest assured that ship never left the harbor – but insist on being belligerent and obnoxious on an issue you have lost on factual, logical and legal basis’s just shows that what Mike charges and I second is true.
bdman may just be a rube who bought your Barnum act, Jimmy, but you were labeled propaganda troll from day one but the regulars who ALL saw through your bullshit. It’s refreshing you finally admit you’re a propagandist with an specific anti-Obama agenda. Now since Vince has proven that your claims are ridiculous and untrue, this begs the question of what could possibly be your motivation for continuing to make your wild claims after being so thoroughly discredited?
Well, bdaman already screwed up and showed his racists side although he’s been claiming remorse. You should let him speak for himself. The proof of that remorse will be in the eating of the pudding. Because if he’s serious, this will be where you and bdaman part ways.
Because I’m thinking racism is EXACTLY your problem, Jimmy boy. That and/or someone is paying you to be a propagandist – a lying distortionist out to mislead purposefully the public and create distraction from real issues.
Because staying around being obnoxious solely for the “told you so” factor? That’s sad, childish and pathetic in the extreme. So which is it Jim? What are your motivations to keep flogging this log?
Racist,
paid schill,
racist paid schill,
childish pathetic churl and general jackass or
racist paid schill childish pathetic churl and general jackass.
Those are pretty much your options for motivation now that you have admitted you are indeed an actual troll.
bdaman,
You need to doing some of that heavy introspection you’ve been talking about right now. You need to be doing it REAL HARD. It might help you get some sleep. And recall you can tell a lot about about a man by the company he keeps.
I can’t believe the disbarred attorney from Kansas had the guts to come back around.
Yes Budha, I’m talking about you.
Why don’t you tell everyone about what caused you to lose your license? A little embarassed? I would be too.
What’s the matter? Not much work for you? Even as a paralegal?
Birther:
“He who throws mud loses ground’” and attacking the messenger does nothing to undermine the message. Basic logic and argument skills seemingly lost on you, but more importantly basic humanity–something Birthers have in short supply.
Mespo,
I haven’t seen you contribute anything to this debate.
Perhaps you would do well to read the comments; then you can decide who is slinging mud.
Mespo,
Since you like to be so philosphical, why don’t you tell us why it is so important for Obama to hide the name of the doctor who delivered him, and the name of the local registrar?
Jim,
I don’t know how many times I have to tell your dumb ass I never practiced in Kansas and I’m not disbarred. But it’s nice to see you’ve returned to the same level of tactic as questioning my patriotism, you propagandist Neocon hack.
You want to talk about a day of reckoning, sport?
It’s your type that’s going to be in the the rude lessons, Jimmy.
You just lost and lost hard.
I didn’t expect you to be a gracious loser based on past performance. I expected you to act like a prick which is exactly what you did. Thanks for proving me right again.
It only goes down here from here for you, admitted propagandist. You might as well said you work for Dick Cheny and PNAC.
Yeah, I really suck a logic and argument, Jim. That’s why I just nailed you. You should have just let it lay that Vince beat you. Hey, you’re the one who admitted you are an actual propagandist. I just delivered the coup de grace to the opening you gave me in your arrogance.
Buh bye, Loser.
_____
(Vince, I hope I didn’t poach your kill as it were. I just couldn’t believe what he was stupid enough to type. It was a money shot.)
Budha should be glad he got out when he did.
Only 25% of Americans Have a Positive Image of Lawyers
awwwww
booo hooo
ROFLMAO
If that’s the best you got now, sport, I’m afraid I’m just going to have to keep laughing in your face, you propagandist weenie. I hope your bosses are reading all of this because you are so demoted to making signs for the teabaggers.
LOL
ROFLMAO
Oh, man. That’s classic.
snicker
guff-HAW
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Birther:
“I haven’t seen you contribute anything to this debate.
Perhaps you would do well to read the comments; then you can decide who is slinging mud.”
…
“hy don’t you tell us why it is so important for Obama to hide the name of the doctor who delivered him, and the name of the local registrar?”
**************
In reverse order, I have and I just did.
Obama probably takes my approach that one need not dignify the rantings and blathering questions of fools with an intelligent reply. It’s rather like expecting something worthwhile to come from talking to animals–try as you might you can’t make them understand the most simple thing about the environment they live in. An apt analogy here, I would say.
I’ll say is this, had the president revealed the long form certificate we would not be having this discussion. I would also like to say the recent discussion remained civil to a point and the last volley has led to personal attacks. Buddha you are to be commended for not once did I see you go into a tirade of name calling in your defense.
I have said it time and again. This president was billed as the great unifier. Someone who wishes to unite the people must go out of his way to unite. He ran as a centrist, he is no centrist. He ran as a someone who claimed he would be the most transparent ever but remains invisible. I can see right thru him.
I realize my statement has no legal effect and this discussion is on legalities. I offer my statement of not from a legal mind, but of that as a common man.
Vince your statement
The people who question the presidents birth should have raised their questions to their Member of Congress and their Senators last December, when the electoral votes were counted in joint session. They should have made their claims of usurpation back then. Failing that, they now have no constitutional resource other than impeachment.
My answer
This is why Cheney is/was named in suits. By law, Cheney, during the certification of those votes was to call for objections. When it got to that point Ms. Pellosi jumped spontaneously out of her chair and begins clapping wildly. I watch the proceeding on c-span. Cheney never ask whether anyone had any objections. Once again Cheney broke the law.
bdaman:
“I offer my statement of not from a legal mind, but of that as a common man.”
*****************
All too “common,” it seems.
bdaman,
A left handed compliment about my choice in provocative tactics isn’t such a good idea from someone who dropped the “Christ Killer” bomb.
For the record, I don’t write for your approval and I’ll call a name when I see fit. It’s called taunting your opponent. If you don’t think lawyer’s do this with varying degrees of subtly depending upon the venue and to different effect, you don’t know lawyer’s very well. That’s why really good ones have skin as thick as a castle wall. This is part of the education being provided here to the student’s proper – learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. Distraction tactics vs. real argument. You are still focused on the chaff. It’s not the taunting that counts as much as it’s the arguments proper – of which you and Jim have resoundingly lost on this subject.
And Jimmy boy ended up pinned to the wall like a Neocon fascist supporting troll butterfly for his efforts. An exposed bad actor by his own admission.
So I’m going to have to say, “What mespo said” and wish you luck on digging out of that hole. Because right there in the post in question, you’ve pulled dirt back down into the hole. That’s counterproductive. You have problems with Obama? Hell, so do I as do many of the other regulars as well. I’ve called him a liar outright on several subjects. I’ve called him worse. I just made sure they were actually a valid subjects to attack him on first. The problem is you chose to rail against is not only a loser legally and logically, you played right into the hands of the Neocon propaganda masters who want to distract YOU from directing that distrust of Obama into something concrete – like demanding war crimes prosecutions for the Bush Administration. It’s made you look like a foolish dupe to the agenda of others – others with a proven track record for villainy. Others who put this country in the dire shape it is in today so they could make a profit. Personal wealth and party before nation! – the true war cry of the modern Neocon GOP.
You don’t want to be considered a troll? Quit espousing their nonsense and defending them like you do. It’s called guilt by association.
I warned you to consider that a man is often judged by the company he keeps.
It appears you were not paying too close attention to that lesson either.
You don’t want to be considered a troll? Quit espousing their nonsense and defending them like you do. It’s called guilt by association.
I warned you to consider that a man is often judged by the company he keeps.
Which brings it full circle about the company the president keeps. Wonder why they fight so hard to not release the Whitehouse visitors log.
Buddah my views are my views, it is who I am. Right or Wrong in someone elses view. I am who I am, I be who I be.
I said what I said, it can not be taken back, I understand that. Name calling and labels do not do anyone justice but distracts from the topic at hand. The name calling and labels showed up as soon as my first couple of post when I came here. I won’t let it bother me anymore. This comes from a man who has been called racial slurs most of his child life and had to accept it.
Thanks for the comment
Boy the hits just keep right on coming. More rumors
Apparently the Hawaiian Chapter of AXJ has discovered the original divorce documents filed in 1964, and among them has discovered that Stanley Ann Dunham (with the help of others) did in fact present a Certificate of Live Birth of a child born in Mobassa, Kenya, which is being studied to see if in fact it belongs to a child by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II, although Barack Hussein Obama Sr. never admitted to having a son, was never notified of any divorce documents filed against him, and was killed in Kenya for political reasons.
The document presented by the Hawaiian Authorities includes a number “19″ that does not correspond to any numbering order in the documents recorded in 1961, and they know it.
This report needs to be confirmed, it conflates Tom Mboya’s assassination and Senior’s death in an automobile accident.
Wouldn’t have these things being said if the President released his original BC.
bdaman writes: I have said it time and again. This president was billed as the great unifier. Someone who wishes to unite the people must go out of his way to unite. He ran as a centrist, he is no centrist. He ran as a someone who claimed he would be the most transparent ever but remains invisible. I can see right thru him.
and for this there is a remedy: next time, vote for someone else. better still become involved in a campaign if a candidate will have you.
bitching about how a president has disappointed you on the internet is probably the last useful thing you can do
bdaman,
You said: “Slart the left said there were tens of thousands. The press secretary said what march. The park ranger service said close to two million and a record. Believe what you wish.” I don’t believe anything on a subject like this – I wait for information and analysis before making a determination of how many people I think were there – I found Nate Silver’s analysis most persuasive. As he points out, 2 million people would have had an effect on DC similar to the inauguration which would be impossible to hide (and didn’t happen). This type of big lie is practically trademarked by the Republicans (there are WMD in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, etc.) and that you even consider it possible speaks to volumes about your gullibility. As for ACORN, there are more voter fraud investigations into Ann Coulter than ACORN and they haven’t received any billions from the government – they are, however, free to compete with hundreds of other organizations for some federal grants which are part of the stimulus plan, what’s wrong with that?
As I said Slart believe as you wish
bdaman,
If it walks like a troll and talks like a troll it must be a troll.
If it’s any consolation, I think Jim gets paid for his nonsense which makes him complicit and a whore for money. You just happen to be his huckleberry because you bought (and still buy apparently) Jim’s line of legally inane and logically unfounded crap he uses to disguise that he’s simply appalled a black man is President.
In the end, birds of a feather flock together because of similar motivation. Jim’s a racist propaganda troll. You yourself have demonstrated a stunning amount of racism. Your run with troll arguments, you know, the ones without legal or factual basis. And by looking at my watch, I see you have also wasted your slack, lackey.
Hmmmmm, smells like fresh pattern.
Occam’s razor suggest that all things being equal the simplest solution is usually the correct solution.
In a room full of trained logicians, I think you’ve just demonstrated what your team affiliation actually is with clarity and directness. You do not deny your nature, but you’ve proven you most likely don’t understand it either.
Good luck being taken seriously in these parts, cowboy. All the Sheriff’s know you’re riding a Shetland. But than again, being taken seriously isn’t your goal if you’re aligned with Jim. Your goal is to create distraction from real issues and play to the basest of emotions to attract the basest to your cause.
Hey D-barred,
Instead of just making claims, why don’t you try supporting one of them.
Your ramblings are full of accusations but don’t have a damn thing to back them up. You’re a shill for a fraudulent president.
You’re a failure. You couldn’t make it as an attorney because you couldn’t control your emotions. Now, you come here to try to demonstrate that you can what? -Go along with the home team?
Prof. Turley should have given you the boot a long time ago. You’re a hateful little antagonist. You wouldn’t know an honest debate if it slammed you upside the head.
Tanks for the comment
Ahhh, the sound of sore losers.
Music to my ears.
Jim,
You should really consider switching to decaffeinated because there are lots of brands out there that taste as good as the real thing.
Or you could yell and scream some more because I hung you with your own words. You killed yourself, Mr. Propaganda. That you handed me the weapon on a silver platter is just, what is the phrase I’m looking for . . .
Funny as Hell.
And a little unfair to Vince since he deserved the coup de grace.
But the raving is kind of entertaining.
In a “look at the guy freaking out over there” kinda way.
A natural born citizen is a requirement by law to be the president of the United States, not a U.S. citizen as termed in this video, and on the news. It is the law, if government chooses not to follow the law, we have to speak up and protest. The Democratic Party did not qualify Obama, that is there duty, to government and the american people. Do not take my words for it, go to the Court Docket, U.S. District Court and the U.S. Supreme court. Cases were heard in December of 2008, in the Supreme Court. What you will find Obama has defaulted in case after case choosing not to deliver proof of natural born citizenship to the courts as ordered by a judge. Obama loses the case by default and cases go up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can only make decisions on lower court rulings, so the case is dismissed and the case goes back to the lower courts. This is a never ending cycle. The case in the Supreme Court is the Berg case.
Keyword Berg on you tube and google for more. This is just one of many cases brought up against Obama’s proof of Natural born citizenship.
The legislative branch of government is suppose to enforce these laws. Only private citizens are filing cases in the courts. There are more and more cases being filed.
Does anybody know or remember Obamas birth certificate has been sealed by a judge in Hawaii. It means no one, no one is allowed to view his birth certificate, Why? It implies he is guilty, like he is clearly hiding something. This happen when he supposedly went to Hawaii to see his grandmother who raised him, Legally he had to be there to seal the records. Obama left Hawaii 1 day before his grandmother died. hmmm.
Naval Commander Walter Fitzpatric files charges against Obama last year as a IMPOSTER and USURPER that he and all his co conspiritors need to be nailed for Treason and Conspiracy to over throw the United States. According to Military Law President Obama has to be able to prove Fitzpatric of Mutiny and likewise Obama must open his files and release all his documents including his birth cirtificate and Obama has done everything to avoid this Naval Commander. This is an outrage that is not being pushed or touched upon in any fashion. shows you how deep the Treason has gone basically our entire government who are all mostly Bilderberg members. This is why Obama was allowed to USURP the Predidential Electorial Process because he is the Bilderbergs Boy sent in to finish off America and cram the New World Order up everyones rear end for nothing more than for their own personal corrupt racketeering financial gain to make slaves of everyone on the planet for their profit and gain. Bill and Hillary Clinto Obama and many other Political Military and Business leaders here in the United States are Bilderberg members. They have been meeting secretly outside the United States with Bilderberg members of other countries behind the backs of the American people for years. Their purpose is to discuss nothing more than how they are going to disarm America destroy America’s Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of all the nations on the planet in order to create the NWO. This is TREASON pure and simple at the highest level and offense against ones own Nation its people and our Constitution and every member of the Bilderbergs including the 7 member counsel above them need to be rounded up charged with Treason and Conspiracy to over throw the United States and hung by the neck till dead and then confiscate all their billions and trillions in assets and use it to pay off the Nations deficit which was deliberately created to financially break the United States. We have deliberately been put great jeopardy by our corrupt racketeering traiterous leadership and they need to pay dearly. “ATheif Hates a Well Armed Adversary”!! We the American people who may very well have to rise up a couple hundred million strong and with the help of a large portion of our armed forces take her back. They had better choose their sides. THey can be on the side of the people (their Boss) or go to bed with the Devil. If we have to rise up we will rise up and sworm upon them like locus and we will have no mercy!! Additionally Bill Clinton gave away 25 years of our nuclear missile technology to China for Campaign Contributions… can anyone say TREASON!!! and still our leadership does nothing and you know why??? They are all in bed with each other!! They just do not get it we do not want Government involved in Health Care AT ALL and they have absolutely NO Constitutional Authority to do anything they are doing and the bottom line is that they do not care about Health Care. THis is not about Health Care its about laying out the CONTROLS needed to lay out the foundation for the New World Order…wake up people and look up http://www.nesara.us/pages/history.html
NESARA National Economic Security Reformations Act. It is the only thing that can pull the rug out from under this FREAK SHOW we call our government. It fires Presidnet and Vice President and every member of Congress and more and it abolishes the Federall Reserve and the IRS and more and forces everyone back to the CONSTITUTION. Did you know it was passed at the hands of our own Military and that after our Military had it passed into law the Supreme Court immediately put out a gag order on Congress and Senate and everyone having anything to do with NESARA so as not to inform the public of NESARAS Existance. It is real people and you need to push hard to get it declared. All they have to do is publicly announce NESARA from National TV from Washington and its done!!
Dino,
Nice tinfoil hat. Very shiny. FYI – if you had actually read this page you would know that Barack Obama is the legitimate POTUS and any attempt to remove him (except by impeachment) is treasonous.
Evidently the particular Hawaii Phase associated with AXJ offers identified the initial separation and divorce files registered within ’64, and also one of them offers found that Stanley Ann Dunham (by using other folks) would in reality current a piece of paper regarding Reside Start of your youngster created inside Mobassa, Nigeria, which can be getting researched to find out if in reality that is associated with a kid named Barack Hussein Barak, 2, despite the fact that Barack Hussein President obama Sr. by no means accepted to using any boy, wasn’t informed associated with a breakup paperwork submitted towards your pet, as well as had been murdered inside Nigeria with regard to governmental factors.