The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
I have a sneaking suspicion that this will not be a disaster for Ms. Taitz. She is officially a martyr now and will become a quasi celebrity, with appearances on FOX, CNN, ABC and NBC Broadcast. She’ll get speaking fees, will write a book published by Regnery Press and battle Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachman for the title of craziest female Right Winger. She may even run for office, or at least get a spot on “Dancing With The Stars” and “Help, I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!” I’m actually working on a plot line for the Orly Taitz Reality Show proposal “Fighting The System.” It’s about a Dentist/Lawyer who each week repairs badly done dental work, while battling in court for damages for her patients. You all might say I’m selling out, but think of the money.
One could only hope not to have a client and or an attorney such as this……
Imported crazy!
The California Bar now has far more than the Chandra compliant to consider. In the final sentence of his order, Judge Land wrote:
“The Court further directs the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, for whatever use it deems appropriate.”
The Judge thereby sent a message to the Bar, and it was not a message in a bottle.
Another interesting sidelight is footnote 11:
“The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U.S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today’s Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subsequently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation.”
Mike S., the rumor is that she may be on Joy Behar on HLN CNN Headline News tonight Tuesday Oct. 13.
If true, yet another Spindell prediction fulfilled!
It is interesting and relevant that Judge Land is a Bush 43 appointee, and I don’t think the GOP would want known its complicity, and/or conspiracy with the Pelosi-Dems to enable the Usurper’s ‘Presidency’. On the other hand, Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment. (And by McCain’s TV comments over the weekend, it looks like ‘12 now to be Palin/Pawlenty v. Clinton/yet to be determined.)
Mike S:
“and battle Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachman for the title of craziest female Right Winger.”
as a right winger I believe Ann Coulter has that title wrapped up tight. Although she uses it to sell her books and would elbow Orly out of the way to keep her spot front and center.
There’s something everyone needs to know about Obama…. My ex-wife’s family in the early 90′s went into business with World Wide Distributing of Drugs. My ex-brother-in-law and his wife’s brother Clyde O’Connor went into business in Florida with purchasing huge jets. My ex-brother-in-law went to a known “Combine” or “Shadow Government” law firm in Chicago and Obama while working as a alwyer assisted them with setting up their business. They had a lot to say about Obama first because of his name and that the Shadow Government group felt he was going places in politics for them as a TEAM MEMBER. They also mentioned that he wasn’t a US Citizen but that wouldn’t present any problems for them to coverup. This is the first time I mentioned this in a post but it’s real.
Meet the family:
Mexico drug plane used for US ‘rendition’ flights: report Sep 4, 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j6QonBKKMo2gw1e3ql-xUcQEZbVg
Please note the CIA link as the family often bragged about being CIA assets. They started laundering money in the later 70′s for partly for CIA operations. They were also involved in Iran/Contra while I was still married. They said that being a CIA asset means they are protected even if they commit murder and having said this, everyone will eventually learn how many there have been.
Also don’t over look the TON’s or Cocaine in those huge bags and remember this has been going on since the early 90′s. Before this, the drugs targetted for Chicago were coming across the Texas border without being stopped. Shipments were coming in in Chiquita ships and picked up off shore in International waters and moved to either a ocean side residence or corruption protected port. Trucked across the border to then be split up and placed in a “Pepper Truck” and trucked to the Chicago area. Chicago receives a$100 million dollar shipment in Cocaine each and every week. The money is partially laundered into property using Big Banks who are part of this and other money is used for Black Ops supporting another White House Coup. This is similar to the Business Plot tried in 1933.
Obama has been found to OWN more than 130 properties in suspicious social security names. Everyone needs to realize that property is used as “payment” for services rendered. Obama according to the family is NOT a US Citizen and he is also a TEAM MEMBER in the Shadow Government. The family talked openly in 1996 about 911 starting a series of situations including the collapse of our ecomony.
Orly Taitz is a real hero for standing up to this crap. What will come out eventually will be the truth that Obama isn’t a US Citizen at all and also his involvement in the latest WH Coup. Bush is also involved according to the Family plus others.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Vince,
In today’s media world of so-called celebrity’s and “political experts” Orly’s next moves are easy to see. That I even know Kim Kardashian’s name and that she’s got a big ass, without ever seeing her or her picture, is an indication of how fame works. My guess is that this was Orly’s plan all the time and while she can’t run for President, Senator Taitz, from California wouldn’t be bad. Consider that their governor is a man with a great body, heavy German accent and was a miserable actor. If Orly moved to Texas, or South Carolina she’d be a lock.
Byron,
It’s Bachman over both of them. Why, because both of them are mainly in it for the money and the fame. Bachman really believes what she says.
Marty Didier,
You guys used the same lying tactics with Bill Clinton, financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. Clinton was a major coke dealer working out of an Arkansas airport and working with the CIA. Thanks for the heads up though, so we all can see where the next lying thrust comes from.
Marty Didier is a troll who has posted at the Turley site before. Everything he writes is unsupported by any facts or sources whatsoever. He has no proof. He has no credibility. We are happy to read and consider facts and argument at this blog, but unsubstantiated rumors and hearsay have a very short shelf life here.
I just wish Congress would pass a law banishing Orly Taitz and her high-pitched warbly voice from the public airwaves.
I bet no one has ever seen Orly’s birth certificate. She’s an alien for sure–but from a different planet!
Vince Treacy 1, October 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Another interesting sidelight is footnote 11:
“The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs.
*************************
If the death nail is not already in the general’s file this is the end of the career as this general has known it. Once a general (C))you are always subject to recall. Its kinda like herpes, once you get it, it may go in remission but it pops at the least undesirable time.
They are or may be forced to submit to any and all orders to go any place until the day that they die. No retirement in essence.
Marty Didier, you did not provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims. Your position amounts to nothing more than exceedingly sour grapes, now embittered by a $20k fine that will likely result in the disbarment of Orly Taitz.
You’re a kook. Admit it, or remain a delusional kook.
She’s so fined.
(doo-lang, doo-lang, doo-lang)
Jack writes “On the other hand, Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment.”
You enjoy the same delusion as Marty Didier, if only because “ejectment” is a Common Law term for civil action to recover title and possession of land, having NOTHING whatsoever to do with electoral politics and procedures.
Kookiness, Article II, is the new conservative platform after Article I: Not no gays/blacks/hispanics, not now how.
A life is there to be had, if you want it. The ones you and Marty have now are just plain dismal.
Convicted felon, disbarred former attorney, and now paralegal assistant and law clerk to Attorney Doctor Orly Taitz Esquire, Charles Edward Lincoln III weighs in on Judge Land’s decision with yet another use of the word “treason.”
QUOTE I would point out that in Cohens v. Virginia, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that for a court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction was “treason” to the constitution.
Judge Land has built his entire assault against Orly’s integrity based on the doctrine of abstention—that he has jurisdiction which he should ignore. The 11th Circuit Mindes case from 1971 specifically found constitutional questions regarding the military and the application of its rules were subject to Judicial challenge, yet Judge Land ignores the substance of the very precedent he cites.
Judge Land issued a 43 page order condemning Orly, for among other things, utilizing the Courts for political purposes, and yet he proposes to use the $20,000.00 he expects to obtain from Orly for what can only be called a political contribution to advance certain political positions and philosophical assertions within the army.
Judge Land is clearly utilizing his power under Rule 11 to attempt to sanction Orly for legitimate exercise of her First Amendment Right to Petition, and that of her clients. Post-judgment motions and an appeal will be filed—your readers can rest assured of that. Orly is exploring the possibility of a direct appeal or request for stay of judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, Judge Land’s abuse of his position just makes Orly more determined, angrier than ever.
Orly does feel that this is further evidence that the U.S. Judiciary is subject to political pressures analogous to her “memories of life in the former Soviet Union”, and those are her words because I have no such memories. UNQUOTE
Source: http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/charles-lincoln-comments-on-lands-sanction-order/
Written predictions™®: “Post-judgment motions and an appeal” will fail. The “direct appeal or request for stay of judgment” to the Supreme Court will fail.
The toast is done. Spread the butter and jelly, slice it, and serve it hot.
Orly Taitz got orally tazed …
Mr. Didier and Mr. Jack, to the extent that you have relied on Ms. Taitz’ press releases or what passes for legal analysis on worldnet daily and similar sites, you are at a distinct disadvantage. The truth is that all of Ms. Taitz’ pleadings, motions and legal memoranda have been either absurd, incompetent or, most often, both. I know because I have read them, as have many other lawyers. The outcome has been entirely predictable to members of the legal profession and to informed laypersons as well. That is why Ms. Taitz has been unable to find a single lawyer to serve as local counsel for any of her claims. Indeed, Judge Land waived the pro hac vice rule to enable her to appear in his court. She will properly be disciplined by the California bar and will likely have her license suspended. She has harmed not only the administration of justice but those of her clients who relied on her advice in good faith. And she has taken money from gullible, uneducated and frightened members of the public to finance her obsession. The fact that she is only now facing sanctions is a testament to the durability, fairness and patience of the federal judiciary.
The comments of her disbarred lawyer spokesperson, Charles Lincoln, are meaningless. He has nothing to lose and is likely supporting himself through Ms. Taitz. I have no doubt that he will encourage her to pursue all available appeals so that he can continue to ride the gravy train. But if she has a lick of sense, a big if, she will abandon this odyssey to nowhere and ante up the twenty grand.
correction to my post I meant Captain not General. Sorry (C)) should be CO= Commissioned Officer.
The turdberry is fine but not as good as a window based phone. I miss my MOTOQ.
Mr. Didier,
As you have already learned, crap and lies disguised as facts won’t fly very far here. Your lies about a so-called Shadow Government firm are almost laughable. It is time for you to depart with your tail between your legs. Say hi to Orly for us.
“Orly, we hardly knew ye ….”
Since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!
There is an embedded lie in Jack’s latest troll posting. He writes, “Since Obama’s maternal grandmother … unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii….” There is no proof offered for that statement, and it is false.
Obama was born at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States in 1961, the leading maternity hospital in Honolulu at the time, an institution named after Queen Kapi’olani. The parents were Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr. The hospital furnished the information that is now in official Hawaiian birth records. That information was released by the State to two Honolulu newspapers in 1961, which reported Obama’s birth in their recent birth columns. Hawaiian officials have verified that the state’s records show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Jack asks “who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!” The answer is that Obama’s grandmother was not his “mother,” birther lies and innuendo and rumors to the contrary notwithstanding.
“who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!”
Jack,
If your father was a transexual man, who had the operation, then he’d really be your mother.
Mike S.,
I guess that would just make “Jack” another asshole baby and eligible to run for elected office. Heck, he could even be the Sct Justice.
Jack, on Oct. 13, 2009 at 4:50 pm wrote, “…Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee, and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend, is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment.”
In addition to the misuse of the term “ejectment” noted by James, this incoherent post shows even more ignorance of the Constitution and laws. If a President dies, resigns, or is removed by the sole powers of Impeachment and Removal vested in the House and the Senate, then the Vice President succeeds to the Office. After that, the law provides for succession by the Speaker of the House, the President pro tem of the Senate, and only then the Members of the Cabinet, in order of seniority, led by the Secretary of State. The statutory succession would apply only during the brief period until the Vice President is replaced under the Constitution.
Mike S:
“Bachman really believes what she says.”
have you ever read one of Coulters books?
Enjoy!
THE DAWG
No, No, people – Marty and John are right.
I know because one night about 25 years ago my ex-wife’s best friend’s chihuahua was barking at the door. She opened the door and her neighbour’s ex-husband’s cousin was standing there. He was holding this big purple suitcase. He handed it to her and then keeled over and dropped dead right on the doorstep.
Well, she didn’t know what was going on and the dog was barking like crazy. So she slammed the door shut and opened the suitcase. Inside was about 17 pounds of boiled cabbage and some beef jerky. The tag on the suitcase said “Property of Barack Hussein Obama” and there was a little picture of a Hitler moustache next to the name. She went to the kitchen and called the police, but when she came back she discovered that the damn dog had eaten the entire contents of the suitcase. (he made a huge mess later, but that’s another story).
So when the police came, half the evidence was eaten and all they had to go on was the dead body and the suitcase tag. The police checked out the dead body and it turned out the dead guy’s first wife’s mother was a nurse in Hawaii in 1961. They asked that woman about the name on the suitcase and she had never heard of any baby named Obama and she’s pretty sure she would have heard of him if he had ever existed. So that was the first clue.
About three days after the incident, my ex-wife’s best friend got a mysterious phone call from someone who called herself “Madge”. Madge was asking questions about the dead guy, like “do the police know who he is?” and “did his fingertips smell like Palmolive?” My ex-wife’s best friend hung up without saying anything, but later told her hairdresser’s accountant that “Madge” sounded a lot like Don Ho. Someone told me recently that Obama’s grandmother sounded a lot like Don Ho, so that was the second clue. It is also well documented that Obama’s grandmother had at least 65 Don Ho record albums and that listening to them made her feel a little…well… frisky. So, you know, she might be his mother, not his grandmother.
Anyway, the mystery was solved about 2 years later when my ex-wife and her best friend went to the store to buy some pineapple juice. A black man came up behind them and said “Pineapples are from Hawaii and so am I”. But the guy had a funny accent so they knew he was lying. “Really?”, my ex wife said, “Then you must know how long it takes for a pineapple to grow”. He suddenly looked very nervous and could not answer the question (which everyone, except people from Kenya, know is 18 months). Exposed as a non-citizen, he yelled at them “I did not ask that hospital to fake the birth certificate! It was Madge!”.
So putting all the clues together, it is obvious that Obama was not born in Hawaii but his grandmother, who may be his mother, got the hospital to fake the birth certificate.
I have never before revealed this information on a post, but I will certainly cooperate with the appropriate authorities (Bill O’Reilly) in any impeachment proceedings.
empirecookie–
That all sounds plausible to me. You should call Orly Taitz with this information. Here’s her telephone number: 1-800-CRA-KPOT.
This lady is bat shit crazy.
empirecookie,
Thanks for the tip and the laughs that went with it.
Empire,
I give it a 9 out of 10. You left out the Freemasons, who by the way killed Mozart.
“You left out the Freemasons, who by the way killed Mozart.”
Gyges,
There you go again a musician thinking only of himself and his needs.
Mozart had done it all musically by the time he died, it’s comparable to the death of Sid Viscious, early genius and then what.
Mike,
Honestly, I just like to bring up the Mozart thing. It’s my favorite tin-foil-hat club theory.
Gyges,
Musical illiterate that I am did you really think I’d call Sid Vicious a genius? He was the worst comparison I could think of to try to cover your contretemps re: the Freemasons killing Mozart.
They were innocent, it was the Prieure De Sion that did it and framed them.
Mike,
Sid was a genius at being angry. It takes a lot of talent to be that angry with that amount of consistency without becoming a clown (see Glen Beck).
“This lady is bat shit crazy.”
Seamus,
Are you referring to Orly or to me? Think carefully before you answer. Hillary and I are closer than sisters and, if you are referring to me, she will do to you what she did to Vince Foster.
empire cookie, yours is one of the funniest conspiracy stories I’ve ever read, unless it’s really true.
Oh, it’s true all right. I still have the suitcase:
http://www.craftychica.com/blogs/projects/uploaded_images/suitcase-791041.jpg
Was the $20K fine enough? Maybe when Taitz becomes a real lawyer she will appreciate what just happened. I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present facts. Birthers hate and can’t debate.
Mike S. and Gyges,
You guys have it so wrong – this is clearly all an Illuminati plot: The Freemasons are just a front for the Illuminati (non-withstanding the fact that the Illuminati were founded by Freemasons), and they didn’t kill Mozart, they faked his death (Mozart is still alive thanks to an immortality serum developed by scientists in Atlantis). Empirecookie is, in fact, an Illuminati agent planting a story which is an elaborate lie formed around a kernel of truth so as to distract you from a closer examination of the ‘death’ of Mozart. I expected better from the two of you…
Vince,
While watching Dr. Orly pull out a copy of Vattel on the Joy Behar Show, I found myself wishing that you were the one conducting the interview to debunk the birther’s favorite reference on national TV.
Empire,
Where does Howard Hughes fit into this conspiracy?? I just know that he was involved somehow. I know because I saw it in his will when I wrote it for him.
Poor little Birthers, no court cases won (based on lies and hate), no one with a brain and common sense take you seriously, except maybe “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme, unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (Prepare for more failures). When flies get too close to the lights they get burned, Taitz just got burned, thing is, like a fly she will continue, no end in sight. Poor little Birthers they are haters not debaters.
A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, wow I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.
Empirecookie:
Are you certain it was a Chihuahua? The dog’s name was Bobalouie. And although he was never officially deposed, Uncle Louie was consistent when he told this tale to the pack.
Bo knows much more than where the bones are buried.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/hi_res/bo_running_hi-res.jpg
seamus–
Don’t go around giving bat shit a bad name. Guano’s good stuff!
empire:
Please please please confirm for us the rumor that Marty Didier is really the Nigerian bank executive who contacted me recently, requesting use of my bank account to remove funds from his home country. And since Nigeria and Kenya are so close, that must prove that, you know, Obama’s a Kenyan who is also an internet bank scam artist. Marty Didier’s live-in lover is Capt. Jack Off, the Air Force guy who listed his Toyota Tacoma on Craigslist and will gladly sell it to me if I send the cash first so that he can pay for the shipping charges from Great Britain where it obviously can’t be sold because, you know, they drive on the wrong side of the road. I believe that Capt. Off was also the first to break the news that Obama was often seen at mosques in Britain, where he attended services because there are a LOT of Nigerians who emigrated to Britain.
And please confirm: Obama and Ben AFflect are related, right?
Doctor Bill Frist thinks of the birthers as “patients” in need of communication.
It might help those patients if he would just come out and say that Obama was born in the United States and is a natural born citizen, instead of bobbing and weaving.
Just say it, Doctor.
From Huffington Post:
[quote]
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attempted to skirt a question on Thursday as to why nearly half the Republicans in his home state of Tennessee believed that President Barack Obama was born in another country. But in an admission that the birthers are becoming problematic for the GOP, the senator stressed that there was a need to reach out and educate those individuals, so as to rebuild the party’s brand on modern ideas as opposed to conspiracy theories.
Speaking at a conference in Washington D.C., the Huffington Post asked the former Senator about a recent survey which showed 47 percent of Tennessee Republicans and 34 percent of the entire state thought Obama was constitutionally ineligible to hold office.
Frist replied that there was a need to have “good people [in Washington] get facts out, explain to people, communicate with people, get rid of… a certain arrogance, and listen to real people on the ground.”
“When a patient comes in I don’t care where they are from or how much money they have. I spend the time and communicate,” Frist, a doctor, concluded. “I listen to them and get a more educated populace out there.”
After the event concluded, he told the Huffington Post that there was an onus on elected Republican leaders in Washington to reach out and calm some of the more extreme elements of the party.
Frist’s comments are another small reflection of a growing recognition among senior voices in the GOP that the inflammatory rhetoric and conspiracy theories directed at the Obama White House are likely not constructive. Earlier in the month, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the birthers “crazy” and told them to “knock [the] crap off.” This past week, the South Carolina Republican was shouted down by town hall protesters for his position on climate change legislation.
“We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys,” Graham responded. “If you don’t like it, you can leave.”
While Frist may see similar demographic problems ahead for the GOP, he pledged on Thursday that he would not be returning to elected office to help the party right the ship.
“I’m not running for governor, vice president, president, any of the cabinet positions. I’ll just get that out of the way,” he said, at the onset of the conference.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/frist-addresses-tennessee_n_323639.html
Yet another birther lawsuit dismissed, an unbroken losing streak. This time it was Mario Apuzzi’s case in New Jersey:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CHARLES F. KERCHNER, JR., et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, et al.
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
Under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, a person must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible for the office of President of the United States. Four individuals, believing that President Barack Obama is not eligible for his office on this ground, have filed suit seeking a court order to require various officials to look into their claims and to remove the President from office. Plaintiffs present various arguments for defining the term “natural born citizen” accompanied by allegations of how President Obama does not meet their definition. This matter is presently before the Court on a motion to dismiss [Docket Item 27] submitted by Defendants President Barack Obama, the United States of America, the United States Congress, the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, former Vice-President and President of the Senate Richard Cheney, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons expressed below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
Plaintiffs’ claims, as set forth in their Second Amended Complaint, arise from allegations that President Obama has 1 failed to sufficiently prove that he is a “natural born citizen” [1] eligible for the presidency and that the legislative branch has failed to sufficiently investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth. Plaintiffs all voted in the November 4, 2008 general election for president. (Second Am. Compl. 8-11.) Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen both took oaths to defend and support the Constitution of the United States — Mr. Kerchner as part of his thirty-three years of service in the U.S. Naval Reserves and Mr. Nelsen as a former member of the Marine Reserves and Army National Guard. (Id. 8, 11.) In addition, Mr. Kerchner states that his is particularly harmed by the alleged uncertainty surrounding President Obama’s birthplace because “while currently not statutorily subject to recall, by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in extreme national emergency” Mr. Kerchner might be recalled. (Id. 8.)
Plaintiffs claim violations of the First, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Twentieth Amendments of the Constitution and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a writ of mandamus and quo warranto. In Court I, Plaintiff Kerchner alleges that the Congressional Defendants violated his First Amendment right to petition because they ignored his requests that they investigate President Obama’s citizenship and place of birth. (Id. 200-214.) In Counts II and X, Plaintiffs allege that the Congressional Defendants violated their Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights and their rights under the Twentieth Amendment by failing to conduct an appropriate investigation and hold a hearing regarding President Obama’s place of birth. (Id. 215-234, 329-356.) In Counts III and IV, Plaintiffs allege that President Obama violated their substantive due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by holding the office of president without proving that he is a “natural born citizen” and that the Congressional Defendants violated these same rights by permitting President Obama to occupy the office and by failing to adequately confirm that his is a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 235-270.) In Count V, Plaintiffs allege that the Congressional Defendants violated their Fifth Amendment right to equal protection by submitting to the requests of citizens who requested a hearing regarding Senator John McCain’s place of birth and citizenship, but declining a similar request from Plaintiffs and other citizens regarding President Obama. (Id. 271-282.) In Counts VI, VII, VIII, and IX, Plaintiffs assert their rights under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to compel President Obama to prove that his is a “natural born citizen” and to compel the Congressional Defendants to conduct appropriate congressional hearings under the Twentieth Amendment to determine whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 283-328.) In Count XI, Plaintiffs seeks a writ quo warranto removing and excluding President Obama from the office of President of the United States because he is not a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 357-380.) Finally, in Count XII, Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment against all Defendants defining “natural born citizen,” and compelling the Congressional Defendants to hold a congressional hearing on the question and to remove President Obama from office if they determine he is not a “natural born citizen.” (Id. 381-387.)
The harm alleged for all of these constitutional violations is that Plaintiffs have been deprived of their right to know whether President Obama is a “natural born citizen” and to have a president who is truly a “natural born citizen.” [2] (Id. 208, 233, 251, 269, 282, 291, 302, 314, 325, 356, 377, 378.)
B. Procedural History
On January 20, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaints, which they subsequently amended twice. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on February 9, 2009. On June 26, 2009, Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss, in which they argue that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing as well as prudential standing to bring all of these claims before the Court. Defendants argue in the alternative that the United States, the United States Congress, and former Vice-President Cheney and Speaker Pelosi in their official capacities, are entitled to sovereign immunity. Defendants Cheney and Pelosi are also entitled, Defendants argue, to legislative immunity, and Defendants Obama, Cheney, and Pelosi [2] are entitled to qualified immunity as to all of Plaintiffs’ claims.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. A determination of proper subject matter jurisdiction is vital, because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction voids any decree entered in a federal court and the continuation of litigation in a federal court without jurisdiction would be futile.” Steel Valley Auth. v. Union Switch & Signal Div., 809 F.2d 1006, 1010 (3d Cir. 1987). An attack on subject matter jurisdiction can be either facial — based solely on the allegations in the complaint — or factual — looking beyond the allegations to attack
jurisdiction in fact. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Where, as here, the challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is facial, the Court must, for the purposes of this motion, take all the allegations in the complaint to be true and construe them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Id.
B. Article III Standing
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only consider those actions that meet the case-or-controversy requirements of Article III. Essential to Article III jurisdiction is the doctrine of standing. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). To meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plaintiffs’ assertion of constitutional standing fails at the first prong, because Plaintiffs cannot establish an “injury in fact” as that phrase has been defined by the Supreme Court. Instead, while Plaintiffs feel themselves very seriously injured, that alleged grievance is one they share with all United States citizens.
An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized . . . and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson, [3] 418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633 (1937). As the Court explained in Schlesinger,
We reaffirm Levitt in holding that standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here which is held in common by all members of the public, because of the necessarily abstract nature of the injury all citizens share. Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution. It adds the essential dimension of specificity to the dispute by requiring that the complaining party have suffered a particular injury caused by the action challenged as unlawful. This personal stake is what the Court has consistently held enables a complainant authoritatively to present to a court a complete perspective upon the adverse consequences flowing from the specific set of facts undergirding his grievance. Such authoritative presentations are an integral part of the judicial process, for a court must rely on the parties’ treatment of the facts and claims before it to develop its rules of law. Only concrete injury presents the factual context within which a court, aided by parties who argue within the context, is capable of making decisions.
418 U.S. at 221. Consequently, “a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
In the present case, assuming as the Court must that Plaintiffs’ allegations are true for the purposes of deciding this jurisdictional motion, the injury, if any, suffered by Plaintiffs is one that would be shared by all the American people. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured because Defendants have not adequately established that the President is truly a “natural born citizen” and because, according to Plaintiffs, President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” and therefore an illegitimate president. These alleged harms apply equally to all United States residents. In fact, Plaintiffs’ complaint repeatedly acknowledges that the injuries they allege are generally applicable to “the people.” [4] As explained above, the Supreme Court has consistently held that this generalized harm is not sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
In an effort to distinguish themselves from the rest of the citizenry, Plaintiffs point out that Mr. Kerchner and Mr. Nelsen have both taken oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. They also suggest that they feel more threatened by the alleged uncertainty surround President Obama’s place of birth and citizenship than many citizens. While the Court accepts that Plaintiffs are more concerned about President Obama’s birthplace
[4] than many citizens and that they likewise feel a greater sense of obligation to bring the present action, Plaintiffs’ motivations do not alter the nature of the injury alleged. Plaintiffs state that they have been injured because President Obama’s birthplace and citizenship have not been established to their satisfaction; this harm is equally applicable to all American citizens. Finally, Plaintiffs point to the risk that Mr. Kerchner may be recalled to active duty in the U.S. Naval Reserves by Executive Order of the President or an act of Congress in an extreme national emergency. Under these circumstances, Mr. Kerchner “would need to know whether the President and Commander in Chief who may be giving him orders is in fact the legitimate President and Commander in Chief and therefore obligate him to follow those orders or risk being prosecuted for disobeying such legitimate orders.” (Second Am. Compl. 8.) While the Court has doubts about the particularity of this harm, the Court will not address this issue because the alleged harm is neither actual nor imminent, but rather is impermissibly conjectural. The hypothetical nature of this future injury, conditioned on the occurrence of “an extreme national emergency,” is not an “injury in fact” necessary to establish standing. See Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 297 (3d Cir. 2003) (an allegation of potential future property loss, should a municipality disallow a present non-conforming use, cannot demonstrate injury in fact for standing purposes because it is conjectural). Without an “injury in fact” necessary for Article III standing, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present action. [5]
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The accompanying Order shall be entered.
October 20, 2009 s/ Jerome B. Simandle
Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge
[1] The parties dispute whether Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint in conformance with Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P., and further whether that complaint is a short and plain statement required under Rule 8(a)(2). The Court will address the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, notwithstanding that it was filed without leave of Court on February 9, 2009. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring these claims, the Court will not address the procedural disputes, and Plaintiffs’ belated motion for leave to assert the Second Amended Complaint on July 22, 2009, will be dismissed as moot.
[2] To the extent Plaintiffs also allege that they were injured merely by the government’s failure to respond to their petitions requesting investigations and hearings, this is not a cognizable constitutional injury. Plaintiffs “have no constitutional right to force the government to listen to their views.” Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271, 284-85 (1984). As the Supreme Court has explained, “Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, and petition require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals’ communications on public issues.” Id. (citing Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463,
464-466 (1979)).
[3] Plaintiffs cite a Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania decision, Lawless v. Jubelirer, 789 A.2d 820 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), for the proposition that there are exceptions to the standing requirement at issue here. The Court wishes to clarify that Plaintiffs are asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction and consequently the various state court jurisdictional doctrines are inapplicable to this case.
[4] By way of example, Plaintiffs’ complaint outlines the various failures to adequately establish President Obama’s place of birth “on Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the People.” (Second Am. Compl. 84-188.) Plaintiffs identify the “Irreparable Harm” to be suffered as follows: “If Obama is sworn in as President of the United States and Commander in Chief, there will be substantial and irreparable harm to the stability of the United States, its people, and the plaintiffs.”
[5] Moreover, had Plaintiffs alleged an “injury in fact” sufficient to satisfy Article III standing, prudential standing concerns would likewise prevent the Court from exercising jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has held that “even when the plaintiff has alleged redressable injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Art. III, the Court has refrained from adjudicating ‘abstract questions of wide public significance’ which amount to ‘generalized grievances,’ pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474-75 (1982). Plaintiffs’ claims fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch. The Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ frustration with what they perceive as Congress’ inaction in this area, but their remedy may be found through their vote. To this extent, it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.
Source: http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/kerchner-v-obama-case-dismissed/
Orly’s appeal from the sanctions imposed by Judge Land: It was a “political lynching.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21367912/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-29-NOTICE-OF-APPEAL-Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-29-0
It would appear that Attorney Dentist Orly Taitz Esquire may have possibly seemed to have disagreed somewhat in some small manner to something or other in the tenor or tone of the Order by Judge Land imposing the $20,000.00 fine:
“Judge Land’s actions that amounted to misstating or misrepresenting ninety percent of what was presented in the pleadings and argument, completely ignoring ninety percent of the argument and facts, making extremely rude and demeaning remarks, showing bias; taken together, appear to be designed to silence her and, intimidate her and above all, punish her for what the Court perceived as political rather than “core” constitutional questions. It appears to be a thinly veiled threat to other attorneys not to pursue similar Constitutional issues, which will have a chilling effect on the ability of the public to use Federal Court system to uphold their constitutional rights. Judge Land’s remarks amounted to nothing short of political lynching, which turned into feast and celebration by the media mob.”
A delicious feast and celebration at that. Please pass the tooth picks.
Orly you
can make this world seem right
Orly you
can make the darkness bright
Orly you and you alone
can thrill me like you do
and fill my heart with love for Orly you
Orly you
can make this change in me
For it’s true
you are my destiny
When you hold my hand, I understand
the magic that you do
You’re my dream come true
my one and Orly you, Orly you
Orly you and you alone
can thrill me like you do
and fill my heart with love for Orly you
Orly you
can make this change in me
For it’s true
you are my destiny
When you hold my hand, I understand
the magic that you do
You’re my dream come true
my one and Orly you (one and Orly you)
Why the obsession with Orly Taitz?
Why the hate speech towards Orly Taitz?
Why the distraction away from Barack Hussein Obama II?
Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?
Shame be upon you and may a pox be upon your house.
borderraven,
Why the obsession with Orly Taitz?
Because she’s extremely entertaining.
Why the hate speech towards Orly Taitz?
I’m not sure what you mean by hate speech – certainly we make fun of her, but I don’t think any of it is hateful (as opposed to her nervous tick of mouthing off to judges…).
Why the distraction away from Barack Hussein Obama II?
That would be President Barack Hussein Obama II. I certainly haven’t been distracted from following our president by this amusing diversion. I just focus on his actions and policies rather than a mistaken belief that he’s not eligible for the office he holds.
Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?
Um, did you even look at who’s blog you’re posting on? If you had read the articles and comments on this blog you would know that not only is Professor Turley one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country, but the level of knowledge about the law in general and the constitution in particular is extremely high (although admittedly I’m bringing down the average…). To accuse people like Professor Turley and Vince Treacy (just to name one) of being ignorant of the constitution is a stunning and ridiculous display of ignorance in and of itself.
Shame be upon you and may a pox be upon your house.
There is no shame in shining a light on constitutional issues and providing a forum for ernest and civilized debate, nor for taking part in that debate. I’m sorry that your narrow-minded paranoia makes you see enemies here, but the only shame here is what you brought with you.
borderraven: “Why the ignorance of the US Constitution?”
To which provisions of the Constitution does this ignorance apply?
If you have any specific provisions that we have ignored, why not point them out and give us a chance to look into them and see if there is any merit to your contentions? We will be glad to look them up, take a look at the history and the court cases, and discuss them.
Appeal filed in Obama eligibility argument
‘Court cannot refuse to hear a case because it prefers not’
Posted: October 27, 2009
8:43 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A case alleging Congress failed in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president has been sent on appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
WND previously reported when a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Congress.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed the action in January on behalf of Kerchner, Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr. Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, “provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate ‘elected’ by the Electoral College Electors.”
The case asserts “when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”
(Story continues below)
The Constitution provides, the lawsuit says, “If the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified.”
See the movie Obama does not want you to see: Own the DVD that probes this unprecedented presidential eligibility mystery!
“There existed significant public doubt and grievances from plaintiffs and other concerned Americans regarding Obama’s eligibility to be president and defendants had the sworn duty to protect and preserve the Constitution and specifically under the 20th Amendment, Section 3, a Constitutional obligation to confirm whether Obama, once the electors elected him, was qualified,” the case explained.
The attorney now has posted online a notice of his appeal to the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia.
“Through his dismissal, Judge Simandle avoided having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ and eligible for the office of president and commander in chief,” Apuzzo said.
“We allege that Obama has not conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. More importantly, we also allege that he is not an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ because when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same.”
The lawyer said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous.
It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue.
“By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case. With such a decision, the American people unfortunately still do not know where Obama was born and whether he is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and therefore constitutionally eligible to be president and commander in chief,” the attorney said.
“A court cannot refuse to hear a case on the merits merely because it prefers not to due to grave social or political ramifications,” he continued. “The court’s opinion dismissing the Kerchner complaint/petition did not address the real Kerchner case but rather looked for a way to dismiss the case without having to reach the merits of the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born citizen.’
“The American people deserve to know whether Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. More importantly, even if he is born in Hawaii, given that he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship, the American people deserve to know whether he is an Article II ‘natural born citizen’ which would make him eligible to be president,” the attorney said.
WND had reported only days earlier when Kerchner publicly argued that the courts have an obligation to make a decision on Obama’s eligibility.
He wrote, “The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.”
He said his basis for such a statement is the opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who wrote in an 1821 case, Cohens vs. Virginia:
“It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Kerchner added, “The … judges in the … cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn’t documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?
WND has reported on another case, being heard by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. He released a ruling noting the government’s motion to dismiss was being taken “under submission.” But he also approved a final calendar for the case to be proceeding in his court.
Under the schedule ordered by the judge the final pretrial conference is scheduled Jan. 11, 2010, while the jury trial is Jan. 26, 2010.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Art Bulla,
You are late to this party. If you read through all of the past posts on this thread you will realize that all you say has already been disproven. Oh wait, I’m sorry. you’re not the reading type are you? More like another troll on the make. your presences here is merely to keep a moronic idea going and to fuel your own hatred and stupidity. Have a nice day.
Art has just put up another troll posting, simply pasting up a Worst Nut Daily article.
The only “news” is that Mario Apussi has filed a notice of appeal in the case that was dismissed, above at Oct. 21, 2009 12:07 pm.
That is all.
The Nut article is full of discredited information.
Just for one, 2d para from last: “The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii.”
This is an outright lie. It is repeated in EVERY Nut article. It is false. A law that was passed in 1982, but that was not on the books in 1961, allows Hawaiian parents, like those who have adopted children, to obtain an Hawaiian birth certificate for use for drivers’ licenses and all other purposes.
But those certificates can only list the true place of birth. They cannot list birth in Hawaii. The Hawaiian official have explained this.
So Art the troll has repeated a lie. But do not expect anyone to admit this.
Mike S. and Vince,
Good work and exposing Art’s true colors. Facts are a very messy problem for trolls so they just don’t bother with them.
This is not a “party, but a lynching. The left now are racist against honorable, upright white individuals, and the left being traitors to their race, the Constitution, and the heavens, crucify the Lord afresh by proxy in their wickedness and corruption, being Darwinists there is no absolute truth at all with them, they vilify without being moored in reality at all:
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Rom 1:28-32)
The left lie without let, their consciences being seared with a hot iron. A certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate. Persons were able to get a certificate of live birth solely upon the testimony of one parent. In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States. At the time of Barrack Obama’s birth, his father was a citizen of the British Empire. Therefore even if he was born in Hawaii (which the ambassador to Kenya says is not true, there being a monument erected in Kenya to his birth, and to which his grandmother testifies as being an eyewitness: that he was born in Kenya) he still would not qualify as being “natural born” since BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES. So whom should the people believe? Perverted leftists such as yourselves, whose politics are driven by your sexual depravity, constant liars, or our lying eyes and ears?
The whole birther movement God’s gift to Obama, cause if they weren’t obsessing on that, it would be something else. So let ‘em go. I hope they keep at until their puny little brains overload and they have to be chemically lobotomized.
Alan,
Are you Formerly Known as Bdaman?
@AY: Not that I’m aware of
Art,
While you are clearly a hate filled troll spewing lies either intentionally or out of ignorance, I thought I would reply to your vile little screed anyway.
You said:
“This is not a “party, but a lynching. The left now are racist against honorable, upright white individuals, and the left being traitors to their race, the Constitution, and the heavens, crucify the Lord afresh by proxy in their wickedness and corruption, being Darwinists there is no absolute truth at all with them, they vilify without being moored in reality at all:”
I’m not sure who you are quoting here (or, in fact, what comprises the quote here since there is no close quote), so I’ll just assume you’re saying it all. Your comment about the left being traitors to their race implies that the left is only comprised of white people which seem to whiff of more than a little hypocrisy to me – certainly not the last time you commit this transgression.
I’m not sure what the point of the rest of your rant and the bible verse is about, but I’m a scientist who is aware of the fact that evolution is the best theory at explaining the scientific data and that there are no competing scientific theories at all – if you think that makes me a ‘Darwinist’ (whatever that’s supposed to mean) fine, I really don’t care about the labels you want to put on me in your sad, little mind. As for the bible verse, I will give weight in a legal discussion to you quoting bible verses when you either prove to me that you have never worn clothing made from two different fabrics or let yourself be stoned (and not in the good way…) and until then, I’ll just ignore it.
You said:
“The left lie without let, their consciences being seared with a hot iron.”
I’m always impressed at how people of your ilk try to paint the opposition with their own sins.
“A certificate of live birth is not a birth certificate.”
No, but it is prima facia evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii. (And the only such evidence generally available from the Hawaii DOH.)
“Persons were able to get a certificate of live birth solely upon the testimony of one parent.”
Maybe, so what?
“In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States.”
This sentence has some serious problems both in fact and in structure. I’ll leave figuring out why this is a bad sentence structurally to you, but as Vince (and others) have painstakingly pointed out in this thread and its predecessors, the definition of ‘natural born’ at the time of the Constitution came from English common law and required only birth on native soil, regardless of parentage. The SCOTUS has never clarified the definition (although it’s rulings clearly support the English common law definition over your (or de Vattel’s) definition).
“At the time of Barrack Obama’s birth, his father was a citizen of the British Empire.”
Yes, so what?
“Therefore even if he was born in Hawaii (which the ambassador to Kenya says is not true, there being a monument erected in Kenya to his birth, and to which his grandmother testifies as being an eyewitness: that he was born in Kenya) he still would not qualify as being “natural born” since BOTH PARENTS WERE NOT BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.”
This sentence is just not true (see the entire above thread and two or three of its predecessors and pay special attention to posts by Vince Treacy if you are interested in why this is so). As for the parenthetical comment, I’m unaware of what statement by the ambassador to Kenya you are referring to, but I’ll bet that Vince could debunk it in under 5 minutes if he wanted to, but if you listen to the unedited version of the interview (and understand Luo) with President Obama’s grandmother (actually not his grandmother but the wife of his grandfather, I believe) you will hear her correct this misunderstanding and say he was born in Hawaii.
“So whom should the people believe? Perverted leftists such as yourselves, whose politics are driven by your sexual depravity, constant liars, or our lying eyes and ears?”
Well, after reading all of the posts in this thread and its predecessors, following most of the links to sites supporting both sides of the argument it seems crystal clear to me that any rational person should believe that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to hold the office of POTUS. I don’t really care about what perverted sexually deviant activities you engage in (as long as they’re between consenting adults or inanimate objects) and you can’t hardly write a sentence without at least one lie in it, so I’ll believe what my eyes, ears, and reasoning ability tell me to be true and not the toxic bile that you and WND spew.
What you and all of your birther friends should understand is that even if we somehow stumble into some alternate reality and one of these cases proceeds to trial (and I believe Vince’s written predictions (I don’t know how to do the trademark thingy, sorry) of ‘case dismissed’ on this matter) the first thing that would likely happen is judicial recognition of the COLB or statements by Hawaii DOH officials, thus officially establishing President Obama’s birth in Hawaii and if you’re really lucky the court will also establish the English common law definition of natural born citizen as the correct one. So no matter how things proceed from this point on, the only thing you and your ilk have in store is bitter disappointment because fortunately our judges uphold the Constitution and understand the law, the only question is will any case actually pass the hurdles of standing and justicability (sp? – I sympathize with Judge Carter) to lose based on the evidence and arguments? I suspect even this is too much to ask of legal luminaries like Orly Taitz and friends – although I would love to see Orly argue this case (I can just imagine the drinking game – drink whenever Orly calls someone a traitor (double for the judge), drink when she insults co-counsel, finish the bottle when she’s fined…). Now unless you have anything substantive to add to the conversation (which it’s pretty clear you don’t – or you’re hiding it very, very well), would you please stop waving your ignorance all over.
Everyone else,
Sorry about feeding the troll, but he seemed to need a beat down and after months of following the debate over health care reform, I’ve lost my patience for fools…
Art Bulla,
You have committed the mortal sin of blasphemy by taking the name of the Lord in vain, by using the bible to make a political statement. You have also put other God’s before the Lord in putting the Conservative Movement on the same level as God’s Holy Books. You are a blasphemer also because you misinterpret those books for a political (Caesar’s)purpose.
Jesus said “Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser’s, render up to the Lord that which is God’s.” You have rendered unto Caesar that which is the Lord’s. You have sinned and I sincerely pray for your repentence, lest you spend all of eternity as damned.
Good work, Mike and Slart.
Art said: “In order to be “natural born” as per the definition used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, one had to be NOT ONLY born in the United States , but BOTH parents are required to be born in the United States to qualify for the office of President of the United States.”
That is a lie.
There is no requirement ANYWHERE in the Constitution that says a President must have both parents born in the United States, or that both parents must be citizens.
If Art Bulla can find anything in the Constitution, let it be posted here. It is going to be a long wait. There is NOTHING in the text of the Constitution that supports that position. Is Bulla claiming that the parents must not only be citizens, but also natural born citizens, themselves? It is doubtful whether Bulla even thought about that point. The ignorance of the Constitution is monumental.
No Supreme Court case or any other case has ever said that. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark ruled that babies born in the United States to alien parents are citizens from birth, and are just as much citizens as the children of United States citizens.
This is a legal blog run by a Constitutional Law Professor, so false statements about the Constitution do not survive very long here.
Art Bulla has no basis for these statements.
Orly Taitz dissed again! Government defendant’s Motion to Dismiss granted. Case dismissed.
Eat your hearts out, birhers:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Captain Pamela Barnett, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Barack H. Obama, et al.,
Defendants.
CASE NO. SACV 09-0082 DOC (ANx)
O R D E R REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants President Barack H. Obama (“Obama” or “President”), Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton (“Clinton”), Joseph Biden (“Biden”), and Robert Gates’ (“Gates”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss. After considering the moving, opposing, reply, and sur-reply papers, as well as the parties’ oral argument, the Court hereby rules as follows.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
On January 20, 2009, the day on which Barack Obama was sworn in as President and took office, Plaintiffs brought this suit. The action was filed at 3:26 p.m. Pacific standard time, following President Obama’s formal assumption of office. The suit alleges, in pertinent part, that President Obama does not meet the qualifications required for the Office of the President, as specified by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution, which reads, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the President has not shown that he is a “natural born citizen” of the UnitedStates and assert that he should have to establish his citizenship by “clear-and-convincing evidence.” Plaintiffs argue that despite the fact that President Obama has produced a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii, there is evidence to show that the President was actually born in Kenya, thus making him ineligible to be President. Plaintiffs also argue that, even if the President was a natural born citizen, he abandoned his citizenship while living in Indonesia and has not gone through the proper immigration procedures to regain his United States citizenship. Plaintiffs are third party candidates from the American Independent Party for president and vice president in the 2008 presidential election, inactive and active military personnel, and state representatives. The third party candidate plaintiffs are Alan Keyes, Gail Lightfoot, and Reverend Wiley Drake. Keyes and Drake received a total of four-hundredth of one percent of the popular vote for President.
Because Plaintiffs failed to bring their claims in this Court until after President Obama was sworn into office, the Court has been presented with much more than an action against a political candidate asking the Court to interpret the candidate’s qualifications to run for office. Instead, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare that the current President of the United States is illegitimate and fails to meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants challenge the ability of the Court to hear Plaintiffs’ claims and redress their alleged injuries through the removal of the sitting President.
B. First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs have since filed a First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”), which adds to the original complaint and which is the subject of this Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that declaratory judgment is proper pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and through a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988. First Am. Compl. (“Compl.”) ¶ 60, July 14, 2009. Plaintiffs’ Complaint sets forth ten questions for which they request declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. Id. ¶¶ 11-21. The questions all relate to the meaning of the Constitution’s natural born citizen clause and the appropriate recourse should a sitting president not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement.
Plaintiffs frame these questions as seeking “an answer to the simple question of constitutional qualifications . . . [and seeking] a declaratory judgment confirming their fundamental civil or constitutional right to ask and know the constitutional qualifications of any person elected or appointed to public office in the United States of America.” Id. 3:8-12. Beyond this “simple question,” however, Plaintiffs make a significantly more expansive request. Plaintiffs seek “injunctive relief against all four office-holding defendants [the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President] to limit their powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force, as well as the appointment of judges or justices and the ratification or modification of treaties during the pendency of this lawsuit until and unless Defendant Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional qualifications are established in this court by clear-and-convincing evidence.” Id. 3:13-22. In other words, Plaintiffs do not propose succession by Vice President Biden but instead seek a complete shutdown of the government by enjoining it from acting while holding a new presidential election.
Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the production of documents pursuant to FOIA. Id. ¶¶ 60-109. Plaintiffs further allege a violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988(a). Id. ¶¶ 110-122. Finally, Plaintiffs make a request for a writ quo warranto, in which Plaintiffs state, “This Court has the power to order Barack Hussein Obama to appear and to show cause all the relief sought by this complaint should not be upheld (or entered) against him.” Id. ¶ 121; see also id. 4:3-19. The prayer for relief states the resolution sought in the action as:
This Court should issue an order to Barack Hussein Obama to show cause why the full measure of relief requested by the Plaintiffs in this case should not be granted, and should in particular order that the contours of the final judgment under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), including the extension or modification of common and statutory law to protect the civil rights of the people of the United States to demand clear and- convincing evidence of the constitutional qualifications, elegibility [sic], and competence of their elected (as well as their non-elected [sic]) officials, representatives, and executive agents.
Id. ¶ 126.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims. Once subject matter jurisdiction is challenged, the burden of proof is placed on the party asserting that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that “the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists.”). Accordingly, the Court will presume lack of subject matter jurisdiction until the plaintiff proves otherwise in response to the motion to dismiss. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673 (1994).
Defendants assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action on five bases: (1) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate Article III standing; (2) the issues in this action present non-justiciable political questions; (3) this Court is not the appropriate forum for Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims; (4) this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988; and (5) Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to their Freedom of Information Act claims and all claims against Defendants Clinton, Gates, Michelle Obama, and Biden.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court must establish that it has jurisdiction before it may reach the question of interpreting the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. “[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.” Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347, 56 S. Ct. 466 (1936) (Brandeis, J. concurring) (citing Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U.S. 175, 191, 29 S. Ct. 451 (1909); Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523, 538, 31 S. Ct. 485 (1911)).
A. Jurisdiction Under Article III
Rule 12(b)(1) mandates that the Court dismiss claims for which it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Standing is an element of subject matter jurisdiction. Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2003). To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) an ‘injury in fact’ – an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized,” meaning that the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way,” and (b) “‘actual or imminent,’ not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical;’” (2) “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of – the injury has to be ‘fairly . . . trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not . . . th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court;’” (3) “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992) (internal citations omitted). Each element of standing is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case,” and accordingly “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
The caption of the Complaint in this matter lists forty-four (44) plaintiffs. The Complaint does not individually identify the bases for standing for each of these plaintiffs, but alleges generally, “The Plaintiffs are all American citizens, the majority with military service backgrounds (retired or inactive but subject to recall), a number of former and possible or prospective political candidates, including a number of state legislators and third-party candidates for President and Vice-President.” Compl. 3:5-8.
Plaintiffs are comprised of six groups which claim standing: (a) active military personnel; (b) former military personnel; (c) state representatives; (d) federal taxpayers; (e) relatives of President Obama; and (f) political candidates. The Complaint identifies eleven plaintiffs who fall within these groups. Thirty-two of the named plaintiffs are not identified in the Complaint with any particularity. The Court must assume that the remainder of the plaintiffs fall into one of the aforementioned six categories.
The majority of Plaintiffs are addressed through the first prong of Article III standing, which requires that Plaintiffs demonstrate the “invasion of a legally protected interest” which is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.
a. Active Military Personnel
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Lieutenant Jason Freese (“Lieutenant Freese”) has standing because he is on active military duty in Alaska. Compl. ¶ 6. The Complaint states that, because Lieutenant Freese is on active military duty, he has standing “to challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof of the constitutional qualifications of the Commander-in-Chief and the legality of the current chain of command.” Id. Plaintiffs argue that Lieutenant Freese’s standing stems from the oath that military officers are required to take in which they swear to support and defend the Constitution. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 9:12-13:19. The oath that all military personnel take when enlisting in the military states as follows:
I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. 10 U.S.C. § 502.
Plaintiffs rely primarily on Board of Education v. Allen for their argument that Plaintiff has standing as an oath taker. 392 U.S. 236, 88 S. Ct. 1923 (1968). In Allen, Plaintiffs who were serving on the Board of Education took an oath in which they pledged to uphold the Constitution. Id. at 241 n.5. Plaintiffs alleged that if pursuant to that oath they refused to follow a law requiring them to lend books to parochial schools on the basis that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, then they would face the injury of likely being expelled from office and having state funds to their school district reduced. Id. While the issue of standing was not before the Court, the Court observed in a footnote that it had no doubt that the plaintiffs had a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation. Id. Plaintiffs argue that this action is similar to Allen because Lieutenant Freese has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and if pursuant to that oath he refused to follow the orders of President Obama on the basis that all orders from the President are unconstitutional because he does not satisfy the natural born citizen clause, then Freese would face the injury of likely disciplinary action within the military.
The footnote regarding standing in Allen is not binding Supreme Court precedent. In addition, the Supreme Court has significantly tightened standing requirements subsequent to the Allen ruling. City of South Lake Tahoe v. Calif. Tahoe Reg. Planning Agency, 625 F.2d 231, 236 (9th Cir. 1980). The Ninth Circuit has rejected the reasoning of the footnote in Allen on the basis that the real source of an oath taker’s complaint is not sufficiently concrete to establish standing. The Ninth Circuit, discussing the standing of oath takers to bring an action for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of an action, reasoned that oath takers hold merely an abstract objection to an unconstitutional act because they generally face only an abstract injury should they choose to object to the act. Id. at 237. The Court found that the oath takers’ objection was insufficient to invoke standing because “the difficulty with abstract constitutional grievances is that they lack the specificity and adversarial coloration that transmute vague notions of constitutional principle into a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution.” Id. at 237-38 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Pursuant to the reasoning under South Lake Tahoe, Plaintiff Lieutenant Freese fails to establish standing based on his military oath because his injuries are not sufficiently concrete to establish Article III standing.
The Complaint also requests that this Court enjoin the President’s “powers to order new deployments or assignments of any armed forces of the United States outside of the territorial limits of the United States without express Congressional approval, and further to limit the execution of certain orders of the President of the United States relating to the conduct of foreign policy by and through the use of currently deployed and assigned military force.” Compl. 3:14-19. This “cut and run” call to lay down arms and leave this country defenseless is an effort by Plaintiffs to emasculate the military.
Plaintiffs have inappropriately requested that this Court interfere with internal military affairs. See Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93-94, 73 S. Ct. 534 (1953) (“[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.”). Plaintiffs only seek to enjoin acts that the President takes as Commander-in-Chief internationally, not domestically. This peculiarity leads the Court to suspect that the constitutional objection is being used as a veil to avoid deployment to countries where the United States military is currently active, such as Iraq or Afghanistan. See Rhodes v. Thomas D. MacDonald et al., No. 4:09-CV-106 (CDL), 2007 WL 2997605 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 16, 2009) (Plaintiff objecting to President Obama’s natural born citizen status “had no concerns about fulfilling her military obligation until she received orders notifying her that she would be deployed to Iraq in September 2009”). Furthermore, Lieutenant Freese’s claims are based upon the notion that his duty to serve is based upon who is in office. The duty to defend is not dependent upon a political or personal view regarding the individual who serves as President and Commander-in-Chief. It is an unequivocal duty to defend our country.
This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
Plaintiff Freese fails to meet the Article III standing requirements.
b. Former Military Personnel
The Complaint states that all inactive or retired military personnel “have standing to challenge and demand clear-and-convincing proof . . . [because] they are subject to recall and service at any time under and subject to the de facto chain of command.” Compl. ¶ 7. In order for Article III standing to be met, the Supreme Court requires that the injury be “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical,’” and that the injury must be likely, not merely speculative. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (citations omitted). Currently, Plaintiffs are inactive in the military and therefore are not subject to any orders from the Commander-in-Chief, President Obama. Therefore, Plaintiffs base their standing on the possibility that they could be called back to service at any time and would at that point have to follow the Commander-in-Chief’s orders. Plaintiffs argue that following such orders would be injurious because they would have to follow the commands of someone who does not meet the requirements to hold the position of Commander-in-Chief. However, the chance that Plaintiffs would be called back to active duty fails to meet the requirement that the injury not be merely hypothetical or speculative. Whether or not Plaintiffs will be called back to active duty depends on future unknown events, and is thereby both hypothetical and speculative. See Bates v. Rumsfeld, 271 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D. D.C. 2002) (where plaintiff challenging the military’s policy of forcing personnel to receive anthrax vaccine was no longer on active duty and the vaccine was only being administered to select units, plaintiff did not meet requirement that injury be concrete and actual or imminent). As such, inactive or former military personnel fail to meet the Article III standing requirements.
c. State Representatives
The Complaint additionally identifies a group of “Plaintiff State Representatives” as having “unique standing.” Compl. ¶ 8. While the Complaint does not specifically identify these representatives serving in the state government, from the caption of the Complaint it appears they are Tennessee Representative Glen Casada; New Hampshire Representative Timothy Comerford; Missouri Representative Cynthia Davis; Missouri Representative Timothy Jones; Tennessee Representative Frank Niceley; and Tennessee Representative Eric Swafford (collectively, the “State Representatives”).
The Complaint alleges that the State Representatives have “a special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.” Id. Defendants argue that this allegation is “wholly insufficient to constitute injury-in-fact” because it is “neither actual or imminent” and is “highly speculative.” Mot. 8:13-14. Morever, Defendants assert that the allegation fails to “withstand any logical scrutiny” because the causes of action of theft and conversion require intent. Id. Since Plaintiffs state that they do not know with certainty that President Obama was not born in the United States, they do not have the requisite intent to be held liable for theft or conversion. Id. 8:8-21. In effect, Plaintiffs allege that the State Representatives have standing because they could be held liable for theft or conversion should they accept federal funds pursuant to an unconstitutionally elected president. The threat of liability for theft or conversion against these representatives is highly speculative. See City of South Lake Tahoe, 625 F.2d at 238 (exposure of plaintiffs to civil liability was wholly speculative where no lawsuit was currently threatened); see also O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497, 94 S. Ct. 669 (1974) (“attempting to anticipate” whether respondent will be charged with a crime which will possibly lead to them suffering a constitutional violation takes the Court into “the area of speculation and conjecture”). The State Representatives’ liability for theft or conversion is speculative because it takes multiple logical leaps to assume that the representatives would be prosecuted criminally for theft and conversion for taking funds from the President who has been elected and sworn into office. Because the alleged harm faced by the State Representatives is highly speculative and conjectural, this group also fails to satisfy the standing requirements.
Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiffs allege State Representatives have standing based on an oath to uphold the Constitution, the allegation is insufficient to establish standing under the reasoning of City of South Lake Tahoe, as discussed above.
d. Federal Taxpayers
Plaintiffs argue that they have standing to challenge President Obama’s unconstitutional presidency as federal taxpayers. However, Plaintiffs concede that current Supreme Court precedent would not allow for standing in this situation and that the Court could only find taxpayer standing should it expand the Supreme Court’s holdings. Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 19:22-20:11. As a basis for this standing, Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand the Supreme Court holding in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942 (1968). In Flast, federal taxpayers sought to enjoin the expenditure of federal funds by Congress on the purchase of textbooks and other materials for use in parochial schools on grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Id. at 85. The Supreme Court rejected the Government’s position that standing could never be established on the basis of taxpayer status and held that taxpayer standing could be established if the taxpayer demonstrates “that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress” by Article 1, Section 8. Id. at 103. The Court stated that it lacked confidence that the issues would be framed with the necessary specificity to establish standing in cases “where a taxpayer seeks to employ a federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.” Id. at 106.
Flast involved the challenge of congressional spending, whereas Plaintiffs in this case appear to be challenging the President’s role in making any executive decisions, presumably including spending, even though Congress, not the President, is granted the taxing and spending power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing argument ties into their universal argument that if the President has been elected without meeting the Constitution’s requirements, then every presidential order is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs’ dispute against the President is a generalized grievance, not tied to a specific spending measure in violation of the Constitution. Tellingly, Plaintiffs make no argument pertaining to a particular spending provision, and their argument does not even relate to the limits of the congressional taxing and spending power as discussed in Flast.
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to expand standing grounds, arguing that the reasoning of Flast regarding the Establishment Clause is analogous to the natural born citizen clause because it is “an absolute limitation on the unconstitutional exercise of power by government whose effect (i.e. injury) will always be by definition diffuse rather than particularized.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 20:5-11. Even ignoring the fact that Flast’s holding was limited to Establishment Clause claims which are not present here, Flast clearly required that in order for taxpayer status to create standing, the taxpayer must demonstrate a nexus between the challenged spending and the constitutional right. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 605, 127 S. Ct. 2553 (2007) (requiring a “link” between congressional action and constitutional violation). Here, Plaintiffs do not show a nexus between any challenged spending provision passed by Congress and the constitutional requirement that the President be a natural born citizen. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 228, 94 S. Ct. 2925 (1974) (taxpayers did not have standing because they failed to establish a nexus between the challenged act and the constitutional violation where the challenged action was one of the executive branch).
Under Flast, Plaintiffs do not have standing as taxpayers to challenge the President’s qualifications. Furthermore, expanding the Supreme Court’s holding in Flast to the current situation would be contrary to later Supreme Court jurisprudence reaffirming the narrow circumstances in which taxpayer status establishes standing. See, e.g., Hein, 551 U.S. at 615 (rejecting broad reading of Flast and affirming its application only to Congressional action, stating, “in the four decades since Flast was decided, we have never extended its narrow exception to a purely discretionary Executive Branch expenditure.”); Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 618, 108 S. Ct. 2562 (1988) (reaffirming Flast and acknowledging that Flast creates only a “narrow exception” to the “general rule against taxpayer standing”). The taxpayer plaintiffs have failed to allege injury-in-fact.
e. Relatives
The Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff Kurt Fuqua (“Fuqua”) has “traced his genealogy to be common with Mr. Obama’s” and that he thereby has standing because of “family relationship” and “concerns of the family medical history.” Compl. ¶¶ 49, 52. The Court finds that Plaintiff Fuqua also fails to satisfy standing requirements based on his alleged familial ties to President Obama. The Complaint alleges that this family relationship, as well as purported concerns Plaintiff has regarding his family medical history, establish standing. Id. ¶ 52. The Court takes this to mean that Fuqua has a greater interest in finding out where President Obama was born than the average citizen. Plaintiff Fuqua’s injury from an allegedly unqualified president is not any greater than the common citizen’s injury simply because he is allegedly related to President Obama.
The “general right” of “every citizen, to require that the government be administered according to law” is insufficient to establish standing. Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 129, 42 S. Ct. 274 (1922). Plaintiff’s stake in this controversy as a citizen is no greater than the millions of other United States citizens, and the harm he alleges is too vague. As such, Fuqua has not alleged an injury-in-fact because the grievance of a citizen in the alleged violation of the natural born citizen clause is too generalized. See Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D. N.H. 2008); Berg v. Obama, 574 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
f. Political Candidates
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs Wiley S. Drake (“Drake”), Alan Keyes (“Keyes”), Gail Lightfoot (“Lightfoot”), and Markham Robinson (“Robinson”) have “unique political standing” because they appeared on the California ballot as candidates for president or vice president in the 2008 national election. Compl. ¶ 5. Keyes was the presidential nominee for the American Independent Party (also called America’s Independent Party on some ballots) in the 2008 Presidential election, and Plaintiff Drake was the vice presidential nominee for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election on the California ballot. Pl. W.D.’s Opp’n 1:6-13. Lightfoot was also a vice presidential nominee for the American Independent Party.
Plaintiff Robinson was “a pledged Presidential elector for the American Independent Party in the 2008 Presidential election for the California ballot.” Id. In order to establish injury-in-fact, the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 n.1. Defendants argue that the political candidate plaintiffs have failed to establish injury-in-fact because they were not serious enough contenders for the presidency that another candidate’s alleged lack of qualifications for the position could cause them any harm. Notably, President Obama’s primary opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and President Obama’s Republican Party opponent, Senator John McCain, did not initiate any suits against President Obama regarding his birth status. These candidates, who were poised to benefit the most from the removal of Obama as a candidate, chose to refrain from bringing suit under the natural born citizen clause. Defendants argue that because the third party political candidates would have lost the election in any event, they have not been harmed by competing against a candidate who did not qualify. Defendants state that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the injury-in-fact requirement because they “cannot counter the argument that, from a simple mathematical analysis, . . . they were not on the ballot in enough states in the 2008 Presidential election to even hope that they could gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency of the United States.” Defs.’ Reply 3:6-11. If there should in fact be a dividing line for that is dependent on the likelihood of success in the election, then this is not a case which would hover on that line as Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter. In this case, it does seem highly unlikely that the replacement of President Obama with another Democratic nominee such as Hillary Clinton would have resulted in a victory for Plaintiffs Keyes, Drake, or Lightfoot of the American Independent Party. However, creating a dividing line for standing according to chance of success in political elections is, by the nature of our political system, an especially difficult determination because political elections lack predictability and can be greatly affected by a single speech or action of a candidate. At the same time, perhaps it is precisely this unpredictability of political elections that makes the claim of a third party candidate, who received less than one percent of the popular vote in the 2008 national election that did take place, too speculative to establish standing.
In addition, Defendants’ arguments raise obvious slippery slope objections. Would a candidate such as Ross Perot, who received nearly twenty percent of the popular vote but no electoral college votes in the 1992 election, have a sufficiently strong chance of winning the election to establish standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications? At the same time, if every candidate has standing to challenge an opposing candidate, would that include write-in candidates who receive minimal votes? Where to draw the line between which political candidates have standing and which candidates do not have standing to challenge their opposing candidates’ qualifications is an amorphous determination that would need to take into account, at the very least, the number of states in which the candidate was on the ballot.
The Court is troubled by the idea that a third party candidate would not have standing to challenge a major party candidate’s qualifications, while the opposing major party candidate may be able to establish standing because he or she has a better chance of winning the election. Defendants’ argument encourages the marginalization of the voice of a third party in what is a dominantly two-party political system and would require the Court to pass judgment that Plaintiffs are such unlikely candidates that who they are running against would not make a difference. This argument also ignores the tremendous effect that a third-party candidate can have on the presidential election. In 2000, many political commentators opined that should Green Party candidate Ralph Nader not have run for presidential office and received less than three percent of the popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election instead of President George W. Bush. Even when third-party candidates themselves may not have a chance of winning, which candidates they compete against can certainly have an effect on the election results.
Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson argue that it is irrelevant that those candidates which had the most to gain by removing Obama as a candidate, Secretary Clinton and Senator McCain, are not the candidates challenging President Obama. Plaintiffs encourage the Court to reject Defendants’ success-based concept of standing. They make a qualitatively different argument regarding why they have suffered injury as political candidates, an argument that does not require the Court to consider their likelihood of winning the election. Plaintiffs argue that the injury they suffered was the deprivation of the right to run for office on a fair playing field against only candidates who meet the constitutional requirements to serve as President. Under
this theory, the injury is not that of being deprived the chance to win, but being deprived the chance to compete only against “legitimate” candidates. If the Court accepts this concept of injury, then all candidates would have standing to sue the President on the basis that they were all injured by having to compete against him in the national election.
Because the political candidate plaintiffs are the only category of plaintiffs who potentially satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, the Court will turn to whether the political candidates can satisfy the redressability requirement of the standing analysis and whether the political candidates can further clear the political question and separation of powers hurdles of justiciability.
B. Redressability, Political Question, and Separation of Powers
The third prong of Article III standing requires that the alleged injury be likely to be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561 (citations omitted). The redressability prong requires the court to “examine whether ‘the court has the power to right or to prevent the claimed injury.’” Railway Labor Executives Ass’n v. Dole, 760 F.2d 1021, 1023 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Gonzales v. Gorusch, 688 F.2d 1263, 1267 (9th Cir. 1985)). While standing generally focuses upon the potential plaintiff and his or her relationship to the alleged harm, the redressability prong of standing turns the focus upon the type of redress that the court is able to offer to the plaintiff. Courts will refrain from finding standing in cases where, regardless of a showing of injury-in-fact, the court would be unable to offer redress that would cure plaintiff’s harm. See Railway Labor Executives Ass’n, 760 F.2d at 1023-24 (plaintiffs failed to satisfy redressability prong where court did not have the power to “fashion[] an enforcement manual for an executive branch agency that was presumably commissioned by Congress to devise its own enforcement strategy”).
Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is having to respect the authority of a president who does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold office. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury would only be redressed by the removal of President Obama from office. Plaintiffs thereby ask this Court to intervene and overthrow a president who was elected by “We the People”–over sixtynine million of the people. President Obama was popularly elected. He received the requisite votes from the Electoral College, which were received and counted by Congress with no objections. President Obama took office at noon on January 20, 2009 pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment. He was sworn in on January 20, 2009, and re-sworn in on January 21, 2009, pledging the oath set forth in Article II, Section 1, cl. 8 of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” In order for Plaintiffs’ alleged injury to be fully addressed, Plaintiffs would have the Court intervene, upheave the results of a national election, declare the President illegitimate, shut down the functioning of the government of the United States, and leave this country defenseless.
Furthermore, if the Court accepts Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson’s conceptualization of their injury as the harm of being unable to compete in an election with only “legitimate” candidates, redressing the injury of competing in an unfair election would require that the Court order a new national presidential election. Instead of impeachment, which would allow succession by the Vice President and continuation of the order of a functioning government, Plaintiffs seek to shut down the government through an injunction and install a replacement government through a new election. In other words, if the political candidates’ harm is based on their inability to compete against constitutionally qualified candidates, in order to redress that harm the Court would not only have to remove the President, it would have to order a new national election.
The analysis of redressability and political question is significantly different in the context of a sitting president than it would be for a presidential candidate. Therefore, it is a crucial distinction that Plaintiffs’ counsel waited to bring this action until after President
[1 Plaintiffs’ counsel Taitz admitted that the failure to bring a suit before this Court previous to the President’s assumption of office was the fault of counsel due to in-fighting between plaintiffs and between her and counsel Kreep. As stated in the October 5 hearing on this matter:
THE COURT: Just a moment. You didn’t answer my question. Why didn’t you file this case?
MS. TAITZ: Because the plaintiffs wanted to wait for Mr. Kreep.
THE COURT: So that’s a conscious choice on the plaintiffs’ team, then, that you acceded to at that time to put this case in the posture and position of a duly sworn President.
MS. TAITZ: Well, again, Your Honor, not duly sworn President. If one is sworn based on fraudulent information, then the word “duly” wouldn’t. . .
Tr. of Oral Argument 52-53, Oct. 5, 2009.]
Obama’s formal assumption into office.1 See Wilbur v. Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 460 (5th Cir. 2005)) (“‘As with all questions of subject matter jurisdiction except mootness, standing is determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint . . .’”).
Because Plaintiffs did not file this action until the day President Obama took office and was sworn in, any action that this Court takes in this matter is not merely against Senator Obama as a political candidate but against President Obama, this country’s sitting president. In this case, the redressability prong of standing is intimately intertwined with and influenced by another justiciability concept–political question and the separation of powers. Any action taken by the Court would necessarily infringe upon, at the very least, the Executive branch because it would involve a declaration regarding the qualifications of the President. Because the redressability analysis must consider what actions the Court may take against a sitting President, separation of powers concerns regarding the appropriate role of the judiciary sit at the forefront
of the redressability analysis. Plaintiffs have requested both an injunction and a declaratory judgment in the Complaint. Compl. ¶¶ 11-22. Plaintiffs would have the Court reverse the election of President Obama by the American people through a declaratory judgment or injunction that would result in the removal of the President from office. The power of this Court generally to issue an injunction or
[2 The inclusion of the First Lady in this lawsuit, considering she holds no constitutional office, is baffling.]
declaratory judgment against the President is limited at best. The Supreme Court has stated that enjoining a President is an “extraordinary” action that should “raise[ ] judicial eyebrows.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802, 112 S. Ct. 2767 (1992) (plurality opinion). It has also stated that “in general ‘this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.’” Id. at 802-03 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 501 (1866)).
In addition, Plaintiffs have requested that other officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, be enjoined. In their original complaint, Plaintiffs also included FBI Director Robert Mueller. While Plaintiffs removed Mueller in their First Amended Complaint following the Court’s suggestion that they narrow and focus their claims, they insisted upon the continued inclusion of the First Lady, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President as Defendants.2 Plaintiffs’ cause of action is against the President and goes to the heart of the President’s ability to hold office. A remedy directed toward any subordinate officials would not redress Plaintiffs’ injury. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ injury could not be redressed through the
injunction of other subordinate executive officials which may be more properly within the power of this Court. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863 (1952). The case of Newdow v. Bush is instructive regarding the power of the Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President. In Newdow, the court considered whether plaintiff had standing to seek a preliminary injunction against President Bush restraining him from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at his inauguration. 355 F. Supp. 2d 265, 268 (D. D.C. 2005). The court observed that issuing an injunction against the President “raises serious separation of powers concerns” and further asserted that “[t]here is longstanding legal authority that the judiciary lacks the power to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the co-equal branches of the government–the President and the Congress.” Id. at 280. The court rejected the argument that there should be an exception read into the President’s immunity “where he is claimed to have violated the Constitution.” Id. at 282. Further, the court found that the same considerations foreclosing the possibility of issuing an injunction against the President foreclosed the possibility of issuing a request for declaratory judgment. Id. at 281. In this case, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that President Obama is not a constitutionally elected president. Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to enjoin the President from issuing a particular order; they request that President Obama be enjoined from issuing any orders whatsoever and be enjoined from holding the office of President. Plaintiffs make it clear from their briefing that they believe that any order issued by a president who does not satisfy the natural-born citizen clause is unconstitutional. Therefore, in order to cure Plaintiffs’ perceived injury, the Court would need to wade deep into the waters of the President’s official duties–in fact, it would have to declare that the President could no longer perform any official duties. The separation of powers concerns implicated by this request are grave.
Beyond the general power of this Court to issue an injunction or declaratory judgment against the President, the Court must consider its power to take any action removing the President from office. Defendants have argued that the Court cannot suitably redress any injury to Plaintiffs because the Court does not have the power to upseat the President. They further argue that because the Court lacks this power, any declaratory judgment issued by the Court finding that the President was not qualified to hold his office would be a nullity. Removing the President would not only affect the Executive branch, it may also infringe upon the power of the Legislative branch granted by the Constitution in matters of Presidential impeachment and succession. Defendants argue that the Constitution grants Congress the sole power to remove a president through Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which address impeachment, and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the removal of the president should he or she be unfit to serve.
The non-justiciability of an action on political question grounds is “primarily a function of the separation of powers” and pertains to “the relationship between the judiciary and the coordinate branches of the Federal Government.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210, 82 S. Ct. 691 (1962). The key inquiry is whether the matter has “in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government.” Id. at 211. The Supreme Court has set forth factors indicating the existence of a political question:
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Id. at 217.
Thus, the Court turns to the first factor set forth in Baker v. Carr–whether the Court finds a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.” Id. The natural born citizen clause is couched in absolute terms of qualifications and does not designate which branch should evaluate whether the qualifications are fulfilled. Therefore, the Court necessarily turns to a structural analysis of the Constitution regarding the role of the respective branches of government in deciding the qualifications of a sitting president to hold office.
Three provisions of the Constitution speak to which branch of government has the power to evaluate the qualifications of a president: the Twelfth Amendment, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, and the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution. The Twelfth Amendment provides a role for Congress to make the ultimate determination of who shall be president and vice president through the counting of the electoral votes. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which addresses the succession to presidency and vice presidency in the case the president is disabled,
[3 Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).]
including by death or resignation, directs that in the case where there is disagreement as to whether the President is able to discharge the powers and duties of his or her office, “Congress shall decide the issue.”
The Twentieth Amendment, known as the “Lame Duck Amendment,” addresses the task of ensuring that someone holds the office of president in the case of the death of a president or the failure of a president to be chosen or qualify by the beginning of his or her term. The Twentieth Amendment provides: “If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”
Even though these provisions of the Constitution tend to suggest that, at least in some circumstances, it is within the province of Congress to decide whether the President meets the qualifications to serve,3 the Court cannot reach the issue of whether in all cases the interpretation of the natural born citizen clause would present a political question. Instead, because redress of Plaintiffs’ alleged harm would require removal of President Obama, the key analysis is whether the power to remove a sitting president from office is textually committed to another branch. The Constitution grants to Congress the sole power of impeachment of the President. The Constitution reads, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 3, cl. 6. In Nixon v. United States, when considering the issue of whether the Court could review the manner in which the Senate conducted impeachment proceedings, the Supreme Court focused on the grant of “sole” power to try impeachments to the Senate, noting that the definition of sole is “‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’” 506 U.S. 224, 231, 113 S. Ct. 732 (1993). The Court ruled that the text of the impeachment clause indicated a purposeful decision by the Framers to commit impeachment to the Legislative branch. Id. at 235-36.
Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession “in case of the removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or inability to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role for the judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch. In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon involved the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review of impeachment of the President:
This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.
506 U.S. at 236.
The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch other than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as well. The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders. Evaluation of the other Baker v. Carr factors confirms that refraining from taking jurisdiction over this matter is appropriate. Specifically, the factors of (1) “the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;” (2) “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;” and (3) “the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question” all support the impropriety of assuming jurisdiction. 369 U.S. at 217.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal from office would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for Congress. Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for President, they argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he does not validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s requirements regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment.
Finally, they reasoned that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the President is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore within the province of this Court.
There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president -– removal for any reason -– is within the province of Congress, not the courts.
This case highlights the complicated relationship between the redressability prong of standing and the political question doctrine in cases where the plaintiff’s injuries can only be addressed through a court taking action against another branch of the government. Because the Court finds that it does not have the power nor the right to redress the political candidates’ injury by removing a sitting President from office, the Court does not have jurisdiction as to the political candidates’ claims on the basis that they fail to satisfy the redressability requirement of Article III standing.
Therefore, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing on injury-in-fact and redressability grounds. Plaintiffs’ declaratory relief, injunction, and Section 1983 claims are DISMISSED.
C. Quo Warranto Claims
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged. Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia. At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because, while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.
D. Discovery and Freedom of Information Act Claims
Plaintiffs argue that they have been ignored by several government agencies in their quest to receive Obama’s long-form Hawaiian birth certificate and other information such as his passport records. See Compl. ¶¶ 86 – 109. Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”). Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
As support for their right to these documents, Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under the Freedom of Information Act. The Complaint states, “The Plaintiffs as a group may not have adhered closely or precisely to the letter of FOIA in all of their approaches to the current administration for information, but this court has assured them that the present case will be decided on its legal merits and factual substance, and not on procedural irregularities.” Compl. ¶ 59. In Plaintiffs’ briefing, they state, “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 8:27-28.
However, even ignoring the fact that Plaintiffs appear to admit that they have not complied with FOIA requirements in their requests for information, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because FOIA does not apply to Defendants. FOIA only applies to entities qualifying as an “agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). The statute defines “agency” as, “any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” Id. at § 551(1). The Executive Office of the President is an agency within the Executive branch and is a body separate from the President himself. All of the Defendants–President Obama, Michelle Obama, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Secretary Gates–are individuals, not agencies. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against these individuals under FOIA and the claim is hereby DISMISSED.
E. Claims Against the Remaining Defendants
Plaintiffs have also named Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, and Robert Gates as defendants. Plaintiffs made overtures at pleading a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. against all Defendants. However, the pleading only states that while Plaintiffs had “accumulated several dossiers of evidence” suggesting a civil RICO conspiracy, they were unable to actually set forth a RICO pleading “[b]ecause of the complexity of RICO.” Compl. ¶¶ 123-25. Plaintiffs originally filed this action on January 20, 2009, and the First Amended Complaint at issue was filed on July 15, 2009. Nearly six months was more than sufficient time for Plaintiffs to at least attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The failure to do so is inexcusable, and as Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim whatsoever against Defendants Michelle Obama, Clinton, Biden, and Gates, all claims against them are DISMISSED.
F. Conduct of Plaintiffs’ Counsel
The hearings have been interesting to say the least. Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning. While the Court has no desire to chill Plaintiffs’ enthusiastic presentation, Taitz’s argument often hampered the efforts of her cocounsel Gary Kreep (“Kreep”), counsel for Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson, to bring serious issues before the Court. The Court has attempted to give Plaintiffs a voice and a chance to be heard by respecting their choice of counsel and by making every effort to discern the legal arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel amongst the rhetoric. This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all by failing to properly file and serve the complaint upon Defendants and held multiple hearings to ensure that the case would not be dismissed on the technicality of failure to effect service. While the original complaint in this matter was filed on January 20, 2009, Defendants were not properly served until August 25, 2009. Taitz successfully served Defendants only after the Court intervened on several occasions and reque
-sted that defense counsel make significant accommodations for her to effect service. Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure. Taitz even asked this Court to recuse Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato on the basis that he required her to comply with the Local Rules. See Order Denying Pls.’ Mot. For Modification of Mag. J. Nakazato’s Aug. 6, 2009, Order; Denying Pls.’ Mot. to Recuse Mag. J. Nakazato; and Granting Ex Parte App. for Order Vacating Voluntary Dismissal (Sep. 8, 2009). Taitz also attempted to dismiss two of her clients against their wishes because she did not want to work with their new counsel. See id. Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.
While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.
IV. DISPOSITION
Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2009
_______________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
United States District Judge
See full article with illustrations:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113004
Obama from Kenya, archived report says
Revives worry about president’s eligibility for office
Posted: October 15, 2009
2:34 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
An archived article from 2004 on Barack Obama’s run for the U.S. Senate in Illinois describes the relative political newcomer as “Kenyan-born,” providing further fuel for speculation over the president’s eligibilty for office.
WND has noted various news reports that have either stated or implied Obama’s birthplace is not Hawaii, as he has claimed, but Africa.
The issue is significant, since there are a number of lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility that argue if he was not born in the U.S., he does not meet the requirement in the Constitution that the president be a “natural born” citizen.
WND further has reported on the disagreement among those documenting Obama’s presidency over which Hawaii hospital was his birth place.
Now have come a flood of blog questions and e-mails regarding the apparently archived article from the Sunday Standard in Kenya.
The report starts out, “Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack (sic) Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.”
The report continues to discuss the allegations against Ryan, Obama’s opponent in his race for the U.S. Senate, and his decision to drop out, virtually handing the Senate seat to the political newcomer.
The article is credited to the wire service Associated Press at the bottom of the page. However, the article could not be found either in the AP archives available to the public online or the archive on the newspaper’s website. WND telephone calls and e-mails to the newspaper did not generate a response.
At the Post & Email blog, writer John Charlton offered several explanations, including the suggestion references to Obama’s birth have been scrubbed.
He wrote that a search of Google for the issue produced unusual results.
“When you attempt to search for ‘Kenyan-born Obama’; results are missing; years prior to 2004 seem scrubbed; and when you click a link to an article in 2000, you get an article in 2004.
“Deliberate sabotage of their own news archive?” he wondered.
He said searching Google for the reference words “Kenyan-born U.S. Senator Obama hopeful” came up with a 1981 New York Times reference, but Obama is not in the article.
“There is no mention of Obama from 1981 to 2000; despite all his ‘work with the poor’ in Chicago,” Charlton continued.
The June 27, 2004, article from the Standard doesn’t appear.
A further link to PBS leads to a story about Obama’s Senate victory, another to USA Today talks about Obama’s father being Kenyan-born and another from 2004 does the same.
“Then, you would not believe it; but all the newspapers in the world, during the period from Jan. 1, 2005 to April 12, 2006, don’t make one mention of Obama! Not even one,” he said.
The bottom line, however, Charlton wrote, should not be what published reports have said, but what proof Obama can provide.
“If Obama cannot show documents which prove he is born in the USA; the mere fact that he has claimed to be born overseas and in the U.S.A.; first at one hospital in Hawaii and then at another; means that nothing he says in court, and no document presented by his campaign could be taken as prima facie evidence of anything.”
Earlier this year, an African news site and an MSNBC broadcaster delivered references to President Obama’s birthplace as being outside of the United States, even as a controversy had developed over a letter purporting to be from the president claiming Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu as his birth location.
Network correspondent Mara Schiavocampo was reporting on the celebratory atmosphere in Accra, Ghana, immediately prior to Obama’s visit to the west African nation.
Interviewing a person who appeared to be a shop operator, she suggested, “Barack Obama is Kenyan … but Ghanaians are still proud of him.”
The video of the report is at this link.
Her report talks about the party atmosphere and the Obama fan clubs who have posted “Welcome home” signs.
(Story continues below)
Meanwhile, a report at Modern Ghana also posted in advance of the president’s visit cited his birthplace on the continent of Africa.
“For Ghana, Obama’s visit will be a celebration of another milestone in African history as it hosts the first-ever African-American President on this presidential visit to the continent of his birth,” the report said.
The Modern Ghana report also cited the expectations that Obama would make a foreign policy pronouncement during his visit.
Kenya’s East African Standard also, in an Aug. 24, 2006, article titled “From Young ‘Barry’ to Top American Senator,” previously said of Obama: “The Harvard Law School and Columbia University graduate was born at the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu in Hawaii, where his parents were studying at the East-West Center of the University of Hawaii in Manoa.”
WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.
Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii
But after WND drew attention to a letter from the president declaring as his birthplace the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu instead, news sources and websites jumped to scrub the Queen’s location and replace it with Kapi’olani.
As WND reported, the White House insists Obama was born in Hawaii but has thus far refused to verify which hospital the president claims as his birthplace or whether the letter – purportedly from President Obama claiming Kapi’olani – is, in fact, real.
The lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility continue in several parts of the country, and in fact a California federal judge has scheduled a trial on the dispute to begin in January.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.
Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums exceeding $1 million to avoid releasing an original long-form state birth certificate that would put to rest the questions.
WND also has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”
“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 475,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Yet another court finds Attorney Taitz’s conduct improper and unethical.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalin, patientia nostra!
According to the Judge, “It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court’s decision. Despite these attempts to manipulate this Court, the Court has not considered any outside pleas to influence the Court’s decision.
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
More grease for the skids carrying a legal career down the drain.
[The Latin was for Mike Appleton, who knows what it means. Cicero was addressing the Senate in opposition to the Cataline conspiracy, asking “O how long, Catalina, will you abuse our patience?”
“While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.”
Art Bull, the entire World Nut story is bogus.
So a Kenyan paper called Obama “Kenyan born” in 2004. So what?
Two, repeat, TWO, Hawaiian papers reported Obama’s birth in Honolulu in 1961, the very year of his birth. They based their reports on information received from hospitals furnished by official government agencies, and furnished to the papers by the agencies.
Lawyers and law students at the Turley blog know the “best evidence” rule, and that anonymous, unsourced Kenyan report is as far from the best evidence as you can get.
The birth announcements support the COLB, which is an official “birth certificate” under every known legal definition of that term. Hawaiian officials have stated that their records (which state law protects from disclosure) show that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya, since she was mistranslated and the birthers never mention the correct translation.
Art Bull has not answered the fact that World Nut continues to lie about the idea that COLBs can show that foreign born babies were born in Hawaii. That is illegal under Hawaiian law. How about an answer.
Also, Associated Press has publicly confirmed that the article it originated in 2004 NEVER included the phrase “Kenyan born.” That phrase was inserted by a party or parties unknown.
It has all the credibility of an unripe tomato.
“WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.”
Another lie. I tracked this down when bdaman posted it. I found the original source in and article in “Rainbow Newsletter” by a high school reporter. Maya NEVER stated that Obama was born at Queens in the article. The high school kid said that. All the other sources just parroted that false statement.
BOTH medical centers in Honolulu are named for queens. The Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu was named for Queen Kapi’olani. They are often confused by strangers. The Obamas have consistently stated that he was born in Kapi’olani.
And the hospital never scrubbed anything. I found that the letter from Obama saying that he was born there was still posted proudly on their site in their newsletter long after the supposed scrubbing.
Lies, lies, lies.
Is AB channeling birther and bdaman by any chance?
Now I know what it feels like to be pecked by a flock of ducks. Sodomists, Acorn and black race of Cain unite against religious white males, and in the case of Orly Taitz, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Prajean, Malkin, all extremely beautiful and intelligent conservative women. Racism and sexism against the “white and delightsome” Prajean, Taitz, Bachman, and sultry, fiery, insightful, witty Malkin. Darwinism is false. I have been accused of one sodomite here of blasphemy for using scripture to correctly label wacko Darwinists, leftist fools using the inspired judgment of Paul of the sodomites of his day:
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
(Rom 1:26-32)
.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(2 Tim 3:16)
Of course the Scriptures are not with the sodomites, therefore they do not use them, because they are incompetent. I am more than competent and what is more, a legal administrator, having been caught up to behold for myself as written in the book “The Revelations of Jesus Christ” (see http://artbulla.com):
FIRST VISION
While journeying on foot about 10:00 P.M. in the east, being inducted into the armed forces the next day, being on the way to the bus station to travel to the armed forces induction station in Raleigh, N.C, I received the following vision, while on the road on foot:
December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body, or whether in the body or out of it I could not tell, and I beheld his face, and He spake unto me face to face as one man speaks unto another for forty-five minutes or an hour, and whether in the body or out of it, I could not tell, for I beheld his glory, which surpasses all understanding, and spake while in the vision, in a much better tongue than any spoken by man at this time, which I supposed to be the Adamic Tongue, my understanding being quickened by such might and intelligence and power that it is beyond the mind of man unaided by the Spirit of Revelation which dwells yet within me, to comprehend, and indeed no words can convey, for it seemed that I was transfigured before Him of whom I speak, my God in whom I bear record as others have before me, that He lives, for I too have seen Him. And tongue cannot express his matchless might, glory, power and intelligence, and I shall forever adore his glory, for having once beheld his face and felt of his love and might and power and beheld things which I cannot convey, for there is no language, I must, I MUST obtain his presence, and I shall not be content with anything else, this world or its allurments. And having been ordained unto the Holy Order of God which is after the Order of Melchizedec, even the Holy Apostleship, the keys of which I hold, I bear record of my Father, for I have seen Him and conversed with him, and I testify that He shall return in this the Latter Day as soon as my people are straightened from this crooked and perverse generation which shall be destroyed by the might of his power, and that they be gathered out according to the Revelations which are being given unto me, almost daily at this time, which is one of the darkest periods and most wicked because of unbelief in the history of the earth, that Zion may descend and that the heavens and the earth mingle and become One, as prayed by the Only Begotten, even my brother Jesus of Nazareth. Yea, my Father, I pray that thy will be done and thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. Even so. Amen.
“December 29, 1969, while enwrapted in a heavenly vision, It seemed that I, Art Bulla, was removed out of my body…”
So that explains it. Art is not only out of his mind, he is also out of his body. Aw, hell, no one could make this stuff up! The artful Art Bulla is still in the throes of an OOBE, out in space with the Junior Galactic Raiders of the Universal Empire.
Art also talks like a white supremacist, accusing the left of “being traitors to their race.” It is grim window into the mind of the birther underworld.
Darwinists aka “anti-Christs” (a more correct appellation) always use the same argument: “out of his mind”, proving how wicked and corrupt they are, therefore adding blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to their long train of foul acts, attributing the Holy Ghost to the “effect of a frenzied mind”:
12 And this Anti-Christ, whose name was Korihor, (and the law could have no hold upon him) began to preach unto the people that there should be no Christ. And after this manner did he preach, saying:
13 O ye that are bound down under a foolish and a vain hope, why do ye yoke yourselves with such foolish things? Why do ye look for a Christ? For no man can know of anything which is to come.
14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.
15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.
16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the EFFECT OF A FRENZIED MIND; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.
17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.
18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms–telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.
(Alma 30:12-18)
More junk science.
More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:
The Revelations of Jesus Christ
Section 14: 29-66
29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explanation of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.
30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.
31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific community, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stubbornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their paychecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?
32 I have pointed these contradictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this letter to the satisfaction of a child.
33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed himself personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiricism, I received two blaring contradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.
34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all scientific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a naturalist who drew erroneous conclusions from a loose collection of facts.
35 I will show you how the world has been deceived:
36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple organisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random, chance process.
37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).
38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).
39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than one than one which is disorganized.
40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.
41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally complex organization as that of the human body!
42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.
43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.
44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: suppose we take the random arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).
45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).
46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?
47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!
48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!
49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.
50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be generous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.
54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.
55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists, to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.
56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8 seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.
61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, saith the Lord God of Israel), who have found conclusively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous strengths, why do they die?
63 And why is it that when organisms die, does the law of entropy take over, and the corporeal substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?
64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or catalyzing energy which effects this organization to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “creations” lose their organization, and hence decay back to their “native element”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to remain, intact.
65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.
66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the belief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the foundation of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2: 11.
Good one:
“Plaintiffs received only four-hundredth of one percent of the vote. The Court may have already met this entire group of voters at the hearings on this matter”
Rimshot. Badda-BING!
Art Bulla–
Take your medication and step away from the computer.
Art Bulla,
I knew from your statements that you were a blasphemer, but then I went to your website and learned that your sins do not end with blasphemy. I sincerely pray that your ask for the Lord’s forgiveness
for putting false idols before Him and repent now, or God save your eternal soul.
Vince, great work as usual. Thanks for the reference to the Catalinian oration. I had to memorize great chunks of it in my junior year in high school. In my senior year I fell in love with Virgil, and fantasized that I would produce a new English translation of the Aeneid which would surpass anything previously done. I seem to have misplaced that particular project somewhere along the way.
It is interesting that Ms. Taitz has now added possible subornation of perjury to her growing list of ethical lapses. The only interesting question remaining is whether she will be dismissed by the bar before the last of her cases is dismissed by the courts.
With regard to Mr. Bulla, I started to read his comments from several days ago, but he lost me at “traitors to their own race.” He appears at times to be walking along the top of an unstable fence separating reality from fantasy, occasionally falling off. Reading him produces an image of Elmer Gantry on mushrooms, with a decided anal fixation.
Vince,
I do not know how you have the patience to deal with these trolls who have no regard for facts. This latest version also seems to think he/she is the Messiah. If he is, then we are all in trouble.
Mike A.,
I would expect our old friend Orly to be removed from the bar in short order with this long list of charges.
Thanks, rafflaw.
The words of the Judge on subornation of perjury suggest that the State Prosecutors ought to bring the case to the Grand Jury for possible indictment:
“Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court.”
This is getting far more serious than a mere disbarment.
There is a long – 30 pp or so — declaration by ed-convict Lucas Daniel Smith that has been up on the web since October 12, saying that Taitz wanted him to testify falsely. He filed it with the Judge, so this is likely to be one of the sworn affidavits that he saw.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx
I am linking it but not posting it because it is totally worthless, except as evidence of subornation. I posted the entire decision by Judge Carter because there is so much for all of to learn from it about standing, political questions, and our constitutional system of government.
Raff,
If my google-fu skills are up to par, Vince has a long history of dealing with people with no regard for facts.
Thanks, Gyges.
Here is another Nutworld chestnut: “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”
There was no hearing on McCain. What alternate universe are they transmitting from? There was a non-binding resolution that passed the Senate. Senators made statements. Research by Tribe and Olson was put in the record. I pasted up the entire memo here at the Turley blog.
I will now type real slow-like so that the birfers can read along with their lips:
McCain was born OUTSIDE the 50 states. There WAS a question whether he was a “natural born citizen.” It was debated here, and just put those words in the search window to read about it.
There was no question about Obama, and no need for a resolution, because — he — was — born — in — the — USA.
There was no question about Obama because — he — produced — his — birth — certificate.
If badaman and birther Byrne are lurking, they know where the discussions were posted.
Here is a reprint of an earlier post.
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 naturalized 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.
Mike,
This was posted over at Leo Donofrio’s blog last September:
QUOTE ON whistleblower Says:
September 16, 2009 at 12:27 PM
“Beware of bloggers who are not lawyers giving you bogus partisan interpretations of what the law is and analyzing it”.
Many bloggers, who are not lawyers, are providing more accurate, and supported, legal analysis than are the partisan lawyers.
The statement should be “Beware of bloggers who are, and are not, lawyers giving you…”
Vince Treacy and Mike Appleton, over at Prof. Jonathan Turley’s blog are perfect examples of lawyers giving unsupported, inaccurate interpretations of the law. UNQUOTE
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/john-mccain-citizen-of-panama-at-birth/ [scroll down to Sep 29, 12:29 pm]
If you are lurking, or googling yourself, Sorry that you are not happy, whistleblower.
But your post is not very helpful to me or Mike, because you do not give even a single example of an UNSUPPORTED, INACCURATE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW that Mike or I may have written.
“Oh! that mine adversary had written a book….”
Mike and I have put up a lot of support for all our positions, and have patiently answered a lot of questions. You did nothing at Leo’s site except to make a single, unsupported allegation about us.
While you are at it, W., say goodnight to Leo. He stopped posting at his blog weeks ago and has disappeared from the fray.
To all,
I apologize for this massive, off-topic post. It really bothers me that our educational system has failed so badly as to produce delusional, homophobic, racist idiots like Art Bulla and since he’s talking about a subject I care deeply about, I feel the need to respond. Maybe Vince can give us another spooky chapter in “Orly and the doomed lawsuit” to help get us back on track…
Art Bulla,
I’m sorry that you are a small, hate-filled man and while reading your ignorant, diseased writings sickens me, I feel it is necessary to shine a light on your specious and uneducated ravings about science.
You said:
“More on junk science (Darwinism), the foundation of liberalism, or the worldview upon which sodomites pinion their eternities: this is what I wrote to the SB Leakey Foundation protesting their lack of knowledge concerning the physical sciences and mathematics, acting without which makes them mere propagandists (I was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa of mechanical engineers, Tau Beta Pi, at the University of Utah for a high grade point), this is what I wrote also contained in the book The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 14, using mathematical probability theory proving Carl Sagan to be an ideologue and a fool:”
The theory of evolution (what I assume you mean when you say ‘Darwinism’), is one of the most fundamentally sound and well-verified theories in all of science with over 200,000 studies in peer-reviewed journals over a variety of scientific disciplines supporting it and exactly zero providing any evidence refuting it. As both a scientist and a liberal (I’m not a sodomite, but I am willing to learn
), the foundation of my liberalism is compassion for my fellow human being (even you) and a passionate belief that it’s always possible for things to get better. I don’t belong to any groups named with greek letters, but I do hold a Ph.D. in mathematics and I’m currently employed as a mathematical biologist doing cancer research at a major university. The only person who is proved an ideologue and a fool (with misuse of mathematical probability, among other things) by this trash you’ve written is yourself and I find your hateful preaching an insult to the teachings of Jesus Christ (by denigrating everything he stood for – now there was a great liberal!).
“29 If the “theory” of evolution is a true explanation of reality, or fact, then it must conform with physics, and mathematics and other observable and provable phenomena.”
The theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the multiplicity of species we see today and conforms with physics, mathematics and all phenomena which have been observed in every pertinent way. You can tell this by the total lack of any scholarly articles with evidence refuting evolution. And just as an aside, science doesn’t prove anything (that’s what mathematics is about), it provides a framework for collecting and interpreting evidence about the physical universe – ‘provable phenomena’ are just banal pieces of data, theories are the heart of science where the data is transformed into a deeper understanding of the universe around us.
“30 If it contradicts any of these, then it must be that the theory is false, not the mathematical laws or the laws of physics.”
Evolution doesn’t contradict anything (unless you count out-dated unscientific myths). The statement is true, however. (That might be a first for you!)
“31 But the blind prejudice of the scientific community, which is nothing more than a hegemony of paid erudite liars, conveniently discard logic in order to stubbornly cling to their brand of false religion, that their paychecks may keep rolling in, for did the adversary not say that he would buy up armies and navies, Popes, Kings and scientists and rule with blood and horror upon this earth?”
The key principle of science is that experiments must be repeatable, which provides an internal check against liars (witness the ‘cold fusion’ fiasco a while back) and I believe that the success of science in advancing our understanding of the universe and giving rise to all of our modern technology (including technology and understanding developed based on the theory of evolution). I believe in science because it works – while your false religion has a very poor track record of increasing our understanding of the universe in any useful way.
“32 I have pointed these contradictions out to the Leakeys of South Africa and the still insist upon their theory of evolution in spite of reason and truth, which I will demonstrate within this letter to the satisfaction of a child.”
Really, your uneducated irrational ravings didn’t convince someone that an enormous amount of scientific evidence collected over the last 150 years is wrong? You might be able to convince a child, but it would have to be a pretty stupid, credulous child – anyone else would see your arguments as the mass of bovine excrement that they are.
“33 I prayed unto my God who hath revealed himself personally to mea concerning this theory and through Revelation, which medium is a superior source of wisdom than any mere empiricism, I received two blaring contradictions to the above named fundamental sciences.”
Mentally unstable people such as yourself should probably avoid LSD.
“34 Darwin was not acquainted with mathematics or physics, the fundamentals upon which all scientific disciplines rest, to any serious degree: he was a naturalist who drew erroneous conclusions from a loose collection of facts.”
The fact that Darwin was not a hard scientist and had no understanding of things like, say DNA and yet was able to produce a theory whose mechanisms were not understood until the discovery of DNA 100 years later, but was still able to make successful predictions in the field of genetics is a testament to the soundness of the theory and the brilliance of Charles Darwin.
“35 I will show you how the world has been deceived:”
Sure.
“36 The fundamental premise of evolution is that organisms sprang into being from a random chance collision of molecules in a “primordial sea” or “soup” and that these admittedly simple organisms “evolved”-a term coined by some fat victorian naturalist-into more complex organisms by an equally random, chance process.”
You make a mistake common to scientifically illiterate people – the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life, it tells us how life evolved into the multiplicity of species that we see today. While how life originated is a fascinating question and science has a long way to go in explaining abiogenesis, results like the Miller-Urey experiment are promising and all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
“37 First of all this process in its description breaks one of the fundamental laws of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything in nature naturally proceeds from a high energy level which is usually less stable, to a low energy state (in other words, water runs downhill, not up).”
If you had actually studied thermodynamics (which I have) you would know that the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems (more specifically, closed systems near equilibrium) unlike the earth, which is constantly having energy added to it by the sun. Also, the 2nd law states that robots must obey… oops, sorry! … states that entropy (a measure of disorder in a system) always increases, not energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. In other words, water runs uphill perfectly well, provided you have a pump.
“38 A specific case of this law states that through a process called entropy, systems prefer to be in a disorganized state, rather than one that has a high degree of organization, such as a human body, in other words, things in nature proceed from a state of order through entropy to a state of disorder (I speak of random collisions of molecules).”
Entropy isn’t a process – as I said above, it is a measure of disorder. Spontaneous organization of systems of high energy density is common in nature (star formation, just to name one) – take a look at the works of Nobel Laureate Ilya Prigogine if you’d like to learn more. And if you’re talking about the human body, you aren’t speaking of random collisions of molecules.
“39 A system which is organized has inherently more energy, not less than one than one which is disorganized.”
Once again energy and entropy are two separate concepts and energy is neither created or destroyed.
“40 Hence the need for an energy input of some source to effect this organization.”
Like, maybe, the sun? Heat from the earth’s core? Volcanoes? Lightning? Tidal forces?
“41 Random chance cannot explain the existence of such a monumentally complex organization as that of the human body!”
No, but evolution can.
“42 It takes a great deal of faith of the blind kind to believe in such an absurd proposition.”
No, it just takes a little faith in the scientific method and evidence collected by generations of scientists across dozens of disciplines…
“43 It takes more than I am capable of mustering.”
Yes, you do seem to be short on logic and reasoning ability.
“44 A specific example of this absurdity, according to the laws of mathematics which we stated that the theory of evolution must conform to, or else be labeled as false, which it is, is this: suppose we take the random arisal of not an organism, but just one protein molecule (of which there must be a specific combination of billions upon billions of these different proteins in a specific way to form a single organism, a puzzle which in its complexity staggers the capacity of all the computers in all the world to put together).”
Evolution is not random, nor does it purport to explain the origin of life.
“45 Now according to a good sourceb, the average length of this one protein molecule is about 100 amino acids in length (there being in the body some proteins much longer than this in length).”
There are proteins made up of a few amino acids and proteins made up of thousands and just about everything in between.
“46 According to the laws of mathematical probability, what are the chances of this one specific protein which is necessary in the formation of an enzyme which is absolutely necessary for, say, the digestion of starch [just for the sake of argument]?”
A lot higher than you think, if the question is ‘what are the odds of a particular protein occurring via the process of evolution?’ (which is the appropriate question).
“47 According to mathematical probability which you can read in any elementary textbook on College Algebra, (Darwin obviously did not have access to one), the chances of this one protein needed for the digestion of starch randomly arising in this primordial soup is one in 20^100!”
This is the chance of getting a specific protein if you select 100 amino acids at random. It has nothing to do with the chances of said protein appearing in nature.
“48 This is one in 20 to the 100th power!”
Yes, it is. You understand exponential notation, how wonderful for you.
“49 This is approximately equal to 10^130.”
So?
“50 To give you an idea of the immensity of this number, suppose we say that we give evolutionists 10 billion (10^10) years to make good their claims not for just this earth but for the entire universe which is estimated by to contain 10^22 stars.c Now for each of these stars, let’s be generous and give not only one earth, but ten “earths” upon which this one random chance protein molecule is to arise.”
51 Therefor, according to the law of the addition of exponents, the total number of earths would be 10^(22+1)= 10^23.
52 Now let us give each “earth” oceans the same size as the ones here which are calculated by volume to contain roughly 10^46 molecules of water.d So the total number of molecules contained in all the oceans on all the “earths” in the universe (estimated) is 10^23 X 10^46, or 10^69 (10 to the 69th power) molecules.”
I lumped these all together as this hypothetical of yours forms a clear picture of just how badly you misunderstand mathematics, probability and science. Congratulations, you have laboriously created a meaningless and incomprehensible hypothetical.
“54 This means that there are a total according to our mathematical calculations which do not lie, of 10^69 amino acids from which this one protein needed for the digestion of starch to “evolve”.”
There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics. And then there is complete and utter male cattle poop like what you present. One more time: evolution is not a random process.
“55 Now to really give these poor evolutionists a sporting chance (I say ‘poor’ because they are less than that along with everyone else who is duped into believing their lies, for their eternities are effected), lets say that all of these amino acids, combine, not once a year or every ten years (both of which are absolutely impossible) but every second of every year in the 10^10 years which is estimated by our brave brethren, the scientists, to be the age of the universe, to form proteins all of them exactly 100 amino acids in length.”
None of us are poor in spirit compared to the utter destitution that you exist in. Please continue with your stupid, meaningless hypothetical.
“56 Now this would mean that every second, 10^67 proteins exactly 100 amino acids long would be formed.
57 Now how many seconds are there in 10 billions of years There are 10^8 seconds approximately, in a year (actually there are a little less than that number).
58 This would mean that over all the space and time imaginable, there would be 10^10 X 10^8 X 10^67 = 1085 chances for this one protein to come into being!
59 But we said that the total number of combinations of amino acids 100 in length which are possible is 20^100 which is approximately equal to 10^130.
60 This would mean that the chances of this one protein (not an entire being) necessary for the digestion of starch to randomly form, as the evolutionists claim, is one in 10^130/10^85 which is equal to 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 which is for all intents and purposes, zero.”
Wow, you took quite a while to spew that nonsensical drivel, do you feel better now? I put the odds of you ever stumbling across a rational, well-organized argument at infinity to one against.
“61 They also deny the findings of Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Dr. Michael Saboam, Urologist, and Dr. Moody, Cardiologist (out of the mouths of two or three witnesses shall every word be established, saith the Lord God of Israel), who have found conclusively to every one but bigots, that there is a separation of the spirit from the body at death.
Since you are clearly a bigot, I assume that you don’t believe this. To make this statement have any scientific meaning whatsoever, you need to tell us what the scientific definition of the ‘spirit’ is (not to mention why a urologist has relevant expertise).
“62 Another evidence, is that if organisms evolved into more advantageous strengths, why do they die?”
There are immortal organisms – cancer cells (this comes from the work of recent Nobel Laureates on the protein telomerase). And organisms do not evolve (except in bad sci-fi), species evolve over many generations.
“63 And why is it that when organisms die, does the law of entropy take over, and the corporeal substance dissolves or decays back down from its organized peak, to the dust from whence it cometh, and not before this death, saith the Lord?”
It was the salmon mousse.
“64 The answer to this decay at death is that there is a spirit in plants, animals, and man, which separates from the corporeal bodies thereof at death, and this spirit is the spark, or catalyzing energy which effects this organization to begin with, and keeps this organism intact while still alive, saith the Lord, and without the spirit, the elements of the bodies of these “creations” lose their organization, and hence decay back to their “native element”, because the spirit, saith the Lord, is the energy of activation keeping this high degree of organization supplied with the energy needed to maintain its organization to begin with and to remain, intact.”
You go girl.
“65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.”
Bring it on. You can make all of the commands that you want, but nobody here has any inclination to obey you.
“66 This of course, means that all so-called “sciences” such as Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, are phony, based upon false premises, and that women’s liberation and the belief that the races are equal are also false and lies based upon the false premise that there is no God of Israel who hath ordained the man to be the head of the woman, and the fact that there is a race of servants inferior from before the foundation of the world in intelligence and valor, for I have seen Him and He is a white male, full of fury, and might and power and glory and shall destroy this wicked society for their provocation as before the flood and the world had been deceived by them (scientists, philosophers, charlatans, false prophets, false religions, false teachers with Phds) as it was prophesied it would be: “Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
This whole post has no bearing upon any sort of science in any way. What it means is that you are a pathetic, bigoted, misogynistic racist with delusions of grandeur who has absolutely no idea just how disgusting his diseased ramblings are. I suggest you get professional help. Excuse me, but I have to go and wash your putrescent ideas out of my brain now.
When I was a teen that I read my first copies of “Broca’s Brain” and “The Dragons of Eden” until the spines broke.
Vince,
You mean Leo hasn’t retreated to his ultra-secret lair to prepare the ultimate birther case which will finally remove President Obama from office?
Art said of God, “for I have seen Him and He is a white male.”
That reminds me of the old joke about the bigoted, sexist, racist who came back from the dead after seeing God.
They asked him what God was like.
He said, “Sh*t, the first thing is that she is African American.”
Slart, brilliant. I read it all, and learned a lot. My hero, Isaac Asimov, the Good Doctor (I met him personally at the local library back in the early 1960s), the author of the (other) Three Laws, is proud of you.
After all, after Isaac died, Kurt Vonnegut told the assembled American atheists that “Isaac is up in heaven.” Everyone fell on the floor laughing.
http://www.vonnegutweb.com/archives/arc_nice.html
Kurt speaking to us from Heaven: “Do you know what a Humanist is? I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that functionless capacity. We Humanists try to behave well without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. We serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any real familiarity, which is our community.
We had a memorial services for Isaac a few years back, and at one point I said, ”Isaac is up in Heaven now.” It was the funniest thing I could have said to a group of Humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ”Kurt is up in Heaven now.” That’s my favorite joke.”
Vince,
If you learned something from my post, consider it a small payment for all I have learned from you here. I came to this blog because I was nervous that there might be some truth to the birther’s arguments and now, after reading your posts here, I feel like I could beat Orly Taitz, Leo Donofrio, and Mario Appuzo in a debate (Although I have to believe that the three of them together would cause anyone to start bleeding from the ears in short order). Dr. Asimov is one of my heroes, too (deep down, I still want to be a psychohistorian when I grow up). Curiously, you’re the second person to mention to me that he had met Dr. Asimov recently (mentioned to me recently, not met Dr. Asimov recently
). My thesis advisor had lunch with him when he was a post-doc in Manhattan, a fascinating if somewhat intimidating experience (the other people at the lunch were closer to Dr. Asimov’s stature than my advisor’s). I’d never heard that Vonnegut quote before, but the thought of Kurt up in heaven brings a wonderful smile to my face. So it goes…
I just read Leo’s post about Judge Carter’s ruling over at naturalborncitizen, his spin is that Judge Carter implied that a Quo Warranto case in the DC court is the appropriate venue for removing President Obama from office.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/judge-carter-the-writ-of-quo-warranto-must-be-brought-within-the-district-of-columbia-because-president-obama-holds-office-within-that-district/
And if you enjoy schadenfreude, here’s a deeply ironic post from a birther blog. Be sure to check out the first few comments.
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/two-judges/
Vince, thanks for the heads up on whistleblower. I just left a gracious request on naturalborncitizen requesting Mr. whistleblower to provide some details concerning the “unsupported, innacurate interpretations” of ours that appear to concern him.
Slartibartfast, your responses to Mr. Bulla are truly devastating. I fear that he may be unwilling to ever again spake unto you.
Mike A,
Awww, I loved being spaken unto. However will I find the strength to go on…
Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism. The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction. The curse of Cain has not been abrogated nor done away with in the least by your junk science and foolishness as evidenced by authoritative revelation from Israel’s God:
14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.
15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!
16 Wo unto them that turn aside the just for a thing of naught and revile against that which is good, and say that it is of no worth! For the day shall come that the Lord God will speedily visit the inhabitants of the earth; and in that day that they are fully ripe in iniquity they shall perish.
17 But behold, if the inhabitants of the earth shall repent of their wickedness and abominations they shall not be destroyed, saith the Lord of Hosts.
(2 Ne 28:14-17)
But as to the mark placed upon Cain:
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, AS THEY WERE WHITE, AND EXCEEDINGLY FAIR AND DELIGHTSOME, THAT THEY MIGHT NOT BE ENTICING UNTO MY PEOPLE THE LORD GOD DID CAUSE A SKIN OF BLACKNESS TO COME UPON THEM.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
(2 Ne 5:21-24)
I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool. And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation. That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you. But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer. Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.
Mike, Leo has a “New comment policy – only comments which rock my world will be printed. If you have something important to add – whether for or against the material – feel free to submit your comment. The chances of your comment being printed are slim. Sometimes the comments add very important context, facts or questions. That is why I am keeping them open. I just want readers to know – most comments will not be printed.”
Yet another reason why I do not post there.
Leo is still dreaming that his quo warranto theory will fly in DC.
Leo is still dreaming of quo warranto.
[Begin quotation]
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court. [End quotation].
Leo the so-called poker player is actually the master of three-card monte. He keeps hiding the nut under the cup.
Of course, Judge Carter did not hold that a quo warranto was improper to challenge the President, because that question was not before him. Once he held that the proper venue was in D.C., not in California, he had no jurisdiction to rule on any other aspects of quo warranto. As a prudent, responsible and learned jurist, he confined his ruling to matters within his jurisdiction.
But the entire rationale of his decision militates against the use of the QW writ:
“Plaintiffs have expressed frustration with the notion that this case could be dismissed on separation of powers, political question, or standing grounds, asserting that these are mere “technicalities” obstructing Plaintiffs from being able to resolve the case on the merits of President Obama’s birth and constitutional qualifications. As the Supreme Court has stated, “It is indeed a singular misconception of the nature and character of our constitutional system of government to suggest that the settled distinction . . . between judicial authority over justiciable controversies and legislative power as to purely political questions tends to destroy the duty of the judiciary in proper cases to enforce the Constitution.” Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 149-150, 32 S. Ct. 224 (1912). Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by “We the People”–over sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”
As the Judge stated, the Constitution defines the processes for the removal of a President. It does not include a role for the courts in that process. The Constitution is explicit. The President can be removed by impeachment, within the “sole” powers of impeachment and removal vested in the House and the Senate. The President may also be removed for incapacity under the 20th Amendment.
Leo’s theory is inherently incredible. After 69 million people have voted for Obama, Leo would have a single District Judge in D.C. exercise the power to order a jury trial to remove a President. This, even though the entire House of Representatives (elected by all the people of the nation) and the entire Senate (also elected by all the people under the 12th Amendment) have declined to take action on the unassailable grounds that Obama is fully qualified for the Presidency as a natural born citizen BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
This is insanity. A quo warranto is an action for ordinary appointed municipal and federal officials who happen to hold office in D.C. to test their entitlement to office.
There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed. Federal Judges hold office on good behavior, and have never been removed except by impeachment. Members of Congress serve fixed terms of office, and may only be removed by expulsion by a 2/3rd vote of their respective Houses. The President and Vice President serve four-year terms. Removal is by impeachment.
At one point I posted an account of a suggestion in Congress in the 1880s to pass a law to allow quo warranto proceedings in contested presidential elections. It was never adopted.
Finally, D.C. may not have a Representative or Senators, but it does have the right to vote for President, and it supported Obama overwhelmingly.
What are Leo’s chances for a quo warranto and a D.C. jury trial?
Written prediction ™ ®©:
Nada. None. Below absolute zero.
The other interesting nugget in the ruling was that it might be possible for the courts to have a role in determining a candidate’s eligibility to appear on the ballot. I look forward to the next round of birther lawsuits in 2012 when Obama runs for reelection.
Vince,
You met Asimov, eh? Never has my avatar’s color been more appropriate.
The Washington Post has really become a shadow of itself. It printed a long profile of Orly a while back:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html
A lot of readers protested that it was not really news.
Now, today October 30, 2009, there is real news on the wires and the web, and the Post has nothing. A search of its site shows no report at all about the dismissal of Orly’s suit.
Be sure to check the Turley blog each day for the real news.
The best source I have found for Gnarly Taints news is http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/
“We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”
Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.
“Behold I will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
“65 Therefor I, Art Bulla, command all of these liberal ignoramuses to go back to school lest this Being who has revealed himself unto me and spoke with me, come out in anger that they perish from the earth.”
Besides your obvious blasphemy in presuming to speak for the Creator, I believe that the “stong delusion” you refer to in your quote refers to you. If you do not immediately repent your sins I am afraid that it is your immortal soul that will burn for eternity. you are putting yourself before god, by decreeing that god speaks through you. The only possible saving grace on you is god’s pity at your obviously distraught mental state. However, unlike you I don’t presume to speak for the Lord and so it is possible that He afflicted you with this delusion as a punishment for your sins. Repent!
Slart, Vince, Mike, Mike,
As always, thank you.
Art,
You realize of course that quoting a book only counts as an argument when the people believe the book to be true?
For instance: I could tell you that “Paladins can’t wear Helms of Destruction,” and since I assume you’re not the type to play early edition D&D (you strike me more as the kind of guy who plays those computerized versions of board games, Monopoly, Scrabble, etc.) you would have every right in saying “can too.”
Orly’s site is often infected with malware, and so is a dangerous visit. Black Lion over at obamaconspiracy.org posted her reaction for Dr. Conspiracy and the gang, so that we can all read it safely. It is like a guided tour of the funhouse of her mind, complete with misspellings and malapropisms. My favorite is “I am the only attorney,…” Read on:
QUOTE ON
From Orly’s Site….
what doesn’t break us, makes us stronger
Posted on | October 29, 2009 |
As many of you know, Judge Carter has issued an order to grant the motion to dismiss.
Clearly it is not the end of the road. We will continue. I need some time to study this order and provide full answer point by point. I will not give a full analysis of judge Carter’s orders at the moment. Today I was inundated with phone calls from different media outlets. Interviews were given to different affiliats of FOX radio, CBS, WND, LA Times, LA Daily Journal, City report, I don’t remember all of them. One interview I remebered. It was with Jessica Rosenthal from FOX radio. She asked me, when will I give up? I asked her in turn: “Jessica, when do you give up on the Constitution of this country? When do you give up on your constitutional rights for redress of grievances, for your right not to be defrauded by the government, not be treated as a slave?”
While I will not address the legal aspects of the order today, I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.
First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.
Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?
There is another issue. There is a vicious circle that you see in a regime. There is no unbiased media. So far no one in our media had integrity of character to report on multiple social security numbers of Obama, even though it is a criminal offense, and with 39 social security numbers a person should be criminally prosecuted and should be serving a lengthy prson term. When media reports nothing, the public and the judges are misinformed. The judges are afraid to make decisions, that they think, will upset the public, and in turn, their timid and lopside decisions influence the media.
Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent? 4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th. How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them? A few snooty remarks on MSM and on the faithful to regime lap dog blogs like Politijab, Salon or Politico? When people loose their voice, when they are livid from the arrogance shown by the ruling elite, they simply revolt
To be contined…
Source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/barnet-v-obama-case-dismissed/comment-page-4/#comments
The last paragraph of the WildrootNutOilDailyDouble up above at October 29, 2009 at 2:48 pm said “Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a ‘natural born citizen,’ no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.”
I have already noted that there never was a hearing. For reference, here is the link to the Turley blog coverage of McCain natural born citizenship, complete with the text of Tribe-Olson:
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/
And, of course, the “controlling legal authorities” for anyone born in the United States are the state officials in charge of official birth records. The controlling legal authority in Hawaii issued a Certification of Live Birth, the ONLY form of birth certificate now issued to ANYONE, and department spokespersons later said that they had examined their records and that the records showed Obama was born in Hawaii.
So the Nut lied again. Contrary to their story, controlling legal authority WAS sought and furnished to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
World Net Daily itself concluded last year that the COLB was genuine. Why is THAT fact never pasted up in their stories?
> I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. … I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.
Its rather rich she would complain about that after she herself encouraged her followers to write letters to the courts.
And lo, in the third hour of the fourteen score and second day of the time of Obama I was spaken unto again. And the wrath of Art crashed mightily upon me, yet I was unmoved, save for a single tear of regret that a fellow human being has had his mind so badly twisted by fear, hatred, and lies that he would spew such venomous bile.
Art said:
“Well sheist, you goddamed atheist fool, not devastated at all, in fact it is devastating (my posts) except to narcissists such as yourselves to live in a delusional world buttressed by Darwinism.”
I don’t think you understand how poorly your posts come off in comparison to me (and the other regular posters as well). You give racist polemics and biblical and pseudo-biblical quotes while we give evidence and references for our arguments. I believe that most readers can readily see that you don’t understand mathematics or science and have no clue what rational debate is (which is what many of us come here for).
“The truth rolls off such an ones’ backs as water rolls off a duck’s back. “White male” is a legitimate term describing the founders of this nation, something that sneering, supercilious liberal,self-loathing sodomite fools deride to their destruction.”
On the subject of ducks: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. The duck principle tells me that you are a racist, bigoted, homophobe.
I’m just going to ignore the rest of your pseudo-religious BS, except to say that the hatred you spew in the cloak of religion shames everyone who calls themselves a christian (you might want to do some research on what it really means to live according to Jesus’ teachings).
As for your other post:
You said:
“I am not “homophobic”. I am absolutely not afraid of homosexuals, but being liars, you falsely label God-fearing folk with this misnomer. We do not fear homosexuals, we merely despise and loathe them,fool.”
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Apparently you didn’t understand the part of the bible that says “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
“And the post which you maliciously graffitize (In your off hours you probably grace bathroom walls with your pleading while drilling holes between stalls) stands on its own, being totally tautological statements which cannot be argued with except by insane ideologues such as yourself who are completely brainwashed by the public school systems of this corrupt nation.”
Nice run-on sentence. I didn’t realize that your post was such a pristine masterpiece that it was forbidden to debate what you said. And enough with the latent homosexuality already – can’t you just find some guy and get a hotel room already? As for you tautological statements, when you use a tautology to attack a straw man, that doesn’t make for a valid argument… I’ll let others judge which one of us the insane ideologue is, but I’m confident that it’s not me.
As a graduate of an outstanding (public) school district who went on to get a BS and an MS from a public university (I got my PhD from a private university), I’ll stack my public education up against yours any day of the week. Furthermore, our public education system is a big part of what has made our country great (you don’t build a strong middle class without an educated workforce).
“That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.”
I don’t need you to tell me what mathematics is all about, especially when you clearly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Tautologies, being statements that are true no matter what the premise (for example, Art is an idiot or Art is not an idiot), are not generally very helpful in establishing that a statement is true given a set of premises (which is called a ‘proof’ and is kind of important in understanding what mathematics is all about).
“I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”
I pity you. I pity your lack of understanding of the world you live in, your small-mindedness, your lack of compassion, and your ignorance. And it’s obvious to me that my mother taught me far more about being a decent human being than you’ve learned from any source. And while I would be respectful to your face, I would also stand by everything I have said here and while I would never start something physical, I would certainly defend myself from a hateful, small-minded, ignorant bigot such as yourself.
“But being the coward that you are, you probably sit in
your bathrobe in your mama’s basement except when you slink forth to those bathroom stalls spoken of above, you queer.”
Unfortunately, my mother died of cancer several years ago, so I can’t sit in her basement, but I do research trying to help understand and cure cancer and I believe she would be proud what I’m doing with my life. I feel sorry for the pain your mother must feel if she is aware of how badly she failed in raising you to be a decent human being. While I’m not a ‘queer’ as you so eloquently put it, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being gay, so your intended insults are ineffective. I’ll just continue to assume that you use words like ‘coward’ and ‘queer’ because deep down this is how you see yourself.
“Thank God for freedom of speech, not yet squelched by your African king. Kindly confine your speech about things you know nothing about to those bathroom stalls you frequent so much.”
I’ll thank the founding fathers (a bunch of deists and atheists, by the way) and our judiciary (including Judges Carter and Land) for granting and protecting our freedom of speech – although in this particular forum it is Professor Turley granting us that freedom (so thanks to you, too JT). When I don’t know anything about a particular subject, I listen and ask questions – maybe you should try it sometime.
Vince and Slats,
These Orly Trolls are especially slowing in realizing that their claims are baseless and that Orly is going to be dealing with her own “legal” issues.
Thanks to all for illuminating the path of the latest ‘Orlyboros’, Art Bulla. Who chooses by free will to create the dimmest in humanity!
“The truth will be known at Res Ipsa Loquitor,” ah Vince’s hallowed words, it’s forever a treat reading you folks.
“That is what mathematics is all about, something that Darwinists will never understand: truth, diamond truth which cannot be chiseled or cracked to accommodate the iron bedstead of their foolish and evil misconceptions.I despise you, sir and if you were here and send those things to my face, you’d be taught a lesson that your mama never cared enough to give you.”
*************
Art Bulla? I think he left off a few letters from that last name. And lose the “a” too, it makes you look semi-literate when you botch the spelling of common expletives.
LOL. This is the best spoof of a troll I have seen. Continue on Art, it’s getting higher and deeper. Bravo.
For everyone’s ready reference, there is a complete Obama citizenship conspiracy page at wiki that has notes and links for just about every crazy theory out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
It literally took hundreds of years for Bigfoot to get a wiki entry of his own and the Birthers accomplished this feat in less than four years. Impressive. Maybe the Birthers are in the wrong line of work. I hear ‘Nessie is looking for a publicist. Perhaps they could start by attacking its Scottish parentage or lack thereof.
Thanks, BIL.
Just an announcement to all my fans.
I was born in the United States to natural born United States citizen bigfoot parents, and I am running for President in 2012 against the Usurper.
Bigfoot/Kucinich 2012
Bigfoot/Buddha 2102.
Better yet, Buddha/Bigfoot 2102.
Bigfoot,
I’m not voting for you until I see your birth certificate (and it better have all of the information on it that I want – starting with the winners of the next 5 super bowls…).
Vince,
I’m thinking that when the 2012 elections roll around one of the birther lawyers (probably not Orly since I’m guessing that she will be disbarred by then) will find a republican who will declare himself a presidential candidate and pass the standing hurdle and quickly find their worst nightmare realized when the court takes judicial notice of the COLB or statements by the Hawaii DOH (and if they’re really unlucky, the courts will give a definition for natural born citizen). Do you think that in light of Judge Carter’s ruling the birthers will be able to establish standing by challenging President Obama’s eligibility on the 2012 ballot?
Abominable Snowman/Sarah Palin
Pardon me,
Yeah. And the abominable snowman dies in a hunting accident the day after he’s inaugurated.
Slats: “Do you think that in light of Judge Carter’s ruling the birthers will be able to establish standing by challenging President Obama’s eligibility on the 2012 ballot?”
First, the birthers will not be able to attain standing, because they will have no more of a particularized injury or tangible case then than they have now. But a presidential candidate in a state primary might be able to show an actual injury. Gore and Bush had standing in 2000 because Gore had a solid chance of winning the election if the Court had ordered more ballots counted, and if the ballots had gone his way.
So candidates might enter the race again and sue in the first states that accept presidential nominations for their primary ballots, and might be granted standing. But then they will lose, badly.
The Democrats will enter the COLB. It says on its face that it is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii. It is a birth certificate, because it meets the definition of “birth certificate” in federal law in Section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub.L.108-434, 118 Stat. 3825, Dec. 17, 2004. It is online:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ458.108.pdf
This definition was first introduced into the online birther debate here at the Turley Blog: Here it is in full:
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.
Section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 note):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The COLB is a “certificate” of birth, because it said on its face that any alterations of “this certificate” would render it invalid. It was issued to an individual who was a citizen at birth, not a naturalized citizen. His birth was registered in the United States, according to public statements of the responsible custodial officials.
The COLB was issued by a “State … government agency or authorized custodian of record” and it was “produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record….” In the alternative, it was ”an authenticated copy, issued by a … State, or local government agency or authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such agency or custodian of record”
So the COLB meets all of the elements of the definition of a “birth certificate.” There is no requirement for the name of the hospital or the names of any witnesses in the definition.
The burden then would shift to the birfers to provide some grounds to go behind the official certificate and the testimony of the custodial official. They would have to
(1) prove that it was a forgery or ( 2) that valid Kenyan or other birth certificates exist.
The forgery “experts” have all been shot down, and even the WorldWingNutDaily conceded last year that it was genuine. The two Kenyan birth certificates were pathetic fakes, and anyone seeking to introduce them risks perjury charges and jail time.
Obama has already complied with the proposed bill [below], and has already met any legal challenge on the merits to his right to hold office based on a challenge to his place of birth.
At this point, it is the “afterbirfers” who step up to the place. Like Leo Donofrio, they contend that Obama is ineligible even if he were in fact born in Hawaii in 1961, where he was in fact born.
“Afterbirfers” ™®C come in two flavors.
Leo’s “dual citizenship” crowd say that Obama is not “natural born” because his father was a citizen or subject of Kenya or the British Empire at the time of birth. That is the non-fat version. The full sugar version says that Obama himself was a British or Kenyan citizen or subject at birth, and cannot serve because of dual loyalties, or because he was subject to the jurisdiction of another country at birth, and maybe today.
This is sure to lose because the 14th Amendment said all persons born in the U.S. are citizens, except for children of ambassadors and of hostile occupying forces, and the Supreme Court ruled in Wong that children of aliens born in the States are just as much citizens as the children of natural born citizens. (This is the short form of the argument. It can go on for years).
Obama did have conditional Kenyan citizenship at birth, but that was dependent on his claiming it before he turned 21, and he never did so. It expired. There is nothing in the text, intent or interpreting Supreme Court cases to support Leo’s theory.
Leo is shocked, shocked that a person who was once a citizen of another country could be President and Commander in Chief. Enter a servant to give Leo his poker winnings, along with biographies of Washington and all the Presidents up to Zachary Taylor or someone, who had all been subjects of Great Britain at one time. For crying out loud, Washington had been a BRITISH GENERAL. Sputter, sputter…. Will no one in the kingdom rid me of this meddlesome pries…, um, poker player?
The other crowd of afterbirfers says both parents must be citizens, without reference to dual citizenship. Mario and Kerchner base this on the writings of Vattel, who was not a framer, and was not even American, and wrote in French or something years before the Constitution, and wasn’t even translated into English until 1797. Mike Appleton and others have demonstrated the common law, not Vattel, was the source of the meaning of the term “natural born.” It meant all babies born in the country, except babies of foreign diplomats and occupying armies.
Written predictions ™®©:
(1) Some fringe candidates may get standing in the 2012 election.
(2) The will lose on the COLB issue, since the courts will hold it valid.
(3) They will not get access to the Hawaiian records.
(4) They will lose on dual citizenship.
(5) They will lose on the two-parent requirement.
(6) They will never accept the rulings on the merits that they so longed for, and will go into the night crying “usurper.”
If the bill introduced by the Republican Congressional birthers should be passed, the courts would have to rely on the federal legal definition in Section 7211 and Title 5, since the bill amends federal law.
(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.’.
Again, Obama is the first potential 2012 candidate to have complied with this bill in full. Obama has produced his birth certificate. Farah and the WorldNutters are liars when they ask in billboards “Where’s the birth certificate” because Obama has already produced his birth certificate.
My birth certificate is kind of large.
They had to use a bedsheet so that my footprints would fit on it.
@Bigfoot,
So long as it is filed as a certificate of live birth then file it. Hell, where you allegedly born? Scotland? Is that part of the US?
Hell, if we can suffer stupd at W’s expense then you too can be president.
Mr. Spindell said: “Most people who fear other types of people are really afraid of the feelings they have within themselves. Those who despise and loathe other human beings seem I think to fear that they are really like those others. People who despise and loathe other also run counter to Jesus teachings. Was it not he who supped with publicans and saved a whore saying “Judge not lest you be judged.” Mr. Bulla, you act in a most un-Christian manner and one counter to your Lord’s teachings.”
Believe me, I’m no queer, I am a polygamist, you fool. And guess what, I am not a Christian either! Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to the sectarian confusion and nonsense of Babylon the Great upheld by you. Looking at your photograph, your visage betrays that you’re a queer. I unerringly discern the motivation here: the attempt to destroy God by destroying one of his daughters.
7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words–they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.
(1 Ne 19:7)
And you so much as admitted it in your post. Queers never understand the motivation of the righteous. Contempt and righteous indignation is not fear, fool. The reason you fear the righteous so much is because deep inside of whatever humanity you have left, you have this gnawing uncertainty, a certain fearful looking for the judgment of God, an then project this fear of righteous judgment onto Orly Taitz (who is in a battle to expose a wicked and corrupt charlatan who lies every time he opens his mouth) and this in order to destroy her that your sins might remain covered. You project because you realize the enormity of the judgments that will come against you and your kind should the righteous ever gain political ascendancy as they once had at the founding of this nation, or when the judgments of God otherwise overtake you.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance [belongeth] unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 [It is] a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
(Heb 10:26-31)
And speaking of Barack Obama, he has the stated intention of destroying what he perceives as the ascendant white hegemony as per his own admission, hence the marshaling of Acorn to harass and intimidate bank presidents and their families to grant unwarranted and unrighteous loans to those not credit worthy, according to the rules of banking, simply because they are black, to join him the first affirmative-action president as the thrill runs up the leg of Chris Matthews.
Matt 15:26
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
Mark 7:27
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children (white and delightsome Israel) first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.
I discern him, you and Orly Taitz with righteous judgment, for I am a judge, you know it now or will know it at the last day. Plain speaking is a source of embarrassment to queerdom, hence their unceasing mockery of George W. Bush, not realizing that he was baiting you all along by feigned clumsiness, sort of like Columbo. The American people are waking up to your lies and effrontery.
I received the following revelation from Israel’s God concerning your society controlled and ruled over by queerdom:
7 For I the Lord thy God have for-ordained him, even he who was mighty and also strong, from before the foundation of the world to do my work, as in times of old, and to be a prophet unto the nation in which thou standest even at this time, for I the Lord God am no respecter of nations as well as individuals-which nation is nigh unto destruction because of the wickedness of the children of men upon the face thereof, as before the flood.
8 For as before the flood are they in their hardness of heart and blindness of mind and their wickedness and abominations which they, even they, the common man and woman, the majority, practice in that which they think is the dark in the which they say, “who is the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, of whom we have heard, but do not believe, that we should fear him?”, even as before the flood, yea in their ignorance of the mysteries, and their murders, and their fornications, and their lyings, and stealings, and their mixing with the seed of Cain, the black race, and pride, and unbelief, and their fossils and their technology, and their false religions, and haughty carriage, and fashion, and education and vain looks, and their whoredoms, and their tampering with the life which I the Lord their God have given unto them, yea their birth-control as before the flood, and their psychology, and their biology and their false science, and their evolution and their technology as before the flood:
9 In the which they say as before the flood, who is the Lord God that we should fear him, for are we not a mighty nation and people, and have we not freed ourselves from the delusion of our fathers who were bound down by a vain and foolish hope of a resurrection, and this through evolution and false science, and false religions, which abound as before the flood;
10 And women’s liberation, and the officers in their swagger and bullying and the police and their magistrates who strut and lift themselves up in pride over the people, and their proud and arrogant legislatures and their lying newsmen who distort the truth for gain, and the institutions of society, know ye not O deluded prophet, there is no God, for do ye not behold the world as we who are destroyed?
11 And are we not content and happy?
12 And we fear Him not, for know ye not that we have our teachers and we have our god which guideth us and giveth us comfort in the night, and teacheth us of its ways, the ways of the world, yea, even television, and doth it not teach us the truth, for it is marvelous in our eyes, and it says nothing concerning thee or thy God who hath spoken unto thee?
13 Vain prophet do ye not see as we see, who have seen nothing, only corruption and lies, and effrontery from our god, fashion, and mad pursuit of pleasure and harlotry and we know nothing else, and do we not give lip to that which hath been passed down to us from our parents, and that which our governor tells us and Dan Rather tells us?
14 Therefor leave us as our governor, and our parents and Dan Rather and Roger Mudd and Frank Reynolds, to our fornication, and our drunkenness and our unbelief and our wickedness, or we will kill thee, as our fathers before thee killed them who dared speak of old, even thy prophets of Jacob who are deluded like unto thee, even Joseph and Hyrum.
15 And does not the majority, do they not believe as we?
16 Therefore we outnumber thee, O deluded man, and it is that if the majority see as we, are ye not in error, surely?
17 And do the rest like unto us, understand thy words, O Prophet, and where are thy converts and the hosts that should follow thee if thy words be true?
18 And thus we do not believe thy words that thou hast seen him.
19 And thus they lift themselves up in pride against me, the Lord God, who is mighty in battle, as before the flood, to the complete destruction of soul and body.
20 For it was that them before the flood obtained promise of deliverance in the resurrection from hell, which shall not be given unto this generation, saith the Lord, for thou hast also blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, O liberal man and woman, which they did not do before the flood.
21 And it is that unless ye speedily repent, ye shall be destroyed both body and soul in hell for I love the effortless fury of the battle, and the blood shall run to the bridles of the horses in that day, saith the Lord God of Pharaoh, and whose destruction unto thee, O liberal man and woman is beyond the mind of man to comprehend in the height and depth thereof, which no man knoweth save he shall be made partaker thereof.
22 Yea with the devil and his angels ye shall suffer the second death, in my fury and wrath upon thee, O man and O woman, who darest lift up thy feeble head against my legions who shall come in this day, saith the Lord God.
23 And also mine own arm which shall fall upon thee to thy destruction as before the flood, and by pestilence and plague and earthquake, as my armies which shall go through as a young lion in the midst of sheep, and the fall of thy economy, and thy utter destruction both body and soul which hangeth over thee, O man, even now, and these things are upon thee except ye repent and come unto me through him whom I have appointed for the deliverance of the righteous in these things, saith the Lord God of Joseph Smith and Hyrum, whom your fathers, O ye Gentiles killed, and rejoiced in their deaths.
24 And did I not pour out civil war upon them as punishment, even in these things, saith the Lord, to requite the blood of the prophets upon their own heads, saith the Lord God of destruction and terrible vengeance?
25 For is not all flesh in my hands that I the Lord God cannot cause that which looketh as the natural course of events unto the natural man unaided by the spirit of Revelation, but which are strong delusion which I the Lord God poured out also upon the Jews before their destruction before the Roman Eagle, in the which I the Lord God brought about their destruction easily, O man, and effortlessly by their delusion and deep sleep as to things which are real, that they perished under the sword, dreaming that their necks were stronger than the steel of the blade as it was brought down upon them, that their God would deliver them?
26 And thus I the Lord God destroyed them, even as I, the Lord God will thee, O man, and O woman, for I the Lord God am the author of life and of death from before the foundation of the world, and was not the flood murder unto thee, O liberal man and woman whom I loath, saith the Lord, for thou hast provoked me, the Lord Thy God as before the flood, with thy haughtiness and wickedness.
27 And where is thy police that can deliver thee, O man, from me?
28 For they are full of iniquity also, saith the Lord, and are worse than them whom they persecute, and have participated in the shedding of innocent blood, even that of John Singer, saith the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
29 And it is for these things a curse hath been placed upon the land, as before the flood to thy utter destruction, both body and soul.a
30 But it is my will, saith the Lord, that thou shouldest pray unto me in thy secret places concerning these things, and I the Lord thy God will answer thy prayer unto me, and will fill even thy frame with such power from regions of light and glory and might and power, that it is impossible that thy tongue, O man, can express the power thereof, that ye may have a witness from me, even Jesus of Nazereth that these things are true, and that I the Lord God have appointed him and all who would receive me, even the Lord thy God, when it is that I shall come with my Holy Angels to reap down even the earthb upon which thou standest, must receive him, or it is that they must all be cut off from my presence, even forever and everc, worlds without end.
31 Even so, I the Lord God have spoken it and so it shall come to pass.
32 For it is that no man knoweth the things of God, save it be by the Spirit of God.
33 And all the preachments of men, save they shall be given by the inspiration of the Comforter are of no efficacy or value unto the souls of the children of men for their salvation, saith the Lord.
34 For why is it, saith the Lord, that ye require the Gateway spoken of to be narrow when it was that I the Lord God did send unto that stiffnecked and unbelieving generation even John, named the Baptist, and that it be broad unto you, O ye generation of vipers like unto them?
35 For as it was then, even so it is now, for I the Lord God am no respecter of persons or generations, and am the same yesterday, today, and forever, and because I the Lord God send unto you one gift, ye need not suppose that I cannot send another, for he it is that was with me from the beginning and reserved that he should come unto thee at this time for thy salvation, both temporally and spiritually, for he it is that was mighty before the foundation of the world for the defeat of Lucifer, even at this time, saith the Lord, and has stood upon my right hand in reserve, from before the foundation of the world as my mighty one who should be held in reserve to do battle for mine honor and my name upon the earth against mine enemies, both in the flesh and the spirit, saith the Lord God, that they may know of my power which shall be manifest when ye are gathered unto him, O Israel, such as has not been seen since Moses and Enoch.
36 And it is that because that none of you have faith and intelligence and knowledge sufficient to pull down answers from that region of light, that ye cry blasphemy as the Jews, when it was that I sent mine Only Begotten unto them, O ye stiffnecked and unbelieving generation!
37 And he it is that I have sent at this time shall be the means of baptizing this generation also for a remission of sins, by mine authority, that they too shall receive baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost by the laying on of his hands as anciently.
38 And thus it is that my people shall once again worship me in Spirit and in truth as anciently, that I the Father of Heaven and earth may once more take up my abode upon the earth, as in the Garden before the fall, yea, of Eden.
39 And this is the only true gospel which is and shall be recognized by the heavens as anciently.
40 For I the Lord his God have covenanted with him that all who come unto me, even his Father, must come unto me as in the manner of old.
41 For I, his Father must am no respecter of persons.
42 For it was that I his Father did send in mine Only Begotten unto that generation and that generation only, and in this generation, there is a second witness of me, the Father, of equal weight and validity and power and might before me, as mine Only Begotten son, for out of the mouths of two witnesses shall every word be established, which thing is my law, saith the Lord, for by these two, who are mine, will I the Father who art greater in might than they all, shall judge the earth upon which thou standest.
43 For his is of Ephraimc, and mine Only Begotten is Judah, and who is greater before me, saith the Father?
44 And in this generation all who would come unto me must receive him who was Mighty and Strong from before the foundation of the world.
45 For I did send mine Only Begotten unto them, because ye, O Ephraim, were scattered among the nations, therefor it is that I the Father have sent Him also unto thee, that he stand also upon my right hand with me in my power, for he hath also descended with mine Only Begotten, below all things, and hath also drunk out of that bitter cup, for all things have also been stripped from him except his life, and even that hath hung in the balance, saith the Father.
46 And thus are we not one, yea one in doctrine, and mind and spirit, but not one in body, O man?
47 And this because of his intelligence, for light cleaveth unto light and intelligence, saith the Lord, unto intelligence.
48 And there were none greater in intelligence among the sons of God from before the foundation of the world, that Satan could not deceive him as he hath thee, O man, with his lies and cunning craftiness and thy unstable mind and heart, yea for his intelligence, which is the light of truth, he cannot be deceived by him, saith the Lord, and he is the stone spoken of by Isaiah in the 28th chapter, which should be laid in Sion, tried and precious by me, his Father.
49 Thus ye have a sure anchor for thy soul and ye may rely upon him as a sure guide for thee from me, and he will lead thee, my sheep into green pastures, where no ravening wolf can enter in, for he guardeth the gate and will destroy him for thee that thy life be spared, O man, and O woman, and if ye hearken and be obedient unto him in all things, ye shall be delivered from death and that devil and that yawning abyss of hell which jaws gape wide open the mouth that ye descend thereunto, if ye repent not before me, saith the Father, for I will not be mocked.The Revelations of Jesus Christ, Section 24.
Art, if you are not a Christian, why are you pasting up “The Revelations of Jesus Christ,” you damn polygamist? Keep MY NAME out of your hate-filled rants, thank you very much. I am returning, and your sorry ass is the first one I will find.
To all preparing a dive on Art Bulla (you’ll be going DEEP), monitor your time and depth appropriately. Oh and please remember your decompression stop strategies when you commence a slow ascent.
I think Prof. Turley should initiate a troll tax for postings that exceed 3,000 words. Maybe the fines collected could go to help pay for the health care reform.
“Believe me, I’m no queer, I am a polygamist, you fool. And guess what, I am not a Christian either! Jesus of Nazareth was opposed to the sectarian confusion and nonsense of Babylon the Great upheld by you. Looking at your photograph, your visage betrays that you’re a queer. I unerringly discern the motivation here: the attempt to destroy God by destroying one of his daughters.”
Art,
A polygamist no less and not a Christian, but a user of Christian philosophy. You call me a queer to. how precious. Also how sad for your wives that they are stuck with a delusional man. The truth is you could have a dozen wives and still be a homosexual. It’s what’s inside your mind and those hidden desires that make it so. All I know is that any man who is so threatened and disgusted by homosexuals must have that kind of problem. If you were such a great heterosexual, why would you care as much as you seem to do. Your fear and loathing gives you away and you belief that the Deity would speak to one such as you and proclaimed the vile hatred you profess is sadly delusional.
Mike S:
“Also how sad for your wives that they are stuck with a delusional man.”
**************
I think you jumped the gun on this one. Art Bulla said he was a polygamist. He never said anything about human wives. I am betting a goat, two mules, and a very sassy aardvark. Why do you think you can’t covet another man’s wife, ox, or ass as stated in Rule Ten. Seems we have an equivalence for the Bible thumping crowd. Tread softly here.
Maybe hogs and pigs:
Hogamous, Pigamous,
Man is polygamous
Pigamous, hogamous
Woman monogamous.
– traditional, author unknown.
Or he may only believe in polygamy, but not practice it, making him a polygamist who can’t polyg.
I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity. Jesus said that the “weightier matter of the law” is judgment. We are here to correctly judge between good and evil, and if there is a shiver all the away through our beings because our conscience has been compromised by accommodating evil, by committing crimes against nature, then the light of the eye is darkness, and it would have been better that we had never been born.
20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(2 Ne 15:20)
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!
(Matt 6:23)
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.
(Luke 11:34)
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
(John 3:19-21)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(Isa 5:20)
If our judgment is suborned by wickedness, then we become literally a devil in human form. These are called “sons of perdition” in the Scriptures. There is no forgiveness for them, for they must, of necessity deny and blaspheme even against the Holy Ghost to maintain a cover for their depravity! But the result upon society of these individuals, especially if they gain political influence, and influence in the schools of our nation, is the destruction of that society or nation. this is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, saith the Lord. Persecution is heaped upon Orly Taitz, and the Lord himself is crucified afresh and put to an open shame. The fate of these individuals so involved, saith the Lord, is the second death. We all know of the first death, but it is the second one that you should be concerned about. You may think that this is just a rhetorical attempt to frighten you, but I assure you that it is not.
As Jesus of Nazareth said,
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Matt 10:28)
We are spirits clothed in flesh and bones. We know where the flesh and bones come from, we have parents. But the spirit has parents also, literally. This parentage and existence was before birth for many millennia, our memory of all was blotted out before coming here except for these intimations spoken of by Wordsworth.
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home: William Wordsworth, Intimations on Immortality
For those who commit the kind of sins that we are speaking of here, which are unpardonable there is a second death which is the total annihilation of the spirit back to its native element, or dissolution. This may take many millennia of indescribable suffering to accomplish. It is literally devoured by devils who are more powerful, in the world to come. This fate is to be avoided at all costs. As Chairman Mao said, all politics comes from the barrel of a gun, but Jesus said to fear not him, then when he kill the body that is all that he (Chairman Mao) and those like him can do. So real power belongs to those who are able to bring these punishments about. Men obey laws because of the fear they have of punishment. How much more should we obey the law of God and live, because the punishment is indescribable.
Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:
“Mercy cannot rob justice.”
“Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:
“Mercy cannot rob justice.”
———————————
I am a conservative and I know what kind of punishment I would like to mete A.Bull.
OT:
Vince,
Asimov estate approves “new” Robot story. I hope this grave robbing exercise works out better than what they have planned for Douglas Adams.
http://www.keepingthedoor.com/2009/10/30/asimov-estate-authorises-i-robot-sequels/
Buddha,
Are you back full force de jure?
BiL, wow. Interesting discussion at the linked site. I’m mixed. Dr. A did authorize some sequels, but not all of them turned out well. Wait and see.
Art Bulla:
as a conservative, I think you are wrong. I think most liberals, at least the ones on this site, just want controlling people out of their lives.
“I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity.”
In my mind and that of most human beings polygamy is the height of sexual depreavity. In your case “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” be the maxim when talking about sexual depravity.
Buddha,
Thanks for the link I’m bookmarking that site. Good stuff. As for Douglas Adams, are they really thinking about the same? The idea of a new writer picking up from a master is just money driven greed. As the articles author stated Imagine hiring someone to continue Rembrandt’s work.
Now in the case of Jordan’s “Wheel of Time Series” where the author died before completion and “supposedly” left copious notes I can see the sense. However, truthfully, Jordan was just milking the the story by his Seventh book and stringing it out for the money. Authors of course are entitled to increase their bottom line, but when it becomes like “Wheel of Time” it shows the loss of artistic vision. I became bored with it, but would continue reading to get to the denouement. However, now I read that the designated Jordan author and Tor are planning three more books and i’ll do myself the favor of imagining my own ending.
Art Bulla:
and Joseph Smith is a paragon of virtue concerning sexual mores? Are you smoking crack?
Isn’t the Mormon religion the one where any Mormon can become god? Come to think of it, you are smoking more than just crack, you are high on delusions of grandeur.
Buddha,
I haven’t read “And Another Thing…” (the new Hitch-hiker’s book) yet, I take it that you don’t like it?
Mike S,
Douglas Adams’ widow picked someone to write a sixth Hitchhiker’s book because Douglas thought (correctly) that the fifth book was bleak and wanted the series to end on a better note. I have no problem with this (although as I mentioned, I haven’t read the book yet). I’m somewhat more nervous about the prospect of a new Robot book, but I’ll give it a chance.
Mike, Slart and Buddha
Jordan was milking the story from book four on, I gave up at five. I’m pretty sure he spent more time checking his continuity notes than working on the actual plot at that point.
As for as the Adams sequel goes, my understanding (from an interview with the new author) is that the author was contacted by the Adams estate. He decided that it would be literary suicide to try and write an “Adams” book, so he wrote an ending to the story that he thought Adams would have liked in his (the new author’s) style. He is completely honest with the fact that he’s not a substitute for Adams, but is instead doing a homage at the request of the family of one of his favorite authors. I’m withholding judgment until I read it.
Gyges,
My understanding is the same as yours – and Mr. Colfer wrote the book (titled “And Another Thing…” – gotta love a title with an ellipsis…) at the behest of Jane Belson, Douglas Adams’ widow. As someone who reveres Douglas Adams (as witnessed by my name), I’m very excited at the prospect of a final (I would hope) Hitchhikers book and the author has said all the right things. I think there is a big difference between finishing a series that the author intended to finish before he died and adding a new trilogy onto a series which is essentially complete on it own.
Mike & Slarti,
I have not yet read “And Another Thing . . .”, however, the prospect of it fills me with more dread than a new Robot tale. The reason is simply that as a feat of writing, it’s easier to ape Asimov than Adams because stylistically Douglas’ voice was 1) more flamboyant than Asimov and 2) comedic. To me, comedy is a genre that is so dependent on aesthetic and timing/pacing that it is intrinsically difficult to mimic successfully. Beginning S/F (or any genre specific) writers often start by writing that mimics what they like to read. A really good writer can do so and not sound derivative. But comedy is different because it is so “voice” dependent. Asimov, brilliant as he was, was pretty straight forward in terms of art as a writer. I don’t mean this as an insult and I don’t think Issac would take it this way when I describe him as “utilitarian”. It would be harder, for example, to ape Gene Wolfe than an Asimov or a Clarke if you want to stay in genre. Wolfe has a very distinctive style. Even taking into account that it’s a comedy hybrid, Douglas Adams was a lot of things stylistically, but utilitarian wasn’t one of them. If you try to write like him – because his voice is both distinctive and comic – there is a distinct chance that you’ll come off sounding like a bad Douglas Adams impersonation. This is not unique in comedy. Rarely can one mimic others style so well as to gain notoriety – the two exceptions that come to mind being Hal Holbrooke’s Twain and Gabe Kaplan’s Groucho and those are Broadway examples (because I cannot think of a successful literary example). I am skeptical of a new Robot story. I am afraid of a new Arthur Dent story. Almost as much as I’d be afraid of a “new” tale of Dr. Gonzo and his steadfast yet demented and depraved Samoan attorney. Maybe it’s just me.
Buddha,
The author of “And Another thing…” agrees with you, he didn’t write a book trying to be Douglas Adams, he wrote a book he thought Adams might like.
I talked to a friend on the force in the Time Patrol about sending some Agents back to smother these sequels-by-successors in the cradle.
It turns out that they believe in the Free Market, and expect the Invisible Hand to take care of these efforts. It seems that Natural Selection based on the Survival of the Fittest will allow the Gold to settle out permanently, while the Dross is washed away. They are very firm on the First Amendment.
In the meantime, I have found that the best 21stC SFers are now the Brits, led by Charles Stross and Alistair Reynolds. I just finished House of Suns, and half of Transition. This stuff is All-Galactic, great New Space Opera. I have read all of Reynolds, and most of Stross, and they never disappoint.
NY Timester Paul Krugman, is a fan of Asimov, especially FoundationX3, and he has now signed on with a jacket endorsement for Stross’s Merchant Princes series (be sure to start at the start with Family Trade), and I agree.
Buddha,
Have faith and be not afraid – Colfer says he tried to write in the spirit of Adams, not to mimic him, and considering how well that worked in the movie (which was different than all of the other incarnations of Hitchhikers and very my in the spirit of DA, in my opinion), I’m cautiously optimistic. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one else can credibly pick up Hunter’s gonzo pen, though. Now excuse me, I’ve got to go find some raw ether and quaaludes…
Aye, I’ll not quibble it is their right Vince, but I posit the same question I posit to scientists – “Just because you can do something, does it mean that should you?” Capacity does not correlate to desired outcome. Need I say more than Star Trek: Voyager? I may have come off as a doomsayer for derivative work and that is not true. I rather liked it when Larry Niven let other writers play in his universe in the various “Man-Kzin War” titles. And while I have not read any of the new Foundation stories, I do rather like some of the Gardner penned Bond novels. But I say what I said as being specific to comedy and I’ll stick to it – the chances of success are slim as to be approaching zero if they want an “Adams” book. If the book stands, as Gyges says, as an independent tale of its own written with Adams as the target audience? That could work. Well, if you discount the “dead” part of the demographic that could work.
I cannot say I have read all of Reynolds but I can say most. I concur that his Revelations universe tales never disappoint, even the disturbing novella “Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days”. Right now I’m preparing to dive into the Manifold series by Stephen Baxter. I read one of them out of sequence (Exultant) and was as impressed with him as I was with Reynolds. I think Baxter’s Xeelee may be one of the more compelling alien species in the field.
Vince,
Your comment reminded me of a very amusing short story (sort of). Enjoy.
p.s. Did you see the latest about O-bot spying and psyops at the post & email?
Vince,
Here’s a link to Stross’s blog. Based on that I’m definitely checking out his fiction, at some point in the future.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/
I love the post “How habitable is the Earth?”
Slarti,
I will stipulate that I was not deeply offended by the HGTTG film and felt it to be in the spirit of the books within the structural confines of a screenplay. I’ll even go so far as to say Sam Rockwell was perfect casting for Zaphod. As much as some authors whine about “Hollywood butchered my work”, rarely is that strictly true. Screenplays ARE different from novels and any writer honest with themselves should be honest about this fact. Alan Moore has been both right about this (V for Vendetta is a simple and worst – simplistic – shadow of the book) and wrong about this (Watchmen, as good a job making that into a film as possible even though I didn’t agree with the need to change the ending. My reactions to the LOTR films is similar.). I’ll try not to rush to judgment on a new HHTTG book given I now know they are not trying to accomplish the practically impossible. I will still, however, approach with caution.
Buddha,
Fred Saberhagen opened up the Berzerker series and published a book of short stories (Including stories by Larry Niven, Roger Zelazny, and Stephen R. Donaldson (another of my favorite authors)). I think this setting (like the Man-Kzin wars) is ideal for this sort of thing, and I agree with you that comedy is much harder, but I think that Colfer is in the best possible position to make it work.
Buddha,
In fairness to other stories made into movies, HHGTTG is about one-third the length of say, LotR and already had four other versions (I think) that were all different from each other (meaning there were very few scenes that HAD to be in the movie). LotR did many things really well (and the cinematography was incredible), but then something will happen like Aragorn drawing a SWORD at Weathertop and I’ll go apoplectic – and don’t even get me started about the Harry Potter movies…
Slart,
I was actually thankful for all the changes in LOTR. A straight line by line adaptation would have been WAY too long, and boring. Think of how much time Tolkien spent on traveling and back stories. “It’s the journey and not the destination” story telling doesn’t generally work all that well for big budget special effects fests like LOTR needed to be. Of course, I never cared much for Tolkien anyway, so I’m biased.
Contrast that with “Bubba Ho-tep,” which is incredibly faithful to the Lansdale story. It works well because it’s a much more dialog driven story then anything Tolkien wrote. Not to mention it has the advantage of being a short story, which tend to focus less on explanation and more on mood and atmosphere. Plus, a retired Elvis fighting a mummy just makes for good watching.
Evil twin Vince from Alternate Universe seized computer and garbled my transmission. Iain M. Banks is the author of Transition, out this year, and an excellent alternate universe yarn in every respect up as far as I have read through page 250. So my parlay on the Big Three is Banks, Reynolds and Stross.
Or this may be a brain problem, so I will have to resort to my do-it-yourself brain-surgery kit ordered on the Internet. All spare excised tissue has been promised by JT to NAL. “A rind is a terrible thing to taste.”
BiL, everyone here has to get together and coin a name for these “afterauthors.” They resemble athletes trying to make comebacks. They never succeed. August Derleth kept putting out Lovecraft sequels, and encouraging others, but it is HPL, and only HPL, who is now deservedly in the Library of America. Howard’s Conan was ripped off like that. Harlan Ellison did a story in F&SF 30 years back on the subject.
The sequeelers (rhymes with squealers) have to be told: “With great power comes great responsibility. You can’t do everything. You’re not Superman.”
Gyges, great site!
Slart, a great story!
I had the Time Patrol send an agent back to the 20’s to guide Adolph to Sigmund Freud for full psychoanalysis in Vienna. Adolph became a science fiction writer, famous for his novel The Iron Dream, published under the name Norman Spinrad.
As a Celt, I should be careful with the label “Brit.” Stross is now a Scot living in Edinburgh, although born in Leeds. Reynolds is Welsh, living near Cardiff. Banks is a Scot living near Forth Bridge.
See, also, Ken McLeod and Peter F. Hamilton.
Vince,
My view on athletes is that great players have the right to decide when to call it quits – if you want to be a Barry Sanders or Jim Brown and leave the game on top, fine, and if you want to be like Bret Favre and keep playing until your 102, that’s fine, too. (I don’t know if you can call it a comeback, but so far, I don’t think anyone in Minnesota is complaining about Farve.) I like the name sequeelers, and I agree that their works shouldn’t become cannon unless they are accepted by the fans (whatever that means).
Gyges,
It’s not what they cut out of LotR that bothers me (and you are right, a lot had to be cut to make an entertaining movie, it’s when important things are changed for no good reason that bothers me. I haven’t seen Bubba Ho-Tep yet, but as I am a Bruce Campbell fan (Hail to the King, baby), it’s on my list of movies to see.
Vince,
You should know better. I’ve had your agent stopped before he could intervene – don’t do it again!
Slart,
I figure Jackson was trying to remove as much of the Arthurian elements as possible from Aragorn’s character. Movies can’t handle as much complexity as novels can. Especially psuedo-mythical novels like Tolkien wrote. By placing Aragorn in a less central role, Jackson was able to emphasize Tolkien’s theme that it wasn’t the powerful legends that made the difference, but the goodness of the simple folk. I think Tolkien overplayed his hand a little by making the Hobbits caricatures like he did.
The Ellison story was “All the Lies That Are My Life,” F&SF, Nov. 1980, Hugo nominee, collected in Shatterday: “a writer attends the funeral & reading of the will of a fellow writer & friend … might be described as fiction about science fiction …is the most intensely personal.” The writer in his will expressed his dread that scavengers would keep on churning out new versions of his works. Harlan will read the opening part of it to you at:
http://www.sundancechannel.com/digital-shorts/#/series/20958611001/20977197001
Gyges, yeah, Charlton concluded that Obots might be snooping on you and using psycop tactics to manipulate you unknowingly, based on evidence that this snooping is being done by an obot who lives within 10 minutes of the founder of Snopes.com. Comments came from an IP in the town adjacent to the address of the registrant of Snopes.
Truly crazy.
Art Bulla: “The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.”
You tell me this town ain’t got no heart.
Well, well, well, you can never tell.
The sunny side of the street is dark.
Well, well, well, you can never tell.
Maybe that’s cause it’s midnight, in the dark of the moon besides.
Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
Maybe the dark is from your eyes, Maybe the dark is from your eyes,
You know you got such dark eyes!
Nothin’ shakin’ on Shakedown Street. Used to be the heart of town.
Don’t tell me this town ain’t got no heart. You just gotta poke around.
Big long article at HuffPo by Terry Krepel on WorldNutOrly:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/worldnetdaily-cant-stop-w_b_341684.html
What a great SF discussion, I feel like I’m home. I love Stross and think he is very, very, good, but my favorite writer today is another Scotsman, Richard K. Morgan. Read “Market Forces” and the three Takeshi Kovacs books, sublime fiction and a wealth of really interesting things to ponder about humanity’s future.
While I like Asimov a lot, I absolutely love Adams writing.
To have either of them “continued” is to me little more than greed. To again use a version of the analogy shall we hire someone to add to the list of Mozart’s music? What about an updated sequel to Lennon’s Imagine? No good.
One other point re: Asimove v. Adams. The laws of robotics were genius and the Foundation series a masterwork, but “Goodbye and thanks for all the fish” is to me one of the wittiest lines ever written. Also in a recent 911 hospital trip last week, I’m fine now, all I kept thinking to myself was “Don’t Panic,” which made me smile and the EMT’s told me they almost never had patients who were in the throes of what I had, who seemed to deal with it so well. “Foundation” may stimulate my brain, but “Hitchhiker” helps keep me alive.
The Indiana Court of Appeals is right on the money. Today they handed down the case of Ankeny and Kruse v. Governor of Indiana, in the Court of Appeals of Indiana:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Tho pro se plaintiffs sued the Governor for failing to block the Electoral Votes for Obama. The trial court dismissed the claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court discussed the merits of the claim that a natural born citizen must be born in the United States to two United States citizens. It rejected the claim outright.
It correctly relied on U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, ruling that all persons born in the United States are natural born citizens.
There was another big loss for the birthers in the Third Circuit. The dismissal of Attorney Phil Berg’s case was affirmed.
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 08-4340
PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, Appellant
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO, a/k/a BARRY OBAMA, a/k/a BARACK DUNHAM, a/k/a BARRY DUNHAM; THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE; THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION; THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PEDRO A. CORTÉS, Secretary of the Commonwealth in his official capacity; DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Chairman of the U.S. Senate, Commission on Rules and Administration in her official capacity; U.S. SENATE, COMMISSION ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION; and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2-08-cv-04083) District Judge: Hon. R. Barclay Surrick
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 26, 2009
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Philip Berg, a lawyer acting pro se, filed this action challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for and serve as President of the United States. The District Court dismissed Berg’s action on the grounds that he lacks standing and failed to state a cognizable claim.
I.
Before the 2008 presidential election, Berg sued then- Presidential candidate Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee, and the Federal Election Commission, among others, alleging that Obama was ineligible to run for and serve as President because he was born in Kenya and therefore is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution .[1] Berg sought, in relevant part, a declaratory judgment that Obama was ineligible, an injunction barring Obama from running for that office, and an injunction barring the Democratic National Committee from nominating him.
Although Berg brought a grab-bag of claims before the District Court, he appeals only the dismissal of those brought under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[2] The District Court – assuming the factual allegations made by Berg to be true for the purposes of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss those claims – dismissed the first claim because “[t]he alleged harm to voters [like Berg] stemming from a presidential candidate’s failure to satisfy the eligibility requirement[s] of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to . . . satisfy Article III standing,” App. at 15, and dismissed the § 1983 claim because the “Natural Born Citizen Clause does not confer an individual right on citizens or voters,” App. at 23.
[1] That clause states, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4.
[2] In the “Issues Presented” section of Berg’s brief, issue nine is whether the District Court erred in “dismissing [Berg’s] claims under Promissory Estoppel [by holding that] the DNC . . . and Obama’s promise[s] to uphold the United States Constitution are simply statements of principle and intent in the political realm and are not enforceable promises[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 3. Berg does not mention his promissory estoppel theory again, let alone explain why the District Court’s holding was in error. In any event, the District Court was certainly correct that “[f]ederal courts . . . are not and cannot be in the business of enforcing political rhetoric.” App. at 35.
Berg filed a notice of appeal and moved this court for an “emergency” injunction to stay the presidential election of November 4, 2008 pending resolution of that appeal. We declined to stay the election, noting that it appeared that Berg lacked standing and thus failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.[3]
Obama won the election and Berg subsequently made another “emergency” motion, asking this court to issue an order prohibiting the certification of electors by the governors of each state, to stay the members of the Electoral College from casting their votes for Obama, and to stay the counting of electoral votes in Congress. We also denied that motion, reiterating Berg’s apparent lack of standing and also stating that Berg’s lawsuit seemed to present a non-justiciable political question.
The electoral votes have since been cast without objection to Obama’s qualifications by any members of Congress, and Obama was inaugurated. Berg nonetheless persists in this litigation.
[3] On the day that we denied Berg’s motion, he petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and applied to Justice Souter, who was at the time the Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit, for an injunction to stay the November 2008 election. The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and Justice Souter denied the application for an injunction.
II.
We have jurisdiction to consider this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is plenary. Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Because the Defendants’ challenge to subject matter jurisdiction was a “facial” one, we will accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Id. It is Berg’s burden to establish his standing. FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, 75 F.3d 834, 838 (3d Cir. 1996).
We note that most of Berg’s arguments on appeal were not made before the District Court and rest on facts that did not exist when his complaint was filed, i.e., Obama’s election and the casting of the electoral votes without objection. Ordinarily, we would not reach such arguments. See United States v. Anthony Dell’Aquilla, Enters. & Subsidiaries, 150 F.3d 329, 335 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, an issue not raised in district court will not be heard on appeal.”) (citation omitted); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571 n.4 (1992) (“The existence of federal jurisdiction ordinarily depends on the facts as they exist when the complaint is filed.” (quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 830 (1989))). In light of the public’s interest in the final resolution of this case – which is one of a series of cases brought challenging the qualifications of the 2008 presidential candidates from both of the major political parties [4] – and the obvious lack of any merit in Berg’s contentions, we will exercise our discretion and address them to put some finality to the dispute.
4 See, e.g., Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179, 181 (D.D.C. 2009) (dismissing challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Cohen v. Obama, No. 08-2150, 2008 WL 5191864, at *1 (D.D.C. 2008) (dismissing challenge to Obama’s eligibility), aff’d, 2009 WL 2870668 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (summary affirmance); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 68 (D.N.H. 2008) (dismissing challenge to Senator John McCain’s eligibility); Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (dismissing challenge to McCain’s qualifications). These cases have been denominated by the press as “birther” cases.
In sum, we agree with the District Court that Berg lacks standing to bring this suit because he has suffered no injury particularized to him. A prerequisite of standing is that the litigant has suffered or will suffer an injury in fact that is caused by the complained-of conduct by a defendant and that can be redressed by the court. Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. An “injury in fact” is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[W]hen the asserted harm is a ‘generalized grievance’ shared in substantially equal measure by all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citation omitted).
We consider first the District Court’s holding that Berg’s status as a voter did not provide him standing to challenge Obama’s candidacy.5 The District Court held that “a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.” App. at 19. Berg specifies no error in the District Court’s reasoning. Instead, he merely asserts, generally, that he was somehow harmed by each state having “plac[ed] [Obama] on the ballot when there were substantial questions concerning his citizenship status . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 17.
Berg’s worry that Obama, if elected, might someday be removed from office was not an injury cognizable in a federal court because it was based on speculation and was contingent on future events. As a practical matter, Berg was not directly injured because he could always support a candidate he believed was eligible. See Becker v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 230 F.3d 381, 390 (1st Cir. 2000) (no cognizable injury to voters when they can still cast for preferred candidate), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1007 (2001); Gottlieb v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 143 F.3d 618, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (no harm to voters who could support the candidate of their choice); Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68; cf. Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 621 (injury to voters’ ability to influence the political process too speculative for purposes of standing).
[5] Although the defendants argue that this point is moot because the election is over, we consider the issue because “[t]his controversy, like most election cases, fits squarely within the ‘capable of repetition yet evading review’ exception to the mootness doctrine.” Merle v. United States, 351 F.3d 92, 94 (3d Cir. 2003).
Berg’s wish that the Democratic primary voters had chosen a different presidential candidate, and his dissatisfaction that they apparently did not credit the evidence he tendered, do not state a legal harm. Similarly, Berg’s angst that the presence on the ballot of an ineligible candidate might lessen the chances that an eligible candidate might win was a non-cognizable derivative harm. See Crist v. Comm’n on Pres. Debates, 262 F.3d 193, 195 (2d Cir. 2001) (agreeing that “a voter fails to present an injury-in-fact when the alleged harm . . . is only derivative of a harm experienced by a candidate.”); Becker, 230 F.3d at 390; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622.
Even if we assume that the placement of an ineligible candidate on the presidential ballot harmed Berg, that injury, including any frustration Berg felt because others refused to act on his view of the law, was too general for the purposes of Article III: Berg shared both his “interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws,” and the objective uncertainty of Obama’s possible removal, pari passu with all voters; and the relief he sought would have “no more directly and tangibly benefit[ed] him than . . . the public at large.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see also Crist, 262 F.3d at 195; Becker, 230 F.3d at 389- 90; Gottlieb, 143 F.3d at 622; Hollander, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 68 (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that Senator McCain was ineligible to be President under the Natural Born Citizen Clause); Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (dismissing voter’s suit alleging that the Twelfth Amendment barred electors from voting for President George Walker Bush and Vice President Cheney), aff’d, Jones v. Bush, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000) (summary affirmance), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001); cf. Cohen, 2008 WL 5191864 at *1 (dismissing citizen challenge to Obama’s eligibility); Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1146-47 (dismissing elector’s suit challenging McCain’s eligibility).
Now that the election is over, Berg’s stake in the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency is shared by an even greater number of people, i.e., all 300 million-plus U.S. citizens, whether voters or not. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; see Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 441-42 (2007) (Colorado voters lacked standing to assert that a provision of the Colorado Constitution violated the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 222 (1974) (citizens lacked standing to litigate under the Incompatibility Clause the eligibility of members of Congress to serve simultaneously in the military reserves); Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U.S. 633 (1937) (per curiam) (private individual lacked standing to invoke judicial power to determine validity of Justice Black’s appointment to the Supreme Court).
The essence of Berg’s complaint is that the defendants, the states, presidential candidates other than Obama, political parties, a majority of American voters, and Congress – a list that includes some who could have challenged, or could still challenge, Obama’s eligibility through various means – have not been persuaded by his claim. That grievance, too, is not one “appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990).
Berg also argues that he has standing “under the Tenth Amendment because the power to determine the qualifications of the President-elect is left to the states and the people after the Congressmen and Senators failed to object to the counting of the electoral votes” pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15 – a statute that provides a mechanism for members of Congress to object to electoral votes after they are cast. Appellant’s Br. at 18. The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. Const., amend. X. That clause has no apparent relevance to this case and Berg’s citation to Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991), is not helpful.
In Gregory, the Supreme Court upheld a state’s ability to determine the qualifications for its state judiciary. Id. at 455-56. The plaintiffs were state court judges who alleged that the section of the Missouri Constitution mandating that they retire at the age of seventy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 456. The Gregory opinion does not mention the word “standing,” and Berg’s citation to it is inapposite.
Berg also cites to Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147, for the proposition that he should be granted “automatic standing.” Appellant’s Br. at 2. The reference is baffling. The district court in Robinson held that an elector pledged to Alan Keyes lacked standing to bring a suit challenging Senator McCain’s qualifications under the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Id. at 1146-47. Berg cites to the following language of that opinion: “Judicial review [of the claim]-if any-should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” Id. at 1147. Berg incorrectly takes that to mean that he can bring suit after members of Congress have declined to object pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 15. It means no such thing. The language is part of an alternative holding made in anticipation of the “plaintiff’s standing-cure suggestion that the American Independent Party . . . be allowed to intervene.” Robinson, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147. The Court held, in the alternative, that, even assuming that the American Independent Party had standing, the claim was unripe. Id. (citing Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300-02 (1998)).
Berg maintains that he has suffered damage to his reputation as a result of bringing this suit – he claims that he has been accused of being a racist by unnamed others. This “injury” is not attributed to the Defendants. Berg’s assertion that he has been harmed because he has spent money on this lawsuit fails for the same reason; the Defendants’ efforts to legally defend themselves cannot cause injury that gives rise to Article III standing or the doctrine would have no meaning. Berg’s passing reference that he was injured because he was denied some “information concerning the qualifications of Obama” was made in a vacuum, providing this court with no basis to analyze the claim.
Berg asserts that the District Court erred in denying him standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1983 because of a lack of state action. State action is not one of the three elements of standing. See Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188. In any event, the District Court did not rely on a lack of state action to dismiss his case. See App. at 23-24 n.14.
Among the litany of Berg’s claims is his argument that he was injured when the “President of the Senate failed to call for objections during the counting of the electoral votes from each state . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 28. Berg supplies no factual basis for that assertion and we have no idea if it is true, but, assuming it is, Berg has been no more injured by that omission than any other United States citizen. Berg alternatively argues that he has standing because his First Amendment rights were somehow violated when his political representatives failed to object to the electoral votes cast in Obama’s favor, as he wished them to. That argument is frivolous. Berg’s final claim that the District Court violated his due process rights by dismissing his case is equally frivolous.
“Absent Article III standing, a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address a plaintiff’s claims, and they must be dismissed.”[6] Taliaferro, 458 F.3d at 188.
6 Berg’s arguments that the District Court ignored some of his voluminous motions and other pleadings not only suffer from fatal defects in their reasoning, but are irrelevant. If a District Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss.
III.
Because there is no case or controversy, we will affirm the District Court’s order dismissing Berg’s action.
Ok, here is the latest skinny on Orly. She told the Columbus GA paper she has no intention of laying 20 Grand on Judge Land.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/906241.html
The Judge shot back by putting out a contract on Orly’s head. The full order [from the indefatigable Justin Elliott at Josh Marshall’s TPM] read as follows: “Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009. ”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/judge_directs_us_attorney_to_collect_20k_from_orly.php?ref=fpb
Judge Land wanted the fine donated to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning. The Government defendant has come out against this, as it “it is the government’s position that the monetary sanction imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz must be paid to the United States Treasury.” The full brief is at the excellent Native and Natural Born Citizen site:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/rhodes-v-mcdonald-doc-35-defendants%E2%80%99-brief-in-response-to-the-court%E2%80%99s-order-dated-october-13-2009/#more-7236
Ok, here is the latest skinny on Orly. She told the Columbus GA paper she has no intention of laying 20 Grand on Judge Land.
The Judge shot back by putting out a contract on Orly’s head. The full order [from the indefatigable Justin Elliott at Josh Marshall’s TPM] read as follows: “Orly Taitz has failed to pay the $20,000.00 sanction ordered by the Court on October 13, 2009. Accordingly, the Clerk is ordered to enter final judgment in favor of the United States of America and against Orly Taitz in the principal amount of $20,000.00. The United States Attorney is authorized and directed to collect the judgment as provided by law.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of November, 2009. ”
Judge Land wanted the fine donated to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning. The Government defendant has come out against this, as it “it is the government’s position that the monetary sanction imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz must be paid to the United States Treasury.” The full brief is at the excellent Native and Natural Born Citizen site:
[The links will show up just as soon as they clear moderation].
Here is Justin’s: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/judge_directs_us_attorney_to_collect_20k_from_orly.php?ref=fpb
News – Breaking News
Thursday, Nov. 12, 2009
Birther attorney Orly Taitz: ‘I have no intention of paying’ $20,000 sanction
BY ALAN RIQUELMY –
California attorney Orly Taitz, facing a $20,000 sanction from the federal judge presiding over the Mark Shelnutt trial, said on the payment’s deadline that she had no intention of paying.
“Absolutely not,” Taitz said Thursday afternoon when asked whether she would pay. “I have filed an appeal. It was a complete abuse of power.”
….
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/906241.html
When the court fines you for wasting their time, I’m pretty sure they don’t mean its optional.
I intend to watch as she racks up even greater fines through the appeals process.
I intend to laugh every time something like one of her witnesses coming forward to claim Taitz suborned perjury.
I intend to laugh all the way to watching her get cuffed.
Then I’m going to laugh some more.
Because some train wrecks are funny.
Well, I can only assume that mail-order law ‘degrees’ do not afford discussions of primary topics such as ‘Legal Jeopardy.’
Appreciate the updates.
Orly, Orly, Orly, here comes Orly. Fasten your seatbelts. This jabberwocky was filed today, November 13, 2009, believe it or don’t:
QUOTE
Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and request a judicial notice of the holding in the Berg v Obama et al. 08-43-40 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third District judges Sloviter, Fuentes and Hardiner. Opinion written by judge Sloviter. While this case lingered in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a year or so, by stroke of providence, the opinion came down yesterday, November 12, 2009, only a couple of days after the undersigned has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. While this three judge panel confirmed the dismissal of the underlying case by the district court, noting that a voter does not have standing, as his injuries are generalized, a number of holdings of this case are pertinent and determinative for the current case in front of your Honor and confirm legal reasoning provided by the undersigned counsel in her Motion for Reconsideration.
The plaintiff in Berg was seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen and under 42 USC §1983, seeking determination of eligibility for presidency of Barack Husein [sic] Obama. In his opinion judge Sloviter finds that though the election is over, the court has jurisdiction to hear it as it “fits squarely” as an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review” Merle v US, 351, 3d 92,94 (3d Cir 2003) Based on this argument there is Article 3 jurisdiction to hear the case as long as the plaintiff can show standing with specialized injury. While Berg’s holding finds that a regular voter does not have standing, Presidential and vice presidential candidates such as plaintiffs Ambassador Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot have standing. Judge Sloviter proceeds by arguing that both parties with actual and imminent injuries would have standing in this case. Nearly 40 plaintiffs in this case are members of the military. A number of them are either active military or in active reserves. For example plaintiff Lita Lott is in active drilling reserves. Within only a few days of notice she will be required to leave her family behind and deploy, this can happen any day. This satisfies the imminent injury prong for the purpose of standing. Plaintiff Matthew Michael Edwards is in the National Guard and would be required to deploy on a few days notice, therefore satisfying the imminent injury prong. It is important to note that previously the defendants in current case requested judicial Notice of Rhodes v. MacDonald, which incorporates Cook v Good. Notice of appeal for both cases has been filed in 11th circuit court of Appeals. Both cases were brought by the undersigned counsel in front of Judge Land in Middle district of GA. In the first case Cook v Good the undersigned argued precisely that point, that this is an issue “capable of repetition but evading review”. The only difference being that the undersigned has brought forward Roe v Wade as a controlling authority, and judge Sloviter is understandably using Merle v US out of the third district 351,3d 92,94, (3rd circuit 2003). The undersigned has argued this point to no avail as judge Land dismissed Cook v Good claiming that the case is moot due to the fact that the deployment orders for Major Cook were revoked. In the second case Rhodes v MacDonald judge Land has dismissed the whole case 2 days after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed without giving the undersigned as much as 10 days provided by local rules to respond to the motion, and completely disregarding the whole 54 pages of pleading on all the points, while the undersigned precisely argued that there is a need for Declaratory relief and judicial determination as this is an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review. To add insult to injury judge Land has asserted $20,000 of sanctions against the undersigned in order to prevent her from arguing similar cases and in order to endanger her license and livelihood. The assistant US attorneys in this case have submitted Land’s order as some type of ruling authority for this case, and it became a lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs. While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.
1. Second important ruling in Berg is the fact that judge Sloviter brings forward Robinson v McCain 567 F Supp 2d at 1147. Judge Sloviter agrees with the findings in Robinson in that during the election the case is unripe, meaning there is no injury until the candidate takes office. Logical conclusion will be that the undersigned counsel was correct in bringing the current case on the inauguration day as it would be unripe previously and there was no fault of counsel, no latches.
Additionally, the undersigned brought prior to the election Writ of Mandamus on behalf of the presidential candidate Ambassador Keyes and on behalf of the Vice Presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot against the secretary of state of California Deborah Bowen.
Wherefore the undersigned prays that the court take the Judicial notice of the Third Circuit court of appeals ruling in Berg v Obama et al in conjunction with the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.
UNQUOTE
Notes:
Orly, please note that Judge Dolores Sloviter is not a “he.”
How in heaven is Roe v. Wade relevant?
A “lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs”?
BIL, last two posts are a deliberate, intentional effort aimed at stretching the smile on your avatar so wide that it splits your face.
Second FFLEO, Thank-you Vince!
Buddha I’m glad your laughing; how are you feeling post hospitalization? I hope your boo boo’s are all better!
CEJ,
I’m good. Thanks for asking. I am 95% and hope to stay on the up if I can avoid the creeping crud everyone around me seems to have caught in the last week.
Get well soon, BIL, laughter is the best medicine.
The latest:
TPMMuckraker
New Orly Taitz Filing (In Dismissed Case): I Get Death Threats Daily
Justin Elliott | December 3, 2009, 4:33PM:
“Birther leader Orly Taitz, who may be the hardest working lawyer in the country, isn’t letting a little issue like the dismissal of her case get in the way of submitting new filings in court.
“The Orange County Register has the rundown of her latest effort, which comes in a Birther case in which she allegedly suborned perjury. A judge in California threw out the case in late October.
“With the new filing, she submitted a putative immigration form showing Barack Obama’s ethnic code listed as “Equatorial Guinea.” And she lashes out against a “well orchestrated effort … to assassinate my character,” saying she receives death threats on a daily basis. … ”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/new_orly_taitz_filing_in_dismissed_case_i_get_deat.php?ref=fpb
Looks like Orly has company in her “beliefs”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html
Pretty, empty, psychotic company.
Palin/Taitz 2012 – Ignorance You Can Believe In
Wow. Asked about Obama’s birth certificate, she said “I think it’s a fair question….”
But within hours, she executed a full 18o degree flip-flop:
QUOTE
UPDATE: At 1:16 AM ET, Palin posted the following on her Facebook page: QUOTE
Stupid Conspiracies
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States. UNQUOTE
“But at no point … have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”
Amazing.
Well i quess she will ask to be removed from Orly’s friends on Facebook. Looks like some other well knowns have joined in the last couple of weeks. Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Levin, Huckabee.
Question if the original is on file and the President has a tangible interest in it, why not show it? doesn’t pass the smell test what ever the reason is.
Can someone please get in touch with the hackers of climategate. They need to hack the DOH in Hawaii before the dump the original data. They keep avoiding all of the FOIA and UPI request. Sound famil-liar.
According to her website but don’t go to it you will be redirected everywhere and music starts playing out of the no where.
bdaman:
The president is pretty much through politically, at this point does it matter if he was born here or not?
My take on the mood of the country is that most are biding their time waiting for Nov 2010 to make a clean start. I think a good many career politicians on both sides of the aisle are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise.
In the end the majority of Americans wanted change just not his brand.
Byron,
If you want to see History repeating itself. One needs to first look at the lock Bush had then lost the Majority. Then digress to TR. He had a solid lock and did not run so that Taft could run the country and when he screwed things up he got back into the game after he could not obtain his partys nomination as a third party. He split the Votes do I hear Perot and handed Wilson the election. Then jump back four score and see the debates of two fine politicians, well actually there was a third in the mix. You have to search for that name.
Just remember I am only recalling the latest history that the revisionist have seemed fit to publish. That is why it is called His Story. The last mans word is made known.
I believe that Obama is a sure loser in three years unless Palin is really running. Then I guess we have no alternative to chose from and we have to Not Vote for someone.
AY:
It will be interesting. And Obama could get a second term but he wont have a democratic house or senate and will be virtually powerless which is what I am expecting for his last 2 years of this term.
He went to fast with his plans, he could still become a popular president but he would have to make a 180 about face and give up on the stimulus and government run health care. Most people think health insurance needs to be re-vamped but disagree on how to do it. The stimulus has not really worked (see price of gold at $1,200 vs about $900 in January of 2009) and job creation is non-existent because businesses are worried about government policies and what to expect with taxes and health care regulations.
Obviously these are just my opinions and observations.
Byron,
You’re simply wrong about the health care issue.
Every citizen should have the EXACT same coverage as those thieves and obstructionists in the Senate.
Heath is actually a valid national security interest as a country’s greatest resource is the health of its people. Letting corporations skim money off of that system for idiotic crap like CEO bonuses and private jets is a systemic inefficiency that has brought us to the current crisis today.
Medicine – from development to deployment – is too critical to national survival to be allowed to operate as a free market any longer. To do so puts us at a competitive disadvantage with every country that does provide socialized health care. The reasons – excessive skimming of profit – should be self-evident to even the most money blinded capitalist if they’ve ever had basic economics or an accounting class.
I won’t argue that point. You can take that one up with Winston Churchill and the fact that $X has to go Y far to attain Z and that if W is sucking out the value of X before the equation is run, IT’S BROKEN IN RELATION TO MAXIMIZING Z UNTIL YOU REDUCE W TO ZERO. That’s just a pithy observation by a smart old conservative leader and basic algebra.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2703332
Byron I agree however it’s the lies and deception, not just with this administration, the one before and the one before that one and before that one ect. ect. This one is just the latest in the bulls eye.
It just seems that every which way you turn whether your in one party or the other it’s turned into smiling in your face, all the time trying to take each others place, back stabbers.
The Joe Wilson you lie, turns into no I didn’t you did, lier.
It’s really a shame and climategate just magnifies it all.
Although I don’t like the direction Obama has taken,I don’t think he will necessarily be a one term president. Palin will either be the republican nominee or an independent party candidate. There will probably be an underfunded candidate on the left who does not do very well. That scenario produces an Obama victory.
Buddha:
Part of what you say is true because the US consumer is subsidizing the medical costs of other countries. For example a particular drug that in France is free costs $48,000 per year in the US. We are paying for the French to have that drug.
But I know a few people in England and they are telling me that their health care system is bat sh . . . crazy and severely messed up.
Byron,
That’s not how that works.
The reason the French pay less is the tell the Pharma companies you’ll negotiate or your can hit the road – make up your R&D on volume but you’ll charge a price patients can pay and the system will bear and no more.
We aren’t subsidizing shit except systemic inefficiency and greed the way the American system is set up right now. Research has ruled out that our costs are not out of control because of supply or litigation issues.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html
Well then that leaves the perks the scumbags skim off the top as the cause, doesn’t it? No health care CEO needs a private jet. Period. It helps not one single patient. No insurance company CFO needs a bonus based on how little they pay out in claims. That KILLS patients. There is a problem with the American health care system. That’d be the insurance companies and the hospital execs who encourage billing practices that maximize profit instead of efficiency in delivery as their prime metric. General health of the community and lives saved should be the only pertinent metrics of a hospitals performance. Not profit. Ever. That’s what got us to the point where we pay more than any other country and get far far less for those dollars. We’re financing the jets and bonuses, not health care. End of story.
I rarely have told you you are outright wrong on things, Byron. This is one of them.
Not trying to Hijack the thread.
Byron an engineer, Slart a Math wizz, just some FYI for you both.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/#more-13687
Byron,
The stimulus didn’t work? Tell that to the 1.6 million Americans who’s jobs were created or saved by the stimulus (CBO estimate). Also, President Obama has bet his presidency on health care reform (as he said he would). Why do you think that the republicans are wetting themselves to stop it – if significant health care reform is passed and the program succeeds then it doesn’t matter who else is running, he’ll win in a landslide. Social Security and Medicare were both bitterly contested and became beloved programs that republicans couldn’t touch without committing political suicide – this could be the republican’s worst nightmare (or the democrat’s if they fail to get it passed).
Buddha,
You are absolutely right, it’s shameful that we accept the rationing of care and death panels (committees deciding when to cut off your coverage) of the for-profit insurance industry. The only things we get from private insurance care is 44,000 dead Americans a year (according to a Harvard study) and very rich insurance executives… This is what the republicans are fighting for.
Vince,
In scanning back, I caught a comment of yours I’d missed about Harlan Ellison. He may be my favorite modern short story writer of any genre. “Jeffty Is Five”, “I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream”, “Lifehutch”, “Flop Sweat”, “Mephesto In Onyx” and the list goes on and on to include possibly one of the most romantic and heartbreaking stories I’ve ever read, “Grail”. And lest we forget, he penned what is widely considered the best episode of the original Star Trek series, “City on the Edge of Forever”.
Thanks for the link. I’m in geek heaven.
“Research has ruled out that our costs are out of control because of supply or litigation issues.”
Pardon, I got a little “not” happy.
Buddha:
I have spent the last 20 years heavily involved in the health care industry from a patient perspective. Most of the problem that I see is people with health care subsidizing everyone else. Aspirin cost a bunch of money because it is paying for the free emergency room visits, doctors aren’t getting reimbursed at appropriate rates from medicare and medicaid and private insurance and so on.
Pharmaceutical companies are charging more in America because they are taking a loss over seas. They have to recoup costs somewhere. Once we have public health care we will eventually see a lack of research and development and new innovative life saving products brought to market.
Georgetown University hospital charges $400/hour for physical therapy so they can be reimbursed $150 and they have to charge everyone $400 or the insurance companies and the government wouldn’t reimburse $150.
Health care is drowning in all kinds of BS, the least of which is a corporate jet or a million dollar salary for a CEO.
The entire system is messed up because it is not allowed to be competitive. The answer is not more of the same.
“The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a federation of 39 separate health insurance organizations and companies in the United States. Combined, they directly or indirectly provide health insurance to over 100 million Americans.” There are only 5 insurance companies nationwide according to my family doctor.
That is what I mean by no competition. Why are there only 5 companies?
Doubling down on stupid is a bad idea
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. They had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935. They had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
War on Poverty started in 1964. They had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
The government has FAILED in every “government service” they have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.
and you want me to believe the government is the cure-all for health care.
Byron,
That’s not where the excess profit goes – other patient’s aspirin. Drug companies don’t take a loss overseas. They are as a general rule limited on how much profit that they make. And if they do take a loss? That’s their problem as a business, not American patients. That money you are seeing is being wasted. But it sure as Hell isn’t subsidizing other patient care or there wouldn’t be this debate about the under and uninsured because all that money would be taking care of them instead of paying hangar fees for Lil’ Timmy’s Spoiled Jet Service.
That money you see being wasting is indeed going somewhere. It goes to the CEO’s.
This is not a debate you want to enter on ground of pure logic. If (X-W)/Y = Z and the goal is to maximize Z in relation to X your choices are to reduce the value of W or change the nature of Y. That’s where this argument ends. Any X diverted by operation of W is WASTE, not an efficiency.
I’m going to stick with reducing W as the logical solution. You let me know how that changing the nature of time works out for you.
Your capitalism is blinding you to reality.
You said socialism forces maturity. This is an area where your perception needs to mature and realize your cappie ideals are screwing with the common good and ultimately national security.
Maturity is a good thing in people, Byron. It means you’re grown up enough to realize it isn’t all about “you”. The same goes for economic systems.
We have nearly four times the number of attorneys as we do physicians, yet we have no one pushing for socialized legal services. Why is that?
Is anybody complaining about the amount of money made by the CEO of Harpo, Inc?
First we take the money from the executives, then from the actors, then from the doctors, then from the lawyers. It will continue. When we are finished, we will look just like North Korea.
No incentive. No drive. No desire to excel. But we will love our leader, and the government will keep reminding us of that until we believe it.
Dr. H:
The dear leader?
Governments whether they believe it or not are constrained by the fact they ultimately rule with the consent of the governed. They have a duty at all citizens.
Corporations are only constrained by profit margins and a duty to maximize shareholder profit. They have a duty to no one but their own greed.
Yeah, I expect to you realize you can’t put someone without a stake in doing the right thing – and in fact are actually encouraged to do the wrong thing at the expense of patient lives – in charge of a social support system that affects everyone. That’s just good sense. You want less people to die? Then remove the incentive to kill them for profit.
Byron,
You said:
“There are only 5 insurance companies nationwide according to my family doctor. That is what I mean by no competition. Why are there only 5 companies?”
So why can’t we have a government-run public option to compete with them? Everybody wins except for the companies that have been gouging us (or do you really think that doubling the cost of health insurance in the last ten years was necessary?).
Bdaman,
Two points – 1) the “smoking code” link you provided is merely interpolating a data set – it is totally innocuous (unless the data are bad, something we can get no information about from this code snippet. 2) The phrase “hide the decline” (a very poorly chosen phrase, I will admit) refers to hiding recent tree ring data which contradicts ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE DATA (i.e. the thermometer says the temperature was going up, but the tree ring data doesn’t reflect this). You are essentially arguing that we should trust the tree ring data over actual temperature readings, which is patently silly. 3) (bonus point) Even if everything you’ve said about this is true (which it is not), it doesn’t even start to impeach the scientific consensus on climate change, just these researchers (and any results based on their work).
Dr. H,
I suggest you look at the British and Canadian system where doctors earn wages the keep them in a nice home and with nice new top of the line vehicles. Vacations, nice clothes, good food. They make a very comfortable living compared to the plebes, just not the Croesus like greed on display in the U.S. where your GP may have 3 homes if he’s hooked into a good enough billing scam.
And aspire to greatness?
How about you aspire to your oath to first do no harm, “Doctor”, instead of worrying about “paying the talent”. Because somewhere out there is a doctor working a free clinic that can diagnose and treat better than you so pay has nothing to do with talent, sport. That oath you are supposed to uphold means no harm to patients, not your checkbook. Venal much? Or just a stupid oath breaker? If you became a doctor for solely economic reasons, you shouldn’t be a doctor. That’s the thinking of a sociopath, not a healer. I wouldn’t let you treat my pets much less a family member.
You want to bitch about the media? The media doesn’t directly impact people’s health. Health care – DUH – does. So put that in your tee time and smoke it, Dr. Greedy Piggy.
Dr. H,
The point is that the incentives of private health insurance companies are all wrong. They make more money by denying care and eliminating expensive clients (cutting off the heath care for people when they need it most – quite frequently effectively killing them). It has been estimated that if you require significant heath care there is as much as a 50% chance that your insurance company will cancel your policy. As Buddha has pointed out, our current health care system is crippling our national security to enrich insurance company executives (and KILL 44,000 AMERICANS EVERY YEAR). Supporting the status quo is as about as unpatriotic as you can get.
Buddha:
unfortunately or fortunately economic systems are nothing but individuals. There is no “system” per se only individuals making rational and irrational choices about how to spend their money.
The free market you don’t like is made up of individuals doing their own thing for their own selfish wants, needs and desires. Political freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand you cannot have one without the other.
China may be a prosperous country but it is not free and we may be a free country but we are not as prosperous as we could be. Because we have given some of our freedom to the federal government.
I want the best for everyone, I just think free markets can deliver a better product and more efficiently because they take into account the individual and his wants, needs and desires.
I am very stubborn on this point and have seen no evidence that central planning begets abundance. In fact most empirical evidence is to the contrary. or as BobEsq would say a posteriori evidence.
Slarti:
how about making it possible for more competition in the private sector?
And give tax credits to cover health care expenses 100% and then have a public option for people that are just unable to be covered.
There are many creative things that could be done, I just think government involvement should be limited to those who really are suffering and cannot afford health care.
BIL, you are absolutely right about Harlan. I have his omnibus collection, “The Essential Ellison,” an indispensable volume for any collection.
Byron,
The rational choice of an insurance executive is to deny expensive care that cuts into profits – the incentives (profit) are totally at odds with the goal of the health care system (the health of the nation’s citizens). Free market pressures in health care are crippling our economy (want to see US businesses boom, take the cost of heath care off of its back with medicare for all – or better yet, the VA for all). This is known to work in every other industrialized nation (better consumer satisfaction and outcomes – cheaper too!), are you saying that the US can’t do what demonstrably works in other countries?
Byron,
You need to quit making false attributions.
I’ve said free markets are fine for most stuff. Health care isn’t one of them.
And your understanding of economics is flawed. It’s not individuals acting in isolation. It’s a group dynamic and it’s relational. The individual states of the components determines the state of the overall system not just by their intrinsic quality but their relation to other components. The components innate states are modified by data shared with neighbors related to their relative position and innate qualities. The health of the individual component is irrelevant if all the other components die. It becomes a simple system and thus capable of less work. What is left when you allow one component to quash the rest is the King of Nothing. Nothing that is but the fading ego of the components that tore the social fabric. If one component is allowed to unbalance the system (for profit or whatever reason) to the point to collapse that shows the error you make in extrapolating a political idea that applies to a quality of components – individual freedom – into a behavior that’s not always good for the overall health and stability of the system in toto – capitalist economics. Individual freedom to ensure the maximum efficiency of the components is essential, but constraints on that freedom are essential to keep the whole system healthy. It has to be balanced by law. That’s one of the reasons we have law. Economics are like an ecosystem or a body. The parts can’t live without the whole. Your version of capitalism once again shows it’s analogous to cancer. You favor unlimited cell growth even if it means the body dies.
You’re still wrong.
Buddha Is Laughing,
What part of my comment provided the opening, or was the inspiration for your personal attack?
Byron,
You said:
“There are many creative things that could be done, I just think government involvement should be limited to those who really are suffering and cannot afford health care.”
The key to a successful public option is in the size of the pool – if it consists of the people who cannot get private insurance, it is going to lose money (the private insurance companies only refuse coverage when they can’t make money on it). You need a large pool with a reasonable mix of healthy and sick people for the economies of scale to work – if the insurance companies just insure healthy people and let the government take care of sick people what good are they (except to generate huge profits for their CEOs and shareholders). If a government-run (and unsubsidized) public option is available to anyone who wants it at a cheaper cost to the individual don’t you think that this will force insurance companies to lower rates and improve service? If the insurance industry can’t compete on a level playing field with a public option, then what good is it?
p.s. If I seem somewhat passionate about this, it is because I will be unemployed in a month (didn’t get new funding) and will lose my current health insurance so this is very personal to me. Our current health care system is something that America should truly be ashamed of.
And before you say anything silly again about centralized control, I ask you what is the goal of the game “Monopoly”? Capitalists of the unrestricted sort seek to dominate, control, a market. Centralized control. Just not beholding to the public.
Dr. H,
Your defense of profits over patients. “Doctor”.
Buddha,
I like your cancer analogy. As someone who does cancer research (for another month at least) I couldn’t agree more. Capitalism is a tool of society, it is not sacred. While it generates enormous wealth, unchecked it also concentrates that wealth – choking off the middle class (See Elizabeth Warren’s article at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html). Which do you prefer, uncheck capitalism or a healthy middle class? You can’t have both.
Buddha Is Laughing,
It is important to make a profit. Just like the rest of the world, I have to pay my bills. I live in a modest 60 year old house, and drive a 10 year old vehicle. I also spend one month per year on medical missions in foreign countries (for no pay).
How much do you think a physician should “be permitted” to make every year?
Buddha,
The question “Which do you prefer, uncheck(ed) capitalism or a healthy middle class? You can’t have both.” was directed at Byron, not you – I think that I can guess your answer to this question.
Also, I notice that the close parenthesis snuck into the end of my link. (sigh.) One of those days… I’m going to go and get some work done now…
One more thing before I go,
Dr. H,
The VA doesn’t seem to have a problem attracting doctors to work for them, what reason is there to think that a larger nationalized health care program would be any different? Ditto for England.
Slartibartfast,
You should read this:
http://www.vamalpractice.info/
Slarti:
maybe I am missing something but the reason you have a healthy middle class is because of capitalism. there wasn’t much of a middle class in the Soviet Union. The middle class needs to sell it’s wares to someone, that someone is the rich and other successful middle class people. Who are the unions going to feed on once industry is gone? They wont be able to unionize a 3 person mom and pop operation.
As far as being a boon to business I don’t think it will be for the simple fact that fewer people will be employed and/or they will leave to start small mom and pop type businesses, Canada has an abundance of specialty shops which I believe is a direct result of their health care system. Nothing wrong with specialty shops and it does what Marx likes, getting people back in touch with their work. But small specialty shops do not make for a dynamic economy.
You need Fords, Rockefellers, Vanderbilt’s and Carnegie’s as well. A small specialty shop economy is nothing more than a pre-industrial revolution village with the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker. You may get some good bread and candles and a little meat but not much else.
You want a bunch of social programs, I would be careful how you treat the proverbial goose.
Buddha Is Laughing,
What industry do you work in? Is it a not-for-profit?
the thermometer says the temperature was going up
But where are the thermometers located next to ac units, concrete parking lots, brick walls and on roof tops. ALL DOCUMENTED. Not to mention the removal 100′s of said thermometers from some of the coldest places on earth. A very well documented fact.
Oh and here are some recent developments that I know you won’t like but it is what it is, and it ain’t getting warmer.
HOUSTON MAY SEE ‘EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER’
US breaks or ties 256 November snowfall records
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=snow&month=11&day=0&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records
Whistler sets a record for monthly snowfall
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Whistler+sets+record+monthly+snowfall/2292455/story.html
The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coldest
Dr. H,
“It’s important to make a profit.” Says the guy with the vested interest in making a profit.
The Hippocratic Oath (Modern Version)
I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.
TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.
I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.
WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.
WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.
WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.
No where is your right to unlimited profit in that oath.
It’s important to save patients, protecting their confidences and protect them from injustice. Even injustice inflicted by your unlimited greed. Again, if your primary concern is your pay, you shouldn’t be a doctor.
Your priorities show you are in fact likely not a very good doctor.
You want to justify your greed, you provide a number. That ball belongs to you, ace. I told you I though the British model was acceptable. What’s wrong with this picture?
http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml
Why as off 2005, it’s that American doctor’s get paid almost 45% more than their UK counterparts! It’s at least that big a gap for all other countries too. And for delivering substandard care compared to countries with socialized medicine too. So just like Wall St., you want a bonus for not doing your jobs very well and wasting money. That you endorse wasting it on perks and excessive compensation is no different than if you were stealing the money out of the system to go nuts in Vegas. Pissing away money that could and should be used on patients just to stroke your sense of self worth is egoistic bullshit.
Now what was that about how important profit is again, Dr. Greenback?
H,
I work in an industry where lives are not the primary stock and trade. Apparently you think you do too.
I suppose this helps patients too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/04/aetna-forcing-600000-plus_n_380130.html
Cutting coverage to boost profits? That’s not an insurance company. That’s a death panel.
Enjoy the hypocrisy of unfettered capitalism!
Smell the propaganda of the wicked!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Buddha Is Laughing,
I am a pediatrician. If you knew anything about my field, you would know that I am one of the lowest paid physicians.
I have spent many all-nighters with sick children. I have watched more children die, than you have gotten to know.
Our conversation is over.
Yeah, it is over, Mr. Can’t Defend Your Position. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Nice try at shaming me though. Too bad it won’t work.
If CEO and Insurance scumbags weren’t stealing all the money, you probably wouldn’t have to watch so many children die because they didn’t get either the preventative or palliative care they needed before hitting your doors.
Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.
Back to the birther debate for a moment…
More idiocy from the Bobblehead of Babble–Sarah Palin:
Palin Sympathizes With Birthers But Hits Reporters For Pushing ‘Stupid Conspiracies’ (Think Progress, 12/4/2009)
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/04/palin-birthers-conspiracies/
Byron,
Okay, I had to respond to your last post, but after this, I’m going to get some work done…
You said:
“maybe I am missing something but the reason you have a healthy middle class is because of capitalism. there wasn’t much of a middle class in the Soviet Union.”
Capitalism was responsible for creating a large, healthy middle class – now it is choking it to death. The middle class in this country is not currently healthy (did you read the article by Elizabeth Warren in HuffPo that I linked?).
You said:
“The middle class needs to sell it’s wares to someone, that someone is the rich and other successful middle class people. Who are the unions going to feed on once industry is gone? They wont be able to unionize a 3 person mom and pop operation.”
Are you saying that small business isn’t the engine of the economy? I thought that small businesses were the holy grail to conservatives (from the amount what they say about helping small businesses – which contrasts with what they DO about helping large corporations). Unions are a response to abuses by employers – if the employers didn’t commit the abuses, the unions would be unnecessary.
You said:
“As far as being a boon to business I don’t think it will be for the simple fact that fewer people will be employed and/or they will leave to start small mom and pop type businesses, Canada has an abundance of specialty shops which I believe is a direct result of their health care system. Nothing wrong with specialty shops and it does what Marx likes, getting people back in touch with their work. But small specialty shops do not make for a dynamic economy.”
What is the biggest factor keeping the big 3 automakers from being competitive? The health care costs of their retirees. Small businesses are crushed by the cost of health care (if they can afford to offer it as well). As I see it, the only sector of the economy that will be hurt by true health care reform is the health insurance industry, and I’m not losing any sleep over them. (An industry that kills 44,000 Americans a year forfeits any claim to my sympathies.) And your talk about ‘specialty shops’ is just silly. I don’t care if business are large or small if they are providing good jobs.
You said:
“You need Fords, Rockefellers, Vanderbilt’s and Carnegie’s as well. A small specialty shop economy is nothing more than a pre-industrial revolution village with the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker. You may get some good bread and candles and a little meat but not much else.”
There are no more industrialist like Ford, etc. We already have an industrial base (or at least we did). Those kind of people have become Wall Street types who produce nothing. You seem to see capitalism as some fixed system, not an evolving process – your falling victim to the same fallacy as Marx: Things evolve until we get to the communist (or in your case capitalist) system and then everything stays put and it’s all kittens and sunshine…
You said:
“You want a bunch of social programs, I would be careful how you treat the proverbial goose.”
I want a bunch of social programs that will ensure the health and welfare of that proverbial goose and help her lay more golden eggs.
Elaine M,
The amount of cognitive dissonance that Caribou Barbie is capable of boggles the mind.
So why do you think I am like the Birther Queen Orly Taitz?
Slarti:
why aren’t there any industrialists? The US is not conducive to them. They are in China and India.
Go to Canada and see for yourself, my wife was astounded by the diversity of the small shops. They had one that sold only buttons. That is not efficient and it is probably some sort of tax shelter with the owner trying to avoid a 65% tax rate. We cannot sustain an economy with a 65% federal tax rate. Which is probably what it will cost to fund health care for all.
Usually the CBO uses static analysis to determine the cost of some program or other. This does not give an accurate assessment of the program’s actual cost.
I don’t think our economy is static it is constantly evolving but it is not being allowed to evolve freely. It has become a Chimera because of external pressure brought to bear by government, in my opinion.
Georgia’s representative in the U.S. House, Nathan Deal announced in early November that he and 10 House colleagues were going to sign a joint letter, asking Obama to publicly reveal his birth certificate,.
Deal said that he was going to send his letter after Thanksgiving.
If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.
http://savannahnow.com/news/2009-11-18/nathan-deal-calls-obama-produce-birth-certificate-proving-hes-eligible-presidency
bdaman:
not to be cynical but he may be doing this for political reasons. He is running for governor.
Bdaman,
If you do not agree with the following statement you are a lying troll.
Bdaman is a lying troll.
Well, which is it?
Byron,
We don’t NEED industrialists anymore, we already have a steel industry… er, well… an auto industry… um… I’m not sure what your hang-up with specialty shops is – as I said before, I don’t care about the type of business, just about the quality and quantity of jobs it provides. My Canadian friends seem pretty happy with their government and the services it provides (and I’ve never heard them complain about paying too much in taxes, either). We don’t need a 65% tax rate, how about just getting corporations to pay the 35% tax rate they’re supposed to? Or do you believe that one office building in the Cayman Islands really holds the offices of 19,000 companies?
Your funny Slartsafart and what exactly am I lying about now.
We already know I’m a troll, thank you very much
Bdaman,
I was implicitly referring to your comment: “If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.”
Bdaman,
I used the term ‘troll’ BECAUSE you admit it and anything else I could have put there would have been an ad hominem attack.
Thats o.k. I accept but what is it you feel I’m lying about
Bdaman,
The statement: “If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.” is false, i.e. a lie. You did the equivalent of saying that taking the 5th is an admission of guilt and you did it on a law blog, no less. I will admit that you were lying on topic, however…
Sorry didn’t see your other post.
Slart if there is nothing to hide than why not show the original. Simple Question. Why all the courtroom drama. Why? I mean even after denying it, Tiger came clean. He was cheating, so what.
If Obama wasn’t born here so what. He’s our president and he saved us from another great depression. He help save or created over a million jobs. Surely the American public would look past something as minor as not being born here. Even if he is a muslim, so what, after all he’s sending 30,000 more troops to try and divert another attack on American soil. Surely he gets credit for that as well. The guys doing a fantastic job. I would rather him be truthful and get this birth certificate thing out of the way so we can focus on the real problems this country is facing.
Here we are a year removed and the issue is still there. It’s like Climategate. Pretending it’s not an issue is not gonna make it go away.
Good read for you Slart and Byron
For whatever reason it won’t let me post this link. I seperated it.
http://www.americanthinkercom
/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html
Slarti:
I want corps to practice real capitalism and not take subsidies from government.
Byron,
That demonstrably leads to systemic risk for the entire economy. I didn’t like the bailout very much, but I wouldn’t have liked a depression more. I’d rather that limits were put on capitalism. As an engineer, is it a good idea to try to control a system with positive feedback? Why do you think that positive feedback is good for the economy?
“why aren’t there any industrialists? The US is not conducive to them. They are in China and India.”
Byron,
This is where your suppositions go all wrong. People claiming to be “free market” conservatives have been for years destroying the American industrial base, in the name of greater corporate profits. Quick example is the fact that while the US, at the State level, gave subsidies to Japanese auto manufacturers to set up shop here,Japan was preventing US auto companies from even selling in Japan. Why do you think ronnie Reagan was paid $2,000,000 for a fifteen minute speech in Japan after he left the Presidency. American capitalists, wall street variety, have sold this country out and destroyed our industrial base. Because of the relaxation of anti-trust law enforcement and SEC oversight any time a small company did well it was bought up by its giant competitors. This is neither free market, nor is it capitalism.
It is socialism for the elite. It’s no coincidence that GE is one of our largest defense contractors and that we spend obscene amounts on defense compared to the rest of the world. Your assumption that there is a free market anywhere is what leads you astray. The so-called capitalists don’t want it and never did.
“If Obama refuses, it will only confirm that he has something to hide.”
If you claim to be a black man you must show your picture and give your real name or it confirms that you have something to hide. By the way when did you stop beating your wife, or significant other.
As someone who wouldn’t be alive if not for excellent health insurance I have a stake in this debate. In a recent hospitalization it was insisted that I undergo two expensive procedures, even though one had been done recently and with the other the last four had shown there was nothing to be gained by doing it. However, they wouldn’t let me out of the hospital if I didn’t have them done and if I left on my own without a discharge I would have had to pay the whole tab.
Our health care system has gotten out of control and unfortunately too many doctors are now in it for the money. It is not the doctors who are to blame though, it is the insurance companies who make obscene profits way beyond what they deserve, it is the huge hospital chains which overcharge for their services and many other factors. It is a health care system out of control and unresponsive to the health needs of individuals. Dr. H pleads to a modest lifestyle but I know too many doctors personally to believe him. To be honest I believe they should be well compensated, but I also believe that the entire system should be patient centered, rather than profit centered. We need a national health care, single payer system and the said fact is that not only would it be cheaper to run, but it would be a boon to business across the board.
Byron–
A true free market economy without any government regulation might be the best option–IF everyone was honest and no one was greedy. Unfortunately, Diogenes has been having extreme difficulty in finding what he’s been looking for lately on Wall Street and in corporate boardrooms.
Our health care system is a mess now–and one of the biggest reasons why is that it’s now a for-profit industry. Many doctors are being run ragged, required to see many more patients and spend less time with each of them, and are making a lot less money than the CEOs of huge medical insurance companies and hospitals whose primary concern is the bottom line.
It’s not about me and just because I wear a wife beater doesn’t mean I beat my wife.
On a serious note, I briefly saw an infomercial last night before my wife changed the channel. It was about a ministry that distributes a Hanukkah Box to elderly Jews in Russia that are otherwise deprived of the celebration. I thought I could google it to get the information but I can’t find it. For twenty five dollars the box contains several items to celebrate Hanukkah.
Mike do you have any information on that. The closet thing I found was a christian ministry out of Atlanta that does it locally.
By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership.
In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted. The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.
None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.
If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject line. That will make it easier for him to count.
Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=354&bpid=24483
Mike/Slarti/Buddha/Elaine:
you got me, we certainly don’t have true capitalism in this country what with corporate subsidies and bailouts and lack of competition. I agree with Mike on most of his points, especially the current system set up to limit entry to markets and production which protects the current crop of rich people. They have a vested interest in a less dynamic market, it allows them to be able to keep their wealth with little effort. They are afraid of competition.
Maybe it would be nice to try real laissez faire for a period of time just to see what would happen. I’ll bet the first thing would be a bunch of trust fund babies would loose their shirts and have to start working for a living.
You guys seem to think I want to protect the status quo, I don’t. I want a vigorous dynamic market that rewards hard work and innovation and punishes the old dinosaurs that have to run to government to protect them from the young T-Rex’s.
That way you don’t have rotten stinking carcases lying about protected by fat dumb politicians feeding on the remains and keeping the young T-Rexs away. Darwinian capitalism, let the strong companies survive and the weak ones be fertilizer for them.
Monroe County man seeks indictments on President Obama for treason
Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III
United States Naval Academy, Class of 1975
“Mr. Obama is an infiltrator. Mr. Obama is my sworn enemy. Mr. Obama is not the legitimate commander in chief,” says Fitzpatrick.
I am sworn to do an obedience to the constitution and do everything I can do to remove him from office, by force of war. And if not, then by force,” says Fitzpatrick.
http://www.volunteertv .com/home/headlines/78267717.html#
bdaman–
Another take on Climategate:
Fox & Friends coverage of CRU emails disregards facts, context (MediaMatters for America, 12/3/2009)
“Fox & Friends hosts Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocy, and Gretchen Carlson have repeatedly advanced the right wing’s distortion of emails reportedly stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) by hyping a litany of falsehoods that climate skeptics have propagated about the emails without any regard for facts or context. In fact, despite the hosts’ claims, the content of the emails do not “prove” the scientists doctored or destroyed data, nor do they undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activities are causing global climate change.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912030030
************
Let’s find out all the facts before we go calling the theory of global warming a fraud. I like to get more than one side of a story. I’m really not sure what to make of all this yet.
************
“A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.”
–Alexander Pope
Byron,
There’s only one problem with that “T-rex” version of capitalism you seek. It doesn’t exist and never will. You are making a mistake that was a key fault in communism. The reason communism failed is it failed to take into account human nature. The reason this imaginary version capitalism won’t work is that it exploits and appeals to the VERY worst in human nature. Your T-rex capitalism won’t work in the future for that reason and it is not working NOW for that reason.
No rules = exploitation by sociopaths and psychotics.
There is no way around that. What you want leads to more fascism and more oppression than we are seeing today. It’s on the rise too. And what we are seeing today is simply not acceptable. Our Federal Government is out of control because of it’s no longer responsible to We The People, but instead takes it’s venal criminal marching orders from K St. Or worse. C St. Criminals. Insane zealots. Insane criminal zealots. What difference does it make who pulls the trigger on America and Liberty?
Dead is still dead.
After awhile though, the unrestricted capitalism argument starts to sound like spoiled children who don’t want any supervision. “I don’t wanna, I Don’t Wanna, I DON’T WANNA! WAAHHHHHHH!”
Pure childishness.
In a child, it makes you want to send them to their room. In an adult, it makes you want to slap the shit out of them, doesn’t it? You dream of a capitalist paradise of unrestricted action where the market is only controlled by desire – no matter if that desire is destructive to others or society as a whole from either the buyers or the sellers perspective. Again, what matter who pulls the trigger? The key word in this statement being “dream”. As Buddha said, the root of all suffering is desire. As Elaine said, if all actors were of equal motive and socially conscious it might work, but the simple fact is that some people are evil and insane assholes who want to hurt you – either take your stuff or take your life, sometimes both.
You dream of a world without evil desires.
Not happening. Ever. I can guarantee it. It’s a lovely dream. Totally fiction.
What you seek isn’t a paradise. It’s anarchy. And anarchy is ruled by Col. Colt no matter how much money you have. Again, dead is dead and rich people can and do die everyday. Guns are cheap. But when the social fabric here starts to really unravel, it’s going to make the Old West look like a bunch of amateurs. They didn’t have full automatics, chemical weapons, electronics, garage genetics and high explosives.
There is an upside though. Until corporations are put back on the short leash and the Constitution restored, you’re going to get your wish Byron. You have it right now. The rules are out the window. If they weren’t, Cheney would be in prison awaiting trial for treason this very instant and those pricks at AIG and GoldmanSacks (the misspelling intentional) would be in the cell next to him. Reduced to a life of green bologna sandwiches and industrial grade toilet paper for their crimes against society – crimes which are all rooted in their malformed, sick and twisted little egos and the resultant greed. Overcompensation for a small penis or that mommy never hugged them enough as kids. Or, as in the case of Cheney, just straight up evil bastards right out of the womb. But to appreciate the decay in toto, one must add time to the equation. The longer the rules are gone, the worse the decay and death will be.
But you want less rules.
As the Chinese say, “May you live in interesting times.” It’s a curse, but a corollary is “Careful for what you wish for.” They can be one and the same.
You said socialism forces maturity. It does. Capitalism encourages immaturity and selfishness in addition to attracting the dregs of society. I didn’t abandon pure capitalism lightly or without much thought. You keep pointing to the reasons why I abandoned it though. It’s an empty and ultimately destructive approach that doesn’t address fatally serious flaws in human nature. Some things are simply too important to survival as a culture and a species to let some dipstick’s amoral greed motive determine outcome.
Business needs more regulation, not less. And if they don’t want to play by the rules, they can stay home or take their business back where it belongs: underground and on the run like dangerous criminals should be. Others willing to play by the rules will arise and take their place in the market.
I didn’t say it these guys did.
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil
bdaman–
Here are two more perspectives on Climategate:
Scientists Respond to “Climategate” E-Mail Controversy (Scientific American, 12/4/2009)
Stolen e-mails and computer code do nothing to change average temperature trends, but they could damage climate researchers’ credibility just when polls are showing public belief that greenhouse gases are warming the planet is ebbing
By David Biello
Excerpts from article:
With all the “hot air” surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a “hoax” in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average temperatures to increase—a drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.
**********
In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. “There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the atmosphere and warming the planet,” said meteorologist Michael Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. “Further increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater disruption.”
Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails’ wording. For example, the word “trick” in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy
************
Editorial: What Americans can learn from Climategate (MercuryNews.com, 12/4/2009)
The uproar over Climategate doesn’t change anything fundamental in the debate over global warming. But it should lead to better communication and greater transparency among scientists, especially when research is driving public policy decisions.
On the eve of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, the scientific community is outraged that researchers’ e-mail archives were stolen last month and leaked to the public — but naysayers on climate change are even more outraged that those e-mails seem to imply a cover-up.
The messages themselves reveal something far less damaging, however. The exchanges, thought to be private, did not lead to withholding information. The studies the scientists talked about keeping back are in the public realm. We’ll all be better off if the brouhaha leads politicians to pore over these in-depth analyses of peer-reviewed studies to better inform their policy decisions. Upon close examination, the scientific basis for climate change theory is still strong.
For eight long years, scientists chafed while President George W. Bush pursued an ideological agenda, essentially dismissing climate change research. Now the White House and Congress can create a new era in which science and policymaking walk hand in hand.
The climate scientists at Britain’s University of East Anglia exchanged e-mails questioning some of their most basic theories. That’s what scientists do. They discussed the possibility of suppressing two studies that question global warming and climate change models — but both of those studies were eventually included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. The process worked.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13930886
bdaman–
More on Global Warming
It’s a good thing there are folks like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California and Rep. John Boehner of Ohio around to help shed light on who the worst producers of greenhouse gases may be. Who knew it was the flatulence of dinosaurs and cows that may have caused climatic changes on planet Earth?
Dana Rohrabacher: “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?”
John Boehner on Cow Farts & Climate Change
Here’s a poem I wrote about bovine methane producers back in April. I thank Dana and John for inspiring my poetic take on global warming.
On the Flatulence of Cows and Global Warming
The dinosaurs farted.
And now it’s the cows—
Whose anal emissions
Waft into the air
Increasing the greenhouse
Gases “up there.”
In blissful abandon
Cows graze on green grass,
Mooing and chewing
And chewing and pooing—
All the while strewing
Brown pies everywhere.
These flatulent bovines…
These cud masticators…
Digestive polluters …
Toxic gas generators…
These methane producers
Seem harmless and charming.
But I’ve got the scoop—
On the cows and their poop:
They’re the primary cause
Of Earth’s global warming.
Maybe Boehner’s solution to global warming would be to kill all the cows.
Thanks Elaine for giving me the side that says, move along nothing to see here.
But IMO, and now many many others, the e-mails have rocked the foundation of Climatechange. We are certainly free as a people to believe as we wish. I’ve NEVER believed in the doom and gloom version of it and certainly do not believe that CO2 is the driver of Temps. The earth has warmed and cooled many times and will do so again and again. Like a friend told me Global warming is for real, I’ve seen it with my own eye’s in my lifetime, to which I said, your lifetime is all but a small fragment to the earths history.
I’m still curious to find out were they hacked or were they leaked. We have no official confirmation from a law enforcement source. Only the CRU saying it and some in the media.
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
With an established track record for being scientifically ignorant and a troll, your analysis of CO2 emissions and their impact has far, far less credibility than those you criticize, bdabigot.
No data was falsified by these guys.
You, on the other hand, are known to make shit up and march to a master’s drum beat.
It’s simple math, but you’re a simple troll and simple people believe all sorts of nonsense.
yes SARgent
cause you told me to SARgent
my bad I left DRILL out
you cant just make this stuff up, who is in denial now?
Most Americans (52%) believe that there continues to be significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.
While many advocates of aggressive policy responses to global warming say a consensus exists, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 25% of adults think most scientists agree on the topic. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
But just in the last few days, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs seemed to reject any such disagreement in a response to a question about global warming, “I don’t think … [global warming] is quite, frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
I didn’t tell you to do squat, half-wit. Again, you’re making a clown out of yourself. I just point and laugh.
Byron,
What Buddha said in spades. The mistake of all political philosophers and all economic prophets, pushing idealized systems is that they fail to take into account human nature as it currently exists. Buddha gets right to the heart of the matter. Unrestricted capitalism allows the worst intentioned of us free rein to plunder.
The easiest examples are the billionaires among us that being rich beyond all measure keep trying to add to their riches; the corporations like big tobacco that continue to market products that hurt people and do so like drug pushers; the drug companies that spend more on marketing than they do on research; the defense industry that uses money to influence the overpurchase of unneeded weaponry which they overcharge for; the private prison industry which pays off Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Judges to send inmates their way.
These are just a few examples of far too many. If we as humans all lived by the “Golden Rule” than perhaps your way would work. We don’t and you seem aware of it yourself when you speak of “young Tyrannasuaresses.” These are merciless predators whose only goals were filling their hunger, is this an entrepeneurial model to encourage, or a workable social model?
I like being a clown Drill SARgent
“I didn’t tell you to do squat”
How bout push-ups, want me to do some push-ups Drill SARgent
Why don’t you listen to dear leader and don’t feed the troll.
Because feeding and pointing too in ridicule are two separate activities, bdapuppet. You are still free to leave any time you don’t like people attacking your credibility based upon your past actions. See? Not an order. A choice. Choices and consequences. Your choices. That’s what led you to this end.
I am but an agent of karma.
Oh i don’t care Drill SARgent, say what you want, it’s still a free country.
I love being here and I know, deep down inside, you love having me here.
No, not really. It’s your kind ruining the country (and the world) for everyone. You know. The ignorant, greedy and bigoted segment of social maladaptives who can’t see further than what they want and what they want now. The ones who cannot distinguish between propaganda and news and advertising and entertainment.
I love your Constitutional right to be around. You? Not so much. It’s that whole punchbowl/turd dilemma. But you are a constant reminder the gene pool has no life guard. So there is that silver lining of cautionary tale around the dark cloud of your neocon enabling trollery.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/green_room/8390388.stm
You are so eloquent in your speeches it reminds me of the presidents.
And you are so insipid and mildly insane in your speeches, bdafool. Reminds me of someone too.
,” said lead author Andrew Watson, a researcher from the University of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences.
They have lost their credibility
Said the troll with zero credibility.
SYPHILIS
Is that what you have, bdaloser? The syph making you nuts by eating holes in your brain? That would explain a lot.
even in the comic world.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data
Tuskegee
NASA hiding climate data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/
Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/
Nothing to see here, move along. e-mails have no effect
Australia’s Parliament defeats global warming bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/climate_australia
Move along, nothing to see here. Just another discredited troll flailing wildly.
Bdaman,
You continue to misrepresent private emails between scientists for ideological purposes without making any attempt to understand their discussion in context. Elaine has linked reports showing that even if you look at the emails in the worst possible light as a conspiracy to hide data, the data they’re talking about hiding is publicly available, so if there was a conspiracy it was an inept one. Your ‘big gun’, the phrase ‘hide the decline’ when examined reveals nothing but a decision about which of two sets of temperature data to use – temperatures calculated from examining tree trunks or temperatures actually measured. As I have pointed out, at the absolute worst (and everything I see indicates you’re trying to treat a misdemeanor or civil offense as a capital crime) this calls into question the papers published by the CRU and to a lesser extent any papers that cited them. While this should be investigated, it must be investigated by people who understand the context, attempting to try this in the court of public opinion is a naked ideological ploy to make a mountain out of a molehill for political purposes. You are doing the same thing here as you and the other birthers are doing with the question of President Obama’s eligibility – you’re making arguments from ignorance and trying to drown out the voices of the experts (be it the consensus of the scientific community or the courts and every lawyer that you’d want on your side if you were on trial) to convince people to buy your lies. You are a cowardly liar who is completely uninterested in finding the truth, instead trying to promote your deeply misguided ideological beliefs with no concern whatsoever with honesty, integrity, or the harm that would befall others (let alone the entire species) if the policies you advocate were to become law. BAD TROLL!
Well Gaa-lee Sargeant Carter you mean to tell me that didn’t need to hack them e-mails, they was publicly available the whole time. Sha Zaam you just solved the whole puzzle. Now that it’s solved, I guess they are gonna tear it all apart and reconstruct it because the puzzle is just that fun to do. Of course this will tend to be a little difficult seeing how they threw the original instructions out the window and amazingly not one e-mail or discussion about, hey guys you aint gonna believe this but I accidentally deleted the original raw data. Nope, no explanation other than ooops sorry got deleted.
Got it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc&feature=related
UK Met Office to release data and code
While this is encouraging news, releasing a subset will fuel some suspicion. A better choice would be to release the entire set. It may be too little, too late, the die of public opinion has been cast. Had they done this six months ago, they would have appeared visionary, rather than reactionary. The most encouraging news is the statement: “We intend that as soon as possible we will also publish the specific computer code…”. I applaud that, and I hope they do a better job than NASA GISS did, whose code is so esoteric, it is difficult to get running. Many have tried.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Riddle me, riddle me, riddle me this: What lives under a bridge and helps low speed fishermen but sometimes eats unwary children?
You say Ta-may-toe I say Ta-ma-toe
George Bush Impersonator on Global Warming
That kid is good.
I have read some more of the emails and believe that there are problems with the idea of global warming.
There is no agreement about Bristle cone Pine ring data whether temperature or CO2 or moisture driven, Surface Sea Temperature data from WWII to 1950 may have been adjusted upward too much and other things lead me to believe that while there might not be intent to defraud there is bad science afoot and we should request a more systematic examination of the data and a consensus opinion of scientists before we spend billions of dollars to remedy something that may not need to be rectified.
And what is the problem with an extra degree or 2 of mean earth temperature, during the MWP humans thrived and there was an abundance of food because of a longer growing season. Additionally cold weather just sucks.
I wont say that it looks like some scientists had an idea and went about proving it by cherry picking data but that is what it is starting to look like. Only time will tell.
Buddha:
go read some of those emails and you may change your mind. The more emails I read and the more I learn as I try and understand the jingo the more I am convinced that they have an hypothesis and they are trying to prove it, rather than having an hypothesis and letting the data take them where it takes them.
There definitely appears to be a subjective component to Global Warming science as done by Michael Mann and Phil Jones and subsequent apologetics by Nature, the New York Times, et. al.
Bdaman,
Since I doubt that you would follow a link that that doesn’t support your position, I thought I’d post a paragraph from the nature.com article that Buddha linked to. It is basically Nature’s reply to denier’s demands to investigate the ‘trick’ referred to in the hacked emails. Keep in mind that Nature (unlike you) has the utmost in credibility and integrity.
“The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers’ own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature’s policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.”
You have no desire to know the truth here or understand what (if any) ethical violations occurred, only to exploit the opportunity for propaganda that you hope will obscure the fact that your position is intellectually dishonest, factually incorrect, and scientifically ignorant.
Byron,
I’ve read the emails and I’m familiar with the type of discussion they’re having. They are talking about writing a paper, this is not the part of science where you consider all of the possibilities with an open mind – this is the part of science where you try to make the most convincing argument possible for your interpretation of the results. While I haven’t read all of the emails (and have no inclination to read any more than I have already), what I’ve seen portrayed as ‘smoking guns’ has ranged from utterly innocuous to possibly ethically dubious. As I’ve said before, there should be investigation, but it needs to be done by people who understand the context of these emails and are acquainted with the science in question – not the general public. Assuming the worst possible interpretation of these emails (which, again, is totally unwarranted), this has no significant impact on the scientific consensus on climate change. Furthermore, your ‘wait and see’ attitude on this issue is disingenuous at best and disastrous at worst. Since climate change deniers want to continue the status quo, ‘wait and see’ is implicitly deciding that the deniers are correct. If it turns out that they are wrong and we did nothing, it will severely reduce the habitability of the planet and possibly result in the downfall of our civilization or even the extinction of our species. On the other hand, if we act to curb pollution and develop green technology at the cost of 1-2% of our GDP and it turns out that global warming is not man made, we will have gotten several desirable benefits anyway – we’ll have cleaner air and water and land, we will have taken a big step towards sustainability for our society , and we will have made an unprecedented leap in global cooperation. This would be a bargain at 2% GDP. Finally, climate change is not summer getting a little bit longer and winter not being so cold, it’s about costal regions being flooded by the rising sea level, about the ice caps melting and altering the ocean’s currents and destabilizing the climate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
about arable land becoming desert, about summers becoming hotter and dryer, about winters becoming harsher, about more and bigger hurricanes and tornados… well, you get the idea. We’re not playing penny-ante here, we’re playing no-limit Texas Hold’em and Mother Nature’s just gone all-in. All of our chips are on the table and we have to decide what to do right now. We don’t get to ‘wait and see’.
Slarti:
the wait and see was about what the expert conclusion is to all of this.
Global climate change has been taking place for as long as the earth has been in existence. I wont count out the possibility that we have some small contribution to the system. But everyone seems to dismiss the Sun in this equation, it is all about CO2 or cow flatulence or whatever other man made contribution.
I just read an article about the possibility of geothermal heating of the oceans as an explanation for an increase in sea temperature. Which I think is actually a plausible explanation. Certainly more so than man’s activities having anything to do with it.
Don’t worry, humans have been on this planet in one form or another for 4 million years plus(?) and I will hazard a guess we will be around for as long as our sun holds up, barring any natural disasters. AWG would not be an extinction level event, it makes for a good movie plot but not much else.
So sleep well tonight secure in the knowledge that you will not wake tomorrow with water-front property and dead Polar Bears on your front steps.
MikeS:
I regret the use of T-Rex. People that grow large businesses are smart driven people, they are not “mindless brutes”.
Maybe I am wrong, you and Buddha certainly have some points. But are those manifestations of our current system (a mixed economy which is regulated) or are they the very nature of a free market? I think they are caused by man tinkering with the markets while you think they are the very nature of a free market.
Part of my problem is that on the one hand men are greedy and selfish if they engage in building or running a business but are selfless and pure if they are regulating a business or industry.
If mans nature is to be selfish then all men are such and look out for their own self interest. It matters not the vocation and whether one is pursuing profits or sainthood. If mans nature is to be selfish then he is selfish across all spectrums. Which begs the question – who regulates the regulators?
Byron,
You said:
“the wait and see was about what the expert conclusion is to all of this.”
Oh. Well… then I agree with you on this. I recommend you read the Nature article that Buddha linked and I excerpted as since part of this involves the ‘Nature trick’, their concern (or lack thereof) can be considered part of the expert conclusion.
Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years (according to Wikipedia). (Just thought you’d like to know.)
I understand that the climate is an extraordinarily complex system with many important inputs (such as the sun and geothermal warming) which adapts to changes and these changes have been happening for the last 4 billion years, but when you’re fiddling with the controls of a complex system (say by adding a large amount of carbon to the air) at some point you hit a bifurcation and instead of your small change causing a small adaptation, it causes some kind of large qualitative change. I agree that this is unlikely to be an extinction level event (odds are better for a giant meteor), but it could well be catastrophic for our civilization. I’m not worried about beach-front land with polar bear corpses, I’m worried about reaching a tipping point where it’s too late to solve the problem before we decide to act. To me this seems to be the choice between doing some things that might hurt a bit in the short term, but will ultimately be very beneficial (no matter what the truth on this topic is) or to do nothing and hope everything works out for the best (which seems a bit unwise when you’re dealing with an unsustainable system).
Byron–
I wouldn’t dismiss humankind’s effect on global warming so easily. Some things to keep in mind:
1) The widespread burning of fossil fuels to generate power since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
2) Millions and millions of cars and their gaseous emissions
3) Burning of fossil fuels to heat homes
Of course it’s about the sun–the sun and CO2. The gases in our atmosphere can trap the heat of the sun.
Let’s take Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. It rotates very slowly–a day on Mercury is nearly two earth months. Its atmosphere is nearly non-existent. On the side of Mercury that faces the sun for an extended period of time, the temperature can be blazing hot…maybe 700 or 800 degrees. But on the side turned away from the sun it gets extremely cold–below -300 degrees–because there are no atmospheric gases to trap the heat. The same is true of our moon.
Venus, on the other hand, has a dense atmosphere composed of mostly carbon dioxide. The sun’s heat gets trapped and can’t escape into space. It’s a good example of the greenhouse gas effect. Venus doesn’t have the same kind of temperature variations as Mercury because of the gases in its atmosphere.
Wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that if we keep increasing the level of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere, that our planet WILL get warmer?
Slart, thank you, thats what I try to do when I copy/paste. Pick out part of what I read that stands out to me and then provide the link.
We are now way way passed the Hide the Decline, Mike’s Nature Trick, the e-mails got stolen phase. There is overwhelming factual evidence that all data has been manipulated one way or the other. We have, over the last several years documented this fact. We have surface temperature stations purposely placed near high heat content areas such as AC units, Roof Tops, Concrete Parking Lots Ect. Ect. We have temp stations removed from parts of the coldest climates. I have provided the links. We have CO2 Monitoring and Collection Stations, I believe 9 in total, located near volcanoes, such is the case as the one in Hawaii. We have scientist manipulating data to which the entire scientific community is now turned upside down. There is either photographic evidence or written admission to all above.
So far, the most damming statement out of what e-mails that have been reviewed, and mind you there not finished going thru them, is,
“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”
Then as you well know the last time we got into this discussion all kinds of cold temperatures were being broken world wide with record snows. Now we got a slow start to winter this year after another below active hurricane season in the Atlantic, with no U.S. strike. World wide we are at a 30 year low for Tropical Cyclone activity , for the THIRD straight year. Winter is underway and we have started yet again with record breaking snow in Michigan, earliest snow ever for Houston, October the third coolest on record, on and on and on. Let me not forget the sunspot activity, which is NIL and has received a fresh look in comparison to past event cycles.
Yes the e-mails themselves may not be that smoking gun and it sure has shed alot of light of what the hell is actually going on.
Elaine M:
I don’t think you can compare what happens on Venus to Earth. There is no similarity.
Byron–
I think you missed my point about the effect atmospheric gases have on the temperatures of planetary bodies. Are you saying that even if Earth had as dense an atmosphere as Venus, it wouldn’t be much warmer? Or if Earth had no atmosphere that it wouldn’t be colder on the nightside of our planet?
Byron–
You wrote: “I don’t think you can compare what happens on Venus to Earth. There is no similarity.”
I forgot to note one way that Earth and Venus are similar in my last comment. The two planets are similar in size. They have approximately the same diameter. Venus is sometimes called Earth’s twin for that very reason.
To Whom It May Concern:
Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another climate research center. (Think Progress, 12/5/09)
Burglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the “Climategate” intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks:
Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/
Suspicions were growing last night that Russian security services were behind the leaking of the notorious British ‘Climategate’ emails which threaten to undermine tomorrow’s Copenhagen global warming summit.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday has discovered that the explosive hacked emails from the University of East Anglia were leaked via a small web server in the formerly closed city of Tomsk in Siberia.
The leaks scandal has left the scientific community in disarray after claims that key climate change data was manipulated in the run-up to the climate change summit of world leaders.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html#ixzz0YuvXvWXM
The Smoking Code, part 2
No proof exists that shows this code was used in publishing results.
Correct! That’s why I am (and always have) taken the following stand: Enough proof exists that the CRU had both the means and intent to intentionally falsify data. This means that all of their research results cannot be trusted until they are verified. Period.
The fact that the “fudge-factor” source code exists in the first place is reason enough for alarm. Hopefully, they didn’t use fudged results in the CRU research results, but the truth is, we just don’t know.
You need the raw climate data to prove that foul play occurred.
This is assuming the raw data are valid, which I maintain that it probably is. Several people question the validity of the climate data gathering methods used by the different climate research institutions, but I am not enough of a climate expert to have an opinion one way or the other. Furthermore, It simply doesn’t matter if the raw climate data are correct or not to demonstrate the extreme bias the valadj array forces on the raw data.
So, the raw data could actually be temperature data or corporate sales figures, the result is the same; a severe manipulation of data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/05/the-smoking-code-part-2/#more-13773
UN climate chief: hacked e-mails are damaging
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091206/D9CDQI000.html
E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world’s leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others’ work. Those who deny the influence of man-made climate change have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.
“This correspondence looks very bad,” de Boer said. “But I think both the university is looking into this (and) I believe there is a police investigation going on whether the e-mails were leaked or stolen.”
Earth could plunge into sudden ice age
Experts: ‘Big Freeze’ about 12,800 years ago happened within months
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34242705/ns/technology_and_science-science/
Did humans cause the Younger Dryas? No. Did humans cause
all of the other ice ages? No. But let’s blame them anyway.
Temperatures go up? Blame humans. Temperatures go down?
Blame humans.
There is no reason why a big freeze shouldn’t happen again, says Patterson. “If the Greenland ice sheet melted suddenly it would be catastrophic.”
Sure, IF that should happen. But there’s no reason to expect the Greenland ice sheet to suddenly melt. Temperatures have been declining since 1998, and we’ve had record snowfall around the world. If anything, we should expect the Greenland ice sheet to grow.
“People assume that we’re political, that we’re either pro-global-warming or anti-global-warming, when it’s really neither,” Patterson added. “Our goal is just to understand climate.”
If their goal is “just to understand climate,” then why don’t they, and other climate scientists, include the known climate cycles in their models? These cycles have been known and acknowledged since the 1970s.
In 1976, scientists at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
spearheaded a project called CLIMAP (Climate: Long-range
Investigation Mapping and Prediction) to map the history of
the oceans and climate.They discovered that ice ages begin or end, almost like clockwork,every 11,500 years. It’s a dependable, predictable, natural cycle. Pacemaker of the Ice Ages, they called it.
Too Hot, Too cold, not warm enough, not cold enough, one day maybe it will be just right.
“But are those manifestations of our current system (a mixed economy which is regulated) or are they the very nature of a free market? I think they are caused by man tinkering with the markets while you think they are the very nature of a free market.”
Byron,
Of course they are “men tinkering with the markets” because this is the natural progression of people trying to increase their profit. By definition a corporation is in business to not only make, but to continually increase profit. The only way to do so is to continually increase market share, if your in the business of selling something.
Our current stock market system only rewards those whose profits keep increasing thereby pressuring CEO’s to find new ways to improve the bottom line. There is neither respect, nor reward from stock prices for those companies that manage well but don’t continually show profit increases. This has what has caused businesses to work hard at diversification, no matter the fact that many times it doesn’t make sense.
In the past before Reagonomics there were companies recognized as “blue chip stocks,” denoting that these were well managed companies, that had a good share of their market and produced reasonable profits from year to year. In other words stable business enterprises. Then Reagonomics hit in the 80′s and with it deregulation and lack of anti-trust enforcement. You had the ridiculous result of smaller companies gobbling up larger ones through shady stock deals, while the SEC looked the other way.
Industry destabilized and began outsourcing production overseas to areas with no unions and ridiculously cheap labor costs.
The result was the diminuation of our manufacturing base and a country where business almost totally focussed on the Financial Services Industries, which can make obscene profits, but cannot sustain a robust economy. I don’t like Henry Ford, because he was a bigot, but the man understood that if he paid his workers well they would buy his product. Somewhere along the line the greed driven geniuses of the MBA/economist kind forgot this lesson and replaced it with one of rapacious greed. I’m not saying things were perfect before Reagan, they weren’t, but at least the US had a strong industrial base. Now we’re mostly a service economy, with a shrinking middle/working class and the prosepcts of becoming a third world nation. The answer to this is not more laissez-faire economics, but a return to the regulatory conventions established by both Roosevelts and the recognition that institutions like the Fed and treaty’s like
NAFTA/CAFTA are really anti-American, in that they aim at only at
allowing the elite to further prosper without regard for all of the rest of us.
To me the people who want to deny “global warning” are basically morons. The problem is that in selling the concept that mankind through constant, unplanned development is destroying our environment and therefore the Earth’s ability to sustain us, has been sidetracked by a slogan. While “global warning” is no doubt a real phenomenon, it doesn’t encompass the discussion of the entire environmental issue. It allows its critics to attack facets of the problem, as a result of their own lack of comprehension, without seeing the big picture.
The big picture is that through careless industrial development we are destroying the sustainability of the Planet. Coal mining strips mountaintops bare and leeches poisonous chemical into rivers and streams, causing death of flora and fauna. Inefficient electical appliances (from household to industrial) increase the need for electricity, which is supplied through inefficient and destructive measures. Inland water is polluted by the effluvient of unregulated industry and the Ocean’s viability is depleted through unrestrained dumping of noxious materials, overfishing. The polar ice cap is melting, as are many glaciers, gradually raising the height of the oceans and setting up futre inundations of many of the world greatest Cities that are built next to the ocean. The Rain Forests, necessary for maintaining environmentl balance are being depleted in the name of economic development. The list goes on and on.
I’m not a luddite though. I believe in scientific progress and technological development. However, it must be done rationally and in concert with environmental needs. This is not only doable, it is actually the least expensive and most efficient way to go. The “global warming” naysayers are a conglomerate of
religious fanatics more interested in a soon to arrive armageddon, industrial/financial pirates desiring unfettered development, their political minions who are bought and paid for and the fellow travellers ready to believe any political crap handed to them as long as it has the “conservative” brand on it.
The evidence for the need for mankind to take an ecological perspective is not only overwhelming, much of it is non-technical enough so that you don’t need to be a scientist to figure it out. To be against the ecological perspective is to really be either alarmingly self-centered, apocalyptically minded, or someone who doen’t give a damn about the future of mankind and/or their country.
And the hits just keep right on rolling. Question, If Hawaii has an ORIGINAL birth certificate on file in accordance with state policy and procedures, why not show that one instead of the one posted on the internet.
With so many lawsuits filed every day in America, one more might seem irrelevant. There is one however that should be watched, but will most likely escape notice. For a little while at any rate…
Last summer, hundreds of Chrysler and GM Dealers lost their franchises in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. Many of those dealers vowed to fight what they saw as a heavy miscarriage of justice. It was simply un-American, and shocking to find that something like this could happen here, that the government could take over a private business, and then take that business away from hundreds of private dealerships. Many of those dealers had profitable businesses; in some cases those businesses had been run by families successfully for 50 years, in some cases more.
Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:
1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d5-Cars-quo-warranto-and-Obama
Mike S,
Thank you for eloquently making the point that dealing with pollution and creating sustainable industry are much bigger than climate change. Even if AGW is a myth (which is highly unlikely), cleaning up our act, so to speak, is necessary for the continuation of our civilization or we’re going to end up drowning in our own waste. I wish the deniers like Bdaman would go and live on the Texas-sized island of discarded plastics in the middle of the Pacific (since they’re pro-pollution that should be the kind of place they like) and let the rest of us work to solve our pollution problems.
http://www.nbc.com/?vty%20=%20fromWidget_Video&dst=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video&__source=nbc|widget|NBC%20Video
Bdaman,
While the auto dealers might have standing (they can unquestionably show that they were personally harmed), there are a couple of problems with this case – first, I think that the President has immunity from this sort of action (Vince or one of the other lawyers please correct me if I’m wrong) and more importantly, a quo warranto proceeding cannot be used to remove the president (the Constitution gives congress the SOLE power of impeachment). This is destined to be another loss in the birther’s epic losing streak.
Copy of an e-mail exchange I had with a very liberal friend of mine. So lets be clear, I’m all for taking care of mother earth.
—– Original Message —–
From: REDACTED hotmailcom
To: bob.
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: RE: Winter is Here
Bob I agree that we should do everything possible to make it a clean planet, everything. When you look at what the alternatives are, it still reverts back to the earths natural resources. Boone Pickens presented the best Idea to get us heading in that direction. Question, why is the government not heading to his natural gas solution. In order to have a major effect Trains, Planes, Tractor Trailers and Ships must be re tooled. Clean energy is a great idea. They say nuclear power is the way to go to solve PART of the carbon emissions but then you have the by product to deal with and that gets buried in the ground.
The whole issue here is the CLAIM that CO2 is responsible for heating the earth, it’s responsible for everything thats dying, crying going extinct ect ect. It’s almost like the blame Bush for everything attitude. I’m not defending Bush, I’m a 9-11 truther, I think Bush allowed 9-11 to happen so don’t get me started on that.
CO2 makes up LESS than 5% of all known greenhouse gases. CO2 continues to get dumped into the atmosphere in mass amounts everyday but yet we have no warming in the last ten years, and thats a fact. In fact it’s getting colder. You may not want to believe that but thats a fact. (Hide the Decline confirmed here today) and it is as I told you before, they got the COMPUTER MODEL to do what THEY wanted it to. Remember my old saying Look at the ACTUAL FACTUAL DATA not a computer model http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/
I once told you that Greenland got it’s name because it was Green. The Vikings raised cattle and farmed the lands. Now Greenland is covered in Ice. If that Ice melts it could have devastating effects, at least thats what they tell us. If it does, it won’t be because of CO2.
With that said, while we try and transition over to cleaner energy and clean up the planet, should we allow a world government to tax us to death with Cap and Tax over something that does’nt effect the planet in the manner that they say it does. Should we allow the government into our homes and tell us what light bulbs we can use. Again the light bulbs save energy but like nuclear waste pollute the ground (mercury)
This is a 145 trillion dollar question, this is what is at stake here. For 145 trillion I think we could plant a whole lot of trees around the world if CO2 is really the problem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34115298/ns/news-picture_stories/displaymode/1247/?beginSlide=1
This is from the excellent sited at
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/leo-donofrio-and-pidgeon-another-desperate-move/
“Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:
“1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
“2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.”
So, once again, Leo rises from the ashheap. He has resigned several times to the birfer battles. [Enter Leo Donofrio in the “Search” window above for more info.] On the occasion of his latest swan song, he took all of his postings down from his website. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ . Now he seems to be launching another futile, frivolous QW effort in the District Court for D.C. Since his site went dark, we can’t even read his convoluted mistaken arguments anymore.
Slart is right. The Constitution provides that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment.” The House has the “sole Power of Impeachment” and the Senate the “sole Power the try all Impeachments.”
Removal is such a grave move that it was committed to the representatives of the people in Congress. There is no room in the constitutional scheme to bypass this means of removal by resorting to a single judge and jury in the District of Columbia. The quo warranto theory is a truly bizarre idea without any foundation in the language or history of the Constitution.
This has been debated before on the Turley thread. Almost all of the QW cases have involved state and local officials. The federal quo warranto statute requires the Attorney General to act. The Attorney General has not acted. The only possible (repeat, remotely possible) exception to this would require a party who has a claim to the office.
Whatever their gripes, the auto dealers are not claimants to the presidency.
Say goodnight, Leo.
Slartibartfast,
The U.S. Constitution is a relatively brief document. Please take the time to read it. When finished answer there questions:
Does the U.S. Constitution state that impeachment is the sole means of removal of the President? Is a failure to meet the qualifications a “high crime or misdemeanor”? Is it treason or bribery? Proven election fraud, if not linked directly to the President, would still mean that the President had no right to occupy the office, but it would not be an impeachable offense. What should be done in that instance? What if the President won’t resign?
You’re an intelligent person. You’re capable of rational thought. Instead of getting your legal advice from a partisan source, take the time to review history on the subject. This isn’t the first time that the legitimacy of an elected President has been the subject of controversy. Familiarize yourself with the fallout of the Hayes vs. Tilden election of 1876. Though it took almost 25 years to pass the DC quo warranto statute, the 1877 Congressional records demonstrate that Congress considered the qualifications of the President to be a constitutional question that could be answered by the Court, not Congress.
Mr. Mills, of Texas, said : “The exercise of the power by the Forty-fifth Congress over the question of the election of President of the, United States is a usurpation. We have no power over that question at all. By the Constitution of the United States that power to inquire as to who was elected President of the United Srates was vested in the Forty-fourth Congress, and when that Congress spoke or failed to speak on that question, when it made a law by which it abdicated that power conferred upon it by the Constitution of the United States, it parted with it forever, and so far as this, the Forty filth Congress, is concerned, there remains not a shadow of authority to investigate the election of the President.”
“Resolved, That no subsequent Congress, and neither House has jurisdiction to revise the action at such joint meeting, and any attempt by either House to annul or disregard such action or the title to office arising therefrom would be revolutionary and is disapproved by this House.”
“Suppose the canvassers had made a mistake in footing up the returns, that changed the result of the election—a mistake that they discovered before the vote was counted: was there no remedy?” “No !” was the answer. “Then,” said the Justice, “a mistake in arithmetic, in the adding up of figures, may elect a President of the United States, and Congress is powerless to prevent it ! ” Again he asked :
“Suppose the canvassers were bribed ; or had entered into a conspiracy to commit a fraud ; and in pursuance of the bribery or conspiracy, altered the returns, declaring elected persons not chosen by the voters, and had transmitted their vote to the President of the Senate, but that before the vote was counted the fraud was detected and exposed: was there no remedy ? ”
“If this be sound doctrine, it is the only instance in the world where fraud becomes enshrined and sanctified behind a certificate of its authors. It is elementary knowledge that fraud vitiates all proceedings, even the most solemn ; that no form of words, no amount of ceremony, and no solemnity of procedure, can shield it from exposure or punishment.”
Now do you understand why the DC Quo Warranto statute was created? Now do you understand why Congress found it best to rely on the Court to determine a constitutional question instead of leaving it to a partisan body?
Buddha,
Who needs the damned Maldives anyway? More important is that we support T. Boone Pickens who is pushing his current environmental drivel so that through use of natural gas leases he can control America’s major water sources. The man has always been a self centered scoundrel and now he wants to have a monopoly on water. I wonder why?
As far as the poor Chrysler dealers go, my father was one, part of the viability problem for Chrysler was an overabundance of dealerships, which did little for sales but screwed up the Company by having them produce too many cars for a poor market.
That lawyer Donofrio is involved in this latest stupid lawsuit, only shows that the gullible among us will use anything to justify their hatred and ignorance.
That’s a lot of words to say nothing.
Vince Treacy has already thoroughly addressed and debunked the quo warranto issue without resorting to anything other than, what’s that stuff called? Oh yeah, PROOF.
Obama is a citizen. He’s a graft swilling sellout to K St. just like the GOP, but he’s still a citizen.
Slarti does just fine in evaluating evidence in an impartial manner. As a trained scientist, I’ll take his analysis over the prime facie nonsense arguments of birthers any day.
You on the other hand, Rich? Not so much.
Rich S.,
Yes but do we understand why George W. bush received the Presidency in 2000 on a decision written by a Justice who son worked for the plaintiff and yet refused to recuse himself?
Mike,
I found it very sad they had created an island of trash where a lagoon used to be.
Vince Treacy said; “The federal quo warranto statute requires the Attorney General to act.”
LIE LIE LIE!!!!
Slartibartfast,
The blatant lie of Mr. Treacy provides a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your legal advise from partisan sources.
Ҥ 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.”
“dealing with pollution and creating sustainable industry are much bigger than climate change”
Slarti,
Thank you. Our media and pundits are so shallow that they can only discuss issues in terms of headlines, rather that view the entire problem. We are facing a world ecological crisis that has everything to do with stupidly unbridled development and which through intelligent intervention can actually accomplish more, do it cheaper and provide a good standard of living for the entire human race.
Rich,
If you just want your ass handed to you by Vince, be my guest.
“The blatant lie of Mr. Treacy provides a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your legal advise from partisan sources.”
Rich S.,
Your QW interpretation is off base and you are hardly the person to admonish anyone about not getting information from partisan sources. Next thing we know is you’ll be quoting Vattel.
Rich S,
Throughout my interest in the birther movement I have gotten information by looking at the arguments from both side (and any references provided) and making up my own mind. In my opinion, the birther’s arguments are poor to pathetic while Vince has shown remarkable scholarship and impeccable reason and every prediction he’s made has been correct. I understand why you’d try to pick a fight with a small fish like me, but there’s a big, bad shark in this pool – his name is Vince and he is going to tear you apart with remorseless logic and implacable facts. And you never know when those tiny fish are going to turn out to be piranha.
Mike S,
The thing that annoys me most about our political discourse in this country is our total lack of the ability to deal with nuance. This is a complicated world full of difficult problems and none of the solutions can be explained in a 30 second sound bite. As someone who studies complexity professionally, I love looking for the patterns that help us understand these complicated systems and wish that our elected leaders would spend more time trying to understand the nuances and listening to people who do. That is why I like President Obama so much – say what you want about him, but all of the indications I’ve seen say he surrounds himself with smart people, listens to their opinions, and then makes up his mind (Afghanistan being but the latest example of this). You may disagree with his decisions, but you can’t deny that he comes to them in a deliberative fashion after getting the facts rather than going by his gut like his predecessor.
Slartibartfast,
Vince made the right call because none of the cases were filed in a court that had jurisdiction. It would require a corrupt or incompetent court for him to make the wrong call.
“An examination of several of the statutes authorizing the use of this extraordinary remedy reveals that its application is rather broad but specifically limited to the use therein provided. There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C.Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.”
http://openjurist.org/248/f2d/804
Rich S,
Another quick point before Vince takes you out to the woodshed. You seem to be implying that President Obama (or someone) committed election fraud. This is an unreasonable assertion without any kind of proof to back it up. Nate Silver (of fivethirtyeight.com), working from basically all of the polling data available (left, right, and center) was able to predict the national vote to within 0.1%. This implies that people voted pretty much how they said they would in polls – i.e. no indication of a significant number of fraudulent votes. If you are referring to the Democratic party certifying him eligible for the presidency, the proper procedures were followed by the party (just like they have been with every other president). The document posted on line is sufficient proof of his eligibility (have someone explain to you what prima facie evidence is), so no fraud was committed there. You birthers seem to think that if you can just clear the next hurdle (be it standing or justicability, or whatever) then the rest of the path will be cleared to oust President Obama from office. Well, in reality, the hurdles you’re having trouble with are the small ones – you have nothing to prove that President Obama was born outside of the US (which will get worse if judicial notice is taken of Hawaii’s records), a pathetically weak argument that whoever translated Vattel into english (a decade after the constitution was written) is the proper authority to define the term natural born citizen, and worst of all, the courts have no power to remove the sitting president of the United States (quo warranto or not). In response to your latest post, you should probably ask yourself if the Presidency is (legally speaking) included in “public offices held within the District of Columbia”. In any case, I’m sure Vince will be happy to clarify the matter.
Rich S
I had to read that a couple of times and I aint real good at legalese, I think thats short for lawyerin talk but it. Sounds good to me.
Can I copy that or is that copyright protected? Everyone here knows how much I like to paste.
Slartibartfast,
An information on quo warranto is a challenge of the right to hold office. Election fraud and failure to qualify can both be reasons for bringing the action. Prima facie evidence is presumptive evidence. In a quo warranto action presumption is not sufficient.
Burden in quo warranto proceedings:
“Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office (Obama) is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent. If the defendant (Obama) is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office. Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office, it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.”
Your contention is that a Congress controlled by the President-Elect’s own party would be above the law. The qualifications of the President are not left to the discretion of Congress.
“While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to review or in anywise disturb the action of the President or other public official in the exercise of official discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction to review such action where a positive prohibition of law has been violated. If it were not so, then the President of the United States and the heads of the various departments of the Government would be above the law, and therefore free to violate it.”
The Court would say the same about Congress. “No person except” sounds like a prohibition to me.
Slart with the recent revelations of voting in NY-23, polling machines got infected with a virus. Maybe during the general election, the machines got a virus and it was put in there to hide the decline. Of course we’ll never know cause they probably threw the original data out.
Question: if the state of Hawaii in fact holds president Obama’s birth certificate in accordance to state policy and procedures and it proves once and for all he was born in Hawaii and further more proves he is a natural born citizen.
WHY NOT SHOW THAT ONE INSTEAD OF THE ONE ON THE INTERNET.
Rich S, your free to copy that and paste it. I think thats a fair question, don’t you?
67% “Yes” — 33% “No”
http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F
Rich S,
If you want to play until Vince steps in, I’m game (at least for a while, then I’ve got to get some work done).
You said:
“An information on quo warranto is a challenge of the right to hold office. Election fraud and failure to qualify can both be reasons for bringing the action. Prima facie evidence is presumptive evidence. In a quo warranto action presumption is not sufficient.”
You presume that quo warranto is valid against the President.
You said:
‘Burden in quo warranto proceedings:
“Attention should be called to the fact that the ordinary rules as to the burden of proof do not apply in quo warranto proceedings. One who is exercising the privilege of a public office (Obama) is considered an usurper unless he can maintain his title; and in a proceeding by the public, the burden of showing his right to the office is cast upon the respondent. If the defendant (Obama) is unable to show good title to the office the people are entitled to a judgment of ouster. In quo warranto proceedings undertaken by the people the burden is so far cast upon the respondent that he cannot rely upon presumptions, but he must prove the continued existence of every qualification necessary to the enjoyment of the office. Although the proper official certificate is prima facie evidence of the election to an office, it is a familiar rule that the certificate and returns on which it is based are open to investigation and that judgment will be rendered according to real facts.”‘
So we agree that you’re not talking about voter fraud of any sort? And for the purposes of this remark, I’ll ignore the issue of whether or not quo warranto is applicable to the presidency. So President Obama would have to establish that he is a natural born citizen, which would require a) for him to provide the court with the document examined by fact check (which is valid prima facie evidence of US birth in the absence of contrary evidence – the difficult of providing this contrary evidence was discussed upthread and it’s hard to imagine that anyone has evidence that can outweigh the testimony of Hawaiian officials and the documents they maintain) and b) establishing that the circumstances of his birth make him a natural born citizen – which, as Vince has ably demonstrated here, they do. In short, what do you think will actually be accomplished by bringing a quo warranto action except to verify the president’s eligibility?
You said:
“Your contention is that a Congress controlled by the President-Elect’s own party would be above the law. The qualifications of the President are not left to the discretion of Congress.”
I’m not sure where you get this, I think you may be misunderstanding something I said. Please clarify.
You quoted:
“While it is true that the courts are without jurisdiction to review or in anywise disturb the action of the President or other public official in the exercise of official discretion, the courts are not without jurisdiction to review such action where a positive prohibition of law has been violated. If it were not so, then the President of the United States and the heads of the various departments of the Government would be above the law, and therefore free to violate it.”
Who are you quoting here? In any case, you cannot establish that a ‘positive prohibition of law has been violated’. Doesn’t that sort of put a hole in your argument?
You said:
“The Court would say the same about Congress. “No person except” sounds like a prohibition to me.”
Yes, but it’s a prohibition that doesn’t apply to natural born citizens like Barack Obama.
Bdaman,
In regard to NY-23, you might have noticed that even the post & email dropped that story when it turned out to be baseless. (My favorite part was the uproar about there being more votes for coroner than for US representative without bothering to find out that voters were allowed to vote for two candidates for coroner.) In regard to the birth certificate – what is posted on the web is what you get when you ask Hawaii for proof of your birth. Neither you, nor any other birther has answered the question of why that isn’t sufficient proof. I answered your question (he has posted a reasonable response to questions about his birth), will you answer mine?
Rich S. should be careful he yells “LIE.” I noted the exception.
I wrote: “The Attorney General has not acted. The only possible (repeat, remotely possible) exception to this would require a party who has a claim to the office.”
The statute allows an “interested person” to petition the court.
Who is an interested person?
In one of the cases that I read, a citizen challenged the appointment of one of the civilian commissioners of DC. (In those days, three Commissioners ruled the District, and one of them was a General in the Army Corps of Engineers). The citizen claimed that the Commissioner was not a resident of the District, as required by statute, and the statute did require residence. So he brought a quo warranto. But the case was dismissed, because the citizen was not an interested person, since he had no claim to the office. He would not have been entitled to it if the incumbent were tossed out.
So, as I said above, I do not think that any of the auto dealers would be interested persons, since they have no claim on the Presidency.
In general, the QW debate shows a blinkered reading of the Constitution. Article II, sec. 4 provided for removal of Officers of the United States. But it has to be read with other clauses.
Judges hold office on “good Behaviour.” They have been removed throughout the history of the Constitution by impeachment, but there is no known instance of QW against a federal judge or Justice, because their tenure protects them.
The President and Vice President hold office for four-year terms. This grants them tenure directly under the Constitution, subject only to removal on impeachment.
The officers of the United States may be removed by the person who appointed them, that is the President, since the Myers case held the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. But Congress did want the power to remove a corrupt officer who the President would not remove, so those officers can be impeached also.
So where does this leave the right of persons other than the AG to bring quo warranto? It is a very limited power, applicable only to appointed nonjudicial and non-elected officials in the District.
There is no know enumerated or implied power of Congress that could authorize it to pass a law allowing the President to be removed by a single judge and jury. Leo tried to tie it to the District of Columbia Clause, but that is ludicrous, since that clause grants only municipal powers over the seat of government, not the power to affect the National Government.
The writ cannot be used under the Constitution to challenge the qualifications of a President, either before or after sworn in, because that function is textually assigned to the joint session of Congress presided over by the Vice President by the 12th Amendment. That is the constitutionally designated forum for challenges to the eligibility of the President.
The determination of the joint session cannot be challenged in the courts. The Speech or Debate Clause expressly states that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Art I, sec. 5.
The broad reading given by Leo and Rich S. would lead to totally contradictory results. The quo warranto cannot against a Member of Congress because each House is the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. Each House can expel a Member with concurrence of two thirds. Yet Leo and Rich, to be consistent, would have to argue that a writ of quo warranto could supersede these express provisions and be used in any election challenge.
Not one of the hundreds of election challenges in the entire history of the Congress has ever involved a quo warranto.
So I will make my Written Legal Prediction ™©®:
Application for writ of quo warranto against the President, dismissed.
Slartibartfast,
A quo warranto action would likely cause Obama to be forced to present a certified copy of his original birth record to the court. What happens from there will depend on what the information on the birth record reveals. Even if the court finds the birth record to be reliable, the relator with then ask the court to define the definition of natural born citizen.
Ignore all the FactCheck and COLB hooplah. We’re talking quo warranto. FactCheck is not an authorized investigative agency, and the COLB, if presented, is subject to further inquiry. You must remember that in a quo warranto action the burden of proof falls completely on the respondent.
“In any case, you cannot establish that a ‘positive prohibition of law has been violated’.” You’re getting the burden confused again. In almost all other cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In this quo warranto case it would be up to Obama to demonstrate why his is to be considered a natural born citizen.
Obama has the ability to request a certified copy of his vital records, and a judge can order the Hawaii DOH to release a certified copy of Obama’s vital records.
Ҥ338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, 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 of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The 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.”
If you request a copy of your birth certificate the DOH will send you a COLB. That does not prevent you from viewing and obtaining a certified copy of the original vital records. Many countries do not accept a COLB as sufficient proof. Since they are not a state of the union, they are not bound by the full faith and credit clause.
Vince,
Nicely done, as usual. One question, though, how do you make the trademark and copyright symbols?
Rich S,
You can’t say I didn’t warn you.
You don’t tug on Superman’s cape,
You don’t spit into the wind,
You don’t pull the hat off the ol’ Lone Ranger, and
You don’t mess around with Vince.
(Not on this thread, anyway.)
Now can you see why we put more credibility in Vince’s analysis than we do yours? Do you understand how weak your arguments look when compared to his? You’re trying to stop a bullet with tissue paper and its going to end badly for you. My advice is to acknowledge that Vince is correct and regain a shred of credibility, because if you stay the course it’s all downhill from here…
Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
QUOTE FROM SYLLABUS BY THE COURT:
Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in the way of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent’s title to office.
Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute quo warranto proceedings without the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of the District.
The District Code makes a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” in maintaining quo warranto proceedings.
While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.
The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.
An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.
Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.
UNQUOTE
http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/case.html
So there is the case and the link. Read it for yourselves.
I have made two separate arguments up above.
First, based on Newman, neither Leo nor his auto dealers nor any other similar individuals have any statutory right to bring the writ in D.C.
Second, even if someone (like a sitting Vice President of the United States, or an unsuccessful runner-up like John McCain) were to try it, the court would politely rule that the writ could not run to a President.
Also, about that jury trial. I have been called for jury duty in that District Court. I would like to sit in on this one, but I would probably be discharged. And what kind of Alice in Wonderland Constitution would (1) deny District residents all representation in the National Legislature, but (2) empower a jury of 12 of its residents to depose the President?
That is the plot of a bad SF story, not con law!
Rich,
As the childrens say, “You got served.”
I go into Microsoft Word. I type a paren, then cap T and M, and then close the paren. Same deal with cap C and cap R:
™©®
Then I copy and paste it here.
Trademark: ALT 0153 (hold down the ALT key and type 0153 on the numeric keypad). Option-2 on the MAC™.
Copyright: ALT 0169. Option-G on the MAC©.
Rich S,
It’s academic, in light of Vince’s response, but I’ll answer you anyway. Do you honestly believe that any court would question the COLB combined with the testimony of officials of the Hawaii DOH? (I’m assuming that they would be willing to say what they’ve already said on the record.) I think that in this hypothetical (which, as Vince pointed out, is all this will ever be) this evidence would be more than sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof, especially in the absence of any contradictory evidence. The Constitution is not on your side, the law is not on your side, the courts are not on your side, and reason is not on your side. Your continuing to pursue this indicates that you are either not intelligent enough to understand the issue or that you are so desperate to get President Obama removed (for whatever reason) that you are willing to violate the Constitution to do it.
Vince Treacy said; “So where does this leave the right of persons other than the AG to bring quo warranto? It is a very limited power, applicable only to appointed nonjudicial and non-elected officials in the District.”
The U.S. Supreme Court said; “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”
The Court indicates that the quo warranto statute applies to elected offices.
Vince Treacy, If, after being sworn into office, it is proven that election fraud took place, and the occupant is not connected to the fraud, and the occupant refused to resign, are you suggesting that we live with it? The occupant would not be subject to impeachment, and Congress has already acknowledged that they lack the authority to review the election. If the occupant did not legally win the election, he has no right to title to the office.
“A quo warranto action would likely cause Obama to be forced to present a certified copy of his original birth record to the court.”
Slart, this assumes the action ever gets past a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth in Newman, it will never reach that point. The court will never reach the merits of the dual citizenship or two-parent theory, because the AG has not acted, and there is no interested party.
The burden of proof will not arise, since a plaintiff has to establish jurisdiction before any proof is introduced.
That stuff about the burden of proof will not arise, since no court will reach the merits. The theory Rich stated is based on a lot of state cases under state laws, but I doubt if there are any federal cases, and I doubt if a federal court would adopt that doctrine.
I don’t disagree. I think an auto dealer will have trouble meeting the Court’s holding in Newman as an “interested person”.
A military officer who received their commission from Barack Obama, would/should conform to the SCOTUS holding in Newman. (This only applies to our new officers, and only because they receive their commission from the President)
Is the interest in the office personal? Yes. Much like Walpin would be considered to have a personal interest, because only a de jure President can fire him; only a de jure President can commission an officer.
Newman: “While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.”
The officer commissioned by Barack Obama does indeed have an interest that is personal. If Barack Obama does not meet the qualifications set forth in Article II, he cannot perform the function set forth in Article II. The validity of the officer’s commission is personally and directly related to the legitimacy of Barack Obama.
Newman: “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”
The interest of this commissioned officer is an interest in the office itself peculiar to the commissioned officer.
Newman: “Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States”
The statute and the Court’s holding in Newman was intended to be limiting or restrictive, but not prohibitive.
“If you request a copy of your birth certificate the DOH will send you a COLB. That does not prevent you from viewing and obtaining a certified copy of the original vital records. Many countries do not accept a COLB as sufficient proof.”
This is the same old birhter misinformation regurgitated.
The COLB is the only form now issued. At Dr. Conspiracy, richCares, who is Hawaiian, confirmed it. I posted this on the Sign of the Times thread:
Q
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.”UQ
Everyone accepts the COLB. I have posted links and proof for this. Let Rich call DOH Monday morning and find out if they still give out the old forms.
Rich S,
Ow, that looked like it hurt! I’d put something on it right away before it swells up. Now we get to see if you’re man enough to admit when you are wrong or if you’ll ignore any attempt at reasonable debate like Bdaman or run away with your tail between your legs.
Vince,
I realize that quo warranto, which is why I noted that my comment was merely a hypothetical and would never be more. I most certainly do not doubt your trademarked prediction (thanks for letting me know how you did that – you too, Nal, I’m a MAC person, too). I do think that it is possible that in the run up to the 2012 election that a case will be heard (and lost) on the merits, so I think that pointing out there are bigger hurdles out there than the one that the bithers are tripping over now is relevant.
Lot’s of luck on the arguments on quo warranto by military officers. They have no interest in occupying the office of President.
They are going to lose just like Major Cook, and Captain Barnett, and Colonel Hollister, and Field Marshall Kerchner.
Phil Berg and an associate are trying to file an amicus in the appeal Hollister v. Soetero. Expect a denial by the Court of Appeals any day now.
“I don’t disagree. I think an auto dealer will have trouble meeting the Court’s holding in Newman as an ‘interested person’.”
Bingo!
Sorry, I meant to say: “I realize that quoro warranto wouldn’t work…
Slart said “I do think that it is possible that in the run up to the 2012 election that a case will be heard (and lost).”
Slart, it has already been heard and lost on the merits in the Court of Appeals in Indiana, a state appellate court that was not limited by the Article III restrictions on standing and Case or Controversy.
The case was brought in a state court of general jurisdiction. It looked at all the arguments and dismissed them, and the appellate court affirmed. It has already been decided on the merits at least once.
“Lot’s of luck on the arguments on quo warranto by military officers. They have no interest in occupying the office of President.”
The holding in Newman does not require the to have an interest in occupying the office of President. If it did, the Court would have used the word “and”. But they didn’t. They used the word “or”.
“claim in the office OR interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States. [emphasis added]
BTW, to newcomers, JT is an authority on impeachment, and was a leading constitutional expert who testified during the 1990s on the Clinton case. The impeachment authority is powerful. If a sitting President had actually forged his birth certificate to conceal birth overseas, that would trigger an impeachment proceeding. So, there is a remedy. But this has not happened, so there will be no impeachment process.
The other birfernotions, like dual citizenship and two-parent, are just crank constitutional “theories.” They are similar to the folks who say the President must be male because the Constitution says that “he” shall take the oath.
If the birthers do not like it, put in a proposed amendment to require birth in the US to two citizen parents as a qualification for the Presidency.
As I said, Rich, lot’s of luck. Gotta go.
“If a sitting President had actually forged his birth certificate to conceal birth overseas”.
In Obama’s case, for him to supply the State of Hawaii with a false birth report, filed on Aug. 8th 1961, would have been an incredible feat for a 4 day-old infant. If a false birth report was filed it would have had to be filed by a parent or adult relative. If the information contained in block 18a and 19a of the certificate of live birth on file with the DOH were to be released, this would answer the question.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=30mwjyx.jpg
Does the public interest outweigh the privacy consideration? Who would be distressed by the release of this information?
During the 2004 election for Senate, the MSM sued to have the divorce records of Jack Ryan unsealed.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102872/
“In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public’s right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.”
Did the MSM sue to find out who affirmed Obama’s birth? Would disclosure of the name of the person who affirmed Obama’s birth cause Obama such emotional distress that the public’s right of access should be denied?
Question: if the state of Hawaii in fact holds president Obama’s birth certificate in accordance to state policy and procedures and it proves once and for all he was born in Hawaii and further more proves he is a natural born citizen.
WHY NOT SHOW THAT ONE INSTEAD OF THE ONE ON THE INTERNET.
I think thats a fair question, don’t you?
67% “Yes” — 33% “No”
http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F
Elaine M
you, as a retired teacher I was wondering, have you ever reviewed the books promoted by Kevin Jennings, the school Safety Czar appointed by Obama. There is a campaign that started today in quest of his immediate removal. Links to the books are located at the bottom of this open letter.
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=34977§ion=Cathcom
Some of the headlines that are burning up the internet are.
Fistgate: Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s 2000 Conference Promoted “Fisting” to 14 Year-Olds (audio-video)
Breaking: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s Question to 14 Year Olds: “Spit vs. Swallow?… Is it Rude?” (audio-video)
Explosive: The not-safe-for-school reading list of the safe schools czar; Plus: GLSEN sponsors gay Santa play
I wonder what was in the back of Obama’s mind when he appointed this child molester.
Rich S. is the latest incarnation of Jim Byrne, he’s working hard to write differently but it comes through. Bdaman is as he says, just earning some money throwing up shit and hoping some of it stinks. Ib both instances we have moved far beyond the political and into the realm of “Wonderland” where down is up and up is down. We can argue with these fools forever and they will still lie and obfuscate. Hatred is a terrible thing and these two are filled with it.
The cold storm system dropping from the northeast out of Canada will be unusual since the coldest temperatures will bypass Northern California communities such as Red Bluff and Redding but drop Sacramento Valley temperatures Monday to a record 27 degrees.
That’s the coldest for Dec. 7 since the National Weather Service began tracking temperatures in Sacramento in1849.
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2374422.html
Hong Kong
December 2, 2009
Weather
November coldest since 1981
November was cooler than usual with a mean temperature of 20.5 degrees Celsius, 0.9 degrees below normal, the Hong Kong Observatory says.
November 17 was the first cold day with daily minimum temperature of 12 degrees or below – the earliest winter since 1981.
http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/environment/091202/txt/091202en04004.htm
Mike S.,
You have more patience than I do trying to deal with trolls like Bdaman who do not work in the fact based world. This latest defamation of the Schools Czar is just outrageous. And to think Bdaman is getting some of this crap from a Catholic blog site is even more outrageous. Especially since the Catholic Church has such a clean history of dealing with the truth. Just ask all of those kids who were abused by priests who were hidden from law enforcement.
Rafflaw
Blame Bush
Bdaman,
Bush has already done his damage, but you are continuing the falsehoods for what possible reason? Are you well paid for your crimes against the country? What did the Nixon people call it during Watergate? Do you also get your kicks by ordering pizza’s under assumed names? Wouldn’t intentional lies be a mortal sin according to the Church? The good Benedictine Nuns always told me lying was a sin. Maybe the Pope can give you absolution since you are doing the Lord’s work….by Vatican and RNC standards at least.
bdaman–
I’m a retired teacher. I don’t spend my time reviewing books promoted by Kevin Jennings. I do spend time writing reviews of children’s books–especially poetry books–writing children’s poetry and political poems…and, most importantly, penning light verse about issues discussed on Professor Turley’s blog. JT is my muse.
Elaine,
I think most here would agree that penning light verse on issues from this blog is a much better use of your time than looking into anything that Bdaman posts. Maybe you could write a poem on the climate change emails for him.
Bdaman,
The temperature here has dropped significantly since nightfall, I guess the earth is cooling – at this rate we’ll be at absolute zero in a little over a month!
Slatibart,
I like your suggestion about the climate change emails. I will be watching for Elaine’s latest jingles!
rafflaw–
Don’t know if I’m up for ClimateGate email jingles. I just wrote a parody of The Jabberwocky–one more poem in my series of Turley Blog Competition Verses.
You can read it at this posting–
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/06/turley-blog-adds-cloaking-abilities-in-aba-competition/
There’s no such thing as global warming–according to Tom Jones It’s Cold Outside!!!
Elaine,
Your poem was great. Let me know when the swords get here!
By the way, I saw Tom Jones this summer at an outdoor venue North of Chicago. He was still great.
Raff what falsehoods, prefer you say lies never liked hoods.
Why yes Elaine, it is the childrens books promoted by Jennings I’m specifically talking about.
The temperature here has dropped significantly since nightfall, I guess the earth is cooling – at this rate we’ll be at absolute zero in a little over a month!
The question is, will this break any records.
Like theses
Snow and record cold Temps in Sacramento – 6 Dec 09
Potential blizzards and record snows in CA, UT, CO, AZ, KS, NE, SD, IA, MN, IL,
WI and MI – 6 Dec 09
Massive snowstorm and brutal cold – 6 Dec 09
Record low obliterated in Virginia”Old record of 18F set in 1969. New record of 11.3F last night – 6 Dec 09
Earliest snowfall on record in Southwest Louisiana – 5 Dec 09
Bdaman,
Lies it is then. Your info on the so-called School Czar is full of lies. Of course, you already know that.
bdaman
FYI–Some excerpts from an AP article posted this morning:
Decade of 2000s was warmest ever, scientists say (12/7/2009)
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
It dawned with the warmest winter on record in the United States. And when the sun sets this New Year’s Eve, the decade of the 2000s will end as the warmest ever on global temperature charts.
Warmer still, scientists say, lies ahead.
Through 10 years of global boom and bust, of breakneck change around the planet, of terrorism, war and division, all people everywhere under that warming sun faced one threat together: the buildup of greenhouse gases, the rise in temperatures, the danger of a shifting climate, of drought, weather extremes and encroaching seas, of untold damage to the world humanity has created for itself over millennia.
************
The warming seas were growing more acid, too, from absorbing carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas in an overloaded atmosphere. Together, warmer waters and acidity will kill coral reefs and imperil other marine life — from plankton at the bottom of the food chain, to starfish and crabs, mussels and sea urchins.
Over the decade’s first nine years, global temperatures averaged 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees F) higher than the 1951-1980 average, NASA reported. And temperatures rose faster in the far north than anyplace else on Earth.
The decade’s final three summers melted Arctic sea ice more than ever before in modern times. Greenland’s gargantuan ice cap was pouring 3 percent more meltwater into the sea each year. Every summer’s thaw reached deeper into the Arctic permafrost, threatening to unlock vast amounts of methane, a global-warming gas.
Less ice meant less sunlight reflected, more heat absorbed by the Earth. More methane escaping the tundra meant more warming, more thawing, more methane released.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/decade_s_end_climate
The phenomena is mislabeled. Not incorrect, just incomplete. It shouldn’t be called “global warming”. That’s inaccurate. It should be called “global thermocline instability”. Because that’s what global warming is. It isn’t “it’s going to be a mild winter!” It’s “we’re making the weather unstable.”
Hasn’t been any warming since 1998, hide the decline.
Your propaganda hasn’t been working so hide the problem (systemic instability) in one data point (the most incomplete picture possible). Then apply with smears and distortions.
Puppet.
Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”
Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”
http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html
bdaman:
this one is for you:
bdaman–
What are the titles of the children’s books promoted by Jennings that your “specifically” talking about?
Queer 13
Being Different
The Full Spectrum
Revolutionary Voices
Reflections of a Rock Lobster
Passages of Pride
The Order of the Poison Oak
In Your Face
Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son
Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth
This issue has nothing to do with gayness or straightness, which is irrelevant. The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.” Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN and the School Safety Czar.
And this is not about censorship: It’s about deciding what constitutes appropriate reading material for children. I’m perfectly OK with these books existing and being read by adults. These books are assigned to children. All sorts of books are excluded from school reading lists, for all sorts of reasons. Even many books once considered classics are now considered off-limits due to language or attitudes now deemed inappropriate. And yet, according to Kevin Jennings and GLSEN, books about a 13-year-old getting “my cock sucked and my ass fucked” or about a teenager enjoying the “exquisite bitter taste” of his friend’s semen are not just acceptable, they’re highly recommended. As GLSEN’s own site says, “All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.” Really?
It is sick and sadisitic that these books are written to target children when they are most impressionable.
Right back at ya Byron. Who would ever thought the USSR would break up. Think it can’t happen here, think again. Right here, right now.
bdaman–
I haven’t read any of these books. Are they books written for young adults…adults? The children’s books that I read and review are mostly picture and poetry book published for children in the elementray grades.
Sorry, but I can’t give you my opinion of books that I have not read.
Neither can he, Elaine.
The point proven here is that the GLSEN reading list promotes the sexualization of children in general, regardless of the “orientation.”
The bigoted troll has found a new target in his neverending search to mouth the lies of his preferred party line. As usual it is nonsense. The States consisting of the Bible Belt continue to lead the nation in teenage pregnancy, STD’s and teenage sexuality. This despite the fact that they are the ones most pushing “abstinence education.” They also lead the nation in divorce rate.
US history is replete with hypocritical con-men who provide cover in their ruses by claiming to protect children. High on the list of their
weaponry is the utter nonsense that children are “innocent” sexually and are then polluted by adults. While there is a percentage of child
sexual exploitation that exists and should be dealt with harshly, the majority of children find out about sex from their peers at an early age. This is because the sexual drive in humanity is so strong that even pre-teens and adolescents. However, the Fundamentalists must deny this as they turn Jesus teachings from their social direction, to those of Paul which focussed on the sexual so as not to upset prevailing power structures.
Bdaman is “shocked” by Mr. Jennings and his daring to endorse adolescent books with sexual content, but he is perfectly content to have people die for lack of health care, in unneeded wars and because of corporate malfeasance. He is eagerly overly-enthusiastic about spouting the latest lies and propaganda of those who would destroy this country and the legitimacy of its political system. Whether he does this for pay, general stupidity, or his own proven bigotry almost becomes irrelevant, except to expose his own limited ability to think clearly.
Spelling correction:
“elementray” should have been spelled “elementary” in my comment today at 10:37 am.
Mike S.–
Well said.
With subjects like teenage sex and global warming–there are those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand. Let’s not talk about taking precautions or using protection in sex ed–let’s tell kids to “just say no” in abstinence-only programs.
Regarding global warming: I will repeat that I think it’s logical to conclude that our planet will grow warmer if we continue to increase the level of CO2 in our atmosphere. To me–it’s as simple as that.
jonathanturley
1, December 7, 2009 at 11:52 am
BIL, Mike S and the others on this thread:
I have to ask that we drop the personal stuff. There is simply no reason to personalize these comments. What makes this site unique is the civility that we maintain. I cannot follow all of the threads when I am busy raising pod people with Elaine (the soil maintenance alone is incredible). I just now saw that this got way out of line sometime back. Let’s end the thread and drop the personal stuff (unless it is about competing blogs of course).
No, Im sorry Elaine, here is what they recommend
The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/K-6.html
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/7-12.html
JT Said,
You realize that some of us here have a fairly good memory? and that all of us have easy access to the original post by JT?
It’s not a good idea to misquote something that everyone can and probably has read very recently.
Makes you look less then honest.
I think I’ll let the Prof speak for himself.
He has no problem doing so. I’ve seen him do it. If the heat in this particular kitchen is too much for JTSAYS, you know how the saying goes . . .
At least I’m not looking at it from behind.
Bdaman is “shocked” by Mr. Jennings and his daring to endorse adolescent books with sexual content, but he is perfectly content to have people die for lack of health care,
bdamook,
1) You assume I’m homosexual. I’m not.
2) You assume I’d be offended at being a homosexual. I’m not. Pairing off to bump unmentionables can be a ridiculous and frustrating enterprise or the best ride at the carnival regardless of gender or sexual orientation. People are funny that way. Funny as in peculiar.
3) You assume your hatred is winning the day. It’s doing just fine at illustrating what you are. But winning? lol That’s just funny. Untrue too. I provided proof for my assertions. You? You flail about like a monkey with Tourette’s and revel that I was asked not to hurt you too badly. It’s entertaining, but as substantial as cotton candy.
4) You assume. But unlike the old trope, only the speaker is making an ass of themselves in the instant case. On the plus side, you’re good at it.
I’m even better at alliteration than you, Mr. Ass Joke.
bdaman–
I haven’t read many of the books on the K-6 list. Here are the titles of some of the ones that I have read. They are quality children’s books, which I have in my own personal library and would recommend to teachers and parents.
- The Hundred Dresses was a Newbery Honor Award Book in 1945. It’s about classmates being unkind to a child who is poor…and about not standing up for what is the right thing to do.
- The Story of Ferdinand, written by Munro Leaf & illustrated by Robert Lawson, is considered a classic.
- The Recess Queen, And to Think That We Thought That We’d Never Be Friends, Chrysanthemum, Cherries and Cherry Pits, Yoko, The Van Gogh Cafe. Most of these books are about issues many children deal with during childhood–bullying, being teased, being different from other kids. They’re not just “message” books, they tell good stories.
Have you read these books?
Who dat say dat Greenhouse Gasses are bad for a body?
The EPA. Dat who.
Yeah, cheri. Science will put the gris-gris on you deniers!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20091207/climate-epa/
Damn those pesky scientists and their facts! But don’t worry. Even Arthur Clarke said that science you are incapable of understanding may appear like magic, Lil’ Climate Deniers. So it’s still magical for your lot anyway.
Kinda.
here is some info on QALY – Quality Adjusted Life Years. Is this a good idea?
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/glossary/QALY.html
http://heapol.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/5/402
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC317370/
JTSays,
JT has also talked about the inappropriateness of bigotry and the use of the “NeT” to disclose personal facts about people. JT has said a lot, on many subjects, but you choose to quote a very few out of context. As for his raising pod people, I’d look in the mirror and see the greenish tinge of your skin and I know JT didn’t raise you.
Orly Taitz has appealed to international law:
QUOTES ON
Geneva:
Today the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that American attorney Dr. Orly Taitz has applied for urgent action under the mandate for human rights defenders.
Dr. Taitz, a well known Constitutional attorney, has been under increasing attack in the United States from groups and individuals opposed to her legal actions challenging the Constitutional qualifications of Barrack Hussein Obama to hold the office of President of the United States.
The California attorney has been the victim of death threats, vandalism, false complaints, and a suspected assassination attempt. Her reports to law enforcement and the judiciary have been ignored.
This office has been retained by Dr. Taitz to support her efforts for a UN investigation of her claims.
For more information contact:
Dr. Jonathan Levy
Attorney
1629 K Street NW Suite 300
Washington DC 20006 USA
UNQUOTE
Orly’s lawyer’s full name is Jonathan Hans Levy.
He says he is a graduate of William Howard Taft University. Wiki says that “William Howard Taft University is a private online university headquartered in Santa Ana, California. Founded in 1976 as a source of continuing education for certified public accountants (CPAs), the school expanded into a specialized distance education university that now offers multiple academic programs of study.”
These online outfits may suffice to get someone into the California bar, but no other state recognizes them.
Levy says that he is licensed in DC.
Dist. of Columbia Active 2002 10/01/2009
But DC does not license attorneys who are not graduates of accredited law schools.
http://www.dcappeals.gov/dccourts/docs/rule46c3_admission_on_motion-without_exam.pdf
An attorney can only be licensed in DC if she or he “has been awarded a J.D. or L.L.B. degree by a law school which , at the time of the awarding of the degree, was approved by the American Bar Association.”
William Howard Taft University is not on the list of approved ABA law schools:
http://www.abanet.org/legaled/approvedlawschools/alpha.html
I am an Active Member of the D.C. Bar, admitted by examination in 1973, and a graduate of GW Law School (J.D. 1971), an accredited law school which boast Jonathan Turley as a member of it Faculty.
I REALLY DO NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT AN UNACCREDITED LAW SCHOOL “GRADUATE” IS A MEMBER OF THE DC BAR.
I went to the Find A Member page of the DC Bar and looked up Levy [you can look me up too, since it is a public website and public list]:
http://www.dcbar.org/find_a_member/index.cfm
Jonathan H Levy Ph.D.
Attorney at Law
37 Royal Pointe Dr.
Hilton Head Island SC 29926
Email: resistk@yahoo.com
Phone: 202-318-2406
Fax: 202-318-2406
Membership Status: Active
Disciplinary history: No
Date of admission: February 11, 2002
Dr. Jonathan Harris Levy
1629 K Street NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 318-2406
Legal Experience: 17 years
Law School: William Howard Taft University
Jurisdictions: 9th Circuit, California, USDC ND CA, District of Columbia, U.S. Supreme Court, US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces , 11th Circuit, US Court of International Trade, England & Wales, 10th Circuit, USDC CD CA
Dr. Levy is licensed in the US and England as an attorney and solicitor. He is on the faculty at two US graduate schools and instructs courses on Diplomacy and Law. Dr. Levy is considered one of the world’s leading experts on topics such as the Vatican Bank and Exile Governments. He is the author of a book on The Intermarium, a geopolitical plan for east central Europe.
Jurisdictions
Location Year Admitted
9th Circuit 1992
California 1992
USDC ND CA 1992
District of Columbia 2002
U.S. Supreme Court 2002
US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2004
11th Circuit 2005
US Court of International Trade 2007
England & Wales 2008
10th Circuit 2009
USDC CD CA 2009
You can’t be a lawyer in DC unless you graduate from an accredited law school.
I am interested in finding out the loophole in this case.
D.C. Bar
Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law
Hours of Operation
Mondays-Fridays: 9:00am-4:00pm
Location
Historic Courthouse
430 E Street NW, Room 123
Washington, D.C. 20001
Main Contact
Phone: (202) 879-2777
Taft is not, and was not, accredited by ABA.
Levy has a site:
http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/dr-jonathan-harris-levy-166507
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27277636/Immediate-Release-February-22-2010
As I said, I am interested in how a Taft grad got admitted.
And I posted his entire screed at 6:49 PM
We would all be interested in hearing from Dr. Levy at this site.
A lot of stuff is being kicked back by the site robot.
Levy links to the site for site for Brimstone & Co. QUOTE ON
We Keep Our Heads While All Around Us Are Losing Theirs.
Barrister, Solicitors, Advocates and Attorneys
International Legal Consultants & Foreign Law Experts
A Qualified International Law Firm
Brimstone? DC and NIGERIA? An unaccredited law grad admitted to practice law in DC? What is this stuff? You can’t make it up.
This has been another newsbreak exclusive to the Turley Blog.
©™®
Foreign laws and litigation are no problem with the expert help and assistance available from Brimstone & Co. No longer is it necessary to blindly engage foreign legal counsel that has no stake or care if you win or lose. In today’s volatile economy there is no margin for errors or mistakes. Out moded ways, Dickensian law offices, and obtuse attorneys no longer need be tolerated. We speak your language, the lingua franca of winning not billing. We are a post modern firm that makes use of 21st Century advances in legal technology and knowledge to provide you an eclectic array of services and expertise.
Let Brimstone & Co. be your partners in mastering foreign law issues including:
Offshore Finance
Defaulted Bonds or Debt Instruments
Asset Recovery
International Organizations and Tribunals
Complex Transnational Litigation
International Criminal Defense
Asset Protection
Corporate Structures
Anti Money Laundering
and many more…
BRIMSTONE & CO. is a multijurisdictional law firm – primary licenses in Washington DC and Nigeria.
William Howard Taft University School of Law (Santa Ana, CA)
Note: law school alumni counts are based only on data provided to Avvo by lawyers and state bars. This data does not reflect all graduates from each school.
Summary
Total Alumni 105
Active 95
Inactive 10
Deceased 1
Judges 0
Disciplinary Sanctions 0
Average Avvo Rating 6.14
“Taft Law School, through The Taft University System, is institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council.”
http://www.taftu.edu/TLS/gi4.htm
The law school’s own site. Go find the ABA accreditation.
Anywhere.
Bye. Be back.
Vince are you getting discarded notices when you try to post
I added dot. won’t let me post link as copied
http://www.avvodotcom/attorneys/20006-dc-jonathan-levy-705127.html
50% International Law
14 years, 120 cases (5 examples)
25% Criminal Defense
19 years, 300 cases
25% Administrative Law
17 years, 500 cases
Vince:
as an engineer some states will grant licensure based on time worked if you don’t go to an accredited school. It typically takes 4 years of practice after college but say you went to a technical college they may make you work for 8 or 10 years after school before they allow you to take your PE test. That may be the loop hole or something similar.
The rules for lawyers are different from those for engineers.
I posted the rule for lawyers in DC above.
The DC Bar was created by the law in 1970 called Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
The first class under the new bar was sworn in 1973, and I was in it, so by happenstance I have been a member of the DC Bar for its entire existence.
I think you should contact them and ask them WTF.
Bdaman,
I am sure that they can help get you in contact with a relative of the prince of the Sahara Desert that has 450 million and will share the same with you but needs an advance of 5k.
That guy is a crazy liar:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obama-treason-trial-mark-your-calendar/
Oh , hi AY. How you been buddy. How’s the snow goin in Tex-Ass
To the lawyers and nonlawyers reading this, I want to explain the the DC Bar is an “integrated” bar. That means that its membership is not volutary. Anyone who wants to practice law in DC must be a member. I am also a member of the Virginia State Bar, which is similar.
The DC Bar differs from the state bars in that it was created by Congress, not by a State, under the District Clause of the Constitution. It allows attorneys from other states to waive in if they have been admitted to another state for five years, or have taken a bar exam. The requirement for law school graduation was intended to ensure a minimum level of competence to protect the public.
There appears to be a loophole that let this guy Levy in, based on at least five years of membership in the California Bar, which allows correspondence and online students like Orly to take the bar. It is a disgrace that this guy was licensed. He has now filed a totally frivolous and unfounded document with a foreign body. It will be dismissed and ignored in short order.
Nothing adverse has happened to Orly except in her own mind. She has filed repeated unfounded lawsuits which have all been properly dismissed. She has full opportunity to appeal those adverse rulings. She faces proceedings before the CA Bar before the end of the month.
Orly has also filed a proceeding in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. She filed it pro se, that is, on her own behalf with herself as plaintiff, so that she does not have to be a member to the DC Bar. It purports to be a quo warranto proceeding. It is another frivolous and incoherent filing.
We all came out of Africa so they are all our relatives.
Now there is an online source for Orly’s quo warranto:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26822540/1-2-3-4-5-6-7
“she’s demanding that the court force Obama to turn over all his records–from the long-form birth certificate, high school files, passport applications, etc.–by a specific deadline: Feb. 26. Why that day? Orly explains:
In Georgia Presiding judge Clay D. Land tried to intimidate Taitz and stop her from filing any more legal actions against Obama by threatening $10,000 sanctions if she files any more legal actions on behalf of members of the military against Obama.
When Taitz filed a motion for stay of deployment of her client Captain Connie Rhodes, pending re-consideration of her case, Judge Land has assessed $20,000 against her and has written a denigrating order.
Order from Judge Land was forwarded to the CA bar and her answer is due by February 26.”
See the full story at the EXCELLENT Native and Natural Born Citizen site:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/ocweekly-orly-taitz-in-danger-of-disbarment/
So Orly must answer to the CA Bar by the end of February.
Vince have you looked at the cases Levy has argued?
View case details
Levy v. CIA
July 15, 2001
Location:
Cincinnati, OH
Practice Area:
International Law
Plaintiff (Jonathan’s party):
Jonathan Levy In Pro Se
Outcome:
Declassification of secret files by CIA and Army
Description:
The Freedom of Information case filed by Levy was transferred from San Francisco federal court to Cincinnati. “…
Levy v United States Postal Service
Location:
Washington, DC
Practice Area:
International Law
Plaintiff (Jonathan’s party):
Jonathan Levy obo Client
Outcome:
Investigation for Terrorism Closed, File Obtained
Description:
Client was accused of sending three white powder anthrax letter death threats from England to law enforcement officials in California. Freedom of…
Rhodes v. MacDonald
Practice Area:
Appeals
Other (Jonathan’s party):
Dr. Orly Taitz
Outcome:
Pending in 11 th Circuit
Description:
Appeal of Rule 11 sanctions against leading public interest attorney Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq by the Middle District Court of Georgia.
The AVVO gives him a Rating: 7.4 (Very Good) Is there any weight to that rating?
The link above was to Orly’s (frivolous) motion for preliminary injunction.
This is her (frivolous and incoherent} quo warranto and mandamus:
http://files.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/news/2010/01/orly2.pdf
I rest my case.
Bda, get real. The case of Rhodes v. McDonald that you list in that posting was and is a galloping disaster. I predicted a dismissal of that case, in writing, on this website. The case was dismissed, Connie Rhodes fired Taitz, Taitz was fined $20,000, and she faces a bar hearing in CA on Feb. 26. If this is a “success,” for Levy, then nothing can ever be a failure.
I just posted that he is representing her appeal in the Rhodes case and it appears he has far more court room experience than she does. Nothing more, nothing less. I’m just as curious as you are to why he is licensed in the DC Court if he fails to meet the qualification. Maybe professor Turley knows. I suggested that you being a member that you call to find out. Please let us know what you find.
The issue is still alive.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii+gets+persistent+requests+for+Obama+birth+certificate
The Hawaiian officials are being persistently harassed by legions of birthers. The official are doing their jobs and apply the law.
The appeal is going to lose, no matter how much courtroom experience that Dr. Levy has. The D.C. Bar has chosen to adopt a rule and to admit to practice a person who never went to law school. He is just a guy who took “distance learning” and passed a bar exam. I don’t like it, but that is their policy.
His appeal to Geneva has no basis in law or fact. That body has no jurisdiction in the United States. This is not the practice of law.
It is a publicity stunt.
I betcha’ you cain even get an advanced degree in Taf(f)t(y) pullin’ at that institute of ‘hire’ learnin’
Quote:
“5. Q. I’m a current law student. Will the accreditation allow me to take the bar examination in states other than California?
A.
Unfortunately, no. Outside of California, qualification to sit for the Bar Examinations is generally based on graduation from an institution approved by the American Bar Association.
The ABA has chosen not to review its ban on approving distance education courses which goes back to the 1950’s. In our opinion, ABA approved schools realize if they allow distance education to expand nationally they will not be able to continue to justify the tuition rates for Juris Doctor programs which average in excess of $80,000 nor the faculty salaries which often exceed $100,000 per year. In addition, most state bar associations are controlled by attorneys who desire to limit the number of attorneys in their state. Attorney admittance to bars outside of California is more of a political issue relating to limiting competition rather than any concern for consumer protection. Don’t expect any change in these rules in the foreseeable future.
However, even under current rules, California attorneys who have practiced in California for a certain period of time become eligible to sit for the Bar examination in many states even without graduation from an ABA approved law school. California attorneys can also qualify to sit for the Wisconsin Bar examination immediately upon being admitted in California.
Some Taft law graduates have been admitted to and graduated from Master of Laws (LL.M.) programs at law schools approved by the American Bar Association. Accreditation will make this process easier. Graduation from such programs may qualify individuals to sit for the bar examination in a majority of states.”
End Quote
Thanks, FFLEO. That is a very telling quotation.
FFELO,
Aye, seconded on Vince. Great find.
And this is from poster Terrible Tom at DailyKos, Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 05:42:37 PM PST:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/22/839675/-Crazy-Orly-asks-UN-for-protection-from-persecution
“And leave it to the Rt. Hon.* Dr. Jonathan Levy, Esq. to do the heavy shoveling here. It’s hardly surprising that Orly and Levy are fellow graduates of the Taft Online Skool of Legalistic Incantations and Ideations, is it?”
“__ * Honorific prefix in deference to Dr. Levy’s purpoted high status as an important government official for the non-existent Republic of Calinda. Two peas in a pod.”
Pardon me, Right Honorable JH Levy. Art thou properly addressed as “Your Worship”?
There must be something in a Taft Law degree if it can propel one into the highest ranks of the Republic of Calinda.
From the article Vince linked:
“I’m with Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent, who notes that ‘the irony of Taitz appealing to the hated organ of world government for this really goes without saying.’ And don’t think her quickly dwindling number of supporters haven’t noticed; even the Freepers have had enough of this lunatic, with one former supporter noting, ‘Uh oh. Crossing now into coocoo land.’”
This thread is a comedy gift that just keeps on giving!
Right, BIL.
Orly has appealed to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Let us pause and relish this classic example of George Orwell’s concept of “double think.” That, of course, is “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
The person must hold positions that are mutually exclusive. She must believe in both concepts passionately and fervently. SHE MUST BE TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT THE BELIEFS ARE INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY.
Now we have Orly Taitz, the “crusader” who passionately believes that the President is not a natural born citizen, and that he must be exposed and deposed to prevent “foreign” influence in the United States.
What does she do? She appeals to a foreign body, inviting it to attempt to interfere and disrupt a lawful national election. What does she expect the UN Office to do? Will it send “peacekeeping” troops in blue helmets and black helicopters to order the President to step down because he is not American enough? Will it reverse the court decisions that have ruled against her? Will it shove the entire US law enforcement establishment aside to investigate her “harassment” charges and punish the wrongdoers?
The UN will do all of this to ensure that the US President is “natural born” in the twisted minds of the birfers?
Yeah, sure, right.
Taitz and her lawyer, the Right Honorable Doctor Jonathan Hans Levy, are both grads of Taft Law School.
Was there ever a better argument for the ABA to accredit law schools,and for bar associations to prohibit grads of online or correspondence schools from admission?
Mutually contradictory beliefs. Passionate belief in both. Total ignorance of the conflict.
As Kurt Vonnegut might have said, Orwell is up in heaven, smiling this morning.
Fast Forward to the 38 minute mark.
Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district.
Booth presented a Certificate of Live Birth from 1949, in which her husband was born at Kapi-olani Hospital, 12 years before Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani — showing that the state of Hawaii issued LONG FORM CERTIFICATE’S OF LIVE BIRTH in 1949.
In 1949, Kapiolani was listed on the Certificate of Live Birth as Kapiolani Mat. & Gyn. Hospital at 1929 Vancouver Drive, which is the previous Kapi-olani address in existence when Barack was allegedly born in 1961, not quite a mile to the East of the current Kapiolani Hospital built in the 1970s. Yet, Obama and his sister Maya conflictingly and at different times, released that Barack was born in Queen’s as well as Kapi’olani, despite Queen’s being 1.6 miles away.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/291974-1
bd, you have posted this misinformation before. It has been rebutted. You are still wrong. There were two hospitals in Honolulu named for Queens. Obama and his sister have consistently said that he was born at Queen Kapi’olani’s hospital.
His sister NEVER said that he was born at the other Queens hospital. I proved to all here that the source of that factoid was a statement by a high school reporter in a Rainbow newsletter, not a quotation by Obama’s sister.
The stuff in the post is not apparent on the link to C-SPAN’s coverage of the tea-baggers. The tea-baggers would be very ill advised to embrace this birther nonsense.
Hawaii stopped issuing the “Certificates” in 2001 when they converted the system. Any and ALL persons who request a copy of their birth records in that State today are issued a “Certification” or COLB, just like the one issue to Obama.
Under federal law, the COLB meets all the requirements of a valid birth certificate.
To the lawyers reading this, there is, in fact, a federal statutory definition of the term “birth certificate.” It is in Section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-434, 118 Stat. 3825, Dec. 17, 2004.
The definition in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
The same definition can be found in Public Law 104-208, sec. 656, 110 Stat. 3009-716 through 110 Stat. 3009-720, Sep. 30, 1996:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/pl104_208.pdf
“…Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani….”
Three lies in 12 words.
Obama’s birth in Kenya is a false allegation.
Obama’s birth in Indonesia is a false allegation.
Obama’s birth at Queen’s is a false allegation.
The truth is that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, USA, in 1961 at the major maternal hospital named for Queen Kapi’olani.
The truth is the Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.
The truth is that Obama is the President of the United States of America.
I’m just messin with ya Vince, if I didn’t post the stuff I do we wouldn’t have your excellent rebuttals.
Obamas Nana falsely reported his birth in Hawaii. Nothing that has been presented refutes that.
Hooch,
Been smokin again? How do you refute the proposition that you presented? Prove to me that you are not from the planet Xenos? I would like proof positive by the end of the evening….
Hooch, this is a legal site, where the burden of proof is on the proponent.
You asserted that the grandmother falsely reported.
Now prove it.
Otherwise, we will conclude that your assertion is false.
There is no proof of this assertion. It is just an assertion, and nothing more.
Dick Cheney has been eating paint chips again. Now he is in the hospital. Nothing that has been presented refutes that.
Hooch,
Really, man. If you have had so much to drink you think that you’re a time traveling auntie-psychic, it’s time to lay off the booze. But while you’re mind reading, how about getting her biscuit recipe?
Unless you’re that dead dog from that crappy Tom Hanks movie.
Which would go a long way to explaining your logic – such as it is.
One usually has to be a dead dog to perform analysis with such concision and clarity. I have it on good authority that one of the reasons Vince has been so effective in dismantling all the ridiculous birther claptrap is because he is in fact a zombie Great Dane channeling the sprit of Justice Learned Hand. Hey, if you’re going to make shit up, go all out!
Hmmm. On second thought, no. It must be the booze, because Vince has quite throughly proven this line of “reasoning” vis a vis Obama’s birth status to be hokum used to cover thinly veiled racism. He did so with logic, law and precision analysis.
Over and over again.
Hell, even the pet troll knows this dog doesn’t hunt anymore.
I think Obama is an unconstitutional war criminal protecting other war criminals out of fear of his corporate masters as he is a fascist and a liar with no interest in protecting the Constitution. At this point he deserves impeachment as much as Bush and Cheney still merit criminal charges. If my daughter brought him home, I’d be PISSED. Not because he’s black though. Not because he’s not a citizen of the United States either. But rather because he has all the good character and ethics of a cheap hooker and a spine made of jello.
But Barry IS a citizen.
A lying paid off K Street whore and an amoral torture endorsing douche bag of a citizen, but he is an American douche all the way. Just like Cheney.
By the way, I have some beach front property in Arizona you might be interested in buying if you still believe the birther nonsense. It comes with a free winning Nigerian lottery ticket and an offer for “male enhancement”.
ec, good one.
Continuing the post, the Certification of Live Birth issued to Obama states that it is prima facie evidence of his birth. That means that it is evidence on its face of his birth, unless and until rebutted by probative, admissible evidence to the contrary.
Under Article IV of the US Constitution, all States must give full faith and credit to the public records of the other States. So the evidence of the COLB binds all the other States.
Article IV goes on to say that Congress may by law prescribe the Manner in which such records shall be proved.
Congress has passed such a law prescribing the requirements of a valid birth certificate or record. It is posted in full above.
The Constitution is on the web.
So the laws and Constitution of the State of Hawaii and of the United States say that Obama’s birth certification is valid.
Enough said.
Troll Buster on another thread has called me out. Out of respect for Mr. Treacy and his reemergence as of late,
QUOTE ON
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate providing the name of the hospital in which he was born and other corroborating data which was generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which some unknown person posted on the internet in 2008, or other contemporaneous and objective documentation. At the bottom of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and two unreliable newspaper announcements regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept Obama as a “natural born Citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo
QUOTE OFF
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Bdaman quoting Mario Appuzo:
“Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented”
And where is the contrary evidence that has been presented to (and admissible in) court?
Appuzzo lost his case in trial court. He is appealing, and “won” the right to file an overlong brief. He is going to lose on appeal.
HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS HAVE STATED IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED BY THE STATE AND POSTED ON THE THAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN THAT STATE.
So when Mario says they have “presented no additional evidence” of Obama’s birth in the USA, Mario is telling a barefaced lie.
Sorry to let some reality intrude on this fantasy world.
Go see Avatar for good speculative fiction.
Slart, there is no competent, probative evidence to the contrary, in court or anywhere else.
There is only speculation, innuendo, suspicion, paranoia, and falsehoods.
Bd was very, very excited about the Kenyan birth certificates. They are proven forgeries. Bd has never admitted it.
Pathetic.
Vince,
I know that, I was just making a point to Bdaman. The return of your Dr. Orly updates are most welcome, thanks.
Slart I’m just giving Vince something to debate. He hasn’t been around for a few months and he has just reemerged the last week and a half. Point taken
How amusing (and chilling) it was too see yet more copious postings on this zany topic as I return from my foray in the frozen North. I must add some discord though by commenting on the fact that a recent poll shows that a majority of Republicans do believe that our President is not a citizen. So whether or not the horrid Ms. Taitz has lost her following becomes irrelevant, she has succeeded in her cause. Goebbels was right in believing that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes “fact” to many, despite the ridiculousness of the claim.
Vince, who has done great work in destroying the factual basis for these claims has failed in this one respect. His intelligence, research and reason does nothing to destroy the impervious shell of the ignorant mind. In this case I have longed believed that this ignorance is born from two separate, but equally noxious strains of US political discourse. One is of course a deep set racism, that on its surface is denied by its believers and camouflaged minimally by those realizing that racism may be held but not named.
The other noxious strain is the result of forty years of propaganda backed by the coalition of patricians and corporatists, who have convinced a healthy percentage of the population that “freedom” equates to the control of the elite and the ability to choose between competing products. Literally billions have been spent in this exercise of the “Big Lie” and it has corrupted our political debate by turning relatively neutral words into anathema, thus skewing the debate by controlling its parameters.
FFLEO’s quote:
“The ABA has chosen not to review its ban on approving distance education courses which goes back to the 1950’s. In our opinion, ABA approved schools realize if they allow distance education to expand nationally they will not be able to continue to justify the tuition rates for Juris Doctor programs which average in excess of $80,000 nor the faculty salaries which often exceed $100,000 per year. In addition, most state bar associations are controlled by attorneys who desire to limit the number of attorneys in their state. Attorney admittance to bars outside of California is more of a political issue relating to limiting competition rather than any concern for consumer protection. Don’t expect any change in these rules in the foreseeable future.”
This I believe to be completely accurate in its accusations and yet I must come down on the side of the ABA and “the powers that be.” Were this not true our legal system, which has been bastardized and corrupted, would function even worse. Here down South a traffic ticket brings a minimum of 30 or so brochures from lawyers offering to defend the case for as little as $65. One can easily believe, given the horrid record of drivers from these parts, that the entire enterprise is little more than a con game with all controlling parties in on the action and little regard for the safety of roads and/or citizens.
Make it easier to become a lawyer and we will have a system that acts more as a “bird of prey” picking citizen’s carcasses and less a means of dispensing anything resembling justice.
Nope Nana falsely reported his birf. Cause she did the DOH reported it to the newspapers. It can be proved by looking at the birf certificate. Viola no doctor or hospital. Nana was gonna tell the truth. That is why she died just before the election.
The CPGH Kenya birf certificate is real. It is not a forgery. Mombasa was a brittish protectorate of kenya. The doctor was living in Mombasa in 1961. The hospital did exist when he was birfed. People saying the mombasa birf is a forgery are lying.
Hey Slart off topic
U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes
The panel says it will announce “within the next few days” that it plans to make significant though as yet unexplained changes in how it does business.
In perhaps an indication of what changes the IPCC may unveil, the British government’s official Meteorological Office proposed Monday that the world’s climate scientists start all over again on a “grand challenge” to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data.
So much for peer reviews and global temps.
“Nope Nana falsely reported his birf.”
Hooch,
Thank you for proving my point so accurately and completely. you have done a great service and exemplify the kind of person who has
had so much sway in our national political debate.
Urban Dictionary
Birf:
A word that was invented to replace the new meaning of the word “gay” (stupid, dumb, etc. NOT HOMOSEXUAL).
Example 1: Sheesh, Hooch can be such a birf.
Example 2: A: sometimes Hooch can be so gay.
B: Don’t you mean birf?
So if I am not hooch, does that mean that my cousin amon re is still gay homosexual male? It seems that this is redundant don’t you agree?
I Know Hooch, I have seen Hooch smoke, Hooch is not as bad when he smokes hooch but damn mean when he drinks ethylene.
Wow, this is amazing! The ABA Journal has to ask “Are Ghostwritten Legal Blogs Unethical?”
Quotations on:
Posted Feb 23, 2010 11:03 AM CST
By Molly McDonough
When we asked late last year whether you thought it was ethical for lawyers to ghostwrite legal documents, the results were mixed. With more than 800 readers weighing in (PDF), 60 percent answered that ghostwriting is ethical and happens all the time. Only 14 percent thought it was akin to cheating.
Then earlier this month, we reported on a stir in the legal blogosphere over ghostwritten law blogs.
Mark Bennett wrote on his Social Media Tyro blog that, “holding someone else’s resumé, face, or results out as your own in marketing your practice is fraudulent. No ethical lawyer could possibly think that any of that would be OK. So how is it OK for a lawyer to hire a ghostwriter to write his blog?”
But others have pointed out that lawyers have long relied, without disclosure, on marketing experts to come up with strategies and content for advertising campaigns.
This made us wonder what you think. Is ghostblogging unethical? Does it matter what kind of blog is being produced? Is it OK if there’s disclosure? Unquote.
Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/are_ghostwritten_legal_blogs_unethical
Mark Bennett broke the story:
Rent-A-Brain With Ghostbloggers
Posted on January 28th, 2010 4 comments
Quotation starts
Lawyers: want to juice your stats a little so that clients are more likely to hire you? Have we got a deal for you! GhostWins.com has a stable of excellent but self-effacing lawyers who are willing to let you take public credit for their results. Here’s how it works: you sign up for GhostWins.com, paying $250 per month for syndicated results (which other lawyers might also take credit for) or $500 per month for personalized results. Every week we’ll send you three or four actual successful outcomes in your field of law, which you can then publicize on your website or blog as your own successful outcomes. We all know how potential clients love lawyers who win; with GhostWins.com you create the appearance of being such a lawyer without putting in the many hours of hard work (not to mention good luck) required to win your own cases. Stop quoting.
Source: http://www.ivi3.com/blog/2010/01/rent-a-brain-with-ghostbloggers/
This stuff is great for Taft Law grads like Taits and J. Hans Levy. Taitz seemed to be using a lot of material written for her by her “paralegal” and paramour assistand, Charles Lincoln III. The quality of her filings dropped like a stone when they broke off their fling.
Mike Spindell, I agree with the need for accredited law schools. The distance learning crowd can pad their resumes with distance writing.
Empire Cookie, right, the Urban Dictionary is an excellent site.
It is very clear on this distinction: A “birf” is as described above, but it is a lot different from a birfer and the birfers. They are another breed of cat.
This is not going to help NoProof Hooch.
Slart, I knew that you knew that.
Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site.
There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.
Vince,
While I will stipulate there are “birthers” and “truthers”, there is an important distinction. There are basically only two kinds of birther – the believers and the non-believers. Your work on this thread adequately established beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama’s BC is sufficient legal evidence.
In re the WTC, there is a third category of participant: skeptic. While both “truther” believers and non-believers are represented on that thread, it should be acknowledged there is at least one skeptic there – namely me. I’ve stipulated that Slarti has made a reasonable case. I have also stated it is incomplete – as is Bob’s case – until three symmetrical outcomes from asymmetric events are adequately explained. A reasonable theorem is still just a theorem unless all relevant data points are addressed. Slarti sidesteps symmetry in re orderly collapse. Bob sidesteps complexity in execution of a CD scenario without security breach but he is able to do this “better” because he is not arguing to conclusion but rather to stalemate. As I’ve contended on that thread – and still do – the WTC argument/analysis is non-conclusory as it will remain incomplete (from both sides) absent further evidence.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled de-bunking.
Vince,
Thanks. I’m only trying to follow your example in some small way – I haven’t quite gotten your equanimity down yet, though. I have found that the debate can be rewarding – even if I never convince Bob, I’ve learned quite a bit on a variety of interesting topics and as wrong as Bob might be, he is an extremely skilled debater – after I read one of his posts, he usually makes me doubt myself for a second or two…
Hooch,
Excellent, I look forward to seeing your proof that the CPGH BC is real. I’m sure someone of your integrity can provide affidavits from Kenyan officials confirming its validity as well as a statement from the Hawaii DOH confirming your allegations about Madeline Dunham.
Mike S.,
I totally agree with you about the impossibility of cracking the birther’s shells of ignorance. Several months ago I took all of the stuff I’d learned from Vince and went to post on several birther sites. I discovered that arguing the law in a clam and reasonable manner (I did defend Acorn on one of them – boy did that stir up the anthill
) will get you banned on most birther sites – usually with a parting shot from the site owner that you can’t answer. I find it interesting that people who are so vocal about how they’re the only ones that truly respect and understand the Constitution have so little use for fundamental concepts like free speech. I did find one minor birther blog that didn’t ban me, but I got distracted by something shiny (or by my argument with Bob on another thread…).
Bdaman,
I would point out that this whole thing just shows that the system works – the people who did questionable things are being investigated to determine if they acted unethically and the consensus is being re-examined to eliminate any bad data. I predict that a stronger, more accurate consensus will emerge from this whole process.
What does a COLB for a hospital birf look like. What does a COLB for a home birf look like. No difference. That’s what I was thinking. Both would be the result of filin with the DOH.
Other than Obamas words nothing presented concludes that Nana didn’t file a false report. No statements from hawaii say anything different. you believe what you wanna believe. It isn’t based on evidence.
Vince it’s Jonathan Harris Levy, not Hans. Not that it matters to me, but I know how you strive for perfection.
“you believe what you wanna believe. It isn’t based on evidence.”
Pot meet kettle.
I would point out that this whole thing just shows that the system works –
Slart, the system failed. Had it not been for the stolen or released emails (no determination as of yet) we would not be having this discussion. The fact is the 2007 IPCC report is full of fabrications. So while the IPCC sets the standards, they in turn break the rules.
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0
It looks like this guy Hayworth is trying to step slowly, slowly back out of the tar pit up onto the shore, but he still seems very weaselly. He is trying to put his reputation as a birther to rest, but will only speak in generalities.
He should prepare for the wrath of Taitz.
Start quote:
February 22, 2010
I believe Obama is a U.S. citizen, Hayworth says
Posted: February 22nd, 2010 08:23 PM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
(CNN) – Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth is putting to rest any notion that he is a “birther,” a believer in the unsubstantiated theory that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be president of the United States.
At a press conference Monday, the former congressman was repeatedly asked about recent comments which appeared to suggest he believes Obama was not a citizen.
“I believe that Barack Obama is an American citizen,” Hayworth said.
After several questions Hayworth added, “Barack Obama is the president of the United States.”
Hayworth is challenging Arizona Sen. John McCain in this year’s Republican primary.. [end]
Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/i-believe-obama-is-a-u-s-citizen-hayworth-says/?fbid=W-BTzgXBbhF
Vince: “Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site. There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.”
Why Vince, whatever do you mean?
“So if I am not hooch, does that mean that my cousin amon re is still gay homosexual male? It seems that this is redundant don’t you agree?”
It is not redundant if you are calling your beloved cousin a stupid homosexual, at least according to the Urban Dictionary. Hey, isn’t he the gay funeral director? Is that for real, or does he just have a crush on Michael C. Hall?
Personally, i don’t like the term “gay” for “stupid” and from now on will use the term “birf”. At least when it occurs to me. It seems to fit: birfer and birfers = mind numbingly stupid.
Buddha: “Slarti sidesteps symmetry in re orderly collapse. Bob sidesteps complexity in execution of a CD scenario without security breach but he is able to do this “better” because he is not arguing to conclusion but rather to stalemate.”
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
does not an argument to stalemate make.
The burden is met or it is not.
Or as Yoda would put it: “Do or do not; there is no try.”
By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 23, 9:27 pm ET
PHOENIX – Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.
A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. It would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.
All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.
The idea was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges. She says if people have to prove their citizenship to apply for a job or get a passport, they should have to prove it to run for president.
It is not redundant if you are calling your beloved cousin a stupid homosexual, at least according to the Urban Dictionary. Hey, isn’t he the gay funeral director? Is that for real, or does he just have a crush on Michael C. Hall?
I think he is just sick. The things that he does with his men friends is stupid. You can call him gay for that, I guess. He does be at a Funeral Home most of the times. He say it fun. I do think he is stupid too.
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services | Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:00 am
PHOENIX — The House Government Committee voted Tuesday to require presidential contenders to prove to Arizona’s secretary of state they’re “natural born citizens” to get their names on the ballot.
The 6-1 vote came on the proposal by Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, who said it’s only fair to require those who want to lead our country prove they meet the standards of the U.S. Constitution. She said that, at the very least, it means producing a birth certificate.
“One must have a birth certificate if you’re going to enroll your child in a sports program for school,” Burges said. The same is true of passports.
Burges never mentioned President Obama during Tuesday’s hearing or the controversy over whether he was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii. Another legal theory of “birthers” who have challenged Obama’s right to be president is that even if he was born in Hawaii, he lost his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian and moved the family there.
But Burges previously told Capitol Media Services she has suspicions about Obama’s loyalties, including bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia and a quote from his book — taken out of context — that “when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side.”
Matt Benson, lobbyist for Secretary of State Ken Bennett, said there are all sorts of problems with HB 2441 which now goes to the full House.
First, he said it likely would bring a challenge that Arizona was illegally imposing its own standards on candidates for federal offices. Benson noted that federal courts previously struck down an attempt by Arizona to limit the terms of members of Congress.
Burges responded that 10 other states are considering similar proposals. “So it’s not just Arizona,” she said.
Benson pointed out, though, that what Burges wants isn’t a simple matter of someone coming up with a birth certificate. It requires the secretary of state to examine documents proving eligibility and refuse to list that person on the ballot if there is “reasonable cause to believe the candidate does not meet the citizenship, age and residency requirements prescribed by law.”
He said that provides no clear guideline for his agency to determine if, for example, a copy of a birth certificate is legally sufficient.
The state health department in Hawaii did produce a “short form” birth certificate for Obama, copies of which are available on the Internet. But that has not satisfied some who want to see the original which has never been released.
Linda Lingle, Hawaii’s Republican governor, contends these originals are confidential and the state health director has released a statement that she has seen the original.
I never loved him like you think. I am not gay, oh that make me happy. I could be called gay sometime but not with Hooch and amon Re. They do thing I won’t due. I heard that they started a fire with the rector they was playing with ben gay.
In what could be construed by some as a hypocritical question by FoxNews, reports today that Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm — interviewed by Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” — attempted to justify that her dual citizenship of being born in Canada and holding American citizenship would not disqualify her from being President:
“Your two terms are up at the end of this year. Do you have any interest in moving here to Washington and working in the administration?” he asked.
“Are you offering me a job? No, I …” she said.
“Yes, because I’m a conduit for the Obama White House. Exactly,” Wallace joked.
“No, I’m totally focused this year on creating every single job I can until the last moment,” Granholm said. “December 31st at midnight is when I’ll stop. So I have no idea what I’m going to do next, but I’m not going to run for president. I can tell you that.”
Wallace then pointed out that she would be unqualified to run, anyway.
“We should point out Gov. Granholm is a Canadian and cannot run for president,” he said.
“I’m American. I’ve got dual citizenship,” Granholm corrected him.
After bantering about who she supports in the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Granholm said, “I left Canada when I was 4. Come on.” …
At the Radio Patriot, radio host Andrea Shea King said, “Granholm’s response is indicative of the mistaken belief that because one of her parents is/was a U.S. citizen, she’s eligible.”
“This woman took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Has she even read it?” King wrote.
“With this willful disregard of our founding document, is it any wonder that we have the son of a Kenyan-born British subject in the White House???” she asked.
I don’t think that this would pass a constitutional smell test. A Federal Office Qualifications is not a power to be decided by the states.
And Buddha,
Regarding said security breach:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-114367
Then again, looking for a security breach before forming a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed would be tantamount to looking for signs of breaking & dusting for prints before the claim of an alleged burglary.
Stop eating paint chips hooch/not hooch. The lead is getting to you.
Could you break it down a bit further AY
See the term limit cases that tried to include Federal Office Holders.
See the term limit cases that tried to include Federal Office Holders.
I am not ging to jack this thread.
I saw that in the article and the person in the interview responded by saying Arizona is not the only state that there was ten. I know here in Fla. it has been put out there by Bill Posey. Ring around the rosey pockets in Florida filled with Posey.
So how does one go about making sure the one is eligible to be put on the state ballot?
You know it really doesn’t matter if Obama was born or hatched. He definitely brought us change we can believe in.
Have you seen his new logo for the missile defense shield? He’s already preparing for 2012.
AY whats the difference buddy, we’re just talking. Bob and Buddah are talking a little 9-11 e cookie and Hooch not hooch got there thing goin on. Talk to me. Are you snowed in.
I cannot have nothing going with no female. I know what I is.
you bess b have
Slart and Vince,
I’m just waiting for the day when I get to take someone to the woodshed about the differences in two and six row barley, or the proper resolution of the Neapolitan Sixth chord (the first thing you forget after your Music Theory 102 finale)
So “Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.”
I think I have explained this up above, with full statutory and constitutional citations and quotations.
Hawaii has issued a birth certificate in full compliance with its state laws. It is called the Certification of Live Birth. It prohibits any alterations of this “Certificate.” It is prima facie evidence of birth, and shows birth in the United States.
When this form is presented to state officials, THEY ARE BOUND TO GIVE IT FULL FAITH AND CREDIT BY ARTICLE IV, SECTION 1 OF THE UNITED STATES CONTSITUTION.
I also noted that the same Clause empowers Congress by law to prescribe the manner in which such records shall be proved and the effect thereof.
I will pause while everyone reads the Constitution (and while birthers have it read to them).
Now I have quoted the law and citation by which Congress prescribed the definition of a birth certificate. Scroll up to see it.
Cutting to the chase, when AZ enacts this “law,” or when US Rep Deals bill is enacted, the supporters will feel like those grenade tossers on the other thread. The grenade will hit a wall and bounce back down on them.
The campaign will present the COLB, and the federal and state court judges, who are ALL sworn to uphold the Constitution, will be compelled to rule that it complies with the statutory definition under federal law and with the Constitution.
The AZ legislature cannot dictate to Hawaii how it issues its formal records. It has no choice. It has to give full faith and credit to sister state’s records, just as Hawaii has to give full faith and credit to Hawaiian records. It cannot demand original hospital records, doctor’s and nurse’s statements, or flight manifests of the rocket from Planed Krypton that brought Kal-El and Barack to Earth to carry out Jor-El’s mandate to save all mankind.
Please read it again. The Congress, not the States, is responsible for prescribing by law the manner by which the records of the states are to be proved and the effect thereof. Pardon me for repeating myself.
The legislators all know this. They are just posturing and pandering to the ignorant birthers.
This is delicious irony. The entire issue began in 2008 with questions about McCain’s natural born status. Now McCain himself is running anti-birther TV ads [linked above].
I hope this has been helpful to the readers of this blog.
I am just trying to engage people in a legal discussion.
This is fun.
Man on Man, we like it that way up here in Mo.
Anyway, it appears that the bill has been withdrawn, probably for some of the reasons I mentioned.
See this and other postings at this excellent and superior site:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7657
erratum “…just as Hawaii has to give full faith and credit to Arizonan records…”
It was anybody but Nana. Is that what you’re saying?
I can’t tell you who filed his birf but it couldn’t be Nana.
[Vince Treacy] “Hawaii has issued a birth certificate in full compliance with its state laws. It is called the Certification of Live Birth. It prohibits any alterations of this “Certificate.” It is prima facie evidence of birth, and shows birth in the United States.”
It’s not worth the paper its printed on if proper verification of the reporting document does not occur. Is a gay marriage from one state recognized in all other states?
Vince you missed the part where it says the withdrawal is dated 2-22-10. Not to mention the update at the bottom of the article to which you linked that points to the article to which I posted.
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services | Posted: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:00 am
PHOENIX — The House Government Committee voted Tuesday to require presidential contenders to prove to Arizona’s secretary of state they’re “natural born citizens” to get their names on the ballot.
Gyges said:
“I’m just waiting for the day when I get to take someone to the woodshed about the differences in two and six row barley, or the proper resolution of the Neapolitan Sixth chord (the first thing you forget after your Music Theory 102 finale)”
I don’t even know what this means – although according to Robert I don’t understand sound very well, so I guess it’s not surprising…
Vince,
I’m hoping that the birthers get this type of ‘eligibility verification’ law passed in as many states as possible. The cries of outrage and shock from the birther nation when the Obama campaign breezes into the state capitols and successfully deploys the dreaded COLB will be something to behold. Even better than when Dr. Kate posted an article praising the former marine Judge Carter’s courage and patriotism on the same morning that he dismissed the birther’s case (just as you predicted). If one of the birther lawyers is clever enough to use such a law to get past the procedural hurdles, we might even get lucky enough to see the SCOTUS rule that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen…
Slart Gyges is a connoisseur of hops and barley and is a Fan-Tom of the opera.
[Slartibartfast] “The cries of outrage and shock from the birther nation when the Obama campaign breezes into the state capitols and successfully deploys the dreaded COLB will be something to behold.”
The COLB will not be enough evidence.
For our readers, birth certificates in one state are recognized in all other states, and have to be so recognized, ever since there were birth certificates. These are public records. They have always been is entitled to full faith and credit.
The analogy to gay marriage, a recent phenomena, is completely irrelevant.
The “proper verification of the reporting document,” whatever that means, is a meaningless objection. The COLB was examined by independent news organization and photographed for all to see. It has all the necessary verifications.
Hawaiian official have verified independently that Obama was born in that State and that he is a natural born citizen.
Arizona officials are bound by that, whether they know it or not, or like it or not. The legislature is wasting everyone’s time and money on a frivolous bill for demagogic advantage. It is the proposed bill that is meaningless. It requires the only candidate in 2008 who proved his birthplace and natural born citizen status to prove it again.
If the Secretary of State tries to ban Obama from the ballot, he will be sued so fast and overruled so fast that an Arizona roadrunner will look like it is in slow motion.
I hear the next bill up will change pi to 3.0.
The COLB meets the federal definition of a birth certificate in section 7211.
The federal courts enforce federal law and are sworn to uphold it.
Justice Hooch to the contrary, notwithstanding.
Vince:
I think a state legislature at some point in history tried to do something similar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
already been tried, aint nothing new under the sun.
The AZ legislators seem oblivious to the fact that the Constitution makes the proving of the public records a matter of federal law duly enacted by Congress, not state law.
As the lawyers say, it is textually committed by the express language of the Constitution in our federal system to Congress, not the individual states.
As I said, this will not stop them in AZ. As Abraham Lincoln said, it is like the Pope’s Bull against the Comet.
It is an empty gesture, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Thanks, Byron.
[Vince Treacy] “Hawaiian official have verified independently that Obama was born in that State and that he is a natural born citizen.”
How did they do that? Did they talk to independent witnesses. Or did they just look at the paper filed by Obamas Nana.
Where did hawaii find a defintiion of natural born citizen.
Independent witnesses? They examined all their records. They have verified it publicly.
Just like Arizona official talked to independent witness when the put McCain, who was not born in one of the 50 States, on their ballot for President? Just like they talked to GW and GHW Bushs’ “independent” witnesses in Texas? It doesn’t matter. The Constitution makes their word final, whether Hooch likes it or not.
Nothing will ever convince the radical skeptics. One birther here also doubts that Armstrong walked on the Moon. A lot believe in creation 10,000 years ago. They are welcome to their beliefs. Nothing will ever budge them.
I have outlined the laws and the Constitution and like to discuss the serious issues, but I don’t think they interviewed “independent witnesses” when they elected George Washington, either.
Here is the definition I drafted with a friend and posted at Urban Dictionary at the suggestion of Dr. Conspiracy:
The term includes
(1) a person who is born in the United States, including its territories and possessions and the District of Columbia, and who is subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not born to foreign diplomats or to hostile occupying forces;
(2) a person who is born abroad to two U.S. citizens; and
(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born abroad to two citizens, and was born in the Canal Zone, a United States possession.
The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=natural+born+citizen
http://www.urbandictionary.com/products.php?defid=4268309
A poster with Dr. Conspiracy has a nice catch.
“Check out the UN logo on that letter. Jonathan Levy wants the letter to appear like its written on an official UN letter head.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obama-treason-trial-mark-your-calendar/
Here is the letter at Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27290072/ORLY-TAITZ-APPEALS-TO-UN-FOR-PROTECTION-FROM-PERSECUTION-IN-U-S-27277636-Immediate-Release-February-22-2010
See the nice big blue laurel and flame.
Ha!
He sent a letter. but gives the impression the UN has taken jurisdiction.
Nothing, nothing, will come of this.
Say goodnight, birthers.
I think the birther bill has 120 percent support in the AZ legislature.
Speaking of Logos
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/feb/23/missile-defense-agency-logo-takes-cue-obama-campai/?feat=home_blogs
[Vince Treacy] “They examined all their records. They have verified it publicly.”
Youre joking I hope. Did they look at the false report filed by Obamas Nana? Is that what their records consist of. Did hawaii say Obamas Nanan says he was born here so it must be so.
[Vince Treacy] “(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.”
You’re a lawyer and you put that on urban dictionary. Did hawaii use your definition. Whose definition did they use.
Hooch are you trying to say there is more than just one vital record like an amendment.
[Vince Treacy] “The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark”
No need to be comparative if they are the same thing.
A chevette is as much a car as a corvette, but a chevette is not a corvette.
Arnold S “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”, but he aint a natural born citizen. Or do you think we have different levels of citizens.
[bdaman] “Hooch are you trying to say there is more than just one vital record like an amendment.”
No. I am not. I don’t know of any record but the one filed by Obama Nana. She filed the false report. That’s why Obama must keep it hidden. She was probably gonna come clean but it wasn’t that important unless he won the election. Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.
Awww Vince, do you mean I’m not going to get my bither-geddon? What a bummer. And I’m always willing to lend a hand against the moon landing hoaxers (moonies?) or the cintelligent designists. My fascination with conspiracy theories started when I found out about the people who don’t think we went to the moon. I wonder how they explain the mirrors on the moon… Very shiny rocks?
Speaking of records it bears noting that John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, was connected with the tampering with Obama’s passport.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center.
He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January…
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center.
Maybe ol Pastor Manning is on to sumpin.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4492773
Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.
You know she was cremated and her ashes were sprinkled out on the lava rocks. The EPA requires one to get a permit when dumping ashes. They have no record of such.
Slarti, the birthers are composing a spy fantasy fiction thriller with absolutely no evidence to support it. Way up at the top, I said that the guy who claims that the grandmother filed a fake report has the burden of proof, and he has none.
When the issue of natural born citizen came up, the burden was on Obama’s campaign to meet it. They did, producing the COLB.
The birthers responded with fantasy — birth in Kenya, flight to Hawaii, baby smuggled off plane past immigration, false report filed with the State. The Bourne Supremacy.
There is actually more evidence for the alternate birther story — that Obama was born on Krypton and sent to Earth by his father Jor-El to save all mankind. Obama admitted that. On TV. On tape.
All of Hooch’s stuff has been asked and answered. Arnold is a naturalized citizen and is not the equal to a natural born citizen because he cannot be President. Obama’s mother probably did not meet the requirements at the time for foreign birth, but it is irrelevant because he was born in Hawaii. My definition was based on the provisions of Title 8 of the US Code. Hawaii necessarily used the definition used in every legal source – a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth. Under the 14th Amendment, this includes, at the very least, every person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen. The only other kind of citizen is a naturalized citizen. Since Obama was a citizen by his birth, he is a natural born citizen.
Anyway, that’s enough questions from Hooch. Everything has been answered.
If he has no evidence of his granny story, and he does not, then it is just speculation, fantasy and innuendo, nothing more.
“Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.”
That is beneath contempt.
[Vince Treacy] “Slarti, the birthers are composing a spy fantasy fiction thriller with absolutely no evidence to support it.”
Obama apologists are claiming Obamas birth report is reliable with aboslutely no evidence to support it. I say his Nana filed the report and the best they can come up with is that it was somebody else. Ask them who that someone else is. I know it was Obamas Nana that filed it.
[Vince Treacy] “Arnold is a naturalized citizen and is not the equal to a natural born citizen because he cannot be President.”
Is Arnold not “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you.
[Vince Treacy] “My definition was based on the provisions of Title 8 of the US Code.”
Someone can be a natural born citizen by statutory act. That means Congress can establish the qualifications to be POTUS. Farm out.
[Vince Treacy] Hawaii necessarily used the definition used in every legal source – a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.
Every legal resource? Name three legal resources where I can look up the term natural born citizen and find that is say a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.
Hooch, here Hooch, come on boy, heel.
Counselor-at-Law VT, Ret.
While those who are sane admire your dedication and persistence with legalese regarding this issue, there are overabundances of turnips on the ‘Birfer’ Wagon and a passel of them will–in perpetuity–fall off and roll into this blawg and elsewhere with the same tired, old, reiteratively refuted stuff…
Good luck with that.
To everyone, from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” The persons born within the national jurisdiction are citizens by virtue of their birth. How hard is that? The other kind is citizens by virtue of their naturalization ceremony.
Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.
FFLEO, Thanks again for the compliment. I am finally running out of patience, but I am glad to have your perspective.
If Hooch “knows” that the grandmother filed the report, let’s see the evidence for his so-called “knowledge.” Otherwise, he should peddle his novel to Doubleday. I should have called this the Bourne Identity rather than Supremacy.
I would love to see this guy telling his story to a sworn law enforcement officer — Officer, officer, the grandmother filed a false report, and they have no evidence against me, so you have to arrest them.
The lawyers here know that the natural born citizen issue is a matter for the federal courts under federal question jurisdiction, since it involves the laws and Constitution of the United States. If AZ tried to keep someone off the ballot on these grounds, the candidate would have full constitutional standing under Article III because of the immediate and overwhelming injury and the fully ripe controversy.
The state officials would be sued in a New York minute, with immediate injunctive relief in the morning. The State courts are also bound by the Constitution and sworn to uphold it. Like the Court in Indiana, they would also reject the claims.
[Vince Treacy] “from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.””
If a U.S. Citizen has a child abroad while on vacation, that child is a natural born citizen of the United States? Does Black’s cite any authority for this definition?
[Vince Treacy] “Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.”
Is a naturalized citizen “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you. Didn’t you just quote SCOTUS about someone being as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.
[Vince Treacy] “The lawyers here know that the natural born citizen issue is a matter for the federal courts under federal question jurisdiction, since it involves the laws and Constitution of the United States. If AZ tried to keep someone off the ballot on these grounds, the candidate would have full constitutional standing under Article III because of the immediate and overwhelming injury and the fully ripe controversy.”
A COLB is not a document prepared to demonstrate natural born citizen status. There is no reason to believe that any state would be required to accept it as proof of something more than it was intended to represent.
Vince,
Good efforts with the champion troll. This thread should be closed by Prof. Turley because these birthers are just spitting in the wind and making up stuff out of thin air.
Thanks, raff. Nice site.
JT lives and breaths the First Amendment, and maintains a marketplace of free speech. He does not close threads.
Vince,
Thanks. I know Prof. Turley won’t shut it down, but I can dream, can’t I?
“A COLB is not a document prepared to demonstrate natural born citizen status. There is no reason to believe that any state would be required to accept it as proof of something more than it was intended to represent.”
Everyone, take a look at the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If a birth certificate shows birth in the US, then it proves the natural born citizen status of the person [unless it is shown that she was a child of diplomats or of hostile foreign forces] and it is binding on all the other States. That is the law until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. I do not know how Hooch or the AZ Secy of State plans to get around the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President?
Oops, we are into reruns, and there is still no answer on that one.
Time to sign off.
[Vince Treacy] “unless it is shown that she was a child of diplomats or of hostile foreign forces”
Where will that appear on the COLB?
[Vince Treacy] “Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.”
Is a naturalized citizen “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you. Didn’t you just quote SCOTUS about someone being as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.
I can use it as a sword or a shield too.
Is a naturalized citizen as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? Are you afraid to answer that question?
Yawn. Nothing new in the overnights.
I was wondering what was missing here, so I checked the Urban Dictionary.
[quoting without comment or approval or disapproval]
1. hooch
Slang for moonshine or bootleg alcohol, popular term during prohibition era; slang term for marijuana that is rarely used nowadays, popular during late 60′s and early 70′s.
That mob boss got arrested for running hooch.
Let’s roll up some hooch before this concert!
2. hooch
1 – Alcohol
2 – Marijuana
3 – a whore
4 – a dog in the classic movie Turner and Hooch
1 – Pass me the hooch, I’m quite depressed.
2 – Oh my god that hooch last night was great!
3 – What a hooch.
3. hooch
A cast member of Scrubs who “is crazy.” J.D. and Turk often speak his name aloud to incite Hooch’s anger.
Yeah, Hooch is seriously crazy!
[unquote]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hooch
A naturalized citizen, unlike a natural born citizen, cannot be President under the Constitution. “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” US Constitution, Article II, section l.
So the two forms of citizenship, although equal in ALL other respects, are not equal with respect to eligibility for the Presidency.
(The witness replied that he could not answer yes or no to the question whether he had stopped beating his wife because he had never beaten his wife).
Have a nice day, poteen.
Slarti,
“I wonder how they explain the mirrors on the moon… Very shiny rocks?”
The rocks themselves are not innately shiny. They are polished by a ‘vein’ cousin.
Here is the website for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx
Check the search window. There are o results for Orly Taitz or Jonathan Levy and the letter. There is a whiff of fraud in the use of the UNHCHR emblem as the letterhead.
“Name three legal resources where I can look up the term natural born citizen and find that is say a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.”
Good challenge hooch, but first given the overall mediocrity of your productions thus far, please list 3 reasons why anyone should take you seriously. I also find it interesting that your posts have expanded from their original incoherence which I surmise is a factor of another re-birthed troll. You’ve written nothing that has not already been refuted and added nothing to this debate except for the expression of smugness that your glaring ignorance gives you.
Raff, good call. Time to throw in the towel on this thread. Bdaman, your posts are an example of the sleaziest and most dishonest side of you. VT, Slart, et. al. I credit your wit and persistence which I admit far exceeds my own.
Right, Mike. Hooch sounds like a Byrne-again birfer. Like Bdaman.
There can be only one response to Buddha’s vein comments and Vince’s Byrne-ing punditry: OH, THE HUGE MANATEE!
Hooch, Bdaman ate all.
I voted for Obama, although I could never do so again. Therefore, please find a legitimate, legal, and professional means of removing him from the presidency or we will just have to wait until the next election in 2012.
Slarti,
You can blame Elaine. She’s forced us all to pick up our pun game to a new level.
She is indeed the master.
How bout these for starters FFLEO
18 U.S.C. § 912 : US Code – Section 912: Officer or employee of the United States
18 U.S.C. § 371 : US Code – Section 371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 U.S.C. § 2388 : US Code – Section 2388: Activities affecting armed forces during war
18 U.S.C. § 1542 : US Code – Section 1542: False statement in application and use of passport
18 U.S.C. § 911 : US Code – Section 911: Citizen of the United States
18 U.S.C. § 1621 : US Code – Section 1621: Perjury generally
Bdaman,
Thanks. I will defer to Vince T. regarding the applicability of those Codes/Statutes to Mr. Obama.
FFLEO,
So they’re legal and Vince will tell us if they’re legitimate (I wonder what he’ll say…), but are they professional?
Buddha,
The huge manatee is about as good as my pun game gets (and it obviously wasn’t my creation), so I’ll leave those heights to you and Elaine. A friend and I did fill up the entire blackboard with ‘sin’ puns before Algebra class one day…
Slart….
Since Bdaman has *baited* this thread, I too await with *bated* breath for the counselor’s reply.
I will take a look at bdaman’s list when I get time, but in the meantime it is just a worthless list of titles of statutes.
If the bad man would care to quote the portions of the laws that he thinks are relevant, describe the particular actions to which he thinks they may apply, and explain just how those actions violate those laws, then, and only then, there may be a subject for debate.
Without that, we have to (1) speculate about what provisions he thinks are applicable, and (2) speculate about what particular actions that he thinks violate them, and (3) speculate about the man’s legal theories.
We can’t read his mind.
Life is short.
Besides, the little plagiarist did not even come up with the list himself.
I had not seen any evidence of legal acumen. So I took his list and pasted it into google. (This is a recommended scientific test for all of his postings. It is like the rule that all experiments and observations offered by a scientist must be replicated and proven repeatable).
As usual, the troll cut and pasted a list from the Internet, in this case from the extremist “American Grand Jury” and pasted if up as if he had written it himself.
As they say at the Urban Dictionary, “1. troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”
Here is an example of how ridiculous and stupid these charges are:
False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).
QUOTE It states: “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
The analysis said: “If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well.” UNQUOTE
Documented Source ©™®:
http://americangrandjury.org/lawyer-who-challenged-obama-ineligibility-could-prove-costly
I HAVE POSTED HUNDREDS, IF NOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND, STATEMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT. THE SO-CALLED “CHARGE” IT IS FALSE.
Obama is a US citizen. He is a natural born citizen. He has produced his legal birth certificate issued by Hawaii. It meets the definition of birth certificate under federal law. It has been verified by independent news organizations. There is no credible evidence to the contrary, only forgeries of foreign birth certificates and empty speculation.
So this charge is a barefaced lie, a consciously malicious falsehood made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
It is not the basis for a reasoned discussion.
So much for the troll’s legal capacity. Maybe the troll can learn to write his own stuff.
Do not feed the troll.
The other troll, hooch, asked for three sources of the definition of natural born citizen.
Well, the good Doctor Conspiracy has already done the work, and deserves full and complete credit:
QUOTEon: Legal dictionary?
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Independently of the constitutional provision it has always been the doctrine of this country except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves and their descendants that birth within the limits and Jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. In the case of Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the limits and allegiance of the United States whatever the situation of his parents was a natural born citizen and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession In re Look Tin Sing (U. S.) 21 Fed. 905, 909.
The term natural born citizen of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. The natural born subjects of a monarch comprise all persons born in the allegiance of the King United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.
Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.
Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases By West Publishing Company
I also found this in the same dictionary:
NATURAL BORN
The term “natural born,” as sometimes used, means bastard; born out of wedlock. Bouv. Law Dict. On the other hand, it has been held that “natural,” in a statute providing that adopted children shall have all the rights of natural children, means legitimate. Burns v Allen (Ind.) 9 Am. Law Reg. (O. S. 747). Under Rev. St. § 4425, as amended by Act 1881, giving a right of action for injuries occasioned by negligence and providing that, in case there be no husband or wife, or they fail to sue, the minor child or children of the deceased, whether such minor child be the natural born or adopted child of the deceased, shall have such right, etc., the words are simply used to show that adopted children and the adopting parents are to have the benefit of the act, the same as in case of children by procreation Marshall v. Wabash R. Co., 25 S. W. 179, 180, 120 Mo. 275.
Another way to look at it is that “natural born” citizens (born citizens) contrast to naturalized citizens (adopted citizens). unQUOTE
“Ballantine” added some more: QUOTEON:
If you like dictionaries, here are some more:
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
“Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.” William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.” Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980) UNQUOTE
Hooch and Badaman can find this all at Dr. Conspiracy’s excellent and recommended site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/kerchners-dont-ask-dont-tell-ad/
That clip above by McCain’s campaign strafing the birther follies of his opponent?
Sure has got Orly’s attention:
“Today he released a National re-election campaign add, where he included a clip of my NBC interview and where he is saying that we have more important things to do, then deal with Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency. This is a despicable behavior. Though I respect McCains military record, his latest add is appalling.”
Sources and full story by Eric Kleefeld at Josh Marshall’s TPM:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/orly-taitz-blasts-mccain-for-attacking-her-in-anti-birther-web-vid.php?ref=fpblg
Here is the clip, posted above, February 24, 2010 at 4:38 pm
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0
As usual, Orly is completely off base. The add is completely truthful in all respects. It used her own words, verbatim. It raised a legitimate public policy issue. She would like to see all criticism of her bizarre views suppressed.
Sorry, Orly. This is the USA, not the USSR. We are all allowed to point out your falsehoods.
The problem with those like bdaman and hooch is that the “Big Lie” just needs constant repetition to be effective with the non-thinking and no amount of refutation will be entertained. These trolls do not discuss, they babble in the service of whatever “cause” they have. There is no alternative to the fact that the President is legitimately in office, yet the lies keep coming despite evidence highly to the contrary. These trolls are propagandists, or dupes of propagandists, whose only talent is falsely raising the positions on this to one’s of equality with the truth, although that equality is non existent.
Well Bdaman, You Be ‘da man now since the ‘legal’ ball–through refutation and challenge–has bounced back in your court.
That is right, Mike.
The birthers keep repeating the Big Lie, just like the Germans in World War II and the Russians in the Cold War. They should remember that we won both wars.
The say Obama has no birth certificate. Lie. He has one and has released it. They just do not like it, even though federal law guarantees its validity and its authenticity is verified by independent observers.
They claim he was born in Kenya. Lie. Those birth certificates are proven forgeries.
They claim he needs two citizen parents. Lie. This is a crank “constitutional” theory that was never heard of before Obama ran in 2008.
http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php
Let’s stir up the pot in this inane argument.
Fact: Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.
Bob,
You rascally devil.
Gyges,
Please let them suffer through this one.
BE: “Fact: Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.”
That is not “Fact.”
The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.
Vince,
Bob is correct – Barack Obama is not the 44th NBC to become POTUS. And that fact is not in conflict with the fact that Barack Obama is the 44th US citizen to become POTUS.
Vince: That is not “Fact.” The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.
Why Vince, you sound so certain. Is this the same certitude you felt when you pigeon holed me as a “truther” with this smug remark of yours:
“Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site. There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.”
I knew you’d answer in the chest-beating manner that you did; just as you have been on this inane topic from day one. Nonetheless, the purpose of this trap was to simply show how you and your analytical skills suffer from an acute case of confirmation bias.
You want to debate me on 9/11 or any facet of constitutional law; throw down or keep your smug remarks to yourself.
Meanwhile, you’re still wrong. The fact is that Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.
Do your homework and figure out why.
P.S. Thank you Gyges for not giving it away.
Slarti: “Bob is correct – Barack Obama is not the 44th NBC to become POTUS. And that fact is not in conflict with the fact that Barack Obama is the 44th US citizen to become POTUS.”
Correct answer; incorrect reasoning.
Obama is not “the 44th US citizen to become POTUS.”
Slarti,
The “natural born citizen” predicate was just part of the trap.
Bob,
Okay, I give. Would you agree with the statement “Barack Obama is a NBC and the legitimate POTUS (the 44th legitimate holder of that office).”?
If you are talking about the early Presidents who were eligible because they were citizens at the time of ratification, sure. Thank you very much for the insight.
I am rereading my post.
Of course, what I wrote was “The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.”
I will stand by that. It is correct.
Don’t take this stuff personally. Where were you pigeon-holed as a “truther”? I reread the quotation, and I do not see where I named you as one of the “true believers” over there, nor was it implied, since you may be a part of the “vast reasonable majority.” I was trying to pay a compliment to Slart for his work over there. And I repeat the compliment now. He has put many valuable hours into his work countering the 911 theorists here and in the blogosphere.
It is the birthers who are raising the “inane” questions, and they should not be allowed to win by default because their inanity goes unanswered.
If you want to debate the constitutional issues on natural born citizen, be our guest. It would be a nice addition.
But don’t waste our time with puerile riddles and grubby little trick questions.
Oh, and the other trick may be that Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the list of Presidents, even though he was only one man. So in fact there have been 43 actual Presidents, not 44. What a crappy little insight into the law.
Now answer Slart’s question.
Vince: If you are talking about the early Presidents who were eligible because they were citizens at the time of ratification, sure. Thank you very much for the insight.
Once again; you’re wrong.
Answer Slart’s question. He has answered all of yours.
What gives?
Vince: Of course, what I wrote was “The fact is that Obama is a natural born citizen. He was born in the United States. He is the 44th President of the United States of America.” I will stand by that. It is correct.
Wrong again.
Vince: Don’t take this stuff personally. Where were you pigeon-holed as a “truther”? I reread the quotation, and I do not see where I named you as one of the “true believers” over there, nor was it implied, since you may be a part of the “vast reasonable majority.”
Clearly implied because the Slarti is debating me and one other poster.
Vince: It is the birthers who are raising the “inane” questions, and they should not be allowed to win by default because their inanity goes unanswered. If you want to debate the constitutional issues on natural born citizen, be our guest. It would be a nice addition.
There is no issue here. The case is clearly non-justiciable. Hawaii, as one of the 50 states qualified to elect a president, affirmed that Obama is a NBC. Period. Taitz didn’t even bother to attempt to name Hawaii as a (necessary) party or use one of its citizens for standing — if only to try to overcome the political question hurdle in a lame ass attempt at getting a writ of quo warranto. It’s pure horseshit.
Vince: But don’t waste our time with puerile riddles and grubby little trick questions. Oh, and the other trick may be that Grover Cleveland is counted twice in the list of Presidents, even though he was only one man. So in fact there have been 43 actual Presidents, not 44. What a crappy little insight into the law.
Correct. See, all you had to do was take off those anti-birther blinders. Like I said; confirmation bias.
Vince: Now answer Slart’s question.
Slarti: “Okay, I give. Would you agree with the statement “Barack Obama is a NBC and the legitimate POTUS (the 44th legitimate holder of that office).”?
Of course. Who am I to argue with the state of Hawaii?
Silly boy.
From Obama’s Inaugural Address:
“I thank President Bush for his service to our nation…
(APPLAUSE)
… as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.”
WRONG!
Clarification:
Slarti: (“the 44th legitimate holder of that office”)
Legitimate yes; but 43rd.
If you count Grover as being one President then you are correct at 43. But don’t forget Ford he was not elected president but served out the remainder of Nixon’s term. If memory serves me correctly 7 or 8 Veeps became president because of death or assassination.
Vince could you start posting at Charltons. Your excellent debating skills would be nice to see.
(Feb. 26, 2010) — In response to the public outcry over my last report regarding Okubo’s apparently false response to my request for index data from the Hawaii Birth Index, Miss Janice Okubo has directed staff at the Hawaii Department of Health to release a pdf file containing what appears to be scans of a computer printout containing redacted pages from the Hawaii Birth Index for those sections, which would contain the surnames Payne, Dunham, Soetoro and Obama.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/#comments
Off to the races
No.
I don’t post at birther sites, like the now-defunct site run by Leo Donofrio and others, because they have the ability to censor and edit posts at their whim, and, as Slarti noted, often ban posters who may disagree with them. They require an email address, which I will not give to them.
If they have anything to say, they can post here at the Turley blog. There is no censorship or editing here, and posters are only barred for abusive posts.
At that Charlton link, for example, there is not a single non-birther comment to be found.
A waste of time.
The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Orly’s quo warranto claim yesterday, February 26th (on the same day that her response to California Bar complaints was due). It is 20 pages long, and is posted at ScribD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27536148/10-2010-02-26-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
There is also a Combined Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Dismiss and in Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 18 pages. Text of both seems to be about the same:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27536148/10-2010-02-26-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss
Defendants argue that Plaintiff Taitz lacks standing. They argue that the matter is not justiciable under the political question doctrine. This doctrine bars court consideration of matters that have been textually committed by the Constitution to another branch of government. They argue that mandamus cannot be granted because no non-discretionary duty has been identified. They say she is not entitled to any records because she has made no Freedom of Information Act request. They oppose the preliminary injunction because none or the requirements for one have been met.
These filings practically write the Judge’s decision for him.
The birthers are being encouraged by the birther sites to harass the Hawaii Health Department, which reports that the requests for the president’s birth certificate keeping coming at a rate of 40 to 50 a month. They are “spurred on by these ‘birther’ blogs who direct them to bombard the Health Department even though they have no legitimate right to the information.”
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii+gets+persistent+requests+for+Obama+birth+certificate
The Hawaii Health Department has a page on its website devoted to Obama requests:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Here is the correct link or the Memorandum in Support:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27536100/11-2010-02-26-Memo-in-Support-of-Motion-to-Dismiss-amp-Opp-to-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
Here’s a new one for you Vince,
12:21pm UK, Saturday February 27, 2010
Greg Milam, US correspondent
The White House has consistently dismissed the issue. Authorities in Hawaii have provided an electronic record of Obama’s birth because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state’s archives.
Hawaii can’t produce an original because of a fire, a fire on the mountain.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Obama-Birther-Row-Resurfaces-As-US-Prepares-For-Crucial-Mid-Term-Elections/Article/201002415560734?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15560734_Obama_Birther_Row_Resurfaces_As_US_Prepa
Paper copy destroyed in fire?
Funny. No one else has every heard of this from Hawaiian officials, other than this reporter named Milam. Only SkyNews.
I think it is a false report. I will wait to see some more evidence.
I googled that particular ”SkyNewsfiction.” ©™®
No one else is reporting it independently, only repeating the bogus ”SkyNewsfiction” ©™® report.
I found a birther website. Even this birther said that Milam’s statement was false:
Quoting
“… this statement takes the cake! ‘…because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state’s archives.’
“Whoaaa Nelly! Where in the world did Milam get that one? Google — Hawaii archive fire — yourself. See! Never happened — but I guess if Milan wrote that Obama’s dog ate it, no one would believe it.
….
“This is what stands for journalism in 2010.
“Greg Milam, whose previous claim to fame was being attacked by a cockerel, on air, is either dumb as a brick, or a committed Obama propagandist — probably both.”
Endquoting. Source:
http://socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/sky-news-dissembler-and-propagandist/
Even a birthers was not gullible enough to swallow this one without further evidence.
So, once again an eager, breathless report is posted, without any effort at verification. I remember when the same poster excitedly put up a link to one of the forged Kenyan birth certificates. Never heard back when the forgery was exposed.
Let’s see where this one winds up.
As Kurt would say, up in Heaven, “So it goes.”
Supposedly the information comes from Obama’s book where he claims he found his original between pages of a book. So Obama had his original in his hand but it got burned in a fire. Sounds like Chester Arthur story.
You know with all the back and forth you would think that the one piece of paper that would settle it all would be produced, not some piece of paper that serves as prima facia evidence.
Oh well, must have some purpose as to not reveal any of the vital statistics.
I found a birther website. Even this birther said that Milam’s statement was false:
Could you tell us the name of this site? You normally provide links. I like it when I post and then you go to work. Good job Vince.
So, once again an eager, breathless report is posted, without any effort at verification. I remember when the same poster excitedly put up a link to one of the forged Kenyan birth certificates. Never heard back when the forgery was exposed.
I’m doing you a service by putting it out there. Your excellence in investigative research is good. I may b-daman but you Isdaman
You should switch from Trollbuster to BirtherBuster
I think I found it. It’s called Theobamafile.com. Whats interesting is on the side bar.
The United States Library of Congress has selected TheObamaFile.com
for inclusion in its historic collection of Internet materials.
Why would the president want the birther issue as part of his historical record.
“tell us the name of this site”
IT IS IN THE POST at 1:28 pm, SOCIALISM IS NOT THE ANSWER.
“Library of Congress has selected TheObamaFile.com….”
So what?
The LC webcapture program NEVER states that inclusion means any endorsement of the contents.
The obama file site is filled with the same old incorrect birther stuff.
“Supposedly the information comes from Obama’s book where he claims he found his original between pages of a book. So Obama had his original in his hand but it got burned in a fire.”
Sorry, that is not even close enough for a consolation prize.
There are many, many miles between a fire that destroyed Hawaiian archives, as Milam and the birthers claism, and a fire that may or may not have burned Obama’s personal copy.
Sorry I should of said house fire.
Through a spokesperson working for the Administration, the President now claims that his original birth certificate was lost in a fire in 1972. At the time, Mr. Obama was living with his grandparents in Honolulu.
“There was a small house fire in which the document was lost,” the spokesperson said. “That is why the President has been unable to comply with requests to release it. While the President understands the concerns of citizens, he hopes that this will put the matter to rest.”
Had to spell dot, won’t let me post link without doing it
http://jumpinginpools.blogspotdotcom/2009/08/obama-original-birth-certificate-lost.html
From ‘Dreams From My Father’, page 26, referencing newspaper article about father graduating from Univ. Hawaii:
“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms when I was in high school.”
1972 ‘fire’ – he was eleven yrs. old. High school years were around 1977-1980.
Google news does not show any other reports of this jumpinginpools “house fire.”
So what is it? House fire or archives fire?
This is a waste of time.
So what is it? House fire or archives fire?
Not sure, you know after a year and a half there has been so many different stories on this subject, who’s to say.
One thing for sure though, the president could have released the original data a long time ago and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Oh well, guess he just wants a certain number of people to continue to speculate.
P.S. try not to depend on Google for all your searches. Put your inquiry into the other ones like Bing, Yahoo, or the latest one IXquick. IXquick offers you more privacy.
Search Googlegate in google and see the results. Then do it in the other search engines. 47,900 in google,
47,900 in google,
75,299,853 matching results in IXquick
1-10 of 76,900,000 results in Bing
Climategate
2,410,000 for climategate in Google
51,600,000 results in Bing
53,099,332 matching results in IXquick
This is just two examples and this is why Google is under fire right now trying to defend. Plus they are in bed with this administration.
Google hits back over algorithm dispute
By Maija Palmer in London, Richard Waters in San Francisco and Nikki Tait in Brussels
Published: February 25 2010 12:47 | Last updated: February 26 2010 01:20
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/2e16bd92-2209-11df-98dd-00144feab49a.html
Bdaman,
Have you ever considered the possibility that the birther movement is good for President Obama? That having an enemy that is so wrong and so easily debunked is useful in portraying his opponent’s base as whackos in order to drive a wedge between them and moderates? In my mind this theory is a dark horse to the theory that the President understands that this isn’t a big deal and that there is no risk of any kind of successful legal action and occupies his time with stuff that is actually important.
If you want to include a URL without it becoming a link, I suggest you replace ‘.’ with ‘(dot)’. This is much easier to read with the parentheses. Example:
jonathanturley(dot)org
Have you ever considered the possibility that the birther movement is good for President Obama?
Ludicrous, he needs all the support he can get.
Yea I should have put the parentheses around it, thanks will do. I just switched back to Mozilla for my browser and there are the plus’s and minuses to it. The one thing I do like is the auto spell check feature.
John McCain sure thinks that the birther are helping him:
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0
So if he provides his long form birth certificate all of the birthers will become Obama supporters?
I’ve seen that. They had Hayworth on Oreilley this past week and he totally backtracked, side stepped, danced the jig when he was confronted.
Not now Slart, I think the damage has been done. I think alot of the people just don’t trust anything he says anymore. Think about it. This guy was historic. The entire world was behind him in the beginning. Now they laugh at him. Even in Indonesia they removed his statue.
For reflection I suggest this thread.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/20/our-44th-president/
Fire or discarded ? remember this one? So many stories
—– 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.
Hawaii officials confirm Obama’s original birth certificate still exists.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
Ancient history. Bogus report by Loo Dobbs in 2009. Proven false. Dobbs forced out by CNN possibly in part for obsession on birthers. Dobbs soon to announce that he is running for President.
My point was, so many stories. The only story we haven’t heard is the ORIGINAL one that still exists.
Change you can believe in
STATE OF INDIANA
SENATE BILL No. 82
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/SB/SB0082.1.html
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
HB 1245
http://www.generalcourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1245.html
South Carolina General Assembly
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/prever/3389_20090129.htm
Change you can believe in
STATE OF INDIANA
SENATE BILL No. 82
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2010/SB/SB0082.1.html
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
HB 1245
http://www.generalcourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1245.html
South Carolina General Assembly
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/prever/3389_20090129.htm
Yelp CEO Gets all ‘Orly’ on His Attackers
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/03/01/fighting-words-yelp-ceo-gets-all-orly-on-his-attackers/
SIGN OF THE APOCALYPSE?
Looks like a birther-truther team up:
http://www.t-room.us/2010/02/architects-engineers-for-911-truth-hold-explosive-press-conference/
This is a post about a recent press conference by ‘Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth’ at a brand new site called ‘The T Room’ that was started by a frequent poster at ‘Dr. Kate’s View’ (and ‘Texas Darlin’ before that).
Vince,
The T Room bills itself as ‘A virtual pub for polite political discourse’. I’m tempted to put on my best behavior and find out if that’s true.
Gerty,
Before you start thinking that this disproves my assertion that the 9/11 truth movement is a left-wing conspiracy, I should point out that this poster as well as Texas Darlin and Dr. Kate are all in the PUMA* wing of the birthers, so they clearly have some left leanings (and a WHOLE lot of libertarianism…) wrapped in all the ‘neo-Constitutionalism’ that is the birther’s raison d’etre.
*Stands for ‘Party Unity My Ass’ – Hillary Clinton supporters who are vehemently against Barack Obama.
Bob,
Don’t you get excited, either – I don’t think that there’s anything in this press conference that you haven’t already thrown against the wall… Although Dr. Jones is one of the speakers if you’d like to hear what he has to say.
By the way, I think I deserve bonus points for a comment that’s relevant to 3 separate threads…
Thanks, Slart. As they say in the Troom, “Like the Birthers, the Truthers have been screaming from the rooftops to get our attention. Maybe it’s time we do.”
In the meantime, there is some housekeeping to take care of. Several spurious stories have been posted here as if they were real. For example:
“December 7th, 1941…the day that would live in infamy….the day that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor….and apparently the day that President Barack Obama’s birth certificate was destroyed in a hospital fire.
“Obama, who claims that he was born in Honolulu in 1961, has now claimed that a hospital fire that occurred during the 1941 bombing destroyed his birth certificate.”
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i67114
“The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious”.
”TheSpoof – Disclaimer
“All material on TheSpoof.com is parody or satire. …
“Any resemblence to any private individuals, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.”
Spoof, parody, satire, joke, hoax, fiction, punk, non-fact, not the truth, bogus, fake, counterfeit, dupe.
Oh!ForGoodnessSake has all the links.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=7973
The Indiana bill seems to add nothing new.
The existing law already provides:
“(c) Except as provided in subsection (e), before the commission or election board acts under this section, a registered voter of the election district that a candidate seeks to represent must file a sworn statement with the election division or election board:
(1) questioning the eligibility of a the candidate to seek the office; and
(2) setting forth the facts known to the voter concerning this question.
For lawyers and law students around her, an Indiana court has already ruled on the merits of the birther arguments.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The case may go up on appeal the State Supreme Court. Remember, those state courts are not limited by Article III standing. The courts have already dismissed the birther challenge, ON THE MERITS, and they will likely be AFFIRMED on appeal.
So even if this bill passes, any challenge to eligibility made in 2012 will likely be dismissed based on the pending Ankeny case.
NW would provide that “The names of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president shall not appear on the ballot unless the secretary of state has received certified copies of the birth certificates of the presidential and vice-presidential nominees.”
Obama has already provided a certified copy of his birth certificate. This law would have no effect on him.
“Section 7-13-315. (A) A candidate for President or Vice President of the United
States may not have his name printed on a ballot in this State unless there is conclusive evidence that he is a natural born citizen of the United States.”
There has to be “conclusive evidence,” whatever that means, that a candidate is a natural born citizen.
As discussed above, SC like all other States is bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause and must give effect to the records of sister State Hawaii. The public record issued by Hawaii proves conclusively that Obama is a natural born citizen.
If the Secretary or the courts in SC try to reject it, based on some unconstitutional definition of natural born citizen, then the federal courts will step and rule the Obama is, as a matter of fact and law, a natural born citizen and order him placed on the ballot.
SC did not even put Abraham Lincoln on their ballot in 1860.
That State does not have a particularly good track record in these matters.
There has to be “conclusive evidence,” whatever that means
Is prima facia evidence conclusive? just asking? I’m not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.
“conclusive evidence”
I think an ORIGINAL certificate would be conclusive. You know time, date, hospital, signature of physician all printed on one form.
One last loose end for now.
The folks over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site have shredded the latest fictional posting by John Charlton, linked above on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 pm:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/wheres-the-birth-certificate/
Here is a sample:
QUOTE
Mike says:
February 27, 2010 at 4:42 pm (Quote)
Latest failure from the Pest and E-Fail:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/02/26/okubo-responds-to-public-outcry-for-investigation/
Reply to this Comment
Whatever4 says:
February 27, 2010 at 6:39 pm (Quote)
So if I understand this correctly… Obama’s name does not appear on a printout of names that you wouldn’t expect his name to appear on anyway. This proves something. And people are applauding Charlatan’s efforts in doing so.
I suspect birthers will now proclaim the “fact” that Obama’s name isn’t in the Hawaiian birth file, thus “proving” he wasn’t born in Hawaii at all.
“The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.” Obviously, Obama doesn’t qualify for this program as his birth was registered in Hawaii in the usual way — being born there and registered within a week of birth. We do know he’s in the Birth Index.
UNQUOTE
More at Dr. Conspiracy.
Public records of Hawaii are conclusive evidence under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.
“By making the entry of forfeiture upon the official record prima facie, but not conclusive, evidence that all preliminary steps essential to a valid forfeiture were properly taken, and that the forfeiture was duly declared, it but established a rebuttable presumption, which he was at liberty to overcome by other evidence.” -REITLER V. HARRIS, 223 U. S. 437 (1912)
Prima Facie evidence is rebuttable. Conclusive Evidence is not.
Giving full faith and credit to prima facie evidence does not declare it to be beyond rebuttal.
“The force and effect of such testimony has been several times considered by this Court. Thus, in United States v. Eckford’s Executors, 1 How. 250, a statement of account by the officers of the Treasury was held not to be conclusive, but only prima facie, evidence. So in United States v. Hodge, 13 How. 478, a Treasury transcript offered in evidence was held to be competent, but not conclusive. In Watkins v. United States, 9 Wall. 759, nothing more appeared in the shape of evidence than the certified transcript of accounts, and, being held to be prima facie evidence, it warranted judgment for the government for the amount therein shown to be due, in the absence of any testimony explaining or contradicting it. But that case does not hold that certified transcripts of accounts are conclusive upon the officer.” -United States v. Dumas, 149 U.S. 278 (1893)
From somewhere out in left field Vince Treacy asserts that “Public records of Hawaii are conclusive evidence under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.” It’s too bad that “certifications” are based on public record, but are not the public record themselves. Prima facie evidence is not conclusive evidence. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Are there any “real lawyers” here who will join Vince Treacy in his false claim that prima facie evidence is conclusive evidence?
The certified record from Hawaii is prima facie evidence, and is therefore going to be “conclusive” unless it is rebutted by other evidence, such as a REAL foreign birth certificate. Since none exists (other than in the dreams of the conspiracy lovers), it is game, set, match for the COLB. See Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630, 632-633 (D.D.C. 1961).
P.S. – Vince is a “real” lawyer.
The birth certificate is a public record. The State of Hawaii is not allowed by its laws to release the underlying records. The Certification of Live Birth that it issued is a public record entitled to full faith and credit.
Here are a couple of laws that the lawyers can read: the Constitution and the federal legal definition of birth certificate:
“Article IV
“Section 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.”
Congress has prescribed the manner in which the public records are to be proved. The definition of birth certificate in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.”
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
This is the federal law on the issue of the validity of birth certificates, issued under Congress’s Article IV posers. In opposition, there is a quotation over 100 years old about statements of federal official, not state public records.
Prima facie evidence becomes conclusive evidence if it is not rebutted. There has been no rebuttal of the COLB. The allegations of forgery, by “Polarik” (a pseudonym) have been discredited.
The idea that a valid birth certificate certified by a State is NOT a public record is novel, to say the least. Go to the Hawaii “Public Records” site and find out how to obtain a birth certificate, which they include as a public record:
http://www.statearchives.us/public/hawaii.htm\
And the COLB has been verified by the free press guaranteed to us by the First Amendment:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Thanks, Union Jack.
Here is a link to the full text of that case:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/vassilios-v-kennedy-95-f-supp-630-1961/
Note: A man born in the US to Greek Parents, considered to be a Greek citizen under Greece’s Jus Sanguini rules and a US citizen under the 14th Amendment was found to be a natural born citizen of the United States. Both the fact that he was born to two aliens and the fact that he possessed a dual allegiance formed no objection to the ruling that he was a natural born citizen
195 F.Supp. 630
Vassilios LIACAKOS, a/k/a William G. Lias, Plaintiff,
v.
Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 5249-55.
United States District Court District of Columbia. June 29, 1961.
Jack Wasserman and David Carliner, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., E. Riley Casey, Gil Zimmerman and William A. Matthews, Sp. Assts. to U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
HOLTZOFF, District Judge.
This is the trial of an action brought by the plaintiff, William Lias, to set aside an order directing his deportation as an alien illegally in the United States. The plaintiff, in addition to questioning the validity of the deportation proceeding itself and the final order therein, also challenges the ruling of the Immigration authorities that he is an alien. The plaintiff claims to be a natural born citizen of the United States and seeks a declaration of his nationality. In effect, this proceeding combines two distinct causes of action: a cause of action for a declaratory judgment establishing citizenship of the United States; and a cause of action to review and set aside the deportation order made in the administrative proceeding.
It is well established that an action for a declaratory judgment lies to secure an adjudication that the plaintiff is a citizen of the United States. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320; Tom Mung Ngow v. Dulles, D.C., 122 F.Supp. 709. The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has further held that an action for a declaratory judgment to establish citizenship may be combined with an action to review the validity of the administrative proceeding. Frank v. Rogers, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 253 F.2d 889.
An action for declaratory judgment differs in important respects from an action to review the validity of the administrative proceeding. The latter is limited to a consideration of the administrative record, and the only questions open are whether there is any error of law in the proceeding and whether there is substantial evidence to sustain the findings of fact. An action for a declaratory judgment, however, involves a trial de novo. A ruling of an administrative official denying citizenship has no prima facie effect or any other effect except to serve as a basis for establishing a justiciable controversy. What is being tried now is the cause of action for a declaratory judgment to establish citizenship. In such an action the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This burden of proof, however, need not be sustained beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely by a fair preponderance of the evidence, for naturally, the proceeding is of a civil nature.
The plaintiff claims that he is a natural- born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece, where his father later died. He further claims that in 1909 his widowed mother came back to the United States with the plaintiff’s two older sisters and himself. Admittedly, the plaintiff has been living in Wheeling, West Virginia, continuously since 1909. The Government contends, however, that he was born in Cythion, Greece, and that he was brought here by his mother in 1909, instead of having been previously born here, taken back to Greece and returned here in 1909.
The case is not free from doubt. There are many discrepancies in the testimony. In weighing evidence, it is well to bear in mind the well-known statement of Lord Mansfield in Blatch v. Archer, 1 Cowper 63, 66, 98 English Reports 969, 970, to the effect that:
“It is certainly a maxim that all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and in the power of the other to have contradicted.”
This maxim has been often quoted. It was referred to favorably by the Supreme Court in Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 13, 51, 48 S.Ct. 1, 72 L.Ed. 137, and by Judge Parker in the opinion of the Fourth Circuit in Henderson v. Richardson Co., 25 F.2d 225, 228.
We start with the important fact that there is no contemporaneous record of the plaintiff’s birth, either in Wheeling, West Virginia, or in Cythion, Greece. Necessarily, a record of birth contemporaneously made by governmental authority in official records would be almost conclusive evidence of birth. There is no such record in Wheeling, West Virginia. The Government, through its counsel, conducted an exhaustive and very able investigation in Greece, that resulted in uncovering many very old records in which the plaintiff’s forebears are named, but again there is no record of the plaintiff’s birth. Neither side, in other words, has been able to produce anything like a contemporaneous birth certificate.
It is a matter of common knowledge that in the United States, at least, until recent years there were many localities that did not maintain comprehensive and complete vital statistics or birth records, and that even in those metropolitan centers in which such records were maintained some have been lost or destroyed accidentally, from time to time, either by fire or flood or other casualties. Consequently, too much significance cannot be attached to the absence of a birth certificate, although this circumstance creates additional problems both for counsel and for the Court. While there was no burden on the Government to show that the records of Wheeling, West Virginia, listing births that occurred in that city in the year 1900 are extant and complete, nevertheless, it is a fair inference, in view of the very thorough investigation that was made by the Government, that if this were the fact the Government would have ascertained it to be so. Consequently, we have to decide the case on other evidence, no one item being conclusive, weighing it in the light of Lord Mansfield’s famous maxim, to which reference has been made.
Before proceeding to a discussion of the evidence it should be observed that the ground on which deportation is sought is a highly technical one. The Government does not seek to deport the plaintiff as an alien because of any crimes that he may have committed or because he is a subversive individual or for any reason going to his merits or demerits. The ground of deportation is that on one occasion he crossed to Canada, from Detroit to Windsor, for a social visit, remained there about a day and returned without presenting, as the regulations required in respect to an alien, either a reentry permit or a border-crossing pass. If he was a citizen, of course, such a document was not required. If he was an alien, such a document was needed and his entry without it was technically illegal. If his entry was illegal, in the eyes of the law he is deportable, and it is on this rather tenuous ground that deportation is sought.
It may be read between the lines that this incident is used as a reed on which to lean the deportation proceeding, because the plaintiff, according to the evidence, has been engaged over the years in a series of criminal and unsavory activities. He was convicted at least three times for violations of the national prohibition laws, which involved two sentences to Atlanta penitentiary. He was convicted of a misdemeanor in connection with the operation of a policy lottery. Further, apparently, in addition to operating a race track, which in and of itself is a legitimate occupation, he has been engaged in certain activities that were on the fringe of morality. But the duty of the Court is to decide the question of law and fact, and nothing else, that is presented in this proceeding, and not to pass judgment upon the morality of his life.
We start the consideration of the evidence with what is sometimes known as a delayed birth certificate issued by the proper authorities of the State of West Virginia. One was issued on October 28, 1946 by the Clerk of the County Court of the County of Ohio, State of West Virginia, in which the City of Wheeling is located, and the other was issued on November 1, 1946 by the Director of Health of the State of West Virginia and State Registrar of Vital Statistics. Each of these certificates attests to the fact that the plaintiff was born on July 14, 1900 in Wheeling, West Virginia.
Naturally, the same weight is not attached to a birth certificate of a delayed nature, such as these, as would be accorded to a contemporaneous birth record. Nevertheless, it is sufficient, without anything else, to establish a prima facie case. Delayed birth certificates are issued pursuant to State statutes. Such State statutes were enacted because of the difficulties that many Americans born in this country have in obtaining birth certificates due to the circumstances to which the Court has already adverted. In fact, very frequently it is much harder for a natural-born citizen of the United States to obtain proof of his
citizenship than it is for a naturalized citizen, because the naturalized citizen always has a naturalization certificate. The Passport Bureau of the State Department recognizes this by its willingness to accept affidavits in lieu of birth certificates.
We now turn to some of the records unearthed in Greece. What is called an extract of a penal record of the plaintiff of the Office of The Ministry of Justice refers to the fact that he was born in the United States in 1899 and that his penal status is nil. There is a certificate from the Mayor of Cythion to the effect that plaintiff’s name is carried in the Males Register of the Municipality as having been born in America of Greek citizen parents and as having come to Greece with his parents. There are other documents showing that he, together with other members of his family, has been carried on the Males Register of this Greek Municipality.
The evidence tends to show that citizenship in Greece is based on jus sanguinis rather than on jus soli and that, consequently, a person born abroad of Greek parents is regarded by Greece as a subject of Greece,—this, of course, is true of many Continental countries— and that his name is carried on what is known as the Males Register, which is used as a basis for listing persons who are subject to military duty. There appears to be no Greek record specifically attesting to the fact that the plaintiff was born in that country.
In 1926 the plaintiff was married, and the marriage license issued by the County of Brooke in West Virginia recites that the place of the husband’s birth was Wheeling, West Virginia. When he arrived at the Atlanta penitentiary as a prisoner on June 24, 1926, he was required to sign a statement containing answers to certain questions and gave West Virginia as an answer to the inquiry as to his place of nativity. He had a son born on January 2, 1936, and the father’s birthplace in the son’s birth certificate is recorded as Wheeling, West Virginia. A daughter was born on November 3, 1939, and her birth certificate also recites the father’s birthplace as being Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1940 he obtained a number of small insurance policies on the lives of his two children, and in each application signed by him he gives Wheeling, West Virginia, as the place of his birth. On April 18, 1932, he was back in the Atlanta penitentiary and again he gave the place of his nativity as West Virginia. In addition, his application for parole, dated November 15, 1932, states that he was born and raised in Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1940 he was carried on local registration lists as an eligible voter.
The plaintiff supplemented this documentary evidence by testimony to the effect that his mother had told him that he was born in Wheeling, West Virginia. Such evidence is admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule relating to pedigree. While the Court does not attach too much weight to it, nevertheless, it is some corroboration of the documentary evidence, which to the Court appears to be much more weighty.
If this array of documentary evidence stood alone, the Court would have no question about the case whatever. However, as stated by the Court at the opening of its remarks, the case is not free from doubt, because on two important occasions it appears that the plaintiff represented himself as an alien. The first occasion is in connection with his registration for the draft in the First World War. His draft registration card contains the answer “No” to the question whether he is a citizen of the United States. Evidence was introduced by the plaintiff challenging the genuineness of his signature to the draft registration card. The Court is not satisfied with that evidence.
The Court is inclined to draw the inference that, very likely, the plaintiff was desirous of dodging the draft and used this means of avoiding liability to military service. He did not report for military service in Greece and he avoided it in this country. This Court, however, is not trying him on a charge of evading the draft during the First World War.
The other important statement is in connection with the marriage certificate on the occasion of his second marriage, which took place in 1935 in Brooklyn, New York. The affidavit attached to the license to marry purporting to be signed by the plaintiff recites that the country of his birth was Greece. The explanation adduced in his behalf is that actually the groom and his prospective bride went to the marriage license bureau in a festive mood, accompanied by a number of close relatives, and that in fact the information contained in the affidavit was given by one or two of the relatives while the plaintiff and his prospective bride stood aside and, according to the deposition of the plaintiff, somewhat under the influence of alcoholic beverages, as is not unlikely on an occasion such as that. While this explanation is not completely convincing, nevertheless, the fact remains that on every occasion in which the plaintiff was called upon to state the place of his birth, except the two just mentioned, he gave Wheeling, West Virginia, as his birthplace, and that information to that effect appears in the record of the Greek Municipality in which his family had its origin.
It must be borne in mind that citizenship of the United States is a very precious thing; that natural-born citizens very frequently have a great deal of difficulty in proving their status due to uncertainties of birth records and that this circumstance should not lead to a lack of stability of citizenship because, if it did, many a legitimate citizen of the United States would find himself deprived of it.
The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.
“…Article IV poWers…”
“The birth certificate is a public record.” TRUE
“The State of Hawaii is not allowed by its laws to release the underlying records.” FALSE (HRS 338-18)
“The Certification of Live Birth that it issued is a public record entitled to full faith and credit.” It is only entitled to full faith and credit as being prima facie evidence. Who declared the certification to be prima facie and not conclusive? The State of Hawaii. That’s who.
[HRS 338-18] http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
Obama can inspect and obtain a certified copy his vital records.
People leave the United States all the time. Other countries are not required to give full faith and credit. Those countries can and do require certified copies of the original. The Hawaii Department of Health Website states that
“Apostilles and the authentication of certified copies of vital records for international legalization can be provided.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
Hawaii says that they can provide “certified copies of vital records”, but Vince Treacy says they cannot. I think we must side with Hawaii on their own law.
I do not see any discussion of section 7211 or of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
“The birth certificate is a public record.” “TRUE.”
If the birth certificate is a public record, then it is entitled to full faith and credit.
I said “The State of Hawaii is not allowed by its laws to release the underlying records.” I based it on this: “State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).”
Source: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
That is what I was referring to. That is their law. I would refer all to the State’s discussion of “responses to frequently asked questions related to all records and documents maintained by the Hawaii State Department of Health (DOH) related to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II” at that site.
Back to the beginning. Obama’s birth was challenged, placing the burden on him. He met the burden by producing a valid birth certificate that meets all the requirements of US law and the Constitution. The COLB is the only certificate that Hawaii issues today. It no longer issues the old “Certificate” of Live Birth. It is what is now issued to by everyone who was born in Hawaii.
Other countries may have other requirements, but it is my opinion that the States and the US Government are bound by Article IV. There is no credible evidence that the COLB is not valid. As prima facie evidence, it is conclusive until rebutted.
The burden is on the birthers to rebut that evidence. There have been some forged Kenyan certificates. There has been some dubious forensic analysis by the fictitious Ron Polarik. In the meantime, exhaustive review by Politifact.com of the St Petersburg Times and Factcheck.org have verified it. The birthers reject their findings furiously, but I will rely on them until there is a rebuttal.
So where is the evidence to the contrary? All we have seen is speculation, rumor and innuendo.
Mike, Vince is a real lawyer. He did not get his degree from an online course. He received instruction in the classroom. As a lawyer I’m sure he is aware of what you posted. On the other hand I am not a lawyer but it would seem to me that conclusive evidence
would be an ORIGINAL certificate would be conclusive.
Vince thank you for
Vassilios LIACAKOS, a/k/a William G. Lias, Plaintiff,
v.
Robert F. KENNEDY, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 5249-55.
United States District Court District of Columbia. June 29, 1961.
A case where some one despite being a two time convicted felon can state over and over where he was born and the court can and did deem him a natural born citizen of the U.S. all based on his consistent statements that he was born in Wheeling, West Virginia.
I feel much better about the current situation.
This is from the State’s site
QUOTE
In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.
Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The
Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.
1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth
State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06/Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS 0338-0018.htm
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
http://www:capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
UNQUOTE
This is from the State’s site:
QUOTE
In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.
Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.
1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth
State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
UNQUOTE
[The three links are awaiting moderation. They are at the site]
Only post two links at a time and it won’t go into moderation
So you can still copy the links and post them now. Professor Turley rarely if ever post a comment in moderation.
http://storyballoon.org/have-you-seen-the-new-obama-quarters/
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06/Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS 0338-0018.htm
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
http://www:capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
Vince Treacy,
Don’t you consider Barack Obama to have a tangible interest in his own vital records?
If Obama can view and obtain a certified copies of his vital records, and those vital records will show that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, why not have them released and end that part of the controversy? He sure could use the vindication right now.
I just don’t think the law works the way the birthers want and hope it to work. Are they saying that a State official can reject a valid birth certificate issued by a sister State, and tell the citizen to go back and get all the underlying private records, without any showing of evidence to question the validity of the certificate? I just don’t think so.
I reviewed file of a senior individual who obtained his birth certificate twice, at a 40-year interval. Both certificates were like the COLB, in that they showed a certification by the official that the birth records were in that official’s custody, and showed the relevant birth information. These certificates did list a hospital, but there was no information on delivering physicians or nurses, and no identification of witnesses or any other officials. The certificates therefore did not constitute actual copies of the original birth records, but were certifications by the custodial officials of the content of those records. They were valid birth certificates.
At one point, the individual received a Top Secret Clearance and later obtained the records of the investigation by means of the Privacy Act. The Agent’s report of the investigation listed the exact same information contained on the birth certificates, no more, no less. The individual was issued a United States Passport on the basis of the certificate.
Going back to my posts above, I happen to think that Indiana, New Hampshire and South Carolina are bound to accept Obama’s record of birth in the United States and his status as a natural born citizen, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary. Although the question has not yet been resolved, I think that the courts would mandate the acceptance of a valid Hawaiian COLB by a State that tried to reject it. I think my analysis of Section 7211 and full faith and credit is correct.
The birthers would like to get their hands on the records and grope through them, applying their forgery theories and conspiracy scenarios, but I don’t think the law will allow it in the absence of any evidence that would provide grounds to doubt the official certification.
The birthers in general do not concede that the release of the records of Obama’s birth in Hawaii would make him a natural born citizen. Many birthers would never concede the accuracy of the records and would charge forgery. The after-birthers would still deny him natural born status (a) because his father was Kenyan, making Obama a Kenyan citizen at birth, or (b) because he did not have two US citizen parents as defined by Vattel, or both.
I have examined these theories and found them lacking. There are hundreds of postings on this point here under Leo Donofrio and Retired General threads and over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site.
Release absolutely would not stop any of the pending lawsuits by Kreep in CA, by Taitz in CA and DC, by Berg in DC or by Apuzzo in NJ.
So, no, I don’t think the release would change more than a tiny sliver of birther minds.
If Obama can view and obtain a certified copies of his vital records, and those vital records will show that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, why not have them released and end that part of the controversy?
He doesn’t have to, he has provided prima facia evidence backed by the state of Hawaii. If that’s not good enough, too bad. Who cares if people don’t believe it, he’s our president. Barack Whosane Obama UM UM UM. The great unifier of the world. He will be the greatest president ever. He’s historic don’t ya know and will extend a hand if your willing to unclench your fist. It’s obvious that the information contained in the original birth certificate would be embarrassing to the president. Any other sane person would have released it long ago.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12873456/Amending-the-Natural-Born-Citizen-Requirement-Sarah-p-Herlihy-Feb-22-2006
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27721631/Table-of-Bills-Pending-in-State-Legislatures-Regarding-Eligibility-for-the-Presidency
“I reviewed file of a senior individual who obtained his birth certificate twice, at a 40-year interval. Both certificates were like the COLB, in that they showed a certification by the official that the birth records were in that official’s custody, and showed the relevant birth information. These certificates did list a hospital, but there was no information on delivering physicians or nurses, and no identification of witnesses or any other officials. The certificates therefore did not constitute actual copies of the original birth records, but were certifications by the custodial officials of the content of those records. They were valid birth certificates.” ~Vince Treacy
Pretty interesting stuff. A 40 year interval would indicate that one of those was prepared prior to the “computer age”. You know “back in the day” when copies of public records were actually copies, not computer generated documents. Please give us a few more details about how this 40-plus year old document was “like a COLB”. Do you think all certificates of live birth look like a COLB?
If the account presented by Vince Treacy is true, he should be able to scan and upload redacted copies of these birth records to scribd so the rest of us can see how much they look like a COLB.
______________________________
Maybe we can get an answer from Vince on this if we try a second time.
Vince Treacy,
Don’t you consider Barack Obama to have a tangible interest in his own vital records?
If Obama can view and obtain a certified copies of his vital records, and those vital records will show that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii, why not have them released and end that part of the controversy?
Mike it doesn’t matter now, he’s our president. So even if he was out to destroy the country, he’s our president.
Oh well, is it snowing at your house.
http://www.wheresobamasbirthcertificate.com/main/page_home.html
Atty Mario Apuzzo will be on the Sean & Frank Radio Show, 680 WCBM, of Baltimore MD – Monday, 8 Mar 2010, 8:35 a.m. Segment
Maybe I missed it, but I did not hear that guy linked at 4:40 PM mention the July 27, 2009 news release in which the Hawaiian official with legal custody of all state birth records verified that she had looked at the original vital records verifying that Obama was “born in Hawaii” (then in 1961 and now in 2010 a part of the “U.S.A.”):
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
I think I have made the case that the answer to the question “Where’s the birth certificate?” is that he has released his legal birth certificate, as defined by federal law and as verified by an independent press, that the responsible state officials have verified that he was born in Hawaii, and that Armstrong landed on the Moon in 1969. I think most reasonable people will accept that and move on. If birthers want to keep on denying it, and spreading lies like the ones in the Kenyan birth certificates, they are just polluting the public debate.
I leave it to the readers.
Thanks Vince, I knew you would give a good analysis.
Avoid the message. Get to the point. Especially if it avoids the message.
FactCheck.org Vince’s Truth Squad on their website states
“Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.”
Did Dr. Fukino, on Oct 31st 2008 “confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu”?
I didn’t hear you? Would that be NO? Would that mean that Factcheck.org didn’t tell the truth?
It gets even better. On that same Factcheck.org page. Under the analyisis it states “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama “likely” was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”
The best we have is a confirmed from a likely. That’s what I call fact checking.
I’m not done yet. Who is this Amy Hollyfield with the contradictory information that the video refers to? She’s a staff writer for Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
QUOTESON: Birthers’ claim Gibbs lied when he said Obama’s birth certificate is posted on the Internet
False
Update: We first posted this item on July 1, 2009. Since then, the Birther movement has only gained more national exposure, including discussion on numerous political television and radio programs. That prompted Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, to issue this statement on July 27, 2009:
“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.”
….
So back to the claim that Gibbs lied about posting Obama’s birth certificate on the Internet. WorldNetDaily is correct that the Obama campaign didn’t post his original birth certificate on the Internet. But their suggestion that there is some significant difference between the two documents is wrong. They both prove the same thing. Maybe the original would identify the hospital where Obama was born, but that’s irrelevant. The issue is what city, and therefore country, was he born. The document posted by the campaign proves Obama was born in Honolulu, according to Health Department officials. And that’s really the central issue here.
The Health Department says the “Certification of Live Birth” is Hawaii’s version of a birth certificate. Calling it by other names — Certificate of Live Birth, Certification of Live Birth — is just semantics. WorldNetDaily may be right that the original birth certificate wasn’t posted, but if Hawaii says the document Obama posted can rightly be called Obama’s birth certificate, how is Gibbs lying? We harbor no delusions that anything we say here will slow the persistent drumbeat of the birthers, but we rule this statement False. UNQUOTE
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/28/worldnetdaily/birthers-claim-gibbs-lied-when-he-said-obamas-birt/
Ruled false. Case closed.
Politifact is operated by the St. Petersburg Times in Florida.
A candidate in PA is dropping the birher issue:
“As for the birth certificate issue, he’s decided to let it go.
‘Once eight or nine courts toss it out (maybe it’s time),’he said. ‘It’s like an old pork roast in the freezer. Maybe it’s time to put it out for the trash man.’”
This is a good read: http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/03/03/opinion/doc4b8dddb8d1c87908418462.txt
Actually, there are more than 60 — repeat, six zero — frivolous birther lawsuits, not just eight or nine, and ALL have been dismissed. One or two are awaiting dismissal. There have been NO successes. NONE. NADA.
If this had been a prizefight, the referee would have stopped it many rounds ago.
Per Janet Okubo and quoted on Politifact
“I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
And this one from Okubo was so stupid it made me LOL. “I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.”
Really Janet? The EMBOSSED stamp is only on the back of the document? Did you think most people are too stupid to know that the act of embossing requires counter pressure from the other side of the document? To state it plainly. It doesn’t matter which side the embossed stamp is on.
Sorry, Charlie, just blowing smoke.
Inconveniently, they photographed the raised seal:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg
So what is the story? What really happened? As they said at politifact, “And there’s the rub. It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
And they faked the moon landing. The sun is not at the center of the solar system. There really were witches who had to be burned.
So what is the story? Just what did happen?
There is a reason why no responsible official in the entire country has embraced the birthers, and the even the FoxNews guys and Hayworth are running the other way.
It does not matter what documents are produced. The birthers will always doubt them, so it would be a waste of time to dignify them or to pander to them. A birther last year posted a story that someone he knew had heard in a bar from a special agent that there was a team at work busy forging a birth certificate with a 1961 typewriter and that they were aging it to perfection, so the crazy stories are already in the can.
That is why the answer is no, nothing that can be released will ever end any part of the controversy. They hate him with an abiding, irrational, irreducible hatred, and nothing will change that.
I think I have made the case that the answer to the question “Where’s the birth certificate?” is that he has released his birth certificate, as defined by federal law and as verified by an independent press, and that Armstrong landed on the Moon in 1969.
If birthers want to keep on denying it, and spreading lies like the Kenyan birth certificates, and in general acting like the Moon-landing doubters, they can just go on polluting the public debate.
Do I think release of records would end the controversy? No. If the birthers have not believed an official birth certificate issued by the public official with custody, or her statement that she has seen the originals and that they verify he was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, then nothing will ever convince them. Ever. When the original records show that birth took place in the hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, then the birthers will just claim that the originals were falsified.
And on and on and on….
Infinite regress. Wiki: “An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.”
Try going to the birther sites and asking them if release of any documents would end the controversy. They will say no.
Besides, this is how the birthers make their living. WorldNutDaily and Post&Email both try to separate gullible viewers from their money, a lot like the televangelizing hucksters on late night cable. Without this scam, they would have to work for a living. No one has EVER solicited funds at the Turley blog.
Professor Turley, thanks for deleting that racist comment posted earlier on this thread
Anonymous birther posters, you have asked a lot of questions. Now please answer some. P
lease state whether or not you think Obama was born in Kenya. Please state whether or not the Kenyan birth certificates posted on the web are valid. Please post links to the valid birth certificates showing birth in Kenya.
(Please note that Kenya allows release of birth certificates to anyone:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/wheres-the-birth-certificate/
Please report findings of results of requests to Kenyan officials.
More housekeeping. James David Manning, who announced the May 14, 2010 Columbia Obama Trial, is a complete and total liar.
His tape was posted here, up above, at:
QUOTING
#441 Bdaman 1, February 22, 2010 at 8:43 pm.
“CIA COLUMBIA OBAMA COVERUP”
Bdaman 1, February 22, 2010 at 8:43 pm
UNQUOTE
An excellent site has collected all the links to the full story and deserves full credit: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=8047
The list of his lying is here: http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=6524
The guy tells a great story, if you like inherently incredibly bad spy thrillers, but it is all cut from whole cloth, a farrago of fiction, and a gallimaufry of undigested hatred.
I just do not want any wingnuts to claim that a posting of Manning here at the Turley blog is any kind of endorsement. At this blog, we finger the liars.
Another excellent job Vince!!!!! Hey out of curiosity, how are you able to ascertain the exact comment number?
You want to know where Obama was born? Here’s a picture.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23100995/Coast-Province-General-Hospital-picture-photo
You want a hospital saying he was born there? Here’s a video with a picture of that too.
No hospital in the U.S. will back Obama’s claim to having been born Hawaii. They won’t even say that Obama’s mother was a patient there in August of 1961. She’s dead. There are no privacy concerns.
“If the birthers have not believed an official birth certificate issued by the public official with custody, or her statement that she has seen the originals and that they verify he was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen, then nothing will ever convince them.” `Vince Treacy
Who issued Obama’s COLB? Please tell us Vince. You must know more than you’re telling us. Does Vince know that Hawaii will not confirm that a COLB for Barack Obama was issued in June of 2007? That would be a public act, and the record of that transaction including the fee would be subject to the UIPA. Yet nobody will FOLLOW THE LAW when it comes to Obama’s records.
Do you think Dr. Fukino has the ability to arrive at legal conclusion about the natural born citizen status of Barack Obama? What legal source did she use to arrive at her legal determination? She’s your expert counselor. Don’t make her look like a fool who exceeded her capabilities. If she attempted to make a legal declaration with insufficient knowledge of the subject matter you can tell us.
“You want to know where Obama was born? Here’s a picture.”
*****************
I really want to know where you were born and why you’re using the Pentagon in your name. Here’s my best guess as to your place of origin:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/images/mars.jpg
We are 682 comments into this thread and there have been thousands on JT’s site alone. Every lame idea that “birthers” imagine has been debunked primarily by Vince and despite what he writes they keep coming in new persona’s like “Pentagon Charlie.” The truth is that there is no proof that they will accept because they can’t believe that their guy is President. My guess is that when George Bush stole the 1980 election they had not one word of protest because their guy won and he was a white guy.
“Birthers” are not about protecting, or upholding the Constitution they have reduce politics in their small, rigid minds to the level of rooting for ones football team. To give them credence is like giving credence to someone arguing that the Sun revolves around the Earth. On one side is demonstrable reality and on the other there is blind ignorance. To be a “birther” at this point is to describe yourself as either a propagandist, liar or moron. There is of course one other large category of “birther” that must be added and that is the large percentage of “birthers” who are bigots, hate that a Black man is now President and will find any means to make him illegitimate in his Constitutional role.
Each new “birther” antagonist that takes up the cudgel against Vince gets defeated but won’t “cry uncle.” That is because their
hatred, stupidity or partisanship (or all of the above)cannot allow it. They ask questions, but reject answers. Their mind is made up and locked shut an indication of their disconnect from reality and hatred of the government of this country.
I see that a new group of anonymous (of course) posters has entered the fray. Kudos to Vince for having the patience to even address their nonsense.
Here’s the problem I have with it. Quotes taken from links provided by Vince @ 1, March 5, 2010 at 7:24 am
Not sure of the exact comment number. Still waiting on Vince to tell how he came up with that.
A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.
His grades are sealed.
People assume he’s a novice,” says Michael L. Baron, who taught Obama in a Columbia seminar on international politics and American policy. “He’s been thinking about these issues for a long time.” In fact, in a paper for Baron’s class, Obama considered how a President might negotiate nuclear-arms reductions with the Russians. (He got an A.)
He got an A. This guy is smart
Michael Wolf, economist and former president of MTV – Friend and classmate at Columbia of President Barack Obama: “He was very smart.
See told ya he was smart, remember he got an A.
Obama lived off-campus after transferring from Occidental College in Los Angeles. His political science classmate, Michael Ackerman, CC ’84, recalled him as “almost chameleon-like, spy-like, slipped in and out. He tried to keep to himself.”
He is like a chameleon, like a spy
Occidental Magazine, Fall 2004: He was a good student at Occidental (where President Richard Gilman nominated him for a Truman Scholarship during his sophomore year).
So now we know he was a good student at Occi. He was very smart at Columbia and not a novice who got an A but was like a chameleon and like a spy.
old friends and former teachers at the well-regarded 120-year-old school proudly described him as a serious scholar…
In Boesche’s European politics class, Sulzer said he was impressed at how few notes Obama took. “Where I had five pages, Barry had probably a paragraph of the pithiest, tightest prose you’d ever see…
Here we see that he was a serious scholar that took very few notes. He’s smart, not a novice, who got an A, who’s a chameleon, like a spy.
So with all the accolades and how the ones interviewed tell of how smart he is he still keeps all of his records sealed.
If that was me I would be proud to show the world my grades, after all everybody already knows how smart I am.
Copied the entire entry to Word, and the number showed up, I do now know how. I edited and pasted the result here.
I got ya, I’ll try that. It just caught my attention cause I saw the other day I was comment number 666 and it scared the shit out of me.
Bdaman,
This is just a pet peeve with me, but President Obama has not had his records SEALED, he has just not RELEASED them. Universities will not release records (beyond degrees and honors earned) to the public. Complaining that the president didn’t release his school records during the campaign is legitimate (if petty in my opinion), but saying that he had his records sealed is a disingenuous tactic intended to portray something normal as evasive. How many presidential candidates have released their college grades? Under what circumstances did John McCain release his medical records? (Note: I know the answer to this one and it is extremely important for those of us that think President Palin would have been a travesty for our country.)
# 679 Pentagon Charlie, March 5, 2010 at 10:14 am, asked, “You want to know where Obama was born? Here’s a picture.”
Lucas Smith? Please, everyone, just copy “Lucas Smith convicted forger” or “Lucas Smith convicted perjurer” and paste it into your google or other search engine.
Take a look at the results that pop up.
Here is the first that I found, from the very reliable Dr. Conspiracy:
“In a declaration posted on the Internet, and supposedly filed with the district court in California in the case of Barnett v. Obama, convicted felon and birth certificate forger Lucas Smith claims that birther lawyer Orly Taitz asked him to commit perjury regarding conversations about co-counsel Gary Kreep and about one of the fake birth certificates that Orly Taitz filed in the case [that was rejected by the court due to technical problems with the filing], and described in graphic language, Taitz’s sexual exploits with the legal team in the case.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/second-batshirt-award-winner-lucas-smith/
Old timers may remember the radio refrain, LS/MFT: Lucas Smith/Means Forged Testimony
I wish the Pentagon had been this skeptical about the WMDs in the Middle East. Back then, they believed EVERYTHING they heard. Maybe Smith was another source, along with Chalabi and “Cueball,” for all the rumors, speculation and innuendo that they accepted so gullibly.
So this poster is seriously relying on a convicted forger as the source of a valid birth certificate?
Ha!
The so-called certificate produced by Smith is a proven forgery.
Slart
A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed.
The State of Hawaii issued the COLB. What definition did they use? The same definition that all competent attorneys use. For example:
# 551 Vince Treacy 1, February 24, 2010 at 11:12 pm
To everyone, from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”
The other troll, hooch, asked for three sources of the definition of natural born citizen. Scroll up to # 571 Vince Treacy, February 26, 2010 at 8:54 am, for all the definitions compiled by the posters at Dr. Conspiracy’s site.
Seriously, all these pentagonian birherisms are at least a year out of date. All have been asked and answered.
Bdaman,
So are your school record or mine (ask Duke or Michigan State what my grades were – do you think that they will tell you?). My point is that EVERYONE’S records are ‘sealed’ i.e. Barack Obama did not do anything to ‘hide’ his school records, it is just standard policy.
There has not been a shred of credible evidence posted here to refute the fact that Manning is a liar.
“His political science classmate, Michael Ackerman, CC ’84, recalled him as “almost chameleon-like, spy-like, slipped in and out. He tried to keep to himself.”
“He is like a chameleon, like a spy”
“He was very smart at Columbia and not a novice who got an A but was like a chameleon and like a spy.”
This is why you are simply not credible. One classmate, notice not a friend, from more than two decades ago describes him as “spy-like” and that is presented by you as evidence he was “like a spy,” with all of the obvious contextually negative connotations that brings. I think any of us could find we have an acquaintance from the past who says negative things about us. to birthers like you that is added to your all too gullible “chain of evidence” because you want to prove your wacky beliefs in the face of truth.
do you think that they will tell you?
No, not if Bdaman walked up to the counter and said, Hi I’m here to see Slarti’s records. Them people would say boy, you out your ever lovin mind not get your black ass on outta here and don’t come back.
But see, see you, you peek from behind me and say. It’s Ok, he can see them. You being the highly respected mathematician they so no problem.
Slart it’s all good, it is what it is a we all shall move along, after all thats what sheep do. Where will they lead us to next.
Bdaman,
But I wouldn’t pop out and say it’s okay – not because I care about someone seeing my grades or have something to hide, but because I don’t think that there’s any reason that you need to see my grades. Nor do I think that I need to (or have the right to) see the grades of any presidential candidate.
Vince Treacy “The so-called certificate produced by Smith is a proven forgery.”
That’s a lie!
“The State of Hawaii issued the COLB. What definition did they use?”
The State of Hawaii did not make a statement declaring Barack Obama to be a natural born American citizen. That statement was made by Dr. Fukino. Dr. Fukino is not an attorney and you don’t know what definition or source she used.
Janice Okubo, Spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health looked at the online image of Obama’s COLB and said “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
Slart as I said it’s all good, it is what it is, and we all shall move along, after all, thats what sheep do.
Where will they lead us to next. It’s been good drama up to this point and in the end it still comes down to will you or won’t you. To be or not to be, I believe that was the original question to begin with. And I think that was the beginning of the division in this country. Now here were are 14,15 months later and look at us, look at the world. All you can do is keep trying to take another step in the right direction. No pun intended
Pants, so what part of the statement “The so-called certificate produced by Smith is a proven forgery” is a lie? Even WorldNutDaily would not verify it. What is your proof that it is genuine?
Give it a rest, Pants. Fukino spoke for the State of Hawaii. She is the State official with custody of the records. She saw the original and said it verified Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
The definitions that I posted are the conventional, common definitions used by all US citizens, for over a century. If he was born in the US and was subject to its jurisdiction, then he is a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds of citizens, natural born (that is, citizen by virtue of their birth) and naturalized (citizens by naturalization). What is so hard about that?
It you are serious, try your approach in court. Prepare yourself for the type of sanctions imposed on Orly in the caption to this thread.
Are you really going to put Lucas Smith on the stand and have him produce that Kenyan birth certificate and have him testify that it is genuine? Does the phrase “subornation of perjury” ring a bell with you?
Even the birther lawyers are treating Smith like an H1N1 carrier.
H1N1, what H1N1? freakin payoff to Big Pharma. How many here went and got a flu shot? If you answer I, your a sheep.
Why do people think Obama was born in Kenya?
His parents were U.S. citizens. They didn’t have any relatives in Kenya. When would they have been able to go to Kenya? He wasn’t born during summer break was he? Why would they have gone to Mombasa. Would it have been a problem for his father to go to his own village? Was he already married? Were there better doctors in Mombasa? Somebody is saying that the doctor in Mombasa was one of the premier obstetricians in Kenya. Is that true? Isn’t there some record of his mother being in Hawaii after he was born up until the time she was spotted in Seattle?
Didn’t his grandmother say she was at the hospital when he was born?
I don’t get it. How can people think he may have been born in Kenya when there would have been nothing that would have made Kenya a good place to visit the summer after they were married. It’s not like it’s a place where being on Kenyan soil is important in their culture.
I wish people would just let it go.
Has anyone seen this yet.
JAKARTA, Indonesia – Scores of Islamic students staged protests outside Jakarta’s parliament and in at least three other major Indonesian cities on Friday against President Barack Obama’s upcoming visit to this predominantly Muslim country.
The students carried banners branding Obama as an enemy of Islam and an imperialist in downtown Jakarta as well as in the provincial capitals Padang, Yogyakarta and Surabaya.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/ap_on_re_as/as_indonesia_obama
Seeing how we’ve had many comparisons of Obama to Bush here at the Turley Blog, I don’t think he should go.
And in other news,
Rep. Paul Broun not sure if Obama is citizen
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33992.html#ixzz0hLWYaDWB
He very well maybe natural born but nobody can deny this from Broun.
“I know he is,” a socialist, Broun said. “You look at his own writings. He said when he was in college he leaned to Marxist tendencies and is linked to Marxist professors. He joined Marxists clubs. And look at who he’s put in his administration, they’re devout socialists.”
Broun Told the Truth, The Whole Truth and Nuttin But da Truth.
Bdaman,
So what? A vast majority of Americans are just fine with socialism (social security and medicare).
A vast majority of Americans
Ok, and by the sounds of it you don’t mine. But why do I have to follow and is this why they call it Hope and Change. What I don’t think is the vast majority of Americans voted for being,
” five days away, of fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
I guess there will just be a vast majority of Americans that you’ll have to drag to get them to follow with you.
“Pants, so what part of the statement “The so-called certificate produced by Smith is a proven forgery” is a lie? Even WorldNutDaily would not verify it. What is your proof that it is genuine?”
You want to say that it’s a “proven forgery”. You prove it’s a forgery.
Saying that it is a proven forgery is a lie.
“[I]t 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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett (1874)
We are all aware that the Obfuscator in Chief will say that Wong Kim Ark concludes that 14th Amendment citizens are as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. Just like a naturalized citizen is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court isn’t stupid. If they wanted to say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment they could have done that. But they didn’t. Were the judges in Minor v. Happersett aware of and discussing the 14th Amendment? Let’s look at the first sentence of the Court’s opinion.
“The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone.”
The Court was considering the 14th Amendment when they handed down their opinion in MINOR.
Readers should notice that none of the definitions presented by Vince Treacy are supported by relevant citation. He wants you readers to think that the Common Law of England was the law of the United States when in reality the Court only used the common law for interpretation of things like habeas corpus. Does Vince Treacy ever tell the readers that Vattel’s Law of Nations was made part of the Common Law of England in 1764? The Court in MINOR obviously knew that.
Bdaman,
Take a look at the sort of thing that went on when both medicare and social security were passed. You’ll see a lot of similarities in the tactics and rhetoric of opponents then and now.
I saw this story on Think Progress today, and it is rather surprising that Georgia’s Rep Broun claimed not to know President Obama was a U.S. citizen; as he had voted YEA on House Resolution 593 which in addition to honoring the 50th Anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood, and much to the chagrin of Rep Bachman, HR593 (AKA the “counter-birther” bill) also recognized Hawaii as the birthplace of our 44th President!
According to Pants, “That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen.”
There is no difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds of citizens that the courts have ever recognized. This poster sounds like and may be Mario, who has taken over the invented idea of a 14th Amendment citizen who is (1) born as a US citizen but (2) is not a natural born citizen, but only a (3) born citizen (4) because both parents were not citizens. These concepts are unknown to the Constitution and the courts.
Vattel? We discussed him in Retired General and other threads. He was an authority on the laws of nations, that is, international law affecting relations among states. His statements about citizenship applied to continental powers, not to common law countries. The phrase “natural born” did not even appear in English until a 1798 translation, long after the ratification. Vattel was not an authority on the common law as it affected municipal law. This is all a myth.
The framers used common law concepts for far more issues than habeas corpus. That is a misleading statement. Many more common law terms were used, including bill of attainder, corruption of blood, jury trial for cases at common law, ex post facto, speech or debate immunity, and many others. The concept of “natural born” was taken from Blackstone’s description of “natural born” subject, which included all persons born in the realm.
Minor left the question of children of noncitizens open. Whatever doubts were expressed in Minor were resolved in Wong Kim Ark. Minor is not the law on this question. Wong Kim Ark is the controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Children of aliens born in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens from birth. The necessary implication is that they are natural born citizens, because they are not naturalized citizens, and there are no other kinds of citizens other than natural born and naturalized. Once again, that is the “necessary” implication.
I went back to Wong and found the key sentence again: “The child of an alien, 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, 666] Page 22, note.”
Link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
Now here is what Pants had to say: “We are all aware that the Obfuscator in Chief will say that Wong Kim Ark concludes that 14th Amendment citizens are as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. Just like a naturalized citizen is as much a citizen as a natural born citizen. That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court isn’t stupid. If they wanted to say that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment they could have done that.”
I will let the reader decide. I have said that Wong held that a child born to an alien is as much a citizen as the “natural born child” of a citizen. That is what the court said. The child of an alien is the same as the natural born child of a citizen. It is not the same as a naturalized citizen, because it can be President. So I think the court did say that Wong “was a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment.” I provided the link.
Even though Obama’s father was not a citizen, but a lawfully admitted student, his child is “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen,” according to the ruling in Wong. As much a citizen as a natural born child. Not as much a citizen as a naturalized child.
I have found no judicial authority for “born citizens,” “14th Amendment citizens,” or “basic citizens.” These sprung from the writings of Donofrio and Apuzzo and unknown others. The concept is a stranger to American law.
There are only two kinds of US citizens. Natural born citizens. Naturalized citizens. A person who is born as a citizen is a natural born citizen. Persons who are legally naturalized are naturalized citizens. A citizen is one or the other. The only difference is eligibility for the Presidency and Vice Presidency.
If Obama was born a citizen, becoming a citizen at his birth and by virtue of his birth, then he was a natural born citizen.
I have described how the common law of England was accepted by each of the 13 original states. Its terms were used constantly to interpret the law. For a complete discussion, see the posting by Ballantine at:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2009/12/in-united-states-court-of-appeals-for.html
There is plenty of proof of forgeries on the net. This is old, old news.
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/09/lucas-smith-is-back.html
Anyway, the burden is on convicted forger Smith and his supporter.
Anyone can check the Wikipedia “Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories” page for discussion and links to all aspects of the controversy. Here is an excerpt:
“Alleged Kenyan birth certificate
“On August 2, 2009, Orly Taitz released and attached to court documents what she alleged to be an authentic Kenyan birth certificate. Legal documents submitted describe the document as an “unauthenticated color photocopy of certified copy of registration of birth”.[52][53] The document was almost immediately revealed to be a forgery. It purports to have been issued by the “Republic of Kenya”, when in fact, such a state did not yet exist at the time of Obama’s birth as indicated on the document (Kenya was a Dominion of the British Crown until 1963).[54][55] Subsequently, evidence was unearthed that the alleged Kenyan birth certificate is a modified version of a 1959 Australian birth certificate found on an online genealogy website.[56][57] The Washington Independent website cited an anonymous blogger[58] as having taken credit for the forgery and posting four photos substantiating the claim.[59] Examples of actual 1961 Kenyan birth certificates have also been revealed, which look substantially different from the document Taitz submitted to the court.[60]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
Pants,
That certainly seems like ‘relevant citations’ from Vince to me. Do you have any citations to back up your argument?
Here is just one of many cases describing the two, and only two, classes of citizens, from the excellent site entitled “Native and Natural Born Citizenship Explored”:
QUOTE
Zimmer et al. v. Acheson, Secretary of State United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. – 191 F.2d 209, 1951
There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens. [1] and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen [2]
[1] Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F.Supp. 61, 67
[2] United States v. Wong Kim Arm, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed. 890; Johansen v. Staten Island Shipbuilding Co., 272 N.Y. 140, 5 N.E.2d 68, 70; United States v. Kellar, C.C.Ill., 13 F. 82, 85; Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States, D.C.Md., 45 F.Supp. 61, 67
UNQUOTE
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/zimmer-et-al-v-acheson-secretary-of-state-united-states-court-of-appeals-tenth-circuit-191-f-2d-209/
Sorry Slart I’m not paying attention anymore. It is not my norm to consume alchoholi beverages but tohnight I got a beer in one hand and a crown in the other, I love you man.
Who’s the president?
No buddy Knows
Who cares?
Whats the difference
History lesson for ya. Back in the day whenn manure was being transported they placed in the bottom of ships. The water mixed with the manure it turned to methane and the the first one to light the lantern went boom. There for they came up with shit.
Ship High In Transit
And thats how shit happens.
Still in the bowels of the ship eh Bdaman? Figures, swirling or swilling the remainder of the night?
Vince Treacy “According to Pants, “That doesn’t make a 14th Amendment citizen or a naturalized citizen a natural born citizen.”
There is no difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds of citizens that the courts have ever recognized. This poster sounds like and may be Mario, who has taken over the invented idea of a 14th Amendment citizen who is (1) born as a US citizen but (2) is not a natural born citizen, but only a (3) born citizen (4) because both parents were not citizens. These concepts are unknown to the Constitution and the courts.”
“[N]o difference between a 14th Amendment citizen and a natural born citizen.”? Have you tried selling that one to the Court who claimed Ark to be “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”. Did the Court say that Ark was as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? No. The Court did not.
If someone is not as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, they must just be a native-born citizen. Neither a native-born citizen nor a 14th Amendment citizen have ever been ruled by the Supreme Court to be natural-born citizens whose parents were not themselves citizens. Never!
“The phrase “natural born” did not even appear in English until a 1798 translation, long after the ratification. Vattel was not an authority on the common law as it affected municipal law.”
Enough of the lies Vince Treacy. Vattel’s Law of Nations was first translated into English in 1759. The first American Edition was printed in 1796.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7PiHOIxUpX8C&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=vattel+%2Blaw+of+nations+%2B1759&source=bl&ots=349g9rqlBF&sig=gz9pm78C3mM_lAzhxv9ACo9B2Lo&hl=en&ei=M7aRS_roGo-0tgfckr3UCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=vattel%20%2Blaw%20of%20nations%20%2B1759&f=false
I’d tell you to get your facts straight but I doubt that would interest you.
~Benjamin Franklin to Charles Dumas (1775)~ “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. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) 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.”
Vince Treacy~ “The concept of “natural born” was taken from Blackstone’s description of “natural born” subject, which included all persons born in the realm.”
The above is the unsupported opinion of Vince Treacy. It is not a matter of historic record. It makes absolutely no sense for the Framers to avoid the clearly stated definition of “natural born citizen” as was presented by Vattel in lieu of an undefined term; especially without further discussion; and even more so when discussing measures of national security involving the qualifications for President and Commander-in-Chief. No evidence of further discussion exists. The term as presented by John Jay to George Washington was clearly understood and clearly defined. There is no evidence of any other term used in the Constitution being made up on-the-fly. It would be reckless for us to even contemplate such an ill-conceived interpretation some 220 years later.
Vince Treacy~ “Children of aliens born in the US, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens from birth. The necessary implication is that they are natural born citizens, because they are not naturalized citizens, and there are no other kinds of citizens other than natural born and naturalized. Once again, that is the “necessary” implication.”
The only thing necessary about it being that it is necessary if you want your interpretation to be supported. OTher than that you’re just playing with the putty until it fits your desired mold.
Vince Treacy~ “I went back to Wong and found the key sentence again: “The child of an alien, 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, 666] Page 22, note.”
Once again Vince, the Court had a chance and chose not to say that such a person is as much a natural-born citizen ans the natural-born child of a citizen. Multiple chances in the same case and they still just make them as much “a citizen”. You’re digging yourself deeper into the hole.
More from Wong “To hold that the fourteenth amndment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”
Once again the Court had a clear chance to declare those born in the U.S. were natural-born citizens but avoided making that declaration. Maybe it’s time to let the Court make that determination. Don’t you think the best time for the Court to make that determination is when the question is actually presented to the Court for determination?
Vince Treacy~ “I will let the reader decide. I have said that Wong held that a child born to an alien is as much a citizen as the “natural born child” of a citizen. That is what the court said. The child of an alien is the same as the natural born child of a citizen.”
The Court never said they were the same. They said the U.S.-born child of an alien, is AS MUCH A CITIZEN as the natural born child of a citizen.
Vince Treacy~ “As much a citizen as a natural born child [of a citizen]. Not as much a citizen as a naturalized child.”
Are you saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen? That what it looks like you’re saying. Isn’t “not as much”, less? I’ll give you not as much as your brother. Are you going to get less? Should we ask the children?
Vince Treacy~ “If Obama was born a citizen, becoming a citizen at his birth and by virtue of his birth, then he was a natural born citizen.”
“If Obama was born a citizen”! Freudian slip or recognition of valid questions? Did you finally look into the Lucas Smith certificate (You know, with the same kind of energy you expend to defend Obama?) and discover that the false claims of forgery made by WND were just that. False claims!
Contrary to the false claims presented here, the Lucas Smith birth certificate has never been proven to be a forgery. Anyone having a desire to address a specific detail of that document is welcome to ask a question about it.
High Ay, I love you too.
You bein frum Texass n evrythang, watt you get when you cross ah brown cow witta brown chicken.
Brown chicka brown brown, brown chika brown brown.
P.S. I prefer Slip sliden Away, Me n da Mrs’s
God, you gotta love it, but before you can, you gotta love God.
God luvit or was that Lyle.
Bdaman,
I refuse to admit the existence of god until he shows me his birth certificate.
Pants,
The phrase ‘natural born citizen’ didn’t appear in an english translation of de Vattel until 1798, as Vince said. The rest of your post is just as faulty as that accusation, but I’ll let Vince handle that.
Excuse me, I’ve got to get some popcorn…
Slarti when you comeback with the popcorn, shut up and listen to the wonderful sounds from Mr. Simons.
The proper term for those 14th Amendment citizens whose parents are aliens is “native-born citizen”.
Suzy,
Did you know that Obama’s father and the doctor who delivered Obama Jr. in Kenya use to be neighbors?
What are the chances that the Dr. who delivered Barack Obama (as depicted by the LS CPGH BC) were neighbors? This Lucas Smith fellow must be a pretty sharp cookie. He not only chose the father of a Kenyan High Court Judge but he chose one that was Obama Sr’s neighbor.
“The family lived in high-class government quarters in Upper Hill. Among their neighbours were Dr Njoroge Mungai, former President Kenyatta’s personal physician, President Kibaki, who was then minister for Finance and the late Barack Obama Sr, father of American President Barack Obama.”
“Dr Ang’awa had worked in Embu, Kiambu, Kilifi, Mombasa, Kakamega and Bungoma and was one of the best known members of the medical profession in the country.”
Nothing to see here. Everyday citizens in Kenya were able to afford to come to school in the U.S. in 1960. It couldn’t possibly be that Obama Sr. was friends with Dr. Ang’awa and trusted him to deliver his child.
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/201002010485.html
From the Urban Dictionary
Natural Born Citizen
A “natural born citizen” is a person who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to citizenship “at birth” or “by birth.”
The term includes
(1) a person who is born in the United States, including its territories and possessions and the District of Columbia, and who is subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not born to foreign diplomats or to hostile occupying forces;
(2) a person who is born abroad to two U.S. citizens; and
(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born abroad to two citizens, and was born in the Canal Zone, a United States possession.
The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark.
Source:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=natural+born+citizen
Pants has made a bad investment in the veracity of Lucas Smith. The market for that commodity has declined drastically. It is like a bluff in poker: it may work if it is not called, and it has been called. Just what part of the phrase “convicted forger” does the poster not understand? The concept of “convicted”? Or the concept of “forger”?
Enough said. Debating someone whose argument depends on the truthfulness of Lucas Smith is too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Not even Pentagon Charlie is backing that horse anymore.
As the definition says, natural born includes both the native born in the United States itself, like Obama, and the persons born outside the United States to a citizen parent or parents, like McCain. Both categories are included as natural born citizens.
There are natural born and naturalized citizens. No case has ever recognized an intermediate 14th Amendment or basic citizen status. Pants would have cited it if there were one. And there will no such case handed down in the 3d Circuit in Mario’s appeal. Pants has cited no cases as authority for that concept.
Slart, thanks. 1796 of 1798, it was still years after the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, which Vattel did NOT draft or ratify. Vattel was valued for his work on the law of nations, now called international law. He was not and authority on municipal law, now called domestic or civil law. Pants admits that Franklin consulted Vattel on the law of nations. Vattel’s phrase “natural born citizen” had not even been translated into English when Jay wrote his letter. “Natural born” as a modifier of the term “subject” had been used in the common law for centuries.
The birthers NEVER discuss the rationale and purpose of the Clause. It was drafted because of the concern expressed in Jay’s letter about the “admission of Foreigners” into our government. The documented historical concern was that the republic would fail, and that a prince, like one of the sons of George III, would have to be invited to be head of state. They wanted to prevent this, so they acted to prevent any foreign leader from being installed in the government after naturalization by Congress. The Electoral College was another safeguard against this possibility. They never expressed concern about infants born in the United States to aliens, and that subject was resolved by the 14th Amendment anyway.
Hamilton was there, and he proposed that the presidency be limited to persons then a citizen or “hereafter born a Citizen of the United States.” Born a citizen. How many times does it have to be repeated. He wanted anyone who would be “born” a citizen after the date of ratification to be eligible. He wanted to exclude naturalized foreign royalty, nobility and generals.
Jay wanted to exclude grown-up foreigners from being naturalized and acclaimed as leaders of the new nation. The phrase “natural born” citizen, based on the common law concept of “natural born” subject, achieved this. That is what happened. So just like the definition above, the Presidency was reserved to those who were “born” a citizen.
So Pants vouches for Lucas Smith. Fine. Word of advice. If Pants is a lawyer, do not, repeat, not, ever, put Smith on the stand, under any circumstances whatsoever, if Pants values his or her law license in any way at all.
So what is your view of Smith’s credibility, Pants?
Pants writes “Did the Court say that Ark was as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? No. The Court did not.” Now that sounds like Leo Donofrio. Leo, if that is you, sorry about your loss in bankruptcy court. Sorry about the shuttering of your website. Better luck with poker.
You and your pupil Pants are still wrong. One more time. The Wong court said “The child of an alien, 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.” The court said Wong was as much a citizen as a natural born child. Those were its words.
A child of aliens born in the US is as much a citizen as the NATURAL BORN CHILD of a citizen. The Court did NOT say that the child was as much a citizen as a NATURALIZED CHILD. Again, what is so hard about that? Pants asks “Are you saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen?” Of course not. I never said that. I said that the court DID NOT SAY that Wong was “as much a citizen as a naturalized child.”
Leo will never get this. Pants, are you Leo? Are you a fan of Leo?
Pants on Fire and related trolls,
IMHO the accusations in your posts are false and very offensive.
The burden of proof is on you.
Spin your opinions all you want, but the facts are the facts, and you ought to try to be more honorable.
Vince Treacy is a real man with integrity and great stores of patience; and I dare you and all the trolls here, to start using your own real name before you again try to start a flame war.
“Vince Treacy is a real man with integrity and great stores of patience; ….”
************
Seconded, though it is a manifest fact – proven conclusively by this thread.
Thank you, CEJ and Mespo.
Why on Earth would the president of the United/Divided States want people talking like this. Vince could you break this video down.
Vince here is a link that was shown in that video you can use for future reference or research. Maybe you can review the site and debunk it in whole or part for us. Thanks for your excellent research.
http://hallshame.webs.com/vision.html
I second CEJ and mespo as well.
Vince is a creature of integrity and (from what I can tell) nearly infinite patience.
It’s time for the birther trolls to present proof (as in ACTUAL proof, not inane “Obama’s Nana” garbage) or shut down their sideshow. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama – namely he’s pissing on the Constitution just like Bush, but his citizenship is a dog that does NOT hunt and will NEVER hunt.
He’s a citizen. I lying sack of crap and Constitutional violator, but he is a citizen. So come on, bring Obama down. Because you can’t do it without sacrificing Bush and Cheney.
Both parties are traitorous at this point.
Wake up and smell the discontent.
further evidence of fakiness:
http://secondpagemedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-birthday.jpg
Bd: “Maybe you can review the site and debunk it in whole or part for us.”
Bs, perhaps you could review these sites and analyze them and report back to us on your findings. Thank you.
I meant to type Bd, not Bs. Sorry about that, chief.
Now that’s humor.
Here is a fine investment opportunity for those folks at this thread who believe everything they read on the web:
[quoting]
URGENT ATTENTION
From: Abdul-Aziz Hakim
Sent: Sat 3/06/10 3:40 AM
To:
URGENT ATTENTION
….
My name is Barrister Abdul-Aziz Hakim, a Senior Advocate and legal consultant in practice here in Malaysia, I had a client, a contractor based here in Malaysia now deceased.
My client lost his life alongside his wife and only child in a plane crash (Flight OG 269 from the Thailand capital, Bangkok en-route Phuket) on Sunday, 16 September 2007, 21:59 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6997381.stm
Prior to the Death of my Late Client, He secured a contract of US$ 39,000,000.00 million from the Kingdom of Bahrain, which He successfully executed, but the balance of $ 21,300,000.00 contract payment was in the Process of being transferred into his Account which he submitted to the Bahrain Government before he lost his life in the plane crash.
Three Months after his sudden death, the Government effected the transfer of the balance of his Contract Funds into the account that my deceased Client has on his file with the Government. As his consultant and personal lawyer, I have been officially notified and instructed by the bank where the money is currently deposited that I should provide and forward the particulars of my deceased client’s next of kin so that the funds in his account can be remitted into his Next of Kin’s account.
However, as his personal lawyer and close confidant, I want you to know that my late Client died intestate, i.e. he died without leaving a Will and all my efforts to locate any of his relatives whom I can present to the Bank has proved abortive.
Therefore I am seeking for your consent to present you as the relative/next of kin and subsequently the beneficiary of the fund, so that the proceeds of this account valued at US$ 21,300,000.00 can be paid to you.
I am contacting you for two reasons. As his legal consultant I have been officially notified and instructed by the bank to provide and forward the particulars of the deceased next of kin, so that the funds in his account can be remitted into his Next of Kin’s account in accordance with the Laws here in Malaysia.
….
Regards,
Barr. Abdul-Aziz Hakim M. Esq.
Senior Advocate/Solicitor [stop quoting]
No names changed to protect the innocent. Email addresses deleted to protect the gullible.
“He very well maybe natural born but nobody can deny this from Broun.”
“I know he is,” a socialist, Broun said. “You look at his own writings. He said when he was in college he leaned to Marxist tendencies and is linked to Marxist professors. He joined Marxists clubs. And look at who he’s put in his administration, they’re devout socialists.”
Our resident bigot and constant troll fools no one with his new “kinder and gentler” style and his false bonhomie. Besides his little jokes and pretend relaxed manner he still weaves into his comments little zingers that make the same propaganda GOP talking points.
Above, in a prior comment, I noted his implication that as a Columbia Student Obama acted like a “spy.” In the quote that leads this comment we have him using the word of a wacko right wing congressman to brand Obama a socialist. Also he continues to constantly post his links to propaganda attacks, usually as reflected by Vince, above urging people to go there and comment on them. He of course posts this crap without opinions of his own attached, the better to keep his head low from returning fire. It is curious that this week Politico published the overview of strategy given out at a GOP fundraisers training meeting. One main point they wanted emphasized was the meme that Obama is a socialist.
Our troll bigot’s quoting of Broun dovetails with this new set of talking points and I believe that is no coincidence. What I find infuriating is that I know about socialism as an ideology and have actually known committed socialists. To brand the Administration as socialist not only represents blatant lying, but it also represents total ignorance of socialism. Never let it be said though that our troll bigot has ever let ignorance stop him. The question on him really is whether he is that gullible, that partisan, or just a propagandist spreading the manure.
As for Pants yet another incarnation on the sight of the Jim Byrne stripe. He is rehashing old stuff, already debunked. One persona gets knocked down and another takes their place. Same ignorance is displayed and the same unwillingness to truly engage in discussion. Kenya story re-emerges and the lies continue. however, in the true tradition of Goebbels, you just keep spreading the lies and some of the gullible and uninformed will believe it.
What is astounding is that there are plenty of areas to legitimately attack this administration and I daresay I could do a better job of it than any of these clowns. They refrain though from legitimate policy attacks because they are smart enough to know that in that direction lies the revelation of truth about their own positions. They have no policies to offer. They have no solutions to the country’s problems. Their politicians are just trying to get/keep a cushy job and reap the financial rewards that go with it. American politics has become a contest over positions, rather than a venue for dealing with our nation’s
huge problems. These two trolls are either in their endeavors displaying their monumental ignorance, or perhaps they are just cogs in the corporate machinery. In any event their lame methodology is quite easy to decipher as is their lack of honesty, morality, or decency.
The so-called words of Vattel, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” did not appear in an English translation until 10 years after the Convention.
Vattel’s French stated “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The only translations available to the framers, from 1760 and 1787, translated “indigènes” as “indigenes.”
So much for the fanciful theory that Vattel wrote the Natural Born Citizen Clause into the Constitution.
Source, again, from Dr. Conspiracy:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
“What I find infuriating is that I know about socialism as an ideology and have actually known committed socialists. To brand the Administration as socialist not only represents blatant lying, but it also represents total ignorance of socialism.”
You are so right. The way the terms socialist, Marxist and communist are being bandied about these days has made them absolutely meaningless. Don’t like something? It must be socialist. Don’t like someone? They must be a marxist. It means nothing, but that doesn’t matter. The goal is to demonize people republicans disagree with by creating a new Red Menace.
EC,
How right you are. When I hear people saying that Nazi’s were left wingers and accusing Obama of being both a socialist and a fascist, it astounds me, because the level of historical knowledge of just the past six decades is lost on many of these birthers and truthers. I find it hard to tolerate deliberate, smug ignorance.
Mike S,
Well said, as usual. What really gets me are the people who rail against socialism and in the next breath say something like, ‘and keep your damn hands off my social security or medicare!’ and have absolutely no idea that they’re being total hypocrites. It makes me want to move to Sweden…
I needed a break. Just watched a great HBO documentary on Magic and Bird that premiered tonight and will probably repeat all month. It was a lot of fun to relive those years.
Vince,
It’s a well-deserved break. I saw my first basketball game in 1979 in Jenison Fieldhouse at Michigan state (I was 10). Magic and Special K were amazing – I’ve never seen someone happier to be on the court than Magic, and I’ve seen a lot of hoops since…
Good memory, Slart. I go back to Boston Garden in 1954-55, when the Celtics, with Cousy, Sharman and Easy Ed McCauley, played teams like the Syracuse Nats, the Rochester Royals, and the “Zollner Pistons” (I am not making this up).
QUOTE
#720 Pants on fire 1, March 5, 2010 at 11:14 pm:
Did you know that Obama’s father and the doctor who delivered Obama Jr. in Kenya use to be neighbors?
What are the chances that the Dr. who delivered Barack Obama (as depicted by the LS CPGH BC) were neighbors? This Lucas Smith fellow must be a pretty sharp cookie. He not only chose the father of a Kenyan High Court Judge but he chose one that was Obama Sr.’s neighbor.
721 Pants on fire 1, March 5, 2010 at 11:35 pm:
“The family lived in high-class government quarters in Upper Hill. Among their neighbours were Dr Njoroge Mungai, former President Kenyatta’s personal physician, President Kibaki, who was then minister for Finance and the late Barack Obama Sr, father of American President Barack Obama.” UNQUOTE
This is a good example of the lack of reasoning by the birthers. What are the chances that the doctor who delivered Obama was a neighbor? The chances are zero, since the so-called certificate by convicted forger Lucas Smith is a forgery, so the forger could choose anyone he wanted as the delivering physician.
What are the chances that the forger took a name with a connection to Obama Sr. and put it on the fake? About 100%.
This is the type of nonsense the birthers wallow in. Obama Sr. may have lived near this guy at one time, but in 1961 he was a student in Hawaii. How did he get to Kenya with his wife, have the baby delivered, return to Hawaii at a time when there were no direct flights, take a baby past immigration, and make a phone call to the health department asking them to issue a birth certificate?
As I have said, it is more plausible that the rocket from Krypton landed on the Kent farm on Oahu with baby Kal-El.
There is no sign the Smith has even signed or sworn to the statements that he has made about the fake, because he may be at least shrewd enough to avoid a perjury charge. Pants, however, is on the money on one issue: Lucas “chose” the father of a Kenyan High Court Judge and a neighbor of Obama Sr. when he created his fake.
Dr. Conspiracy has the full story today:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/03/baby-obama-delivered-by-neighbor/
And the Doc has a complete discussion of the Lucas Smith fake, with a lot of comments, at:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/
I will be watching to see if Pants has anything to say over there.
Mike S,
Well said on all fronts.
EC and Mike S,
What’s even worse is many of those who misuse words like socialist, fascist and Marxist are people who should know better. It is somewhat of an embarrassment to me that my father seems particularly susceptible to propaganda. This despite being an educated man. He misuses socialism all the time. This is also despite being educated repeatedly by me as to the proper usage. It was when I discovered this ‘brain anomaly’ that I discovered he watches almost exclusively FAUXNews – a group of propagandistic hacks whose reputation needs little elaboration here. Is this mere coincidence? No. I think it’s direct albeit anecdotal evidence of the susceptibility of some to neurolinguistic programing.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels
If one thinks this is mere paranoia, I submit an analogy. Memes are like a virus in how they spread. The base component of a virus are genes (either DNA or RNA). The base components of memes are words. If one changes the meaning of a word, one changes the meaning of a meme. This is usually accomplished by the Goebbels technique. Look at advertising. It’s one giant petrie dish of Goebbels theory in action. Propaganda is a type of verbal and visual mind control, just with different ends than advertising.
Demonization is but one possible outcome.
Slarti and Vince,
I don’t even like basketball and that was an entertaining film.
“It was when I discovered this ‘brain anomaly’ that I discovered he watches almost exclusively FAUXNews”
Buddha,
You make very good points and it is true many people I know, probably your father’s age do follow FOX. Even when I patiently explain to them the misinformation their eyes glaze over and my words have no effect. Then entire country has been the deliberate victim of a brainwashing campaign that began after Goldwater’s loss in 1964. It was well thought out and well-financed and had some of the best advertising and PR people doing the work. They’ve succeeded for the most part and we are reaping the whirlwind of collapsing democracy.
Vince & Slart,
That’s fine for you to say but I grew up with the Knicks in the 50′s and they were putrid.
A California lawyer who continues to shepherd several of the high-profile legal challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president says she’s ready and willing to investigate the issue herself – as California’s secretary of state.
Attorney Orly Taitz told WND today she is considering – and will decide very quickly because of a coming deadline – whether she should submit her own name as a candidate for the state office.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126765
Mike S, Slartibart, VinceT, Buddha, CEJ and Empire,et all.
I commend you all on your patience in repeatedly educating our troll friend to the facts. The Big Lie as mentioned earlier is getting bigger by the day. I believe that these trolls are paid to help spread this nonsense.
Buddha,
I’m glad you were able to get some enjoyment from basketball. Having grown up in East Lansing with parents who were both Michigan State grads (and a mother who was a big basketball fan), I remember the ’79 title game vividly. The images of Larry Bird with his face buried in a towel and Magic with joy just radiating off of him have always been icons of defeat and victory to me.
Mike S,
I became a Knicks fan while I was living in Manhattan (Ewing era) so I can understand some of your pain. I’ve been blessed with some truly great basketball teams to cheer for. (I do have the misfortune of being a Detroit Lions fan, so the sports karma is balanced…)
Vince,
I would have loved to have seen games in the old Boston Garden (I a big fan of storied sporting venues). And I would be rooting for the Pistons (then and now).
I’d comment on the propaganda conversation, but I’m finding it depressingly accurate right now. I will say that I like Buddha’s meme-virus analogy.
Slarti and Mike S.,
You’ll always have 1970.
It appears that the connection between Dr. James Ang’awa and Obama Sr. goes back even further. Dr. Ang’awa was a fellow member of the Luo tribe. He may have even been related to Obama Sr. Common relatives among tribal members are fairly common.
When Obama Sr. was expelled from school, his father sent him to Mombasa to work for an Asian friend. One of the women who provided financial assistance to Obama Sr. was Dr. Helen Roberts. Dr. Roberts founded the KWALE DISTRICT EYE CENTER in Mombasa. It is reported that Obama Sr. left the job with his father’s Asian friend and joined up with Tom Mboya, another Luo tribe member. Mboya founded the Kenya Local Government Workers’ Union, and after many of its leaders were jailed Mboya assumed the leadership of the Kenya Federation of Labour in 1953, and distinguished himself by mediating the Mombasa dock workers’ strike in 1955. Tom Mboya is one of those directly responsible for Obama Sr. having the opportunity to study in Hawaii.
If Obama Sr. returned to Mombasa during the summer of ’61, it is reasonable to consider that he could have returned to working for Tom Mboya. This would have permitted him to provide financial support for his new wife and son, and the wife and two children he left behind. Support that his scholarship would probably not have provided.
The very same people who provided Obama Sr’s transportation to Hawaii probably provided transportation home during the summer vacation. It would be kind of cruel to send students abroad for education and not provide them a means of visiting their family until they graduated. Wouldn’t it?
How close was the relationship between Obama Sr. and Tom Mboya? It was close enough that Obama referred to Mboya as his “godfather”.
Like the name says.
“I believe that these trolls are paid to help spread this nonsense.”
Raff,
I’ve long suspected that and have stated such. Bdaman is an example. These new names that come and go could all be the same person given stylistic similarities. Certainly, the Goldwater Conservatives and John Birch Society members who established their campaign are still quite active and extremely well-funded. Like your site by the way and visit when I can.
Slart,
The greatest and really only Knick era was the Walt Frazier, Willis Reed era from ’68 to ’73. Those years produced some fun teams and I think Frazier was an all time great who doesn’t get his full due. Ewing might have been great, but who knows given the weak supporting cast he had. Now they are directionless clowns.
Vince,
I’m going to watch the show on your say so. Two of my favorite all time ballplayers, but to me Magic gets the nod because Larry didn’t have his speed. I think Magic was the equal of Michael Jordan but then to me so was Dr. J. I unfortunately go on and off on this off topic discussion.
EC,
In the first post on this thread I mentioned I felt that Orly would use this con as a steppingstone, though I admit I was thinking more along the lines of reality TV.
It’s all falling apart,
I’m sorry your life is going so badly. I wish you the strength to pull it all together and suggest the medium of prayer for you, for self healing.
Who Gives a Rat’s Ass What You Think,
Pithy comment and no doubt the consensus opinion of those who know you.
Here’s part of an interview with Miki Booth independent T party candidate for Oklahoma.
SHARON: How did you obtain the long-form birth certificates that you held up on February 6 at the Tea Party convention? Do you also have short forms derived from the originals? Anything called a “Certification of Live Birth”?
Miki: I met and married Fred in 1980 and Alan was born a year later. They were both born in Kapiolani Hospital 30 years apart. Their long-form certificates that were generated in the hospital are titled “Certification Of Live Birth.” That’s the same title that the short form has. They are both COLB’s, but the differences in content are quite striking. The more I and others investigate this cluster, the clearer it becomes that the Hawaii Department of Health and their Vital Statistics Office are quite inept. I can’t help wondering if it’s intentional, especially in light of discussions concerning COHBs. That stands for “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth,” and we also have one of those to present so folks will see what that’s about. This third Hawaiian birth certificate is Fred’s dad, who’s deceased, but had Hawaiian blood.
To answer your question: no, we don’t have any short-form certificates, and the only ones we’ve ever seen are for kids who were not born in Hawaii but their folks are Hawaii residents. So the short-form COLB only certifies that a live baby was born, but not necessarily in Hawaii.
I resent being labeled a “birther” which, according to some, means I don’t believe he was born in Hawaii. I’m not saying that because, really, who knows for sure? I’m saying if he’s going to claim he was born in Kapiolani like Fred and Alan, then we want to see proof. Just because he says so doesn’t mean it’s true. Why are all of his records sealed? He’s obviously hiding stuff. Come on.
I meant to type Bd, not Bs. Sorry about that, chief.
No problem
Good memory, Slart. I go back to Boston Garden in 1954-55
Vince that makes you older than dirt. 65-70 years old. Never would of thought that with the Enterprise as your avatar and your mind sharp as a tack. I have a new found respect for you sir. I thought you were a kid.
I keep seeing Vattel brought up and Mario Apuzzo covered the translation of Vattel. Whats incorrect in his analysis.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html
Hi Mike, love you buddy. Doin o.k.? Hows the family. I see your back home in sunny Florida. Just starting to warm up here. You’ll be doin laps before you know it. Say hi to the wife and kids. Love you man.
Bdaman,
Why are all of your records sealed? What are you hiding?
Bdaman said:
“I keep seeing Vattel brought up and Mario Apuzzo covered the translation of Vattel. Whats incorrect in his analysis.”
A lot. Starting with the fact that the founders read de Vattel in the original French – the term in question was ‘indegenes’ (sp?). The term ‘natural born citizen’ didn’t appear in an English translation until after the ratification of the Constitution.
Why are all of your records sealed? What are you hiding?
That I’m no good and don’t want to embarrass myself. Isn’t that the reason people seal their records?
Of course if you knew my real name there is a ton of information that could be gathered just by your finger tips.
Slarti, it’s not about me so stop trying to bridge it my way.
“Of course if you knew my real name there is a ton of information that could be gathered just by your finger tips.”
I still couldn’t get an official copy of your birth certificate or your school records. Why did you seal them? (You have my name, do you think you could find out what grade I got in Dr. Bryant’s differential geometry course at Duke in spring semester 1992?)
I still couldn’t get an official copy of your birth certificate or your school records.
You could if I gave them to you.
Slartibartfast, Thats your name?
Bdaman said:
“Slarti, it’s not about me so stop trying to bridge it my way.”
No, its about the fact that Barack Obama has done nothing out of the ordinary despite how you’re trying to portray him. It seems to be the only tactic currently in use by the Grand Obstructionist Party (but they – and you – sure do use it a lot…)
Or are you really Richard Vernon.
Bdaman said:
“Slartibartfast, Thats your name?”
Dr. Kevin Kesseler
Slart, It’s his own fault. He and he alone created this mess when he called for openness and transparency.
Dr. Kevin Kesseler. I never new that Dr. Kesseler. May I ask, Dr. of what, Dr. Kesseler.
See, I have a new found respect for you Dr. I think you should post as that.
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics from Duke University (May 2004). My thesis was titled ‘Analysis of feedback-mediated dynamics in two coupled nephrons’ and my current research is a mathematical model of the DNA damage G2 checkpoint in the cell cycle.
And you went to Duke, right?
Is this yours?
http://mbi.osu.edu/2008/ws5abstracts.html
Bdaman,
While I don’t care to post anonymously, I like posting as ‘Slartibartfast’. In any case, the name’s not important. (That’s a reference to the scene in ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ where Arthur Dent first meets Slartibartfast.)
Meant to say did you contribute to the above
Bdaman,
I was a speaker at that conference – I gave a talk on my G2 checkpoint model. As there is increased opportunity for DNA damage in wounds, the topic of cellular response to chromosomal damage is relevant.
Looks like a long gene pool of Kesseler who have done well. First time I’ve heard that last name.
Bdaman said:
“Looks like a long gene pool of Kesseler who have done well. First time I’ve heard that last name.”
I don’t know any other Kesseler’s who aren’t related, but I’m adopted so it isn’t my gene pool…
Dr. Kesseler are you familiar with a product called Juice Plus?
Bdaman said:
“Dr. Kesseler are you familiar with a product called Juice Plus?”
No. I would prefer if you referred to me as ‘Slartibartfast’ (less confusing for everyone). You may use ‘Dr. Slartibartfast’ if you like.
Sorry Slart, just was just trying to give you the respect that you earned.
Bdaman:
I have been reading Slarti’s dissertation. It is actually interesting. I only remember/understand part of the math but the physiology and anatomy are readily available to understanding through on line research. I know a good deal more about kidneys than I used to, in fact than I ever thought possible
Bdaman,
No problem – I just prefer that my words stand on their merits and my Ph.D. isn’t relevant to this thread.
Byron said:
“I have been reading Slarti’s dissertation. It is actually interesting.”
I’m not sure that ‘interesting’ is how I’d describe it, but thank you.
And it does have a lot of pretty pictures…
Bdaman @ 3/8 1:01pm :
“I resent being labeled a “birther” which according to some, means I don’t believe he was born in Hawaii, I’m not saying that because, really, who really knows for sure?…I’m saying if he is going to claim he was born in Kapiolani like Fred and Alan, then we want to see proof. Just because he says so doesn’t mean it’s true. Why are his records sealed? He ‘s obviously hiding stuff. Come on.”
Bdaman,
Why post “Birther” BS and continually try to taunt Mike S?
You seem to want people to interact with you, but to paraphrase Slartibartfast: “your words do not stand on their own merits.” IMHO you are not credible; and not because of your pseudonym, although I dare you to start to posting the same stuff using your own name, with requisite certificate of live of birth, in long form attached.
If you can’t be bothered to read all that Vince and others have posted here on this topic, why not refresh your memory with a quick visit to factcheck.org?
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
“I resent being labeled a “birther” which, according to some, means I don’t believe he was born in Hawaii. I’m not saying that because, really, who knows for sure? I’m saying if he’s going to claim he was born in Kapiolani like Fred and Alan, then we want to see proof. Just because he says so doesn’t mean it’s true. Why are all of his records sealed? He’s obviously hiding stuff. Come on.”
Disingenuousness is thy name bdaman. As disingenuous a statement as one can make. Truth is as I have been implying you’re too smart to be a birther, your type is more “agent provocateur” propagandist. Paid or upaid, but considering the time an effort probably paid.
“Hi Mike, love you buddy. Doin o.k.? Hows the family. I see your back home in sunny Florida. Just starting to warm up here. You’ll be doin laps before you know it. Say hi to the wife and kids. Love you man.”
Your love is unrequited as far as I’m concerned. Calling a Jew a Christ Killer, as you called me in a moment of pique, is the equivalent of calling a black man a nigger. Not to be forgiven or accepted, since it reveals the nature of the underlying person. Also too, the mention of my family hearkens back to your research threats that got you banned for awhile last year. Since you’re not a stupid man and your writings clearly display your nature, I would think that your comments to me and to Slarti (so interested in who he is)are dripping with your personal irony, that no doubt brings a smile to your face.
You like to hide yourself behind your persona and you get a feeling of power from having knowledge of people, who have no knowledge of you save your Goebbels-esque writings. Since we know nothing of truth about you, there is a ominous tinge to your
bonhomie that you are unable to fully cover up. Your new attempt at being a kinder and gentler bdaman is a failure since your postings reveal the truth about you. In the end paid or not: a troll propagandist, somewhat smarter than the rest. Don’t take my acknowledgment of your intelligence as a complement though because with intelligence comes your knowledge of your deceit and that indicates a basically amoral person.
I would strongly suggest to you to back off from your vague, threatening posture of suggesting knowledge of people’s personal lives, because experience shows that not all abilities or capabilities are available to being revealed via research and its the stuff they don’t know that usually bites the smug person in the ass.
Attention all “Birthers”:
Breaking news: This just in “President Barack H. Obama was born in the USA; and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!”
Tune in for future updates as we continue to confirm, that the vote was unanimous in the passing of House Resolution 593 commemorating the great state of Hawaii’s 50th Anniversary and recognizing Hawaii as the birthplace of our 44th President!
and “Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still valiantly holding on in his fight to remain dead!”
Oh Mike, I’m sorry, I should have ended with “end quote”. Those were all the thoughts and words of Miki Booth. I just, you know, copied and pasted them. As to the rest of your post I scanned it and stopped reading after this sentence. Disingenuousness is thy name bdaman.
Slart
No problem – I just prefer that my words stand on their merits and my Ph.D. isn’t relevant to this thread.
Not true, it is revelant at all times. Do you not see what just happened. See Byron’s statement
Anyways Dr. Slartibartfast, I was interested in your opinion on Juice Plus. It seems such a simple idea. From what I understand, they take raw fruits and vegetables, ground them to a pulp and thru a dehydration process, are able to mill it down into a powder and put it into capsule form.
This supposedly when taken at the prescribed dosage gives you your daily requirements for fruits and vegetables. This is supposedly backed by studies from major universities. I am going to a lecture at the University of North Florida to hear Dr. David Phillips on the subject.
Bdaman,
The question is, what nutrients are lost in the process? A friend of mine (a whole foods chef) once told me that it was okay to eat anything that grew up out of the ground, ran around on the ground, or flew above the ground (I’ve always added ‘or swam in the water unless it came from Lake Michigan’ in my mind). We did not evolve to eat processed food. That being said, enjoy your lecture – just don’t forget your skepticism and critical thinking…
The question is, what nutrients are lost in the process?
I don’t know, that’s why I asked you about it.
Bdaman,
Its a good question to keep in mind (and ask about if possible) at the lecture. I don’t know anything about their specific process, I’m just skeptical about processed foods in general.
Got it, this you?
http://www.facebook.com/kevin.kesseler
Bdaman,
No, it’s my evil twin. (Or maybe I’m the evil one, I always get that mixed up…) Now go and read my dissertation for a while – I’m trying to write a reply to Bob on another thread…
Dan Rather is an Idiot, Obama couldn’t sell watermelons
#755 Bdaman, March 8, 2010 at 1:22 pm: “I keep seeing Vattel brought up and Mario Apuzzo covered the translation of Vattel. Whats incorrect in his analysis.”
They are doing a pretty good job of dissecting that analysis at this site, especially the postings of “Ballantine”:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/tracking-apuzzos-arguments/
Mario is twisting, twisting, slowly, slowly in the wind ever since he discovered that the phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in an English translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Convention in Philadelphia. Mario’s argument that the Framers relied on Vattel’s definition might have been just a little more persuasive if the Clause had read “No Person except an indigene … of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
But it didn’t, did it?
The first episode of Star Trek, “The Cage,” aired on NBC on September 1, 1966, when I was already too old. Star Trek the 2009 Movie should have had the Oscar for Best Picture, bit did win for makeup:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/popcornprejudiceamovieblog/2011284872_the_oscar_star_trek_finally_ge.html?prmid=head_main
Just you wait for the Hugo Awards!
Learn something new everyday. Today I learned two.
Obama and Congress File Their Opposition Brief to the Kerchner Appeal
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Mario is no longer even making sounds like a lawyer. Mario is literally whining about the opposition brief:
“The brief does not even acknowledge our factual allegations against Obama which are that he is not and cannot be an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ because his father was a British subject/citizen and not a United States citizen and Obama himself was a British subject/citizen at the time Obama was born and that he has failed to even show that he is at least a ‘citizen of the United States’ by conclusively proving that he was born in Hawaii.
It is strange as to why the brief does not even contain these factual allegations within it, giving the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.”
Of course the brief does not discuss these allegations, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BEFORE THE COURT. The sole issue on appeal is whether Mario’s client has standing. If the appellate court (by some miracle granted to Mario) should find that there he has standing, then the case would be remanded for trial on all the issues Mario would like to raise.
How can this “the appearance that the Justice Department does not want such allegations to be even included in any official court record.” THE ALLEGATIONS ARE ALREADY IN THE OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS IN HIS BRIEFS AND COMPLAINTS.
Since the 3d Circuit has already affirmed the dismissal of Berg’s case, the forthcoming affirmance of the dismissal of Mario’s case is what his gambling friend Leo Donofrio might call “the mortal lock of the century.”
A birther article posted at Free Republic within the last 12 hours was blamed for shutting the website down this morning. Free Republic is still down.
Citizen Wells reposted this supposed confession from Free Republic:
This is from Citizen Wells as Free Republic is currently down. The article posted this morning.
“HUGE NEWS AT FREEREPUBLIC!!!
“My name is Chanise Foxx. I work at a office supply store in Kenwood, IL. After nearly 3 years of silence and death threats to me and my family to stay quiet, I am compelled to come forward and tell the world my secret.
“I helped Obama campaign staffer Divorah Adler create a fake birth certificate for use in the famous Fact Check story to prove the world of Obama’s birth in the 2008 election. Divorah approached me in early 2007 and held onto the birth certificate until she released it in August 2008.
“As I’ve been making fake IDs part-time for local college students for about eight years now, faking a birth certificate was actually quite easy. Our first step was to get our hands on someone else’s birth certificate from Hawaii. We then created the stationary to match.
“Next, we had to create an embossed stamp and rubber signature stamp for Hawaiian officials. With the help of a high-resolution scanner at the store, I did most of my work at night when the place was vacant…””
Yeah, “supposed confession” is just about right. Do no expect the confessor to repeat the story under oath.
“Doc C.
“There is no Kenwood, IL. There is a Kenwood neighborhood and an office supply store is in the southern neighborhood of Hyde Park. Whoever created the story used President Obama’s home neighborhood of Kenwood as a city name.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/03/certificate-forger-confesses-naaah/
So many phony stories, so little time.
Another Where’s The Birth Certificate Billboard by WND
Located on I-20 between Turner Field and the Georgia Dome
Why on EARTH you After-Birthers TRUST this thing is beyond reason and logic!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2457491/posts?page=2824#2824
Mr. Treacy, I say Mr. because now that I know, I respect my elders.
The Selective Service Registration is being revisited again.
Here: Obama conspiracy – It’s no longer just a theory
http://www.sonorannews.com/archives/2010/100303/webonlyObama.html
and here:
Are there multiple records of Obama’s Selective Service registration?
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/03/08/are-there-multiple-records-of-obamas-selective-service-registration/
Dr. Slartibartfast, for you we have this article from Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. I do not know if he is a real doctor.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/26147-obama-narcissist-white-house-usa
Mr. Treacy here’s Taitz reply to QW
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28041278/Taitz-Reply-to-Opp-quo-Warranto
And for Buddah in re to his dad.
“Obama’s big problem,” a senior Democrat told me, “is that four times as many people watch Fox News as watch CNN.” The Fox network is a remarkable cultural phenomenon which almost shocks those of us from a country where a technical rule of impartiality is applied in the broadcast media. With little rest, it pours out rage 24 hours a day: its message is of the construction of the socialist state, the hijacking of America by “progressives” who now dominate institutions, the indoctrination of children, the undermining of religion and the expropriation of public money for these nefarious projects. The public loves it, and it is manifestly stirring up political activism against Mr Obama, and also against those in the Republican Party who are not deemed conservatives. However, it is arguable whether the now-reorganising Right is half as effective in its assault on the President as some of Mr Obama’s own party are.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7396358/The-end-of-the-road-for-Barack-Obama.html
Mr. Treacy, sir I see that the number count has again appeared in one of your comments above, specifically #755 of my comments.
#755 Bdaman, March 8, 2010 at 1:22 pm:
In my previous cross sir you stated that you were unaware how you ascertained this information, but, that that is how it came out when you copied it to Microsoft Word. So now we have two examples where you have copied my comments to Word.
Question for you. Why the need to copy comments to word and are you now tracking comments and saving to file.
Just trying to tell the readers where to find the comment that I was responding to. This saves them the need to scroll up and check every single posting. This enables them to go right to March 8, 1:22 PM and to find the link to Mario’s site. I do not have to duplicate the link, and they can find it easily (as if anyone cares anymore about Mario’s briefs).
To everyone else. Isn’t this how conspiracy theories get started? I was just trying to provide what is technically known as a simple “cross-reference” for research purposes, but it was transformed into “Why the need to copy comments to word and are you now tracking comments and saving to file.”
Stuff is copied to word for spell and style checking and for editing. No ulterior motives.
Never seen this before — we are all present at the creation of a conspiracy meme.
Mike S,
You’ve just been on fire since returning home. Snow or not the vacation was beneficial. Good posts. Not just here, but overall.
Buddah, it is not politically correct to say to someone who is a Jew that he is on fire, even though it was meant as a compliment.
Just trying to tell the readers where to find the comment that I was responding to.
However the readers do not have access to the number count. No where in the comment thread does it display it. So the number count is useless to the reader. The date and time is I will agree.
Stuff is copied to word for spell and style checking and for editing. No ulterior motives.
Mr. Treacy may I suggest Mozzilla Firefox to you. It has spell and grammar check built into the browser. This would eliminate a step for you in your quest to provide what is technically known as a simple “cross-reference” for research purposes.
bdatroll,
It’s bigoted to call someone Christ Killer.
I’ll take being not PC over being a bigot any day.
I rather revel in not being PC in case you missed that memo. But that bigotry thing of yours? Yeah. You might not want to wallow in that too much. Kind of like being proud of having herpes.
Mr. Treacy we are all present at the creation of a conspiracy meme.
Sir I was simply asking a question to see if the professor has acquired your services to track new nom de plumes from the same IP addresses. This has been a common complaint and a conspiracy all it’s own. In this thread particularly.
Vince,
The troll is right about the browser issue though. Firefox has better features and greater customization than the competition.
Just trying to live up to Mikes expectations of me.
“agent provocateur” propagandist. Paid or upaid, but considering the time an effort probably paid.
I love you to Mr. Buddah
You left out Bda in troll. Another not PC
I stand by my grammatical choice.
Just F’n with ya. Hope all is well.
All is well.
Damn well about ready to be settled though. I’ve always found it most annoying that unpacking takes three times as long as packing. Woo hoo!
Like Lorena told John, it won’t be long now.
birther bigot,
You really must learn to keep your story straight. I would suggest lying less.
“As to the rest of your post I scanned it and stopped reading after this sentence. Disingenuousness is thy name bdaman.”
“Just trying to live up to Mikes expectations of me.
“agent provocateur” propagandist. Paid or upaid, but considering the time an effort probably paid.”
For someone who “stopped reading” after an initial sentence you nevertheless were able to quote words at the end of my comment.
The “stopped reading” was a rather bald tactic by you to avoid answering the charges I made that followed. Such as to why I consider you a bigot and how it gives you a frisson of pleasure (power?)to investigate others personal lives, while remaining hidden yourself.
“So now we have two examples where you have copied my comments to Word.
Question for you. Why the need to copy comments to word and are you now tracking comments and saving to file.”
Sudden paranoia Mr. bigot? You fancy yourself the spider investigating other posters personal lives, but it seems you get a tad shaken up when there is the slightest suspicion that someone is gathering evidence on you.
“Buddah, it is not politically correct to say to someone who is a Jew that he is on fire, even though it was meant as a compliment.”
What nonsense and it came from someone who believes Jews are Christ Killers. By the way the use of PC is a dead giveaway for someone who is ignorant or a propagandist, since it was coined by the Faux Conservative Movement to attack things like civil righta and women’s rights. I guess though, that attacking those positions is something that would make you quite comfortable. As
evidence I offer:
“Dan Rather is an Idiot, Obama couldn’t sell watermelons”
After the comma above that is overt racism. This is strange coming from someone who himself claims to be of mixed race, but actually has never admitted that African is part of that admixture. Further disingenuousness meant to give the impression that it’s one black man criticizing another and so the criticism isn’t racist? “Mixed race” means many things to many people. Jews for instance were claimed to be a race by NAZI’s, although they are only a religion and/or ethnicity. The opinions you have thus far exhibited would tend to give truth to the idea that you could possess this kind of mentality.
You will no doubt keep up the phony bonhomie and throw in the jokey patter to try to disguise the hate that flows within you,
but though you’re good, you’re not good enough to hide the vitriol behind the mask.
For someone who “stopped reading” after an initial sentence you nevertheless were able to quote words at the end of my comment.
Mike that was yesterday, today is a new day, I read your entire comment. Today however is just like yesterday. Check back tomorrow on what you posted today. I love you brother.
You fancy yourself the spider investigating other posters personal lives, but it seems you get a tad shaken up when there is the slightest suspicion that someone is gathering evidence on you.
Mike if you continue I will have no choice but to release more info on you. Don’t believe me? Try it.
http://www.gpsspying.com/
(My Quote)
You fancy yourself the spider investigating other posters personal lives, but it seems you get a tad shaken up when there is the slightest suspicion that someone is gathering evidence on you.
(bdaman)
Mike if you continue I will have no choice but to release more info on you. Don’t believe me? Try it.
http://www.gpsspying.com/”
Gutless, lowlife bastard, hiding behind a pseudonym, of course you could track me. That’s because I’m real and you are just a sad little person hiding behind a mask so you can spread your lies and propaganda. You are no doubt a professional troll. The trouble is that I hit too close to the mark with my “spider” remark. These postings of yours, in your twisted psyche, are about power for you, since you probably are so powerless in your real life.
You have proven your bigotry by calling me a Christ Killer, no doubt indicating your Christian involvement of a particular kind, because few Christians but the fringe would even use such a phrase these days. Now you have personally threatened me twice that you will expose information on my private life. In many ways my life is an open book which is why I use my real name, rather then hide as you do. However, in these days of identity theft releasing information, such as my phone number, perhaps SS# etc. does represent an identity theft target and to my way of thinking represents some criminal liability on your part.
More than that though it threatens the integrity of this blog, when real personal threats are used in response to honest (true), though harsh, attacks. There is a difference between invective and threat and you have in my case again crossed the line. With Slarti you also crossed the line gratuitously trying to “out” who he was and menacingly indicating your knowledge of his affairs. That he took it with more equanimity then I indicates to me his lack of knowledge of your past history of threats.
In my opinion I think that you should be banned from this site for your second transgression into personal threat. I don’t say this lightly because I have not before advocated banning people and do feel this is a venue for free speech. However, there comes a point where one person’s freedom of speech verges into the menacing and threatening and I think you’ve passed that line in this comment.
You went to this length I believe because your barely suppressed rage was called out by me as I exposed your attempt to come across as a “kinder and gentler” bdaman. What you may not realize is that for the most part I ignore your propaganda and your comments allowing others to quickly dispose of your crap, simply because as a propagandist you are simply not interesting.
People here though, who in my opinion are basically kind, tend to forget a posters history and so you were “rehabilitating”
your image, while still serving up propaganda, by acting friendly and minimizing your personal beliefs.
You present yourself as someone “just passing along information.” You, I and others know that to be just a tactic on your part. You spread propaganda and yet hide your true intentions behind your bdaman persona. You even claim bi-raciality to keep from being called a racist for your attacks on Obama. I have no way of knowing whether you are male or female, black, brown yellow or white. That is immaterial because from your material I know you and you are merely a cowardly, disingenuous propagandist, without the courage to let your opinions stand on their own.
Look bdaman,
Lay off. Please. People have been getting along without personal attacks. Leave those to the family at home.
I did go to the website before writing. The fact that it is a website that promises spying capabilities for GPS systems makes no difference. You forget to mention that in your boasts leading up to your banning last year you overtly referred to yourself as an Internet researcher capable of finding out the smallest details on someone. That was no joke and it isn’t a joke now, it’s personally threatening. Remember my post about CriminalSearches.com last year and your reply?
banning last year? It was a threat to ban, it never occurred. Give it up Mike and stop crying like a baby. Go eat some cheese, I hear it goes good with Whine.
Mike go there and put any combination of numbers in it. It’s a joke. Get over it.
JT,
In case you missed it:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-117844
I believe that this is a slap in the face of your free speech policy, BDAman is attempting to silence his critic with threats both explicate and implicate. Why would he BDAman threaten to post Mike’s exact location if not to imply that ‘something could happen?’
As always, it’s your decision, but I didn’t want that behavior to remain unnoticed.
Everyone else,
Please join me in calling out this aberrant and indefensible behavior. We’re all smart enough to read between the lines of the implied threat.
Edit: “…your decision as to what action to take…”
Gyges why don’t you do a poll.
Gyges,
Why don’t you post it on the corrections site. That will get the professors attention a lot quicker. I rarely read this thread as it has gotten out of focus for some of the posts. Unless Vince posts I pay little heed to it.
I agree that it was meant as a mean spirited antagonistic statement to invoke someone to make an equally profound statement. The site was a joke as I found out. However, it does not stop the sophisticated ones from scamming someone out of their cell number and or home phone. I think that this is phishing.
As much as I will comment on someone making life ruff for others on here. I will also let those that are capable of defending their position do so. Maybe his meds are messed up.
I think that this is phishing.
Do you not know how to check or report a phishing website. Come on AY. If you want to be in a band, that’s fine, but it’s not necessary to jump in a wagon.
You guys should go to Walmart and upgrade your underwear to the next size up. It might help to not get your panties all tied up in a wad.
“Give it up Mike and stop crying like a baby.”
I’m not a gutless, bigoted anonymous threatener, you are. I’m also not whining, as you have done continuously in the past, that is know as projection on your part. you are called out by me truthfully and since you can’t respond with truth, you stoop to threaten.
Ok Mike, your right I’m wrong. That help?
By the way you said if you knew where I was you could inflict more damage on me. Sounds like a threat.
6801 Roosevelt Blvd., Jacksonville, FL 32212-5000
Let me know when you get to the gate, I’ll have them buzz you in.
Just want to note that abusive anonymous trolls making personal threats have been barred from this site before and their posts have been deleted.
Guys, don’t know how to break this to you but GPS Spyring is a gag site. Try putting in a phone number once and when you see the little picture of the baby pop up saying its a joke, believe it.
as you have done continuously in the past
Mike let the past be in it.
What a bunch of dupes.
Thanks Mr. Treacy, how’s your day?
Mom, I got this.
AY,
Joke site?
Well, I do feel justified for assuming that a guy who has previously done criminal background searches on someone and posted the results would threaten to post personal information on that same person, but I’ll admit to making a mistake in this case.
who has previously done criminal background searches on someone and posted the results.
Where did I post the results of such a check. I defy anyone to show me the exact results I posted.
Mike Spindell quote:
Remember my post about CriminalSearches.com last year and your reply?
Unquote:
It was Mike who dared another poster to do the search to show he had not been convicted of a crime he was accused of. Mike cracked the front door open and I just opened it all the way.
I’ll admit to making a mistake in this case.
Does that come with an apology? Did’nt think so.
Mike S. and Gyges,
I agree Bdaman has escalated from taunting to threatening and join you in “calling out this aberrant and indefensible behavior.”
He’s at the Jacksonville Naval Air Station. Maybe start looking in the brig.
Ha! Ha!
I second CEJ
Good one Mr. Treacy now we are getting somewhere.
FYI Mr. Treacy I see the comment number is auto generated from Gyges post above but this is a total number for the site.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-117844
So when it displays this way
#755 Bdaman, March 8, 2010 at 1:22 pm:
755 must be the exact number of comments I made up to that point.
Bdaman,
Too little too late.
Your claim that the web site you linked to was a joke is immaterial to me; as a regular reader of this blog I am wary enough of you to never “click” on anything you post.
At a minimum I’d like to see you get a “time out”, why don’t you just voluntarily disappear for a while?
Or are you really this desperate for attention?
At a minimum I’d like to see you get a “time out”
The problem with this CEJ is as I have explained here before. Timeouts won’t work vs desire to post. If anyone ever gets banned from a site, it does not prevent them from going to other computers such as the public libraries (plural) or a work neighbors(plural) to post. You are certainly entitled to your opinions and your opinions of me. Thats why we still live in a semi free country.
755 is the total number of comments in the thread by all posters up to that point, and is NOT the number of comments by that particular poster.
CEJ its not a claim its a well known joke site. How is that in any way threatening? Its a silly joke site that my boy here put up to make you guys flinch. Looks like it worked too good.
Pity, just that desperate for attention.
# 835 Vince Treacy, March 10, 2010 at 12:35 pm:
“Just want to note that abusive anonymous trolls making personal threats have been barred from this site before and their posts have been deleted.”
I see said the blind man
Mom, remember when I got into a fight at the bus stop and Elaine Pearson was kicking my ass? You came out of the house with my Judo trophies and told everyone I knew Judo. Mom, I love you, but I’m a big kid now. Please mom, let me defend myself. If it gets to the point where I’m worried, I’ll hire an attorney.
sincerely, your son
Bdaman
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-118109
I really do not like to get into these long flame threads, and have not in the past, so I am dropping out of this exchange except to answer specific questions and in general to get back to the substance of the thread.
Mr. Treacy, for your review sir. I believe you’ve seen this posters comments on Dr.C’s blog.
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/joesting-wont-correct-terri-k/
Bdaman,
Howyer doing pal? I just wanted to tell you to lighten up, I was just kiddin you buddy. It’s all in fun. Just a joke. I luv you man.
Mike, thanks. Mike you and I both know life is to short to go on bashing each other. I sincerely hope you are doing well and wish you the very best. Can we please take today as a new day. I promise I hold no ill feelings. Mike, my father used to say that kids can fight today and be friends tomorrow and adults can fight today and be enemies for the rest of their lives.
Thanks again
Ok dear. Be safe.
Bdaman,
You have made this thread as bizarre as Mz. Taitz herself is.
# 861 Bdaman, March 12, 2010 at 7:36 am, refers to a “posters comments.”
For reference, Doc has discussions of this poster’s comments linked at:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/butterdezillion-strikes-back/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/new-birth-certificate-bills-in-hawaii/
Thanks FFLEO, I can climb tall buildings and stop a speeding locomotive too.
Getting back to the substance of this thread on a legal blog, the $20,000 fine imposed by the District Court was upheld today by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Here is the full opinion:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200915418.pdf
QUOTE Orly Taitz appeals the district court’s imposition of a monetary sanction against her in the sum of $20,000 pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Taitz argues that (1) the district court was required to recuse after she challenged the procedure the court was employing to determine whether to sanction her under Rule 11 and (2), assuming that recusal was not required, the court failed to afford her the due process Rule 11(c)(3) requires.
We have fully considered Taitz’s arguments. We find them unpersuasive and therefore affirm the district court’s sanctions judgment.
AFFIRMED.
UNQUOTE
Orly Taitz, Esquire, D.D.S. was assisted in the appeal by the Right Honorable Jonathan Levy. Failure. The way is now open for this dynamic duo of Wm. Hwd. Taft Law School grads to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.
It is reported that, over at her site (do not link to it, malware warning) she has posted a dire warning: “I also need computer specialists to trace the IP addresses and names of all the scum posting garbage about me on the Marxist garbage blogs, such as Politijab, Politico, Huffington Post, Washington Independent and a few others. I need to put together a RICO complaint naming all of them.”
The insanity. The insanity.
Mr. Treacy seen this one yet.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100317/D9EG7MBO0.html
Old, old news about the VA AG. He has long since backtracked, ignominiously:
[quote]In a statement Monday, Cuccinelli said: “I absolutely believe that President Obama was born in the United States. I don’t buy into the claims that he wasn’t. On the recording, I was asked a hypothetical legal question, and I gave a hypothetical legal answer in response.”
“As I said previously, this issue was not a part of my campaign, and it is not part of what I am doing now as attorney general,” he added.[unquote]
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34439.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/hawaii-birthers-bill-stat_n_502143.html
“HONOLULU — Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here.”
And how about this one for an example of abject birfer corruption. The Kreep Pac raises money to spend on itself. It separates gullible and vulnerable victims from their money faster than a speeding televangelist.
I hope none of the birthers lurking around here are sending in any money.
From the excellent reporter Justin Elliot at Josh Marshall’s TPM site:
[quotes on] A California-based PAC called the Republican Majority Campaign spent nearly all of the $1.7 million it raked in from conservative donors last year, but less than 2% of the money went to supporting candidates or independent political spending.
The rest of the money raised by the group went to operating expenses, salaries for the PAC’s top officers, and back into fundraising appeals — which often ask supporters for as much as $144 in exchange for sending faxes opposing health care reform to members of Congress.
The lion’s share — roughly $1.3 million — of the group’s 2009 fundraising haul went to a murky Arizona telemarketing firm that goes under the name Political Advertising, which has been linked to questionable PAC activities in the past. Its business type in the state’s registry is given as “telephone fundraising.”[end quotes]
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/republican_majority_campaign_spends_big_not_on_candidates.php?ref=fpb
The sensational lead, “HONOLULU (AP) – Birthers beware: Hawaii may start ignoring your repeated requests for proof that President Barack Obama was born here,” just kind of ignores the fact that, although the bill was introduced, IT HAS NOT EVENYET MADE IT THROUGH COMMITTEE.
A lot of opposition was expressed at the committee hearing. The bill may well never see the light of day.
Way down in the story, it mentions that “Nobody at the hearing questioned the fact that the president was born in Hawaii.”
The Kreep Pac? I think I had one of those as a kid. The set came with three figures: Nixon, Liddy and Halderman.
G.I.Joe used to beat the crap out of them.
Never did get the Kreep Pac Secret Hideout play set though.
Oh the pain!
Yeah, 1972, the Committee to ReElect the President (CReEp). Who could forget those thrilling days of yesteryear.
Vince,
When I saw CREEP, I immediately thought of All the Presidents Men. Great movie and an amzing tale of Republican arrogance.
rafflaw, great movie, great reporting.
Vince,
Didn’t know if you’d seen Orly’s latest move. Now she wants to add CA Secretary of State to her resume to pad out that whole dentist/lawyer thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/orly-taitz-head-of-birthe_n_504322.html
I may need a paper bag to keep myself from hyperventilating that’s so funny.
Hold on to that paper bag, BIL. Rachel has the goods on that campaign:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35957815
“It’s just like birtherism, except it’s a different black man this time.”
ROFLMAO
Oh, Rachel! I’d have a drink with you anytime.
http://safeguardourconstitution.com/
Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace.
By Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.
Posted: April 01, 2010
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=134881
He was selected before he was elected
Obama has produced his official birth certificate. It meets the definition of “birth certificate” in the United States Code, codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
It would constitute a valid birth certificate under all of the proposed bills requiring presidential candidates to produce birth certificates. It is a public document of the State of Hawaii, and is entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution. The chief of vital statistics has issued an official statement that the state records show that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.
The so-called lieutenant colonel is a moron and a disgrace to the uniform. The so-called major Cook tried this tack in Georgia, and lost. His lawyer, Taitz, left him high and dry by neglecting his appeal. Taitz was fined $20,000 by the court, and the fine was upheld on appeal. Over sixty eight – yes, 68 – lawsuits have been ruled on so far, AND IN EVERY ONE THE BIRTHERS HAVE LOST.
American Patriot Foundation?
According to DC Corporation records, the registered agent for the American Patriot Foundation, Inc. is D.C. lawyer John David Hemingway. Lawyer Hemenway was sanctioned by the District Court for frivolous filings. Out of respect for his age, Hemenway was spared any punishment except for a reprimand, seemingly in the expectation that he would change his ways.
But no. Hemingway appealed. The sanction was just upheld on appeal. Now he is flogging Lakin.
Some one said that they could not court-martial him without the defense getting the judge to order the birth certificate to be produced.
Well, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush provides the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” which is binding on all courts, military and civil. The COLB meets that definition.
They can if fact court martial Sir Fancy Pants Lakin by producing the legally required birth certificate, to wit, the COLB. The courts cannot substitute their own standards for those established by Congress, and write their own definitions of legal terms. The laws passed by Congress bind all courts.
Lakin (or Hemingway) if he is reading this ought to consider his own oath. Anyone sworn to uphold the laws of the United States had better know those laws. Those laws define the term birth certificate, not some reprimanded DC lawyer.
Lakin may find himself up s… creek without the proverbial paddle.
Mornin Mr. Treacy Happy belated Easter.
Well, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush provides the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” which is binding on all courts, military and civil. The COLB meets that definition.
Thats fine, but wouldn’t they actually have to bring it to court so it could be touched and examined. Didn’t Bob Bauer try to get the court to take judicial notice of the COLB but the court, I don’t want to say refused, but they did not grant it?
Don’t know what you are talking about, bd.
The court in the case where Bob Bauer represented Obama held that there was no standing, so it never reached the issue of the birth certificate.
Leo Donofrio made all these arguments in 2008, and took them all the way to the Supreme Court, where he lost. He is still wrong.
In the meantime, he maintained a website on the issue for a while, but then he suddenly closed it down and deleted all his postings:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Then, all of a sudden, he reopened it (but did not restore his postings) when 50-odd former Chrysler dealers retained him in their bankruptcy suit. Bad mistake on their part.
Leo filed papers with the court – and lost. Lost big. Now he is appealing the stinging loss before the Bankruptcy Judge to the District Court. As usual, Leo like a fool accused the judge of “intentional fraud.” So help me. Don’t take my word for it. Go to his site and see for yourself.
His arguments at World Nut Daily are tired and recycled. To cut to the chase, the 14th Amendment says that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. Obama was born in the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction. Therefore he is a citizen. Since he is a citizen by means of birth, not naturalization, then he is a natural born citizen.
The Supreme Court confirmed it in Wong Kim Ark, when it ruled that children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens of the United States.The Court said that that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.”
Sorry, Leo, but the rest of us are following the United States Constitution and the United States Supreme Court, while you march to your own drummer – painfully out of step.
I’m pretty sure it was in HOLLISTER v. SOETORO I’ll look.
Mr. Bauer wanted the federal court to take judicial notice of these facts.
1. His client, Barack Obama “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.”
This fact is true. But it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.
The only such self-authenticating ‘document’ his client “publicly produced” was that heavily redacted Certification of Live Birth – recall, Mr. Obama re-named this, his “Official Birth Certificate” – posted on “Fight the Smears,” the web site clearly advertising in the footer, this was “PAID FOR BY BARACK OBAMA.” But even if the document was authentic AND the information contained therein was true, at best this could only establish his client is a “native” citizen, but not Natural Born. Mr. Obama admitted right on that site, this COLB only established he is a “native citizen” and not Natural Born. (See, MODEL COMPLAINTS OF ELECTION FRAUD TO STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN APPLICABLE STATES, on this page.)
Question: Since Bob Bauer was motivated to stave off attacks against his client by trying to construct Mr. Obama’s Constitutional qualifications for POTUS, why did he try to get the court to take judicial notice that his client publicly produced a certified document showing he was born in HI, when even assuming the fact he produced such a document also meant, he was actually born in HI; that fact could only establish he was a “native” citizen but not Natural Born as required by the Constitution?
Answer: Because if the court had taken judicial notice of these facts which implied his client was born in HI; Mr. Bauer could have perverted such notice into the meme, the federal court has now ruled, his client was born in HI; and, further, Mr. Bauer would have claimed, being born in HI makes him a NBC, propaganda which he and his clients, DNC Services Corporation, would have plastered throughout the print and electronic media. This campaign of propaganda emanating from the man who wrote the book – literally – on federal election law likely would have neutralized the mounting challenges to his client’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS.
Anyway, while referring to this ‘public production’ of a document showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit the ‘original’ COLB to the court.
Question: Given that Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice his client produced that COLB, for what reason did he fail to produce for the court, the actual document?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.
That website linked by Bdaman on March 31, 2010 at 8:51 pm, safeguard our constitution dot com, is just another plea for money. These despicable birthers continue to try to separate money from gullible people through misrepresentation, invalid arguments, and outright falsehoods.
The site claims that “LTC Lakin has questioned the President’s “natural born” status, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1. After a year of seeking answers, he has not received a definitive response either from the Department of Defense or from his Congressional delegation that would assure him of the President’s Constitutional eligibility.”
The facts are that President Obama through his campaign has provided his valid, legal birth certificate; that independent news organizations have examined it and found it valid; that state officials have verified that he was born in the United States and is a natural born citizen; that all the purported foreign birth certificates are proven forgeries proffered by convicted felon forgers; and that at least 68 courts of law have rejected challenges based on frivolous birther claims. So this site is using outright lies to raise money.
Shame on you for linking to this site.
2. Mr. Bauer wrote, “See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections 2008/born_in_the_usa.html (concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).”
These facts are true, too. But they also fail to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.
Mr. Bauer omits the name “Annenberg” from the proper title of the organization; and fails to reveal to the court, this group is sponsored by his client’s former employer, Chicago Annenberg Challenge, information the court is unlikely to know, absent his revelation; and which financial relationship a reasonable person would expect him to reveal as material to the court’s consideration. He also fails to name the “Honolulu newspaper” he claims printed that “contemporaneous birth announcement.” (The court could not know, APFC failed to name this publication which they “not[ed],” too, unless Mr. Bauer revealed this material information.) Recall, this ‘announcement’ is actually an unattributed image posted anonymously on the td blog, which APFC admits it copied from that site to post on theirs. RUMORS, LIES, AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ‘FACTS’
Not surprisingly, while seeking judicial notice APFC noted this contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement showing his client was born in HI, Mr. Bauer did not submit an ‘original’ of that document to the court, either.
Plus, notwithstanding Mr. Bauer has now asked the court to take judicial notice [Annenberg Political] Fact Check said the document Mr. Obama publicly produced is “genuine,” again, he failed to produce that “genuine” document for the court.
Question: Why did Mr. Bauer ask the court to take judicial notice APFC said, the COLB his client publicly produced was “genuine”; but fail to introduce into evidence, the actual COLB?
Answer: Because he knew that COLB posted on his client’s blog is bogus.
3. Mr. Bauer asked the court to take judicial notice, “Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” ”
This fact is true. Again, it fails to establish, his client is Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS.
Hawaiian officials allegedly made this statement in late October 2008. Notice, the statement attributed to these officials does not include the words, ‘This “original birth certificate” we have on file indicates, Mr. Obama was born in HI.’ Indeed, Mr. Bauer does not allege these officials said, ‘He was born in HI.’ http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/certified/
Lucky for us, the federal court took no such notice. Getting lay people to understand the fact that nothing in the public record establishes BO is a NBC, has been challenging enough, without having to explain the difference between these judicially noted “facts” and the lies Mr. Bauer and the members of the Corporation he represents would insist these facts actually mean.
Luckier for Mr. Bauer, neither Judge James Robertson nor Mr. Berg inquired as to where is this “genuine” document of HI birth he claims his client “publicly produced”; or the “contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper”; or the “original birth certificate” HI officials claim to have on file. (How do you suppose Mr. Bauer would have responded to such request from the bench or opposing counsel, for production of that “original birth certificate” those HI officials said is “on record”?) Because Mr. Bauer is a member of the D.C. Bar and according to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, these examples of lack of “Candor to Tribunal”; or lack of “Truthfulness in Statement to Others”; or failure to display “Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel” could cost Mr. Bauer his license to practice law. See, DC RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/
Mr. Treacy, you know and I know that if the President wanted to make it all go away he would just produce the original to a court of law. Then it would be done. There can only be two reasons. Keep the country divided for a future reelection or his story of life is untrue.
FLASH: HARVARD LAW SCHOOL SPEAKS OUT ON OBAMA BIRTH
QUOTE
Original Obama birth certificate unearthed in Harvard Law School library
Birthers seize on document as evidence of “unconstitutional” presidency
By Joe N.S. Indiana
|Published: Thursday, April 1, 2010
Updated: Friday, April 2, 2010
Harvard Law School librarians made a stunning discovery in a long-sealed chamber in the basement of Langdell Hall Monday night, when they indicated they had found what they believed to be a copy of President Barack Obama’s original certificate of live birth. Individuals who believe the president’s extra-American birth invalidates his presidency rapidly seized on the document as further proof for their claims, flocking to courts to seek injunctions on a number of executive orders and bills recently signed into law, including the vaunted health care reform act. HLS archivists said that the birth certificate was “no doubt” the original copy submitted by the sitting President upon his enrollment in the law school in 1988.
Although copies of the President’s birth certificate have long been posted online and certified by government officials in his home state, many doubt its provenance, claiming that the online document is merely a “certificate of live birth” rather than a “birth certificate”. Others claim to have seen birth certificates placing Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya (Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen), or other foreign locations, such as Indonesia, where Obama lived as a child. The President’s political opponents occasionally mock him as a “citizen of the British Empire,” a reference to Kenya’s status in 1961, the year of his birth.
These so-called “birthers” were stunned but unfazed when the Harvard Law School copy of the birth certificate pointed them not to Kenya, Indonesia, or some other site of speculation, but the Pacific Ocean island chain of Hawaii. “I knew it,” wrote blogger ObamaIzaF8ke2273. “Obama was born outside the United States. We just didn’t know exactly where. Until now.”
The Hawaiian Islands, which lack pro sports teams, are literally off the radar screen for many Americans. In the wake of the tsunami warnings issued for the islands after the devastating earthquake in Chile in February, even CNN anchor Rick Sanchez could not locate the islands on a map, instead pointing to the Galapagos, an Ecuadorian possession several hundred nautical miles to the southeast. The fact the Hawaii appears to float in a box next to the lower 48 American states on maps has made the location of the archipelago all the more inscrutable for the U.S.’ geographically-challenged populace.
The islands’ long and complex history also makes their current political status confusing for many Americans, who are not aware of their place in the international system. A National Geographic survey released in 2008 indicated that there was a shocking correlation between those who could not attest to the system of government in Hawaii and those who believed that the government of Alaska conducted an independent foreign policy.
“The evidence is now clear,” wrote a commenter on the influential conservative website RedState.com Wednesday. “Obama is no American. He’s the subject of the Hawaiian king.”
http://www.hlrecord.org/news/original-obama-birth-certificate-unearthed-in-harvard-law-school-library-1.1293452
UNQUOTE
SLOOF LIRPA
SLOOF LIRPA = April Fools. I can read backwards too.
lol
subject of the Hawaiian king
Vince, you slay me sometimes. This would be one of those times.
Vince posted:
“The Hawaiian Islands, which lack pro sports teams…”
You’ve destroyed your own case – a place with no pro sports teams is clearly not a part of America!
In the interest of moving this discussion away from Vince repeatedly demolishing recycled birther claims, I have a question – what (if anything) could the administration do to further marginalize the birthers? I believe that the administration is either (a) happy that the birthers are there as part of their strategy to make the right look as ‘out there’ as possible and split off the moderates or (b) don’t think that it is a big deal (presumably as a Constitutional Lawyer President Obama is as confident as Vince of his eligibility). In light of the ‘dog whistle’ rhetoric that’s been happening since Caribou Barbie stepped onto the national stage, the increasingly confrontational and violent tendencies of the right wing nut-jobs and the racist roots of the whole birther movement, might this be a good time for President Obama to take steps to make clear just how baseless challenges to his eligibility are? (For all his skill at birther-busting, Vince doesn’t have a platform that can reach the reasonable people mislead by birther lies.) For instance, could the president ask Justice Roberts to issue an informal opinion on what constitutes a natural born citizen? What effect would something like this have? Just thought that I would raise the question for debate.
BVM said “Obama also is an illegal alien. He has no U.S. birth certificate.”
That is a lie. A simple bare-faced lie. I have submitted, over and over, that Obama’s COLB meets the federal legal definition of a birth certificate. It is a legal United States birth certificate. BVM persists in this falsehood in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
Slart, thanks for the kind words. On the question whether the president could ask Justice Roberts to issue an informal opinion on what constitutes a natural born citizen, the answer is absolutely not.
The Constitution only grants the federal courts jurisdiction over cases and controversies. That means that the courts cannot issue advisory opinions. They can only resolve real disputes between real parties. They cannot answer abstract questions from anyone, President included.
This is a constitutional doctrine that seems beyond the comprehension of the birthers, who have lost 68 cases, including 67 dismissed because there was no real dispute before the courts.
(In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court CAN issue opinions of the justices in response to requests from the legislature). But not the federal Justices.
It is fundamental to the separation of powers and to judicial independence.
President Buchanan (usually rated one of the worst) communicated improperly with the Court in the run-up to the Dred Scott decision. He spoke to Taney at the inauguration, giving rise to conspiracy theories of the day that the decision was fixed.
The stuff bd posted about attorney Bauer is obsolete and incoherent argument copied and pasted from a web posting last year. At least this time a link to the source is given. The web site made obscure arguments based on the filings in the case.
The issue of the birth certificate never reached the court because the court dismissed the case for failing to state a legal claim that could serve as the basis for a court ruling awarding relief. The District Court imposed a sanction of reprimand on attorney Hemingway. Hemingway appealed that sanction, but the appellate court affirmed, summarily. Here is the Court of Appeals decision in full:
[quote] ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed March 5, 2009, and March 24, 2009, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Hollister v. Soetoro, 601 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D.D.C. 2009). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that counsel had violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(2) and in imposing a reprimand as the sanction for his part in preparing, filing, and prosecuting a legally frivolous complaint. Hollister v. Soetoro, 258 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2009). Appellants have provided no reasonable basis for questioning the impartiality of the district court judge. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). [unquote]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28745277/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-PER-CURIAM-JUDGMENT-filed-Lower-Court-Affirmed-Transport-Room
So that story is over.
This is just another example of a frivolous birther lawsuit, a total and colossal waste of court resources and taxpayer money.
BVM wrote:
quote: A top-ranking, highly decorated officer in the U.S. Army says he’s now refusing all orders until President Barack Obama finally releases his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
The officer questioning Obama’s status is Lt Col T. Lakin, Flight Surgeon. He is on the staff of 4 star General Geo. W. Casey, the Army’s Chief of Staff. I believe that is the second highest job in the U.S. Army. Gen. Casey is stationed at the Pentagon in Washington D.C. For a Pentagon Officer such as Lakin, on the staff of such a prestigious General as Gen Casey, to speak out against Obama is quite remarkable. end quote
And therein lies one of the problems. I would love to know even more about Lt. Col. Lakin. Something isn’t right… I don’t care who Lakin is (his status, credentials, etc.). Something isn’t right.
BVM says that an Army officer is now refusing all orders until President Barack Obama “finally releases his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.”
Just where is the legal authority for this mid-level officer to demand a “long-form, hospital-generated” certificate? The official COLB issued by the State of Hawaii is entitled to full faith and credit by the other States under the Constitution, but that is not enough for this guy,
The State of Hawaii, acting under its laws, now issues ONLY computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth (COLB) that Obama’s campaign issued. They do not any longer issue the forms issued before the system was computerized. The official birth certificate issued to Obama is valid for all purposes, and the responsible officials have verified its information.
Has Lakin even seen the statement by the Hawaiian official?
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
He made no mention of it.
She said that she has seen the original vital records. They show that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.
The official state records show that Obama was born in the United States. How does Lakin explain this away? How does he plan to explain it to a court martial? The Army Officers serving on those courts are no fools. The presiding judge and members will give short shrift to his “doubts” when they consider the official records before them.
Lots of luck to Lakin in his fund-raising effort that blatantly and unscrupulously capitalizes on his rank and military service. I somehow do not think it will go over well with General Casey.
Lakin better watch out. He may find himself assigned as the Medical PLO in the Pentagon if he is not careful.
Vince -
Vince -
Hopefully, Lakin will find himself reassigned sooner, rather than later.
(Trouble with this thread on my end – I think it may be my computer.)
For anyone interested in BVM’s stuff about social security numbers (my reaction is “so what?”) Dr. Conspiracy has a thread:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/
PLO was Army slang for “permanent latrine orderly.”
Then the doctor asked, “Would you like a towel? Cologne? Breath mint or mouth wash?”
And lo, the tip bowl was empty but for the echoing of officers giggling.
Note to BVM. Obama has already appointed a Suopreme Court Justice. Check the papers. She was sworn in and now sits on cases.
Sorry, but, as we have said before, birther nonsense has little shelf life at the Turley blog.
Developmental Counseling Form, filled out at Walter Reed, for Lakin, from Native and Natural Born Citizen site:
http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/courtmartialdocweb.jpg
(Lakin’s own site originally posted this document)
Lakin was well advised to seek an attorney from the US Army Trial Defense Service, advice that he did not apparently receive from John Hemenway, the reprimanded DC lawyer who failed in his lawsuit Hollister v. Soetoero and was sanctioned by the court.
Eugene Volokh found “Massive Problems with Anti-Obama Allegations That Have Been Making the Rounds Recently” on April 5, 2010 1:23 pm:
http://volokh.com/2010/04/05/massive-problems-with-anti-obama-allegations-that-have-been-making-the-rounds-recently/
This debunks the false claims spread by Martin and BVM about Obama.
Obama not the first to have Presidential Eligibility questioned
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES’S FATHER WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT, JUST AS OBAMA’S WAS; THE ONLY DIFFERENCE WAS, HE LOST.
During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?” Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:
Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.
He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized.
Long was a Democrat and large donor to FDR’s 1932 presidential campaign, and Hughes ran for President as a Republican against Wilson.
In discussing the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen,” Long stated:
The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”
Long’s definition of “natural born citizen” was “one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society;…It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/05/obama-not-the-first-to-have-presidential-eligibility-questioned/
The theory Les just posted is just another wrinkle on the Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo theory that Obama was disqualified because his father was a citizen of the British Empire or Kenya. It is just as invalid.
It is inconsistent with the language of the 14th Amendment and inconsistent with the authoritative Supreme Court decision in Wong Kim Ark.
All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. The phrase subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes all persons born in the U.S., except for children of aliens or hostile occupying forces. In Wong, the Supreme Court resolved all doubts when it held that children born to aliens in the United States are citizens of the United States, just as much citizens as the children of natural born citizens.
So the opinion of Long is just his opinion. Hughes was a citizen by virtue of and by the means of his birth in the United States, not by naturalization. No one contests that he was born in the United States and that he was a citizen. Since he was not naturalized, he had to be a natural born citizen, because there are only two kinds.
Long said that a natural born citizen is “one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society;…It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection.”
The problem with Long’s definition is that is not contained in either the Constitution or in any Supreme Court decision construing the Constitution. It is just his personal legal opinion of what he would like the law to be. I have demonstrated in many earlier posts that the term “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. was intended to cover everyone born in the U.S. except for the children of diplomats and of members of hostile invading armies. (It originally excluded Indians, but they were later included by statute). So Long’s scholarship was incorrect.
Chester Arthur had a parent who had not been naturalized at the time of his birth, and he was actually elected President, with no objections. He signed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.
The Postemail noted that Breckenridge “presided over immigration and visa issues during World War II. He was severely criticized for denying visas to Jews attempting to escape the holocaust.” Some scholar. He sounds like a xenophobic nativist.
Hughes ran for President. No one kept him off the ballot. He became one of the most distinguished Supreme Court Chief Justices in our entire history.
And he was a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
End of story.
QUOTES ON He was a personal friend of future President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom he had known as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the Wilson Administration, and generously contributed to his 1932 Presidential campaign. Roosevelt rewarded him with the position of U.S. Ambassador to Italy. During his ambassadorship he was criticized for advising the president against imposing an embargo on oil shipments to Italy in retaliation for Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia. He was a member of a special mission to Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay in 1938 and adviser to the U.S. Department of State in 1939. He was assigned to handling war emergency matters and assistant secretary in charge of the Visa division.
Long came to believe that he was under constant attack from “the communists, extreme radicals, Jewish professional agitators, [and] refugee enthusiasts”. Many of his views were shared by his subordinates.
In an intra-department memo he circulated in June 1940 Long wrote: “We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.” Ninety percent of the quota places available to immigrants from countries under German and Italian control were never filled.
In November 1943, when the House was considering a resolution that would establish a separate government agency charged with rescuing refugees, Long gave testimony saying that everything was being done to save Jewish refugees, which caused a loss of support for the measure. However, his testimony was false and misleading: Long exaggerated the number of refugees and included non-Jewish refugees in his count of 580,000.[1]
Long is largely remembered for his obstructionist role as the official responsible for granting refugee visas during WWII. He “obstructed rescue attempts, drastically restricted immigration, and falsified figures of refugees admitted. The exposure of his misdeeds led to his demotion, in 1944. He has become the major target of criticism of America’s refugee and rescue policy.” Wiesenthal Center. QUOTES OFF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breckinridge_Long
Let’s see. Favored Fascist Italy under Mussolini Opponent of immigration. Gave false and misleading testimony to Congress on immigration matters. Demoted. Felt he was persecuted by Communists, radicals and Jewish agitators.
Long is not an impartial, unbiased scholarly source on the question of citizenship.
His conclusions were wrong then and wrong now.
You want inconsistent? I’ll give you inconsistent. It would be inconsistent with the additional qualification contained in Article II to permit the child of an illegal alien to become President of the United States based solely of their birth within our borders.
VT: “Chester Arthur had a parent who had not been naturalized at the time of his birth, and he was actually elected President, with no objections.”
Can you demonstrate that the information regarding the citizenship status of Chester’s father was public knowledge? Without such, Chester did nothing but con the U.S. Citizenry.
From the article I quoted above:
“It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States…The doctrine of dual citizenship and of double allegiance are too well known and too well founded in international law to be doubted or disputed.”
Thought you might be interested in this Mr.Treacy
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032810.php3
Sorry, Les.
Not one word in the Constitution supports your position. Where in the Constitution is there any prohibition of dual nationality? Show us the language.
The answer is nowhere.
The framers of the 14th Amendment could have adopted that policy, but they did not. They could have used the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1866: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
They could have excluded anyone subject to a foreign power, but they did not.
Now the birthers want to read the language that Congress discarded and put it back into the Constitution by judicial fiat.
We don’t let birthers rewrite the Constitution around here.
Alexander Hamilton’s first draft of the natural born citizen clause applied to anyone “born” a citizen. It excluded naturalized citizens, and only naturalized citizens.
John Jay’s letter expressed concern about foreign leaders coming over and taking power. There was a danger that younger sons of George III would be proposed. So they excluded foreign grown-up naturalized adult military and royal leaders. That was their intent.
Are you seriously asking us to take the word of nativist Breckinridge Long over Charles Evans Hughes, a former and future Justice? Would he have sought the Presidency if he thought he was ineligible? No. He was one of the best Justices in our history. Against him the birthers support the disgraced Breckinridge Long.
I read George Will in the Washington Post. He is just as wrong as Breckinridge Long.
I have addressed all these arguments at this blog.
The 14th Amendment does not exclude persons subject to any foreign power. ”That was the policy of the Civil Rights Act of 1866: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”
Will tries to read the discarded language of the Civil Rights Act back into the 14th Amendment. I found that Trumbull was speaking during the debate on the Civil Rights Act, not the debate on the 14th Amendment two months later.
The only limitation imposed by “subject to the jurisdiction” language is a limit on diplomats and hostile armies. All doubt was resolved by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, a case that I do not see discussed in Will’s column.
Will has evidenced his own disregard of the Constitution in this column. If he wants to repeal birthright citizenship, let him support an Amendment. Many such amendments have been introduced.
While we wait for VT to come clean about his Chester Author claim let’s take the time to make a few things clear.
1. Hamilton’s proposal, like most if not all of his proposals, was not adopted.
2. VT’s interpretation of the Constitution is just that; his interpretation of the Constitution.
3. VT’s interpretation of John Jay’s letter is just that; his interpretation.
4. VT cannot provide any evidence (such as congressional records or those of state legislatures ratifying the 14th Amendment) to show that the 14th Amendment was recognized to, or intended to, modify the qualifications of Article II.
If the readers here are willing to put their faith in VT after he tried to sell them on Chester Author having made his father’s citizenship status public (which he conveniently failed to address when challenged) they are far too gullible to comprehend any additional information.
“While we wait for VT to come clean about his Chester Author claim let’s take the time to make a few things clear.
“1. Hamilton’s proposal, like most if not all of his proposals, was not adopted.”
Fact: Hamilton wrote “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.”
Hamilton is the source of the concept of the grandfather clause making citizens at the time of adoption eligible. He originated the concept that eligibility applied to a person who was born as a citizen. That made persons born, and not naturalized, eligible. In other words, if citizenship derives from birth, not naturalization, then the person is eligible. I think I have made the case that the policy and intent of Hamilton was embodied in the Constitution in the phrase “natural born citizen.”
“2. VT’s interpretation of the Constitution is just that; his interpretation of the Constitution.”
Absolutely right. But so what? I never said otherwise. I think it is better than Les’s, but I let the readers decide.
“3. VT’s interpretation of John Jay’s letter is just that; his interpretation.”
Sure, it is my interpretation, but let’s allow the readers decide for themselves.
“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”
http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_joj4101&person=joj
That seems to me to evince a concern that foreigners might seek admission to our government. The means he suggests is to limit it to natural born citizens. The only other kind of citizen, then and now, was a naturalized citizen. So the intent was to exclude naturalized citizens. I do not see how it could exclude a person born in the United States who has been a citizen all her life, and was never naturalized.
But Les can argue otherwise. I think Jay wanted to exclude some tin-pot Napoleon or deranged minor royalty or nobility from getting naturalized and trying to take over.
“4. VT cannot provide any evidence (such as congressional records or those of state legislatures ratifying the 14th Amendment) to show that the 14th Amendment was recognized to, or intended to, modify the qualifications of Article II.”
The framers are bound by the meaning of their words. Amendments can have an effect on other parts of the Constitution without mentioning those provisions by name or section. That is how the Constitutional amendments have always been written.
Les cannot show anything that says they wanted to exclude persons with foreign parents from the Presidency.
In drafting a bill, a Constitution, or a grocery list, a person is bound by the meaning of the words they set on paper. What part of “born in the United States” is unclear? What part of “subject to the jurisdiction therof” is unclear?
Obama was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, so he met that test. At the time of birth, he was subject to the jurisdiction, that is, the full governmental power, of Hawaii and of the United States. His mother was a citizen. His father was legally admitted as a student. If anyone wanted to take him from his parents for protective custody through family services, they had to act under American authority.
No other nation had ANY power over him. He was subject to US jurisdiction and no other.
That is all that Congress put into the 14th Amendment. Amendments can have an effect on other parts of the Constitution without mentioning those provisions by name or section. The framers are bound by the meaning of their words.
Their express intent was to reverse Dred Scott and thus to make African Americans citizens by birth or naturalization. It had the NECESSARY EFFECT, nowhere stated in the debates, to make those former slaves and their descendants eligible for the Presidency. The necessary effect of Dred Scott, even though not state in the opinions, was to exclude all black persons of African descent from citizenship and therefore from the presidency.
The birthers would bring joy to the dead heart of Chief Justice Taney.
So it is clear that Amendments can have necessary effects not stated by their framers.
And no birther can get around the fact – fact – that the only intent expressed in the debates was to exclude the children of diplomats, hostile armies, and Indians.
“If the readers here are willing to put their faith in VT after he tried to sell them on Chester Author having made his father’s citizenship status public (which he conveniently failed to address when challenged) they are far too gullible to comprehend any additional information.”
I wrote “Chester Arthur had a parent who had not been naturalized at the time of his birth, and he was actually elected President, with no objections.” So I wrote that Chester’s father was naturalized after he was born, and that there were no objections. That’s all. What is wrong with those statements? Nothing.
I do not put anything on faith.
I quote the language and link the citations and sites.
The rest is up to you, the reader.
VT’s statement “Chester Arthur had a parent who had not been naturalized at the time of his birth, and he was actually elected President, with no objections” is most definitely intended to imply that the citizenship status of Author’s father was known. It was not. VT made the statement while knowing that it was not. Doing so is unethical.
To quote Steve Martin, “Some people have a way with the English language and some people . . . have not way.”
It’s pretty much a proven fact, speaking of proven facts, that I’ll take anyone to task. It’s my nature. When someone says something and I find their logic or presentation suspect, I am like a grizzly bear – the entire world is “on the menu”. If you’re moving, you’re potentially a meal. From the highly respected mespo to the laughably suspect bdaman. I’ve even taken our much beloved host to task if you doubt that claim. Whether I use logical dissection or ridicule, mockery and satire or any of the other tools in my toolbox depends more upon the nature of the prey than anything else. Some critters get mauled to death, some merely licked into submission and, yes, even sometimes the bear gets eaten instead of doing the eating.
Does anyone know the one regular I’ve never taken to task? And/or why?
If you answered the first question, “Who is Vince Treacy?”, you get to move on to Final Jeopardy.
As to the why?
To paraphrase Steve Martin, “Some people have a way with evidence and analysis and some people . . . have not way.”
Vince has way. And he’s got lots of it too.
Birthers? Not so much. Their “arguments”, such as they are, end in their true nature every time: thinly veiled racism. It’s no secret I’m no Obama-bot. I think he’s aiding and abetting treason by not slapping the criminal clown Cheney in cuffs. There are plenty of rational reasons based on law and logic to dislike Obama.
Questioning his citizenship in the face of overwhelming evidence that he is indeed a citizen isn’t one of them.
I will however stipulate that it’s funnier than Hell watching them flounder as Vince swats them about like a salmon in a stream bed.
“VT’s statement “Chester Arthur had a parent who had not been naturalized at the time of his birth, and he was actually elected President, with no objections” is most definitely intended to imply that the citizenship status of Author’s father was known. It was not. VT made the statement while knowing that it was not. Doing so is unethical.”
Unethical?
Stuff it, Les. Who the hell are you, anyway?
Les is reading my mind. I intended to state that Arthur’s father was not naturalized at his birth, and that the objection was not raised when he was elected, and it wasn’t.
Les draws an implication, attributes that implication to me, even though I did not state anything about it, and then says that I am unethical.
I give anonymous taunts like this as much credibility as schoolyard yells.
Here is the court in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana:
“[16] We note that President Obama is not the first U.S. President born of parents of differing citizenship. Chester A. Arthur, the twenty-first U.S. President, was born of a mother who was a United States citizen and a father who was an Irish citizen. See THOMAS C. REEVES, GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4 (1975). During the election of 1880, there arose a rumor “that [Arthur] had been born in Canada, rather than in Vermont as he claimed, and was thus constitutionally ineligible to become the Chief Executive.” Id. at 3. Although President Arthur‟s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President. See generally id.”
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/
“…the argument was not made….”
This stupid little Chester Arthur story is a fixture of the birther mythology. The fact is that Arthur’s father was not yet naturalized when he was born. The fact is that the argument, for whatever reason, was not raised in the campaign. Those are the facts. Deal with them.
I think the argument was not raised because the opponents knew that it would have had no merit. And it had no merit. I think the argument would have been laughed away then as it has been today.
Arthur was born in the United States, was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his , and was, therefore, a natural born citizen.
Deal with it.
Thanks, BIL,
Please note that Les has never dealt with my treatment of the language of the 14th Amendment.
He drew an inference, and then picked a fight with it.
VT “Who the hell are you, anyway?”
I’m the guy who exposed your unethical activity. That’s who I am.:-?
Drop the pathetic attempt to play the victim. We know who you are and we know how you play your little games. You know damn well why nobody objected. Historical records provide us all with proof that Author kept his father’s status a secret. You knew that when you made the statement.
Why use deception when the truth is on your side? Either you don’t know any better or the truth is not on your side.
You’re ethically challenged. Deal with it! I have.
Here lies Les More,
Four shots from a 44.
No Les,
No more.
Buddha,
“… and some people… have not way.” You not way have not! Well said. (By the way, I’m hanging out in the woods over at the 120% thread waiting for my turn with the bear
)
Vince,
If there’s a silver lining to Les’ baseless allegations against you, its that we got more detail about President Chet’s story from you. Thanks.
Les,
You posted:
So it is unethical to make a statement which is clearly factually correct, but just fine to definitively assert that what you inferred from the correct statement was the author’s intent. Okay.
All,
Les is clearly implying by his statements that he is trying to destroy the US Constitution by trying to delegitimize the lawfully elected President with his lies, probably to leave us vulnerable to a fascist takeover by the likes of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman…
I’m hanging out in the woods over at the 120% thread waiting for my turn with the bear
)
Slarti,
You guys will get a very “polite” mauling. BTW, I had some of my lingering questions about symmetry answered by – strangely enough – a material sciences conversation with an architect relative last week, but I’ll be getting to it. It’s a looooong answer I have planned. You will all be, I hope, pleasantly surprised. Some will be happier than others perhaps but no one is in for the ass kicking possibly anticipated.
Les,
A man’s name says a lot about him.
Especially his nom de guerre.
And make no mistake: call this site what you like – liberal, conservative, luxury yacht – the one thing we are insistent upon is factual, legal and logical veracity. Bring it or get ripped to shreds.
Johnny Cash,
Good to see you, old man! I hope you and Hank Sr. are having a hoot in the Fields of Gold. We miss you!
Buddha said:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/president_obama_needs_to_prove_1.html
The good doctor is oblivious to the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” set forth in Title V of the United States Code that he never mentions.
He is unaware that the Hawaiian Home Lands office only wanted original birth certificates to verify Hawaiian ancestry, and accepts the COLB for all purposes.
He is unaware that the computer generated COLB is the only certificate that Hawaii now issues, and IS the official Hawaiian birth certificate, since Hawaii no longer issues the old forms to anyone..
He seems unaware that the Hawaiian official who is legally responsible for the accuracy and security of all birth records has stated that she has seen the original records, that they show Obama was born in Hawaii, and the he is a natural born citizen.
He seems unaware that official Hawaiian public records of birth are entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution.
He seems unaware that Hawaiian law restricts the release of birth records.
He seems unaware that the supposed Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries uttered by convicted forgers.
He is unaware that Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya, and that the false reports were based on mistranslation.
He seems unaware that his comparisons of himself to the situations at Nuremberg, My Lai and Abu Ghraib are absurd.
He seems unaware that the lawyer listed on his website, John Hemenway, has been reprimanded by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for bringing a frivolous claim in a birther lawsuit, and that the reprimand was upheld on appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals.
He seems unaware that the media reports giving the names of two hospitals were clearly mistaken, that both hospitals in Honolulu were named for former Queens, that the confusion is common, and that Obama has consistently named Kapiolani Hospital as the place of birth.
He claims that “No one I spoke to was able to offer any evidence that the president is “natural born,” seemingly unaware that there is abundant credible evidence, beginning with the official COLB and the statements of Hawaiian official, for the birth.
He seems unaware that to state that there is “no evidence” of Obama’s natural born status is an outright lie. There is evidence, and the evidence is credible and reasonable. He just chooses to ignore it.
He seems unaware that there is no reasonable doubt about Obama’s natural born citizen status.
He seems unaware that there is only the unreasonable, irrational and invidious doubts of the birthers.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29555599/jbjd
He is unaware that the computer generated COLB is the only certificate that Hawaii now issues, and IS the official Hawaiian birth certificate, since Hawaii no longer issues the old forms to anyone……who does not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
Mr. Treacy don’t know if you have this, for your bookmarks sir.
http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/8640993-jack-ryan
A new day and the unethical VT continues his same behavior.
“He seems unaware that the supposed Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries”
That statement is a bald-faced lie.
Are there no limits to the depths of VT’s deceptive tactics?
Obama apologist Vince Treacy resorts to lies and deception in order to defend Obama! VT will keep telling you that the truth is on his side. If that was true, why would he need to resort to lies and deception?
President Obama has a tangible interest in the vital record of his own birth. He has the ability as the commander and chief to make all this birther/conspiracy/NBC go away by simply ordering the DOH, to release all vital statistics in re to his record, all in the name of openness and transparency in which he campaigned on.
If the record indicates everything that has already been either written about in his books or confirmed threw a state employee, than there is nothing to hide.
Why he continues to let something like this fester is beyond belief.
Thursday, February 13, 1992 – Page updated at 12:00 AM
MOSCOW – For nearly a decade, Roman Obama’s life at Patrice Lumumba University was almost paradise. He studied for free and got warm clothes and cheap airline tickets that let him see the world.
“We had so many possibilities. Maybe it was not a luxurious life, but we could travel and do things,” said Obama, 31, a law student from Equatorial Guinea
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920213&slug=1475488
Who is Roman Obama who was 31 y.o. a law student that this article is written about. This means that Roman Obama was born in 1961.
The former Soviet Union spent huge sums of money over the past few decades to educate tens of thousands of foreign students – mainly from the developing world – in the name of “peoples’ friendship.”
Young people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America studied medicine, agronomy, law and Marxist economics.
Marxist economics HUMMMMM!!!!!
“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”
The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”
“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your president.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=88439
Discover Barack Obama’s involvement with the following
organizations
Radical Appointments
Socialist Movement
Controversial and Radical Associates
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama
I said the purported Kenyan birth certificates were forgeries.
See, for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/kenyan-birth-certificate_n_249850.html
Another example:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya
bdaman was really excited about one of those forgeries when it first surfaced. To his credit, te became very quiet on the subject of Kenyan birth certificates after that.
Does “Les” have any proof that they are not foprgeries?
Nope.
bdaman was really excited about one of those forgeries when it first surfaced.
Your memory is suppose to get worse with age
Audio of this story linked to this comment.
Bdaman 1, April 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_T_Fife_031009.mp3
US Refuses Visas to all Israeli Nuclear Scientists; the Israeli government was stunned when every nuclear technician at Israel’s Dimona reactor who had submitted visa requests to visit the United States for ongoing university education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering had their visa applications summarily rejected, specifically because of their association with the Dimona reactor.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/us_refuses_visas_to_all_israel.html
So, Les, where’s the proof that those Kenyan birth certificates are genuine?
From the Pulitzer Prize winning news site, Politifact.com
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orly-taitz/alleged-obama-birth-certificate-kenya-hoax/
Everyone, this is why we have the First Amendment and a free press. They guarantee the right of independent journalists to explode the myths of birthers like Les.
I repeat.
The Kenyan birth certificates are proven forgeries.
bdaman linked to a site called American Thinker and an article by Lakin. I attempted to post an expanded version of my entry above at April 8, 2010 at 9:02 am.
They never posted it and disabled the login information. Predictably. The clowns moderating the site refused to let their readers see any independent views. They hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.
I was kind of hoping that maybe Lakin could see some of the drawbacks to his position, but I guess he will have to remain in blissful ignorance.
Maybe Less can try posting over there.
So here at the free speech Turley site is the posting the American Thinker did not want you to read:
The good doctor is oblivious to the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” set forth in Title V of the United States Code that he never mentions.
He seems unaware that the definition has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
He appears to be unaware that the Hawaiian Home Lands office only wanted original birth certificates to verify Hawaiian ancestry, and accepts the COLB for all purposes.
He seems unaware that the computer generated COLB is the only certificate that Hawaii now issues, and IS the official Hawaiian birth certificate, since Hawaii no longer issues the old forms to anyone.
He seems unaware that the Hawaiian official who is legally responsible for the accuracy and security of all birth records has stated that she has seen the original records, that they show Obama was born in Hawaii, and the he is a natural born citizen.
He seems unaware that official Hawaiian public records of birth are entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution.
He seems unaware that Hawaiian law restricts the release of birth records.
He seems unaware that the supposed Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries uttered by convicted forgers.
He seems unaware that Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya, and that the false reports were based on mistranslation.
He seems unaware that his comparisons of himself to the situations at Nuremberg, My Lai and Abu Ghraib are absurd.
He seems unaware that the lawyer listed on his website, John Hemenway, has been reprimanded by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for bringing a frivolous claim in a birther lawsuit, and that the reprimand was upheld on appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals. Hollister v. Soetero, D.D.C., 2009, D.C. Cir, 2010.
He seems unaware that the media reports giving the names of two hospitals were clearly mistaken, that both hospitals in Honolulu were named for former Queens, that the confusion is common, and that Obama has consistently named Kapiolani Hospital as the place of birth.
He claims that “No one I spoke to was able to offer any evidence that the president is ‘natural born,’ seemingly unaware that there is abundant credible evidence, beginning with the official COLB and the statements of Hawaiian official, for the birth.
The seems not to know that an official COLB expressly provides that it is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii.
He seems unaware that to state that there is “no evidence” of Obama’s natural born status is an outright lie, or a statement in reckless disregard of truth or falsity. There is evidence, and the evidence is credible and reasonable. He just chooses to ignore it. He can say that there is no evidence that satisfies him, but he cannot say that there is “no evidence.”
He seems unaware that there is no reasonable doubt about Obama’s natural born citizen status.
He seems unaware that there is only the unreasonable, irrational and invidious doubts of the birthers.
One reason that the birthers are so fervent in their beliefs is that they never read or hear any views contrary to their fantasies.
Their favorite sites are not open to alternative views.
Here at Turley, the birthers have free reign to post their views.
They seem to be pretty scarce because, at this site, they are not talking to themselves and each other.
Their views are contested with facts and reason.
When squeezed, these poster at this thread with the three-letter nicknames like to scream “liar.”
As Kurt said, “So it goes.”
Just checking on the status of Written predictions™®:,
“Written predictions™®: “Post-judgment motions and an appeal” will fail. The “direct appeal or request for stay of judgment” to the Supreme Court will fail.
“The toast is done. Spread the butter and jelly, slice it, and serve it hot.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-85398
So far, the prediction on the appeal is a winner. No stay. The appeal affirmed the fines. We are waiting on (1) denial of petition for rehearing en banc and (2) petition for cert. to the Supreme Court.
Les posted:
In a homage to Vince, I’d like to make my own written predition™®: “Les will be unable to come up with a single law or precedent which supports his allegations about Vince.”
I have a question for the birthers I’ve been reading in this discussion for a while now. Perhaps you can help me.
I only have my “short form” birth certificate.
It looks just almost identical to the Presidents.
Does that mean I wasn’t born here?
Someone tell me please because if I’m not an American after all these years, then I’d really like to know.
I cannot believe people are still talking about this nonissue.
Just let the birfers scream at each other about it – time for the rest of us to move on.
vlf2112,
While you’re absolutely right that most people should just move on, it is important that people like Vince continue their vigilance. As long as the birthers continue to post their lies and distortions it is necessary to have people who refute them with the facts and the law – otherwise uninformed but reasonable people will be deceived by birther propaganda.
[comment with three hyperlinks is awaiting moderation. Resubmitted with only two hyperlinks.]
“So, Les, where’s the proof that those Kenyan birth certificates are genuine?”
I never said they have been proven to be genuine. The same can be said about the COLB that was presented on factcheck.org and politifact.org. No official has ever stated that the Obama COLB presented on those websites is authentic.
To make sure the readers don’t get confused, VT stated that the “Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries”. When called on that statement VT replied “I said the purported Kenyan birth certificates were forgeries.” Readers please pay attention to the word “proven” having been removed.
Is VT recanting his previous allegation?
While we’re waiting for VT to answer that question we can address some of the “proof” that the huffington post presents to call the Kenyan COLB (not to be confused with the CPGH birth certificate that VT is aware of but failed to address) a forgery:
I’m not sure the Kenyan COLB is not a forgery, but we should look at the strength of the “proof” presented to support the claim of forgery.
1. Kenya was a Dominion the date this certificate was allegedly issued and would not become a republic for 8 months.
The easiest way to substantiate that claim would be to acquire other COLBs from the same period. That has not been done.
2. Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar when Obama was born, not Kenya.
That’s a lie. Mombasa was an East African British Protectorate at the time of Obama’s birth and for many years prior to that event.
PROOF:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dJMoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=mombasa+%2Beast+african+protectorate&cd=2#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20%2Beast%20african%20protectorate&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=qEYNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA184&dq=mombasa+%2Beast+african+protectorate&cd=6#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20%2Beast%20african%20protectorate&f=false
Mombasa was the capital of the East African Protectorate.
3. Obama’s father’s village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.
Who cares? The question should be “Did Obama Sr. have ties to Mombasa?” The answer to that question would have been yes. When Obama Sr. was expelled from school, his father sent him to Mombasa to find work. His father worked at two places in Mombasa just prior to going to college in Hawaii. While their he became friends with Tom Mboya. He also met two wealthy women who assisted in his education. Mboya arranged his transportation to Hawaii.
4. The number 47O44– 47 is Obama’s age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44–he is the 44th president.
Strange coincidence is not proof of forgery.
5. EF Lavender is a laundry detergent.
Just because E.F. Lavender is the name of a soap, it is not proof that an E.F. Lavender did not work in Kenya at the time.
If you think the proof presented to support a claim of forgery regarding the Kenyan COLB is weak at best, just wait for the arguments given to support calling the CPGH birth certificate a forgery.
If VT wants to call the CPGH birth certificate a forgery, he should present the reasons why along with any evidence he has to support it.
Primary source.
Affidavit of Lucas Daniel Smith.
Orly Taitz asked him to perjure himself by introducing fake Kenyan birth certificate in court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx
Les,
I’ll let Vince defend himself from your tired and hypocritical lies about Kenyan birth certificates, but I’d like to take you to task for a specific piece of hypocrisy.
You said: “No official has ever stated that the Obama COLB presented on those websites is authentic.”
While this is true, it is not the ‘whole truth’. As readers of this site know, Hawaiian officials CANNOT state the the COLB posted on the web is authentic and they HAVE stated that Barack Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Now let’s pull out another stinking turd you’ve left here:
Les posted:
So my question to you is, ‘Were you not trying to unethically imply that Hawaiian officials were not backing up President Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii?’
Please look up the word ‘hypocrite’ in the dictionary.
VT “He seems unaware that the definition has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
You’ve got yourself a major problem there, VT. To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong) Obama has never submitted his COLB to the federal government for inspection. If you want to consider having it posted on the web (by a third party) to be sufficient, you should get Congress to change Title 5 to support it as being sufficient. If you want to claim otherwise, provide proof. That’s how this works.
Les Is More Is Less (Everybody sing along!)
That, Wicked Lester, is what is known as a “smoking gun”.
Enjoy your pistol whipping.
Might I suggest that it goes well with a serving of crow and humble pie.
Bon appetite!
vlf. Thank you. Good advice.
You said “Just let the birfers scream at each other about it.”
You hit the nail on the head. They talk only to themselves. They never hear a contrary fact or idea.
Lakin, for example, could have benefited greatly from learning about the legal definition of birth certificate that might be applied in a court martial. He may not have known of Hemenway’s reprimand for frivolous birther legal filings. But American Thinker refused to post my statement. He may never know until it is too late.
It would have been against the interests of the birthers running the site, and against the interests of the fundraisers at the Savetheconstitution site others set up.
They want to keep him out front. They have set him up.
Like Major Stephan Cook (reserves), he is likely to be left high and dry while the birthers continue their merry way.
I am moving on to the Charles Stross science fiction series, The Merchant Princes, ahead of the 6th volume due out soon.
And the smoking gun of which I spoke was Vince’s, oh what’s that stuff called, oh yeah! evidence.
No slight to Slarti’s mangling.
Les,
Vince has no problem at all – President Obama’s eligibility was verified by the process specified in the Constitution (as was every other President since its ratification). You on the other had have failed to provide any support for your lies. I’m feeling pretty good about my written predition™®: “Les will be unable to come up with a single law or precedent which supports his allegations about Vince.”
VT “Affidavit of Lucas Daniel Smith.
Orly Taitz asked him to perjure himself by introducing fake Kenyan birth certificate in court.”
Orly Taitz attempted to coerce Lucas Smith into claiming that he (Lucas) was the one who obtained the Kenyan COLB. Lucas Smith declined. That has nothing to do with the CPGH birth certificate.
All you need to do is look at page 3, section V of the scribd declaration. At the end of the document he provides images of the document to which he is referring.
“Obama has never submitted his COLB to the federal government.”
Les, thank you for the civil question.
The COLB has been inspected by our free press. They found it to be authentic. That is how our system works under the First Amendment.
Not one of the 68 odd birther plaintiffs has yet proven that they have standing to even get to the merits of the birth certificate in a federal court.
If the COLB had been submitted to the government for inspection, the birthers would just have said that the inspection was inherently biased because Obama heads the government. They want it both ways.
In the meantime, that is the only definition I could find. What other definition applies?
I was trying to warn Lakin that the COLB that he doubts may well be legally sufficient to carry the case against him. If you are in touch, pass it on to him or to his website. Maybe American Thinker will let you post it over there.
He provides images of the faked document that he is describing!
“Les 1, April 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm
You’ve got yourself a major problem there, VT. To the best of my knowledge (correct me if I’m wrong) Obama has never submitted his COLB to the federal government for inspection.”
*******************
No, you’ve got a major problem if you think the Federal government has to “inspect” a State birth certificate before its considered valid.
You know, “states rights” is the ever present talking point we hear from you birthers normally.
But it doesn’t seem to stop you from inventing magical federal oversight powers that do not exist when it suits your needs.
“The COLB has been inspected by our free press. They found it to be authentic. That is how our system works under the First Amendment.”
Are you talking about the same ‘free press” that has been exposed as lying to the American People?
The Annenberg Foundation and the St. Petersburgh Times are our free press. You make me laugh. The fact is Obama has never submitted the proof required by Title 5 to any government entity.
Lt. Col. Lakin has that on his side.
On this same thread March 4 at 6:34
FactCheck.org Vince’s Truth Squad on their website states
“Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu.”
Did Dr. Fukino, on Oct 31st 2008 “confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu”?
I didn’t hear you? Would that be NO? Would that mean that Factcheck.org didn’t tell the truth?
It gets even better. On that same Factcheck.org page. Under the analyisis it states “The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama “likely” was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.”
The best we have is a confirmed from a likely. That’s what I call fact checking.
“Les 1, April 8, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Are you talking about the same ‘free press” that has been exposed as lying to the American People?”
Your argument is based on a false assumption Les, as I just pointed out.
A birth certificate is a State issued document.
It does not require the Federal government to “inspect it” to confirm its validity.
Place your bets! Anyone crazy enough to bet that VT will be able to present information to support calling the CPGH birth certificate a forgery?
Save your money. VT cannot support calling the CPGH birth certificate a forgery.
There are other brands that taste just like opium without the euphoric side effects, Les.
Isn’t it ironic how the right wing birther\tea bagger movement spends their days opining on states rights, but when a duly authorized US state issues a birth certificate to someone they don’t like, suddenly the states rights cry goes out the window.
Suddenly the states have no authority to issue birth certificates without the Federal government first “inspecting it”.
Of course no such law exists, states issue and certify birth certificates and not the federal government. The State of Hawaii has already certified President Obama’s birth certificate.
You’re wrong Les and you’ve been proven wrong.
Unless you want to produce the new law you’ve invented here that says the states have no authority to issue and certify birth certificates.
Dr. Conspiracy has a long article on the certificate.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/
I don’t think anyone other than “Les” takes it seriously.
Lucas Daniel Smith is a convicted forger.
Even the guys at WorldNutDaily were able to figure out that it was a fake.
This is a losing hand for the birthers.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108773
[quoting] An eBay seller who claims he has a birth certificate of Barack Obama issued in Kenya continues to maintain the document is authentic, despite evidence it is a forgery.
Lucas Smith has posted three videos on YouTube pressing his previous YouTube claim about his document.
Smith, whose background includes a lengthy criminal record and a reported attempt to sell his kidney to a man in need of an organ transplant, nonetheless insists his motives are above board.
He has repeatedly suggested in his various videos that he obtained the document by bribing Kenyan officials.
“I do have a background. I’ve made mistakes in my life,” Smith told WND in an e-mail. “It took a guy like me to go and get tangible proof about Obama. I don’t mind breaking a few laws or policies here and there. I don’t mind paying the military in foreign countries to look the other way. … The military [in Africa] will grant you access to anything for just a few dollars. People are starving. So yes, it takes a guy like me to get things done once in a while.” [end quoting]
VT is that the best you can do? That’s your “proof” that the CPGH birth certificate is a forgery?
I thought you said the birth certificate was a proven forgery. I’ll take that as knowingly making a false statement of material fact.
Native and Natural Born Citizen Explored has posted my piece on Lakin:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/from-vince-treacy-lakin/#comment-13912
“Les 1, April 8, 2010 at 6:19 pm
VT is that the best you can do? That’s your “proof” that the CPGH birth certificate is a forgery?”
******************
I think the fact that it was produced by a forger kinda sealed that deal.
VT
“He seems unaware that official Hawaiian public records of birth are entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution.”
Per Article IV, Section I
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.
Is the U.S. Army a state? Does it operate under the laws of a state? Is the U.S. Government a state? Is the District of Columbia a state?
“He seems unaware that Hawaiian law restricts the release of birth records.”
Keyword: restricts. Not prohibits. Obama can view and copy his own records. He just refuses to.
“He seems unaware that the supposed Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries uttered by convicted forgers.”
A bald-faced lie that cannot be supported by the claimant even after repeated attempts.
“Obama can view and copy his own records. He just refuses to.”
Which is why he did.
He didn’t have to, but he did.
And posted them for all to see.
Something I don’t remember any white President’s ever being asked to do.
The State of Hawaii, one of the United States of America has the sole authority to issue and certify a birth in their state. And they did. You are now challenging states rights to issue and certify birth certificates for its citizens.
So, before you make the claim that every American in the US is here illegally, since we all have birth certificates issued by our state of birth you might first want to explain why the Federal govt needs to “inspect” our birth certificates prior to making them legal.
Then you’ll need to ask the Federal govt to throw everyone out of the country until they can inspect 400 million birth certificates.
Buddha,
No worries, I just wanted to point out what a lying idiot Les is (hypocrisy pisses me off). As you and I both know Vince doesn’t need any help (most of what I know on this topic I learned from sources Vince posted anyway).
Les,
As someone with a PhD in mathematics, the word ‘proof’ has a particular significance to me, so let’s take a look at what Vince said. Obviously the mathematical standard (where ‘proof’ is an absolute whereby something which is proved is unquestionably true) is not in play here – this is a legal issue so when Vince said ‘proved’ he was using it in a legal context. So what, exactly, is the law here? Well, it is clear that if President Obama was born in Hawaii then any Kenyan birth certificate (KBC) must be fraudulent. While an image on the web carries no legal weight, I believe that statements on the record by Hawaii officials do – they have said that they have President Obama’s original birth records on file* and that he is a natural born citizen**. For a court to give any credence to a KBC, there must be some sort of evidence that trumps the statements of Hawaii officials (and no US court COULD find against a verified copy of the COLB without violating the Constitution). Since there are no Kenyan officials whatsoever attesting to the veracity of any KBC, it’s pretty clear that from a legal point of view they are illegitimate. I don’t know if this was Vince’s reasoning for saying that they had been proved forgeries, but I believe that any US court would be unable to consider them anything but forgeries which, at least to me, constitutes ‘proof’ in a legal sense.
*Since Hawaii did not issue certificates for people born outside of Hawaii in 1961, this is logically equivalent to saying that he was born in Hawaii.
**Because Stanley Ann Dunham was not old enough to transmit citizenship when she gave birth to President Obama, this statement is also logically equivalent to saying that he was born in Hawaii.
It is clear that you are just an ignorant racist who is upset that a black man is in the White House. Go ahead, prove me wrong…
“Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, NPR’s Africa-based correspondent, tells why her beat has proved one of the most interesting this year.
She discusses the stories that have been painful and devastating for many nations on the continent such as the violent political fights that have led to power-sharing deals.
She also describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177
Michelle Obama never said in the clip that Obama was born in Kenya or that he was not born in Hawaii.
Birfers must be hard of hearing.
Maybe they are hearing voices now.
home country: (noun)
“the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.”
http://www.allwords.com/word-home+country.html
Here’s a tip I learned from Hunter, Les.
When entering bat country, let the bats go along for the ride.
If you don’t pay attention to them, they won’t try to eat your face.
Birthers are factually challenged.
Fact: “Michelle Obama never said in the clip that Obama was born in Kenya or that he was not born in Hawaii.”
I posted this before
President Obama has a tangible interest in the vital record of his own birth. He has the ability as the commander and chief to make all this birther/conspiracy/NBC go away by simply ordering the DOH, to release all vital statistics in re to his record, all in the name of openness and transparency in which he campaigned on.
If the record indicates everything that has already been either written about in his books or confirmed threw a state employee, than there is nothing to hide.
The other information that is recorded in the original vital statistics has already been discussed such as hospital and delivering physician, ooopps scratch that, no one knows who that is. Either way I don’t see it as a national security secret and can’t see it as a presidential privileged to not know that information.
Mr. Treacy said that his birth record was vetted by the free press. That may be so, but we know that the press can make mistakes, scratch that, Rather, as in Dan, make mistakes.
President Obama did release his birth certificate Bdaman.
As far as I know the first US president in history compelled to do so. So stop pretending that he didn’t.
Unless you’re claiming that US States do not have the right to issue birth certificates, then you have no argument. So either state your case as to why US States do not have the right to issue birth certificates or admit you’re just mad because you lost the election.
To expect perfection from a profession filled with lots of imperfect humans is to live a life of frustrated expectations which is thus a cause of disappointment and therefor anger and/or sorrow result. A self-inflicted wound.
Add to this that it was the courts, the Constitutionally powered trier of fact, that determined Obama’s citizenship was without question American and he eligible for the Office of President as defined in the Constitution. The courts, badtroll. Not the media. One of the co-equal branches of the Federal government. Not the media.
Your clowns got their day in court, presented their evidence such as it were and they lost.
Repetition as in “I posted this before” shows your function as a troll could be done by a robot. Careful now! You may be outsourced to Microsoft. Although placing a few of those drinking bird toys over a keyboard would probably simulate many of your posts quite well and be that much cheaper still.
Be a shame if that income stream were to disappear in tough economic times like these.
Replaced by drinking birds.
Tsk tsk tsk. Such a pity.
You know as we’ll as I, that if he really really wanted to end this non sense, which it is, he would release the very last little bit of information that is contained in that record. It is a one page record. Not a 3000 page bill.
After seeing how they hid behind closed doors during the health care debate it obvious that he is all about secrecy verses openness and transparency. See where that got him. 12 more states to join in the suit they might as well have a constitutional convention. United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Keep your barrels clean and your powder dry.
Goon ville you can continue to try to address me if you want. I’m sorry what, what did you say. Oh, O.K. Den, Got it.
Bdaman,
I certainly hope that the President of the United States pays attention to more important things than birther propaganda. Also, it is very clear that many of the birthers wouldn’t accept that President Obama is legitimate if they were handed a copy of his long form birth certificate by Hawaiian DOH officials and all nine justices on the SCOTUS personally explained the definition of natural born citizen to them. At its core birtherism is not about rationality, it is about racism.
Buddha,
Well said, as usual. One question: can you come up with a Turing-type test to distinguish between Bdaman and a drinking bird?
Dr. Slarti it is very clear that many of the birthers wouldn’t accept that President Obama is legitimate if they were handed a copy of his long form birth certificate by Hawaiian DOH.
Dr. Slarti this is pure speculation. I have not seen a poll that ask this question. Please tell me where you derived such information. You can not speak for many of the birthers. I have not seen video or news reports of a reporter specifically asking people/birthers this question.
“Bdaman 1, April 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Goon ville you can continue to try to address me if you want. I’m sorry what, what did you say. Oh, O.K. Den, Got it.”
In typical troll fashion when you encounter positions you cannot refute you first attack the individual rather than the position and when that fails you run from them.
So run troll. Run as far and fast as you like.
I’ll still address your words if you choose to place them in a public forum.
Oh, O.K. Den
The poster keeps saying over and over that “He has the ability as the commander and chief to make all this birther/conspiracy/NBC go away by simply ordering the DOH, to release all vital statistics in re to his record.”
Release will never make any of the controversy go away. That will never happen. It will not convince Les:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-124361
It will not convince Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz, the PosteMail, or any of the other people putting out the crank theory that birth in the U.S. is not sufficient, and both of the parents the President must be citizens at the time of his birth. Not one of those appeals by Kreep, Taitz, Apuzzo or any other birther will be withdrawn.
It will not convince Les and Pants on Fire that the phony Kenyan birth certificates are any less valid.
The birthers will claim that the original records were forged or faked. They will reject them and demand hundreds of other records, all irrelevant.
Nothing will ever convince the irrational birthers.
So why does he keep harping on this idea that catering to the hate groups and birthers, and releasing would settle things.
IT WON’T SETTLE ANYTHING.
The hate from the Civil War is still with us. Just look at the Governor of Virginia, who conveniently “forgot” to mention that slavery might have been an issue.
The hate will go on.
For the same reason.
President Obama released his birth certificate.
The same birth certificate any of us are issued upon request.
He didn’t have to do this. And he probably shouldn’t have. But he did.
Please present your evidence that the State of Hawaii is not a duly recognized state of the US and is not authorized to issue a birth certificate.
You will need to present that evidence prior to proving your tin foil hat claims.
Another legal loss for a crazy birther lawyer. Orly Taitz tried to intervene in the litigation against the health care reform law.
The judge sent her packing.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29620582/STATE-OF-FLORIDA-et-al-v-U-S-DHHS-et-al-18-ORDER-Denying-Dr-Orly-Taitz-s-in-pro-se-17-RECAP-Motion-to-Intervene-flnd-04902729572-18
So many frivolous suits.
So little time.
Mr. Treacy those are the ones who debate the dual citizen side. Your right, those people will never go away. It really doesn’t matter in a few months he will be half way threw his one and only term. Whether are not he releases it or not he is making everyday decisions. Decisions that the majority are not O.K. with.
The Tea Baggers are not a majority.
Bdaman,
I’ve been following the birthers for almost two years now and conspiracy theorists in general for far longer and I’ve never seen any of them give up their irrational beliefs just because another piece of evidence that they can’t refute surfaces. If proof that President Obama was born in Hawaii was sufficient, then this would have gone away already since what is already known amounts to a legal certainty that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Any additional information is simply not relevant to the issue of his being a natural born citizen (as Vince has documented). President Obama’s citizenship has been vetted by the appropriate, Constitutionally established process (he has even taken steps like posting his birth certificate on the web) but apparently people like you feel he should be held to a higher standard than any of his predecessors in the oval office. I truly hope that the birthers manage to get state laws passed that require a birth certificates to get on the 2012 ballot for president or find a plaintiff with standing in the courts in the run-up to the election in order to have the truth of Barack Obama’s legitimacy (and the pathetic lack of legitimacy of the birther arguments) made clearer to the general public as well as the birthers. If the legal certainty of President Obama’s eligibility was enough for you then Vince’s exhaustively well-documented arguments would have already convinced you – if you are truly rational please explain why his proof is not sufficient for you.
Bdaman,
President Obama is doing the things that he promised in his campaign (health case reform, reduction of nuclear weapons, etc. You know, what a majority of voters elected him to do. Take note of what happens to the approval numbers for heath care when the effects are explained to people – what do you think will happen when all of those provisions start kicking in? It might not save the Democrats in the mid-terms (the Republican propaganda machine is very effective) but, barring some game-changing event, President Obama should easily win re-election.
Dr. Slarti as I said, me personally it doesn’t matter whether he was born in tin buck two. He is in control of the country, he has lost the majority as the polls reflect. The case in point is here at this blog. A number of people here have already stated they will not vote for him again. How bout you, has he been the president that you thought he was going to be? If he was up against another democratic candidate that held the same ideas you do and the President SAID he holds the same ideas as you, would you vote for him again?
I beg to differ Dr. Slarti. he won’t be re-elected. To much controversy.
Great catch by bearclaw at the Washington Independent:
Ronald Reagan and a banner: “Welcome Home to Ballyporeen, Mr. President”:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/President_Reagan_in_Ballyporeen_Ireland.jpg
Reagan did not deny it.
Les is now compelled to argue that Reagan was not natural born.
If he dares.
This is too much fun.
I contributed to the comments over at Washington Independent. Many, especially by bearclaw, are excellent.
http://washingtonindependent.com/81162/not-an-april-fools-joke-army-officer-defies-orders-unless-obama-shows-birth-certificate
You can’t reason with those who refuse to address the facts before them.
1. Prior to Barack Obama II, who was the last person elected to the Office of President whose father was publicly acknowledged to be be a alien? (I said publicly acknowledged, VT.)
2. Even though the citizenship of Chester Arthor’s father was not publically disclosed, when Hinman presented the information what was the response? Was it ridicule? (Hint: Hinman, Chester Arthur -”How a British subject became president of the United States”)
3. Other than proof that a birth report was filed in Hawaii, what do the COLB (assuming what was posted of factcheck.org is a true representation), the statement of Dr. Fukino, and the birth announcements do? I’ll answer this one for you. Absolutely nothing!
4. Who has attested to the veracity of Obama’s birth report in Hawaii? I’ll answer this one for you too. NO ONE!
5. Who witnessed Obama’s birth in Hawaii? No one alive has come forward as a witness to this event.
6. Are those Americans requesting that Obama provide his original birth records asking him to perform some incredible feat? Has Obama been to Honolulu since the question was presented? What personal information (that has not already been made public) would he be disclosing if he produced his original birth records? This one is a big point of contention.
7. Hospital births became “the norm” in the 1940s. We can therefore surmise that 35 years later we could expect the President to have a birth certificate available. Reagan and both Bushes and Carter served in the military. As such we can consider their birth to have been verified. That leaves us with Clinton and Obama. How many of you knew that Clinton was adopted, and that his father has never been positively identified? You can’t blame the birthers for not addressing what was kept quiet.
## This leaves only Barack Obama. Since 1978 all Republicans and one Democrat have released their original birth records to the United States Government. Clinton hid that which would have been questioned from the public. Obama has been questioned and refuses to release any documents that could be used to authenticate his birth report. The original birth report could then supported by verified by checking hospital records.
8. How many taxpayer dollars should be spent to keep information that is not a matter of privacy to Obama from the public eye?
9. If a foreign government has verifiable information that would discredit Obama’s claim of Hawaiian birth, do you think they would gain more by releasing it, or by using it to extort the President?
Bdaman,
Are there things that President Obama has done that disappoint me? Yes – probably the same things that bother other posters here. But he’s coming through on the big things that he promised: Health care reform – yes, I would have liked single payer, but I don’t think he could have gotten much more than he did and that’s a good start – an imperfect bill can be improved, but a defeat would have delayed the possibility of reform for another decade at the minimum; Continuing the Bush administration financial bailouts sucked, but it was certainly better than a meltdown of the financial system; Eliminating ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ – slower than I’d like, but I’m guessing that he’ll get there; financial reform – we’ll see, but it seems like he’s at least giving it a shot; reducing nuclear weapons – he did his job, now he just needs to get the Republicans to agree with Ronald Reagan. Additionally, I find his leadership style (like actually listening to experts before making up his mind) and appointment of highly competent people an incredibly refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that asking people ‘Will you vote for President Obama again?’ a silly question on its own. We will all be faced with a choice of a) voting for President Obama, b) voting for someone else, or c) not voting. Without knowing who the other candidates are (or what the state of the country is in November 2012, I don’t think anyone can really make an informed decision. As Robert Heinlein once wrote, “The choice between bad and worse is far more important than the choice between good and better.” I don’t think that many of the people expressing disappointment in Obama would vote for, say, Sarah Palin instead. I admit that instead of the choice between better and bad (with a side of disastrous) we seem to have gotten the choice between okay and bad – but how many Obama voters out there truly think that we would have been better off with President McCain? (you know, the guy who never thought of himself as a maverick
) We’ll see about re-election, but given what I see as the likely downside of another Republican administration in 2012, I suspect that I will be doing all I can to get President Obama re-elected.
appointment of highly competent people an incredibly refreshing change.
Could you name some names for me.
Bdaman,
Start with Hillary Rodham Clinton and pretty much continue down the list of people that he’s nominated – even the ones that failed to be confirmed weren’t rejected due to a lack of competence. Additionally, what I know about his low-level appointments tells me that he’s taking steps to restore the regulatory agencies that President Bush gutted (so things like 25 (or 29) coal miners dying in an explosion don’t happen). The presidency isn’t just about the big things that everyone notices – some of the small, under-the-radar things have a much bigger impact on the lives of Americans.
More from Les.
“1. Prior to Barack Obama II, who was the last person elected to the Office of President whose father was publicly acknowledged to be be a alien? (I said publicly acknowledged, VT.)”
So what. He is the first. There is always a first. He is the first African American. A lot of people did not want an African American elected President. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires two citizen parents, only crank birther theories.
“2. Even though the citizenship of Chester Arthor’s father was not publically disclosed, when Hinman presented the information what was the response? Was it ridicule? (Hint: Hinman, Chester Arthur -”How a British subject became president of the United States”)”
Ignorance. Hinman said Arthur was born in Ireland and then in Canada. That would have disqualified Arthur, but both claims were false. Hinman is totally irrelevant to the claim that a non-citizen parent disqualifies a candidate. Hughes was also a viable candidate.
“3. Other than proof that a birth report was filed in Hawaii, what do the COLB (assuming what was posted of factcheck.org is a true representation), the statement of Dr. Fukino, and the birth announcements do? I’ll answer this one for you. Absolutely nothing!”
Try telling that to a court. The statute I quoted, which is studiously ignored, says that the COLB is a valid legal birth certificate. It is admissible under rules of evidence. It is prima facie evidence. It is valid and competent evidence for the purpose for which it is introduced, unless refuted. There has been no refutation, only empty questions.
“4. Who has attested to the veracity of Obama’s birth report in Hawaii? I’ll answer this one for you too. NO ONE!”
False. Dr. Fukino, the State official in charge of the birth records, verified his birth in Hawaii.
“5. Who witnessed Obama’s birth in Hawaii? No one alive has come forward as a witness to this event.”
Nothing in the Constitution requires witnesses to birth. Lots of Presidents are in this category.
“6. Are those Americans requesting that Obama provide his original birth records asking him to perform some incredible feat? Has Obama been to Honolulu since the question was presented? What personal information (that has not already been made public) would he be disclosing if he produced his original birth records? This one is a big point of contention.”
Obama has produced the proof of his birth. There is no point of producing it for Les, is there, BECAUSE HE HAS ADMITTED THAT NO RECORD OF U.S. BIRTH WILL EVER SATISFY HIM BECAUSE HE REQUIRES TWO CITIZEN PARENTS, hasn’t he? Nothing will ever satisfy the birthers. Why pander to them?
“7. Hospital births became “the norm” in the 1940s. We can therefore surmise that 35 years later we could expect the President to have a birth certificate available. Reagan and both Bushes and Carter served in the military. As such we can consider their birth to have been verified. That leaves us with Clinton and Obama. How many of you knew that Clinton was adopted, and that his father has never been positively identified? You can’t blame the birthers for not addressing what was kept quiet.
## This leaves only Barack Obama. Since 1978 all Republicans and one Democrat have released their original birth records to the United States Government. Clinton hid that which would have been questioned from the public. Obama has been questioned and refuses to release any documents that could be used to authenticate his birth report. The original birth report could then supported by verified by checking hospital records.”
The answer is that Obama has released the legal birth record furnished by the State of Hawaii. The State official in charge, Dr. Fukino, has verified that he was born in Hawaii. The State official has authenticated his birth record. No rational person doubts it. It is only the fanatic birthers who still cling to it.
The birthers have become another third rail in American politics. Look how fast the right wingers like Cucinello, Bachman, and others run from it.
If these questions are so compelling, why did McCain himself run an ad ripping his opponent for birtherism? I linked it up above. It must be because McCain knows that Obama is qualified.
“8. How many taxpayer dollars should be spent to keep information that is not a matter of privacy to Obama from the public eye?”
How many more taxpayer dollars should be WASTED on frivolous birther lawsuits. They have had 68 turns at the plate without a single hit? I answered this on another thread.
Lose, lose and lose. 68 strikes and you’re out.
“9. If a foreign government has verifiable information that would discredit Obama’s claim of Hawaiian birth, do you think they would gain more by releasing it, or by using it to extort the President?”
Paranoia. They do not have any verifiable information, and therefore cannot extort anyone. The witness cannot answer when he stopped beating his wife because he never beat his wife.
Why doesn’t Les put up or shut up. The Constitution provides that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Let him put all his charges in a letter to his Member of Congress. Let him send the letter to all Members, if necessary. Then post the text of that letter here.
They are the responsible officials under the Constitution. The reason the birthers do not do this is the Members have found their arguments to be baseless, and that the issue is a third rail politically,
We will wait for Les’s letter and the responses.
Still waiting to hear about Reagan’s Irish home.
8. How many taxpayer dollars should be spent to keep information that is not a matter of privacy to Obama from the public eye?
**************************************
No, you’re not aware that the older form you speak of is a document retained by the state. It is the birth record which the state retains on file to confirm the authenticity of the birth certificate they issue now. Most states do this now.
If some moron comes along and challenges the issued birth certificate, then the state examiner examines the birth record on file and confirms or denies the authenticity of the issued certificate of birth which is issued by VITALCHECK, which is where I obtained my own birth certificate when I needed it.
The document is valid for a Passport, a drivers license, a wedding license, court proceedings, the military, the government, and any other area requiring proof of citizenship.
No American has to produce any more than that. If they do, its simply a letter to the health agency in the state the were born for verification of the certificate, which the State examiner has already given for President Obamas.
The State of Hawaii examiner has authenticated the issued certificate given to President Obama, and certified it as genuine. Which is more than ANY US president has ever been asked to do. So if you want to sell your tin foil hat theories, go ahead. It just makes the Tea Party look wackier than it already is.
A complete looney bin.
(so things like 25 (or 29) coal miners dying in an explosion don’t happen)
Dr. Slarti I’ll respond once here seeing how we have a coal miner thread already going but is it fair to blame Bush for Sago and not Obama for the recent one. 600 violations in the last 18 months so these happened under Obama’s watch. I’ll take my answer on the miners thread. thank you
Can I ask a hypothetical question. Just out of curiosity, what if by the slimmest of slimmest margins President Obama was actually born in Kenya. What then. Mr. Tearacy, Dr. Slarti anyone.
Bdaman,
My opinion is driven by the law and the evidence. Were the evidence to show that he was born in Kenya in 1961 it is my understanding of the laws in force at the time that he would not be a US citizen at birth (and hence not a natural born citizen). Having asked Vince earlier, it is also my understanding that the COLB with the support of the Hawaii DOH is an almost insurmountable hurdle to establishing the legitimacy of a Kenyan birth certificate in any US court.
Bdaman 1, April 9, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Can I ask a hypothetical question. Just out of curiosity, what if by the slimmest of slimmest margins President Obama was actually born in Kenya. What then. Mr. Tearacy, Dr. Slarti anyone.
***********************
Then you’d have your wish.
A white President.
If Obama was actually born in Kenya…?
Well, then, I think I have explained before, seriously, that it would be the job of the House of Representatives to take a look at the evidence. Not the courts.
I think that we are still waiting for Les to give us his presentation to his Member of Congress, or to Ron Paul, or to that guy King in Iowa or someplace, or to Bachmann. Or to any of the guys who signed on the bill to require birth certificates. It is too late to give it to Nathan Deal, who quit ahead of an ethics probe. This question doesn’t scare me.
The same would apply if the proof showed that he was actually Kal-el, born on Krypton, and sent by his father Jor-el to save the Earth.
I am a little bit more worried about Krypton than Kenya.
Who is going to stop General Zod! I ask you that, birthers. Who is going to stop General Zod!
“The same would apply if the proof showed that he was actually Kal-el, born on Krypton, and sent by his father Jor-el to save the Earth.”
************************
That would explain the Tea Party Bizzaro world thing, not to mention a pair of glasses on Obama and you’ve got Clark Kent.
But would that mean Joe the Plumber is really Lex Luthor?
Thanks Mr. Treacy for your answer. May I ask another hypothetical. In your opinion, lets say Obama is finished with his term and decides to run again. It is discovered that he was in fact born in Kenya. Is it the same answer? Thanks again for answering.
At that point I think the leaders of Metropolis would gather together at the Ice Cave to determine who gets the crystals.
Or something like that.
There is no way to know that the poster voted for Obama. It may be Les under a new name.
In the meantime, Phil Cave, a retired Navy judge advocate general who now practices military law as a civilian, said:
“They think that by using [servicemembers in a court-martial] they can get discovery like you could in any criminal prosecution,’ he said. “That ain’t gonna happen. They’re not going to have discovery where they’re going to get the president to produce a birth certificate because, I’m reasonably certain, no military judge, no appellate court and no federal court, and no U.S. Supreme Court is going to say they have a right to get that as a matter of discovery.”
Source: Military.com, “Army Calls Birther Doc’s Bluff”:
http://www.military.com/news/article/army-calls-birther-docs-bluff.html?wh=wh#jivepostlink
[copy and paste link on browser or go to military.com]
Get ready to get on the plane, Lakin.
“They are being guided by their ethnic consideration and objectives. They are living in the past. If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America? It is because they did away with exclusion.”
Source: Kenyan Parliamentary Records (March 25th, 2010) P.31 L.14
http://www.parliament.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf
Obama’s wife says that Kenya is Obama’s “home country”. Obama’s home country says he was “born here in Kenya”, and refers to him as a “son of Kenyan soil”. Lucas Smith went to where many Kenyan’s told him Obama was born and retrieved Obama’s birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa. In his book “Airlift to America” Tom Shachtman talks about Obama Sr. being sent to work in Mombasa after Sr. was expelled.
Too many links from too many different sources.
And some people still wonder why a military officer would say “Wait just a minute. I’d like to see something more conclusive”.
What information is contained in Obama’s original birth records in Hawaii that would be a privacy concern? I can’t think of anything. Hospital Name? Name of the Doctor? Name of the Local Registrar? Those are related to Obama’s person privacy how?
Now think about the National Security concerns if in fact Obama does hold the office fraudulently. We all know that the public interest outweighed any privacy concern a long time ago.
Les 1, April 11, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Now think about the National Security concerns if in fact Obama does hold the office fraudulently.
***********************************
I would think an even bigger national security concern would be posed by a group of radical looneybirds trying to challenge the authority of a sitting President.
Does being a birther qualify as shenanigans, buffoonery or tomfoolery? Does that status impact your tax debt and duty to pay? That first question is clearly rhetorical but the second? Not so much. There is some crazy stuff in the tax code but nothing so crazy as to say you don’t have to pay them. Unless you’re a Kenyan. Then you have to pay them wearing a tin foil hat while being probed by aliens from Zeta-Reticuli. Until such as day as you too Les are a Kenyan, Bigfoot will swing by in the UFO and whisks you, tax free, to Atlantis where you can have peanut butter and banana sandwiches with Elvis and Amelia Earhart.
“[H]ow could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”
We’ve been asking that very same question Mr. Orengo.
Les 1, April 11, 2010 at 10:31 pm
“[H]ow could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”
We’ve been asking that very same question Mr. Orengo.
*******************************
Problem is you haven’t been listening to the answer.
He wasn’t.
Unless of course you think the State of Hawaii is involved in a massive conspiracy that began more than 4 decades ago in the hopes that a new born baby would one day become President.
If so then Reynold’s Wrap would like to talk to you about becoming a national spokesman.
Les,
How can a True Native American ever be the President when they are not born US Citizens? The Reservations are basically conclaves, not subject to any laws that US citizens are subject to?
You could murder someone on an Indian Reservation and never be prosecuted in either state or Federal Court unless the reservation consents.
Where were you born? Mars or someones Uranus?
[H]ow could a young man born here in Kenya,… become the President of America?”
Same question.
Same answer.
Questions, questions, questions.
Wow, does Les have a question?
The question was “[H]ow could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”
The answer is that a young man born in Kenya (whoever the speaker may have been referring to), who is not a native American, could not and did not become President of the United States of America.
No young man ever born in Kenya ever became President of the United States at any time in its history.
The young man named Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii in the United States of America, and is a natural born citizen of the United States, did become and is the President of the United States.
Most members of most parliaments in the world have immunity for their statements in the course of their debates, so that they can lie, lie, lie, with complete impunity. This member is lying, or making a statement with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
Lucas Smith went to where many Kenyan’s told him Obama was born and retrieved Obama’s birth certificate from Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa.
Questions, questions, questions.
I noticed that I posted this challenge up above, but I will repeat it here for Les.
Go to Google. Insert the terms “Lucas Smith convicted perjury” and “Lucas Smith convicted forgery or forger.”
Review the results, Les, and get back to us on this:
Do you still want to put this witness on the stand in Lakin’s court martial and vouch for Smith’s credibility and veracity in his story about his finding the birth certificate in Kenya?
Vince,
Don’t you find it interesting that a statement by a member of the Kenyan parliament is taken as the next best thing to the word of God while statements by officials of the Hawaii Department of Health are subject to extreme skepticism?
Vince,
Sorry, I should have said: ‘Don’t you find it interesting that statements by a memeber of the Kenyan parliament and a CONVICTED FORGER are taken as the next best thing to the word of God while statements by officials of the Hawaii DOH, documents bearing their official seals, the actions of congress and the SCOTUS are subject to extreme skepticism? What comes after a ‘double standard’?
Les is desperately seeking “Hospital Name? Name of the Doctor? Name of the Local Registrar?”
None of these items would affect anyone’s status as a natural born citizen in any way, shape or form. None of these items are today listed on anyone’s official Hawaiian birth certificate, the COLB.
Under the 14th Amendment, citizenship by birth requires only two legal elements: (1) birth in the United States (2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Those elements are proven by the COLB and have been confirmed by the custodial official.
None of this other information bears on status as a natural born citizen.
Lakin may be curious, but curiosity is for cats, and this curiosity does not excuse an Army doctor from a lawful order.
No one is ordering Lakin to vote for Obama.
The Army is just telling him to follow a lawful military order after he swore to obey lawful orders.
Stop wasting our time.
Good point, Slart. Looking at the clock, I think we are both having a little insomnia and need to give this a rest for now.
Go Duke!
Vince,
Alas, I’m editing my #!&%@* bibliography database to capitalize terms like ‘DNA’ and ‘G2′ so I can send a draft of my %^&#*! paper to my collaborators. As the poet said: ‘I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep…’
Goodnight.
VT is worried about Obama meeting the natural-born citizen requirement of Article II while tens of millions of people in this country are concerned about having a fraud in the White House, who by many reports is not even a U.S. Citizen.
If Barack Obama Jr. was not born in the U.S. he is not even a citizen of the U.S.
Instead of recognizing the possibility of one person telling a lie (by filing a fraudulent birth report), VT wants you to believe that everyone else is lying.
VT will tell you Mr. Orengo lied.
VT will tell you that Lucas Smith is lying.
After the clip of Michelle Obama saying they traveled to “Barack’s home country of Kenya” was released, VT said she “never said in the clip that Obama was born in Kenya or that he was not born in Hawaii. Why is VT telling you what she didn’t say? VT doesn’t want to accept what Michelle Obama did say.
The only thing we do know is that somebody filed a birth report for Barack Obama II with the State of Hawaii. Who that person was, or what their motivation was for doing so is unknown.
Nobody here can tell us who filed Obama’s birth report in Hawaii. They can’t tell us who the doctor was that delivered him, and their only source for Obama’s hospital of birth is Obama himself.
VT won’t tell you that the person who filed Obama’s birth report in Hawaii lied. He can’t. He doesn’t know who it is. It could have been filed by someone with a criminal history.
Maybe Mr. Orengo is using Obama’s secret birth records to get him to do something, or to stop doing something. One thing is for sure, Obama doesn’t want anybody to know what is on those original birth records. That plays well into the hands of his enemies.
The FBI destroyed a file on Barack Obama’s grandfather, the man who selected Communist Frank Marshall Davis to be the future president’s mentor during his growing-up years in Hawaii.
“The FBI confirms that a file was maintained on Obama’s grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham,” states Cliff Kincaid, the journalist who runs the public policy group, America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI). “This is a troubling development in the effort to understand the Marxism that drives Obama’s policies as president today.”
In correspondence with Kincaid, available at http://www.usasurvival.org, the FBI says the file was destroyed in 1997. The FBI made the admission after Kincaid complied with a request to verify the identity of Dunham and the fact that he was deceased.
Dubbed “Gramps” by Obama, Dunham has been depicted in news reports as a patriot who served in the U.S. Army in World War II. But he had a close relationship with Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, who reportedly drank and smoke pot with Dunham.
Davis was not only a communist but a pornographer who wrote a semi-biographical novel about having sex with a 13-year-old girl. He mentored Obama for as many as nine years of his young life in Hawaii.
http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/dunham.pdf
So, an offhand remark by one Kenyan MP amounts to “proof”. Take a gander at this, beginning at page 36:
http://www.parliament.go.ke/parliament/download…
This is not an offhand comment by one member of Kenya’s Parliament during a debate on another subject. It is page after page of discussion in Parliament about Obama’s inauguration, just hours before Obama was inaugurated. If Obama was born in Kenya, you would think that a such a moment of national pride, all the members of Parliament would be describing how he was born in Kenya, where he was born, etc. Here is the statement of the member introducing the question:
“This event is of great significance to the entire world but even more so to us in Kenya because the President-elect of the USA has his ancestry in living memory of Kenya. His father was born, bred and died in this country and what was unimaginable in the many years you lived in America as a professor in an American university has happened and today an African-American stands poised to become the 44th President of the USA.”
“It is momentous in many ways for us not simply because Barack Obama’s father was Kenyan but because he is the President of the USA with which we share a rich history or form of Government, constitutional history, the concept of the rule of law to which we cherish and our court system.”
“Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, therefore, as we celebrate this occasion, let us also pay tribute to those who made it possible like our own Tom Mboya who in the Kennedy administration arranged the Great Air Lift that saw so many Kenyans go to the USA and that, in many ways led to this great Kenyan who landed in Hawaii and married an American woman who has today given us the President of the USA. Tom Mboya and John F. Kennedy are people who saw so much hope for this country.”
“Obama has been in this country two times before. Once before he was a Senator and the last time when he was a senator.”
Mr. Affey says: “I would like to congratulate the people of the United States of America (USA) for making the bold decision to give this opportunity to a Kenyan-American. The blood that flows in him is Kenyan. The fact that today he has been given an opportunity, as an American citizen, to lead that country is an achievement for us and also an opportunity to learn many lessons.”
Mr. Musyoka (Vice President and Minister for Home Affairs): “Really, the world has reason and cause to celebrate! That the first African-American is able to be sworn in as the President of the United States of America. But, of course, we should remind
ourselves that the Americans elected an American President.”
In other words, the members of Kenya’s Parliament, hours before Obama’s inauguration, in a discussion focused on the meaning for Kenya of that inauguration, say NOTHING indicating the Barack Obama was born in Kenya. To the contrary, they make many references to Obama as being of Kenyan heritage, but he is plainly described as a Kenyan-American or African-American or just plain American.
So, have a fine day, birthers. If you believed a word of your conspiracy theories, you would be busy calling members of the House of Representatives.
Another day, another pile of rumors, misinformation and misguided actions.
Misguided. Military dot com reports “An Army flight surgeon apparently is sticking to his vow not to deploy until he is satisfied that President Barack Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen.
”Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin did not report for duty at Fort Campbell, Ky. as ordered today, and a spokesman for the post said it’s not likely he will.”
Stuff from Les. Where does the constitution say that two citizen parents are needed? Nowhere. Find the words and show us. The 14th Amendment requires birth in the US, subject to its jurisdiction. Nothing more.
Les seems to think Kenya announced that Obama was born there. Where did Kenya announce anything? A minister named Orengo asked a QUESTION. [[H]ow could a young man born here in Kenya,… become the President of America?”] A question is not a statement. The question “does he still you still beat his wife” is NOT a statement that the person beats his wife, since the person never beat his wife.
The answer to the question is that no one born in Kenya has ever become President of America.
Is Les still working on a list of witnesses for House Judiciary on his Articles of Impeachment?
Orengo’s question displays ignorance, and was probably politically motivated. Try to get him to repeat it off the floor of Parliament, and before the House Judiciary Committee, under oath. Fat chance.
Lucas Daniel Smith. Convicted perjurer and forger, and admitted briber? Gotta be kidding. Gonna put him before Judiciary under oath, too?
Michelle never said Obama was born in Kenya. Never said it. Where are the words “Obama was born in Kenya”? Nowhere. She would testify honestly and under oath that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. That is a myth with no proof at all. Indonesian law prohibited that.
Is this the sum total of the Articles of Impeachment that Les plans to present to his Member of Congress for introduction in the House? He still has not gotten back to us with that draft letter.
Les can speculate all he wants about a criminal intent in 1961. It is just that, speculation. Two Honolulu newspapers printed contemporary birth announcements, derived from hospital reports to the state agency. The Hawaiian State Government is satisfied that its records show Obama’s birth in Honolulu. So who’s lying? Les wants us to believe all those state officials, not just one person, are lying.
Welcome to the Turley blog, bearclaw. Excellent catch on the Kenyan Parliament.
Bdaman 1, April 12, 2010 at 2:45 pm
“The FBI destroyed a file on Barack Obama’s grandfather”
*************************
If the massive, almost 5 decade conspiracy you speak of were true, then I think the FBI would have destroyed more than a “file” on his grandfather.
They would have likely destroyed the grandfather too, and anyone privy to the information.
Its a looney bin theory suitable of the finest tin foil hats this country has to offer.
Just postin stuff for the Star Ship Enterprise.
Did you ever watch Star Trek? Ever a fan? I am.
If the massive, almost 5 decade conspiracy you speak of were true, then I think the FBI would have destroyed more than a “file” on his grandfather.
I’m not sure about all that. I do know somebody breached his passport file, they found that guy dead.
Bdaman 1, April 12, 2010 at 7:08 pm
“I’m not sure about all that. I do know somebody breached his passport file, they found that guy dead.”
Wow. Pretty scary stuff. That must prove it huh?
A. Where’s the proof this guy ‘breached” his “passport file”. Please provide a link to the news article (not some right wing looney bin conspiracy theorist website).
B. Where’s the proof he was found dead? What were the circumstances? How did he die? Again, please provide a link to the news article.
C. Where’s the evidence he was killed by the FBI? Again, link.
Enterprise, come in, Come in Enterprise.
I cant remember the exact story but it went something like this.
A contract employee who was providing services for a private contractor owned by the now head of the NSA, Mr. John Brennan, was caught breaching the passport files of John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barac Obama. It was thought to be random but it was later confirmed that Obama’s passport file was the target. The contract employee a one Lt. Quarles Harris Jr,
(LT stands for Lieutenant in case your wondering) who had been cooperating with federal investigators, was found slumped dead inside a car, in front of a Church. Two weeks after the breach is when the now president said that he had traveled to Pakistan. This was a new revelation because it was not mentioned in either one of his books and Pakistan was in great turmoil during the time Obama had traveled there.
By reading your response it seems you’ve never heard the story, well, now you have. Looked it up, but I’m pretty sure thats how it went.
By the way it was a single gunshot wound to the head. The cause of death as far as I know has never been made available to the public and I have no idea if there is a criminal investigation thats ongoing.
Bdaman 1, April 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Enterprise, come in, Come in Enterprise.
I cant remember the exact story but it went something like this.
******************************
lol, I thought so.
As I told your partner BuenaVistaMall the other day, when you can provide the links to some evidence of your wild tin foil hat conspiracy theories and not some “story” you heard somewhere, you let me know.
bearclaw,
I second Vince’s welcome and kudos. (Mmmmm, bearclaw…)
Vince,
A slight quibble (or clarification):
You said: “Obama was never an Indonesian citizen. That is a myth with no proof at all. Indonesian law prohibited that.”
The more important point (in this discussion) is that under US law, President Obama couldn’t have lost his US (natural born) citizenship whether he got Indonesian citizenship or not.
Do you not know who to use a search engine man. Seeing is believing sometimes. I gave you the story and names. It’s easy, just type in Obama’s passport file breached. Doiik
Hide and Seek seems like a game the president likes not soccer.
Reading the story about President Obama breaking tradition and ditching the presidential press pool over the weekend to watch one of his daughter’s soccer games, it appears harmless, right? Not so. It is rather disturbing when you dissect it. So let’s do just that. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the press pool was to assemble at 11:30AM.
However, Time reported:
The president left the White House at approximately 9:20 to attend one of his daughter’s soccer games at 40th and Chesapeake NW. A pool was hastily called at around 9:35 and drove north at 9:43 to catch the president before the game ended. We didn’t make it. The President returned to the White House at 10:17. The pool returned at 10:30. We now return you to your regularly scheduled pool call time.
Seems simple enough. But the story has several problems. The first one is a biggie in that there were no scheduled soccer games for Sidwell Friends April 10, as evidenced here. The second is that the area reported that the game was played at appears to be one of high crime, as documented here and here. Additionally, this is a picture of the field via Google Maps, where Obama went to watch the game.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/obama_attends_nonexistent_socc.html
What does bd mean? “However, Time reported:”
That report is not from time, but from right wing website AmericanThinker, out in California.
I live in that neighborhood. It is not high crime. That is a stupid statement.
Amrican Thinker refuses to post any comments contrary to its warped positions. The would not even let a right winger post, but banned him.
I challenged a birther, Noonan, to get them to post my views. They banned him. He emailed them in protest.
We have not heard back from Noonan. AmericanThinker censors its comments. It will not let its birthers hear any contrary view. BD has some nerve posting a link to AT here at the Turley blog, where all views are permitted. AT does not want a debate. They are afraid of the truth, and want to keep it from Lakin himself.
The stupid little article about the soccer game is also nonsense.
[quoting from NNBCE site thread]
Edward C. Noonan said
April 12, 2010 at 15:39
—– Original Message —–
From: Edward C. Noonan
To: editor@americanthinker.com
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:33 AM
Subject: Why have we been banned?
I was going to submit this COMMENT but I discovered I was BANNED TOO! I got the message:
The (user)name “ednoonan” has been banned from use. Please use a different name or contact the forum administrators
============================================================
One of the obamabots on NATIVE AND NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP EXPLORED blog complained he was ‘censored’ on the AMERICAN THINKER. As a well-known ‘birther’ I had complained that NNBCE had censored me (and heaped their normal ridicule on me as a birther.)
He challenged me to attempt to put his rambling COMMENT on the American Thinker…So I thought I’d see if you would post my post so that I can say you gave him his say. We need to merely give him his link to his pro-soetoro (aka) NNBCE site:
http://www.nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/from-vince-treacy-lakin/
I do not agree with his legally-challenged claim that a BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the same thing as a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. If Mr. Treacy thinks so, he must be a questionable attorney there in D.C./MD? I asked him if he was the same Vince Treacy that I had GOOGLED… he did not deny it.
Attorney Treacy (?) does not believe I can get his COMMENT to be posted on American Thinker.
So I ask the readers of AMERICAN THINKER. Is Treacy correct and Dr. Lakin is wrong saying the bogus ‘birth certificate’ Mr. Soetoro (aka) has presented to the world as his TICKET TO THE WHITE HOUSE should NOT be accepted? Or should we accept Treacy’s claim that this bogus, concealed, hidden, and printed fraud called Mr. Soetoro’s Certificate of Live Birth is the true document of record?
He (and his co-conspirators at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com wants a debate — LET’S GIVE IT TO THEM!
Thank you in advance,
Edward C. Noonan
Chairman – Yuba County American Independent Party
Reply
*
Vince Treacy said
April 12, 2010 at 17:04
Mr. Noonan,
Thank you for trying to open up AmericanThinker to my comments.
I hope that they will reply to you (and to me, since I gave them my email).
Vince Treacy
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/the-laws-of-the-state-of-connecticut-children-born-to-aliens/
No response yet. Pathetic.
Here is what Time, not American thinker, reported:
“Pool Report: Obama Attends Soccer Game April 10, 2010
The president left the White House at approximately 9:20 to attend one of his daughter’s soccer games at 40th and Chesapeake NW. A pool was hastily called at around 9:35 and drove north at 9:43 to catch the president before the game ended. We didn’t make it. The President returned to the White House at 10:17. The pool returned at 10:30. We now return you to your regularly scheduled pool call time.”
Big deal.
No pics Mr. Treacy from a single parent on his daughters team.
Why the need to make up a story? Cause thats what it is. A made up story to get the President out of the Whitehouse. I think I’ll put on my tinfoil hat and say he’s either smoking endo sippin on Gin and juice with his mind on his money and his money on his mind, or there was a threat and he was directed to leave the Whitehouse.
Either way your right, Big Deal.
Biden would probably say Big Fuckin Deal
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
daughter’s soccer game
was there a game at 40th and Chesapeake NW
Not according to American Thinker, here’s what they reported.
t there were no scheduled soccer games for Sidwell Friends April 10, as evidenced here.
http://www.sidwell.edu/athletics/teamlist.aspx
Politico has a story that hey, the president knows he has caused a stir.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35639.html
And of course in any analysis you have there is always a thing called time frame. Not to be confused with Freeze Frame. Somebody’s gonna get framed for it.
I wonder what Gibbs is gonna have to say?
And I’ll put the Quote on’s for ya on this one.
Quote On:
The President of the United States
“Apparently I caused quite a problem,”
Quote off:
adding something about his secretary not telling the Secret Service.
So here we have the President of the United States riding around in a specific time frame with no secret service because his secretary didn’t tell them. Was he joking? No press either.?
I don’t know about you but I don’t think that that was the safest thing to do as the leader of the free world, well not so free.
I will stop by 40th and Chesapeake and report back to everyone (if I don’t get mugged, ha, ha).
AmericanThinker SHOULD like to hear from me, but I am banned. They would like to remain fact free. In the meantime, give them all the credence due to a source that brooks no interference or disagreement.
Sorry, this stuff is too much to shovel, bring in the backhoe.
Also, bda seems to have garbled the birther myth about travel to Pakistan. The wiki site called “Barack Obama citizen conspiracy theories” is a good spot to get a start on these myths.
[quote] Claims about travel to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport
It has also been claimed that Obama could not be a natural-born citizen because he traveled to Pakistan at a time when there was a ban on United States passport holders entering that country, which means he must have traveled using a non-U.S. passport. The OC Weekly comments that these assertions are not true:
The Pakistan “travel ban” is a complete fabrication based on zero evidence and completely contradicted by State Department records and a 1981 New York Times article.[47]
The New York Times article mentioned, along with U.S. State Department travel advisories from 1981, make it clear that travel to Pakistan by U.S. passport holders was possible at that time.[48][49] [unquote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Claims_about_travel_to_Pakistan_using_a_non-U.S._passport
I have to go out for a while.
Feel free to invent some conspiracy theories.
Also, bda seems to have garbled the birther myth about travel to Pakistan.
Claims about travel to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport
Never mentioned anything about that Mr. Treacy.
I said, and do I put the quotes on when you quote yourself. Oh what the heck
Quote On:
I cant remember the exact story but it went something like this.
A contract employee who was providing services for a private contractor owned by the now head of the NSA, Mr. John Brennan, was caught breaching the passport files of John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barac Obama. The contract employee a one Lt. Quarles Harris Jr,
(LT stands for Lieutenant in case your wondering) who had been cooperating with federal investigators, was found slumped dead inside a car, in front of a Church. Two weeks after the breach is when the now president said that he had traveled to Pakistan. This was a new revelation because it was not mentioned in either one of his books and Pakistan was in great turmoil during the time Obama had traveled there.
Quote off
Now where did I say anything about Obama and a foreign passport?
P.S. I see the doc has picked up on the Kenyan Official
Me too in about thirty minutes, O.K. see you when you get back
I hope you don’t plan on going by 40th and Chesapeake today if you do pack some heat. How bout take some pics to see if google earth recorded them properly and they weren’t photo shopped.
Lets think about this.
So here we have the President of the United States riding around in a specific time frame with no secret service because his secretary didn’t tell them, in an area of town and apparently Mr. Treacy knows the area
Quote on:
I will stop by 40th and Chesapeake and report back to everyone (if I don’t get mugged, ha, ha).
Quote off:
where the crimes of theft, assault and burgalries have occured on many occasions and thats where the President of the United States is. I hope his driver had a gun, who knows maybe he drove himself.
Here are the links to all the assaults, burglaries and thefts for locations near and around 40th and Chesapeake.
http://spotcrime.com/crime/9420934-fbec909d7d5578f14deaca938a3535b6
http://spotcrime.com/crime/9420930-b72f351818ec8d8467d4e067fd79b0a7
When you said “Claims about travel to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport.”
Mr Treacy if you can point to a comment where I said that in the last 24 or 48 hours I’ll glady lick my wounds but I don’t see it.
Vince,
Bdaman only said that Pakistan was in great turmoil when President Obama visit (and that his first mention of the trip was two weeks after the passport breach). This time anyway. There was certainly an implication of shady behavior (and murder) but nothing overt (again, this time).
Thank you Dr. Slarti but I was waiting for Mr. Treacy to respond
Sorry, bd, I checked and you did not type claims about non US passport travel by Obama. I have no problem correcting this.
Reviewing the posts, what bd said was: “I do know somebody breached his passport file, they found that guy dead.”
If bd was implying that Quarles was shot BECAUSE he breached Obama’s passport files, then there is no proof of that. The paragraph bd posted does not support that theory, so I will presume he is not actually saying that there was a connection.
The full post:
“I cant remember the exact story but it went something like this.
“A contract employee who was providing services for a private contractor owned by the now head of the NSA, Mr. John Brennan, was caught breaching the passport files of John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barac Obama. It was thought to be random but it was later confirmed that Obama’s passport file was the target. The contract employee a one Lt. Quarles Harris Jr,
(LT stands for Lieutenant in case your wondering) who had been cooperating with federal investigators, was found slumped dead inside a car, in front of a Church. Two weeks after the breach is when the now president said that he had traveled to Pakistan. This was a new revelation because it was not mentioned in either one of his books and Pakistan was in great turmoil during the time Obama had traveled there.”
Bdaman 1, April 12, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Do you not know who to use a search engine man.
*******************************************
uuh, sure man. And I do when I make claims.
When you make them, then you need to know how to use one, man.
No problem Mr. Treacy I may have held that opinion before as Dr. Slarti has pointed out, but the fact of the matter is we will never know whether he did or didn’t because no information has ever been released as to his travels and what specific passports where used. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Let me remind you the best evidence to entertain that would be his actual U.S. passport with stamps from places visited and not a story from a journalist or someone claiming to be.
There has never been a public release as to what Lt. Quarles Harris Jr saw in the presidents passport file or whether he did anything to or with the information it contained. These are the facts.
We also know it is possible for an American who has no family in Cuba to go to another country that has ties with Cuba and upon entering Cuba, the Cuban government will not officially stamp a U.S. passport. My point is there are ways to pervert the passport system. No different then say an illegal immigrant gaining access to forged documents in order to receive employment.
Regardless,
Thank you for your correction
Your claim presumes that 40 some years ago a bunch of people got together to falsify the then infant Obama’s records in the hopes that one day he “might” be elected President.
I’m not sure they sell that grade of tin foil in stores.
Goneville thank you for your responses but for someone who didn’t know that the presidents passport was breached is a little behind the learning curve. But thank you for your efforts.
Also Mr. Treacy allow me to redirect you to this comment.
Bdaman 1, April 12, 2010 at 7:44 pm
By the way it was a single gunshot wound to the head. The cause of death as far as I know has never been made available to the public and I have no idea if there is a criminal investigation thats ongoing.
This means it is possible it was ruled suicide and if it wasn’t then I am not sure if there is a criminal investigation. There has never been a public release of that information as far as I know.
“Your claim presumes that 40 some years ago a bunch of people got together to falsify the then infant Obama’s records in the hopes that one day he “might” be elected President.”
goneville-n-keyes,
Why would it take a bunch of people? Can’t a grandparent file a fraudulent birth report simply to bestow the benefits of U.S. Citizenship upon their foreign-born grandchild without envisioning that one day the grandchild might grow up to become president? After all; who would have ever questioned the birth report if not for the fact that the child was elected to become president?
Reduction to the point of absurdity is often used to avoid recognizing the possibility that the action could be attributed to a reasonable set of circumstances. Ergo, citizenship and not the presidency is a much more logical reason.
Do not think something is not possible without first looking at the possibilities. Ghandi
Can’t a grandparent file a fraudulent birth report simply to bestow the benefits of U.S. Citizenship upon their foreign-born grandchild without envisioning that one day the grandchild might grow up to become president?
One thing that illegal immigrants want badly is to have the birth of children on U.S. soil just so that they can be an American Citizen nothing more, nothing less.
John Brennan the now head of the NSA more than likely directed Lt. Quarles Harris Jr to breach Obama’s passport file is a former CIA agent.
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Goneville thank you for your responses but for someone who didn’t know that the presidents passport was breached is a little behind the learning curve. But thank you for your efforts.
**************************************************
I didn’t say it had or hadn’t.
I simply asked you to provide evidence.
Here is what I asked you to do.
************************************
A. Where’s the proof this guy ‘breached” his “passport file”. Please provide a link to the news article (not some right wing looney bin conspiracy theorist website).
B. Where’s the proof he was found dead? What were the circumstances? How did he die? Again, please provide a link to the news article.
C. Where’s the evidence he was killed by the FBI? Again, link.
**************************************
You answered none of these questions, instead requiring Vince to provide the link.
I know why you didn’t provide the story, because if you had the facts behind it would not support your theory.
1. Lt. Quarles Harris isn’t a Lieutenant. That was a nickname. He worked for Brennan and was involved in some sort of credit card FRAUD.
2. There is no evidence who killed him, or why. But he isn’t the first person to be shot on a DC street. And given the things he was into its more probable that one of the hoodlums he associated with killed him, likely over money. He also could have been killed by someone trying to silence him who put him up to the snooping on the passports.
3. He also accessed John McCains file and Hilary Clinton. Its not sure whether that was merely to conceal his true intent but we don’t know, because he may have been interrupted.
So you birthers can jump on that one and attribute all sorts of conspiracy theories to it if you want but there is no evidence that any of this was tied to anything relating to the President.
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 2:06 pm
John Brennan the now head of the NSA more than likely directed Lt. Quarles Harris Jr to breach Obama’s passport file is a former CIA agent.
*************************************
hmmm, whats that about being “behind the learning curve”?
You can’t even get the facts right in your own conspiracy theories.
John Brennan is NOT the head of the NSA.
He is the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
LTG Keith B. Alexander is the head of NSA.
What other false information do you wish to present?
OK smart ass here is the original story from the Washington Times who broke the story.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/
One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after Lt. Harris told federal authorities he obtained “passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.”
One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme
It does not say he was involved in a credit card scheme.
Here’s CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html
goneville-n-keyes,
Why would it take a bunch of people? Can’t a grandparent file a fraudulent birth report”
**************************************
How exactly does one do that?
The HOSPITAL files the report chief. The HOSPITAL reported the birth.
The Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital reported the birth, not his mom.
Also, you’re forgetting the newspaper article.
How did she get the Newspaper to print an article about a birth, that never happened? Newspapers go off of birth records mister crazy fox. Not the mothers word.
So yes, in order for your looney bin theory to hold water, there would have to have been OTHER PEOPLE, hospital officials, etc who were in on it.
So if you’re going to put together a looney bin theory, please be sure your tin foil cap is on straight.
Oh I’m sorry I made a mistake I guess thats why I prefaced it as.
“I cant remember the exact story but it went something like this.
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm
OK smart ass here is the original story from the Washington Times who broke the story.
***********************************
Too late now Bdaman. Vince already posted the story.
Providing links after the fact does not help shore up your looney conspiracy theories.
Facts will, but you seem short on those.
News and police reports stated that Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. of Capitol Heights, MD, aged 24, was shot and killed at close range.
There are many articles that refer to him as Lieutenant. Where is the article or link that says it’s a nickname.
Too late now Bdaman. Vince already posted the story.
and exactly where did he do this?
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm
One agency employee, who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme
It does not say he was involved in a credit card scheme.
***************************************************
No but the United States District Court criminal complaint # 08-215-11-01 says he was.
Try researching your own conspiracy theories prior to lecturing others on them.
No but the United States District Court criminal complaint # 08-215-11-01 says he was.
your suppose to provide a link, isn’t that what you said. Are you not following your own standards.
“The HOSPITAL files the report chief. The HOSPITAL reported the birth.
The Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital reported the birth”. -goneville-n-keys
goneville-n-keys, You really should catch up before you start making statements that are not supported.
Who says that Kapiolani reported the birth? We only know that a birth report was filed. We don’t know who filed it.
“Also, you’re forgetting the newspaper article.” -goneville-n-keys
No I did not. “The Advertiser’s Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama’s birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
“‘If we published it, it came from the state,’ she said.”
“Newspapers go off of birth records mister crazy fox. Not the mothers word.” -goneville-n-keys
Try performing some research before I make you look like an fool again. Here’s how they do it today. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/section/BIRTHS/births
It looks like my “looney[sic] bin theory” just kicked the crap out of your demonstration of ignorance.
And even if it does accuse him of it he is innocent until proven guilty.
UNITED STATES
.v
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS JR.
On or about March 25, 2008 in the District of Columbia defendant(s) did knowingly and with intent to defraud, possessed more than fifteen unauthorized credit cards which are unauthorized access devices, said activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce in that the credit cards were issued, owned, managed or controlled by a financial institution, account issuer, credit card system member or other entity within the jurisdiction of the United States.
******************************************************
MAR-26-2008 11:49 US ATTORNEYS P 001/003
AO 91 (Rev. 5/85) criminal Complaint
United States District Court
For The District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
V.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS, JR.
DOB: 3/7/84
PDID: 539-549
****************************************************
3. As a result, we stopped the vehicle and identified Leiuienant Quarks Harris. Jr also
known as Lieutenant Quarks Hams» Jr. fMr. Harris”) as the operator of the vehicle. When Mr Hams rolled down the driver’s side window of the vehicle, the odor of marijuana emanated from the inside of the vehicle. Mr. Harris was asked if he would mind if the law enforcement officerssearched his vehicle. He agreed his vehicle could be searched. As Mr. Harris stepped out of the vehicle, a law enforcement officer noticed a large clear ziplock bag sticking out of Mr. Harris’s jacket pocket. The clear ziplock bag was observed, while still in Mr. Harris’s pocket, to contain several smaller clear ziplock bags that appeared to contain green colored weed-like substances. The
larger ziplock bag was found to contain 13 smaller ziplock bags, each containing green weedlike substances. A portion of the green weedlike substance was field tested and found to be positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
As a result, Mr. Harris was placed under arrest for
Possession With Intent to Distribute Marijuana
******************************************************
No I did not. “The Advertiser’s Marsha McFadden told WND at the time of Obama’s birth announcement, the newspaper got all of its information from the state Department of Health. That would include the address.
****************************
So your theory just kicked the crap out of yourself.
Because they are saying they got the report from the DOH.
So the DOH would have to have been involved for your nutjob theory to hold water.
What else you got?
MAR-26-2008 11:49 US ATTORNEYS P 001/003
AO 91 (Rev. 5/85) criminal Complaint
United States District Court
For The District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
V.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS, JR.
DOB: 3/7/84
PDID: 539-549
**********************************************************
In a search of Mr. Harris’s person incident to bis arrest, a total of twenty-one (21) credit cards, issued by financial institutions, were located, variously on his person and in his vehicle.
Two of those credit cards were duplicates. Hence, there were nineteen (19) different credit cards.
None of the names on the credit cards were that of Mr. Harris (nor the female passenger in the vehicle). Further, a total of eight (8) United States Department of State Passport Application
printouts were discovered on Mr. Harris and in his vehicle. None of these documents were in the name of Mr, Harris (or his female passenger).
Four of the names on the Passport Applications matched the names on four of the credit cards.
5. An immediate check with the American Express Company, on March 25,2008, while Mr, Harris was still on the scene of the traffic stop, indicated that some of the American Express
credit cards in Mr. Harris possession (but not in his name) had recently been used and that American Express had placed a “Fraud Alert” on the cards.
*************************************************************
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 2:35 pm
your suppose to provide a link, isn’t that what you said. Are you not following your own standards.
***********************************************
Sure chief. Here’s an actual copy of the docket case from WJLA News in DC.
http://acc-tv.com/sites/wjla/news/stories/videos/harrischargingdoc.pdf
Now, you were saying…..
goneville-n-keys, If a fraudulent filing of home birth was submitted to the DOH, and the DOH then, like they did with all birth reports, submitted the birth information to the newspaper for publication, how can you say the DOH was in on some conspiracy?
You don’t seem to be able to wrap your head around what it takes to file a fraudulent report of home birth.
You’ll notice that none of the birth reports listed the hospital name. Do you think home or plantation births weren’t reported?
MAR-26-2008 11:49 US ATTORNEYS P 001/003
AO 91 (Rev. 5/85) criminal Complaint
United States District Court
For The District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
V.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS, JR.
DOB: 3/7/84
PDID: 539-549
****************************************************
6. Mr. Harris was transported to the Sixth District, where he was questioned by Agents of the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of State» and the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. Harris
admitted he obtained the Passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State, that applications are then submitted to credit card companies, using the names and identifying information of the persons listed on the Passport Applications, and that another co-conspirator, who works for the U.S. Postal Service, intercepts the credit cards that are issued before they are delivered to the residences of the persons named on the credit card accounts.
7. Mr. Harris was not authorized to possess the nineteen (19) credit cards referenced above.
8. Your Affiant believes, and therefore avers, that probable cause exists that Mr. Harris has committed the crime of Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Access Devices, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1029(a).
OFFICER WILLIAM A. SMITH, JR.
MPD-NARCOTICS SPECIAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION
******************************************************
Crazy like a fox 1, April 13, 2010 at 2:55 pm
goneville-n-keys, If a fraudulent filing of home birth was submitted to the DOH, and the DOH then, like they did with all birth reports, submitted the birth information to the newspaper for publication, how can you say the DOH was in on some conspiracy?
************************************
The birth mother does not report the birth the DOH.
The hospital does.
What are you nuts?
You think you can just pick up the phone and call the Department of Health and say “HEY, I’ve had a baby”?
Now, Bdaman, you were telling me about what a great and honest guy Mr Quarles was?
Do continue.
goneville-n-keys,
If you would have taken the time to read my entire post you would have discovered that I presented the same question to which you seem to object; namely, home or plantation births.
Do you think home births did not take place? Do you think people weren’t born on plantations? Who do you think reported those births?
Fact.
We KNOW Mr Quarles was accessing involved in illegally accessing passports for the purpose of credit card FRAUD, therefore we have no reason to suspect he was doing anything else with the Presidents, Senator McCains or Secretary Clintons passports other than some sort of fraud.
Because that’s what the facts show.
Your conspiracy theories are thus relegated to the looney bin where they belong, until at which time you can actually produce some evidence demonstrating otherwise.
Crazy like a fox 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Do you think home births did not take place? Do you think people weren’t born on plantations? Who do you think reported those births?
********************************
The local physician or midwife.
But go ahead, call the DOH and tell them you have just had a baby and see if they “record it”.
Here goneville-n-keys, go educate yourself.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697
No slick, if you have an argument to make then make it.
If you want to substantiate it with a link, thats fine.
But just posting a link and saying “go educate yourself” doesn’t cut it.
If you are educated, and if your position holds any water, then you should be able to explain it yourself.
You obviously can’t, and that speaks more loudly than anything.
Goneville stated that
Lt. Quarles Harris isn’t a Lieutenant. That was a nickname.
But clearly we see threw his own posting that it is not a nickname.
More false information from goneville.
MAR-26-2008 11:49 US ATTORNEYS P 001/003
AO 91 (Rev. 5/85) criminal Complaint
United States District Court
For The District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
V.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS, JR.
DOB: 3/7/84
PDID: 539-549
Sure chief. Here’s an actual copy of the docket case from WJLA News in DC.
http://acc-tv.com/sites/wjla/news/stories/videos/harrischargingdoc.pdf
Now, you were saying…..
that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not on a law blog.
Everybody knows that all babies are not born in a hospital. Some are even born on the way to the hospital in a taxi no less. Some women give birth claiming they had no idea they were pregnant and thought they had to take a huge shit. It’s possible the president was born in Hawaii but not in a hospital. There has been no confirmation on who the attending physician was or midwife at the time of his birth. The only way with absolute certainty is to review the original vital record.
goneville-n-keys, I should have known better than to provide information from which you could educate yourself.
You started by claiming that the “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital reported the birth”. A statement that you cannot support by any evidence.
Only an idiot would suggest that home or plantation births could not be reported, or that a doctor or midwife were mandatory.
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Sure chief. Here’s an actual copy of the docket case from WJLA News in DC.
http://acc-tv.com/sites/wjla/news/stories/videos/harrischargingdoc.pdf
Now, you were saying…..
that he is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law not on a law blog.
********************************
Uhh, that wasn’t a “law blog” you were reading.
It was a copy of the actual filing.
Try again.
Ah yea, but you convicted him, not a jury of his peers.
Crazy like a fox 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Only an idiot would suggest that home or plantation births could not be reported, or that a doctor or midwife were mandatory.
***********************************
Only an idiot would suggest that it would not take other officials to certify a birth other than the mother of the infant.
Try again.
In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9)
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Ah yea, but you convicted him, not a jury of his peers.
*********************************************************
No, OFFICER WILLIAM A. SMITH, JR. of the sixth district arrested and charged him and Mr Harris convicted HIMSELF.
He confessed to the crime, or did you overlook that part?
********************************************************
Leiutenant Q. Harris Jr. told authorities about the scam after his arrest March 25 during a traffic stop, according to an arrest affidavit filed in U.S. District Court. The document quoted him as saying he got passport information from a U.S. State Department employee, which he used to obtain bogus credit card
**********************************************************
So, we have a SELF CONFESSED fraud and criminal in possession of drugs and stolen credit cards who CONFESSES that he was part of a criminal enterprise in which someone at the US STATE DEPT was giving him passport information.
Those are the facts.
So your wild conspiracy theories that he was killed because he saw some documents that proved the President came from Kenya doesn’t take into account the more PROBABLE scenario, in which he was killed as a part of his criminal enterprise.
Particularly before TESTIFYING since he was COOPERATING with authorities.
It also doesn’t take into fact that it is unlikely the government would go to all the trouble to kill this guy because he “saw something” rather than just destroy the evidence themselves as soon as the President was sworn in.
Its a long stretch to conclude that if the President were part of some MASSIVE CONSPIRACY, which it would have to be that involves several departments of the Federal government including the Hawaii Dept of Health, that they would not simply destroy the records themselves.
The easily more probable scenario for Mr Harris’ murder is evident by the facts we already have.
1. He was part of a criminal enterprise ring that included at least one person in the US State Dept.
2. He was busted for it, in possession of the fraudulent credit cards.
3. He confessed, and started “singing”, ratting out his friend or friends at the State Dept.
What usually happens to a “stoolie”?
So show me where it says, Guilty as Charged. Was he sentenced to serve time, did he serve time. Was there a plea bargain to reduce the charges. I appreciate you giving us the officers sworn statements and based on those statements there are some damning claims but I have yet to see a verdict adjudicated as guilty as charged.
More false claims by goneville
Goneville stated
So your wild conspiracy theories that he was killed because he saw some documents that proved the President came from Kenya doesn’t take into account the more PROBABLE scenario, in which he was killed as a part of his criminal enterprise.
Please link to the comment where I stated that.
More false claims by goneville
Goneville stated that
Lt. Quarles Harris isn’t a Lieutenant. That was a nickname.
But clearly we see threw his own posting that it is not a nickname.
More false information from goneville.
MAR-26-2008 11:49 US ATTORNEYS P 001/003
AO 91 (Rev. 5/85) criminal Complaint
United States District Court
For The District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
V.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS, JR.
DOB: 3/7/84
PDID: 539-549
On this controversy about Quarles, I found these, which I am just posting, not endorsing:
[quote] “Lt.” Quarles Harris was a petty street punk con-artist. His name was “Leiutenant” (note spelling), he was not a lieutenant in anything. He was arrested in the possession of many phony credit cards that he had acquired via an identity theft scheme which involved stealing personal information from passport applications. [quote]
Source http://theobamafile.com/_associates/JohnBrennan.htm [anti-Obama site]
“Meanwhile, a State Department employee who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after 24-year-old Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. told federal authorities he obtained ‘passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State.’”
Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/05/passport-official-quits-amid-probes/
quote:
Homicide in the 2800 Block of 12th Street, NE
The Metropolitan Police Department is currently investigating a homicide which occurred late yesterday evening in the 2800 block of 12th Street, NE.
At approximately 11:08 pm on Thursday, April 17, 2008, a Fifth District Unit on routine patrol reported the apparent sounds of gunshots in the area of the 2800 block of 12th Street, NE. Upon arrival, assisting officers located an adult male inside of a vehicle in the 2800 block of 12th Street, NE, suffering from apparent multiple gunshot wounds. DC Fire Department emergency medical personnel responded to the scene, but could find no signs consistent with life. The victim was subsequently transported to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia and pronounced dead.
The decedent in this case has been identified as 24-year-old Leiutenant Quarles Harris, Jr., of the 700 block of 58th Avenue in Capitol Heights, Maryland.
This case is under investigation by detectives assigned to the department’s Homicide and Sexual Offenses Branch. Anyone with information about this case is asked to call police at (202) 727-9099 or our new toll free anonymous tip line 1-888-919-CRIM [E].
The Metropolitan Police Department is currently offering a reward of up to $25,000 to anyone who provides information which leads to the arrest and conviction of the person(s) responsible for any homicide committed in the District of Columbia.
NOTE: The first name of the decedent in this case is reportedly spelled differently then the common term “Lieutenant” meant to designate a specific rank. [unquote]
http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/apia/section/2/release/13400
This source is the official site of the Metropolitan Police Department of D.C.
This entire discussion all seems so familiar. For the newcomers:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/03/the-new-math-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-solves-low-school-passage-rates-by-lowering-school-standards/#comment-65684
Vince,
I’m surprised that you’re not living in a permanent state of deja vu…
I especially like the ‘investigator’s report’ on obtaining a BC in Hawaii. A classic birther recipe – use a grain of truth (a BC may be obtained by a parent for a home birth) to cover wildly improbably supposition (Ann Dunham traveled to Kenya while VERY pregnant and returned to Hawaii with a newborn without leaving any kind of record). Sprinkle with a few irrelevant facts (delayed BCs, BC for non-Hawaiian births after 1981 (which wouldn’t list Hawaii as the place of birth in any case)) throw in a self-proclaimed expert (‘Ron Polarik’) and serve – if vomiting occurs, let simmer for several months and serve reheated…
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 4:06 pm
So show me where it says, Guilty as Charged
**********************************************
Making ridiculous demands does not strengthen your position.
He was murdered before he got a chance to go to trial.
He confessed to the crime in a sworn statement.
Those are the facts.
Slartibartfast, Are you related to your comrade “goneville-n-keys”? You both endeavor to present absurd conclusions instead of contemplating reasonable possibilities. Why is that? Why would you suggest the mother fly back instead of having her parent file the birth report? You suggest that Obama’s mother “traveled to Kenya while VERY pregnant” without having any idea when the travel would have taken place. Even if we accept the February marriage of Obama’s parents without any supporting documentation, that still leaves 5 months before she gave birth. I know of no records putting Obama’s mother in Hawaii during the period of March thru August 1961. Do you?
Washington Independent
[quote
Mythbusting the Honolulu Newspaper Birth Announcement
By David Weigel 7/24/09 6:26 PM
Conservative blogger Tom Maguire takes issue with my story today, specifically the part about Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) presidential campaign checking the record on Barack Obama’s citizenship and coming away satisfied.
Barack’s mom and maternal grandparents had a strong incentive to create a paper trail documenting Obama as a US citizen back in 1961 and it had nothing to do with assuring his future viability as a Presidential candidate. All they needed to do was imagine a day when the white Ms. Dunham would be engaged in a custody fight in a Kenyan court contesting the fate of a black Kenyan baby sought by the black Kenyan father and his African family, and their course would have been clear.
The problem with this? Parents and relatives don’t, and didn’t, get to place birth announcements in the Honolulu Advertiser or the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. As a Star-Bulletin employee explained to WorldNetDaily, the editors “print what we receive from the Department of Health Vital Statistics System,” and did so in 1961. And the Advertiser worked the same way.
Unsurprisingly, WorldNetDaily used that information to argue that the state could have had bogus information that it passed on to the newspaper, which is absurd on its face. But it really should be enough to debunk this “Obama’s grandparents lied to win a future custody suit” theory. [unquote
http://washingtonindependent.com/52625/mythbusting-the-honolulu-newspaper-birth-announcment
So the information went from the hospital to the Department, which sent it to the newspapers.
Obama was born at Kapiolani, and the information sent to both papers by DOH was identical. Relatives could not call it in to the papers. Announcements by relatives appeared elsewhere in the papers.
So the birthers seem to say that the grandparents just phoned the Department of Health, told them a baby had been born, and got a certificate, just like that, after the baby had been smuggled through immigration, after multiple airline flights, being less than a week old, with no proof at all. Fine.
If they want to believe it, fine. Why not order certificates for five or ten babies, and take them all as tax deductions, while they were at it? It assumes the agency had no anti-fraud procedures. It assumes the state was fraudulently issuing certificates with no evidence.
Why would a long form satisfy any of the birthers around here? They will just claim that the long form was forged. They have been circulating stories on the web about ongoing forgeries for over a year, as noted on last years threat linked above.
Nothing will ever change their minds. They will never accept any long form, so why do they continue to demand it? And we know pretty well why they are so opposed to Obama.
The birthers are not fooling McCain. Take a look at the latest anti-birther ad on his behalf:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/the-rino-strikes-back/
Crazy,
Thanks for the belly laugh! I was up until 5 am last night trying to explain logic to goneville-n-troll (to no avail) on another thread (link below) – the notion that we are working together is very funny. As to your objection, you are still alleging that she would have travelled to Kenya AFTER knowing that she was pregnant (presumably planning on staying in Kenya for the birth) and returned passing a baby through customs without leaving any sort of record (except unverified birth certificates found by forgers). Yeah, that makes sense…
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/12/this-too-shall-not-pass-church-opposes-new-law-lifting-the-statute-of-limitations-for-abuse/
Bdaman 1, April 13, 2010 at 4:10 pm
More false claims by goneville
Goneville stated that
Lt. Quarles Harris isn’t a Lieutenant. That was a nickname.
But clearly we see threw his own posting that it is not a nickname.
More false information from goneville.
MAR-26-2008 11:49 US ATTORNEYS P 001/003
AO 91 (Rev. 5/85) criminal Complaint
United States District Court
For The District of Columbia
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
V.
LIEUTENANT QUARLES HARRIS, JR.
DOB: 3/7/84
PDID: 539-549
****************************************
The docket shows the defendants NAME.
Not his rank.
Quarles wasn’t a Lieutenant.
But feel free to show us what he was a Lieutenant in.
Thank you Mr. Treacy for the links
From the Obamafile link
Sources who tracked the investigation say that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information. “They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion,” one knowledgeable source said. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
accessed the file in order to “cauterize” the records of potentially embarrassing information. “But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file.”
The passport files include “personally identifiable information such as the applicant’s name, gender, social security number, date and place of birth, and passport number,” according to the inspector general report.
At the time of the breach, Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to the Obama campaign.
The docket shows the defendants NAME.
Not his rank.
Quarles wasn’t a Lieutenant.
I never said he was a member of the Armed Services.
Vince,
It’s a good thing that ad was from ‘Friends of McCain’ because at this point if McCain said Barack Obama was a natural born citizen, I’d start demanding the his birth certificate…
Dr. Slarti don’t call goneville a troll. Mr. Treacy welcomed him to the blog as a fresh of breath air. Goneville is a big fan of Star Trek and with Mr. Treacy’s avatar they have something in common.
“Unsurprisingly, WorldNetDaily used that information to argue that the state could have had bogus information that it passed on to the newspaper, which is absurd on its face. But it really should be enough to debunk this “Obama’s grandparents lied to win a future custody suit” theory.”
Nothing like telling the readers what to think instead of letting them arrive at their own conclusion. Huh?
Just what would permit anyone (who applies reason to the facts presented) to draw a conclusion that bogus information could not have been presented by Obama’s grandparent to the DOH? And if the bogus information was presented to the DOH, why wouldn’t they have passed it on o the newspapers?
Vince Treacy says “So the information went from the hospital to the Department, which sent it to the newspapers.”
Come one Mr. Treacy. Provide with a shred of evidence to support you statement. NO RECORD that has been produced has provided any of us with the source of the birth report or how it came to be filed with the DOH.
Vince Treacy goes on to say “So the birthers seem to say that the grandparents just phoned the Department of Health”.
I’ll clear that up right now. I don’t think they phoned it in. I think one of Obama’s grandparents physically went to the Registrar’s Office and filed the birth report.
More from Vince Treacy “after the baby had been smuggled through immigration, after multiple airline flights, being less than a week old, with no proof at all.”
1. You don’t know when Obama and mother would have reentered the U.S. Do you? The first post-birth record of Ann being in the U.S. is in the spring of 1962. If you have evidence putting her in the U.S. prior to the spring of 1962, provide a link to the source. Obama II could have just as easily passed through immigration with his mother if he had a Kenya birth certificate. So spare us your appeal about multiple flights and Obama II being less than a week old. You can’t support it.
He was murdered before he got a chance to go to trial.
Does that mean he is still innocent until proven guilty
Slartibartfast,
“As to your objection, you are still alleging that she would have travelled to Kenya AFTER knowing that she was pregnant (presumably planning on staying in Kenya for the birth) and returned passing a baby through customs without leaving any sort of record (except unverified birth certificates found by forgers).”
I would agree that she probably knew she was pregnant before going to Kenya. As for planning to stay; I don’t know. As for returning, I just finished explaining that to Vince Treacy. Without knowing when she returned to the states, we can’t take it much further. If it was months later, the Hawaiian birth certificate could have been mailed to her.
Do you know of any customs records for Obama Sr.? None? That’s what I thought. Customs records can be mighty hard to locate when you don’t know the point of entry or departure. They would have been written records, and there would have been a large number of places to look.
Crazy,
Maybe you should ask Vince what the term ‘prima facie’ means. (Hint: It has to do with why all your assertions are irrelevant absent some sort of evidence.)
Bdaman,
I call them like I see them. (And by your post at 6:33 on the ‘This Too Shall Not Pass’ thread, I think you see it, too…)
Obama Continues to Refuse to Release Birth Certificate;
Army Doctor’s Pentagon Access Pass Revoked; Computer Seized
Washington, D.C., April 13, 2010. Army doctor Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin yesterday met with his brigade commander, Col. Gordon R. Roberts, who proceeded to read LTC Lakin his Miranda rights, and who informed LTC Lakin he had the “right to remain silent” because LTC Lakin is about to be charged with serious crimes. Col. Roberts was at age 19 awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the only recipient of the nation’s highest honor currently on active duty in the Army.
LTC Lakin had previously been ordered in writing to report yesterday to Ft. Campbell, KY and then on to deploy for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Lakin refused to obey these orders and instead came to work yesterday morning at the Pentagon. Late yesterday afternoon he was confronted by his brigade commander.
Before the meeting was over, LTC Lakin’s Pentagon Access Pass had been revoked, and his laptop computer was set to be confiscated.
The message to LTC Lakin is clear; through official channels, he was informed yesterday that he will shortly be court-martialled for crimes (specifically, missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer) that for others has led to lengthy imprisonment at hard labor.
Lakin has announced in a YouTube video that has now been viewed more than 110,000 times that he considers it his duty to refuse to obey orders that would be illegal if President Obama is ineligible to hold office.
Meanwhile, cries mount for proof of that eligibility, but nothing has been forthcoming. The Obama campaign at one point released a copy of computer-generated abstract of information purportedly in Hawaii’s records system, but the source of this information is unclear and need not have been a birth certificate issued contemporaneously and signed by the doctor who attended the birth. Even the document released was only a copy, and the version printed in the Los Angeles Times on June 16, 2008 is on a form only in use since late 2001. Even as it is, the document contains a warning that it is merely “prima facie”–threshold, rebuttable and thus inconclusive –evidence of birth, and the copy the Times printed mysteriously has the certificate number blacked out, thereby rendering the document unusable according to language on the bottom.
Given the seriousness of the offenses with which LTC Lakin is about to be charged, the American Patriot Foundation today renewed its plea for donations to its legal defense fund for LTC Lakin. Details are available at APF’s website, http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com.
—-END—-
TAITZ v OBAMA (QW) – 21.1 – Attachments: # 1[RECAP] Exhibit Statement of Kenyan minister of lands
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29829092/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-21-1-Attachments-1-RECAP-Exhibit-Statement-of-Kenyan-minister-of-lands-regarding-Obama-s-Kenyan-birth-gov-uscourts-dcd-1
69 pages long, no page reference.
Sorry Mr. Treacy, that came from that Jack Ryan link I gave you. I assume that Orly attached it to what ever her latest filing is.
Did you go by the soccer field? It’s not worth it if you haven’t. Maybe he was getting nervous before the big meeting and needed a pack of smokes.
P.S. you should be proud of me. I have Orly’s link stored in my favorites but haven’t been to her site in over six months
I said “So the information went from the hospital to the Department, which sent it to the newspapers.”
Crazy asked: ”Come one Mr. Treacy. Provide with a shred of evidence to support you statement. NO RECORD that has been produced has provided any of us with the source of the birth report or how it came to be filed with the DOH.”
Actually, I was just stating what the newspaper itself has said about the policies at the time:
“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.”
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
The policy at the time was that info went from hospital to DOH, which is all I said.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
Crazy says for the first time “I think one of Obama’s grandparents physically went to the Registrar’s Office and filed the birth report.”
Sorry, did not know that was the theory, stated now for the first time. First, there is not “a shred of evidence to support” the hypothesis. Second, the same common sense objection arises: a persons goes to DOH and says my daughter just had triplets, give me 3 birth certificates, no questions asked. There is no evidence that it could happen.
Crazy asks, “You don’t know when Obama and mother would have reentered the U.S. Do you?” Well, given the fact THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT FATHER OR MOTHER OR BOTH EVER LEFT THE U.S., then there would be no way to know when the reentered, would there, since they never reentered. This is amazing. Crazy invents an overseas trip and accuses others of not knowing the return date.
The point I made is that the Crazy hypothesis requires them to leave the country, have a baby, return, smuggle the baby in, and then send a relative to DOH to pick up a birth certificate, sight unseen. It is an inherently incredible hypothesis.
Crazy says “If you have evidence putting her in the U.S. prior to the spring of 1962, provide a link to the source.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
She was a natural born United States citizen resident of Hawaii studying at the state university. There is NO EVIDENCE that she ever left the US at the time of her son’s birth.
Evidence placing her in the United States prior to spring 1962? I will type very slowly. She … was … born … and … raised … here…. For crying out loud, she was an American citizen who had lived her entire life in America.
Crazy later said, “Without knowing when she returned to the states, we can’t take it much further.” Well, now, if she never left the States, then we can NEVER know when she returned, can we now? If the gentleman never did beat his wife, then we can never know when he stopped beating her, can we?
Crazy said, “I would agree that she probably knew she was pregnant before going to Kenya.” Probably what? She never went to Kenya. There is not a shred of evidence for such a trip. And, if “she probably knew she was pregnant,” then maybe we should ask why she would even think of going to Kenya?
Per wiki: “On August 21, 1959, Hawaii became the 50th and last state to be admitted into the Union. Dunham’s parents sought business opportunities in the new state, and after graduating from high school in 1960, Dunham and her family moved to Hawaii. Dunham soon enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa. While attending a Russian language class, Dunham met Barack Obama, Sr., the school’s first African student.[13][14] At the age of 23, Obama had come to Hawaii to pursue his education, leaving behind a pregnant wife and infant son in his home town of Nyang’oma Kogelo in Kenya. Dunham and Obama were married on the Hawaiian island of Maui on February 2, 1961, despite parental opposition from both families.[5][15] Dunham was three months pregnant at the time of her marriage.[1][5] ….
“On August 4, 1961, at the age of 18, Dunham gave birth to her first child, Barack Obama II.[17] Friends in Washington State recall her visiting with her new baby in 1961.”
Crazy is on a magical mystery tour, inventing a fantasy life for everyone. It is a little difficult to deal with his stuff piecemeal, but I expect more and more detail as the plot thickens.
Posted on: Tuesday, 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.”
Last week, Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” had fun with the topic of Obama’s birth certificate, suggesting that it’s part of a much larger conspiracy.
“Not only is Barack Obama our first black president,” Stewart said. “But he’s our first non-American president.”
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
Let’s see. April 13, 2010 at 3:52 pm, Crazy posted: “In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before ‘the local registrar of the district.’ It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in.”
The on April 13, 2010 at 6:06 pm, Crazy posts “I’ll clear that up right now. I don’t think they phoned it in. I think one of Obama’s grandparents physically went to the Registrar’s Office and filed the birth report.”
Glad Crazy cleared it all up for everyone here. At 3 PM, they mailed it in. At 6 PM, they dropped by. Can’t be any clearer than that.
Vince Treacy -”Crazy says for the first time “I think one of Obama’s grandparents physically went to the Registrar’s Office and filed the birth report.”
Sorry, did not know that was the theory, stated now for the first time. First, there is not “a shred of evidence to support” the hypothesis.”
You’re right Mr. Treacy. There is not “a shred of evidence to support” the hypothesis.
Are you willing to concede that there is also not “a shred of evidence to support” Obama’s claim of being born at Kapiolani?
We’ll see how honest Vince Treacy is by how he answers that question.
Vince Treacy says “Second, the same common sense objection arises: a persons goes to DOH and says my daughter just had triplets, give me 3 birth certificates, no questions asked. There is no evidence that it could happen.”
Why triplets? You couldn’t present the same scenario using the birth of one? Though not as common today, many births still take place in the home (or other places outside of a hospital). Those births, by law, must be reported by the parent or another adult who witnessed the birth. That person is known as the informant. Until you can cite a law requiring a pre-natal and post-natal examination you’re not going to convince anybody that births outside of a hospital are not registered on the word of the informant alone.
Vince Treacy “Crazy says “If you have evidence putting her in the U.S. prior to the spring of 1962, provide a link to the source.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
She was a natural born United States citizen resident of Hawaii studying at the state university. There is NO EVIDENCE that she ever left the US at the time of her son’s birth.
Evidence placing her in the United States prior to spring 1962? I will type very slowly. She … was … born … and … raised … here…. For crying out loud, she was an American citizen who had lived her entire life in America.”
Why you low-life piece of crap. You took one sentence out of context in order to sell your vile propaganda. Here’s what I said:
“You don’t know when Obama and mother would have reentered the U.S. Do you? The first post-birth record of Ann being in the U.S. is in the spring of 1962. If you have evidence putting her in the U.S. prior to the spring of 1962, provide a link to the source.”
Why did you leave the preceding sentence referring to “post-birth” out of your response? You’re a class act Vince Treacy.
17 year-old girl became impregnated by 25 year-old foreign student. (fact)
Three months later they allegedly get married. (fact)
The girl (now 18) dropped out of school after the December 1960 semester. (fact)
The next place she turns up is Seattle in the Spring of 1962. (fact)
A birth report was filed in Hawaii. However, the accuracy of that report has never been examined. The local registrar has no choice but to accept a birth report. It was the duty of the State Registrar to examine the report and accept it. We have nothing that indicates the State Registrar accepted the report. Hence the reason Obama’s COLB indicates date filed by registrar, and not date accepted by state registrar.
Here’s a COLB to demonstrate that the wording on the COLB is different when the State Registrar accepts the filing.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=MyHawaiianBirthCertificate.jpg
Kenyan Parliament records recognize that Obama was born in Kenya. (fact)
Members of Kenyan Parliament refer to Obama as “the first African to the presidency of the United States of America”, and a “son of [Kenyan] soil”. There was even a Motion to Adjourn Parliament in order to join “the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA”. (fact)
http://www.parliament.go.ke/parliament/downloads/Tenth%20Parl%201st%20Session/Hansard/5.11.08A.pdf
Obama refuses to release the records that would conclusively prove the veracity of his birth report. He doesn’t want anyone to know who filed the report and he doesn’t want anyone to know who the alleged doctor is who delivered him.
That’s pretty good Crazy. Clean and simple. Now for the rebuttal.
Mr. Treacy ?
“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.”
Now we know. It was Robert Farley of Politifact (the same organization that vouches for the Obama COLB) who came up with the ridiculous multi-participant theory. Why didn’t Farley consider that it could have all been based on a fraudulent filing by one of Obama’s grandparents, that resulted in the announcements in the newspaper? The answer is a simple one. It wouldn’t coincide with their predetermined conclusion. (The St. Petersburg Times is an extremely liberal rag.)
Contrary to Farley’s theory, it would not have taken the complicity of the DOH and two independent newspapers. All it took was the ability of an adult claiming to have witnessed the birth to file the birth report.
Vince Treacy says “Glad Crazy cleared it all up for everyone here. At 3 PM, they mailed it in. At 6 PM, they dropped by.”
If Vince Treacy was paying attention he would have noticed that the paragraph he first quotes did not contain my words, but were a quotation from the reference provided for the benefit of goneville-n-keys. Did Mr. Treacy not notice that the original was in quotes?
More on what we do and don’t know:
We don’t know whether or not Obama Sr. and Ann remained in Hawaii during the summer of 1961. (fact) Contrary to that which has been presented by Mr. Treacy, the absence of evidence indicating Obama Sr. and/or Ann leaving the U.S. is not evidence that they did not. We know that Obama Sr. returned to Kenya after college, but no evidence has been produced that shows him leaving the U.S. We don’t know when Obama Sr. left the country or which port he left from.
We don’t know if Ann was seen by an OB/Gyn in Hawaii before or after Obama II’s birth. (fact)
Please take a look at the two accounts concerning Obama Sr.
The first one I would like you to read is from “Dreams of My Father” by Barack Obama Jr.
Please read page 418 thru 420.
http://books.google.com/books?id=HRCHJp-V0QUC&pg=PA418&dq=barack+was+away+at+the+time&cd=1#v=onepage&q=barack%20was%20away%20at%20the%20time&f=false
Then read this one:” Airlift to America” by Tom Shachtman. Please read page 6 thru 8.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JqpLrdX67dQC&pg=PA6&dq=obama+%2Bexpelled&lr=&cd=11#v=onepage&q=obama%20%2Bexpelled&f=false
In Obama’s book many of the things that would tie Obama Sr. to Mombasa were left out.
To give the readers a better understanding of just how deserving of your trust Vince Treacy really is we need only look at some of his previous statements.
Vince Treacy says “Go to Google. Insert the terms “Lucas Smith convicted perjury” and “Lucas Smith convicted forgery or forger.””
Well, Mr. Treacy, that’s exactly what I did. A Google search for “Lucas Smith convicted perjury” provides results that do not support your insinuation of Smith being convicted of perjury.
Why would Mr. Treacy insinuate that Lucas Smith had been convicted of perjury without evidence to support the claim?
Was Smith convicted of forgery? What exactly did he forge? We’ll let Mr. Treacy answer that question.
Vince Treacy feigns concern that Smith bribed Kenyan officials in order to get the CPGH birth certificate. Big deal! Paying someone to release important information that would serve the national security interests of this country by helping to identify a fraud should be celebrated by every American. Smith did not pay anyone to manufacture a false record. Smith allegedly paid someone to make a copy of a record that was already on file in the administration offices of the CPGH.
What is CPGH ?
Lakin now making headlines.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/13/2267021.aspx
Via Drudge
“What is CPGH?”
Coast Province General Hospital. It’s located in Mombasa, Kenya.
According to Vince Treacy’s source (WND), “Kenyan news sources have called into question the use of “Coast Province” or “Coast Provincial” as a correct reference to the official name of the Mombasa general public hospital in 1961, citing Professor Dan Branch of the University of Warwick who noted that the term “Coast Province” was not used in the early 1960s when Kenyan provinces were typically referred to as “regions.”
WND’s conclusion (based on information received from Dan Branch) is not supported by historical records. A quick search for “Coast Province General Hospital” results in a number of books referring to the hospital as “Coast Province General Hospital”
http://books.google.com/books?id=wK0qAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Coast+Province+General+Hospital%22&dq=%22Coast+Province+General+Hospital%22&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=25
That was from 1957.
http://books.google.com/books?id=RyktAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Coast+Province+General+Hospital%22&dq=%22Coast+Province+General+Hospital%22&as_brr=0&cd=5
That was from 1961.
That would make the source cited by Vince Treacy out to be liars.
Will Vince Treacy denounce WND’s article?
Crazy,
You ignored my question about why the term ‘prima facie’ was important here. The COLB – or a certified copy of it from the Hawaii DOH – is ‘prima facie’ proof of birth in Hawaii. This means that in any US court (up to and including the SCOTUS), this document is assumed to be true unless actual evidence (admissible in court) indicates otherwise. A BC someone alleges that they bribed an unnamed Kenyan official to get is not going to be admissible. It will be laughed out of court – just like all 68 birther cases so far…
Here are all the results:
http://books.google.com/books?lr=&as_brr=0&q=%22Coast+Province+General+Hospital%22&btnG=Search+Books
WND (Treacy’s source) says that “Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until Dec. 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.”
Another lie not supported by historical records.
The Statesman’s Yearbook for 1906 debunks that lie.
http://books.google.com/books?id=W8o-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA438&dq=statesman's+yearbook+%2Bmombasa&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
“The whole Protectorate is placed under the control of a, Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief. On April 1, 1905, it was transferred from the authority of the Foreign Office to that of the Colonial Office. It consists of 7 provinces and a tract of territory not yet organised lying to the north-west. The provinces are each under a sub-commissioner, and are divided into districts and sub-districts, as follows: Seyidie (capital Mombasa), comprising the districts of Vanga, Mombasa, Malindi and Taita, and the sub-districts of Rabai, Takanngu and Taveta ; Ukamba (capital Nairobi), including the districts of Kitui, Kikuyu, South Masailand and Ulu ; Tanaland (capital Lamu), with districts of Lamu and Tana River; Jubaland (capital Kismayii), consisting of the districts of Upper and Lower Jubaland; Kenya (capital Fort Hall) with districts of Fort Hall and Nyeri ; the Naivasha Province (capital Naivasha), including the districts of” Naivasha, Eldama Ravine, North Masailand) and Baringo; the Kisumu Province (capital Kisumu or Port Florence), including the districts of Kisumu, Elgon, Nandi, and Kericho, and the sub-districts of Lumbwa and Ugaya. The two provinces last-named •were formerly the Eastern Province of Uganda, but were transferred to the East Africa Protectorate on April 1, 1902.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=JyIZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA763&dq=east+african+protectorate+%2Bmombasa&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=109#v=onepage&q&f=false
“The British colony known as the “East Africa Protectorate” has an estimated population of 4,000,000, only about 2,000 of whom are whites. Mombasa is the chief port, where steamers of British, French, and German lines call regularly and Austrian steamers occasionally.”
“Army to court martial ‘birther’ officer.”
Good.
Vince,
The good news for the birthers is that Lt. Col. Lakin’s case is unlikely to be dismissed – I suspect the bad news in this case will be Mr. Lakin’s…
Slartibartfast,
“prima facie” evidence is not conclusive evidence.
What makes you think a federal court is required to accept the Hawaiian COLB? Why do you think the COLB has never been filed with the court by Obama’s defense team?
Do you think the court would be required to accept a piece of evidence when the procedures for filing the original report (from which the COLB is based) are demonstrated to be open to fraud?
Crazy posted:
Vince,
Did I get it right?
Slartibartfast,
Why didn’t you quote the portion of the Constitution?
Been away for awhile only to see this thread continue on to must be a Turley blog record for comments. The ability of certain humans for self-delusion is immeasurable. Who knows what delusional behavior these birthers engage in in their personal lives. I certainly wouldn’t look to them for examples of the ability to maintain honest relationships.
Crazy,
I figured a Constitutional scholar such as yourself would know what the ‘full faith and credit clause’ was. You can find it in Article IV, section 1 of the Constitution or posted by Vince upthread at:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-116262
Lucas Smith? A search found this posting at the rightwing FreeRepublic site:
Some poster there ran him through the Cedar Rapids news files:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2284369/replies?c=28
“Lucas D. Smith , 20, of Cedar Rapids, was cited for violation of terms of a deferred judgment received in May 1998 on a charge of forgery. Smith was judged guilty, given a five-year suspended sentence and returned to probation. He also was ordered to reside up to 365 days at the Hinzman Center.”
Here is the logic. The source is a convicted forger. It is very unlikely that the document presented by a convicted forger is genuine.
I do not believe Lucas Daniel Smith
I do believe Dr. Fukino.
I do not believe some anonymous poster who does not even give his name top support his charges.
The Kenyan birth certificate is a forgery. All the supposed Kenyan birth certificates are fakes. Find an expert with a real name who supports them.
Ann Dunham was never in Kenya, and never gave birth there. There is credible evidence proposed to support the belief that the official Hawaiian state government record of birth is not accurate.
Prima facie (on its first fact) evidence is probative, competent evidence until rebutted. There has been no credible evidence that Obama was born elsewhere. The grandmother in Kenya never said he was born there, she said he was born in Hawaii. The Kenyan birth certificates are all fakes. Take a look as snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kenyacert.asp
Slart has full faith and credit right.
And the court martial for Lakin would have to admit the COLB, if the issue ever came up, under the federal legal definition of birth certificate, which I have posted too many times to count.
The Examiner: quote]
A man by the name of Lucas Smith, who is the man who claims to have an authentic copy of Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate and who tried to sell it on Ebay, flew in from the Dominican Republic to testify on Tuesday. He testified in the case before Judge David Carter, in which Orly Taitz is again challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.
Even despite the numerous evidence that the Kenyan birth certificate is a forgery, Taitz decided to include it in her case as evidence of Obama’s true citizenship. If it is deemed to be authentic, it would make Obama ineligible to serve as president because he would not be a “natural born citizen”.
Judge David Carter ruled that Lucas Smith will have to testify at a later date in the coming weeks, this is despite Orly Taitz’ ridiculous claims that his life in danger.
Lucas Smith has a very checkered background, which includes criminal records involving check forgery and an attempt to sell his kidney to a man who was in need of an organ transplant.
Supposedly Smith was going to Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and present himself as a collector of historic birth certificates. Then he was going to attempt to obtain a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. Only problem is that there is no Kenyan birth certificate, as birthers claim there is.
This man Lucas Smith, who has a history of forgery and other crimes, is the man birthers believe has an authentic Kenyan birth certificate. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out this guy forged the document and did not do a very good job by the way. The man does have a criminal past of forgery after all. He is doing this to make a quick buck off of the controversy and all of the attention this is getting. Orly Taitz who has no sense anyway, is choosing to believe him because she has no real evidence to prove her whacked out claims and she knows it. So she and birthers are backing Lucas simply because he is their last hope, a hail Mary because they know none of this is true and it will be proven so in the end.
As all ways if you have a comment please post it or e-mail it to me directly, I love to hear from you all.
For more information contact Ruben Christopher, e-mail ruben.christopher@ymail.com [unquote]
http://www.examiner.com/x-16327-Clark-County-Liberal-Examiner~y2009m9d13-Man-with-Kenyan-certificate-testifies-in-court
Mike S,
Your post is #1,170 on this thread. The 120% thread (link below) is currently at 1,459 posts (I’ll be posting #1460 later today) of which roughly 500 are mine – so the truthers beat the birthers on a single thread. While it’s true that there are multiple 1,000+ post birther threads, the average post length on the 9/11 thread is MUCH longer (something that I bear most of the responsibility for). Just in case you were keeping score. Good to hear from you.
Regrads,
Slarti
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical
Vince Treacy,
Why won’t you admit that, contrary to you insinuations, Smith has never been convicted of perjury? Is the truth that much of a problem for you?
What did Smith forge? Did he create documents?
Your offer of proof is the result of an anonymous post?
Vince Treacy, just sentences later, says “I do not believe some anonymous poster who does not even give his name top support his charges.” Conclusion: Vince Treacy is coo-koo.
Mr. Treacy goes on to say “It is very unlikely that the document presented by a convicted forger is genuine.” Just two sentences later Mr. Treacy says “The Kenyan birth certificate is a forgery.”
Vince Treacy is either an extremely dishonest person, or he can’t separate fact from personal belief. He cannot present any evidence to support his belief regarding the CPGH birth certificate. Mr. Goebbels (Treacy) will just keep repeating the lie in hopes that some will believe it.
Vince Treacy says “Ann Dunham was never in Kenya, and never gave birth there.” Mr. Treacy has no way of knowing whether or not that statement is true. He has trouble differentiating fact and personal belief.
Vince Treacy says “There is credible evidence proposed to support the belief that the official Hawaiian state government record of birth is not accurate.” Once again we have Vince Treacy making a statement that he cannot support.
=========
Vince Treacy provides links when he has evidence to support his position. When he doesn’t provide a link we must consider any supporting evidence to be nonexistent.
=========
Vince Treacy knows that the Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV of the Constitution) is not applicable to the federal courts. It only applies to the state courts.
Obama has never submitted his COLB to the federal government or any federal court. No court will be required to accept what has never been presented to them.
More lies from Vince Treacy:
“He testified in the case before Judge David Carter, in which Orly Taitz is again challenging Obama’s eligibility to serve as president.”
That’s a lie. Smith was prepared to testify, but he was not permitted to testify at the motion hearing.
These are just the kind of false, unsubstantiated claims that Mr. Treacy like to rely upon. From the article:
“Supposedly Smith was going to Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya and present himself as a collector of historic birth certificates. Then he was going to attempt to obtain a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate. Only problem is that there is no Kenyan birth certificate, as birthers claim there is.”
Supposedly? That information came from whom? The author does not even acknowledge a source. That would mean that it was fabricated by the author himself. The author has no way of knowing what does or does not exist in Kenya. He, like Mr. Treacy will attempt to present as fact that which is personal belief. (those who voted for Obama will buy it without question)
Ruben Christopher says “I want to inform people and let them make up their own minds”. It’s too bad that instead of doing what he wants to do, he is forced to write stories intended to make up the readers mind without providing facts to support his conclusions.
It is quite ignorant to argue that FFC applies to the states, because it ignores the fact most of the frivolous birther suits in 2012 will be in state courts trying to keep Obama off the ballot. One state suit, Ankeny v. Indiana, has already been dismissed, on the merits.
As for the federal courts, I wish Crazy would scroll up and see the federal definition, but here it is again, from my Commentary over at NNBCE:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/from-vince-treacy-lakin/
The federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” set forth in Title V of the United States Code, has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
Vince Treacy keeps avoiding the fact that Obama has not presented his COLB to any federal office or federal court. If he thinks it be sufficient, let him (Obama) submit it.
Why would Crazy care “Obama has never submitted his COLB to the federal government…” That is stupid. Obama is in charge of the federal government. Birthers like Crazy would go ballistic if anyone made that argument.
It has been examined by the independent free press under our First Amendment, and found to be valid.
Has Crazy even read this thread? See April 8, 2010 at 5:37 pm
“Dr. Conspiracy has a long article on the certificate.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/latest-filings-in-barnett-v-obama/
“I don’t think anyone other than “Les” takes it seriously.”
“It has been examined by the independent free press under our First Amendment, and found to be valid.”
It cannot be found to be valid without examining the original records. It can only be found to exist.
It would be “CRAZY” to consider Factcheck and Politifact to be the “independent free press”. Factcheck has been caught lying, with regard to Obama’s birth record, on a number of occasions, and the St. Petersburg Times is a liberal rag.
Crazy got all bent out of shape about context about this passage “You don’t know when Obama and mother would have reentered the U.S. Do you? The first post-birth record of Ann being in the U.S. is in the spring of 1962. If you have evidence putting her in the U.S. prior to the spring of 1962, provide a link to the source.”
I have read this again. There is no evidence that Ann Dunham ever left the United States, so why should anyone have to produce a “post-birth record” from 1961? No reason at all. He has no evidence. There is abundant evidence that Ann lived in the US, and it was appropriately linked.
If Crazy is so sure about Lucas Smith, let him answer this question: Has he actually held that certificate in your hand? Has he talked to Smith or corresponded? The only thing we have seen is a fuzzy photo at the end of a deposition and a shaky video. What are the sources?
Finally, Crazy is going off the rails. Every other word is crap, or low-life, or extremely dishonest person, or Mr. Goebbels. This is just garbage. Consider the source. I really don’t need this kind of junk argument, so I am going to let him stew in his juices for a while.
The is rule in the internet that the first one to bring comparisons to the Nazis, like Crazy and his “Mr. Goebbels, into the argument loses the argument.
Crazy has just lost the argument.
Enough Crazy, already. Jeez!
On a much more pleasant note, the good news is that Saturday, April 17, will see the debut of the new season of Dr. Who on BBC America, with a new young actor as the Doctor. There have been five or six earlier ones. Every few years, the Doctor is transformed.
This one had good ratings in England when it premiered, so set the recorders.
Oh. BTW (by the way). There was a soccer game last Saturday morning.
In my neighborhood.
Which is not high crime.
And the President was there.
http://newledger.com/2010/04/obamas-nonexistent-soccer-game-and-internet-conspiracies/
and
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2010/04/wave-in-the-soccer-moms-and-dads.html
Somebody please tell Americanthinker.com. I would tell them myself, but I have been banned.
Jack Nicholson: THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
If Crazy is so sure about Lucas Smith, let him answer this question:
1. Has he actually held that certificate in your hand?
No. I could have, ff I would have deemed touching and holding it to be necessary. Mr. Smith has kept the certificate properly preserved since acquiring it. If Dr. Maganga would submit fingerprints, they could be compared with the certificate. It has been over a year since Dr. Maganga allegedly stamped and signed the CPGH birth certificate. He has never stated that the stamp or signature were not provided by him. If the CPGH birth certificate were a forgery, one would think that Dr. Maganga would have denounced it as being such.
2. Has he talked to Smith or corresponded?
Yes. I know why Smith went to Africa in the first place. It was not to get Obama’s birth records. After traveling to Nairobi to investigate a non-related subject, Smith was bombarded by all things Obama all over Kenya. It was the Kenyans who told him that Obama was born in Kenya, and more specifically Mombasa.
3. The only thing we have seen is a fuzzy photo at the end of a deposition and a shaky video. What are the sources?
The video was intentionally made to not give an image that could be used to create accurate duplicates. The same can be said for the photocopy or scan of the birth certificate. (It is slightly distorted) If a high quality image of the certificate were to be placed on the internet, it would only be a matter of days before the “create your own” site would be up and running.
Goebbels was first referenced by “Mike Spindell”. Then by “Buddha is Laughing”.
They both play for your team, don’t they Mr. Treacy?
“Vince Treacy keeps avoiding the fact that Obama has not presented his COLB to any federal office or federal court. If he thinks it be sufficient, let him (Obama) submit it.”
Crazy “keeps avoiding the fact that [Lucas Smith] has not presented his [Kenyan birth certificate] to any federal office or federal court. If he thinks it be sufficient, let him [Smith] submit it.”
Suuuure he will.
“Mr. Smith has kept the certificate properly preserved since acquiring it.”
Except when he tried to sell it on the internet?
Vince Treacy says “There is no evidence that Ann Dunham ever left the United States”.
Then Obama must be a liar. In his book “Dreams of My Father”, Obama makes claim that his mother went to Indonesia on multiple occasions.
What does that say about Mr. Treacy’s statement?
Will Mr. Treacy still claim that Obama’s mother did not leave the United States? If he changes his mind, and says that she did leave the United States, will he provide proof that she left. Barring proof that she left to go to Indonesia, Mr. Treacy can only conclude that she never went.
Quoting:
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Lucas Smith, the fubar forger, is now irrelevant
Just a quick one here – Lucas Smith, aka “Inspector Smith” at YouTube, the guy who tried to sell his flawed forgery of an Obama Kenyan birth certificate for $1,000,000, is officially irrelevant.
Poor Lucas. The guy had zero credibility going in – long police record for crimes including passing checks with a fake name, throwing hot oil at co-workers at McDonalds, stabbing someone in the face…you get the picture. Poor Lucas. Blames everyone and everything, even blames Dr Orly, the nutty dentist, and Jerome Corsi of World Nut Daily, for his problems. It’s EBay’s fault. It’s PayPal’s fault. It’s all the OBOTs’ fault.
Poor Lucas. It’s certainly not his fault. He did exactly what the nutcases wanted…created a fake BC so they could pretend Obama was born in Kenya.
Here’s the bottom line – Lucas’ screwed up. He misspelled, and therefore misstamped, the top of the BC. Lucas stamped “Dr. Helton Maganga.” But the doctor’s name is “Heltan.”
Here is Dr. HELTAN Maganga in a video.
Here is Dr. HELTAN Maganga at a directory of doctors.
Here is Dr. HELTAN Maganga, per the Kenya Broadcasting Corp.
And as for any nutcase who comes along and says something about a story online, with the name spelled “Helton,” I’ve got an email now in my back pocket from the guy who wrote that story, and he acknowledges that he misspelled the doctor’s first name.
Doctors named “HELTAN” just don’t go around stamping copies of birth certificates “Helton.” Poor Lucas. He came so close to that $1,000,000 prize. [unquote]
http://top10badguys.blogspot.com/2009/10/lucas-smith-fubar-forger-is-now.html
See also:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/wheres-the-birth-certificate/
Lucas Smith did present a declaration with the federal court. As is customary, he will permit Obama’s defense to examine the evidence, but the custody will remain with Lucas Smith.
Putting it up for sale on Ebay was the best way to inform the world of its existence. If Mr. Treacy wants to claim otherwise, he should provide a link to any television stations that have discussed the CPGH birth certificate.
Never left the US before he was born. Just stop evading the question. Where is the proof, or even suggestion, that she went to Kenya in 1961?
Nowhere.
“Putting it up for sale on Ebay was the best way to inform the world of its existence.”
Are you joking? Putting up for sale is how to inform the world?
Which world?
I rest my case.
What is “present a declaration”? Is it the affidavit that is linked up above on this thread, the 30 odd pages in Barnett v. Obama? Are you really endorsing that?
He has never sat down in a witness chair, been sworn, and presented this forgery, and he never will if he wants to keep out of jail. The cross examination would be brutal.
“As is customary, he will permit Obama’s defense to examine the evidence, but the custody will remain with Lucas Smith.”
Nope.
Article from Oct 17, 2009- “The hospital administrator Helton Maghanga says the family gave consent, but Katongu’s relatives claim they were told only a leg would be severed.”
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144026552&catid=4&a=1
12/08/2009 -date formate unknown (if the search results are chronological =August 12)
“Coast Provincial General Hospital chief administrator Helton Muganga also expressed willingness to assist in investigations.”
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/InsidePage.php?id=1144021260&catid=459&a=1
It’s easy to understand the confusion. Swahili until not long ago was only a spoken language. As long as the words sound the same, they can be spelled a number of acceptable ways. To them, Helton and Heltan are the same thing. Just like Maganga, Muganga, and Maghanga are acceptable.
If Dr. Maganga did not sign and stamp the CPGH birth certificate, he could have easily denounced it.
The Helton vs. Heltan story came from a user posting under the name GreatKim and MikTaerg (reversed spelling). At one point GreatKim created a forgery by attempting to change the spelling on the CPGH birth certificate that had been posted by Lucas Smith. Kim was caught. I still have a copy of the forgery that Kim created. Why would she need to create a forgery if she could have just got Dr. Maganga to stamp and sign another document?
The MikTaerg or GreatKim story is worthless. It is obvious that Mr. Treacy isn’t smart enough to know anything about Kenyan culture.
I think “Crazy” may be Lucas Smith posting anonymously.
She never ever left the US before he was born in 1961, which was the time frame under discussion, wise guy. Just stop evading the question.
Where is the proof, or even suggestion, that she went to Kenya in 1961?
Nowhere.
Would you look at that? The two articles linked above each use a different date format.
There’s another hole in the WND story (Vince Treacy’s cited source).
The MikTaerg or GreatKim story is worthless. It is obvious that Mr. Treacy isn’t smart enough to know anything about Kenyan culture.
****************************************************
How would not knowing about a culture that one has nothing to do with constitute not being “smart”? You know everything about everything do you? You’re omnipresent or something?
Your ability to google Teabag tin foil hat theories is indeed commendable but it doesn’t exactly qualify you as “smart”.
(Sorry Vince, I wanted to be of more help here but I’ve been hung up in a philosophical discussion on another thread for the past two days.)
Vince Treacy “She never ever left the US before he was born in 1961, which was the time frame under discussion, wise guy. Just stop evading the question.
Where is the proof, or even suggestion, that she went to Kenya in 1961?”
The better question (which goes along with Vince Treacy’s conclusion) is what proof, or even suggestion, do we have that she left the country to travel to Indonesia? None! (Don’t try claiming that Obama is your source. It is he who is suspected of lying.)
Try relying on the facts Mr. Treacy. The fact is, you don’t have any proof that Obama’s mother didn’t leave the country before he was born. It may be your belief, but it is not a fact. Stop trying to claim it as fact.
bdaman 1, February 23, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Fast Forward to the 38 minute mark.
Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district.
Booth presented a Certificate of Live Birth from 1949, in which her husband was born at Kapi-olani Hospital, 12 years before Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani — showing that the state of Hawaii issued LONG FORM CERTIFICATE’S OF LIVE BIRTH in 1949
**************************************
Really?
Perhaps it would interest you to know that Hawaii doesn’t HAVE a “long form” birth certificate.
**************************************
“[Hawaii] does not have a short-form or long-form certificate”
Janice Okubo, Hawaii Dept of Health
June (2009-06-06). Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
She was born and raised in the United States. Is anyone denying that? No. So she was a resident of the United States. She lived here. So the fact is that she resided in the U.S. unless some proof of travel elsewhere can be found. There is no burden on me to prove that she did not travel. You can’t prove a negative, anyway.
She did not travel to Kenya in 1961.
I will claim it as a fact until you show some evidence of her travel to Kenya, Lucas, oh, yes, in 1961. There is none.
And where has Lucas Smith introduced his “birth certificate” in court and sworn to his story under oath?
Vince Treacy,
Once again you confuse your personal belief with fact. You are welcome to believe that Obama’s mother did not leave the United States before Obama was born, but that doesn’t make it a fact. I, on the other hand, find it to be reasonably doubtful. She lived in Mercer Island, WA before moving to Hawaii. I know many people who are from those parts and most of them have traveled to Canada.
Lucas has both his long form and his short form birth records. Elect him as President and he will submit them to any agency who wants to view them.
Goneville, we have tried to point out the long form, short form story over and over:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-126413
“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.”
And note that Mrs. Nordyke SAID that she was in labor at Kapiolani Hospital the same time as Ann Dunham, providing contemporary eyewitness evidence that Barack was born in the hospital.
Crazy Lucas just wants to believe his fantasies. Lucas is not old enough. And don’t be stupid. Mercer Island is not Kenya. My assertion about foreign travel is that she did not go to Kenya in 1961.
Doubt anything you want. Find some proof.
“Lucas has both his long form and his short form birth records. Elect him as President and he will submit them to any agency who wants to view them.”
Will we get to see his criminal record at the same time?
The question was “And where has Lucas Smith introduced his ‘birth certificate’ in court and sworn to his story under oath?”
No answer.
No one cares about his birth certificates.
I can play the same name game, Dick Treacy.
You keep changing your tune. First Obama’s mother never left the country. Then you (apparently) accept Obama’s word that she traveled to Indonesia (without requiring evidence to support such travel). Now you appear to concede that she also may have traveled to Canada.
I can understand why you think Obama meets the qualifications. Whatever your little brain allows you to believe becomes fact. If Obama said it, it becomes irrefutable evidence.
How much do you get paid to defend Obama?
Lucas stands ready to testify under oath, and will be happy to provide the CPGH birth certificate to the court. All we need is for a court to actually try a case on the merits.
You do know what a trial is Dick Treacy? I saw you trying to pass of the appeal of a dismissal to the appellate court as being a trial on the merits. Just because the appellate court decided to answer questions (provide dicta) doesn’t mean there was a trial on the merits of Obama’s eligibility.
Get off it, Lucas. Kenya. 1961. Proof.
And I still have not had a response to 5 USC 301.
And full faith and credit in state courts.
Oh. BTW (by the way). There was a soccer game last Saturday morning.
In my neighborhood.
Which is not high crime.
And the President was there
Still waiting on the pics and individual accounts, tweet, tweet
Did I miss it?
Mr. Treacy I don’t think crazy is Lucas. Without scrolling up didn’t the real Lucas post here once before?
Not to be confused with I don’t think Lucas is crazy
Does this Orly dude smoke weed? Shit man I hear that she is some detester or is that dentist?
You’ll get a response to 5 USC 301 when Obama submits his COLB to a federal agency or federal court.
Where did the permission to call the Hawaiian COLB “prima facie evidence” originate? If Treacy thinks it came from a statute, let him cite the statute.
For those who still might think that only a parent, doctor, or midwife can report a birth; here’s the current Hawaiian statute;
“§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”
Are you starting to figure out how a non-hospital birth gets reported? Are you starting to figure out how easily a fraudulent report of home birth can be submitted? Without the name of the person reporting the birth, you have nothing.
Prima facie. It is right on the document itself, and can be read on the face of the COLB, in the bottom margin, together with cites to the statutes of Hawaii.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
It was not a nonhospital birth. It was not a home birth. All that stuff is irrelevant.
Mrs. Nordyke said she was in the hospital in labor with Ann Dunham. In Kapiolani Maternal Hospital.
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
Source:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Castles in the air.
“How much do you get paid to defend Obama?”
Nothing. That question takes some nerve from a defender of Lucas Smith [or from Smith]. Lucas Smith is the one who tried to raise money from the sale of the birth certificate, not me.
The Birther sites, like WNutDaily, AmericanThinker, Postemail buenavistamall, and safeguardourconstitution (Lakin) all try to separate vulnerable people from their money with birther falsehoods.
Not at the Turley blog.
Does Inspector Smith try to raise money at his facebook page?
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
Mr Treacy I have never seen that claimed before and didn’t see it at either link you provided.
“Prima facie. It is right on the document itself, and can be read on the face of the COLB, in the bottom margin, together with cites to the statutes of Hawaii.”
I know what it says on it. The question is, where is the legislation that supports calling it such?
“It was not a nonhospital[sic] birth. It was not a home birth. All that stuff is irrelevant.”
OK dumb-ass. Prove that is was not a non-hospital birth. Prove it was not a home birth. You’re the one always asking for proof. Let’s see how you do with that one.
I’m getting tired of having a lawyer from D.C. make up lies and present them as being the facts. You don’t know where the F the birth took place. The only thing you have to go on is Obama’s word. Guess what? He might have been there, but he could describe it to you.
Nordyke was in the hospital at the same time that Ann was alleged to be there. Nordyke HAS NEVER said that she met or remembered Ann Obama being there.
Quit trying to sell your lies.
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
Your not getting that from the woman from Buffalo are you.
Vince,
Clearly ‘nerve’ is something birthers have in abundance. What they’re missing is something else. Could it be… THE LAW?
(They probably don’t have the law on their side because you are hoarding it all – why are you so selfish?
)
Justin Elliott has the whole story about the group behind Lakin:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/birther_army_doc_gets_help_from_fmr_gop_insider_an.php?ref=fpb
So is this Lucas dude a weed smoker? Bedaman is one you can tell. He is all fucked up in the head. Or maybe he took one too many trips on acid.
Watch that blood pressure, Crazy Lucas Smith. What are all these accusations of lying? I just posted a paragraph from a news article:
“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.”
And snopes published the article about the delivering physician that I linked.
There is a lot of evidence.
And “where is the legislation” on prima facie? I said that the citations are in the margin right after that statement that it is prima facie evidence.
I cannot “prove” that she was NOT in Kenya in 1961. I cannot prove that she did not land on the Moon in 1961. I cannot prove that Barack was not born on Krypton. The burden is on the party asserting Kenya, Moon, Krypton.
bda \”I have never seen that claimed before and didn’t see it at either link you provided.
BOHICA:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
When confronted with the fact that West could not possibly have delivered Obama since, according to a Hawaiian Pearl Harbor history website, he retired in 1956, five years before Obama’s birth, Nelson backtracked a bit: “I don’t know in what capacity [West] knew about this particular birth,” she said. Later in the interview, Nelson said the assumption that West delivered the baby, or that she said that, were just misunderstandings on the part of the Buffalo News reporter.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3747-Louisville-City-Hall-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Teacher-claims-to-remember-Obamas-birth
I went back and read it again and found it. I vaguely remembered it cause my wife is from Buffalo but remembered she back tracked when confronted. Thats why it’s not widely touted as the delivering physician.
Crazy: “saw you trying to pass of the appeal of a dismissal to the appellate court as being a trial on the merits.”
More confusion.
I do not think I mentioned a trial. I was correct in summarizing that the court did reach the merits of the question before it: who was a natural born citizen.
For the non-lawyers, the federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can hear only cases and controversies, but state courts of general jurisdiction are no so limited. So this case was not dismissed on standing, and the court ruled on the merits of the natural born citizen claim. The birth certificate was not at issue, but it is possible that it could have been raised if it had been pleaded correctly.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/
I’ll repeat this comment I made a few days ago.
President Obama has a tangible interest in the vital record of his own birth. He has the ability as the commander and chief to make all this birther/conspiracy/NBC go away by simply ordering the DOH, to release all vital statistics in re to his record, all in the name of openness and transparency in which he campaigned on.
If the record indicates everything that has already been either written about in his books or confirmed threw a state employee, than there is nothing to hide.
Why he continues to let something like this fester is beyond belief.
Well, if she took it back, I can’t use it, so I won’t. I have no problem with that.
Thats why I was like, what? I’ve never seen you quote that before.
bdaman, that would be a total waste of time, because nothing that anyone can release will ever satisfy any birther in the entire country. Please name a single birther who has said he would drop the campaign if another certificate were released. Not one.
Ask Crazy if release will settle any questions. It won’t for him, because he is frozen to the belief of birth in Kenya, so anything released would have to be false to him. It would settle nothing for Leo, Mario, Orly or the two-parent crowd.
It is the birthers who are making it fester and polluting our system.
And I know the reason, and you know the reason, but you will not admit it.
Crazy has not denied that he is Lucas Smith. If he says he is not, I will stop calling him Lucas.
“Thats why I was like, what? I’ve never seen you quote that before.”
What? Leaving now.
The Dr. Rodney T.West post. Enjoy your dinner
“Ask Crazy if release will settle any questions.”
Yes! It will answer the most important question of all. Is he even a citizen of the United States? If the records are based on a fraudulent birth report, Obama would most likely not be a citizen of the United States. His mother could not have passed citizenship due to her age if he was born outside of the country.
It is not acceptable to have a question as to the citizenship of the Commander in Chief. I may not think that someone whose father was an alien is considered to be a natural born citizen, but I sure as hell cannot accept having someone who is not even a citizen hold that office.
The veracity of Obama’s Hawaiian birth records must be tested. Releasing the name of the person who filed the birth report in Hawaii will answer that question. If it was one of his grandparents, I think everyone would agree that a full investigation should be started.
Even the Tea Party types do not want Ms. Taitz present at their rallies.
___________
Quote:
Activist who challenges Obama’s citizenship is booted from Tax Day Tea Party
After candidates complain to organizers, Orly Taitz’s speaking engagement is withdrawn. Taitz has been a leading voice in the discredited ‘birther’ movement.
“It’s not worth it,” she said. “She’s too controversial. This is not what the tea party is about at this point.”
End Quote
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/13/local/la-me-taxday14-2010apr14
By the end of this month President Obama will have less than a 1000 days in office. I have a feeling that this question of citizen vs. non citizen will still be around until then and possibly beyond.
Mr. Treacy, something has been bothering me since yesterday.
Yesterday you went to Snopes.com and provided the link to a posting. Contained in that posting was an article that mentioned a woman who gave an interview to Buffalo News claiming that she had spoken over dinner to the delivering physician to a one Barack Obama.
In the course of that interview, when confronted with the fact that West could not possibly have delivered Obama since, according to a Hawaiian Pearl Harbor history website, he retired in 1956, five years before Obama’s birth, Nelson backtracked a bit: “I don’t know in what capacity [West] knew about this particular birth,” she said.,
Yesterday, I comment that I had never ever seen you link to that before.
Mr. Treacy are you to willing to state that yesterday was the first that you had heard of Dr. West by confirming that you “Cant use it, so I won’t”
I find that incredibly hard to believe that someone whom has followed this case with the scrutiny that you have exhibited has never heard of Dr. West or the refutation to the said interview. interview.
Army to Court Martial Officer Who Doubts Obama Was Born in U.S.
The Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he won’t accept orders from President Obama, whom he considers unqualified to be commander in chief, military officials said Wednesday.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/14/army-to-court-martial-officer-who-doubts-obama-was-born-in-u-s/?ncid=webmaildl1
Hang’em high I say
The U.S. Army says a surgeon who has publicly refused to follow any further orders until he sees documentation that Barack Obama is eligible to be president is being “reassigned” at Walter Reed Army Hospital after he refused to deploy to Afghanistan as scheduled.
http://www.thefoxnation.com/lt-col-terry-lakin/2010/04/15/birther-officer-reassigned
Kenyan Parliament website scrubs November 2008 Minutes which confirm Obama as “son of this soil”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/04/15/kenyan-parliament-website-scrubs-november-2008-minutes-which-confirm-obama-as-son-of-the-soil/
Another false report by PosteMail, repeated with a link here. The website was not “scrubbed,” whatever that means. The debate was moved to a different site.
The truth from Dr. Conspiracy:
QUOTES ON
So it was not at all surprising that one of the premiere denialist web sites, The Post & Email has use the language “Kenyan parliament web site scrubs…” to describe some changes in their web site as relates to a couple of documents of interest where Kenyan parliamentarians used language in one case about Obama’s Kenyan heritage (“son of the soil”) and another that more explicitly says that the American President was born in Kenya.
The Post & Email blog says:
[internal QUOTE] The Hansards from dates both before and after March 25, 2010 are still available by clicking on their respective links from the Kenyan Parliament website. So why has the March 25, 2010 document been removed? [UNQUOTE]
Let’s deal with this one first, a story reported here on Obama Conspiracy Theories on April 12, 2010. The link to the Kenyan Parliament web site originally published in that article for March 25, 2010, has indeed stopped working. It is, in my mind, a bad thing for Internet links to stop working. (See Cool URIs don’t change.) I daresay that there are hundreds of hyperlinks on this web site that point to things that have moved. There are technical means to redirect links to new locations, but they are not used as frequently as they should be. But this is no reason to think the Internet has been scrubbed as part of some worldwide conspiracy to hide President Obama’s birth place. The Kenyan Parliament minutes with Mr. Orengo’s comments are not “scrubbed” but simply moved here: http://www.parliament.go.ke/parliament/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=24&Itemid= and for all I know, it might be moved again.UNQUOTE
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/kenyan-cover-up/
The reporter has admitted that the documents are still available – but no mention of that here. Just a link.
[quote etc.
Sallyven says:
Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I just went to the Kenyan site, clicked on the “Hansard” tab, and found that the 2008 documents are no longer listed. However, when I clicked on 2010, I was able to find and download the March 25 minutes, and saw the page with the discussion on Obama.
Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, I also found that to work after publishing today’s article. It’s interesting, though, that the link in the story we published last night is inactive. [unquote]
Once again, very short fuse on misinformation at the Turley blog.
Once again, very short fuse on misinformation at the Turley blog.
Bdaman 1, April 15, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Short fuse: Posted April 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm, corrected at 6:14.
If badman sends his name and address, he will be answered by return mail.
Mr. Treacy like Buzz Aldrin I think you would be great on Dancin With The Stars, except you would be Dancin In The Stars.
Out of all do respect sir. You USED the Dr. West story as a statement of fact.
Quote On:
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
Quote off:
The reason why you never mentioned it before because you knew it was not a statement of fact, it was second hand information and was not verifiable threw legal documentation. If it was verifiable we wouldn’t be having this discussion and Dr. West and his family would be famous by now, giving interviews and being asked whats it like knowing that your father/uncle/cousin delivered the first black president of the United States.
Knowing that you follow Dr. C., Dr.C had a post on that story stating that it MAY have been possible for Dr. West to have delivered Barack Obama.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/more-testimony-obama-was-born-in-k/
Dr. C’s post created alot of comments and in your defense I could not find one of yours.
You painted yourself in a box Mr. Treacy and you are now recognized as spreading misinformation.
Whats the name of this song and dance.
Quote:
If badman sends his name and address, he will be answered by return mail.
Unquote:
If badman sends his name and address, he will be answered by return mail.
How bout an e-mail address will that work or does it specifically need to be answered in a legal form
Vince Treacy 1, April 14, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Crazy: “saw you trying to pass of the appeal of a dismissal to the appellate court as being a trial on the merits.”
More confusion.
I do not think I mentioned a trial. I was correct in summarizing that the court did reach the merits of the question before it: who was a natural born citizen.
For the non-lawyers, the federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can hear only cases and controversies, but state courts of general jurisdiction are no so limited. So this case was not dismissed on standing, and the court ruled on the merits of the natural born citizen claim. The birth certificate was not at issue, but it is possible that it could have been raised if it had been pleaded correctly.
More confusion? Mr. Treacy is adding to the confusion.
The Indiana Court of Appeals is not a court of general jurisdiction. It is a court that has only appellate jurisdiction. The only courts in Indiana having general jurisdiction are the circuit courts.
From the published opinion;
“The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor to prevent the Governor “from issuing a “Certificate of Ascertainment”, or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.” Appellants‟ Appendix at 6. On January 30, 2009, the Governor filed a motion to dismiss alleging in part that “the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Appellee‟s Appendix at 1. The Governor also filed a memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss. On February 17, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Governor‟s motion to dismiss. On March 16, 2009, the trial court granted the Governor‟s motion to dismiss after a hearing. On April 13, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal.”
The appellate court need only determine if the governor was required to make a determination as to the qualifications of the candidates. The circuit court, by granting the governor’s motion to dismiss, had decided that he did not. The only relevant question before the court of appeals was whether or not the circuit court properly interpreted the law when determining that the governor had no such duty. The appellate court was to review the circuit court’s application of the law with regard to the governor’s duty. That is all.
Law students reading this blawg are familiar with the term dicta.
“Words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case. A remark made or opinion expressed by a judge in a decision upon a cause, “by the way”, that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before the court or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.”
Those readers who are not law students should take this to heart.
Mr. Treacy I have previously given you my address.
I remember, do you?
Address it Bdaman in c/o of the Brig
Lighten up Mr. Treacy everything gonna be just fine, I know it, the oracle told me it would be. No here relax and have some cookies.
Lawyers and law students should take note, and jump in.
Legal Eagle: “The Indiana Court of Appeals is not a court of general jurisdiction. It is a court that has only appellate jurisdiction. The only courts in Indiana having general jurisdiction are the circuit courts.”
First, I did not say that the Court of Appeals was a court of general jurisdiction. I wrote that “the federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can hear only cases and controversies, but state courts of general jurisdiction are no so limited.” The Ankeny case was filed in the Marion Superior Court, and “superior court” is the conventional term for state courts of general jurisdiction. The state trial court in Ankeny was a court of general jurisdiction with power to decide all issues properly pleaded. The state appellate courts have jurisdiction to review all questions appealed from the trial courts. So my conclusion stands.
I never mentioned a trial and there was no trial because the Superior Court dismissed the case.
Legal Eagle wrote: “The appellate court need only determine if the governor was required to make a determination as to the qualifications of the candidates. The circuit court, by granting the governor’s motion to dismiss, had decided that he did not. The only relevant question before the court of appeals was whether or not the circuit court properly interpreted the law when determining that the governor had no such duty. The appellate court was to review the circuit court’s application of the law with regard to the governor’s duty. That is all.”
It was an appeal from the Superior Court, not the “circuit court.” LE contend that the “only relevant question” was “whether or not the circuit court properly interpreted the law when determining that the governor had no such duty.” That is not how the Court of Appeals stated it: “The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint.” Slip op. at 3.
The argument by plaintiff was that the Governor had a duty to ascertain the eligibility of candidates. The Court noted that Plaintiffs cited no authority for such a duty, but that even if the Governor had such a duty, it could not rule that either Obama or McCain were not eligible for the Presidency.
Plaintiff argued first that a sitting Senator could not be an Elector. The court concluded that the argument that the Governor had violated a sitting Senator rule “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Slip op. at 10.
The second argument by plaintiffs was that the Governor should have barred both Obama and McCain from the ballot because neither were natural born citizens. The Court wrote at page 10 that “Second, the Plaintiffs’ argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain are not ‘natural born citizens’ as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution…,” and that therefore the Governor should have been prohibited by the trial court from issuing a certificate of ascertainment.
The Court’s discussion took the next 10 pages. The Court stated: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we CONCLUDE [emphasis added] that persons born within the United States are natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” Slip op. at 17.
The courts traditionally preface their holdings with language that states that they have “concluded” or determine” a matter or issue.
If there were any doubt at all that this was one of the holdings of the case, it is resolved by footnote 15: “We reiterate that we do not address the question of natural born citizen status for persons who became United States citizens at birth by virtue of being born of United States citizen parents, despite the fact that they were born abroad. That question was not properly present to this court. Without addressing the question, however, we note that nothing in our opinion should be understood to hold that being born within the fifty United States is the [ital] only [ital] way one can receive natural born status.”
From the footnote, then, we know that the natural born citizen status of Obama WAS properly before the Court. We know that the Court held that Obama was a natural born citizen regardless of parents. We know that the court did not hold that McCain was one because of birth overseas to citizen partners. We know that Court did not rule out persons who were not born within the 50 States (e.g., DC or the territories) from having natural born status.
These amateur birther legalists pounced on the Ankeny decision from the very beginning on this holding-dicta hook. But the Court’s ruling on Obama’s natural born citizen status was essential to its holding. If it had ruled that Obama was not natural born because his father was an alien, then the Plaintiffs would have stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the Court would have had to rule on the Governor’s duties.
But the Court ruled as follows:
[quote] Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case. [unquote]
Legal Eagle says the “appellate court need only determine if the governor was required to make a determination as to the qualifications of the candidates,” and thinks that the only role of the appellate court “was to review the circuit [Superior] court’s application of the law with regard to the governor’s duty. That is all.” The problem with that theory is that a motion to dismiss “tests the legal sufficiency of the claim” against which it is made. So the Court had to view the pleadings “in the light most favorable” to the losing plaintiffs, with every reasonable inference construed in their favor.
As I read the case, the Court never did reach the issue of the Governor’s duty to ascertain eligibility because it found that none of Ankeny’s claims had any merit. The Court could not have held that the Governor had no duty, because the question never reached it on the basis of a claim with merit.
I think I have summarized the case fairly and accurately. But read the case for yourselves. It is a good discussion of the two-parent birther theory—and it is the Court’s holding.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-born-defined-born-on-us-soil-regardless-of-citizenship-parents/
At any rate, if there had been any mistakes, it was up to the Indiana Supreme Court to correct them. Looks like “Review denied.”
“ INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Supreme Court has refused to hear a case claiming Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he is not a natural born citizen.
“The court announced Tuesday that justices unanimously voted against hearing the appeal from two Indiana residents.”
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23068154/detail.html
Crazy and/or Lucas has/have not addressed 5 USC 301.
Its definition applies to a document that
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.”
Therefore, United States birth certificates must be issued by a State or local “authorized custodial of record,” that is, a government agency. Records or documents issued by hospitals do not meet this definition.
Yet Lucas Daniel Smith is offering Kenyan certificate that appears to be a document issued by a hospital, not by the government agency authorized to maintain birth records. American courts might be unlikely to accept a hospital record instead of a government record, if the law says that governmental birth certificates are required in the U.S.
The Kenyan government maintains the official birth records of that country.
Dr. Conspiracy reviewed the Kenyan law under a thread on “where’s the birth certificate:
QUOTE I’m not talking about Barack Obama’s “long form” from Hawaii. We all know that Hawaiian law prevents us mere mortals from putting our paws on that document. No, I’m asking where is his Kenyan birth certificate.
Unlike Hawaii, Kenyan law says that birth information is open to anyone!
[QUOTING STATUTE] Cap 149 Births and Deaths Registration:
26.(1) Any register, return or index in the custody of the Principal Registrar subject to the rules, shall be open to inspection on payment of the prescribed fee.(2) The Principal Registrar shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, furnish a certified copy of any entry in any register or in any return in his custody.
(3) The Principal Registrar shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, furnish a certificate in the prescribed form of the birth of any person compiled in the prescribed manner from the records and registers in his custody.
(4) A certified copy of any entry in any register or return sealed or stamped with the seal of the Principal Registrar shall be received as evidence of the dates and facts therein contained without any or other proof of such entry.
END
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/wheres-the-birth-certificate/
The Doctor points out that there is no restriction on access. So Lucas should come back with a certificate from Kenya issued by the Principal Registrar.
This point is important. Now the favorite birther factoid is that the Kenyan records are sealed or scrubbed or something. But there is no proof of this, just birther conspiracy myths. I think that (A) any all requests for Obama’s birth certificate from the responsible governmental agencies have come up with no results (B) because the have no such birth records (C) due to that fact that he was no born in Kenya, but (D) in Hawaii.
Lawyers and law students should take note, and jump in.
Mr. Treacy relax, you don’t needed any help, your doin just fine by yourself
BTW, LegalEagle, thanks for bringing a good legal question here, since this is a blog conducted by a law professor.
Careful Mr. Treacy, we know what happened after you praised goonville, he vamoosed, and is now goneville
Mr. Treacy, Isn’t the main point of Legal Eagles comment that the Court of Appeals is not a court of general jurisdiction? I think we have circuit courts in Florida. I don’t think we have superior courts. By distinguishing between the state and federal courts didn’t you imply that the Indiana case was decided by a court of general jurisdiction? That’s how I interpreted it.
Why did the court need to answer the natural born citizen question if the governor was not required to make that decision anyway? It looks like the court answered a question because it wanted to, instead of because it was required to.
If the governor was not required to determine the eligibility of the candidates, why would the Indiana supreme court bother to hear the case?
One more thing, You keep asking about 5 USC 301. If I post my COLB on a website does that mean I won’t need to bring it with me if I apply for a job with the government?
Mr. Treacy could you tell the students what this means.
As reported here, Atty Orly Taitz filed a motion to consolidate her quo warranto action with the pending, 13 State, health care lawsuit, which was denied by Judge Roger Vinson on two grounds. Judge Vinson stated in his denial order that Taitz met two of the four steps, which includes STANDING, but Judge Vinson ruled that the case would be “exponentially more difficult” if the cases were consolidated.
It’s important to note there is no mention, in the denial order, that the issue of Obama’s eligibility is frivolous. On 4/9/10, Orly Taitz filed a motion for judicial notice of Judge Vinson’s ruling, embedded below is the Judicial Notice filed by Orly Taitz.
Orly Taitz motion for Judicial Notice was was granted by Judge Lamberth on 4/14/10(embedded below).
Barack Hussein Obama’s(Barry Soetoro) motion to dismiss the Quo Warranto action was DENIED by Judge Lamberth on 4/14/10(embedded below).
Taitz v. Obama, Civil Action No.: 10-0151 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Defendant’s(Obama’s) Motion to Dismiss can be viewed HERE.
Defendant’s(Obama’s) Corrected Memorandum on Motion to Dismiss can be viewed HERE.
Defendant’s(Obama’s) Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction can be viewed HERE.
WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO FULL COMPLAINT – Filed 1/27/10 – embedded below judicial notice.
For those who don’t know what a writ of quo warranto is, go HERE.
Below is Orly’s full QW complaint along with Judge Lamberth’s latest motions(2).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30009836/Taitz-v-Obama-Quo-Warranto-Taitz-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice-Granted-by-Judge-Lamberth
Bdaman,
The g-ville comment was a cheap shot. But of course, you meant it as a joke.
It all means that Orly is getting absolutely nowhere.
Why bother reading any of that stuff that was pasted up without attribution or link? It is now totally irrelevant.
How is Orly doing?
Her case in D.C. was dismissed on all counts in an Order and Decision filed by Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. I hope Professor Turley notices this major development:
The Court’s ORDER:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0151-22
The Court’s MEMORANDUM OPINION:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv0151-23
Read ‘em and weep, Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo and birthers everywhere tonight.
FFLEO, I likes ta say itsa poke in da I wita red hot poker.
Mister Treacy here has got me on edge dis week. startin wit they’ll put ya in jail fur not payin ur taxis. U C, some how r anutter sumpin just ain’t right. When he pulled da ol Doc West stunt, I node it wudn’t right. I got my I on eem, so don’t u wurry bout dat. Like Ol Keeny u sta sang. U got ta no win ta holdem, no win foldem, no win ta walk away, n no win ta run. No what i mean vern?
Full text from NNBCE website, http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/orly-v-obama-dismissed/
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ORLY TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action 10-151 (RCL)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before the Court is the defendant’s motion [18] to dismiss the first amended complaint and Christopher Strunk’s motion [6] to intervene. Also pending before the Court is the plaintiffs motion [17] to consolidate this case with an action currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, the applicable law, and the entire record herein the motion will be granted for the reasons set forth below. After consideration of the motion to intervene, the opposition, the applicable law, and the entire record herein the motion will be denied for the reasons set forth below. After consideration of the motion to consolidate, the opposition, and the applicable law, the motion shall be denied without prejudice as this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.
I. The Government’s Motion to Dismiss
A. Quo Warranto Claims
Orly Taitz has filed suit seeking this Court to issue a writ of quo warranto against the President of the United States to determine his eligibility for office. See D.C. CODE § 16-3501. A writ of quo warranto is a “common-law writ used to inquire the authority by which a public office is held.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1371 (9th ed. 2009). The District of Columbia Code has two statutes regarding the initiation of a quo warranto proceeding. The first provides that the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney may institute such an action on their own motion or on the relation of a third person. D.C. CODE § 16-3502. If the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney does so on the relation of a third person, they must first seek leave of court. Id. The Code also provides that if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney “refuse 0 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.” Id. § 16-3503. Ms. Taitz, having contacted the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Attorney General of the United States, and not having received an answer to her satisfaction, has elected to seek the writ on her own. Shortly after she filed suit, the government moved to dismiss.
This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.
The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held that a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Wright, J.) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held “involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.” Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685.
That holding of the Court of Appeals is rooted in the doctrine of standing To bring a case in federal court a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing to do so, which is essentially a question of whether “the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute. . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). There are three elements that form the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (Scalia, J.). If any one of these three requirements is not met, a plaintiff does not have standing
The first of these is that the plaintiff must suffer an injury in fact. Id. That is an injury must be concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. Id. Injuries which are general, rather than particularized, are not sufficient to create standing. Indeed, the Supreme Court has “consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.” Id. at 573-74. This is precisely the sort of injury that Ms. Taitz alleges and as such she does not have standing to pursue her claim. Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.’ Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.2 See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
B. Qui Tam Claims
To bring a claim under the False Claims Act, it must be filed under seal on behalf of the United States and not served on the defendant until ordered by the court. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2). Failure to comply with these filing procedures results in dismissal of the relator’s suit with prejudice. United States ex rel. LeBlanc v. ITT Indus., 492 F. Supp. 2d 303, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing United States ex rel. Pilon v. Martin Marietta Corp., 60 F.3d 995, at 999-1000 (2d Cir. 1995)). Ms. Taitz attempts to excuse her failure to file under seal by stating that li]n this case the facts are widely known.” [Dkt. 21 at 6.] But the qui tam statute provides no exception to the requirement a complaint be filed under seal. As Ms. Taitz did not file her complaint under seal as required by section 3730(b)(2), her qui tam claims are dismissed.
I Even if the Court of Appeals’ precedent did not firmly preclude Ms. Taitz from bringing suit to challenge President Obama’s right to hold office, the one case that discusses the circumstances under which a private person might be able to challenge a public official’s title to office despite the refusal of the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to act, suggests that the “interested person” bringing the action would have had to be actually entitled to the office herself. Newman v. United States ex rel Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 547 (1915). Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself
2 Because Ms. Taitz lacks standing to pursue her quo warranto action her motion for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot.
C. Freedom of Information Act Claims
Ms. Taitz has also made a claim under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging that she requested “information from the Social Security Administration seeking explanation, why the defendant is using Social Security numbers of other individuals and numbers that were never assigned and what action is Social Security Administration is taking to prosecute this conduct.” She also asks that this Court issue a mandamus directing Social Security Administrator Michael J. Astrue to release an application for a Social Security number “submitted in the state of CT to an individual born in 1890″ and directing an investigation into “how Obama was able to obtain a social security belonging to an individual born in 1890″ and “how Obama was able to use 39 different social security numbers.”
The FOIA claim fails for several reasons. The first and most important of which is that she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. As the government notes, Ms. Taitz appealed the Social Security Administration’s denial of her request on March 15, 2010 and the Social Security Administration has twenty business days from the date it received her notice to consider the administrative appeal. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). Even if the SSA received her appeal on the 15th of March, the period cannot have run until at least April 9th. A plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review of a FOIA claim. Wilbur v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 675, 677 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because Ms. Taitz has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies,3 her claim will be dismissed.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. The writ will only issue to compel performance of a “clear nondiscretionary duty.” Pittston Coal Group. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105, 121 (1988) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 612 (1984)). Ms. Taitz has neither identified any clear nondiscretionary duty that the Social Security Administrator has failed to perform nor one that is owed to her. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Furthermore, her mandamus claim merely rehashes the claim she made under FOIA, and as another judge of this Court has noted, “[t]he exclusive nature of the FOIA precludes mandamus relief.” Strunk v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 2010 WL 931197, at *1 n.1 (D.D.C. March 15, 2010) (Leon, J.). As such, Ms. Taitz has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, Ms. Taitz’s claims for mandamus relief shall be dismissed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
3 Ms. Taitz would be well advised to review the Social Security Administration’s FOIA Regulations, in particular 20 C.F.R. § 402.100. See also 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6); see generally Sherman v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 244 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2001).
D. Remaining Claims
i. Common Law Fraud
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that a plaintiff who alleges fraud or mistake must state with particularity the circumstances surrounding the fraud or mistake. A plaintiff must still, of course, comply with Rule 8’s requirements as well. Ashcroft v. lqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1954 (2009). Ms. Taitz has failed to adequately plead fraud because she has not alleged that (1) that she relied on the defendant’s allegedly fraudulent statements and (2) that she was harmed by any such reliance. Aktiselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8, 22-23 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Va. Acad. of Clinical Psychologists v. Group Hospitalization & Med. Servs., Inc., 878 A.2d 1226, 1237-38 (D.C. 2005)). As such her claims for common law fraud shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
ii. Section 1983 and Section 1985 Claims
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he is a federal officer, and section 1983 does not apply to officers of the federal government. Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005). As such Ms. Taitz has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To the extent that Ms. Taitz is attempting to state a claim against Debra Bowen, the Court notes that Ms. Bowen is not a party to this action.
The plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 likewise fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As the Supreme Court observed recently, while Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. It must contain sufficient factual allegations that when accepted as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
iii. RICO Claims
Ms. Taitz’s claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) are also defective. In order to bring a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 a civil plaintiff must allege:
(1) That the defendant (2) through the commission of two or more acts (3) constituting a “pattern” (4) of “racketeering activity” (5) directly or indirectly invests in, or maintains an interest in, or participates in (6) an “enterprise” (7) the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce. . . . [P]laintiff must [also] allege that he was “injured in his business or property by reason of [the] violation of § 1962.”
Moss v. Morgan Stanley, Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir. 1983).
The Court first addresses the predicate acts Ms. Taitz has alleged. First of all, neither violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 nor 42 U.S.C. §1985 are “racketeering activities” which could be the basis for Ms. Taitz’s RICO claim. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(a) (defining which offenses are racketeering activities). They thus are not actionable as violations of section 1962. With respect to the various allegations of fraud—and fraud indeed is a predicate act for purposes of RICO liability—Ms. Taitz has failed to sufficiently plead her claims. To the degree a RICO complaint sounds in fraud, the plaintiff must meet Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements. See Farlow v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 956 F.2d 982, 989 (10th Cir. 1992). As the Court observed earlier, Ms. Taitz’s fraud claims fail to even meet the standards of Rule 8, much less the heightened requirements of Rule 9(b). Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1954. As such, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and her RICO claims will be dismissed. FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
iv. Commerce Clause Claims
Ms. Taitz has also asks this Court to declare that the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, violates the commerce clause and/or is unconstitutional because President Obama has not proved that he is a natural born citizen and thus cannot legitimately sign the bill into law. As this Court has already decided, the latter claims presented by Ms. Taitz are generalized grievances about the proper administration of the government for which she does not have standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74.
At the time that Ms. Taitz filed her amended complaint, President Obama had not yet signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. Standing is measured, however, at the time of filing. See, e.g., Johnson v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Ga., 263 F.3d 1234, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001). As the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not signed into law until after her amended complaint was filed, at the time of filing Ms. Taitz did not have an injury that was concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, rather than conjectural or hypothetical. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. As such she does not have standing to pursue her claims that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and they will be dismissed.
Even if Ms. Taitz could establish standing on this point, she has still failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as she has done nothing more than provide “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Her failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted would prevent her from proceeding here had she established standing.
II. Motion to Intervene
Christopher Strunk has filed a motion to intervene in this suit, which is opposed by the government. The government’s opposition was filed out of time and the government has asked for leave to file their opposition, which the prospective intervenor has not objected to. Counsel for the government has met the standard for excusable neglect and the filing shall be permitted. See Wilson v. Feldman, 1991 WL 197025, at *1 (D.D.C. Sep. 18, 1991) (Lamberth, J.).
In order to intervene, the prospective intervenor must establish that he too has standing. Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 523 F. Supp. 2d 5, 9 (D.D.C. 2007) (Lamberth, J.). All of the reasons that preclude the plaintiff in this case from bringing a quo warranto action against the President, similarly apply to the intervenor. As such the motion to intervene shall be denied.
1. Motion to Consolidate
28 U.S.C. § 1407 requires that any motion to consolidate must be filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Section 1407 also states that “[s]uch transfers shall be made by the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation. . . .” Given that this decision is committed to the panel, rather than this Court, the Court is bound to deny the motion without prejudice as it lacks the jurisdiction to consider it. Accordingly, the motion will be denied.
1. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth in this opinion the government’s motion to dismiss shall be granted, the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied as moot, Christopher Strunk’s motion to intervene shall be denied, and the plaintiffs motion to consolidate is denied for want of jurisdiction.
A separate order shall issue today.
April 14, 2010.
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH Chief Judge
United States District Court
Good job Mr. Treacy u pronounced it dead at seben twenty six. Seben teen minutes for resucitation and I quess the official time of death will be marked at seben forty tree. Dats a wrap folks, pull da sheet up and contact da nexta kin.
Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself
Newman: “While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.”
Newman: “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”
Newman: “Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.”
Judge Lamberth relies on an extremely narrow interpretation of the Court’s holding in Newman. SCOTUS did not limit quo warranto to only those who had a claim to the office itself. The holding in Newman clearly recognizes that a person could have an interest in the office without having a claim to the that office. However, when it comes to Orly Taitz, the decision of Judge Lamberth is correct. She has no direct interest in the office that could be considered anything more than that of the average taxpayer or citizen.
I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure a quo warranto was not one of Mr Treacy’s choices for the ability to remove sitting president.
The first provides that the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney may institute such an action on their own motion or on the relation of a third person. D.C. CODE § 16-3502. If the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney does so on the relation of a third person, they must first seek leave of court. Id. The Code also provides that if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney “refuse 0 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.” Id. § 16-3503.
The court did not say that quo warranto could not be served on the President.
Am I wrong in that assumption Mr. Treacy
Marcus: “Judge Lamberth relies on an extremely narrow interpretation of the Court’s holding in Newman. SCOTUS did not limit quo warranto to only those who had a claim to the office itself. The holding in Newman clearly recognizes that a person could have an interest in the office without having a claim to the that office.”
I took a look at this issue last year:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-95497
Here is what the Court said , quoting:
7. Considering the ancient policy of the law and the restrictions imposed by the language of the Code, it is evident that, in passing this statute, Congress used the words “third person” in the sense of “any person,” and the phrase “person interested” in the sense in which it so often occurs in the law, prohibiting a judge from presiding in a case in which he is interested; preventing a juror from sitting in a case in which he is interested, and permitting interested persons to institute quo warranto proceedings. In the illustrations suggested, the interest which a judge had as a member of the public would not disqualify him from sitting in a case of great public importance and in which the community at large was concerned. The interest which disqualifies a juror from serving, as well as the interest which would authorize this plaintiff to sue, must be some personal and direct interest in the subject of the litigation. The same definition has often been given in quo warranto cases. The interest which will justify such a proceeding by a private individual must be more than that of another taxpayer. It must be “an interest in the office itself, and must be peculiar to the applicant.” Demarest v. Wickham, 63 N.Y. 320; Commonwealth ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Cluley, 56 Pa.St. 270; State v. Taylor, 208 Mo. 442; Robinson v. Jones, 14 Fla. 256; In re Stein, 13 Neb. 529; State ex Rel. Depue v. Matthews, 44 W.Va. 372, 384; Com. ex Rel. Butterfield v. McCarter, 98 Pa.St. 607; State v. Boal, 46 Mo. 528; Brown v. Alderman, 82 Vt. 529; Mills v. State, 2 Wash. 572; Antrim v. Reardon, 161 Ind. 250; Harrison v. Greaves, 58 Miss. 455; Andrews v. State, 69 Miss. 740(3), 746; Tontray v. Budge, 14 Idaho, 639; Hudson v. Conklin, 77 Kan. 764; Vrooman v. Michie, 69 Mich. 47; Dakota v. Hauxhurst, 3 Dak. 205.
The language of the Code, supported by the history and policy of the law, sustains the proposition that one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.
For if the allegations in such a suit by a private citizen set out any cause of action at all, it shows on its face that it was a cause of action belonging to the whole body of the public, and which therefore should be prosecuted by the public representative. [end quote]
238 U. S. at 550-551
So “one who has no interest except that which is common to every other member of the public is not entitled to use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.” I just do not see where this “clearly recognizes that a person could have an interest in the office without having a claim to the that office.”
American Thinker dot com refuses to post any comments contrary to its birther positions. They would not even let a right winger post, and instead they banned him too.
I challenged the birther, Ed Noonan, to get them to post my views, but they banned him. He emailed them in protest.
AmericanThinker censors its comments. It will not let its birthers hear any contrary view. They are afraid of the truth, and want to keep it from Lakin himself.
HERE IS ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM ED TO AMERICAN THINKER
QUOTE
One of the obamabots on NATIVE AND NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP EXPLORED blog complained he was ‘censored’ on the AMERICAN THINKER. As a well-known ‘birther’ I had complained that NNBCE had censored me (and heaped their normal ridicule on me as a birther.)
He challenged me to attempt to put his rambling COMMENT on the American Thinker…So I thought I’d see if you would post my post so that I can say you gave him his say. We need to merely give him his link to his pro-soetoro (aka) NNBCE site:
http://www.nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/from-vince-treacy-lakin/
I do not agree with his legally-challenged claim that a BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the same thing as a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH. If Mr. Treacy thinks so, he must be a questionable attorney there in D.C./MD? I asked him if he was the same Vince Treacy that I had GOOGLED… he did not deny it.
Attorney Treacy (?) does not believe I can get his COMMENT to be posted on American Thinker.
So I ask the readers of AMERICAN THINKER. Is Treacy correct and Dr. Lakin is wrong saying the bogus ‘birth certificate’ Mr. Soetoro (aka) has presented to the world as his TICKET TO THE WHITE HOUSE should NOT be accepted? Or should we accept Treacy’s claim that this bogus, concealed, hidden, and printed fraud called Mr. Soetoro’s Certificate of Live Birth is the true document of record?
He (and his co-conspirators at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com wants a debate — LET’S GIVE IT TO THEM!
Thank you in advance,
Edward C. Noonan
Chairman – Yuba County American Independent Party
UNQUOTE
THAT WAS HIS FIRST MESSAGE. HERE IS THE SECOND:
QUOTE
From: Edward C. Noonan
To: editor American Thinker
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 8:33 AM
Subject: Why have we been banned?
I was going to submit this COMMENT but I discovered I was BANNED TOO! I got the message:
The (user)name “ednoonan” has been banned from use. Please use a different name or contact the forum administrators
END QUOTE
There has not been a peep from Ed since then.
Vince,
Mr. Noonan deserves praise for his intellectual honesty in taking up your challenge to try and prove you wrong. He seems to have been under the impression (easy to get on birther sites) that the people who agreed with him had as much integrity as he did. Learning differently must have been a very nasty shock for him and I am interested in how he reacts to it. I suggest that you invite him here (where his speech will never be censored and his integrity will be appreciated – if you give me a link to a thread on a non-censored site that he’s posted on I’d be happy to do it myself). I would be interested to know if he continues commenting on websites on the eligibility issue (pro or con) or if he just drops it altogether.
Mr. Treacy even though you are now recognized as spreading misinformation
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-127161
and out of your respect for your legal analysis of this debate. I have decided to send an e-mail to the editor at American Thinker.
If you give me your mailing address I will forward it to you if or when they respond
Dr. Slarti how bout this Icelandic volcano. After the brutal record winter Europe had in re to transportation, this is killing their economy. Kinda makes you wonder Earthquakes, Volcanoes Meteors lighting up the sky. 2012 will be here sooner than you know it.
Bdaman,
When you retract a statement that you can’t verify or is incorrect when it is brought to your attention, that’s intellectual honesty not spreading misinformation. Bob, Esq. tried to do the same thing to me on the 9/11 thread that you are trying to do to Vince here and it’s no more valid. If you had evidence of any sort that Vince knew the statement he had made was incorrect you would have a point (and not a very big one, either), but I don’t believe that you do. And don’t be afraid of the Mayan odometer rollover – all of the world’s computers are Mayan Y2K compliant.
No Dr. Slarti, Mr Treacy knows what he’s doin.
Guess you would of had to been there. Thats why he responded to me this way.
“If badman sends his name and address, he will be answered by return mail”
And let us not forget when he said I claimed Obama Traveled under a foreign passport in which you responded and which I am thankful.
Vince,
Bdaman only said that Pakistan was in great turmoil when President Obama visit (and that his first mention of the trip was two weeks after the passport breach). This time anyway. There was certainly an implication of shady behavior (and murder) but nothing overt (again, this time).
So you see Dr. Slarti we are starting to see a few cracks in the wall. You know about cracks in walls don’t you? You can rub compound on it, sand it and paint it, but underneath it all the crack is still there.
No Bdaman, you are seeing the understandable exasperation of someone who has been fighting an asymmetric battle against all comers for longer that I’ve been posting here. From my experiences on the 9/11 thread, I know how it works – Bob posted two videos and a couple of lines of text this morning and I’ve probably spent about 2 hours doing research (including finding at least a dozen websites, watching the videos and talking to a commercial pilot) in order to debunk him and I haven’t finished my post yet. How much time does it take you to cut and paste something, add a few sentences and post it? Less than a minute? How long do you think that it takes Vince to find the necessary citations to debunk you? When faced with something that wasn’t a question of law, he saw a way to respond quickly and took it. When the validity of the source was questioned did he try to defend it in any way? No, his response was ‘then I can’t use it’. This is a degree of integrity that you should aspire to, not denigrate.
And remember that you’re hurling stones by the bucketful from your glass house…
Ok Dr. Slarti
Just post the response here.
He may have never told a lie, but George Washington apparently had no problem stiffing a Manhattan library on two books.
Two centuries ago, the nation’s first President borrowed two tomes from the New York Society Library on E. 79th St. and never returned them, racking up an inflation-adjusted $300,000 late fee.
But Washington can rest easy.
“We’re not actively pursuing the overdue fines,” quipped head librarian Mark Bartlett. “But we would be very happy if we were able to get the books back.”
Washington’s dastardly deed went unknown for almost 150 years.
Then in 1934, a dusty, beaten-up ledger was discovered in a trash heap in the library’s basement.
On its tan pages were the names of all of the people who had borrowed books from the city’s oldest library between July 1789 and April 1792.
At the time, the city was the nation’s capital and the library – then located at Wall and Broad Sts. – was the only one in town.
Aaron Burr, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay all borrowed books, the ledger shows.
They returned them, too.
The library’s boldest bold-faced name wasn’t as cooperative.
On Oct. 5, 1789, Washington borrowed the “Law of Nations,” a treatise on international relations, and Vol. 12 of the “Commons Debates,” which contained transcripts of debates from Britain’s House of Commons.
Beside the names of the books, the librarian wrote on the ledger only, “President.”
The entry, written with a quill pen, contains no return date.
The books were due by Nov. 2, 1789, and have been accruing a fine of a few pennies per day ever since.
This week, Bartlett and his staff became even more convinced the books were filched when librarian Matthew Haugen stumbled upon the long lost 14-volume collection of the “Commons Debates.”
Sure enough, Vol. 12 was missing.
“It’s hard to know what could have happened,” Bartlett said. “There are as many questions for us as there are answers.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/04/17/2010-04-17_read_it__weep_by_george_prez_racks_up_300g_late_fee_for_two_books.html#ixzz0lSIeqLkW
As I said earlier, there was a soccer game in my neighborhood:
QUOTE
The guy in the windbreaker
By Tom Satterwhite
Washington
The other day, while I was waiting for the light to change at Chesapeake Street and Nebraska Avenue NW, I saw about eight big black sport-utility vehicles approaching.
My first thought was, “This looks like fairly heavy artillery, but it can’t be Him … where are all the motorcycles, the press and the 10,000 police that always seem to trail behind?” The lead car turned onto the street ahead of me and started up the hill toward the Fort Reno Park athletic fields.
Nobody got out to redirect traffic, and I followed the procession up the hill. Then the caravan stopped, and while I watched, a guy in a black windbreaker and a few agents got out and started walking up a hill on the right toward a small crowd of people milling around for no apparent reason. I thought, “This is too much. What is going on?” So I parked in an illegal spot, got out and walked over to the field where an agent inquired, “Can I help you?”
“Are we allowed to go on the field?” I asked. She smiled and said, “Of course. It’s public property. See the agent over there.” Another agent, who seemed to be about 10 feet tall, came over, scanned me with a wand, and said, “Thank you. Go ahead.” When I got to the top of the hill, I realized some girls were playing soccer, and the guy with the black windbreaker, who was now pretty close, looked me in the eye for a second. Still mystified, I turned and asked one of the coaches, “The president is here because … ?”
“His daughter is on my team.”
By washingtonpost.com editors | April 14, 2010; 9:49 AM ET
UNQUOTE
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/04/the_guy_in_the_windbreaker.html
This is what it looks like when Obama watches his daughters play soccer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/16/obama-soccer-photos-sasha_n_204278.html
Realizing he ditched the press pool on the day in question, I guess not a single person Tweeted or snapped a personal photo of “the guy with the black windbreaker, who was now pretty close”
Of course It’s my understanding that the SS warned patrons that their camera’s and cell phones would be confiscated at a recent event attended by the First lady and her daughters. More recently after his opening remarks at the nuke summit the president dismissed the press before allowing the conference to continue. Maybe they just don’t like their pics being taken or any press reports anymore.
Search: Obama at soccer game Or Tweets Obama at soccer game.
Speaking of the press.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met with a delegation from the White House press corps for 75 minutes on Thursday in an effort to improve frayed relations between the two sides.
Ed Chen, a White House correspondent for Bloomberg News who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, said he asked for the meeting “to clear the air because in my 10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35944.html#ixzz0lSpR1TsW
Reporters and photographers didn’t have a chance to see him or his vehicle to verify his presence at any location.
The president left the White House at approximately 9:20 to attend one of his daughter’s soccer games at 40th and Chesapeake NW. A pool was hastily called at around 9:35 and drove north at 9:43 to catch the president before the game ended. We didn’t make it. The President returned to the White House at 10:17. The pool returned at 10:30.
Left at 9:20 returned at 10:17 thats 57 minutes. Travel time to and from the new location that is being reported ? 5 -10 minutes one way, equals 10- 20 minutes,round trip. Reportedly there were eight big black sport-utility vehicles. Did they park and get out to make sure the area was secure before the president got out of the vehicle. Who knows. We do know the president said he caused quite a stir because his secretary failed to notify the Secret Service.
Bdaman,
If it wasn’t for the decline of journalistic standards and integrity over the years, I might feel more sympathy for the White House press corps but as it is, I think that they’re lucky that Gibbs is willing to listen to their bitching and that President Obama doesn’t ditch them for EVERY event he attends in his capacity as father.
Not only is a matter of public interest, it is a matter of national security. Period, end of story. The press always reads.
“The president today…….”
and the ironic
“If it wasn’t for the decline of journalistic standards and integrity over the years.”
but yet we depend on the journalist and the “Free Press” to vet the candidates that may become the future presidents of America.
Much can be said of the journalist that cover other subjects such as Global Warming.
Left at 9:20 returned at 10:17 thats 57 minutes these are the facts. If you subtract 20 minutes for travel and initial surveillance upon arrival at the scene, that leaves 37 minutes.
37 minutes, in 37 minutes, photos had to be taken by phone or otherwise. What do we have? we have two blogs and a story piece of the guy with a black windbreaker that say he was there.
You know what they say, sometimes seeing is believing.
Let’s read it again, real slowly, all together, now.
Tom Satterwhite, a blogger for the Washington Post, was the guy “who was there.” In other words, he was an eyewitness giving us first hand information.
Tom SAW “the guy with the black windbreaker, who was now pretty close, [who] looked me in the eye for a second.”
Recognizing Obama, Tom “turned and asked one of the coaches, ‘The president is here because …’?
Coach said “His daughter is on my team.”
We do not have a “story piece of the guy with a black windbreaker that say he was there.”
The guy with the windbreaker was the President, not the reporter. Okay?
We have story by a guy who was there who saw the President watch his daughter.
And what is the stuff that “his secretary failed to notify the Secret Service”?
Tom wrote that one agent allowed him to go on the field and another agent scanned him with a wand. The Secret Service must have got the word somehow.
Sheesh!
No, his response was ‘then I can’t use it’. This is a degree of integrity that you should aspire to, not denigrate.
Lets take a look at this for a moment Dr. Slarti,
Mr. Treacy went to snopes dot com. Below is his original comment.
Quote on:
Prima facie. It is right on the document itself, and can be read on the face of the COLB, in the bottom margin, together with cites to the statutes of Hawaii.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
It was not a nonhospital birth. It was not a home birth. All that stuff is irrelevant.
Mrs. Nordyke said she was in the hospital in labor with Ann Dunham. In Kapiolani Maternal Hospital.
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
Source:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Castles in the air.
Quote off:
Now read this again
Mrs. Nordyke said she was in the hospital in labor with Ann Dunham. In Kapiolani Maternal Hospital.
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
First off the link given to snopes makes no mention what so ever about the Noryke twins. Then he takes the ” He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West” and inserts it. The only sentence from the entire article posted at snopes. He went to snopes to copy than one sentence.
EVERYBODY knows what Obama’s COLB presented has on it.
This is what the birthers are saying. The original includes hospital and name of physician. Mr. Treacy knows this. We have had this discussion before. The common response is, it’s none of your business what else is on his birth certificate.
When I asked Mr. Treacy
Quote On:
Mr. Treacy are you to willing to state that yesterday was the first that you had heard of Dr. West by confirming that you “Cant use it, so I won’t”
Quote off:
Instead of just saying yes that was the first time I heard that. He gave a, I just got busted response.
Quote:
If badman sends his name and address, he will be answered by return mail.
Quote off:
He needs my address to answer a simple yes or no question.
Come on Dr. Slarti. Vince Treacy is an active lawyer. It was extremely unethical what he did and he knows it.
Address is in the book; send a self-addressed stamped envelope with real name on it, and the question will be answered by return mail.
Tom Satterwhite, a blogger for the Washington Post, was the guy “who was there.”
Is he a blogger for the Washington Post? What other articles has he posted. How long has he blogged for the post. Do a little research for me and show me how you arrived at that he blogs for the post.
The article is posted under the header All Opinions Are Local a forum on hot topics in DC Maryland and Virginia. Please find me more articles Tom Satterwhite wrote as a blogger ANYWHERE.
Bdaman,
To paraphrase General Anthony McAuliffe, commander of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne:
BUNK!
Actually, 5:47 pm was my final offer. Take it or leave it. I am dropping this anonymous troll discussion as of now.
Nuts.
In the words of Mr. Tracy BOHICA
Dr. Slarti I’m sorry, I really am. When you and Mr. Treacy a few weeks ago were discussing basketball and he described watching those classic basketball games in the garden I was like wow.
I then said to my self, you know what, this guy deserves some respect. I got the calculator out and started doin some addition based on other things that Mr. Treacy has said and from that point forward I addressed him as Mr. Treacy. I will continue to do so but all that wow I was talking about is gone.
Illinois Mayor Expresses Doubts About Obama’s Citizenship
http://www.breitbart.tv/illinois-mayor-expresses-doubts-about-obamas-citizenship
Bdaman,
Nice job taking a quote out of context to smear Justice Thomas as being a birther. Yet another example of your intellectual honesty and integrity.
For those of you who don’t care to watch all of the inane video that Bdaman posts, Justice Thomas (in context) said that they (he and rep. Serrano) were evading the question of representative Jose Serrano’s (D-NY) eligibility to be president. He was pretty clearly making a crack at the birther’s expense in a collegial exchange with a member of the US House of Representatives.
He was pretty clearly making a crack at the birther’s expense in a collegial exchange with a member of the US House of Representatives.
He was pretty clearly making a crack at the birther’s expense
Dr. Slarti. Justice Thomas MAY have been as you claim but you certainly have no right to claim to know what he was thinking.
He after all was a yea vote to schedule, I believe, the first conference of all the justices on the eligibility issue. Don’t forget his wife is a Tea Partier.
You don’t think for the man so you can’t speak for the man.
Bdaman,
I’m careful about what I say on this blog, and I don’t think that I did what you are accusing me of. I said that he was ‘pretty clearly’ making a crack at the birther’s expense. This was clear to me from the context and tone of the clip. I didn’t assert to know the man’s thoughts or mind, I just interpreted what he said. If you would like to argue that I am incorrect, please make a transcript of the clip (it’s only a little over a minute, so that shouldn’t be much trouble) and post it so that everyone can decide for themselves what he meant. Incidentally, you are committing the offense that you accuse me of when you imply that Justice Thomas was a birther because you think he voted yea in conference* (results of conference votes are not publicly disclosed – Vince, please correct me if I’m wrong here) and his wife is a Tea Party member (presumably you meant us to infer that this means she is a birther, too).
*If I recall correctly, Justice Thomas was the one who referred one of the early birther cases to conference – all we know about the vote in conference is that at least 6 justices voted against or it would have gotten cert and been heard by the SCOTUS. (Again, please correct me if I’m wrong, Vince.)
Dr. Slarti thats fine, no problem, but until someone specifically ask Justice Thomas what he meant it is all speculation. Was it a joke? I don’t know. What I do know is what he said. Laughter has two sides.
Bdaman,
Speech is communication – what is important is not what he meant, but what people took him to mean. My comment was about what I took him to mean (and what I thought he clearly meant). It sure looked to me like he was laughing WITH rep. Serrano, not AT him…
Took me a minute but here it is
Transcript begins at the 48 second mark of video.
Serrano: I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that there has to be a judge on the Court because I am not a judge. I have never been a judge.
Justice Thomas: And you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you never have to ask, answer that question.
Serrano: Oh, really?
Justice Thomas: Yeah
Serrano: So, you haven’t answered the one whether I can serve as President but you answered this one.
Justice Thomas: We’re evading that one. We are giving you another option.
Serrano: Thanks alot.
Justice Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Serrano: Mrs. Emerson.
Dr. Slarti I’m not here to argue with you. Your impressions are worthy. If that is the way you took it there will probably be many more that will feel the same way you do. Others may not. Again, if and when the day someone ask Justice Thomas what was he thinking during that exchange, specifically, were you making a joke when you spoke with Serrano, we will never know.
Bdaman,
Thank you for posting the transcript.
You said: “Dr. Slarti I’m not here to argue with you.”
That’s part of your problem. This is a forum for debate and you refuse to engage in it. You seem (notice the qualifier) to just want to stir the pot and see what happens. Try to actually argue rationally for your position based on the facts and you may get your ass kicked, but you will gain respect here (from me at the very least).
Who wants to argue with people you like
to just want to stir the pot and see what happens
Sorry Dr. Slarti I do it in my personal life too. My neighbors who just moved are from Baton Rouge so he has a big gumbo pot and a paddle. There were times where he got the paddle out and made the stirring motion because of something I said. The words would follow, “There you go again stirrin the pot again” all the while everyone is cracking up over what I said.
Bdaman said:
“Who wants to argue with people you like
”
I do (although I would replace the word ‘argue’ with the term ‘debate’.
Bdaman,
There’s nothing wrong with stirring the pot from time to time, but you should contribute to it as well…
I like debate to but when you start the debate off this way,
Bdaman,
Nice job taking a quote out of context to smear Justice Thomas as being a birther. Yet another example of your intellectual honesty and integrity.
It typically turns into an argument.
See where you get me going
Bdaman,
The best way to refute such a statement is to prove me wrong by your actions. You will find me quite willing to admit that I was wrong or acknowledge you have changed in that case. We can’t effect the past, just the future.
There is a discussion of birther Tom Tancredo at Dave’s blog at the Washington Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/tancredo_send_obama_back_to_ke.html
Slarti asked “Incidentally, you are committing the offense that you accuse me of when you imply that Justice Thomas was a birther because you think he voted yea in conference* (results of conference votes are not publicly disclosed – Vince, please correct me if I’m wrong here).”
Slarti, you are correct. On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court denied an application for stay in Leo Donofrio’s case. The Court NEVER reveals the votes of the Justices on decisions like this. Thomas had submitted Donofrio’s appeal to the entire Court for consideration of whether to hear it or not. There is no way to know how Thomas voted, only speculation.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/#comment-30528
H.J.Res.5 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Introduced by none other,
Representative José Serrano D-NY
Endless terms for Obama?
Y. introduced HJ Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, paving the way …
Source: Press & Sun-Bulletin
What is a “Birther”? | The Post & Email
H. J. Res. 5. Sponsor: Rep. Serrano Introduced: January 6, 2009. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an …
Source: The Post & Email
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show
In this thread alone, here are the statements of Vince Treacy (a lawyer practicing in the District of Columbia) that have been presented as fact. If these were facts, Vince Treacy would have supported them with references. Conclusion: Vince Treacy cannot distinguish fact from personal belief.
Vince Treacy 1, October 14, 2009 at 10:21 am
1. “Obama was born at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu”
Obama says he was born there, but no documentation has been produced to verify that claim. Vince Treacy and his ilk may believe Obama, but it cannot be accepted as fact.
2. “The hospital furnished the information that is now in official Hawaiian birth records.”
Vince Treacy has no information to support this claim. Vince does not know who furnished the birth report information to the State of Hawaii.
Vince Treacy 1, October 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm
3. “WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.”
Vince Treacy responded “Another lie. I tracked this down when bdaman posted it. I found the original source in and article in “Rainbow Newsletter” by a high school reporter. Maya NEVER stated that Obama was born at Queens in the article. The high school kid said that. All the other sources just parroted that false statement.
BOTH medical centers in Honolulu are named for queens. The Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu was named for Queen Kapi’olani. They are often confused by strangers. The Obamas have consistently stated that he was born in Kapi’olani.”
If Vince Treacy would have really “tracked it down”, he would have discovered that it is called “The Rainbow Edition”. It is a newsletter put out by the Lab School (a charter school in Hawaii). The author of the story was not some “stranger”, as Vince Treacy would have you believe. There is no reason to believe that the author was confused. I live in a city, like many other U.S. cities, where we have a number of hospitals that are named after saints. Most people don’t get them confused because they are named after saints, and there is no reason to believe that hospitals named after queens would be any different. Furthermore, Vince Treacy has no way of knowing what Maya did or did not say during the interview.
Over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site, Vince Treacy said “The so-called Rainbow Newsletter is nowhere to be found.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/where-obama-was-born/#comment-13203
Vince Treacy must have decided that looking for the document at its source was too hard. Here it is for the readers; http://www.hawaii.edu/labschool/re040523.pdf
In his comment at Dr. Conspiracy, Vince Treacy calls the birthers “gullible”. He did that just after citing a letter written by Barack Obama as being his “proof” that Obama was born at Kapiolani. Now who’s gullible, Mr. Treacy?
Vince Treacy 1, October 30, 2009 at 5:54 am
4. “At one point I posted an account of a suggestion in Congress in the 1880s to pass a law to allow quo warranto proceedings in contested presidential elections. It was never adopted.”
Vince Treacy must not be very good at performing legal research. In 1878 Congress passed a law that permitted quo warranto.
“The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C.Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia.” -U.S. v First Federal Savings and Loan http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/248/248.F2d.804.12031_1.html
5. Vince Treacy goes on to say “There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed.”
Mr. Treacy must not be familiar with the discussion of the 1877 Electoral Commission.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DBJCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA192&dq=1877+%2Belectoral+commission+%2Bquo+warranto&cd=1#v=onepage&q=1877%20%2Belectoral%20commission%20%2Bquo%20warranto&f=false
I tell you what, if ever one was to face Mr. Treacy in court, I think the judge would hear, I Object Your Honor, a whole lot.
Nice work Integrity and welcome to the blog. Your research is outstanding.
Another anonymous poster. I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani, and a newspaper in Hawaii has described how the hospitals furnished the information.
I have linked the Rainbow over and over, including above on this thread. Scroll up. In the article, the reporter, not Maya, described Queens hospital. Integrity does not appear to live in Honolulu, but richCares at Dr. Conspiracy does live there and is my source for the statement about the confusion.
I have stated over and over that the federal quo warranto statute, now codified in the DC Code, cannot be constitutionally applied to the President (or the VP, Members of Congress, or federal judges or Justices) because their removal is specified by the Congress.
The QW must be construed to be consistent with the powers of Congress. Congress may be able to enact such a law for federal appointed officers (although I don’t think any have ever been removed under it). But it cannot bypass the Impeachment clauses by a mere statute. That is my considered legal opinion, and I stand by it.
Congress never used a
Another anonymous poster.
I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani, including his letter to the hospital in 2009. A newspaper in Hawaii has described how the hospitals furnished the information.
I have linked the Rainbow over and over, including above on this thread. I did find it after a long search, and posted it on another thread, actually in response to bdaman. Scroll up. I posted it here again.
In the article, the reporter, not Maya, described Queens hospital. Maya was not quoted on that topic. Integrity does not appear to live in Honolulu, but richCares at Dr. Conspiracy does live there and he is my source for the statement about the confusion.
I have stated over and over that the federal quo warranto statute, now codified in the DC Code, cannot be constitutionally applied to the President (or the VP, Members of Congress, or federal judges or Justices). I maintain that the Constitution specifies the exclusive procedures for their removal, and that Congress cannot evade those processes by mere statute.
The QW must be construed to be consistent with the powers of Congress. Congress may be able to enact such a law for federal appointed officers (although I don’t think any have ever been removed under it). But it cannot bypass the Impeachment clauses by a mere statute. That is my considered legal opinion, and I stand by it.
Congress never used a quo warranto in 1877, since it was not enacted until 1788, and any discussion in 1877 of the writ seems to have been for purposes of comparison. Integrity has not provided any quotations, so it is hard to judge. Even if the Congress intended to extend the writ to the presidency, it has never had constitutional authority to do so, and it has never been done.
Doubt me?
Scroll up and read the opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth in Taitz v. Obama, reprinted above, Mr./ Mrs. /Ms. Integrity.
Quo warranto claim dismissed.
That is spelled dismissed.
But richCares at Dr. Conspiracy does live there and is my source for the statement about the confusion.
Last I heard Richcares lives in Oregon. He used to live in Hawaii, still has connections there and has a brother buried in Punchbowl.
That Richcares?
Hi, Vince. I see that you’re at your post again. I also see that the latest anonymous birther has adopted the self-important tag “Integrity,” likely in the hopes that it would lend credibility to the same delusional arguments that were destroyed 1,230 posts ago.
Integrity, are you a licensed attorney? If so, show some ‘integrity’ and post using your real name as Mr. Treacy does since you are both presenting legal arguments and you are questioning his “legal research” abilities.
If you are not a lawyer, please leave the legal criticism to real lawyers.
Hi Mike
Mr. Treacy in your defense
I did find it after a long search, and posted it on another thread, actually in response to bdaman. Scroll up. I posted it here again.
I can say that I am one who does not need to scroll up on this issue.
and I’ll take a demerit on this
voted yea in conference* (results of conference votes are not publicly disclosed
Per Vince Treacy “I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani”.
Lay it on us, dude! Show us your “reasonable evidence”. Give us one piece of verifiable evidence that shows Kapiolani to be the birth hospital of Barack Obama.
You response will tell the readers a lot about what you consider to be reasonable evidence.
richCares at Dr. Conspiracy
He complains about anonymous posters but accepts what an anonymous poster says.
is my source for the statement about the confusion.
Sorry Mr. Treacy your gonna have to do a little better than that.
I can tell you one thing for sure about your source.
Richcares lives in Oregon. He used to live in Hawaii, still has connections there and has a brother buried in Punchbowl.
And don’t think I forgot about this one.
Tom Satterwhite, a blogger for the Washington Post, was the guy “who was there.” In other words, he was an eyewitness giving us first hand information.
I’m still waiting for you to produce other articles written by Tom Satterwhite who is, according to you, a blogger for the Washington Post.
BD is still bent out of shape about calling a guy a blogger. Well, everybody, maybe bdaman should take this up with the editors of the Washington Post, since they are the ones who posted the piece on a page labeled as a “blog”:
“1. Blog | 04/14/2010
“All Opinions Are Local: The guy in the windbreaker
“washingtonpost.com editors (washingtonpost.com)”
Link to Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/NewsSearch?st=tom%20satterwhite&
And this page:
“Search This Blog
“Recent Posts
“ * Unbuilding the Mall?
“ * The guy in the windbreaker”
Link to source:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/04/the_guy_in_the_windbreaker.html
So it was the Post editors who posted Tom’s piece in a blog. His argument is with them, not with me. I just called a guy who posted something in a Post blog a blogger because the Post put his piece on a page labeled a blog. Stop bothering everyone with this trivial irrelevant sh*t..
So much nonsense, so little time.
Hey, Integrity, when does your integrity finally make you admit that I had already linked to Rainbow, as bdaman has just told us, contrary to your assertion. Show a little integrity yourself. No more answers for you until then. Goodnight.
Hey, Vince Treacy, why don’t you call it The Rainbow Edition? Why don’t you show us where you “linked to Rainbow”? What do you consider to be “linked”?
You’re avoiding the question, Vince. What’s the matter? Have you been caught making statements that you can’t support?
Per Vince Treacy “I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani”.
Lay it on us, dude! Show us your “reasonable evidence”. Give us one piece of verifiable evidence that shows Kapiolani to be the birth hospital of Barack Obama.
You response will tell the readers a lot about what you consider to be reasonable evidence.
Integrity, I could be wrong, and I can’t recall the specifics but I’m pretty sure Mr. Treacy cleared that one up. Like I said I could be wrong. As many times I’ve been told I was, chances are pretty good
Mr Treacy I’m not bent out of shape. I just think there’s a little bit more goin on behind the scenes for you. Like I said, everything is gonna be just fine, I know so, the oracle told me.
PHOENIX — The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for reelection.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona “the laughing stock of the nation.”
Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama’s citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.
http://www.kpho.com/news/23202195/detail.html
Vince Treacy must be exercising his right to remain silent. Readers should accept his silence as representative of inadequate evidence to support his previous position. He has no “reasonable evidence” to support Obama’s birth at Kapiolani. He, like the rest of us, has only the word of Barack Obama.
Let us continue.
Vince Treacy 1, October 30, 2009 at 5:54 am
“There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed.”
Vince Treacy should be knowledgeable enough with regards to the common law to understand a judgment of ouster resulting from quo warranto action. To claim that “a suggestion of such an action” is something that “has never been” is the result of historical ignorance.
Representative Fields addressing the 1887 Electoral Commission:
“Let me ask, in the first place, upon what foundation that doctrine rests? “Who tells you that you are to take that certificate as conclusive evidence against anything that can be proved on the other side? By what rule of evidence, by what precept of law, are you deprived of the right to investigate the truth? Is it not a universal rule that every judge is invested ex necessitate with the power to take into consideration all pertinent evidence in respect to the facts upon which his judgment is to be pronounced, unless there is some positive law declaring that certain certificates or other documentary evidence shall be conclusive? I venture to say that that is the universal rule, and that there is no court of general jurisdiction known to American or Anglo-Saxon law in which it is not a fundamental principle that whenever a court can inquire into facts necessary to its judgment, it may take all the pertinent evidence—that is to say, all evidence that tends to prove the fact—unless it is restricted by some positive law. Now, then, show me a positive law that makes the certificate … evidence against the truth? Where is it? In what book? It is not in the Constitution. It is not in the laws of [any state of this union]. Is it in any law of Congress? The only act of Congress applicable is that which provides that the Executive of the State shall deliver to the electors a certificate that they are such electors; but that act does not declare that this certificate shall be conclusive—neither declares it nor implies it. Suppose I offer to prove that the certificate is wholly false—fabricated for the purpose of cheating the State out of its vote, and the other States out of their rights? Take the State, one of the oldest and proudest in this Union of States—the State of Massachusetts, of which my friend Mr. Commissioner Abbott is so worthy a representative—and suppose that the honored Governor of that State were so debased as to certify that the Tilden electors had received the votes of a majority of the good and true voters of Massachusetts: will any man tell me that it must be taken as absolutely true? -That you cannot prove it to be false? Where is the law for that? Nay, more: I venture to affirm that, if an act of Congress had declared that that certificate should be conclusive, the act would have been unconstitutional. For what reason? For this reason: The Constitution, as if the foresight of the fathers grasped the conflicts of future years, declares that the person having the highest number of votes shall be the President. Not the person declared to have the highest number of votes, but ‘the person having the highest number.’ No certificate can be manufactured to take that away. If you had declared by act of Congress, in the most express and positive terms, that the certificate of the Governor delivered to the electors should be conclusive against all proof, you would have transcended the limits of the organic law. You cannot say that the certificate of the Governor of Massachusetts shall override the votes of the electors of Massachusetts in their choice of President. Therefore it is I say not only that you have not done it, but you could not do it. You could not do it if you would, as I am sure you would not if you could.
“Is not your right to inquire into the very truth implied by the law under which you act? What are you to do? You are to declare whether any and what votes are the votes provided by the Constitution; not to declare what are the votes certified by Governor Stearns. That was known well enough beforehand. You are to certify what are the lawful votes upon which a President of forty-five millions of people is to be inducted into office.
“Is not the same right implied in the notion, which I find to prevail everywhere, that Congress might authorize a writ of quo warranto to try the title of President within the purview of the Constitution? Can that be doubted? The Constitution has declared that the person having the highest number of votes shall be the President; not the one certified. Congress has not as yet invested any tribunal with the power to try the title to the presidency by quo warranto. No such law exists, I am sorry to say. Such a law, if I might be permitted to say so, ought to be made. It is no small reproach to our statesmanship that for a hundred years no law has been provided for this great exigency.
“I have not been able to satisfy myself that there is any provision for a writ of quo warranto in the case of President. But my argument is that, whether there be a law now existing or not, it is competent to Congress to pass such a law; and if a law to provide for a writ of quo warranto would be constitutional, then it is constitutional to impose a like duty on any other tribunal to investigate the title. That is to say, if you could devolve that duty upon any tribunal by means of a writ of quo warranto, you can devolve it by other means. If the Governor’s certificate would not be conclusive there, it is not conclusive here. The right to inquire into the fact exists somewhere; and if nowhere else, it must be here.
“Thus thinking that Congress could devolve upon some tribunal the authority to inquire into the title of the President, and that such authority would necessarily give to the tribunal investigating the right to go into the truth, notwithstanding any certificate to the falsehood, I argue that here before this Electoral Commission, invested with all the functions of the two Houses, you can inquire into the truth, no matter what may have been certified to the contrary.
“Furthermore, I submit to the commission that there is another rule of law which necessarily leads us to answer affirmatively the question whether the truth can be given in evidence notwithstanding the certificate: and that is, that fraud vitiates all transactions…”.
Will Vince Treacy now concede that quo warranto was suggested to test the title of the President and Vice President?
The statement by Fields is very effective in supporting my position. Fields was talking about a proposal that never passed. It is not the law.
I agree with Fields insofar as “Congress has not as yet [1877] invested any tribunal with the power to try the title to the presidency by quo warranto. No such law exists….” I agree with the concession “have not been able to satisfy myself that there is any provision for a writ of quo warranto in the case of President.”
I disagree that it is “it is competent to Congress to pass such a law,” and the Congress at the time agreed with me, since it never passed any such law. No such law has ever passed.
There is no link to the statement, and no identification of the speaker or the body addressed. There was an Electoral Commission in 1877 and an Electoral Count Act in 1887. There is no date for the statement.
It can be found in the “The American annual cyclopedia and register” of important events of 1877, not 1887, Volume 2. So it was made to the Hays-Tilden Commission in the aftemath of the disputed 1866 election.
http://books.google.com/books?id=vaUoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA173&lpg=RA1-PA173&dq=Let+me+ask,+in+the+first+place,+upon+what+foundation+that+doctrine+rests%3F+%E2%80%9CWho+tells+you+that+you+are+to+take+that+certificate+as+conclusive+evidence+against+anything&source=bl&ots=Ma9j51A29O&sig=xemO_OkF7DXg6yI6rOY6V7pl3Sc&hl=en&ei=dXzPS9qvJIWglAeV-oGgCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Let%20me%20ask%2C%20in%20the%20first%20place%2C%20upon%20what%20foundation%20that%20doctrine%20rests%3F%20%E2%80%9CWho%20tells%20you%20that%20you%20are%20to%20take%20that%20certificate%20as%20conclusive%20evidence%20against%20anything&f=false
If the link does not work, google the first two sentences of Field’s speech. Trolls. You gotta proof their postings and do their internet research. On the other hand, this took less than a minute. They ignore page after page of argument, and seize on some scrap torn out of context. How about addressing the substance of the argument?.
So this confirms my argument up through 1877, and supports the position that quo warranto was never authorized by Congress to apply to the President.
Quo Warranto, The Sequel
In 1887, Congress got around to addressing the Hayes-Tilden scrap. One of the things it rejected was the use of quo warranto.
QUOTE
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 ac[c]epted 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
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/ny-times-reporting-on-quo-warranto-and-trying-the-title-of-the-president/
So, once again, the use of quo warranto against the President was considered and rejected.
Trolling the thread, a snippet was plucked from last year,
Yeah, I said it. Vince Treacy, October 30, 2009 at 5:54 am.
HERE is what came before the snippet:
“As the Judge stated, the Constitution defines the processes for the removal of a President. It does not include a role for the courts in that process. The Constitution is explicit. The President can be removed by impeachment, within the “sole” powers of impeachment and removal vested in the House and the Senate. The President may also be removed for incapacity under the 20th Amendment.
“Leo’s theory is inherently incredible. After 69 million people have voted for Obama, Leo [Donofrio] would have a single District Judge in D.C. exercise the power to order a jury trial to remove a President. This, even though the entire House of Representatives (elected by all the people of the nation) and the entire Senate (also elected by all the people under the 12th Amendment) have declined to take action on the unassailable grounds that Obama is fully qualified for the Presidency as a natural born citizen BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
“This is insanity. A quo warranto is an action for ordinary appointed municipal and federal officials who happen to hold office in D.C. to test their entitlement to office.”
THEN I wrote the snippet:
“There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed.”
HERE is the rest of the paragraph.
“Federal Judges hold office on good behavior, and have never been removed except by impeachment. Members of Congress serve fixed terms of office, and may only be removed by expulsion by a 2/3rd vote of their respective Houses. The President and Vice President serve four-year terms. Removal is by impeachment.
“Finally, D.C. may not have a Representative or Senators, but it does have the right to vote for President, and it supported Obama overwhelmingly.
“What are Leo’s chances for a quo warranto and a D.C. jury trial?
“Written prediction ™ ®©:
“Nada. None. Below absolute zero.”
Okay. I think it is clear that I was discussing the statute, and asserting that there had never been an action UNDER THE STATUTE to remove the President or other constitutional officers. I do not think I said that no one had ever suggested enacting such a law. In fact, I had known for some time from the 1882 NY Times article that the suggestion was made in the 1800s. So that is the answer. Read the statement in context and decide for yourselves.
So, no, I do not “concede that quo warranto was suggested to test the title of the President and Vice President?” That is not what I said. In my actual statement, I was talking about the statute, not legislative proposals.
Part deuce: Taking victory lap on the “Written prediction ™ ®©” that a quo warranto had zero chances in D.C. (See decision by Chief Judge Lamberth, supra).
White House slams latest ‘birther’ move
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/21/white-house-slams-latest-birther-move-2/?fbid=LK1dBpTEOJP
In fact, I had known for some time from the 1882 NY Times article that the suggestion was made in the 1800s.
You also knew for quite some time that there was no verifiable proof that Dr. West delivered Obama but you used it anyway. What else have you known for quite some time that you just threw out there.
Bdaman,
If you want to accuse Vince of bad faith, then some proof is in order. If you don’t have any, then maybe you shouldn’t be making the claim.
Personally, I welcome the Arizona legislation and others like it. First, it will assuage the worries of reasonable people when President Obama gets on the Arizona ballot. Secondly it will be really funny to watch the brither’s heads explode when that happens…
Did someone just say “Orly Taitz”?
She just filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision by t Chief Judge, Royce Lamberth, dismissing every single count of her Quo Warranto and other claims.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30565037/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-24-First-MOTION-for-Reconsideration-gov-uscourts-dcd-140567-24-0
This is incredible. She filed originally pro se, so she did not have to be a bar member. Now she added crazy failed presidential candidate Alan Keyes as a plaintiff.
So now she must be a lawyer in the courtroom, not just an ignorant pro se filer. So she asked for admission to the bar, limited to the particular case [pro hac vice]. If the Judge denies it, she will have to get a Member of the DC Bar to join her as counsel, and by so doing risk his or her bar membership, or be subjected to sanctions for frivolous filings, or both. See what happened to that poor shlunk in Hollister v. Soetero.
More fun than a barrel of birfers.
HERE is the text, from NNBCE:
QUOTE ON
MOTION: REQUEST TO FORWARD TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE MULTIPLE ACTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD, PERJURY, IDENTITY THEFT, FRAUD AND OTHER POSSIBLE FELONIES PERPETRATED BY MR. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED AS MATTERS OF LAW AND FACT ARE AT ISSUE
YOUR HONOR,
Plaintiff would like to start this motion for reconsideration with reference to your remark in your latest order regarding Plaintiff’s quixotic quest.
Yes, Taitz would agree that it is extremely difficult to be a person, an attorney, who brings forward evidence, showing that the sitting president of the United States is committing multiple felonies and needs to be criminally prosecuted, however if Your Honor will be so kind to review some historic events, Your Honor will see that some events considered quixotic at a time, were correct, just and successful in the long run.
When Susan B. Anthony undertook a cause of voting rights for women, many laughed and considered her quest to be quixotic, yet she succeeded and we see today a first female Speaker of the House, female Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and female senators and congresswomen as a direct result of her quixotic quest.
When a young woman by name Golda Meir set on her quest to build a Jewish state after six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, many considered her actions quixotic, yet she succeeded and became the mother of the state of Israel.
When Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan set on the quest to defeat the Communist Soviet Union, many considered them as Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet they succeeded, and the iron curtain was lifted, the Berlin Wall fell and free people marched through the Brandenburg gate.
Today it might seem an impossible quest, but Taitz is fighting to make sure that the Constitution of the United States of America does not turn into a Dulcinea, who is never rescued by her Prince in Shining Armor.
Plaintiff wants to make sure, that she, as well as three hundred and five million American citizens are not treated as brain-dead robots, as a herd of sheep by Barack Hussein Obama who went through life with multiple Social Security numbers, who is sitting in the White House today using the Social Security number 042-68-xxxx(which was assigned in the state of Connecticut to another individual born in 1890), who never provided any vital records that would be admitted in any court of law, and who does not even possess a valid long form birth certificate with the name of a doctor, name of a hospital and signatures; who has allegiance to three other Nations and god knows who else. Plaintiff is not asking your Honor to tilt windmills, but rather uphold the US Constitution, that your Honor took an oath to protect.
Motion: Request to Forward to the Attorney General Eric Holder for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute multiple acts of Social Security Fraud, Perjury, Identity Theft, Fraud and other possible felonies perpetrated by Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
On 12/21/94, when your Honor reviewed evidence presented and found that Mr. Ira Magaziner has committed perjury, your honor contacted Eric Holder, prosecutor at that time, and asked him to start an investigation of Mr. Magaziner for perjury and criminal contempt. Your honor also asked Attorney General Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate the affair. According to the US Constitution, nobody is above the law. Millions of American citizens are following this case, as are Millions around the World. Even if your Honor does not find injuries sustained by the Plaintiff to be sufficient and the connection to Barack Hussein Obama to be strong enough, your Honor clearly has seen evidence of numerous felonies committed by Barack Hussein Obama:
1. Social Security Fraud 42 USC §408 (a)(7)(B), which is punishable under title 18 with up to 5 years in prison for each offense (Investigator Sankey shows some 39 different Social security numbers used);
2. Conspiracy to defraud the United States 18 USC §371, which carries up to five years in prison for each offense;
3. Perjury 18 USC §1621 with up to five years in prison for each offense
There are other crimes committed such as elections fraud, voter fraud, identity theft, that any other US citizen would have been convicted of and serving a lengthy prison term for the above crimes. Plaintiff is asking your Honor for equal treatment of the law for Mr. Obama, just as your Honor has treated other parties and any other citizen, and to forward the request to the US Attorney’s Office and Attorney General Eric Holder for appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate multiple felonies perpetrated by Mr. Obama.
Motion for leave of court to file a second amended complaint with two additional plaintiffs: Presidential candidate from American Independent Party on the 2008 ballot Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, and Vice Presidential Candidate on the ballot in 2008 election Gail Lightfoot.
Motion for reconsideration is allowed when there is an error of fact or law. While typically Quo Warranto is utilized by interested parties, who challenge the franchise of the government, §16-3502, does not specifically limit quo warranto to such parties, whereby Your Honor is not statutorily precluded from granting Taitz Quo Warranto.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
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. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application…
As an attorney for plaintiffs, Keyes, Lightfoot and others, Taitz has submitted Quo Warranto requests to the Attorney General and US Attorney, who have not responded. Therefore, Taitz is asking for leave of the Court to proceed under Quo Warranto, and in case your Honor does not grant Quo Warranto to the Plaintiff, she moves for Leave of Court to file a Second Amended Complaint with two additional plaintiffs: Presidential candidate from American Independent Party in 2008 election Ambassador Dr. Alan Keyes, as well as Gail Lightfoot, a Vice Presidential candidate for a write in Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.
Additionally, Ambassador Keyes was a senatorial candidate in the state of Illinois. Plaintiff previously submitted to this Court the March 25th Official report of the National Assembly of Kenya. Page 31 of the report contains a statement of the minister of Lands James Orengo, clearly indicating Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, and there is no evidence of Mr. Obama going through proper immigration procedures after his birth. As such, not only is Mr. Obama’s Natural Born status in question, but his citizenship in general is in question, and whereby, Ambassador Keyes has suffered particularized damage in losing both the senatorial and presidential elections to one who is not entitled to hold office, which indicates clear standing.
Motion for this Honorable court to grant Plaintiff sua sponte admission to US District Court bar without local attorney movant.
Typically, admission to this court requires a sponsor/movant local attorney or a local counsel for pro Hac Vice. Due to the sense of fear associated with a legal action, implicating a sitting president, the damage by slander and libel of Taitz has chilled the opportunity to secure a local attorney as a pro Hac Vice movant; however Your Honor can authorize her acceptance to the court Sua Sponte without such pro hac vice movant. She requests Sua Sponte authorization of acceptance to this bar in order to represent above mentioned additional plaintiffs and opportunity to file a Second Amended Complaint on their behalf.
Commerce Clause claims
Your Honor has stated that the First Amended Complaint was filed prior to Patient Protection Act being signed into law, which signifies lack of standing. However, standing exists not only in relation to current injury; it exists in relation to imminent injury as well. Taitz has filed her First Amended complaint after the bill was approved by both houses of Congress and the injury was imminent, which suffice for standing. In the alternative Taitz is seeking a leave of Court to file a Second amended Complaint based on Amended Patient Protection Act, since the original act was modified through the process of reconciliation in Senate and House of Representatives, wherefore making any complaint in regards to the initial Patient Protection Act, moot.
FOIA relief
Your Honor has stated that the FOIA complaint has failed since Taitz did not wait until April 9th for the administrative remedies to be exhausted. As there was no response to the FOIA request by April 9 th and none was received by today, April 26th, Taitz is moving this Honorable court for a leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint for FOIA relief, due to the fact that by today, April 26th administrative remedies were exhausted and no relief was provided.
Fraud and RICO claims
Similarly, Taitz is seeking a leave of court to file a second amended complaint on these causes of action, more fully pleading reliance and damages based on 10th, 9th, 5th and 1st amendment with reference to the pattern of multiple crimes with more than two predicate acts of the enterprise.
UNQUOTE
Vince,
I’m guessing you’re not going to be offering Orly your services…
After watching some of MSNBC’s coverage of the Arizona ‘birther bill’ I’ve come to the conclusion that I support this bill and hope that the birthers can get similar bills passed in as many states as possible. The only person on MSNBC that I agreed with was John McCain’s primary opponent, the teabagger J. D. Hayworth. Representative Hayworth said that he thought the bill’s focus was too narrow – he thought it should apply to all federal office seekers (he was also willing to say that he believed that President Obama was born in Hawaii without hedging). The various MSNBC personalities that raised this issue all did so incorrectly in one way or another – they ridiculed birthers while making arguments that did not answer birther objections appropriately. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by Vince’s thorough debunking of birthers, but I think that it may be vital for President Obama to have as many of these challenges as possible during his re-election campaign in order to show the low-information voters who may have heard some birther propaganda that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Otherwise it’s not important whether or not the birther allegations are true, but how many people wont vote for the president because they think that President Obama might not be a natural born citizen. We all know that the big lie is used so frequently by the right wing because it works and that the truth is not necessarily a bulletproof defense against it – so support ‘birther’ legislation wherever possible – we want them working hard on the vehicles of their own destruction. Plus getting to see them hoist on their own petards will be really funny…
Wow, reading about Orly is so tiresome I just might be able to sleep now.
Vince and Slarti,
I just meant Orly both your posts and points were worth reading!
CEJ,
No worries, Orly started to bore me long ago. Good night!
And . . . Hawaii follows through.
Obama Birth Certificate Requests Limited By New Hawaii Law, Pending Governor’s Signature
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/obama-birth-certificate-r_n_554692.html
Bdaman,
You repeatedly ask why President Obama wont release his birth certificate – here’s why:
Slartibartfast 1, April 22, 2010 at 8:30 am
Personally, I welcome the Arizona legislation and others like it.
Me Too
Bdaman,
Likely not for the same reasons (unless you think that these laws only help President Obama’s re-election campaign). Did you watch the video?
Good video Slart.
________________
Quote:
Republicans defend merits of measure but won’t force vote
Obama’s birth certificate not needed
PHOENIX – Barack Obama won’t be required to produce his birth certificate for Arizona officials if he decides to run for re-election.
Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, said Thursday not enough of the 18 Republicans in the state Senate support the House-approved measure. And with all 12 Democrats opposed, Harper said it makes no sense to force the issue to a vote.
But Harper defended the merits of the change, rebuffing claims by critics it is silly.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_e6cab037-f0db-534c-a2e3-a226b7204636.html
Quote: “It’s not about Barack Obama,” Harper said. “He has shown his birth certificates and birth announcements, from the time he was born, in Hawaii newspapers.”
What it is about, Harper said, is “states’ rights.” Unquote.
The birth certificate is indeed a matter of states’ rights, but the particular State which has the right and responsibility for Obama’s birth certificate is Hawaii, NOT ARIZONA.
The people, as in We the People, said so in Article IV Section 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 people, who ratified the Constitution in conventions, said that Congress may prescribe the manner by which those Acts, Records, and Proceeding shall be proved, not the states. This does not grant that power to Arizona.
VT,
Republicans frequently tout that we must adhere strictly to the U.S. Constitution; however, my Arizona Republican cohorts in the State legislature do not fully understand the U.S. Constitution or they have at least not done a recent read of the relevant provisions that conflict with their proposed legislation—such as this recent ‘birther’ bill.
Hawaii’s legislature just passed a law which allows the State to ignore requests to see the President’s birth certificate. Guess they finally got fed up with the birthers …
FFLEO,
What provisions of the ‘birther’ law were unconstitutional? I thought that it just required a candidate to provide proof of natural born citizenship to get on the ballot. It seems to me to be perfectly within the rights of any state to verify the article 1, section 2 eligibility of any candidate who wants to be on the ballot in that state (and a certified copy of President Obama’s COLB from Hawaii would satisfy that requirement – or any other requirement which would pass Constitutional muster). I don’t think that the death of this bill is good news.
Slartibartfast,
I prefer to have VT, Mike A., Mespo or others reply first.
Ok, FFLEO,
Slart, I think that, if the bill were interpreted and applied to require a state-certified birth certificate, then it would be constitutional. The State of Arizona would thus give full faith and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of its sister state. Hawaii has the same obligation to the public acts and records of Arizona, and would have to accept an Arizona birth certificate.
Obama has already complied with the proposed law. I think that he is the only potential 2012 candidate who has done so.
The problem is that the birthers keep saying that the candidate would have to provide a “long form” or “vault copy” or copy signed by a doctor, and on and on. Hawaii does not issue a long form or vault copy. It used to issue an old form COLB, called a “Certificate” of Live Birth. It no longer issues those forms. It now issues a new form COLB, called a “Certification” of Live Birth.
A candidate born in Hawaii cannot get a “long form” or “vault copy” because the State does do not issue any form by that description. (I think some states do issue short form cards with birth information that are distinct from their long forms, but Hawaii is not one of those states).
The birthers also want a candidate to go the state of birth and to examine and somehow to secure copies of the original birth records (if copying were permitted under state law) and produce them for the Arizona Secretary of State.
If Arizona keeps someone off the ballot for any reason other than to produce a “birth certificate” within the meaning of the federal legal definition, then that candidate could sue. She could argue that the State was not giving full faith and credit to the records of a sister state. She could argue that the Constitution grants Congress, not the individual states, the right and power to determine how those records are to be proven legally.
I think that the bill could be held unconstitutional if applied in that way. I think the candidate would win, but it would be a case of first impression.
I took the position, on this Turley blogsite, in 2008, that, in my opinion. McCain was a natural born citizen.
But, what if Hawaii (or some other state) had demanded that Arizona turn over McCain’s birth certificate? Oh. He was not born there. He was born at the submarine base in the Canal Zone.
But that birth certificate has never been posted on the web. A Washington Post reporter saw it, but the McCain campaign did not let him copy or post it.
“…the McCain campaign has declined to publicly release the senator’s birth certificate. But a senior campaign official showed me a copy of his birth certificate issued by the ‘family hospital’ in the Coco Solo submarine base. (McCain’s grandfather commanded the Coco Solo Naval Air Station in 1936; his father was the executive officer of a submarine based in Coco Solo.)
“The birth certificate was signed by Captain W. L. Irvine. I have now checked that name against the Naval Register for 1936, and I find that William Lorne Irvine was director of the medical facility at the submarine base hospital in Coco Solo, Panama Canal Zone, during that time period. You can see the entry here. I think this effectively disposes of any remaining doubts that McCain was born inside the Canal Zone.”
Link to source:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html
So I wish that the McCain voters, at the very least, would drop this birther nonsense about Obama.
Thank you VT.
Vince,
Thanks for the info (and the bonus info on McCain – I wzs curious about that, too). This agrees with the argument I was making. Any ‘birther’ law will either:
(a) Be satisfied with an official copy of the COLB posted on the web
or
(b) Be unconstitutional
I want to show the birthers that when the game is played according to their rules (remember that their rules respect the primacy of the Constitution above all else) that they lose. It’s too bad that birthers don’t believe in free speech (at least not on their blogs) or I would provide them with the facts directly…
Slartibartfast,
The last two posts by VT and then your comments distill the entire ‘birther’ issue into one concise, encapsulated reply to all questions regarding Mr. Obama and other eligible presidential candidates.
FFLEO,
If we could only get the birthers to swallow that capsule of logic and law…
In his letter to the President, Lakin wrote “In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his “natural born” status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.”
Has anyone seen a link or citation to this Senate Judiciary Committee “hearing”? Has anyone here seen a copy of the “original birth certificate” that Lakin says McCain produced at that hearing?
The only lead I have is the Senate floor debate, exactly one year ago on April 30, 2008, when it approved Senate Resolution 511. It was a simple resolution, not a joint resolution or concurrent resolution. It was a nonbinding expression of opinion, not a law. It passed by voice vote. See Congressional Record, page S3645-46, April 30, 2008.
Only Senators Leahy and Brown spoke. No one mentioned a birth certificate. No one mentioned a hearing. Chairman Leahy only said that the Committee met the previous week and voted unanimously to report the resolution to the Senate. The memo by Tribe and Olson was entered into the Record.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:4:./temp/~r110zmSbXc::
Here is the entire legislative history from Thomas at the Library of Congress:
[quote] 110th CONGRESS, 2d Session
S . RES . 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to [unquote]
Here it is again: [quote] S.RES.511
Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.ALL ACTIONS:
4/10/2008:
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2950)
4/24/2008:
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
4/24/2008:
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
4/24/2008:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 715.
4/30/2008:
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3645-3646; text of measure as passed Senate: CR S3646) [unquote]
On April 23, 2008, Judiciary held a “business meeting,” not a hearing, to consider the resolution, among other matters: “Judiciary[:] Business meeting to consider … S . Res . 511 , recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen….”
McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate has never been posted on the web. (The image of a birth certificate showing McCain born in Colon City is a forgery). A Washington Post reporter saw it, but the McCain campaign did not let him copy or post it.
So why is Lakin risking his career in part on his belief that McCain has actually shown his birth certificate?
Can anyone here find a clue to that hearing or the production and examination of McCain’s birth certificate?
Can anyone find an image of McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate that Lakin so vividly remembers?
I am asking because I have not been able to track it down.
“Obama has already complied with the proposed law”
He has only provided a copy to Fact Check. Not one official from any state has had it ever been presented to them. The proposed law wants to see it in front of them and NOT posted on the web.
“A candidate born in Hawaii cannot get a “long form” or “vault copy” because the State does do not issue any form by that description”.
Unless they have a tangible interest in the record of their birth. If it’s your record, then you have a tangible interest.
Bdaman,
If President Obama cannot produce a certified copy of the COLB posted on FactCheck that necessarily implies that the Hawaii department of health officials have lied (which is unlikely in the extreme, in my opinion). And as for the ‘long form’, neither you nor anyone else has any right or need to see it and, as the video I posted above points out, the birthers have 7 more fallback positions after that one so President Obama should save his 10 bucks just to stick it to the birthers if nothing else.
Dr. Slarti, I’d like to ask you to be the first to answer this question.
We have all seen the COLB posted on fightthesmears and factcheck. I have looked at it many times. I cannot see the embossing from the state on that document.
According to factcheck it was a scanned image of the document. “In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.”
Here is the fightthesmears COLB. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
After people started talking about that the Obama campaign, via factcheck, released some pictures of the COLB the show the document was embossed.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
I have had read where some people think the embossed section didn’t show up on the scan because it was embossed from the back. I think that would mean the depressions would be on the back and the raised section would be on the front. I don’t understand why the light reflection would not have the same effect no matter which way it went. Wouldn’t a distortion have the same effect in either direction?
This bothers me even more when I see that the latter pictures of the COLB show two fold lines. We can see that the upper fold is in one direction and the lower fold is in the opposite direction, but neither of them show up on the scanned image.
What do you think?
If President Obama cannot produce a certified copy of the COLB posted on FactCheck that necessarily implies that the Hawaii department of health officials have lied.
Thats the whole point. What does a candidate provide to the secretary of a state to prove that they are constitutionally eligible to be elected for that position? The answer may surprise you.
Bdaman,
I think that doing document analysis of a scan on a website (ala ‘Dr.’ Polarik or Techdude) is highly dubious at best. That being said, near the bottom just to the right of center is something that looks like a date stamp at the bottom of a seal. Scans and pictures are two very different technologies – which do you think yields a higher fidelity image? In fact, some documents are DESIGNED to look different in photocopies and scans (having the word ‘COPY’ appear in the background, for instance) for security reasons. I think the differences you note are unremarkable and that, of the two, the photograph is the much higher fidelity image. And as for the secretaries of state – I believe that what most of them required was the word of Speaker Pelosi (which is consistent with what was required for every other presidential candidate in our country’s history). If states want to enact tougher verification standards, that is their right (so long as they give full faith and credit to the documents of other states), but such laws will only help President Obama by removing any doubt from the minds of reasonable people when he provides a certified copy of the COLB (which exists unless the Hawaii DOH was lying in official statements).
How did Roger Calero get on the ballot of five states who is not a natural born citizen.
Bdaman,
Do you think that Arnold Schwartzenager could get on the ballot? (He recently said that he would definitely run for president if he could.) Roger Calero may have gotten on the ballot in five states, but it is ludicrous to think that had he been a viable candidate that he could have gotten through media vetting, the election, the elector’s vote, congressional certification and the swearing in by the chief justice and assumed the presidency.
Dr.Slarti,
Whether or not Calero is this or that makes no difference, he made it on those ballots. How did those secretary’s of those states decide he was constitutionally eligible?
You said the states should “Be satisfied with an official copy of the COLB posted on the web”.
Who would you have post that copy on the web? As we have seen in Hawaii the originating state probably can’t legally do it and the candidate has good reason to provide false information if he or she wants to. I think the proof must be provided to each state for examination.
I don’t like these certifications. If a false report is filed the state is forced to repeat the lie.
Filing a false birth report is not only a possibility it was done by the soviets. I think they did it in New York in the late 50s.
When it comes to matters this important I don’t know why anyone would consider a request to examine the original to be too much of a burden.
Do you think that Arnold Schwartzenager could get on the ballot?
No, he was not born here. Nor do I think Bobby Jindel could either.
Per wiki, “Piyush ["Bobby"] Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, who came to the United States as immigrants from India.”
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article XIV
1: 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.
Here is an interesting post over at NNBCEW:
QUOTE
Educating the Confused – Black People cannot be natural born
1 05 2010
At Dr C’s we read the following foolish assertion by “DraggingCanoe”
A natural born citizen cannot be created by the 14th amendment..the Founders forever banned Negroes..being President…that is why they used natural born..a natural law…cannot be touched..by man..it is forever fixed…
How could the Founders have banned negroes from being natural born? They of course did not, they banned them from being allowed citizenship. To claim that this is a ‘natural law’ that cannot be touched by man presumes that somehow we were told by God about these ‘laws’. The 14th Amendment did not create natural born citizens, it merely applied the US Constitution in a consistent manner. UNQUOTE
lINK TO SOURCE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article XIV
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
and the question is, is Bobby Jindal a NATURAL born citizen and not just a CITIZEN. I do not see where Article XIV has the word NATURAL in it.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/educating-the-confused-black-people-cannot-be-natural-born/
Bdaman,
Getting on the state ballot is only the first hurdle to becoming president (as I pointed out). Either John McCain or President Obama could have easily had Cordero bounced from the ballot if they thought it was important (Vince, please correct me if I’m wrong). Though individual parts of the vetting process could be better, there is no evidence that an ineligible candidate could get through all of it. When I said “…an official copy of the COLB posted on the web.” I meant a certified copy of (the document posted on the web) provided by the Hawaii DOH, not that states should be satisfied with a web posting. Such a document is entitled to full faith and credit by any state in the union, meets the federal definition of a birth certificate and is prima facie evidence of Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii as Vince has pointed out. Repeatedly. With references. Over. And Over. Again. If you think that it is the result of a false report, find evidence to that effect is admissible in a court of law to that effect – that is your only recourse (again, correct me if I’m wrong, Vince).
Bobby JindAl is as much a citizen as the natural born child of citizens and by the operation of the same principle according to the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark. If he could convince the public to vote for him after his horrendous response to President Obama’s address then he would become the legitimate president. On the other hand, not being a natural born citizen is likely the ONLY thing stopping Arnold from becoming president.
There are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
If he is not naturalized, then he is natural born.
The Fourteenth Amendment is an “amendment.” It amended the Constitution. The Constitution must be read “as amended.”
The Twelfth Amendment changed the process for election of the President. Article II must be read as amended by the 12 Amendment.
On the other hand, not being a natural born citizen is likely the ONLY thing stopping Arnold from becoming president.
Now I know you smoke cause you be high
Oops. I meant:
“… find evidence to that effect THAT is admissible…”
Mr Treacy with all due respect sir, after your tax evasion comments and your obvious misinformation on the Dr. West comment and this slam by a fellow Democrat
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-10-01/pdf/CREC-1996-10-01-pt1-PgS12095-2.pdf
Page 10
I refuse to put as much stock as I use to in any of your comments.
Double oops! I SHOULD have meant:
“… find evidence to that effect WHICH is admissible…”
My thesis advisor would not be happy about that mistake (the appropriate use of ‘which’ and ‘that’ being a pet peeve of his).
And if you think that Arnold isn’t electable you’re the one who’s high…
Never put much too much “stock” in any comment by bdaman. I could not care less about his views.
The following verbatim article from NNBCE is posted without comment or endorsement for the information of readers. Readers, please take up any issues with NNBCE or Doc Conspiracy:
Source:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/educating-the-confused-rodney-t-west-stanley-had-a-baby/
QUOTES ON
Educating the Confused – Rodney T West – Stanley had a baby
25 04 2010
Some may remember a posting in which I discussed the the recollections of a teacher. She told the story of Rodney T West
“I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98.
Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls. His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby.
Now that’s something to write home about.” The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama. “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.
She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.
People objected by pointing out that Rodney T West had retired years earlier or that he never practiced at Kapiolani Hospital
Now we know… The rest of the story
Dr Conspiracy got the following email
Our records show that Dr. Rodney T. West was Chief of Staff at Kapiolani Hospital in 1953. He was certified by the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology in 1958 and practiced at The Straub Clinic and Hospital until his retirement in December 1977.
Thank you for your interest.
The Queens Medical Center
Mamiya Medical Heritage Center
On the same thread a poster confirms that Rodney West was in fact still delivering babies.
Catherine West Dale says:
March 24, 2010 at 2:58 pm Catherine West Dale(Quote)
My great uncle was Dr Rodney West, and he delivered me at Kapiolani Hospital on March 26, 1961, the same year Obama was born. That is a fact and it is on my birth certificate.
Catherine West Dale says:
March 25, 2010 at 11:56 am Catherine West Dale(Quote)
I’ll ask my dad, he knows a lot more about his uncle than I do.
Also wanted to add that Dr Rodney T. West delivered my sister at Kapiolani Hospital in Mar 1964.
QUOTES OFF
Here is the link to Doc Conspiracy’s thread:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/more-testimony-obama-was-born-in-k/
bdaman,
An admitted troll and a confirmed bigot is probably not the best person to challenging someone else’s credibility, don’t you think Mr. “Christ Killer”?
Oh, that’s right! You very often don’t think before you post. Or you’d have realized how an attack on anyone’s credibility, let alone Vince’s, coming from you holds water like a sieve around these parts. Your opine of others virtuosity may hold some sway at those secret meetings you attend down by the docks, but here we’ve simply known you too long and seen too much to take such an assessment from you seriously.
Mr. Treacy, that’s all well in good sir and thank you for your copy/paste of the very long discussion at Dr. C and every where else, but that’s not how you ORIGINALLY presented it, now is it.
You and I both know how and why you did it. When asked for an explanation you gave a chicken shit response of, send me your name and address and you will be answered.
At those secret meetings you attend down by the docks.
Are you keeping tabs on me again or is it because I’m at the dock everyday that you can say that.
Correction. It was to send real name and address and SASE and be answered by return mail.
Would you like a copy of my DL along with the SASE.
Dr. Slarti,
You said “not that states should be satisfied with a web posting”.
Then why pick on the birthers for not being satisfied with a web posting? A web posting is all that we have.
Bdaman originally posted that link to the Congressional Record remarks of Senator Hollings [up above on May 1, 2010, at 12:57 pm] on another thread:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/18/george-washington-war-hero-father-of-our-country-book-scofflaw/#comment-129301
Here is what I said then. Might as well repeat it for the folks who find the link here for the first time:
That was me, everybody.
That wrinkled old senile racist redneck Hollings then went on to say that he’d like to wring my neck.
He should have been careful about his empty threats. He might have found his own skinny little neck wrung right back.
It was no problem for me then, and it is no problem for me now.
I was doing my job, and doing it right.
I told the truth and got the law right back then.
He did not like it, so he flamed out intemperately (with full speech debate immunity).
I’m telling the truth and getting the law right, now.
If a Senator could not scare me, why should I worry about a lot of anonymous trolls and sock puppets?
Dr. Slarti,
If Bobby Jindal’s father was permanently domiciled here when Bobby was born here I think he would be considered a natural born citizen.
Was Obama’s father permanently domiciled here when Obama was born?
Mr Treacy linked to the article about Dr. West and a comment by a Catherine West Dale in which she claims
Quote On
My great uncle was Dr Rodney West, and he delivered me at Kapiolani Hospital on March 26, 1961, the same year Obama was born. That is a fact and it is on my birth certificate.
Quote Off
If this is in deed a fact the great niece of Dr. West, it is highly unlikely. Medical ethics would suggest this to be untrue. Regardless it is just a statement and if it’s on her birth certificate it would be on Obama’s as well. She obviously has a more detailed birth certificate than what is posted on line.
To prove my point, this is Bdaman using Catherine West Dale as my handle.
Bdaman,
You are a coward. The rules of online anonymity are fine except when an anonymous poster hides behind a veil of secrecy while ‘calling out’ persons who have always used their full names such as VT and Mike Spindell.
If I were VT, I would never respond to you again until you provided your verifiable I.D./name.
“I told the truth and got the law right back then.”
“I’m telling the truth and getting the law right, now.”
If Mr. Treacy was so good at telling the truth and getting the law right, you would think that he would hold some high position. He didn’t back then and he doesn’t now.
Can Mr.Treacy provide us with a link to any appeal that he won? Any that he argued?
Can you believe it?
A Goggle of Catherine West Dale shows that she has only posted on two websites. Those are the same websites that Vince Treacy always directs us too.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=%22Catherine+West+Dale%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=d90e7c340cb31971
Providing that link was typical of what Mr. Treacy considers supporting evidence.
Slarti, there is no authority for the “permanently domiciled” requirement, anywhere. It was just made up. It is a distinction without a difference. Obama’s father was lawfully admitted to the US as a student. While in the US, he was subject to US jurisdiction, like everyone other than persons with diplomatic immunity. His son, when born in Hawaii, was subject to US jurisdiction. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article XIV: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” As he was born a citizen, not naturalized as one, and since there are only two kinds of citizens, he was a natural born citizen.
The troll said “No, he [Arnold] was not born here. Nor do I think Bobby Jindel could either.” When proven to be dead wrong, the troll does not acknowledge a mistake and correct it. The troll invents yet another frivolous distinction with no legal significance.
Nothing is ever proven. As a mathematician, can you tell us if this is like an infinite regress? Wiki: “An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.”
Bdaman,
If I were calling out a credentialed attorney, you can bet that I would state my full name and credentials as evidence that I had the training and knowledge to contest a legal question. I use my full name on numerous other websites that involve my area of expertise to establish full credibility and experience.
If there are only two types of citizen naturalized and natural born, why does Obama describe himself as a native citizen. Being a constitutional lawyer and professor you would think that he knows the constitution and it says natural born.
From the Central Law Journal, Volume 46 (1898)
CITIZENSHIP OF CHINAMAN BORN IN UNITED STATES.
There has been recently rendered in the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467, a decision upon the old question of the citizenship of persons born within the limits of the United States of alien parents. It appears to be the first time that this question has been directly decided in this court, although it has frequently been incidentally Involved in previous cases; and the rule here laid down Is apparently a ratification of the decisions heretofore reached In the various State and circuit courts. The individual whose citizenship was under discussion was of Chinese extraction, and claimed the rights of a citizen by reason of birth here. The court deals with the question very exhaustively, and laying Its foundation upon the assumption that the common-law rule of England that “every child born In England of alien parents Is a natural born subject, unless the child of a public minister of a foreign State, or an alien enemy,” was in force In the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and prevailed in the United States thereafter, holds that this rule is hut re-enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and In the fourteenth amendment.
Although hopelessly In the minority, Chief Justice Fuller, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan agrees, dissents from this opinion, and, upon what appears to be the better view, holds that the common law of England does not control the question under discussion. He very aptly shows that If the English rule governs, then all children born abroad of American citizens, since the enactment of the fourteenth amendment, become by such birth subjects of the country wherein they are born, and In order to become American citizens must be naturalized as any other alien. But the English rule emphatically denies the right to change one’s allegiance; while the United States has always upheld the right of expatriation. Moreover, in this country, the alien must be permanently domiciled, while in Great Britain birth during mere temporary sojourn in sufficient to render the child a British subject.
But both by our treaty with China and by statute, the right of citizenship Is forbidden to this applicant. To put upon the fourteenth amendment the construction urged by the majority of the court is to “override both treaty and statute.” The exercise of the right of deportation which we also have would under this construction cause the permanent separation of many families.
The fourteenth amendment was founded on the act of 1866, which contained the words, “and not subject to any foreign power.” But these words were not necessary to shut out the children of public ministers of foreign States nor alien enemies, since by their birth they were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” hence they must have been Inserted to exclude the children born here of resident aliens.— Yale Law Journal.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3HotAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20%2Bpermanently%20domiciled%20here%22&pg=PA519#v=onepage&q&f=false
FFLEO: “If I were VT, I would never respond to you again….”
Thanks, FFLEO. I am no longer responding.
I will answer postings by you, Slart, and all the other responsible posters to specific questions or issues.
I use my full name on numerous other websites that involve my area of expertise to establish full credibility and experience.
If you use your full name on NUMEROUS WEBSITES
Then why are you afraid of using your full name here. Is this the only website in which you don’t use your full name.
Mr. Treacy has the right to post anonymously if he so chooses. He chooses to let everyone know his credentials. That’s his choice.
Enterprise come in Enterprise, this is Captain Kirk, come in Enterprise.
A COMMENTARY ON THE JURISPRUDENCE, CONSTITUTION, AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES
SECOND EDITION
BY
JAMES Dewitt ANDREWS (1908)
“The qualifying phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” excludes the children of aliens not permanently domiciled, and all persons subject to any other jurisdiction, such as children of foreign ambassadors, or Indian nations within our territory; but unless the condition of the parents is such that it draws the status of the child with it, all persons born within the United States are citizens thereof.
” See Footnote 26
http://books.google.com/books?id=za4nAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20%2B%22permanently%20domiciled%22&lr&as_brr=1&pg=PA570#v=onepage&q=Until%20the%20adoption%20of%20the%20Fourteenth&f=false
Footnote 26: Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 The case of United States v Wong Kim Ark 169 US 649 shows the importance of that middle condition which the writer has ascribed to denizens It was there held that a child born of Chinese parents who were bona fide and permanently domiciled here was a citizen.
Law students please take note, the Wong Kim Ark case was decided by the District Court of California who relied on the Circuit Court’s decision in Look Tin Sing. In that case the court specifically pointed out that Look Tin Sing (like Wong Kim Ark) was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
Was Barack Obama II under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States? He could not have been. By his own admission he was a British Subject at birth.
From Factcheck.org “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.”
Slarti, there is no authority in the cases for “permanently domiciled” as a requirement, just some statement in an ancient treatise. Children of aliens who are permanently domiciled are natural born citizen, but so are all the children of all the other non-diplomatic aliens. “Native born” means born in the 50 United States, D.C. and territories. The broader term natural born citizen includes children born overseas to US citizen parents. A native born citizen is a natural born citizen. Natural born citizens include all native born citizens.
There is a total breakdown in logic and communication going on here.
History of the Bench and Bar of California, 1901
Edited by Oscar Shuck
“Citizenship of Chinamen”
By Marshall B. Woodworth, San Francisco Cal.
“The Wong Kim Ark case, decided by the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 1898, decides, for the first time in that tribunal, the question whether a person born in the United States of foreign parents is a citizen of the United States under the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision holds, substantially, that the language used in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is declaratory of the common-law doctrine, and not of the international law doctrine, and that, therefore, a person born in the United States is a citizen thereof, irrespective of the nationality or political status of his parents. While the question has arisen before and has been referred to in some of the decisions of the Supreme Court, still it cannot be said to have been directly involved and squarely decided until the present decision in the Wong Kim Ark case. This case settles, once for all, the question of the citizenship of children born within the United States, whose parents are foreign subjects or citizens.”
[A search of each term will find the google book, the URL is too big to search]>
http://books.google.com/books?id=t-lYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1099&lpg=PA1099&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+Wong+Kim+Ark+case,+decided+by+the+United+States+Supreme+Court+on+March+28,+1898,+decides,+for+the+first+time+in+that+tribunal,+the+question+whether+a+person+born+in+the+United+States+of+foreign+parents+is+a+citizen+of+the+United+States+under+the+citizenship+clause+of+the+Fourteenth+Amendment.+The+decision+holds,+substantially,+that+the+language+used+in+the+Fourteenth+Amendment+to+the+Constitution+is+declaratory+of+the+common-law+doctrine,+and+not+of+the+international+law+doctrine,+and+that,+therefore,+a+person+born+in+the+United+States+is+a+citizen+thereof,+irrespective+of+the+nationality+or+political+status+of+his+parents.&source=bl&ots=SGJHJzHgOb&sig=qj-gmtWiufgCrM1WPX4tVeeugc0&hl=en&ei=CqDcS9j0IpX29AT3vO2cBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThe%20Wong%20Kim%20Ark%20case%2C%20decided%20by%20the%20United%20States%20Supreme%20Court%20on%20March%2028%2C%201898%2C%20decides%2C%20for%20the%20first%20time%20in%20that%20tribunal%2C%20the%20question%20whether%20a%20person%20born%20in%20the%20United%20States%20of%20foreign%20parents%20is%20a%20citizen%20of%20the%20United%20States%20under%20the%20citizenship%20clause%20of%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment.%20The%20decision%20holds%2C%20substantially%2C%20that%20the%20language%20used%20in%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment%20to%20the%20Constitution%20is%20declaratory%20of%20the%20common-law%20doctrine%2C%20and%20not%20of%20the%20international%20law%20doctrine%2C%20and%20that%2C%20therefore%2C%20a%20person%20born%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%20a%20citizen%20thereof%2C%20irrespective%20of%20the%20nationality%20or%20political%20status%20of%20his%20parents.&f=false
A TREATISE ON THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES by Henry Brannon (1901)
Henry Brannon was justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals from 1888 to 1913.
“Native Children of Aliens.—Children born in the United States of alien parents, not temporarily resident here, but permanently domiciled, are American citizens, whether the parents be Chinese or other nationality. This was law before the amendment, and is so under it. It was common law. Women may be naturalized, Priest v. Cummings, 16 Wend. 617; Brown v. Schilling, 9 Md. 82.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=1-A9AAAAIAAJ&dq=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20%2Bpermanently%20domiciled%20here%22&as_brr=1&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false
Slarti and FFLEO, more ignorance. This was all discussed with pants under George Washington and his library book.
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/18/george-washington-war-hero-father-of-our-country-book-scofflaw/
Obama was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the US when he was born. Kenya accorded him conditional citizenship based on his father’s citizenship. The conditions were never met, and it expired when Obama reached age 21.
Kenya never had any jurisdiction or power over Obama. It would only have had such power if Obama had moved to Kenya, which he did not. This troll posted on the other thread and read the entire exchange where this argument was exploded.
To repeat, potential conditional “citizenship” in another country has no effect on the exclusive “jurisdiction” of the US in this country.
Law students: please note that, like Pantsonfire, this troll cannot even read its sources. Where is it stated that Kenya had jurisdiction? Nowhere.
A person who is born in the United States is not under Kenyan jurisdiction or power at the time of birth.
This legal discussion is deteriorating into remedial reading.
“A dissenting opinion is not the law.”
Slart, FFLEO, getting late, gotta go.
Century old wrong treatises on one side. Blah, blah, blah. They were wrong then and wrong now.
Express language of the 14th Amendment and Supreme Court cases on the other.
Take your pick.
Can you dig it?
The foreign-born child of a British subject is not a British Subject because Great Britain did not have any jurisdiction over the child.
That is Mr. Treacy’s honest opinion.
But the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen is somehow a natural born citizen of the U.S.???
Just how stupid does Vince Treacy think the readers of this blog are?
Just how stupid does Vince Treacy think the readers of this blog are?
Stupid enough to think they will believe that threw no fault of their own, the IRS will put them in jail for failing to pay their taxes and then cites cases where a defendant defrauded the U.S. Government as proof.
It’s interesting that the only tactic left to the birthers is smearing Vince and flooding the channel with volume over substance.
And by interesting, I mean sad and pathetic.
I have deleted a couple of postings on this exchange, which appears to never end and inevitably devolve into personal attacks. I have not cut off the comments on this subject because people obviously want to exchange ideas and comments. However, I cannot monitor this site to keep everyone civil. Please stay away from the personal challenges and stick to the merits — or your view of the lack thereof.
I go out to play poker with some buddies for a bit and when I come back there are 30 new posts and a scolding from Professor Turley – you guys need to find something better to do on a Saturday afternoon!
Bdaman posted:
The statements from the Hawaii DOH verify the information on the web posting – logically speaking there are only two options:
(1) The COLB posted on the web is an accurate reproduction of the information on file with the Hawaii DOH.
(2) The officials of the Hawaii DOH have committed perjury.
Since proposing (2) requires something… um… you know… like… oh yeah! EVIDENCE in order to be considered and absolutely no credible evidence for option (2) has been presented, we may assume (1). This leads us to:
(1a) The information on the COLB is correct and President Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible for the office he holds
or
(1b) The information on the COLB was somehow fraudulently reported to the Hawaii DOH.
Since what I said about (2) goes for (1b) as well, we’ve got (1a) as our working assumption (by which I mean that this is assumed true until proven otherwise). If you’d care to provide evidence that is admissible in a court of law for (1b) or (2), we’re all ears, if not then you’ve got nothing and no one will take you seriously except the tinfoil hat crowd.
Vince,
I think you missed the boat on the ‘permanently domiciled’ argument. (Of course, Bdaman seems unaware that there is a boat…) While your arguments were correct and well referenced as usual (and show that Bobby Jindal is eligible to be president – not that it will ever matter
) they just don’t apply to Barack Obama. None of the arguments you or Bdaman have made apply to the child of a US citizen born on US soil. The birthers seem to have a huge blind spot and one of the things in that blind spot is the 20th amendment. As I read the 20th and 14th amendments there are no Constitutional distinctions (at least no distinctions as far as citizenship is concerned) between men and women. There is an implicit assumption in the type of birther argument that Bdaman is making here that fathers have ‘inheritable’ citizenship while mothers do not. I don’t think that this is supported by law (as always, please correct me if I am wrong).
Bdaman said: “If this is in deed [sic] a [sic] fact the great niece of Dr. West, it is highly unlikely. Medical ethics would suggest this to be untrue. [That Dr. West delivered his grand-niece.]”
As per your usual you give no evidence for your assertion. Per Wikipedia:
This quote would suggest that Bdaman’s assertion about medical ethics is untrue.
Bdaman posted:
As a scientist I like to judge things on their merits and on one had we have the reasoned, logical arguments of Vince for which he always provides sources and on the infrequent occasions where he is incorrect about something he is quick to admit it and stops using the claim against the often faulty insinuations of Bdaman which frequently involve abstruse arguments, convoluted interpretations of the law and biased interpretations of statements. Bdaman’s statements here are just more pointless and irrelevant insinuations. We don’t trust Vince more because of his credentials, but because of the quality of information that Vince has provided in his previous posts on this blog versus the quality of Bdaman’s previous posts. That being said, I would be interested to hear any more information that Vince would care to divulge about the incident with Senator Hollings and the testimony in the congressional record.
Vince posted:
Bdaman posted:
This may help (from dictionary.com):
Dig that logic and reasoning posted:
We’re smart enough to know that the only relevant laws in determining President Obama’s citizenship status are the laws of the United States of America. In case you missed it, we fought a war in order to show that we were not beholden to the laws of Great Britain or any other nation…
Woosty est etiam a cattus,
Very funny. Bdaman’s flips were very impressive – right up until the point where Vince began to fight…
QUOTES ON
Dig that logic and reasoning 1, May 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Can you dig it?
The foreign-born child of a British subject is not a British Subject because Great Britain did not have any jurisdiction over the child.
That is Mr. Treacy’s honest opinion.
But the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen is somehow a natural born citizen of the U.S.???
Just how stupid does Vince Treacy think the readers of this blog are?
unquote
Without getting into the personal invective and accusations of stupidity, my civil response, addressed expressly to the “readers of this blog,” is that this poster is another one that has confused the concepts of citizenship and jurisdiction. The poster has also confused the terms “subject” and “citizen.”
Jurisdiction is the legal power and control that a country or state maintains over all persons within its bounds, citizens and foreigners alike. Merriam: “1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law; 2 a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority: control; 3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised.
Citizenship is the membership of an individual in the political community of a nation. Free online dictionary: “A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.”
Britain used to call its citizens “subjects” of the Queen. The American colonists were all British subjects. After the Declaration, they became American citizens, since they were no longer subject to any monarch. (The British Commonwealth is moving away from “subject” to “citizen.”)
Each country makes its own rules for citizenship. It can accord citizenship to persons not under its jurisdiction. It can exercise jurisdiction over persons in its bounds who are not citizens. Country A may say that all children of its citizens, wherever born, are citizens (jus sanguinis). A child born in B to citizens of A is therefore a citizen of A — but was under the jurisdiction and legal power of B at birth.
So, nowhere did I write that “The foreign-born child of a British subject is not a British Subject because Great Britain did not have any jurisdiction over the child.” Where did I say that? It is hard enough defending what I do say.
If Britain has a law that provided that children of its subjects are British subjects wherever born, then those foreign-born children are British subjects (citizens) EVEN THOUGH BRITAIN HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THEM WHEN BORN.
The prevailing, but not unanimous, legal opinion, is that children born outside the US to citizen parents, who become citizens at birth under the US laws that are codified in Title 8 of the US Code, are natural born citizens eligible for the Presidency. The US may not have jurisdiction over them at birth, but accords them citizenship at birth by law. One reason that McCain was considered a natural born citizen was because of his birth overseas to American citizen parents (although there is minority legal opinion otherwise).
So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.
Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21. McCain was born outside the US to citizen parents. The US accorded citizenship to him at birth and he ran for President
The US made the rule for Obama’s United States citizenship in the 14th Amendment, quoted above. Since the United States had jurisdiction over Obama at the time of his his birth in the US, he was a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen who ran for and was elected to the Presidency.
QUOTE
Bdaman 1, May 1, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Law students please take note, the Wong Kim Ark case was decided by the District Court of California who relied on the Circuit Court’s decision in Look Tin Sing. In that case the court specifically pointed out that Look Tin Sing (like Wong Kim Ark) was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. UNQUOTE
United States Circuit Court of California, September 29, 1881, In The Matter Of Look Tin Sing, On Habeas Corpus.
According to the headnote, the court held that “a person born within the United States of Chinese parents residing therein, and not engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, is a citizen of the United States.” The headnote continued “Persons are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; but only those who are thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must at the time be both actual and exclusive.’
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA368&dq=%22aliens+born+in+the+united+states%22&id=xUsZAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=%22aliens%20born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22&f=false
Near the end of the decision, the court stated:
“After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural born citizen; and added, that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind. In illustration of this general understanding he mentions the fact, that when at an election an inquiry is made whether the person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, If he answers that he is a native of this country the answer is received as conclusive that he is a citizen; that no one inquires further; no one asks whether his parents “were citizens or foreigners; it is enough that be was born here whatever was the status of his parents. He shows also that legislative expositions on the subject speak but one language, and he cites to that effect not only the laws of the United States, but the statutes of a great number of the States and establishes conclusively that there is on this subject a concurrence of legislative declaration with judicial opinion, and that both accord with the general understanding of the profession and of the public.”
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA368&dq=%22aliens%20born%20in%20the%20united%20states%22&id=xUsZAAAAYAAJ&output=text
So the case clearly anticipated the holding of Wong Kim Ark. A child born in the United States to alien parents who are not diplomats is a citizen by birth. The court stated “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural born citizen.” A “natural born citizen.”
The “exclusive jurisdiction” of the United States applies to all parents who are “not engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity.”
Jurisdiction. Citizenship.
Slartibartfast said “As I read the 20th and 14th amendments there are no Constitutional distinctions (at least no distinctions as far as citizenship is concerned) between men and women.”
Could you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?
W-o-o-s-t-y,
Thanks for that most apropos video I had not previously seen. I might just have to reconsider my opinion of you after that. By the way, are you a boy or a girl—if female, which I suspect—then my opinion is most certainly going to be favorable—if male, not so much.
I wait with bated breath for your polite, reasoned reply…
“So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.”
Is this pure sophism or is Mr. Treacy completely unaware of the status of Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth?
Would Mr. Treacy care to reword his previous statement to conform to Kenya’s status in 1961? i.e. Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Great Britain accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on British jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Great Britain had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.
Would Mr. Treacy accept the paragraph immediately above to be representative of his legal opinion?
Wootsy that was a great video and gave me one of those Flashback moments of time and place in which I shall never forget. It was when I was at this club called Ba Ha Beach Club, in Jacksonville Beach.
I got into the ring with the head bouncer for the club.
Keith, 6′-4″ and 250, Bdaman weigh in at 5’8″ and 175.
I got in quick with several good jabs on the inside and then POW!!!
I unloaded with a right hook and the crowd just went crazy. Place was packed with all eye’s on da ring.
His eye’s wobbled and then I rocked him again, same shot, POW!!!!
and then his alarm bell started ringing and he knew he was in trouble.
He cocked his right arm back and let it fly, BAM!!!!!!!!!!!!.
He rocked the shit out of me and I immediately felt the blood start to run down out of my nose and knew that was it.
I put up the hands in defeat and retreated to the bathroom to look at my nose. Luckily it didn’t get flattened anymore than it already was.
When I came out I saw Keith over by the DJ both and they were just taking his gloves off and he starts rubbin the side of his head. The number two man of the club, Bubba came up and said,
” Bdaman, I swear if you would have hit him just one more time with that right hook of yours, he was going down”
Thanks for the Video it is one of fondest memories of a different time and a different place.
Wootsy be male or female does not matter to me. Allow me to say Thanks for the Memories
From the Obama campaign in 2008:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British SUBJECT whose CITIZENSHIP status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. CITIZENSHIP nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan CITIZENSHIP automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Source: Factcheck dot org and fightthesmears dot com. [EMPHASIS supplied].
What is the point? The British “subject” became a Kenyan “citizen” upon independence. It does not change the fact that no other country has ever had any “jurisdiction” or legal power over Obama or any other infant born in the U.S. in 1961 or in any other year, other than the narrow exception for diplomatic personnel (and, historically, hostile occupying forces, and, until changed by statute, Indians not taxed).
The topic is “jurisdiction” for all the readers of the blog.
Citizenship. Jurisdiction.
Dig,
First off, I’m a scientist not a lawyer so I’m not giving anything more than my own layman’s opinion. That being said, it seems to me that the constitution originally created 3 classes of citizens: natural born citizens (NBC), naturalized citizens (NZC), and female citizens (FC) – I’m ignoring the grandfathered class of citizens as irrelevant to the discussion. The only distinction between NBC and NZC being the eligibility to run for president – since FCs were unable to become president (or to vote) the distinction between the two classes of female citizens was unimportant. The 14th amendment broadens and defines the scope of citizenship (the above classes are unaffected by it, however). The 20th amendment removes the FC class by giving females the right to vote (and run for president) provided they are citizens under the 14th amendment (or NBCs if they want to run for president). As there are now only 2 classes of citizen and the only difference (in terms of rights and obligations) between the two is the ability to run for president, any laws governing the transmission of citizenship from parents to children at birth cannot distinguish between the sexes.
How did I do, Vince?
Why won’t Vince Treacy answer the question? We know that Kenya was a British Colony at the time of Obama’s birth. If Vince kew that Kenya was a colony operating under British Law, why would he make the statement immediately below?
“So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.”
Is this pure sophism or is Mr. Treacy completely unaware of the status of Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth?
Would Mr. Treacy care to reword his previous statement to conform to Kenya’s status in 1961? i.e. Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Great Britain accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on British jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Great Britain had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.
Would Mr. Treacy accept the paragraph immediately above to be representative of his legal opinion?
Slartibartfast said “The 20th amendment removes the FC class by giving females the right to vote”.
I think you meant the 15th Amendment.
Neither the 15th or 20th Amendment have anything to do with who can run for President or Vice-President. Anybody can run for that office, and the states have many restrictions for who can be placed on the ballot. The 20th provides direction when a situation arises where the person who won the election does not meet the qualifications to hold that office.
Slartibartfast,
I should also point out that under the Constitution of the United States there has never been anything that would prevent a woman from holding the Office of President or any other office. That has always been left to the sound judgment of the voters.
It is a common misconception that someone must be able to vote in order to hold office. It is also a common misconception that someone needs to be a citizen in order to vote, or that just because one would be a citizen they had the right to vote.
Dig,
My bad, I meant the 19th amendment, not the 20th and should have included the 15th in my argument as well. Your point about running for office is valid (at least I think it is) so originally female citizens would have come in two classes (natural born and naturalized) which, under the 14th amendment, would have been indistinguishable from the same two classes of male citizens. Citizens who have lost the right to vote (such as convicted felons) are irrelevant to this argument (they retain the same ability to transmit citizenship). Also, the laws of Great Britain, Kenya and Outer Mongolia are totally irrelevant to any argument about any type of US citizenship – The United States determines who is and is not considered a citizen and by the relevant laws it has been determined that President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.
Slartibartfast said “The United States determines who is and is not considered a citizen”.
If the United States can determine who is and is not considered to be a citizen, is the same not true of Great Britain? i.e. If I said that Great Britain determines who is and is not considered a citizen (of Great Britain), is that not an equally true statement?
What happens when a conflict exists? Who wins?
Oh you guys are so sweet….
Woosty is a male,
I , however, am not.
I don’t want to run for President tho…
Dig,
There is no conflict – Great Britain does not get to determine who citizens of the United States are and the United States does not get to determine who the citizens of Great Britain are. The United State MAY choose to consider citizenship in other countries when it determines who its citizens are, but current US law does not do this (at least in the case we are considering). As Vince has pointed out (a very large but still finite (for now) number of times) the applicable law says that if President Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen. It is currently a legal certainty that he was born in Hawaii. If you have credible evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Slartibartfast,
If the United States can determine that the foreign-born children of U.S. Citizens are U.S. Citizens, why cannot Great Britain do the same with the foreign-born children of British Citizens?
If the U.S. can, by law, make the foreign-born children of their citizens, U.S. Citizens are they not exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over them?
Your buddy Vince has put himself in a position in which the logic presents a self-defeating conclusion. It is his position that the foreign-born children of British (incorrectly Kenyan) Citizens are not really British Citizens at birth, but only have the option of becoming such, while seeming to imply that the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen is a citizen from the time of birth.
I think you need to define “naturalization” before you consider the questions.
Slartibartfast said “There is no conflict – Great Britain does not get to determine who citizens of the United States are and the United States does not get to determine who the citizens of Great Britain are.”
Are you disagreeing wtih what has been presented as fact by Factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com?
Slartibartfast said “the applicable law says that if President Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen.”
What applicable law are you referring to? Please cite the law and quote the passage that leads you to that conclusion.
“If the U.S. can, by law, make the foreign-born children of their citizens, U.S. Citizens are they not exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over them?”
No.
They are not exercising JURISDICTION over them.
They are just making them citizens.
They are not exercising any legal power over them until they come to the U.S.
Dig, have you posted here under a different name?
Explain the difference between citizenship and jurisdiction. (This is an open book exam so scrolling up is okay).
Does anyone want to adopt dig’s policy?
Consider: if Castro were to pass a law declaring that an infant born in the US who has a Cuban-born parent or grandparent has Cuban citizenship, will that disqualify her from the Presidency.
What if China, Japan, and the European Union were to do likewise?
Do you want a person’s eligibility for the Presidency at the mercy of foreign lawmakers?
Dig, the applicable law is in Article II, Natural Born Citizen clause, and the 14th Amendment,
To the poster who is presumably responsible for addressing the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of Woosty (who remains a male member the family felidae) and who is guaranteed the right of suffrage (assuming she satisfies some additional requirements) by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution,
You said: “I don’t want to run for President tho…”
The important thing is that you have that right (assuming that you meet the other requirements as well). You may change your mind one day
By way of fair warning, I’m going to answer the question you asked in your email – I’ll keep it as simple as possible, but in this case ‘simple’ is very much a relative term…
Dig,
Great Britain can declare anyone a citizen that they wish, it just doesn’t effect anyone’s US citizenship in any way.
Per Wikipedia: “Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.”
The logical implications of this definition on your argument are not good. Nothing that I or Vince has said contradicts what is posted on factcheck or fightthesmears (at least to the best of my knowledge). You are making an unjustified conflation of the citizenship law of different countries in an attempt to save your conclusion and paint Vince’s statements as inconsistent – they aren’t. Please cite any applicable US law which takes foreign citizenship into account in determining US citizenship.
Dig said: “What applicable law are you referring to? Please cite the law and quote the passage that leads you to that conclusion.”
US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, first sentence. Please read this thread an count the (very large but still finite despite the persistent efforts of people like you) number of times that Vince has answered this question and then tell me if you were being intellectually dishonest or ignorant. For extra credit check out the number of times this question has been answered on other birther threads…
Vince,
These birther arguments differ from regression in another important regard – the arguments remain the same with each iteration despite the fact that they have been shown to be incorrect. What you need is to get some recursion going to send them into an infinite loop until they admit that they are wrong…
“if Castro were to pass a law declaring that an infant born in the US who has a Cuban-born parent or grandparent has Cuban citizenship, will that disqualify her from the Presidency.”
Cuban-born? Does that mean born in Cuba? Has the parent become a naturalized citizen prior to the birth?
I’ll ignore the grandparent part as inapplicable and suggested as to introduce the ridiculous. What’s next? The great-grandparent?
As to your assertion that a law can be binding without having jurisdiction over the parties is ridiculous. If the child was never a citizen until they entered the U.S., there would be no need to exclude from citizenship the foreign-born child of U.S. citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil. Application of the law eliminates the possibility of your claim having validity.
“What happens when a conflict exists? Who wins?” British law controls in Britain, American law controls in America.
Henry VIII took England out of the Catholic Church because the leader of a foreign nation, the Pope, was interfering with the succession to the English throne.
Dig, I have not contradicted anything. The fact that an infant born in the US may be accorded citizenship by law in another country does not affect its citizenship status.
The fact is that the other country may accord citizenship, but it does not have any jurisdiction unless and until the person enters that country.
Jurisdiction. Citizenship.
I gotta go read Charles Stross, the Merchant Princes.
Only 6 days to Iron2Man! Got my tix already!
“As to your assertion that a law can be binding without having jurisdiction over the parties is ridiculous. If the child was never a citizen until they entered the U.S., there would be no need to exclude from citizenship the foreign-born child of U.S. citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil. Application of the law eliminates the possibility of your claim having validity.”
Say what?
Slartibartfast,
Vince Treacy has cited Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. With Bouvier being an accepted source by the opposition, it should be accepted by all.
“The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father ; and when children of American fathers are born without the jurisdiction of the United States the country within whose jurisdiction they are born may claim them as citizens; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. [You'll notice that countries claim citizens. Vince Treacy would have you believe that an option is created. An option that is just waiting to be exercised. In the same breath he will also claim that they were a citizen at birth. ---That rationale would make me a lottery winner because I had the option of buying a ticket.]
[Bouvier continued] 649, 691, 18 Sup. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. Such children are said to be born to a double character; the citizenship of the father is that of the child, so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country, but the child may owe another fealty besides that which attaches to the father. Opinions of the Executive Departments on Naturalization, Expatriation, and Allegiance (1873) 17, 18; U. S. For. Eel. 1873-74, 1191, 1192. The conclusions in the opinion above cited by Attorney-General Hoar were quoted and adopted by Secretary Bayard in 1886, when a son born of American parents in France made an application for a passport ; U. S. For. Rel. 1886, 303.
It is said that the children of our citizens born abroad, and the children of foreigners born in the United States, have the right, on arriving at full age, to elect one allegiance and repudiate the other; Whart. Confl. L. §| 10, 12. The objection has been taken that as our law provides no right of election by or for a child, as do the continental codes, the resulting dual citizenship is contrary to the theory of citizenship. But the difficulty Is said to be rather apparent than real. When a child is born in America of Chinese parents, China claims him by the jus sanguinis; America by the jus soli. It is not a question whether he is an American or a Chinaman. He is both. The municipal laws being thus in conflict, his citizenship at any time will depend upon whether he is subject to the jurisdiction of the one or of the other country. The duality of citizenship is a fact, only in a third country. In China he is a Chinaman; in America, an American; 12 Harv. L. Rev. 55. See Domicil; Residence; Naturalization ; Alien.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0mo8AAAAIAAJ&dq=Bouvier's%20law%20dictionary&as_brr=1&pg=PA493#v=onepage&q&f=false
As you can plainly see, there is a conflict. Vince Treacy relies on his personal opinion. I am not relying on my personal opinion, but on that of published legal scholars.
Dig,
There is no conflict – you are misunderstanding what you posted. It says that (before arriving at full age) while in the US Barack Obama was a (natural born) citizen of the US and while in the UK/Kenya he was a (natural born) subject/citizen there. While he was in Indonesia he was a citizen of both countries (which almost certainly was never an important issue – I would assume that everyone considered him a US citizen and his Kenyan citizenship was never an issue). When he returned to the US he became unambiguously a US citizen again and upon reaching full age his Kenyan citizenship expired due to his failure to actively assert it (consistent with Kenyan law) and his US citizenship continued due to his failure to actively renounce it (consistent with US law). Vince and my positions are both consistent with US, British, and Kenyan law while you are trying to obfuscate the clear meaning of the passages you quote (and unfairly smear Vince) by muddying the waters of which country’s law applies in which context. Sorry, but that kind of intellectual dishonesty wont fly here.
Dig has not set forth a legal thesis or argument. Dig has posted undigested stuff from a legal treatise. What is did driving at?
Vince,
To paraphrase: All that is required for ignorance to triumph is for knowledgeable people to do nothing.
All Dig requires to win is to frustrate you so badly with his illogic, misunderstanding of the law and repeatedly debunked arguments that you give up. Thank you once again for your continued vigilance.
Dig,
Pppttthhbbb!
[Aside to Vince]: The previous argument was just an attempt to improve the quality of the discussion with Dig.
Slartibartfast,
Thank you! Now you, and fightthesmears, and Factcheck.org, and obamaconspiracy.org are all on the same page. You admit that Obama was a of both a citizen of the U.S. and of the UK at birth. Vince Treacy is the only one who cannot understand that Obama was born with double-character.
Did Barack Obama also acquire Indonesian Citizenship at some point? I don’t know. Vince Treacy has stated that he could not, but never provided anything but his own opinion.
Slartibartfast,
By your own admission you are ignorant of the law. You rely on someone who considers obfuscation to be a tool of his trade for support. It’s no wonder you buy into what he tells you. You don’t know any better.
Vince Treacy chooses his words wisely. He makes a statement that would imply one thing, while ensuring that he has a means of escape. Why do you think he used Kenya when he made this statement?
“So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.”
And why do you think he refused to accept the corrected statement when it was only changed to reflect Great Britain instead of Kenya?
You’re scared Slartibartfast. You’re scared of the truth. That is why you must continue to insert your conclusion, and cannot (when asked) provide any case law to support your conclusion.
For example: Dig said: “What applicable law are you referring to? Please cite the law and quote the passage that leads you to that conclusion.”
Slartibartfast responded; “US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, first sentence.”
Nothing about “natural-born citizen” in that sentence. Do you have trouble with words? I asked you to cite a source for the determination that someone born on U.S. soil, whose father was not a permanently domiciled resident is to be considered a natural-born citizen. You failed miserably. The fact that you won’t admit your failure only serves to establish how ignorant and susceptible to the sophistry of Vince Treacy you are.
Dig,
You don’t seem to understand that President Obama was a natural born citizen of the United States and remains one to this day. By US law (which Vince has cited), he could not have given up his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia (it is also true, but irrelevant, that he could not have obtained Indonesian citizenship). For a discussion of Indonesian citizenship (with citations) check out links 1, 1a, and 1b on:
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/birther-mythbusting.html
You (and all of the other birthers) have utterly failed to provide any evidence that any other citizenships from any other countries has any bearing at all on President Obama’s eligibility for the office he holds. Will you admit that Barck Obama is the legitmate president of the United States or are you just going to stay in denial and keep spouting lies and disinformation while wallowing in your intellectual dishonesty and attempting to smear Vince’s good name?
By the way, the link that I provided is to one of many sites that Vince has pointed me (and everyone else reading this thread) to which discusses Indonesian citizenship with reference to actual US and Indonesian law, so the statement that Vince never provided anything but his own opinion is just another of your lies.
Vince Treacy cited the header of Look Tin Sing for support.
Let’s look at the header of the SCOTUS opinion for Wong Kim Ark:
“That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid.”
Do you know what it is to be a “domiciled resident”, Slartibartfast? Was Obama’s father a “domiciled resident” of the U.S. when Obama was born?
Slartibartfast,
If you’re going to remain in this debate, would you at least refrain from inserting that which has not been presented?
Did I suggest that Obama lost his U.S. Citizenship when he was adopted by Soetoro? No I did not. The only prohibition under U.S. law would have been for the minor to have been expatriated.
Can you acquire another citizenship without renouncing an existing allegiance? Maybe you better look into the cases of adopted children. Do they acquire U.S. citizenship upon being adopted? You know that they do. If their country of origin does not permit a minor to expatriate, they must have only acquired another citizenship.
“You don’t seem to understand that President Obama was a natural born citizen of the United States and remains one to this day.”
And you don’t seem to understand that you have not provided any binding legal opinion to support that claim.
If Barack Obama traveled on an Indonesian Passport as an adult, would you consider that to be a positive act of expatriation?
Obama is hiding everything so that the fools who voted for him can sustain their illusion. It works pretty well. He holds the key to all the information. He is so transparent!
Slartibartfast said; “By the way, the link that I provided is to one of many sites that Vince has pointed me (and everyone else reading this thread) to which discusses Indonesian citizenship with reference to actual US and Indonesian law, so the statement that Vince never provided anything but his own opinion is just another of your lies.”
I’m waiting for you to provide me with the thread, and the day and time that Vince Treacy provided a link to a discussion of the Indonesian Law and how it relates to Obama.
Slartibartfast,
Since you were kind enough to provide a definition of “naturalization” which acknowledges it to be the process by which an alien becomes a citizen, perhaps you can explain how Congress, using their power to create “uniform rules for naturalization” could make someone who was born an alien, a natural-born citizen? If they weren’t born an alien, where did Congress get the power to make them anything?
To make matters worse, the Fourteenth Amendment would only apply to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It was the first time that “citizen” was defined in the Constitution. Congress cannot redefine that which is spelled out in the Constitution.
Slartibartfast,
Does SCOTUS opinion trump Vince Treacy? Maybe not in your world, but in mine it sure does.
Here’s a stipulated fact from ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
“By Italian law the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev. Stat. 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect. 2 That version of the statute, as does the present one, contained a residence condition applicable to a child born abroad with one alien parent.”
I think that pretty much destroys the claim made by Vince Treacy.
ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Syllabus “Appellee challenges the constitutionality of 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been BORN ABROAD, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 . Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished.” [EMPHASIS supplied]
I do not see how this applies to anything under discussion. Bellei was born abroad. Obama was born in the United States.
Different rule, different result.
Dig will have to provide a little more reasoning and a little less heat.
Wong Kim Ark
“he Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
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,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
What is so hard about the words?
There are only two sources of citizenship, birth and naturalization.
Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction becomes at once a citizen.
A court decision first formulates the rule of law.
Then it applies it to the facts before it.
It found that Wong met the test.
It never said, anywhere, that “only” children of permanently domiciled aliens were citizens at birth.
For crying out loud, Obama’s mother was a natural born United States citizen! Her son, born in the United States, was a natural born citizen.
Where is the law that says he is not a natural born citizen because of his father? There is none.
Anyway, I have been stating the law in the 14th Amendment and in the controlling Supreme Court case.
It’s the law. Buckle up, birthers.
It is useless to ask what if Obama had an Indonesian passport, because there seems to be no evidence that he ever had one.
“Claims about travel to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport
“It has also been claimed that Obama could not be a natural-born citizen because he traveled to Pakistan at a time when there was a ban on United States passport holders entering that country, which means he must have traveled using a non-U.S. passport. The OC Weekly comments that these assertions are not true:
“The Pakistan “travel ban” is a complete fabrication based on zero evidence and completely contradicted by State Department records and a 1981 New York Times article.[47]
“The New York Times article mentioned, along with U.S. State Department travel advisories from 1981, make it clear that travel to Pakistan by U.S. passport holders was possible at that time.[48][49]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Claims_about_travel_to_Pakistan_using_a_non-U.S._passport
The parents of Wong were subjects of the Emperor of China, but the Court still held that he became a citizen at birth.
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Is this the only US law that codifies what’s in the Constitution? Is that really necessary?
Vince Treacy,
I didn’t expect you to understand the significance of Rogers v. Bellei. –You have been arguing that Obama did not have dual citizenship from birth. That position is contrary to obamaconspiracy.org, fightthesmears, Factcheck.org, and my opinion. For some unknown reason you seem to think that the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.
“It is useless to ask what if Obama had an Indonesian passport, because there seems to be no evidence that he ever had one.”
There seems to be no evidence that Obama had any passport when he traveled before he became a U.S. Senator.
In toto, birfers is wong about Wong and simply wong-headed…ad nauseam
Nal,
I appreciate the effort, but nothing you presented would help to define natural born citizen. The definition you provided is for “nationals” and “citizens”.
FFLEO,
It’s nice to see you regularly poke your head in without contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion.
I read where you considered Vince Treacy to be immune from being called out for sophism, obfuscation, and outright lies because he voluntarily cohse to use his real name? Are you really under the impression that using one’s real name grants them immunity from such acts of retribution?
Were you really so ballsy that you (while posting anonymously) called for bdaman to post his real name, because Vince Treacy chose to do so?
If you really wanted to abide by Professor Turley’s call for civility, may I suggest your snarky commentary to be a good place to start.
Vince Treacy,
Do you consider the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen to be a natural born citizen?
You said; “One reason that McCain was considered a natural born citizen was because of his birth overseas to American citizen parents”. Which would indicate that is your belief.
I just want to make sure of your position.
Good news and bad news: Here in the U.S. Obama’s approval rating continues to drop. However, he is still well-liked in the country of his birth.
Dig,
Not trying to add to “natural born” definitions. I find it unusual that Congress should write a law that states what is found in the Constitution. Why would they feel that necessary? Especially since Congress only has the power of naturalization. Any citizen that achieves citizenship via Congressional statute is by definition a naturalized citizen. Does this statute mean that all citizens are naturalized? Or did Congress overstep its authority?
Nal,
I think Congress would only be overstepping their authority if they tried to use a mere Act of Legislature to create natural born citizens. They did once in 1790, but repealed that Act and created a new one that no longer made that sort of declaration in 1795. In fact, the preamble to the Naturalization Act of 1795 seems to hint that that new act was as far as Congress could go.
Some have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was interpreted in Wong Kim Ark, to further limit who can be a citizen by birth to only be those who are born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
I think it is reasonable to consider foreign-born children of U.S Citizens to be naturalized at birth. In the oral argument of TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001), Justice Stevens seemed to agree with that position.
I also think that the children of military personnel, born abroad, should be considered natural born citizens (the same as diplomats). After all, their foreign residence is only fictional, and they are only abroad while serving as representatives of the United States.
Dig,
In my opinion you are just another anonymous intellectually dishonest cretin, so this will be my last response to your drivel unless you:
(a) Admit that President Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible for his office
(b) Provide evidence (with appropriate legal citations) that (a) is not true
or
(c) I feel like calling you out for the lying crap you spew
The evidence and law suggest that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. He was vetted according to the process established in the Constitution and State law. The only legitimate methods for removing him from office are via impeachment or defeating his re-election bid. I fully expect that someone (probably not that twit Orly) will find a way to bring a case (with standing) against President Obama’s eligibility to be on a state’s ballot in the run-up to the 2012 elections and be will crushed (along with the pathetic hopes of you and the rest of the birthers) when his eligibility is confirmed in a court of law.
If you would care to dispute any of this, please provide something beyond your ignorant word or off-point citations to do so.
Dig posted:
Look, everyone reading this knows that your smears on Vince are baseless and that he’s right about the law. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here, but whatever your goals are, they are clearly petty and dishonest.
FFLEO,
Amen.
Dig said: “Good news and bad news: Here in the U.S. Obama’s approval rating continues to drop. However, he is still well-liked in the country of his birth.”
Yes, President Obama is still well-liked by the reasonable people in this country – and according to the RealClearPolitics average, his approval rating is 47.7% approve/45.9% disapprove and it doesn’t look like there’s been a statistically significant change since the beginning of the year.
The civility has evaporated into “sophism, obfuscation, and outright lies.” Why does not Dig get it?
In the Ankeny case, the state court plaintiff had standing and the Court of Appeals resolved the question of dual citizenship. It held on the merits that Obama was a natural born citizen despite the different citizenship of the parents. It rejected all the arguments that Dig has thrown up. No case, no case, no case has supported his argument.
Everyone can read it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
The State Supreme Court declined to review it.
If the birthers really want a US Supreme Court case, they should all get together and seek Supreme Court review. Have they?
Dig should read it and learn from it.
Dig: “Some have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was interpreted in Wong Kim Ark, to further limit who can be a citizen by birth to only be those who are born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.”
The Supreme Court held that all persons born in the US are subject to its jurisdiction, except those born to dipomatic personnel.
Yes, indeed. Obama was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, in the United States and is THEREFORE a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen.
What is the argument that Obama was not subject to US jurisdiction at birth? There is none.
Born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Born in the United States of America.
President of the United States of America.
Dig: “You have been arguing that Obama did not have dual citizenship from birth. That position is contrary to obamaconspiracy.org, fightthesmears, Factcheck.org, and my opinion. For some unknown reason you seem to think that the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.”
I never argued that Obama did not have dual citizenship.
Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.
I argued that there was no dual jurisdiction.
I never said “the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.”
Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.
It is hard enough to defend what I do in fact write, without contending with fictitious statements attributed to me.
Once again, slowly. Obama had two citizenships at birth. He was a full natural born citizen of the United States under the Constitution, Article II and Amendment 14. His Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he did not go to Kenya and swear allegiance to Kenya.
Obama was not subject to dual JURISDICTION. He was subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States at birth.
Persons in the US are subject to US jurisdiction. Persons in Kenya are subject to Kenyan jurisdiction. The US has no jurisdiction over persons in Kenya. Kenya has no jurisdiction over persons in the US. (There are exceptions by treaty for some military personnel, and diplomatic personnel have immunity, but those are immaterial).
But for the nth time, according citizenship to a person born in another country does not confer jurisdiction over that person. How hard is that?
Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the British Empire or of the colony of Kenya or of any other state or nation at the time of birth.
Citizenship does not equal jurisdiction, and vice versa.
That is what I have posted, and it is my considered legal judgment. If Dig is a penname for a distinguished law professor or judge, and says so on this blog, well, then, I will do more study.
It is getting painful to beat up on Dig on this elementary issue that Dig refuses to address.
But every one of the other readers here seems to have picked it up.
Dig did not even deny that he or she has posted here before under other names.
Children of military personnel, born overseas, are by definition naturalized citizens. They may also be considered “citizens by birth”, but they are still naturalized citizens. Can a naturalized citizen be considered a “natural born” citizen?
Dig to Slarti “I asked you to cite a source for the determination that someone born on U.S. soil, whose father was not a permanently domiciled resident is to be considered a natural-born citizen.”
Hope Dig has read Ankeny by now, since it held that a man born to a lawfully admitted exchange student and a natural born American citizen was a natural born citizen.
If it is wrong, there is still time to take it up to the US Supreme Court and to get it reversed.
Dig that logic and reasoning et al.
This thread has in its title “frivolous” and Vince Treacy has answered repeatedly every claim and counterclaim by you and others. I do not have the legal background to add anything substantive to this thread, although I would add more general comments if there was anything new to rebut; however, all I can now add is frivolity to frivolity.
We all know that attorneys must often deal with repetitive legal minutia and VT exemplifies that dedication. Regardless, up until about a month ago, I learned something new on almost every visit to this thread. Now when I read something I can think about comments up-thread and recall that VT has repeatedly answered that same question.
If this thread involved the ‘opposition’ presenting new, logical, and credible evidence, then I would welcome those additions. The three most credible contributors to this thread—VT, Mike A. and Mr. K. (aka Slartibartfast) have provided their full names. That certainly does not shield them from criticism; however, they should not become subjected to irrelevant personal probings by Bdaman, which occurred with Mike Spindell’s background.
You should remember that I voted for Mr. Obama, although I will never again. I do not like him and if I can vote against him, I will. Therefore, if you had any credible claims to remove him from office, I would be pleased. However, no persons—not even my foes—should be subjected to the repetitive and baseless nonsense that has occurred within this thread.
I will still read this thread when I see some of the regulars posting—most especially VT and Slartibartfast. They both continue to take the time to write detailed rebuttals and I commend them.
Dig said “the Fourteenth Amendment would only apply to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Got that right.
The problem for Dig is that Obama was subject to US jurisdiction at birth.
Hoist by own petard.
Slartibartfast,
How old are you? Where do you get off demanding that I do anything? Just how self-important do you think you are?
“The evidence and law suggest that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.”
Wrong biotch! The law suggests nothing of the sort. When asked to provide any “law” that would declare the Hawaiian-born child of a natural-born citizen woman, and a Kenyan man (who was only here in temporary residence) to be a natural-born citizen, you failed miserably. You consider the foreign-born children of U.S. Citizens to be natural-born citizens; so your understanding of the law in this area is void of support.
Slartibartfast said; “Have you not noticed that I’ve been advocating brither laws here for the last several days?
Have you noticed that you’re the only one on your team doing so? They know that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and if some state tries to keep him off the ballot it will permit the court to rule on it. That is something they don’t want. They don’t want it because it will; (1) demonstrate that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. (2) Stop permitting the children of illegal aliens to become citizens. That reduces the number of those who are likely to vote for the Democrat.
Slartibartfast said; “It says that he was born a citizen – i.e. that he was not a naturalized citizen (which I gave a definition of). As Vince has repeatedly demonstrated via citations of law there are only two types of citizens and Barack Obama is NOT an naturalized citizen… (I’ll let you figure out the rest). If you think differently, let’s see the citations of law and SCOTUS opinion that say so… Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any.”
There you go genius. You can’t provide law, and I can’t provide law. I can provide common-law. I can provide the Common Law of England of which I can prove the Law of Nations to be part of. And the law of nations states that Obama does not meet the criteria to be a natural born citizen.
Slartibartfast said; “No you idiot, he’s been arguing that only US law is relevant in determining the citizenship of President Obama.”
No. You’re the idiot. It is Obama’s dual character at birth that prevents him from being a natural-born citizen. Inviting persons of dual-character to occupy the position of the Executive is not evidence of a strong check on foreign influence. Then again, who gives a crap about foreign influence? (as long as he’s a Democrat (or not Bush) you’ll be happy)
–Let me guess. By your comments I would say that you have spent more years of your life in school than out, and (except for maybe short periods of time) you have never held a job where your pay was not ultimately provided by the government.
I said; There seems to be no evidence that Obama had any passport when he traveled before he became a U.S. Senator.
Slartibartfast said; The burden of proof lies on you here.
Where do you come from? What part of your world makes you think that something exists until someone can prove that it does not? Are you a religious person? If not, prove to me that God does not exist? Do you really not understand that you can only prove Obama’s travel on a U.S. Passport is to provide that passport?
FFLEO,
If you have gained anything by reading what Vince Treasy, Mike A., and Slartibartfast (a mathematician with no knowledge of the law) have stated, then you should be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close. If not you should be willing to say that the question has not been legally answered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
FFLEO,
Thanks for your comment – if all of the opposition to President Obama were as honorable and reasoned as yours I would worry much less about the fate of our country. I do have one small bone to pick – it’s Dr. K, not Mr. K. Mr. K is my dad (and Coach K is AWESOME!
). I didn’t spend 10 years in evil graduate school to be called mister… But don’t worry, I prefer Slarti here and, in any case, I could never stay mad at you once you turned on the folksy charm. Now if you’ll excuse me, it seems that Dig has spewed some more crap I need to clean up…
Nal said; “Children of military personnel, born overseas, are by definition naturalized citizens.”
I am not aware of any case in which the foreign-born child (legitimate or not) of a service member has challenged that status. If John McCain had been elected, and his birth certificate indicated that he was not born on the base, I’m sure the argument I suggested would be presented. It would be nice to have an answer. I see no difference between the foreign-born child of a service menber and that of a diplomat.
“They may also be considered “citizens by birth”, but they are still naturalized citizens.”
In the case of regular citizens, I would agree. However, as I presented above, I think a good case for diplomatic ficticious residence can be made in regard to service members.
“Can a naturalized citizen be considered a “natural born” citizen?”
I don’t think so. It would be a pretty silly way of having a strong check on foreign influence. Especially when you consider that they could have spent their most formative years in a foreign country.
Dr. K.
I actually thought about that *after* I posted.
Good luck with Diggin’…
Will FFLEO be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close. If not, is he willing to say that the question has not yet been legally answered by a court of competent jurisdiction?
Maybe he doesn’t want to answer. Maybe he should have asked himself that question before he voted for Obama.
If Obama is not clearly a natural born citizen, how could someone who supports the Constitution vote for him?
These and many questions like them should be answered by all those who ridicule the birthers for daring to ask the questions.
If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.
It seems to me that the 14th Amendments is pretty clear. It states that there are two types of citizens, those born in the United Sates and those that are naturalized. A military base in Panama is not “in the United States”. Hence, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.
FFLEO said:
Quite alright, I allowed me the opportunity to make the ‘evil graduate school’ remark and a laudatory comment about Coach K, so it’s all good. I hope you are entertained by the following remarks.
Dig spewed:
Dig continued:
Nal,
Don’t you think those on a military base would be “subject to the jurisdiction”?
I would say yes.
Nal,
Here’s an oral argument from 2001. I think you will see that questions of citizenship, as well as what exactly is a natural-born citizen, is a question that has not been settled. Mind you, this is from 2001 (before Obama was even in the picture). You will see that Ms. Davis (Associate-Dean of Northeastern University School of Law) acknowledges natural-born citizen to be considered by commenters to be a combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli.
I think you will also find that the Court (like you and I) consider those foreign-born children of U.S. Citizen parents to be “naturalized” citizens.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
Nal, there is new thread at Doc Conspiracy, posted on Saturday, May 1, 2010, on John McCain as a natural born citizen.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen/
Dig: “…you should be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close.”
This is from the Supreme Court. It is pretty close.
[qt]
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.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.” [unquote]
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
Dig: “I can provide the Common Law of England of which I can prove the Law of Nations to be part of. And the law of nations states that Obama does not meet the criteria to be a natural born citizen.”
Sorry, the Constitution and the Supreme Court decisions are the applicable law here, mate.
The common law is a good guide to the meaning of American law, but it is not the law. The law of nations is a good guide for international law, but not for the domestic (municipal) law of citizenship.
Dig: “Obama’s dual character at birth that prevents him from being a natural-born citizen.”
No case or law provides that “dual character,” whatever that may be, is a legal element in determining “natural born” status.
Dig said “If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.”
I think the framers did accept Hamilton’s suggestion, just as they accepted his grandfather clause, but in slightly different words. They did not give a reason, but the concept of “natural born” was in the common law and in Blackstone. They adopted a lot of common law concepts as American law. I think it was a change of style, not substance.
The Framers used common law terms instead of spelling out the provision. Instead of saying Congress could not inflict punishment on a named individual by legislative act, they said no bills of attainder. Instead of saying a law could not make past conduct criminal, they said no ex post facto laws. The preserved habeas corpus. They spoke of marque and reprisal and corruption of blood. Instead of saying born a citizen, they said natural born citizen. So that is a reason why the framers could have chosen natural born.
There is no difference between being born a citizen and being a natural born citizen. There are only two kinds, born and naturalized. No person who was born in the US itself has ever had to take out naturalization papers. She just shows a birth certificate.
I see no sign that Dig has read Ankeny yet.
Dig: “Inviting persons of dual-character to occupy the position of the Executive is not evidence of a strong check on foreign influence.” I have found no “dual character” clause in the Constitution. The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is clear on its face. The manifest effect was to exclude naturalized citizens from the Presidency. It does not exclude dual character, whatever that is. There were and are only two kinds of citizens, born and naturalized, and the clause excluded the naturalized ones.
Dig: “You have been arguing that Obama did not have dual citizenship from birth. That position is contrary to obamaconspiracy.org, fightthesmears, Factcheck.org, and my opinion. For some unknown reason you seem to think that the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.”
I never argued that Obama did not have dual citizenship.
Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.
I argued that Obama was under US jurisdiction.
I never said “the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.”
Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.
It is hard enough to defend what I do in fact write, without contending with fictitious statements attributed to me.
Once again, slowly. Obama had two citizenships at birth. He was a full natural born citizen of the United States under the Constitution, Article II and Amendment 14. His conditional Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he did not go to Kenya and swear allegiance to Kenya.
Obama was not subject to dual JURISDICTION. He was subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States at birth.
Dig has not denied posting earlier under as other trolls, has not stated any background in this area. It would help in responses if we knew if Dig were a lawyer or nonlawyer, and something of educational or occupational background relevant to the issues.
Dig has hurled a lot of nasty juvenile allegations and insults. One of the schoolyard taunts was that “By your comments I would say that you have spent more years of your life in school than out.”
Dig’s taunts are very telling. I am not making any accusations. I just read the uncivil posts and find that the fictitious “Dig” persona is very juvenile, replete with childish insults, dares, taunts, and name calling.
Dig may not realize it, but the postings give the impression of a chap in mother’s basement putting up posts while being nagged to take out the trash. Empty pizza boxes are covered by pop bottles. The pages of the Playboys are all stuck together.
Interesting article. I am not arguing that McCain is or is not a natural born citizen. I am arguing that he is a naturalized citizen. If “citizen at birth” is sufficient for natural born citizen, then surely a 14th amendment citizen is natural born.
Now sure I agree with Justice Stevens. The phrase “… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, …” could be read to apply only to “… a Citizen of the United States, …” and not to “… a natural born Citizen …”.
Nal, for your information, we had a thread on the McCain issue two years ago. It includes the memo by Tribe and Olson on the issues. It is very informative even for folks who disagree with their conclusion.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/#comment-12303
I recently posted the following comment on an article on Mario Apuzzo’s blog:
Commander Kerchner posted this response to my comment:
I sent in this reply which has apparently fallen victim to moderation:
Apparently this line of argument doesn’t fit into Mr. Apuzzo and Cmdr Kerchner’s narrative about hateful O-bots who are scared of the eligibility question…
I had the same problem with the AmericanTbinker site. They never put up my post and then barred me from posting anything.
Another contributor here said he would email the editor to raise the issue.
Never heard back from the contributor … or the editor.
Birthers like to talk to themselves, and always find themselves in agreement.
I never go to any of those sites anymore. I will not give them my email. “Lass’ sie nach Turley kommen.”
Let them come to Turley.
Mr Treacy I did in fact e-mail American Thinker on your behalf. I never heard back from American Thinker, not even an auto reply that my message was received. I went and read their e-mail policy and if you think the government over regulates, read their policy.
Apuzzo finally responded to Slart on his own site. Slart really baited the bear and angered him.
QUOTE: So what Wong did was create a class of persons who are born in the United States and even though they are born to one or two alien parents are still considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under a rather liberal interpretation of that clause which at most makes them Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” but not Article II “natural born Citizens.”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html
This is the nonsensical doctrine that there are three classes of US citizens, natural born citizens (with two US parents), “born citizens” under the 14th Amendment (with one or two alien parents), and naturalized citizens.
There is no basis in the Constitution or the decisions of the Supreme Court for this doctrine. It is an invention of Apuzzo.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that there are TWO classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized, and that they are of equal dignity, with the sole exception that the natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency.
QUOTE
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.
While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, “becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html
Round One to Slart.
Mario answers Slarti: “As you correctly point out, the Indiana State court decision of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 679 (2009), is not binding on a federal court. But more important is that the decision is wanting in legal analysis and historical and legal support.”
Well, if Ankeny is so wanting in its reasoning, why is Apuzzo not joining with all the other birthers in taking it up to the U.S. Supreme Court? Instead he is wasting his and his client’s time on Kerchner v. Obama, where the plaintiff clearly lacks standing. The courts can never reach the merits in Kerchner because he has no particularized injury that is not common to every citizen and voter. Why not take up Ankeny instead, where Article III standing was not a barrier in State court to a decision on the merits, and stop wasting federal court time and taxpayer money on yet another frivolous federal birther lawsuit?
Round Two to Slart.
Apuzzo says ” What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic.” He and Kerchner could start by respecting the fact that the Constitution makes all persons born in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the United States by birth. The 14th Amendment so provides.
Wong Kim Ark authoritatively held that it so provides. Apuzzo is less than candid in his response to Slart on Wong. He and Kerchner have said that they think that Wong was wrongly decided, and that it should be reversed. Slart is absolutely right to say that Wong supports his position. Apuzzo has agreed in the past that Wong is inconsistent with his argument, and has urged its reversal. But now he argues that Wong supports his case. Can’t have it both ways.
So this self-righteous “respect” for the Constitution is, in reality, a blatant disregard for its express terms, as interpreted in Supreme Court decisions that are binding on all lower courts until reversed.
This disrespect translates into a nativist, know-nothing, disdain for the rights of all those American citizens who were born under the American Flag, and have been loyal Americans all their lives, but were not fortunate enough to have chosen two natural born American citizens as their parents.
The problem for Apuzzo, Kerchner and all the other birthers is that Our Constitution is not their twisted, discriminatory constitution, but is the one that the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied.
The Dred Scott case said that persons descended from Africans could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment rebuked that despicable, racist opinion. Now this crowd wants to read the racism back into 14th Amendment itself by excluding persons of African descent. Their “constitution” is no more valid than the so-called “constitution” of the so-called “confederate states of america.”
Round Three, Slart.
I will add a final note that Mario Apuzzo does not mention that there is a federal legal definition of the term “birth certificate,” that the COLB meets that definition, that the definition is binding on federal civil and military courts, and that it is binding on the States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Up kinda late Mr. Treacy for someone your age. They make medication for that.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
CIVIL NUMBER: 10-1-969-05 RAT
(Declaratory Judgment)
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
EXHIBITS 1-5: SUMMONS
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK J. BENNETT, in his
official capacity as
Attorney General
of the State of Hawai’i,
LINDA LINGLE, in her
official capacity as Governor
of the State of Hawai’i,
Defendants.
_________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN, J.D., (“Plaintiff”), pro se, alleges in this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:
COUNT ONE
I.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of the definitive book on President Barack Obama (“Obama”), “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.” Plaintiff is also the producer/director of the first film concerning Obama’s Hawai’i years, “Obama: The Hawai’i Years.” He has also been writing columns and commentary about the president for nearly six (6) years and he is currently planning a second book on President Obama. Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.
2. Defendants MARK J. BENNETT (“Bennett”) and LINDA LINGLE (“Lingle”) are the Hawai’i Attorney General and Governor respectively. Governor Lingle supervises and controls the actions of the executive department and in particular supervises Dr. Chiyome Fukino who is the Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health.
3. This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai’i Revised Statutes.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes.5. The defendants are sued in their official capacities for the reasons set forth in the exhibits accompanying and attached to this Complaint.
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff submitted a Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”) request to the defendants on or about November 2, 2008. A copy of said request is attached as Exhibit 1.
2. Plaintiff further submitted a supplemental request to
Lingle on April 3, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.
3. Defendants responded nearly seven (7) months later with a virtually blanket refusal to disclose any of their own internal communications. The UIPA materials for which defendants charged Plaintiff $600 were virtually worthless and made a mockery of the liberal UIPA principles applicable under both the UIPA statute and the decisions of the Hawai’i courts interpreting the UIPA. A copy of defendants’ response is attached as Exhibit 3.
4. Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 14, 2010; defendants have not responded. A copy of Plaintiff’s request is attached as Exhibit 4. In a final effort to avoid a lawsuit Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 30, 2010, attached as Exhibit 5; again defendants have not responded.
5. There is great public confusion and national concern involving the issue of Obama’s birth in this state. Ironically, the secrecy and manipulation of the defendants, and their refusal to make Hawai’i state records available to plaintiff, have fueled intense speculation that Obama was not born in Hawai’i and may have been born in Kenya. Plaintiff himself has always stated Obama was born in Hawai’i, which is why he is suing to obtain Obama’s Hawai’i birth and other public records here; nevertheless, tens of millions of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya due to the secrecy and manipulation of Hawai’i state records by the defendants.
6. Unless and until Hawai’i executive branch officials and judges stop stonewalling and concealing historical Hawaiian archives concerning Obama, public speculation will continue to grow about the nature and extent of Obama’s origins in this state. The defendants’ secrecy and manipulation of public records have boomeranged: instead of quieting public concerns since 2008 and laying to rest questions about Obama’s “roots,” approximately 150 million Americans now harbor doubts in 2010 about the whereabouts and circumstances of Obama’s birth.
7. American media have coined the term “Birthers” to refer to the approximately 150 million Americans who harbor doubts about the circumstances of Obama’s birth. Plaintiff refers to these tens of millions of concerned Americans collectively as “Birther Nation.”
III.
LEGAL CLAIM
1. In the past, Hawai’i courts have interpreted the UIPA liberally.
2. The defendants’ current claim that any internal communications of Hawai’i executive branch officials involving Obama’s records are exempt from UIPA disclosure would gut the UIPA and make the statute worthless.
3. The refusal of the defendants to comply with the UIPA is part of an egregious (and misguided) partisan political manipulation of the Obama archives by the defendants. Defendants, using Fukino as their mouthpiece, have disseminated repeated statements and remarks about the contents of Obama’s state files; when challenged to produce the original documents to which they were referring the defendants responded with claims of secrecy.
4. The defendants have waived any secrecy of state records concerning Obama by Fukino’s repeated and continuing public discussions of the Obama files and by their constant and continuing efforts to obtain local and national publicity for their claims.
IV.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff seeks to have the defendants fully comply with the UIPA in good faith, and to provide all of their internal communications which they have refused to provide to Plaintiff for 1-1/2 years.
COUNT TWO
I.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph One of Count One (¶ I).
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph Two of Count One (¶ II).
III.
LEGAL CLAIM
1. Barack Obama is President of the United States. He is not by any stretch of the imagination a private citizen to whom normal privacy concerns are applicable. State and federal privacy statutes applicable to ordinary private citizens were never intended to impose a veil of secrecy over historical archives and records concerning the President of the United States.
2. Hawai’i state files, records and other local sources of information constitute historical archives both of this state and the United States to which privacy statutes and privacy concerns are either completely inapplicable or almost fully attenuated. Obama himself has stated he has released his “birth certificate;” therefore he has affirmatively waived any secrecy or privacy concerning the original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate.
3. Defendants cannot be allowed to play games and seek to advance a partisan political agenda concerning Obama by making public claims about state documents and records which they then refuse to make available for public inspection and copying.
IV.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate is a state and national historical record and archive which should be made available to the American people and to writers, journalists, scholars and researchers. This finding should also be applicable to any and all Hawai’i state and local government records concerning Obama wherever located including, but not limited to, his school and other records.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
1. For a declaration by this Court that the attached record reflects defendants have failed to comply with the UIPA in good faith, and that Plaintiff as an author and writer and cinéaste is a person to whom the requested UIPA materials should be made available forthwith;
2. That because Obama is the President of the United States, he is not a “private citizen” to whom normal privacy considerations are applicable. Any Hawai’i state records or other medical and school records constitute historical archives of this state and the United States and should be made available to writers, journalists, historians and scholars such as Plaintiff.
3. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: May 4, 2010
Honolulu, Hawai’i
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.
Plaintiff Pro se
“Up kinda late Mr. Treacy for someone your age. They make medication for that.”
Why start all over with this juvenile taunting at a legal blog conducted by a Professor of Constitutional Law at a leading law school? This is not Kindergarten. Civility.
Vince Treacy says “The Supreme Court has made it clear that there are TWO classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized, and that they are of equal dignity, with the sole exception that the natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency.”
But then he presents a quote that leads him to a conclusion that is not stated; “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.”
In effect, if the menu stated that only cold-cut sandwiches and pasta are available, but only those who order the ham sandwich can get rye bread, Mr. Treacy would conclude that the ham sandwich is the only cold-cut sandwich available. When someone like Mario Apuzzo says that a bologna sandwich is also available, Vince Treacy mocks him by calling his statement “nonsensical doctrine”, but then provides absolutely no evidence for support.
Mr. Treacy cannot comprehend that a natural-born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen are both born citizens. One of them took a federal law (a constitutional amendment) to create, while the other had never been questioned.
In no country has it ever been questioned that those born in the country, of parents, who were citizens, were also citizens. It took no law to understand and ensure that. The same cannot be said for those whose parents were not citizens, nor could it be said for those whose parents were citizens, but born on foreign soil. Some countries recognize jus soli, while others recognize jus sanguinis. That which is beyond question is the only thing that is natural. Only a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis is beyond question.
Andy notes that “Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.” Andy does not note that he is not a member of the bar of any jurisdiction in the United States. Andy is therefore filing “pro se,” that is, by and on behalf of himself, and without legal counsel admitted to practice in the State of Hawaii. Andy will probably lose the case.
More from Schneider v. Rusk-
Vince Treacy (quoting Schneider) says “While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment”.
If this were true, it would mean that no native born citizen had a right to citizenship before the ratification of the 14th Amendment. We know that to be a false statement. The right of citizenship has never been denied to those born in this country to parents who were citizens.
It is admitted by most that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was created to ensure that citizenship was bestowed upon those of African decent. By eliminating the stipulated domicile presented in Wong Kim Ark, Mr. Treacy, applying a liberal interpretation of that case has applied it to anyone, under just about any circumstance, who is born in this country. It has even been applied to the children of those who enter this country illegally. Anybody who thinks the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the children of illegal immigrants, citizens of this country, needs to have their head examined.
Watching Vince Treacy tout Ankeny is like watching a kid in Jersey think he’s rich because he has a pocket full of pesos. It might impress the other kids, but it just makes the adults laugh.
Vince Treacy said “He [Mario Apuzzo] and Kerchner have said that they think that Wong was wrongly decided, and that it should be reversed.”
Can you please back that up with a linked reference?
Vince Treacy said;
“The problem for Apuzzo, Kerchner and all the other birthers is that Our Constitution is not their twisted, discriminatory constitution, but is the one that the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied.
The Dred Scott case said that persons descended from Africans could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment rebuked that despicable, racist opinion. Now this crowd wants to read the racism back into 14th Amendment itself by excluding persons of African descent. Their “constitution” is no more valid than the so-called “constitution” of the so-called “confederate states of america.”
Vince Treacy, you are a real piece of work. Not only are you overtly racist, you’re a low-life pig!
The arguments presented have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with parentage.
You lost the argument, so you appeal to the emotions of racial disability from our past. Is their no bottom for you?
“If this were true, it would mean that no native born citizen had a right to citizenship before the ratification of the 14th Amendment. We know that to be a false statement. The right of citizenship has never been denied to those born in this country to parents who were citizens.”
Really.
Anyone can read the Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393. It denied citizenship to persons descended from slaves brought to the country from Africa. The dissent pointed out that many freedmen had been citizens at the time of the Revolution. See Justice Curtis’s dissent. He stated that free persons descended from slaves were citizens of several states and of the United States at the time of the ratification.
Yet Taney denied citizenship to persons who were born in this country to citizens of the United States.
Read Dred, learn a little history, and come back, son.
More name calling. Just ask Mario what he thinks of Wong. He will tell you Wong was wrong and should be repealed. Kerchner said so on the radio with Mario.
Has Dig even read Ankeny? Has Dig even understood the legal point I made? I doubt it.
I suggested the birthers take it up to SCOTUS. Maybe birther Ginny Lamp could ask Clarence to get the gang of four together to take the case. They might get a fifth vote to go with ThomasScaliaAlitoRobers.
Ankeny went off on the merits. Birthers, stop whining that you have lost 60 cases on standing. You have one here.
This document should be helpful:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Look at page two, subsection d.
That is the current law, as administered by the U.S.
All children born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States at the time of birth acquire citizenship at birth. Then, in red letters, it says that this applies even if their parents were in the country illegally at the time of birtb.
There were no illegal aliens when the 14th Amendment was ratified. If this unintended consequence is a problem, then amend the Constitution. Don’t try to trash the Constitution by getting some unelected judges to rewrite it according to their own personal policy predilections.
I am just stating the legal consensus, son. Don’t blame me. Blame the folks who adopted and ratified the language of the 14th. We are bound by their words, not their unstated intent.
Vince Treacy said; “Anyone can read the Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393. It denied citizenship to persons descended from slaves brought to the country from Africa.”
Dred Scott was morally wrong, but constitutionally correct.
Mr. Treacy implies that a constitutional interpretation cannot be morally wrong. That’s a fallacy with plenty of opinion to demonstrate it.
When Mr. Treacy cannot find law to support his position, he relies on emotion. He tugs at your heart in order to confuse the mind. He relies on the fact that our current view on persons of African decent will find the 19th century view appalling. And we should be appalled. We should be outraged that people were treated as property. However, that was the law back then.
For a better understanding of the Dred Scott decision, you should read this link: http://hnn.us/articles/30419.html
In Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), the Sylabus stated that the Court held that “The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .’ completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 387 U. S. 262-268.”
The 14th completely controls the status of citizenship.
It mentions two kinds, “born or naturalized.”
There are only two kinds.
If one is a citizen, and was not naturalized, then one is a natural born citizen.
There are no other kinds.
There is no room in the Amendment for “born citizens” who are not “natural born citizens.” “Born citizens” are “natural born citizens.” The terms are synonyms. They are two phrases which mean the same thing legally.
Dred Scott was legally wrong.
There was no basis in law or fact that slaves or freedmen could not be citizens, and no basis for holding that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories.
I am aware of the Mark Graber link. Go to the comments for some of my views on his “scholarship.”
I have put up a lot more law in this thread than you have, son.
Hey, all I said was that Scott denied citizenship to persons of African descent who were born on American soil, and that the position taken by Mario and the rest of the birther crowd would deny citizenship to a person of African descent who was born on American soil.
Quite a coincidence.
We watch what you do, not what you say.
Mr. Treacy will pretend that domicile had nothing to do with the Court’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark. That’s kind of funny when you consider that “domicile” is mentioned more times than “natural-born citizen” in that opinion.
Mr. Treacy has concluded that Ark was a natural-born citizen because the court determined that Ark was as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
Based on that premise Mr. Treacy must consider those who are naturalized to not be as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
The only other conclusion available, based on Vince Treacy’s faulty premice, is that naturalized citizens are also natural-born citizens. We all know that to be incorrect. I don’t think Vince Treacy would consider naturalized citizens to be natural-born citizens, but I don’t recall him stating such. Although Vince Treacy has concurred with the opinion of Laurence and Tribe with regards to John McCain. That opinion considers one who is by statute to be a natural-born citizen. An opinion that is in direct contrast to the limited authority granted Congress to make citizens out of aliens.
Something that is not as much, can only be less. Would Vince Treacy have us believe that naturalized citizens are less of a citizen than other citizens of this country? Less of a citizen than natural-born citizens? That position would be ludicrous. All citizens of the United States are equal.
I doubt Vince Treacy would claim that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural-born citizen.
Mr. Treacy has adopted a position, that when carried to its logical conclusion, presents a fallacy.
Vince Treacy’s blatant racism prevents him from considering that the position of the birthers is that a U.S. born child, of a father who is not domiciled here, is not a natural-born citizen. That position has no reference to race. Obama’s father could have been a Swede and the position would still be that Obama Jr. is not a natural-born citizen.
The position of the “birthers” has to do with undivided allegiance. It is based on the observance of a strong check from foreign influence.
Would Vince Treacy consider the son of Osama Bin Laden, if born on the soil of the United States, during a temporary sojourn, and raised in a foreign country, to be illegible to the Office of Commander in Chief? Mr. Treacy, as he has done in the past, will likely say that is up to the voters. If the strong check against foreign influence was up to the voters, there would be no need for the provision to exist in the Constitution.
The voters are free to elect whomever they want. That doesn’t mean that the person chosen by the voters meets the qualifications. Not only would that premise make the Constitution nothing more than a piece of paper, or, at best, a mere guideline, but it would also mean that the Twentieth Amendment could not be recognized as a check on the emotions of the voters.
Dig’s “logic” is incoherent.
“Mr. Treacy has concluded that Ark was a natural-born citizen because the court determined that Ark was as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
“Based on that premise Mr. Treacy must consider those who are naturalized to not be as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
….
“Something that is not as much, can only be less. Would Vince Treacy have us believe that naturalized citizens are less of a citizen than other citizens of this country? Less of a citizen than natural-born citizens? That position would be ludicrous. All citizens of the United States are equal.
“I doubt Vince Treacy would claim that a naturalized citizen is than a natural-born citizen.”
I will let the Supreme Court answer this one for me:
“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.” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964).
From the Supreme Court decision, which is binding on all State courts and lower Federal courts, it is clear that naturalized citizens and natural born citizens are all equal in all respects, with the sole exception that only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President or Vice President.
Can you hear me now?
So Mr. Treacy did not “claim” a naturalized citizen to be “less of a citizen” than, or “not as much a citizen” as, a natural born citizen, because he stated that they are of equal dignity in all respects but one. That one respect, eligibility for the Presidency, is provided expressly in Article II of the Constitution and cannot be altered except by Constitutional Amendment under Article V.
The witness answered that he could not deny or affirm that he had stopped beating his wife because of the fact that he had never beaten his wife.
If anyone else can make sense of this “logic,” jump in anywhere.
This has been addressed ad nauseam. I will not reinvent the wheel. I will notE that no great outcry arose about Arthur, Curtis, Goldwater, Romney or McCain when questions of their citizenship came up. Go back up the thread. Obama never had divided allegiance. Kenya or Britain never had jurisdiction. Go read. On the ludicrous, ridiculous OBL question, sorry, but it is the law and the Constitution. If there is a problem, put in an Amendment. In the meantime, unlike you, I trust the people.
Source.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen/
QUOTE
Rickey says:
May 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm Rickey(Quote)
WTF? says:
So let’s answer that question with regard to Obama. Was his father domiciled therein?
We have been over this before, ad nauseam.
1. We have no idea what the intentions of Obama’s father were at the time of Obama’s birth. Did he intend to stay in Hawaii? Did he intend to stay in the United States? Who knows? Wouldn’t the fact that his marriage started to fall apart qualify as “an unexpected event?”
What if he intended to stay in the United States but later changed his mind? Would your argument be that Obama was a natural born citizen during the time that his father intended to be a permanent resident, but lost natural born status when his father later changed his mind? That would be nonsensical.
2. The court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was merely stating the facts as they were at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth. Did you not know that at the time of the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents had returned to live in China? Did you not know that the reason he had gone to China was to visit his parents? By your definition, they weren’t “domiciled” in the United States any more than Obama’s father was. UNQUOTE
Last post at 3:20 am first post this morning at 9:15.
Just an observation Mr. Treacy, not a taunt.
“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.”
This quote is taken directly from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations, which has been a world recognized and time honored reference guide to understanding “natural law,” and the natural birthrights of national citizenship recognized by all civilized nations for more than two-hundred and fifty years.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22782
“This quote is taken directly from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations…”
So what?
BFD.
It is not in the Constitution. It is not in the laws. It is not in a Supreme Court decision. The United States did not even exist when it was written. It is just the opinion of one guy.
What part of the word “irrelevant” is not understood?
Here’s a perfect example of the idiocy presented by Vince Treacy.
“The court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was merely stating the facts as they were at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth. Did you not know that at the time of the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents had returned to live in China? Did you not know that the reason he had gone to China was to visit his parents? By your definition, they weren’t “domiciled” in the United States any more than Obama’s father was.”
The domicile of Ark’s parents at the time of the trial has nothing to do with their domicile at the time of his birth. The verbosity was injected for the purpose of obfuscation.
“Rickey” doesn’t understand that someone attending school on a foreign scholarship, on a student visa, has done nothing that would indicate his intent to become a U.S. Citizen, or to become a member of our society.
If “Rickey” or Vince Treacy want to claim that Obama Sr. was not here for the “special purpose” of attending classes, the burden will be on him/them to do so.
VT,
Several days ago in another thread, Slatibartfast caught Bdaman using at least 2 pseudonyms. Bdaman is a dishonest and disreputable person and I will simply not deal with him again.
One of the cardinal rules of any online forum must be; you *do not* post under multiple screen names to use as a device to deceive by supporting your position with many anonymous “votes” for your position. This is a common tactic of Badman and “friends.”
Bdaman, I will ignore all of your posts and I request that you ignore mine so that neither of us is banned because of any personal disputes.
VT, regarding your question about finding any “logic” to the postings by Digs, Bdaman et al., the answer is a resounding negative.
You seem very irritable Mr. Treacy, maybe you should get some rest. I know I feel refreshed after a nap.
How do you know it wasn’t my real name Mr. I post under my real name on other blogs.
Next you’ll want to see my birth certificate.
Dig said:
““Rickey” doesn’t understand that someone attending school on a foreign scholarship, on a student visa, has done nothing that would indicate his intent to become a U.S. Citizen, or to become a member of our society.”
You apparently don’t understand that the classic way for an alien to attempt to gain US citizenship is to marry an American citizen (and having an anchor baby doesn’t hurt either…).
BTW Dr. Kessler also post on other blogs under different names.
If there is problem with Rickey, go over to Doc Conspiracy link and take it up there, for crying out loud.
Bdaman said:
“BTW Dr. Kessler (sic) also post (sic) on other blogs under different names.”
No, I don’t. I post under the name ‘Slartibartfast’ everywhere I post. I have revealed my name, so ‘Slartibartfast’ isn’t an anonymous identity. And if you are going to use my name, please spell it correctly.
I can’t believe you guys are still at it.
Vince Treacy won this argument a loooooooooong time ago.
“Permanent domicile” is not in the 14th Amendment.
All the Amendment requires is (1) birth (2) subject to US jurisdiction.
The Wong Court was simply reciting the facts. Wong’s parents were not even eligible to apply for citizenship under the laws at the time. THEY were subjects of a foreign country, of the Emperor of Japan, and nevertheless the Court held that Wong was a citizen.
Law students, just as you do in an exam, the Court stated the issue, recited the facts, declared the law, applied it to the facts, and reached its holding. The law was that a person born in the US under its jurisdiction was a citizen by his birth, regardless of the fact that his parents were permanent aliens and subjects of another country.
Permanent domicile and the fact that Wong was Chinese were not relevant to the holding.
Dig has not read and responded to the State Department publication linked above.
Neither Dig, nor Integrity, nor Crazy, nor bdaman have ever posted a statement that they have not posted under any of the other names on this thread. They have not denied it. Very evasive.
I am taking a break for a while.
I suggest that the posters take up their theories at Doc Conspiracy and Native and Natural Born Citizen Explored, where they will learn a lot.
And Dig cannot seem master the rules of civility at this site.
And bdaman can’t resist a taunt, either.
Neither Dig, nor Integrity, nor Crazy, nor bdaman have ever posted a statement that they have not posted under any of the other names on this thread. They have not denied it. Very evasive.
I am taking a break for a while.
Enjoy your nap Mr. Treacy, I’m off to the pool
Vince,
You’ve more than earned a break…
Bdaman,
Would you care to reveal all of the names you’ve posted under on this thread?
Slartibartfast said; “No, I don’t. I post under the name ‘Slartibartfast’ everywhere I post.”
Are you expressly denying that it is you who posts under the moniker of “scientist” at obamaconspiracy.org?
Dig said:
“Are you expressly denying that it is you who posts under the moniker of “scientist” at obamaconspiracy.org?”
Yes.
Mario Apuzzo responded to a comment of mine here:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html
This is my response (which I will also post to the above thread):
[Me]: “I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.”
[Apuzzo response]: “An authentic and certified Certification of Live Birth (COLB), not to be confused with a Certificate of Live Birth (BC), is only prima facie evidence of a birth event. A certified copy paper version of the alleged COLB has not been presented to any controlling legal authority or even to any reporters in the major media.”
Yes, a certified copy of the COLB is prima facie evidence of a birth event in Hawaii. I stipulated providing such to a controlling legal authority (I am confident that Hawaii DOH officials did not perjure themselves and such a document exists). I am not aware of any evidence that would be admissible in a US court of law that would cast doubt on the validity of the COLB. Also, as I understand it, birth certificates in Kenya are a matter of public record. If this is true then the lack of a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate with official affidavits affirming its validity is very curious…
[Apuzzo response]: “It is rather unreasonable to argue that with every word in the Constitution, the Framers defaulted to the English common law for its meaning unless they told us they were relying upon some other law for definition.”
It is also unreasonable to assume that they defaulted to de Vattel and implicitly created a third class of citizen (someone born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen) without in any way mentioning it.
[Apuzzo response]: “At no time did [Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark] say that such a child born in the United States of “an” alien parent is a “natural born Citizen.” To better understand this point, we know that the Fourteenth Amendment considers born citizens and naturalized citizens “citizens of the United States” and deems both classes of citizens to be equal. But even though they are equal in rights, we know that under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.”
As I read the 14th Amendment, it says in relevant part “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”. I don’t see anything asserting that the classes of citizens are equal. On the other hand the Wong Kim Ark decision DOES assert equality: “… as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” If Wong Kim Ark were not eligible to run for president then he would not be ‘as much a citizen’ as a natural born citizen. Additionally, if both are co-equal citizens by operation of the same principle, by what principle do you claim that there is a difference between the two? Also, I find it interesting that “an” alien parent means just one alien parent, but ‘the natural-born child of “A” citizen’ means two citizen parents. I hope you get the chance to argue this in front of a court.
[Apuzzo response]: “[Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana] basically took Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and used it to also define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. ”
Not true. The 14th amendment specifies two classes of citizen (‘born’ and ‘naturalized’) as does the Constitution (‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized’). To say that these terms have been conflated is a straw man argument. And while conflating distinct terms in the Constitution is “inadmissible” as you put it, I would think that adding distinctions that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution’s text (such as people who are born citizens but not natural born citizens) is equally improper.
[Me]: “I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement.”
[Apuzzo response]: “We welcome the challenge to have a court of competent jurisdiction decide the question of Obama’s Article II eligibility to be President. We believe that if a court will give Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs standing, we will prevail. Once such a court decides the merits of the eligibility question (not just the standing question), I do not believe there will continue to be an “eligibility movement” and so there will not be any need to “marginalize” it.”
So if a court of competent jurisdiction issues a finding similar to the Ankeny decision after hearing your arguments you believe that will satisfy the entire eligibility movement that President Obama legitimately holds his office?
[Me]: “So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.”
[Apuzzo response]: “Commander Kerchner, the other plaintiffs, and I are not interested in hurting or helping anyone’s chances of getting elected or re-elected. What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic.”
I’m not interested in your intent – I would just like the eligibility issue to be addressed on it merits in as high-profile a venue as possible so that a ruling in favor of President Obama’s legitimacy (which is what I fully expect will happen) discredits the misinformation that the eligibility movement has espoused as widely as possible.
I think that the implication that only you and those that agree with you are interested in upholding the Constitution is one of the most un-American sentiments I’ve ever heard. One of the basic principles of how America works (or is supposed to work), in my opinion, is the idea that patriotic men and women of good faith exist on both sides of arguments. The demonization of people who disagree with them by the eligibility movement (and the right wing in general) is an un-American tactic which shames the founders and all they stood for and disrespects all of the brave men and women that have fought and died to ensure our freedom.
You go Dr. Slarti, your famous, front page news. I’m proud of you.
Bdaman,
I’m still waiting for a list of all of the pseudonyms you’ve posted under on this thread…
I saw this over at Doc Conspiracy’s site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/early-civics-book-comments-on-presidential-eligibility
Another recreation of a ‘Great Moment in Birtherism’:
none, zero, nada, that is that I know of
but you b sure to let me know which ones you tink I am.
You said,
“The demonization of people who disagree with them by the eligibility movement”
Who has the birther movement demonized those who disagree with them?
How did the birther movement demonize them?
What names have those who disagree with the birther movement been called?
If anything it is those involved in the birther movement who have been demonized.
A day after being awarded an honorary doctorate by a local university US President Barrack Obama’s grandmother hosted a party at her Kogelo home in Siaya on Tuesday.
Two bulls, three sheep and four goats were slaughtered for the many visitors who trooped to the home to congratulate the 88-year-old grandmother for the honour.
Mama Sarah Obama was awarded a honorary Doctor of Letters by the Great Lakes University of Kisumu on Monday for her role in helping widows and orphans at her Kogelo village.
A similar feast had been organised after Mr Obama ascended to the White House.
The day is now marked with cultural activities annually.
Mama Sarah appealed to the public to dedicate their time and effort to ensuring that they take care of orphans and the vulnerable people in the society.
“This is a show of blessing from God, since I have always dedicated my time to tend to the orphans. Even the US president passed through my hands,” added the grandmother.
Siaya DC Boaz Cherutich accompanied Mama Sarah from Kisumu to Kogelo for the celebrations.
The Obama Kogelo community chairman Mr Vitalis Aketch Ogombe hailed Mama Sarah’s efforts in helping orphans.
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/regional/Obamas%20grandmother%20throws%20party%20/-/1070/912088/-/132bh0/-/index.html
Her statement could be interpreted in more than one way. For example, is she telling us Barack Obama was actually an orphan whom she tended, or does she mean he passed through her hands at the moment of his birth, or could she be referring to something else? What do you think she meant?
Barack Obama’s broken promise to African village
David Cohen, Evening Standard
25.07.08
The small brick house with no running water, a tin roof and roving chickens, goats and cows is owned by Sarah Obama, Barack’s 86-year-old step-grandmother.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23520981-barack-obamas-broken-promise-to-african-village.do
She could only be his step grandmother if they are not blood related.
It reminded me of our trip to Africa two years ago and the level of excitement we felt in that country and the hope the people saw and the shear presence of someone like Barack Obama, a Kenyan……
Bdaman said:
“none, zero, nada, that is that I know of but you b sure to let me know which ones you tink I am.”
Frankly, I don’t really care – I was just making a point about honesty (Dig, since you are so concerned about intellectual honesty maybe you would like to answer the same question). I assume that any poster is a unique individual and judge their posts on the merits. If Vince posts something that I know to be incorrect, I’ll jump on him too (I’m watching you Vince
).
Bdaman posted:
By the way, I believe that Sarah Obama is the second wife of Barack Obama’s grandfather – i.e. they are not blood relatives.
Is this guy referring to you Dr. Slarti
This person is mentally disturbed. They always start out calm and rational then the OBOT chip turns on.
The Commander said it here awhile back. It’s pointless to debate these people.
They are losers and Left wing radicals.
If he is, he is mistaken. If any of them come here it would be my honor to defend you and I mean that.
Bdaman,
Yes, it is referring to me. You can find the comment at:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html
If you care to try and get a comment defending me through Mario’s moderation, I would appreciate the effort, but I’m not going to hold my breath that it will ever see the light of day…
I’m not sure if I did it right but here’s what I said. Do you have to create an account?
Hi I’m a regular commenter over at the Turley blog. I am offended by a few comments made about Slartibartfast.
I am often ridiculed and chastised by other posters there. I can say with all do respect that Slartibartfast is not one of them.
Although we often disagree Slartibartfast is not mentally disturbed nor is he a left wing radical. Please don’t let this one issue predetermine your thoughts of him.
Sincerely, Bdaman
Our discussion can be found here
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-131396
Bdaman,
Thank you. I created a google account in order to make a post there (there seemed to be other ways to do it though). If it was successful you should have gotten a message at the top of the page saying that your comment was accepted and would be posted when approved by the owner of the blog. You do realize that you’re just another O-bot tool now, don’t you?
I’m subscribed to the thread, so I’ll let you know if your comment actually makes it through.
Goodnight – I’m off to get some work done (and a little sleep) before I have to drive a friend to the airport at 5 am…
Lingle radio interview
Although the governor now claims she issued a news release stating Kapi’olani is Obama’s birthplace, the actual release said no such thing, making no reference to Kapi’olani nor any other specific location of Obama’s birth.
The director of health, Chiyome Fukino, said:
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law Hawaii 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.
“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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”
Thats not what the Guvner just said.
Poll: 14 percent believe Obama was born abroad
Washington Post: ‘Birther’ theory remains widespread despite debunking
Asked an open-ended question about where President Barack Obama was born, 14 percent of Americans say he was born abroad – giving an incorrect answer that shows how widespread the misunderstanding of his birthplace is nearly a year and a half into his presidency.
Fully 68 percent of those surveyed in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll say, unprompted, that he was born in the United States, including 48 percent who accurately cite Hawaii. Another 9 percent say it’s their “best guess” that he was born in this country, bringing the total saying he is U.S.-born to 77 percent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37017212/ns/us_news-washington_post
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/poll-half-birthers-call-suspicion-approve-obama/story?id=10576748
Lakin is in deep trouble with this lawyer.
The lawyer is dealing with birther myths that were exploded two years ago. The lawyer is still making the false claim that Hawaii will issue a COLB to a person born outside the state, but showing that the person was born in Hawaii. It does not do that. The lawyer is unaware of the legal definition of birth certificate. The lawyer therefore has no idea of what will be admissible in court, since the COLB meets the federal legal definition of birth certificate. He wants a document with a doctor’s signature, but there is no law requiring such a signature on a legal birth certificate.
Lakin desperately needs an experienced military lawyer, now.
Morning Mr. Treacy or is it good
night.
President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
Comments have been closed for this article
Apparently Anderson doesn’t want it opened up for discussion as seen in his interview.
Vince Treachy:
Deep trouble is right. Lakin seems like an honorable, though fundamentally mistaken, man who is being used by various right wing groups. He will suffer the consequences. And this attorney, well, I feel like the announcer in the famous clip of the Hindenburg disaster. Oh, the humanity!
Mr Treacy looks like the attorney for LTC. Lakin is your neighbor.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Attorney at Law
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-448-5032
LTC Lakin’s defense is handled by trial lawyer Paul Rolf Jensen, who has been representing clients for the better part of 20 years.
With an educational background that includes Duke University Law School and the University of California, Berkeley (where he did his undergraduate work) Jensen is an accomplished and successful advocate, having tried dozens of jury cases.
He also has served in government, most notably as Senior Counsel of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Jensen has also worked in senior positions for United States Senators Jeremiah Denton and Bob Smith. In 1990, Jensen worked in the chambers of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces as a law clerk to the late Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett.
The attorney driving the story of the Birther Army doctor facing a court martial for refusing orders is a former Republican Hill staffer and current personal injury lawyer who has dabbled in anti-gay activism and reportedly wrote a letter to the FBI tipping off the feds to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s use of prostitutes, months before the scandal publicly broke.
Attorney Paul Rolf Jensen runs a California law firm, Jensen & Associates, that focuses on bread and butter personal injury cases involving dog bites, seatbelt failure, and asbestos exposure.
But, says the GOP operative Roger Stone, a friend and sometimes client of Jensen’s, he should not be underestimated when it comes to the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/attorney_paul_rolf_jensen_represents_birther_army.php#more
Jensen was wrong about the Hawaii law:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/lakin-lawyer-lies-on-cnn/
Doc Conspiracy said: “It infuriates me no end how a clever lawyer can say something that appears to be one thing, but is actually something else.”
Jensen said: “In the state of Hawaii there’s a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of Hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, at any age, by going back and filling out a form.
Doc said “Jensen then cited HRS § 338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State.
Doc said, “That law does not allow “anyone” to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate. It is limited to applicants who can prove to the director 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.” So he lied. He said “anyone” but of the billions of people in the world, it only applies to a handful of Hawaii residents who give birth to children out of state.”
The law was not enacted until 1982.
The certificate will show the real place of birth, not birth in Hawaii. According to Hawaii, “A foreign child would have a ‘certification of foreign birth’ not a COLB on the top of the certificate, and the place of birth would be indicated.”
So everything that Jensen is arguing is false.
His misunderstanding of the law has and will hurt his client grievously.
[quote]
[§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]
[unquote]
As a criminal defense lawyer, Jensen is truly bizarre.
He told Cooper that he did not want his client to incriminate himself.
If so, he should never have put his clientgo on national television in the first place.
Lakin could well have incriminated himself, or made a damaging admission, if Cooper or the lawyer had ever let him say anything.
The entire appearance came off as a publicity stunt to raise funds for the outfit that is paying Jensen’s fees.
As the old saying goes, in every criminal case there comes a time when someone has go to jail. It is usually the client, not the lawyer.
Second Time this week
Vince Treacy 1, May 8, 2010 at 4:31 am
Vince Treacy 1, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 am
As the old saying goes, Early to bed, Early to rise, fish like hell and make up lies.
Headin out of town, yall take care now, ya hear.
Bdaman,
You had to mention that Jensen was Duke law…
Are you going to mention that President Nixon was Duke law as well?
Vince,
There’s been some interesting hypothetical speculation on Doc Conspiracy’s site. Since Barack Obama Sr. was already married when he married Ann Dunham, their marriage was void ab initio. Someone (I’m to lazy to find the post, but it didn’t include a link to the law) was claiming that due to this fact Dr. Dunham would have been able to transmit (natural born?) citizenship to President Obama even if he were born outside of the country. Any thoughts? I think it would be hilarious if the magical birth certificate that the birthers were looking for was irrelevant after all…
Bdaman:
Credentials notwithstanding*, Jensen comes across as both superficial and reckless. Saying your client might incriminate himself unless you speak for him makes him look disingenuous at best and guilty at worst. Lawyers are trained to understand and implement the law and to represent clients in court and other adjudicatory bodies with set rules of procedure. Public relations and swaying public opinion in favor of your client are not law school classes. Some lawyer do it better than others. Brendan Sullivan and Roy Black come to mind. This guy might be a Houdini in the courtroom, but on Anderson Cooper he looked trifling, combative, and on the losing side of the argument.
* Mike Nifong was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC.
Mespo72^n said:
“Mike Nifong was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC.”
He probably just wanted to prevent Duke from winning the national championship in lacrosse… He’s one lawyer that the North Carolina bar is better off without!
And about that impressive Georgetown professional address,1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500.
Google it.
There are an awful lot of concerns with the same address in that one little suite.
Oh. It’s a mail drop.
Lakin’s American Patriot Foundation has the same address.
Can’t fool the locals.
According to Doc Conspiracy the whole birth certificate issue just went down in flames (and took the dual citizenship issue with it):
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/barack-obama-was-never-a-british-citizen/
Because Barack Obama Sr. was already married, his marriage to Dr. Dunham was never valid, thus making President Obama an illegitimate child. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 British citizenship is only transmitted to legitimate offspring. Furthermore, under US law at the time, Dr. Dunham would have transmitted US citizenship to her son REGARDLESS of the location of his birth.
This leaves birthers with only two remaining arguments:
1) The de Vattelite ‘two citizen parents’ argument (no longer including the ‘dual citizenship’ sub-argument) – Vince has completely debunked this argument here.
2) The Indonesian adoption argument – I cannot believe that any attorney would actually try this in court (well, maybe Orly…) and that any judge would fail to dismiss it instantly if someone tried.
I wonder if soon-to-be Mr. Lakin’s lawyer will explain this to him…
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/puerto-rico-birth-certificate-crisis-invalidating-fix/story?id=10422841
“The U.S. State Department and Homeland Security Department estimate that an astonishing 40 percent of all U.S. passport fraud cases in recent years involved Puerto Rican birth certificates, though exact numbers are unknown.”
It makes ya wonder how many fraudulent birth records have come out of Hawaii.
Mr. Treacy
Weren’t all those fake Puerto Rican birth certificates prima facie evidence that were entitled to full faith and credit?
Bdaman,
Are you suggesting that Puerto Rico is a state? (I believe that the ‘full faith and credit’ clause refers to the treatment that the official acts of a state must be given by other states) Also, as I suggested in my last post, there is a legal argument (that seems sound to me) that President Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of the location of his birth (presuming that Dr. Dunham is his mother and Barack Obama Sr. is his father). Finally, there is no evidence (admissible in a court of law) that would indicate that President Obama’s birth records are fraudulent and in this case the burden of proof lies on the person alleging fraud. Until one of the the vaunted birther legal eagles comes up with some actual evidence instead of faulty reasoning and forged documents you’ve got absolutely no case.
badtoll knows all of this, Slarti. He’s a confessed troll just like he’s a demonstrated bigot. He can’t keep cashing the checks/serving his masters without continuing to regurgitate nonsense that not only the courts have dismissed, but Vince has done a through job dismantling.
Truth has nothing to do with his posts. He’s here, by his own admission, to be a distraction. Although as a distraction, he’s frequently functions as a simple target for logical and legal destruction.
Some propagandists are simply better at their job than others. That doesn’t not change their nature as propagandists. Paid or merely poisoned by the consumption of his own product like a smack dealer riding the dragon, it makes little difference.
While he’s objectively a failure as a troll in this forum, I will give him a “B+” for consistency.
You said
Are you suggesting that Puerto Rico is a state?
NO
Why the rush on the Puerto Rico statehood bill? (Rep. Luis Gutierrez)
By Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) – 04/29/10 10:04 AM ET
H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico statehood bill was brought to the House this week after a surprise announcement last Thursday. Debate on this bill has been severely limited by the way Democratic Leaders are managing the process. Democratic Puerto Rican Members of Congress are being shut out of the process and will be severely limited in their ability to debate the bill and offer amendments. Under the current Democratic Leadership, there will be less opportunity for Members and for the people of Puerto Rico to gain a better understanding of the bill.
You Said:
(I believe that the ‘full faith and credit’ clause refers to the treatment that the official acts of a state must be given by other states)
The birth certificates in question were given full faith and credit, how do you think they where able to obtain a U.S. Passport.
I’m in and out Dr. Slarti so I’ll try to check back as soon as I can. Thanks for your response.
P.S. I am really working hard to get an A and feel I deserve better than a B+
But I also understand that if I receive an A grade or higher it leaves no room for improvement.
Bdaman,
I don’t care about grades – the only important thing is what you’ve learned (In my experience the two aren’t nearly as well correlated as one would hope).
You said:
“The birth certificates in question were given full faith and credit, how do you think they where (sic) able to obtain a U.S. Passport.”
Assuming that the birth certificates in question were Puerto Rican BCs, I would just point out that the FF&C clause only says that states have to give FF&C to the official documents of other states, it doesn’t say anything (pro or con) about documents from other sources.
If you’re so proud of being wrong all the time, bdapuppet?
That never gets an A. Your grade was the highest allowed for consistency.
NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.
In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.
WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.
The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.
Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.
“I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.
WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.
“Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”
Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.
Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.
WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.
Obama calls Britain’s new Prime Minister David Cameron from the White House in Washington
To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.
“There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”
QUOTE ON
Obama’s Social Security number
Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010
Crusading birther litigant Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq. has adopted the President’s Social Security number(s) as one of her major themes. This was repeated just last week in a filing with the DC federal court, as reported here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. So what’s her beef?
Taitz claims fraud on the part of Obama for (1) using multiple Social Security numbers, and (2) using the Social Security number of someone else.
39 Social Security numbers
In her most recent filing Taitz wrote:
[Q] I submitted an affidavit from a licensed investigator Neil Sankey, showing that according to most reputable National databases Lexis Nexis and Choice Point Barack Obama used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided. (Submitted as an exhibit with the complaint)[UQ]
I have looked at various filings available from the courts, and I have not personally seen the list of 39 Social Security numbers. What I have seen is various lists of names similar to Obama, mostly living at Obama’s former Chicago address and all having the same Social Security number. From where I sit, I have no documentation available to me that Taitz’s claim is true, and if it is, I would question the accuracy of these databases, which are essentially credit reporting databases aggregated from various sources usually without any verification. We do not know what matching criteria were used to say that these were our president Barack Obama. It all seems rather far fetched.
Born in 1890
Taitz continues:
[Q]The same affidavit contained information, showing that the social security number [Social Security Number redacted, Doc C.], that he used most often, was issued in the state of Connecticut to an individual born in 1890. Since Obama never resided in the state of Connecticut and was not born in 1890, it was a sign of clear violation of Title 42 US Code, section 408(a)(7)(B), misuse of a social security number, which is a federal felony punishable under Title 18 USC by fine or imprisonment of up to five years or both and an evidence of foreign birth and lack of proper citizenship status.[UQ]
and
[Q] I submitted an affidavit from a licensed investigator Susan Daniels, showing that according to her research Obama used a stolen social security number [Social Security Number redacted, Doc C.], which was issued to another individual born in 1890 in the state of CT.[UQ]
While it is not certain that the Social Security number “that he used most often” according to Taitz is really the President’s, I suspect that it probably is. Taitz is correct that the “042″ series of numbers was indeed assigned to Connecticut, and Connecticut is not Hawaii. As far as I know, President Obama never resided in Connecticut.
If there is any clear evidence of fraud, it is the 1890 date that Taitz flouts. First, if the SSN was really for a person born in 1890, that person would be dead. The Social Security death index doesn’t list this number, so we can presume that the 1890 date is bogus. However, there is more direct evidence that it’s wrong and Taitz knows it. In her own court filing in Barnett v. Obama (page 5) she shows where the 1890 date comes from. The document says:
Dates of Birth Associated with SSN:
1890
08/04/1961
04/08/1961
Obviously the third is a typographical error on the correct date (the second) and 1890 is just database garbage. Which is the more likely date of birth from the preceding list? If you are convinced that everything Obama does is a fraud, then the first entry is the one to pick. If you’re looking for the real answer, you pick the one that makes sense, the President’s actual date of birth.
While Taitz claims that the SSN Obama uses “was issued to another individual”, she never says who that individual is, and this is because the record for that SSN belongs to none other than Barack Obama himself, as we see from Orly’s own filing.
What about the Connecticut number series? It’s an interesting question, but there’s no law that says you have to get your SSN from a Social Security office in the state where you reside. Nowadays, they are all processed centrally and the assignment is based on the zip code of the return address. My guess (and that’s all it is) is that Obama got his SSN as a child living in Indonesia and the application was just processed in Connecticut. What it most certainly does not mean is Taitz’s surprising conclusion: “foreign birth and lack of proper citizenship status.” (Connecticut is not a foreign country either.)
Link to source:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/
More discussion ensues at the link to Dr. Conspiracy.
Keeping the thread up to date on its original topic [frivolous suits by Orly Taitz], here is the government’s latest motion in opposition to her “second amended complaint.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31162770/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-27-Memorandum-in-opposition-dcd-04502970975-27-0
You are now about to enter the Twilight Zone
Bdaman 1, April 20, 2010 at 8:36 pm
richCares at Dr. Conspiracy
He complains about anonymous posters but accepts what an anonymous poster says.
is my source for the statement about the confusion.
Sorry Mr. Treacy your gonna have to do a little better than that.
I can tell you one thing for sure about your source.
Richcares lives in Oregon. He used to live in Hawaii, still has connections there and has a brother buried in Punchbowl.
****************************************************************
richCares says:
May 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm richCares(Quote)
I am from Hawaii, and the comments scott makes are repulsive. Though I now live in Oregon, I go back often, to visit relatives and to visit my brothers grave in Punchbowl, a place all Americans revere.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/out-of-state-births/#comment-44811
9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records
By MICHAEL J. CRUMB
Associated Press Writer
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_STUDENT_LOANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-05-12-20-07-35
Another ‘Great Moment in Bitherism’:
“9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records”
Who, what, when, where, why?
QUOTE DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Nine people were indicted Wednesday on federal charges of accessing President Barack Obama’s student loan records while they were employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.
The U.S. attorney’s office said a grand jury returned the indictments in U.S. District Court in Davenport.
All nine are charged with exceeding authorized computer access. They are accused of gaining access to a computer at a Coralville office where they worked between July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama’s student loan records while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or president. UNQUOTE
Ok. Contractor employees. Student loan records. 2008-2009. Iowa. Who knows why.
So what?
Relevance to issues of Obama birth and frivolous Taitz lawsuits: Less than zero.
From Justin Elliott at Josh Marshall’s TPM:
“A preliminary hearing is scheduled for June 11 in the court martial of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/court_martial_of_birther_army_doc_marches_on.php?ref=fpb
@Vince Treacy,
usaid;
“Ok. Contractor employees. Student loan records. 2008-2009. Iowa. Who knows why.
So what?
Relevance to issues of Obama birth and frivolous Taitz lawsuits: Less than zero.”
Isn’t that illegal? Doesn’t that make privacy a really big part of this argument?
privacy and free speech are very much related in a civil society. If there is any giving in to these creepy ‘birthers’…even after the necessary proof has been presented…(which it has, no?) then you can kiss any decent tolerable society good bye…
[I'm on the fence, Canada or France?]
Woosty, I agree. It is a privacy violation, if proven, and should be prosecuted. I do not know if the accused were birthers, or just malicious curiosity seekers.
I do not know if the accused were birthers, or just malicious curiosity seekers.
Or secret agents sent in to destroy any and all information pertaining to student loans made to a furaner. Like days did to his passport file.
Still a cat, Woosty is said:
“[I'm on the fence, Canada or France?]”
I think that Vancouver is very nice – and a friend of mine is trying to convince me that Sweden is the way to go…
On another subject: Do you expect Woosty to stop being a cat at some point? Has he shown any abilities to transform in the past?
Voting records show that four of those indicted are registered as Democrats, two are registered as Republicans and three are not registered to vote in Johnson County. The two registered as Republicans are Torney and Grenell. Those registered as Democrats are Phommivong, Roan, Lage and Kline.
http://easterniowanewsnow.com/2010/05/13/9-accused-of-accessing-obamas-student-loan-records/
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/io_ruling_on_def_request_for_witnessesevid-usvlakin.pdf
Dr. Conspiracy said “In an order yesterday, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Driscoll investigating officer in the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the birther army officer who refused deployment until Obama proves his eligibility, refused to accept President Obama on Lakin’s witness list. Lakin is not going to be able to argue in his defense that the President is not eligible. Not to say ‘I told you so’, but I told you so. Every military legal expert who has commented on this has said Lakin has no case. Why didn’t Lakin’s attorney, Paul Jensen, tell him that too?”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/obama-will-not-appear-at-lakin-court-martial/
The investigating officer refused to allow President Obama as a witness, since he did not directly give any order to Lakin.
“The Defense … fails to assert a legal basis by which its request might be allowable under the law of political questions, whereby courts will refrain from inserting themselves in matters constituti0nally relegated to coequal branches of Government. The Defense quest to use a military justice forum to invalidate all military authority while undermining the authority of a sitting United States President certainly appears at first blush to be a nonjusticiable political question.
“Daniel J. Driscoll,
“Investigating Officer”
The next proceeding seems to be scheduled for June 11th.
A Home Office spokesman said Samson Obama was denied a visa after immigration officers noticed one of his documents was false. That led them to further inquiries.
Too funny, must be a family thing.
Barack Obama’s half-brother was denied entry to the UK after being accused of a serious crime on an earlier visit, the Home Office has confirmed.
Samson Obama, who lives in Kenya, was on his way to the US presidential inauguration in January when he was stopped at East Midlands Airport.
According to the News of the World, fingerprint tests linked him to an alleged sex attack on a British girl.
He was questioned but not charged over the incident in Berkshire, it added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7995544.stm
—– Original Message —–
From:
Nellie (redacted)
To:
oip@hawaii.gov
Cc:
complaints@ombudsman.hawaii.gov ; governor.lingle@hawaii.gov ; LtGov@hawaii.gov ; hawaiiag@hawaii.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Fw: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
Dear Ms. Joesting & Ombudsman’s Office,
The HDOH has now twice said that they cannot disclose the records I requested because the original birth index pages don’t exist. These are documents (separate from the birth certificates themselves) which were submitted to the comptroller in 1980 with instructions to be retained permanently as originals and/or microfilm copies. The comptroller signed the request form. It has now been well over 10 business days since I asked the HDOH to provide the record of their having destroyed these records, since there was no request to dispose of these records as of the beginning of the year, which was when I received the copy of the DOH retention schedule. They have also said there is no index of foreign births – a document submitted to the comptroller and specified for permanent retention in 1982.
Either the HDOH is lying about these records not existing, or they have illegally destroyed them, or they have legally destroyed them within the past 5 months but refuse to release the documentation for that destruction.
The complete exchange with the HDOH can be found at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/hdoh-has-destroyed-original-permanent-records/ . That article also links to the retention schedule and to a post containing my complete exchanges with archivist Susan Shaner, who agrees that the HDOH should have these records.
The HDOH’s answers strongly suggest that they have illegally destroyed permanent records – a serious offense that should result in disciplinary action including termination of employment for those involved. When will this investigation begin and by whom, and will the people involved be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete?
I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Nellie
cc: complaints@ombudsman.hawaii.gov
governor.lingle@hawaii.gov
ltgov@hawaii.gov
hawaiiag@hawaii.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Fw: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
Dear Ms. Joesting & Ombudsman’s Office,
The HDOH has now twice said that they cannot disclose the records I requested because the original birth index pages don’t exist. These are documents (separate from the birth certificates themselves) which were submitted to the comptroller in 1980 with instructions to be retained permanently as originals and/or microfilm copies. The comptroller signed the request form. It has now been well over 10 business days since I asked the HDOH to provide the record of their having destroyed these records, since there was no request to dispose of these records as of the beginning of the year, which was when I received the copy of the DOH retention schedule. They have also said there is no index of foreign births – a document submitted to the comptroller and specified for permanent retention in 1982.
Either the HDOH is lying about these records not existing, or they have illegally destroyed them, or they have legally destroyed them within the past 5 months but refuse to release the documentation for that destruction.
The complete exchange with the HDOH can be found at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/hdoh-has-destroyed-original-permanent-records/ . That article also links to the retention schedule and to a post containing my complete exchanges with archivist Susan Shaner, who agrees that the HDOH should have these records.
The HDOH’s answers strongly suggest that they have illegally destroyed permanent records – a serious offense that should result in disciplinary action including termination of employment for those involved. When will this investigation begin and by whom, and will the people involved be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete?
I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Nellie
—– Original Message —– From: Office of the Ombudsman To: Nellie (redacted) Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:40 PM Subject: RE: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
Dear Ms. (redacted):
We have received your email below.
I have assigned your case to Alfred Itamura, a staff member of my office. Mr. Itamura will be contacting you to obtain further information, if necessary, or to inform you of the findings of our investigation.
Thank you for writing to us.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32347910/Col-Hollister-v-Soetoro-Obama-Appeal-Motion-to-Recuse-Case-09-5080-5-31-2010
According to a press release from LTC Lakin and others he has waived his right to be present at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. The command could proceed with the hearing anyway. There have been times when an accused waives the hearing but the command goes ahead with it anyway. Apparently in this case the command has decided to accept the waiver and forward the case to Commander Military District of Washington for the next steps in the process. Note, IMHO, LTC Lakin has waived, forfeited, given up, any complaints he had about the Article 32, UCMJ, process so far by his waiver of the hearing. Having waived his right to a hearing he cannot be heard to complain.
http://court-martial-ucmj.com/ltc-lakin/
Gibbs asked about affidavits that Obama’s SS number was assigned to Connecticut address.
Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, asked for an explanation from press secretary Robert Gibbs at today’s news briefing:
“WorldNetDaily’s correspondent Dr. Jerome Corsi reports … [a question has been raised] by investigators in Ohio and Colorado concerning the president’s Social Security number. Second sentence …” Kinsolving began.
“Birth certificates,” interrupted another reporter.
“He reports – no, I did not bring up the birth certificate – He reports that investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson are asking, why the president is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants. And my question, did you know …” Kinsolving continued.
“Hold on, that’s two sentences, Lester. That … I …” Gibbs said.
“That’s two sentences, and my question – do you know of any record that the president ever had a mailing address in Connecticut?” Kinsolving asked.
Gibbs never answered, instead choosing to turn the conversation – and questions – to others instead of the president.
“I know there are faithful readers of your publication that despite … ” Gibbs said.
“Including you,” Kinsolving pointed out.
“Oh, well, I don’t know that I would necessarily mark myself down at an avid reader or a faithful reader. I continue to be amazed, Lester, that two years after putting the president’s birth certificate on the Internet …” Gibbs said.
“Without a hospital and without a doctor,” Kinsolving noted.
“Do you think the president was born here, Lester?” Kinsolving asked the correspondent.
“Beg pardon?” Kinsolving said.
“Do you think the president was born in the United States?” Gibbs asked.
“I don’t know. I’d love to get the real birth certificate, wouldn’t you?” Kinsolving asked.
“I’ve seen the real birth certificate. I put it on the Internet and I appreciate your…” Gibbs said.
Kinsolving cut to the chase of the exchange.
“But you’re not answering this question,” Kinsolving said.
“I appreciate your forthrightness on the birth answer,” Gibbs said, ending the briefing.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165225
There was a Fourth of July firecracker for Mario Apuzzo and the birthers in Philly today.
He lost.
Big.
The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of his case, and directed him to show cause why damages and costs should not be imposed for filing a frivolous appealo.
QUOTING THE OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter “Appellants”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . . .” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4.1 Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.
UNQUOTE
The case was Kerchner v. Obama. Here is the Opinion at the Court’s site:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf
No reaction at Mario’s site as of yet. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Have a safe and sane Fourth, Mario.
SCOTUS refuses to grant a second request from Taitz to block the $20,000 sanction. This refusal was from Ailito and Thomas issued the previous refusal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/birther-queen-orly-taitz_n_683188.html
Pay up, buttercup.
Buddha,
I thought that Alito sent the case to be reviewed by the court (as is customary with a second request after the first was refused) – do you mean that the court denied cert?
Slarti,
I have not read the decision proper (just the AP release) so I can’t say if it was cert denied proper or a simple refusal and remanded, but the bottom line either way is she’s going to have to pay eventually.
That it reached SCOTUS makes me wonder how much she’s pissed away on litigation over $20,000?
Buddha,
What I’d like to know is what Orly’s net on this whole business is – just submitting a case to the SCOTUS probably helps generate action on the paypal button and being denied by the traitorous judges probably doesn’t hurt either…
This was posted over at Doc Conspiracy’s:
As was this:
Thanks, Slarti.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/orly_taitz_claims_that_obama_is_undermining_her_bi.php
Orly has filed a Motion for Reconsideration and claims she has “new evidence” Obama is not a citizen.
Just one little point, Buddha.
The document that Taitz filed with the Court was a “MOTION FOR RECONSIFERATION.”
Huh?
This is a new frontier in federal civil procedure and Supreme Court practice. Law schools must now revise their courses, and legal publishers must scrap all casebooks and treatises.
Brilliant. No one in 220 years ever dreamed of this bold end run around the Rules. Fabulous.
She also managed to garble the names of Justices Sotomayor and Breyer.
Josh’s reporter Rachel Slajda has it at TPM:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/orly_taitz_claims_that_obama_is_undermining_her_bi.php?ref=fpblg
Vince,
Orly is truly a gift . . . to comedy.
State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen
‘Counter-misinformation’ website aims to debunk birth controversy.
The State Department is maintaining a “counter-misinformation” page on an America.gov blog that attempts to “debunk a conspiracy theory” that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his “natural born” status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry “The Obama Birth Controversy” was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established “to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East,” as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=195441
There is a timely update to the story of the $20,000 fine imposed by Judge Land, and Doctor Conspiracy has the info.
The check is in the mail.
Orly Taitz has paid her fine. The check was dated August 18, 2010, made out to “US Dep of Justice.” Doc has posted a photo of the check.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/taitz-pays-up/
I would like to say that this is finis to the saga, but, no. She has a “60 B MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION” before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This is her second motion for reconsideration, after the Judge dismissed her action for quo warranto. I have no idea how a District Judge in D.C. can have any power to modify a fine imposed in the federal court in Georgia.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36483117/Taitz-v-Obama-08-22-10-Templ-Final-60-B
She has also filed twice for an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, and was denied both times. She has a motion for reconsideration pending there, too.
“Orly Taitz has paid her fine”?
Not so fast.
Did she really?
Is there another conspiracy, another cover-up?
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Checkers-Doubt-Birther-T-by-J-Edward-Tremlett-100831-903.html
Oh, please.
Where do I sign up to join the Checkers group?
This just in. Lakin has fired his birther, dog-bite specialist lawyer Rolf Jensen.
He has hired a new law firm that is experienced in military law.
The website for Safeguard Our Constitution is dark on Lakin. It was run by Margaret Hemenway and her father-in-law, John Hemenway, a lawyer who got a written reprimand by the US District Court for filing a frivolous birther lawsuit.
Jensen’s site no longer mentions him.
No word on the money contributed for the “legal defense fund.”
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/lakin-websites-going-dark/
Scroll up in this thread. Lakin was warned that his legal “team” did not have a clue.
Where are his birther defenders now?
Doc Conspiracy has the story and links on Lakin’s change of counsel:
“Up until now, LtC. Terry Lakin, the Army doctor who refused orders for Afghanistan over his doubts about whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified as his commander in chief, has ditched his legal team — Paul Jensen and his American Patriot Foundation. The APF web site supporting Lakin, safeguardourconstitution.com, now points to the main APF site with only a passing mention of LtC. Lakin. In the past APF participated in the production of video recordings where Lakin incriminates himself. It was quite obvious that LtC. Lakin was being used as his lawyer, Jensen, who told bald-faced lies on the Anderson Cooper 360 show on CNN while Lakin sat blankly beside him.
“Military law specialist, Phil Cave, has confirmed that Lakin has hired a prominent firm familiar with military law to defend him.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/lakins-new-defense-team/
Vince,
The only question I have is how fast LtC Lakin goes from hero to traitor in the eyes of the birthers. I hope for his sake that he is able distance himself from his former legal team enough to mitigate the punishment he faces…
Oh no he didn’t
TAPPER: But what do you say to people who argue you are demonizing an organization for a charge that nobody knows if it’s true or not?
AXELROD: Well I’m not demonizing the Chamber of Commerce. I’m simply suggesting to them that they disclose the source of the $75 million that they are spending in campaigns and put to rest, put to rest the questions that have been, that have been raised.
TAPPER: Isn’t that like the whackjobs that tell the president he needs to show them his full long-form birth certificate so he can put to rest the questions that have been raised?
AXELROD: The president’s birth certificate has been available to people.
TAPPER: The long form?
AXELROD: Someone once in the course of this debate about whether we should have a law to force these organizations to disclose where they’re money is coming from in the campaigns, someone said, and I think they’re right – “the only people who want to keep things secret are folks who have something to hide.” If the Chamber doesn’t have anything to hide about these contributions, and I take them at their word that they don’t, then why not disclose? Why not let people see where their money is coming from?
-Jake Tapper
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/axelrod-to-us-chamber-what-are-you-hiding-that-you-dont-want-the-american-people-to-see.html
“the only people who want to keep things secret are folks who have something to hide.” If the Chamber doesn’t have anything to hide about these contributions, and I take them at their word that they don’t, then why not disclose?
Well Mr. President, If your adviser is correct and you have nothing to hide why not show your long form certificate to put to bed the questions that have been raised.
Ha Ha it will never go away!!!!!! Well it could have if he would of done it with openness and transparency. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
You actually make it appear really easy with your presentation but I to find this topic to be actually one thing that I believe I’d by no means understand. It sort of feels too complex and very huge for me. I am having a look forward on your next put up, I will try to get the grasp of it!
Just when you thought it was safe to trust the full faith and credit clause and decisions from the state of Hawaii….
Georgia judge to hear arguments on eligibility of Barack Obama on ballot; Orly Taitz hails decision
“Birther” attorney Orly Taitz, a national leader among those who claim President Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen, is hailing a Tuesday decision by a Georgia judge as a victory in her movement.
Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi in the Office of State Administrative Hearings denied a motion by Obama asking to dismiss the complaint that seeks to keep his name off the state ballot during the March presidential primary. The judge’s decision now sets the stage for a Jan. 26 hearing on the issue in Fulton County.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2012/01/04/1880356/georgia-judge-to-hear-arguments.html
Bob,
No problem with full faith and credit here–Georgia law gives Mr. Farrar* and the others standing, so they’ll get their hearing and the case will quickly be disposed of on its merits (due to full faith and credit in the Hawai’ian BC–either one). Orly’s part of the hearing should be fun to watch, though. Odds are that she will try to get judicial notice irrelevant documents which show malfeasance on the part of herself and others. I can only hope that the judge acquiesces when Orly demands that he “LET ME FEENESH!”
* Orly’s client
This is far from over, regardless of what Judge Mahili rules. Taitz has not filed anything as yet in the People’s Court.