305 Comments »

• Dallas says:

  April 3, 2009 at 9:28 pm

  Hey Phil – can you fix the margins on my post SIMPLIFIED they are “meshed”-pretty please
• Dallas says:

  April 3, 2009 at 9:24 pm

  A quick disclaimer, the Kenya Constitution Chapter 4 mentioned was merely an offer of support as to the interpretation of The
  Kenya Constitution Chapter IV Section 87:

  1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

  2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.

  Simplified:

  Before Independence After Independence new citizenship
  citizenship: date:
  1-Born in Kenya CUKC Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
  1-Born in Kenya BPP Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya
  2-Born outside Kenya Dec.11 (retains) CUKC
  2-Born outside Kenya Dec.12 (becomes) citizen Kenya

  Condensed version:

  1-Born in Kenya
  2-Born outside Kenya
  11-CUKC
  12 citizen of Kenya

  So, you can tell a person’s citizenship by asking what their
  citizenship date is…. Didn’t Obama Jr. say he was an 11? But refused to answer a 1 or 2?
• Practical Kat says:

  April 3, 2009 at 7:57 pm

  Has Maya Obama ever said a word about the certificate, certification, or the like?

  1. There is no “Maya Obama”. Barack Obama’s older half-sister, who is the daughter of Barack Obama Sr. and was born in Kenya, is named Auma. His younger half-sister is the daughter of Lolo Soetoro and was born in Indonesia, and is now married to a Canadian named Ng — so her name is Maya Soetero-Ng.

  2. Assuming that Maya’s mother wanted to establish documentation of her birth to an American citizen, the normal procedure would have been to register at the US Embassy in Jakarta to obtain a “Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America”, aka Consular Report of Birth or FS-240. See: http://travel.state.gov/law/info/overseas/overseas_703.html

  3) There is not now and has never been any reason for Maya Soetero-Ng to be issuing public comments on anything other than to promote the children’s story book she is writing.
• Phil says:

  April 3, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  Koyaan,

  Yes, we do.

  The person who made the claim was the infamous fraud, “Techdude.” He claimed that Maya’s name could be seen in the scanned image of Obama’s certificate. It simply isn’t there and his analysis was fabricated beyond any doubt whatsoever. His Maya claim was his swan dive, before he disappeared off the face of the Internet and left those who had been promoting him holding the bag (i.e. TexasDarlin, NoQuarter and AtlasShrugs).

  I’ll ask again:

  Has Maya Obama ever said a word about the certificate, certification, or the like?

  -Phil
• Dallas says:

  April 3, 2009 at 11:34 am

  Who Are You Kidding wrote:

  “neither the Republic nor the Constitution of Kenya were in the business of, or had the right to, distribute British citizenships to anybody.”

  That’s a pretty good twist on the words. But that’s not what I said, the “new citizenship “Dates” (of independence) were assigned. Nevertheless I will clarify my statement
  Based on the following: http://kenya-constitution.com/chapter4.html Statutes that support my statement:

  Retention of existing citizenship
  14. Every person who was a citizen immediately before the effective date retains the same citizenship status as from that date

  Legislation on citizenship
  24. Parliament shall enact legislation:
  (a) prescribing procedures by which a person may become a citizen

  What I said :
  “…. the person “receives” or “maintains” as the case may be:

  CUKC’s “maintained” (retained) CUKC citizenship on date Dec.11 (KC-24) (a)
  British Protected Persons “received”(attained) Kenyan citizenship on Dec.12 (KC-14)

  That was no mix up with fact check short-lived quote. You did notice
  factcheck did not specify particularly who they were referring to;
  Jr. or Sr. Obama. Certainly could have been speaking about either.
  It is an illusion.

  “Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963,
  Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. “As
  a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1).”
  Terms (what they mean):

  (1) Born in Kenya
  (2) Born outside of Kenya
  11 Dec. CUKC “remain” CUKC
  12 Dec. BPP “(shall become)” citizens of Kenya

  The illusion:
  Here, factcheck gives the illusion Obama Jr, and Sr. “both “have
  CUKC and received their Kenyan citizenship on Dec.12 1963, with Sr. receiving automatic Kenyan Citizenship. S.(1)-(Day)12 or 1-12
  and Jr. following, as 2-12.

  If Sr. and Jr. were “both” CUKC as fact check would have us to
  believe, their citizenship “dates” Sec. and date should have been 1-11 and 2 -11 respectively. And neither would attain Kenyan citizenship,because CUKC citizenship is not lost automatically.
  The status of CUKC “did not” confer automatic right to citizenship in Kenya either.

  What is real:
  Obama Sr. did receive automatic Kenya citizenship, therefore he was
  a BPP. His Subsection and date is/was as fact check states; 1-12. (Dec.12,1963)
  Factcheck does not state the date of Jr. Kenyan citizenship date
  merely alludes to his father‘s). It does state however, the date
  of British citizenship date August 4,1961.

  So in the alternative: What “short-lived” could mean:
  Obama Sr. British subject/BPP lasted for 19 years(1936-1963)
  from the time of birth to the time of Kenyan citizenship.

  Where Obama Jr. if born in Kenya Colony (and Protectorate) in 1961
  became a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth. Therefore his British Citizenship continues from birth 1961
  until current 2009 over 47 years! Not short lived.
• Bob says:

  April 3, 2009 at 1:24 am

  Do we know for a fact that it was not? Has Maya Obama ever said a word about it?

  Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

  Where is Maya’s COLB?
• Koyaan says:

  April 3, 2009 at 12:58 am

  Phil wrote:

  Do we know for a fact that it was not? Has Maya Obama ever said a word about it?

  Yes, we do.

  The person who made the claim was the infamous fraud, “Techdude.” He claimed that Maya’s name could be seen in the scanned image of Obama’s certificate. It simply isn’t there and his analysis was fabricated beyond any doubt whatsoever. His Maya claim was his swan dive, before he disappeared off the face of the Internet and left those who had been promoting him holding the bag (i.e. TexasDarlin, NoQuarter and AtlasShrugs).

  k
• Koyaan says:

  April 3, 2009 at 12:48 am

  JeffM wrote:

  Would you mind posting the link to this information? Because I don’t ever recall Hawaii certifying any information other than having a birth certificate on file.

  Hawaii’s verification of the information given on the Certification of Live Birth

  Hawaii has not verified the scanned documents, nor have they certified any information on it as accurate, nor have they stated Obama was born in Hawaii. If they did, this discussion would have ended 8 months ago.

  The verification is on the document itself.

  k
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  April 2, 2009 at 9:24 pm

  “I accept your generous concession that Jr. may have acquired CUKC by being born elsewhere.” Dallas

  As it’s apparent from this comment that you haven’t read back through this thread as I suggested (or understood what you found there), you will forgive me if I offer just a brief reply.

  “Section 87 [right this time !] of The Constitution of Kenya…the person receives or maintains as the case may be…Citizen of UKC…”

  Common sense will tell that neither the Republic nor the Constitution of Kenya were in the business of, or had the right to, distribute British citizenships to anybody. Do you really imagine that the highly experienced British constitutional lawyers who helped draft that document would have been instructed to or knowingly delegated that power to a foreign authority ? Or maybe you think they made a mistake ? Bad hair day in all that Kenyan heat ?

  Lastly, no use quoting Factcheck if you mixing up when they’re talking about Sr and when they’re talking about Jr. Tarnishes one’s credibilty.
• Phil says:

  April 2, 2009 at 8:41 pm

  Practical Kat,

  You aren’t arguing in favor of the Constitution. You want a change: either a change in the way the Constitution has historically been interpreted, or a change in the Constitution itself.

  Unfortunately, your defensive mechanism has engaged, so there’s really nothing else I can say to you, except: “Those are your words, not mine.”

  -Phil
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  April 2, 2009 at 8:39 pm

  The common law of England. That looks pretty damn unambiguous to me. Koyaan

  This is what I read Koyaan’s position to be: Obama is a natural born citizen because natural born citizenship was established in the unambiguous knowledge and application of the common law of England by the Founding Fathers, as seen in and upheld by reception statutes. In support of which is cited:

  “…the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in [1775], shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.” NY Constitution, 1776

  Allowing: “In 1350, Parliament enacted a statute declaring that…children should ‘have and enjoy the same benefits and advantages’…as children born in England… 1677, Parliament passed a statute declaring that the children of persons who had fled England during Cromwell’s rule were to be considered “natural-born subjects”… A 1708 law…children of natural born subjects were to be “deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural born subjects”…. A 1731 Act declared that the foreign born grandchildren of natural born subjects were also natural born subjects [and the statute of 1773 ( 13 Geo. 3)]“ ‘Natural Born’ In The USA: The Striking Unfairness…And Why We Need To Fix It, Boston University Law Review February, 2005

  1 The only possible meaning of “such parts…as together did form” is that not all, not the entirety of the common law and statutes of England were adopted by the NY Constitution, but only those (such) parts which formed NY law. In Federalist No. 84 Alexander Hamilton said that to those who claimed

  “…that the Constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain….I answer, that they are expressly made subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the Revolution.”

  2 “A very large group of states recognizes amendatory English statutes prior to the fourth year of James I; in other words, in force at the time of the landing of the first English-speaking settlers in what is now the United States. The prototype of such law was enacted by the Virginia convention of May, I776, which declared the separation from British rule, framed the first constitution of the state, and ordained that “the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the First and which are of a general nature not local to that kingdom” should be rules of decision.” The Virginia legislature, in 1792, repealed statutes and acts of the Parliament of Great Britain hitherto in force, saving and excepting writs remedial and judicial enacted prior to the fourth year of James 1.” British Statutes in American Jurisdictions, University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Dec., 1929), pp. 195-230

  In Virginia, only the common law and statutes prior to 1607 were “received”, in effect disregarding all those English statutes from 1677 till 1773 which expanded the definition of a natural born subject. Limited reception statutes were also adopted in Maryland (1776, statutes “as existed at the time of their first emigration, and….have been found applicable….and of such others as have since been made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the courts of law”), Vermont (1779, “common law, as it is generally practised and understood, in the New England States”) and Delaware (1776, “the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this state…”) Again “so much of” equals the NY “such parts as”.

  3 “The early common law of the United States rested extensively, although not exclusively, on English common law…Reception statutes differed from colony to colony, and, while courts and legislators looked to the English common law heritage, they disagreed with many of the enactments of Parliament, as well as the King’s positions on immigration matters. [Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizenship Clause and Presidential Eligibility 97 Yale L.J. 881, 888-89 (1988) (explaining that the colonies adopted British common law to differing degrees) (citing James Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870, at 78, 90-93 (1978)); Elizabeth G. Brown, British Statutes in American Law 1776-1836, at 14 (1964)); Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1,8 (1968). (contending that the colonies' adoption of British common law varied widely)]“ ‘Natural Born’ In The USA: The Striking Unfairness…And Why We Need To Fix It, Boston University Law Review February, 2005

  4 1701, Smith v Gould, Chief Justice Holt (Court of King’s Bench): “By the common law no man can have a property in another…there is no such thing as a slave by the law of England”. 1705, Smith v Brown and Cooper, Chief Justice Holt: “as soon as a negro comes into England, he becomes free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave”. 1762, Shanley v Harvey, Lord Henley: “As soon as a man sets foot on English ground he is free…England was too pure an air for a slave to breathe in”. These judgements were supported by Blackstone’s The Laws of England, which was studied and drawn upon by the Founding Fathers. Contrast them with the US Naturalization Act of 1790: “any alien, being a free white person…may be admitted to become a citizen” The common law of England clearly had not a scintilla of influence upon the 1790 law, written and enacted by the Founding Fathers: Colonial Charters had required local laws not to be “contrary and repugnant unto, but (as near as may be) agreeable to the laws of this our realm of England…” which should have outlawed slavery. The 1790 Act was also at variance with the British 1731 and 1773 ( 13 Geo. 3) statutes which bestowed citizenship on grandchildren: the 1790 Act exluded fathers who had never lived in America from transmitting US citizenship. Two significant instances where the early US law did not “receive” UK law.

  5 “One scholar…has written that “the process which we may call the reception of the English common law by the colonies was not so simple as the legal theory would lead us to assume…the early colonists were far from applying it as a technical system, they often ignored it or denied its subsidiary force, and they consciously departed from many of its most essential principles”…. [] even in the late colonial period, Americans insisted that “the whole body of the common law . . . was not transplanted, but only so much as was applicable to the colonists in their new relations and conditions. Much of the common law related to matters which were purely local, which existed under the English political organization, or was based upon the triple relation of king, lords and commons, or those peculiar social conditions, habits and customs which have no counterpart in the New World. Such portions of the common law, not being applicable to the new conditions of the colonists, were never recognised as part of their jurisprudence”…. [] The result was that “…there existed important differences in law in action on the two sides of the Atlantic”….James Monroe went so far as to write in 1802 that “the application of the principles of the English common law to our constitution” should be considered “good cause for impeachment”… While the States had limited their reception of English common law to principles appropriate to American conditions, the 1787 draft Constitution contained no provision for adopting the common law at all. This omission stood in sharp contrast to the state constitutions…[] John Marshall…1800, “I do not believe one man can be found” who maintains “that the common law of England has . . . been adopted as the common law of America by the Constitution of the United States”… [] Records of the ratification debates support Marshall’s understanding that everyone had to know that the new constitution would not draw the common law in its train…. [] The Framers also recognized that the diverse development of the common law in the several states made a general federal reception impossible…. [] “The common law was not the same in any two of the Colonies,” Madison observed; “in some the modifications were materially and extensively different”… [] There was not, then, any unified “Common Law” in America that the Federal Constitution could adopt…”The assumption that colonial law was essentially the same in all colonies is wholly without foundation”…. [] Madison insisted that “the consequence of admitting the common law as the law of the United States, on the authority of the individual States, is as obvious as it would be fatal…” Given the refusal to entertain any wholesale reception of common law, given the failure of the new Constitution to make any provision for adoption of common law as such, and given the protests already quoted that no general reception had occurred…” Justice Souter, with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, Seminole Tribe of Florida vs Florida, 1996. http://tinyurl.com/co3q9n

  6 “At the beginning of the seventeenth century, it was an accepted proposition by the Crown lawyers that English laws were not necessarily in force in non-English Crown dominions and that an act of the King in Parliament did not extend to the non-English possessions unless specifically declared to extend thereto. While Englishmen going to uninhabited regions carried the laws of England with them, those going to inhabited ones did not. The Crown lawyers held that the “old American colonies” were settled in “inhabited countries” and thus, absent an affirmative act by the Crown, the colonists did not carry with them the laws of England. When these assumptions are kept in mind, the language of the colonial charters, those grants by the King to trading companies, becomes more understandable.

  The language used in [the] Virginia [and other] charters is all-important, for with certain variations it was to be used for over 200 years, both in the so-called original thirteen colonies along the Atlantic coastline and for some of the Canadian colonies as well. This language, however, must be interpreted in the sense in which it was used by the Crown lawyers who drafted the charters and not in the sense accorded to it in later decades. Thus to construe the inclusion of a legislative standard or an assurance of certain privileges into a grant of the laws of England is a distortion of contemporary intention. During the pre-Revolutionary period of the United States, many American colonists contended that these phrases in the charters and grants assured to them a right to the laws of England, both common and statute. The Crown lawyers, with logic and history on their side, took the position that they did not. On several occasions, colonial assemblies attempted to re-enact by reference substantial groups of English statutes… As a generalization, the policy of the British Crown was against such attempts [and they] were disallowed by Orders in Council….”

  “British Statutes in the Emergent Nations of North America: 1606-1949, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1963), pp. 95-136

  There was no legal obligation or opportunity permitting the Colonies to implement or “receive” nationality statutes, which were outside the legal jurisdiction of the Colonies. True, the King had deemed British colonizers and their descendants to be his subjects, but that was in his gift and at his pleasure. Nationality law making was the prerogative of Parliament. This could not possibly have been available law in the Colonies before Independence (or in NY, 1775). To remedy this meant going beyond such parts as together did form (pre-Declaration) colonial law, and thus beyond reception itself.

  7 There is a final consideration: marked differences between common law as applied in England and in the American Colonies (for example, representation by attorney, the far greater availability of jury trial, and the more than one hundred crimes in England that were punished by death), do not lead to a conclusion of their unambiguous equivalence. Wholesale “reception” of English common law would have caused alarm and outrage among Colonists.
• Phil says:

  April 2, 2009 at 8:13 pm

  Koyaan,

  So the claim that Obama’s certificate was forged using his sister Maya’s certificate is a “truth”?

  Do we know for a fact that it was not? Has Maya Obama ever said a word about it?

  As I’ve said many times before, I simply don’t know.

  -Phil
• JeffM says:

  April 2, 2009 at 6:28 pm

  Koyaan wrote:

  First, there’s nothing questionable about the scanned image or photographs on FactCheck.

  Second, the State of Hawaii can’t verify an image on a website. What the State of Hawaii verified was the information given on the Certification of Live Birth that they sent Obama back in June of 2007.

  Would you mind posting the link to this information? Because I don’t ever recall Hawaii certifying any information other than having a birth certificate on file.

  Hawaii has not verified the scanned documents, nor have they certified any information on it as accurate, nor have they stated Obama was born in Hawaii. If they did, this discussion would have ended 8 months ago.

  Yet here we are. If you can point us to this information, that would be great.
• Practical Kat says:

  April 2, 2009 at 6:25 pm

  In fact, everyone is simply learning that all aspects of the Constitution are clearly not being legally enforced.

  No, Phil, “everyone” is learning that there is a small segment of extremely poorly educated people in this country who do not understand our Constitution and system of government, the notion of separation of powers, and the limits of the judiciary.

  The Constitution has been followed exactly, and the current President was chosen in accordance with Constitutional procedures. The determination of his eligibility was made, as it should be under our Constitution, by the voters, by the electors, and then by Congress. No one in Congress raised any objection based on “eligibility” or “qualification” because there was no valid objection to be raised.

  You aren’t arguing in favor of the Constitution. You want a change: either a change in the way the Constitution has historically been interpreted, or a change in the Constitution itself.
• Koyaan says:

  April 2, 2009 at 3:22 pm

  Phil wrote:

  There are no “lies” being spread around.

  So the claim that Obama’s certificate was forged using his sister Maya’s certificate is a “truth”?

  Please.

  k
• Phil says:

  April 2, 2009 at 8:36 am

  Koyaan,

  So why do the “birthers” continue to spread these lies?

  There are no “lies” being spread around. There are plenty of questions, however.

  -Phil
• Koyaan says:

  April 2, 2009 at 12:42 am

  JeffM wrote:

  I find in rather interesting how many lies have been spread about these 2 documents. This alone shows intent to deceive, i.e. FRAUD.

  You’re absolutely right. There have been many lies spread about these two documents. And I also believe it shows intent to deceive.

  So why do the “birthers” continue to spread these lies?

  k
• Koyaan says:

  April 2, 2009 at 12:40 am

  JeffM wrote:

  That’s obvious. What’s not so obvious is when the person the document refers to grants access to a copy of the document to everyone, but refuses to allow access to the original. That’s usually what happens when there is additional information on the document the owner refuses to reveal.

  The copy in Hawaii’s vault is not Obama’s property for him to have any say over. It’s property of the state of Hawaii.

  Care to show us this? We have never seen the vault copy nor have verified it against factcheck.org’s questionable copy. And the State of Hawaii has never verified the copy on factcheck.org either.

  First, there’s nothing questionable about the scanned image or photographs on FactCheck.

  Second, the State of Hawaii can’t verify an image on a website. What the State of Hawaii verified was the information given on the Certification of Live Birth that they sent Obama back in June of 2007.

  Not if they know it does NOT contain the same information Soetoro has shown. It is their duty to report it to the authorities.

  If it’s their duty to report it to the authorities, then apparently they saw nothing wrong with the information in the document shown in the scanned image.

  After all, there’s no reason to protect a document that has information that has already been released.

  Would you care to show me that loophole in the Hawaii Revised Statutes?

  Well then, they shouldn’t object to us just taking a look. We like to see documents. They help us solidify things in our minds and eases our concerns.

  See above.

  That is 110% incorrect. They did no such thing. All they said was “we have a certificate in the vault”.

  The State of Hawaii did indeed certify that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

  That is the place and date of birth given on the Certification of Live Birth which was certified by Hawaii’s state registrar, Alvin T. Onaka, to be a true reflection of the information in the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health.

  Onaka’s Certification

  k
• Phil says:

  April 1, 2009 at 10:21 pm

  Sue,

  Exactly, and all of this has been done by the “conspiracy theoriests.” Or birthers as some people refer to them.

  I think there has been enough presumption and innuendo spread by the illegitimizers as well to go around.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  April 1, 2009 at 10:19 pm

  Practical Kat,

  Given that, would you also agree that ultimately it would hurt your cause if time and energy is spent pursuing a battle you are certain to lose? And in making that assessment, wouldn’t it make sense to apply a certain level of skepticism to claims being made by the self-appointed “leaders” of your movement (such as Orly & Berg)?

  Do you really think it helps your cause if you are led astray by lawyers with marginal practices who are making claims that are simply unsupportable by any objective standard?

  I have said all along that my position on the President’s eligibility issue is, “I don’t know.”

  Unfortunately, I’ve received nearly nothing from those who oppose this question but the position that the question shouldn’t even be raised or, worse, that somehow I and others have some sinister agenda — such as racism — behind the question.

  I’ve already laid out what I think is a reasonable summation of the issue to date with respect to the Hawaiian officials, Ms. Lines, etc. Really, all I am interested in is having the Constitution be upheld, including Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. And if federal or State law changes are what is required to make this part of the Constitution enforceable, then so be it.

  However, I’m not going to stop posting about eligibility just because the opposition thinks it’s a waste of time. In fact, everyone is simply learning that all aspects of the Constitution are clearly not being legally enforced.

  -Phil
• Sue says:

  April 1, 2009 at 10:05 pm

  “I find in rather interesting how many lies have been spread about these 2 documents. This alone shows intent to deceive, i.e. FRAUD.”

  Exactly, and all of this has been done by the “conspiracy theoriests.” Or birthers as some people refer to them.
• Practical Kat says:

  April 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm

  I could not agree with you more. After all, there is no point in stirring people up if it has no actual effect on society (though if the parties become a big enough event, they could become a part of the original cultural icon from back in the 1700’s). And you are correct about the risks involved with such outspoken organizing.

  Good, I’m glad we have found an area of common agreement.

  Given that, would you also agree that ultimately it would hurt your cause if time and energy is spent pursuing a battle you are certain to lose? And in making that assessment, wouldn’t it make sense to apply a certain level of skepticism to claims being made by the self-appointed “leaders” of your movement (such as Orly & Berg)?

  Do you really think it helps your cause if you are led astray by lawyers with marginal practices who are making claims that are simply unsupportable by any objective standard?

  Obviously you don’t believe or trust me — I’m just an anonymous internet comment-submitter. But you could get an OBJECTIVE, legal opinion if you wanted. (For example, you could do a little research and find the names of faculty who specialized in constitutional law and/or election law who are affiliated with more conservative law schools, or whose past writings reflect a conservative bent — and then you could email them for their opinion.)
• JeffM says:

  April 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm

  Koyaan said:

  What’s kept under lock and key in the state of Hawaii is the property of the state of Hawaii, and is governed by Hawaiian statutes and regulations.

  That’s obvious. What’s not so obvious is when the person the document refers to grants access to a copy of the document to everyone, but refuses to allow access to the original. That’s usually what happens when there is additional information on the document the owner refuses to reveal.

  But you already have the information, as certified by the state of Hawaii.

  Care to show us this? We have never seen the vault copy nor have verified it against factcheck.org’s questionable copy. And the State of Hawaii has never verified the copy on factcheck.org either.

  The state of Hawaii has every ability to protect it.

  Not if they know it does NOT contain the same information Soetoro has shown. It is their duty to report it to the authorities. After all, there’s no reason to protect a document that has information that has already been released.

  Because there’s no need to.

  Well then, they shouldn’t object to us just taking a look. We like to see documents. They help us solidify things in our minds and eases our concerns.

  The state of Hawaii has already certified that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

  That is 110% incorrect. They did no such thing. All they said was “we have a certificate in the vault”.

  I find in rather interesting how many lies have been spread about these 2 documents. This alone shows intent to deceive, i.e. FRAUD.
• Koyaan says:

  April 1, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  JeffM wrote:

  Sorry, but Soetoro waived that right to keep the document under lock and key the minute he posted his “COLB” on the Internet.

  What’s kept under lock and key in the state of Hawaii is the property of the state of Hawaii, and is governed by Hawaiian statutes and regulations.

  And since the COLB should be the “same” information as listed on the original long form, enough to prove eligibility based on your arguments, there is absolutely nothing that should be withheld from the American people with regards to this information.

  But you already have the information, as certified by the state of Hawaii.

  After all, what kind of information would be considered “private” at this point??? Supposedly we know where he was born, when he was born, who delivered him, who his parents were, what hospital he was delivered in, and what country he was born in. Every item in this list is an item on the vault certificate. Since everyone “knows” what’s on that piece of paper, there is no ability for the State of Hawaii to protect it.

  The state of Hawaii has every ability to protect it.

  Perhaps someone can explain to me what the purpose is for not showing the document at this point.

  Because there’s no need to.

  The state of Hawaii has already certified that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.

  k
• Koyaan says:

  April 1, 2009 at 12:20 pm

  Phil wrote:

  Because Ms. Lines could be taken to Court over her claim if someone stipulated that it was a false claim based on malicious intent.

  When you get right down to it, it wasn’t really a claim that could objectively be deemed true or false, it was just an opinion.

  Frankly, I think it’s perfectly legitimate, as it signals to the Court that a Court order is one way to obtain the original birth certificate.

  It also signals that forensic experts will have to go digging into state vaults in order to determine the eligibility of every presidential candidate from here on out.

  We are, after all, talking about the President.

  I really wish I could be convinced this were true. But so far, nothing has convinced me that it is.

  None. And I wouldn’t expect them to have such authority. They do, however, have the expertise to determine if a piece of paper is sufficiently legitimate to where it is reasonable for a given party to determine eligibility.

  But for some strange reason, the only pieces of paper Lines wishes to consider, are the pieces of paper that are locked up in state vaults.

  I look forward to visiting RSoL in 2011 so I can see you demanding forensic analysis of the vault certificates of all of the presidential candidates in the 2012 race.

  k
• Sue says:

  April 1, 2009 at 11:20 am

  Phil,

  “The person whose son was harassed, arrested, and jailed (apparently for his ceasing to answer certain questions, after Miranda rights were read) is Lt. Col. Don Sullivan, of North Carolina. The arrest was made in North Carolina yesterday as his son was coming into town to visit. Col. Sullivan went to the Clerk of Court to pay the fee, stating that his son was not a flight risk. The fee for release until the actual court date was reduced to $2,000. Court date is May 30.”

  To include this in the Pidgeon allegation is really misleading. It appears that this young man was arrested for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the “Obama Conspiracy theory” or the Pidgeon claims. I have provided a link for a “update” which is equally comical too. It would be interesting to hear the Judges and State troopers version of this story. Ever notice how these “reports” never include “the other side of the story?”

  http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/lt-col-donald-sullivan-update-march-30-2009-sullivans-sons-arrest-burgaw-nc-miranda-rights-obama-thugs-lt-col-sullivan-lawsuits-nc-state-trooper-son-arrested-for-not-answering-questions/

  This is probably the most comical statement in the above article.

  “When we got to his truck about 90 minutes later, the State trooper who had arrested him was there waiting in his car, right by my son’s truck. I got out of my car, with my S&W 9mm strapped on my hip as always, and walked up to his car and tapped on is window.”
• Phil says:

  April 1, 2009 at 8:14 am

  Koyaan,

  How can you make a FOIA request for specific data unless you first know that specific data exists? I mean, the issue we’re discussing here is the government’s keeping things secret from the people.

  I certainly won’t pretend to know the answer to this question. I think the original premise was that there is no absolute right to privacy in the Constitution. Also, in our republic, the government is not obligated to reveal absolutely everything about which it knows.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  April 1, 2009 at 8:12 am

  Koyaan,

  Joint session of Congress? What has a joint session of Congress to do with anything? Or are you referring to objections to electoral votes when the electoral votes are being counted?

  This was originally written in response to Practical Kat. I’ve already made my point that I don’t think the Joint Session of Congress has anything to do with certifying a candidate to be eligible (after all, they’re there to certify votes, not candidates). However, there are some that think this is the sole and only way to determine eligibility (the qualifier “only” is what gets this argument into trouble).

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  April 1, 2009 at 8:09 am

  Koyaan,

  How does an “official claim” necessarily negate one’s intentions?

  Because Ms. Lines could be taken to Court over her claim if someone stipulated that it was a false claim based on malicious intent.

  And again, what do you think of her claim that the only way for a candidate to prove their eligibility is to have forensic experts crawling around in state vaults?

  Frankly, I think it’s perfectly legitimate, as it signals to the Court that a Court order is one way to obtain the original birth certificate. We are, after all, talking about the President.

  What particular expertise would a forensic expert have with regard to eligibility?

  None. And I wouldn’t expect them to have such authority. They do, however, have the expertise to determine if a piece of paper is sufficiently legitimate to where it is reasonable for a given party to determine eligibility.

  -Phil
• Dallas says:

  April 1, 2009 at 2:08 am

  Who are you Kidding:

  Allow me to make this clarification. The reason of importance to
  Verify the Kenyan or CUKC citizenship dates is, by “backtracking”
  One Can determine the type of citizenship that Sr. conferred to
  Jr. in 1961.
  For instance:
  (Se#) (date)(birth)(Citizenship)

  1-11 born in Kenya CUKC
  1-12 born in Kenya BPPP
  2-11 born outside of Kenya CUKC
  2-12 born outside Kenya BPP

  So 12’s are BPP and 11 are CUKCs
  1’s are born in Kenya and 2’s are born outside Kenya
  Kenyans could tell the citizenship type by the independence day.

  This section 87 gave automatic citizenship to only 2 citizens.
  CUKC and BPP. All others had to register or naturalize. This is
  Significant Because Obama Sr. was a British Subject yet he was
  given Kenyan Citizenship privileges of a BPP .
  If he was a CUKC as you suggested, his citizenship date would be
  1-11 not 1- 12. (12 Dec.1963) as stated by factcheck.org

  In backtracking Jr. citizenship date should be a 2-11 if he was
  born outside of Kenya. And is CUKC. So the father and the son
  Hhave different citizenships on different dates. Which raises questions.

  At the very least Sr. and Jr. should have the same Citizenship if
  CUKC was conferred by dissent. I accept your generous concession
  that Jr. may have acquired CUKC by being born elsewhere.
  Further justifies the need for a thorough evaluation.
• Practical Kat says:

  April 1, 2009 at 12:34 am

  I have long since realized the premise for your argument: there is no legal way to enforce eligibility outside of a Joint Session of Congress, quo warranto, or verification at the State level.

  Actually I do not think quo warranto can be used.

  I’m not sure whether by “verification at the state level” — I believe that a judicial determination could be made, but that such action would have to be brought and litigated prior to the election, by a party with standing (most probably an opposing candidate; possibly a delegate to a party’s nominating convention).
• JeffM says:

  April 1, 2009 at 12:12 am

  Practical Kat said:

  Phil, no state would ever release the original long form document for inspection; their duty is to keep the original on file and secure.

  Sorry, but Soetoro waived that right to keep the document under lock and key the minute he posted his “COLB” on the Internet. And since the COLB should be the “same” information as listed on the original long form, enough to prove eligibility based on your arguments, there is absolutely nothing that should be withheld from the American people with regards to this information.

  After all, what kind of information would be considered “private” at this point??? Supposedly we know where he was born, when he was born, who delivered him, who his parents were, what hospital he was delivered in, and what country he was born in. Every item in this list is an item on the vault certificate. Since everyone “knows” what’s on that piece of paper, there is no ability for the State of Hawaii to protect it.

  Perhaps someone can explain to me what the purpose is for not showing the document at this point. No one is being fooled by this nonsense. Come on Barry. Show us the damned document and let’s move on with impeachment and treason proceedings. Please.
• Dallas says:

  March 31, 2009 at 11:32 pm

  Who are You Kidding:

  Well, I have not changed my position, and obviously have not persuaded you by example or clarity that Registration or Naturalization was indeed a necessary requirement to acquire legal
  CUKC status unless a person was born in the UKC ‘after’ the date of commencement of the BNA act 1948. I was merely demonstrating that Obama Sr. citizenship was in question as well.
  Wholeheartedly, was I suggesting that your posts were informative and quite good to read. So at this I will narrow the subject to focus on your interpretation of Section 87 of The Constitution of Kenya:

  (Way quoted..87:)
  (1)Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citzen of Kenya on 12 December 1963…”

  Lets dissect this Section. This Section (1) requires from the person:

  1. Live person
  2. Birth in Kenya
  3. Predetermined Prior citizen status

  In return of the above the person receives or maintains as the case may be:

  1. Kenyan Citizenship -or-
  2. Citizen of UKC (CUKC)
  3. And a Date for the Kenyan citizenship or CUKC citzenship

  Let’s put it in Perspective

  (1) Every person having been born in Kenya “is” on 11th December
  1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

  There you have it. Every person already born in Kenya, is- presumed to be already CUKC. Has different CUKC citizenship date
  of December 11,1963

  Part II of Section(1)
  Every person having been born in Kenya,….or a british protected person “shall become” a citizen of Kenya on 12 December 1963.

  So, every person that was born in Kenya and is a British Protected Person “shall become” a new citizen of Kenya on the date of December 12,1963. So Sr. as previoulsy stated should not have recieved this DATE of citizenship if he were a CUKC.
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 10:43 pm

  Who Are You Kidding wrote:

  The reception statutes reference laws that were based on the common law and statutes of England, but that is not to say that Colonial era common law was in exactitude the common law and statutes of England.

  Yeah?

  Well let’s take a look at the reception statute written into New York’s 1777 constitution:

  Such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.

  The common law of England. That looks pretty damn unambiguous to me.

  One of my favorite subjects. Where do we start ? How about: there’s nothing very Constitutional about those bailout\stimulus trillions.

  Won’t get any argument out of me.

  Or: there’s nothing very Constitutional about the Patriot Act that Obama promised to ditch…

  Ditto.

  k
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 10:19 pm

  Phil wrote:

  Great question. I suppose the only way to know for sure is by requesting specific data via an FOIA request.

  How can you make a FOIA request for specific data unless you first know that specific data exists? I mean, the issue we’re discussing here is the government’s keeping things secret from the people.

  k
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 10:16 pm

  Phil wrote:

  I have long since realized the premise for your argument: there is no legal way to enforce eligibility outside of a Joint Session of Congress, quo warranto, or verification at the State level.

  Joint session of Congress? What has a joint session of Congress to do with anything? Or are you referring to objections to electoral votes when the electoral votes are being counted?

  And I’m really surprised that you buy into the Constitution-as-toilet-paper quo warranto argument.

  k
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 10:12 pm

  Phil wrote:

  Regardless of intentions, the point is that we have one forensic expert who has made this as an official claim.

  How does an “official claim” necessarily negate one’s intentions?

  And again, what do you think of her claim that the only way for a candidate to prove their eligibility is to have forensic experts crawling around in state vaults?

  Personally, I’d love to see another forensic expert — or even the same one! — officially go on record as saying that what’s publicly available — the certification of live birth — is sufficient for eligibility.

  What particular expertise would a forensic expert have with regard to eligibility?

  k
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  March 31, 2009 at 9:47 pm

  Dallas

  I do take note that your position has changed over Obama Sr’s true status as a British subject and his non-existent registration, the registration of Kenyans in mass, and MauMaus being subject to some authority and citizenship other than Britain’s. The entire eligibility controversy hinges on Jr’s nationality at birth. Nothing subsequent is likely to count much in a court of law where Obama’s room for maneuver would be considerable. That means you need not trouble yourself unduly about what happened in 1963 and after, as it will only be of theoretical interest.

  1 I think you’ve missed the convoluted language of Section 12 referring back to Section 4. No matter: if all other provisions fail Obama Sr was a CUKC per Section 12 (4): ” A person who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act and does not become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of any of the foregoing provisions of this section [12-1, 12-2, 12-3] shall on that date become such a citizen [CUKC] unless…” he was a citizen or potential citizen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Ceylon, or Eire [Ireland]. As Sr was a natural born Kenyan and thus a British subject, he automatically became a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I think your theory ends here.

  2 Obama Jr was an illegitimate child as his father was already lawfully married in Kenya. If Jr was born in Hawaii he was never a British Citizen by descent; the only way he could be a British citizen is if he was born in Kenya or another British jurisdiction. Which may be the case.

  3 The Constitution of an independent Kenya had no bearing on Obama Jr in 1961 as the Republic of Kenya did not exist.

  4 The suggestion that Obama Sr, a natural born Kenyan citizen, erstwhile Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and future deputy minister in an independent Kenya was at one time confused, then wasn’t, then was, then wasn’t, about his nationality tests my credulity to the limit, principally because of Section 87 of The Constitution of Kenya:

  “Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person SHALL BECOME A CITIZEN OF KENYA ON 12TH DECEMBER, 1963…”

  You’re misconstruing the language above. Insert the capitalized words as follows and all becomes clear:

  “…having been born in Kenya, [AND] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…shall [THEREBY] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…”

  Common sense should help here: the UK and Kenya had no wish or right to leave anyone born in Kenya stateless.

  5 Referring to Factcheck’s claims you ask “How is it that Sr.’s British citizenship was “short-lived” ?” I am afraid the “short-lived” citizenship referred to was Obama JR’S, not his father, Obama Sr.

  Whatever theory you are promoting is based on too many misreadings and errors of interpretation to be taken any further.
• Phil says:

  March 31, 2009 at 9:46 pm

  Practical Kat,

  Another word for “grassroots efforts” and your “tea parties” is…..”community organizing”.

  I’d note that Obama was a community organizer for 3 years, before he attended law school; then he was a law student for 3 years; then for the next 17-odd years he was a lawyer, law professor, and senator. It’s odd that you essentially focus on the job he had before he went to law school.

  But its also interesting to me because with your tea parties you are taking your first baby steps into the world of grassroots organizing, but at the same time you fail to recognize that, from a tactical perspective, you are following in Obama’s footsteps and have a lot to learn from him.

  That’s what puzzled me during the GOP convention as well, when Palin & Guliani were ridiculing Obama’s community organizing background. In politics – at least in a democracy — it is the best kind of background a person could possibly have. A good organizer can get things done by raising awareness of issues and bringing people together to advocate for their cause; the ultimate test of a good organizer is whether they can cobble together a strong enough coalition to win at the ballot box.

  So have your tea parties. I agree — its a good way to start. But you’ve got a lot to learn, and are making a lot of mistakes. (By “you” I mean collectively; that is, all the tea party organizers together). You don’t want to end up alienating more people than you attract. If your movement becomes an object of ridicule among the constituency who should be your natural allies, then you might want to re-evaluate your tactics and your goals.

  I could not agree with you more. After all, there is no point in stirring people up if it has no actual effect on society (though if the parties become a big enough event, they could become a part of the original cultural icon from back in the 1700’s). And you are correct about the risks involved with such outspoken organizing.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 31, 2009 at 9:38 pm

  Koyaan,

  And here I think Lines is allowing her partisanship to show.

  What she’s saying is that state officials cannot be trusted, and that the only way to definitively determine a candidate’s eligibility is to allow document experts into state vaults to examine the documents stored in those vaults.

  I’m sorry, but in my opinion this is just plain absurd.

  Regardless of intentions, the point is that we have one forensic expert who has made this as an official claim. Personally, I’d love to see another forensic expert — or even the same one! — officially go on record as saying that what’s publicly available — the certification of live birth — is sufficient for eligibility.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 31, 2009 at 9:34 pm

  Practical Kat,

  I have long since realized the premise for your argument: there is no legal way to enforce eligibility outside of a Joint Session of Congress, quo warranto, or verification at the State level.

  -Phil
• Phil says:

  March 31, 2009 at 9:33 pm

  Koyaan,

  And how exactly is one to know whether something which is labeled secret is actually intended to keep it secret from “the enemy” rather than to simply keep it secret from the people?

  Great question. I suppose the only way to know for sure is by requesting specific data via an FOIA request.

  -Phil
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  March 31, 2009 at 9:32 pm

  “reception statutes…the laws of the state would continue to be based on the common law of England… with respect to “natural born” citizenship, that was jus solis..” Koyaan

  The reception statutes reference laws that were based on the common law and statutes of England, but that is not to say that Colonial era common law was in exactitude the common law and statutes of England. Even before 1776 there were significant differences between English and Colonial common law, reflecting distances of space and time. Given the impact of Revolution it’s hard to imagine, for example, those English laws which required of his American subjects fealty to their rightful monarch were to be included in the purview of the reception statutes, especially when the Declaration of Independence offered multiple examples of diverging interpretations. As a matter of public record US nationality legislation enacted by the young Republic did not/b> slavishly follow English common law and statute. So without question the Founding Fathers did re-conceptualize these issues. In support of which, as can be seen in my earlier post, the British granted citizenship to all the inhabitants of territories they acquired: and we never did that.

  Since the meaning of natural born has been wrestled with many times over more than two centuries it’s unlikely to be resolved by us here. That’s what we pay the Judicial Branch to do: apply the “rule of law”. I suspect the judiciary would find Obama natural born if he’s proved to have been born in Hawaii, even with just one US parent, whether anyone likes it or not. I’m willing. Be assured there is absolutely no truth in the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya. Still not interested ? Now that I don’t understand…or….

  “…those who have been trying to wrap themselves in the Constitution are those who care the least about it…” Koyaan

  One of my favorite subjects. Where do we start ? How about: there’s nothing very Constitutional about those bailout\stimulus trillions. Or: there’s nothing very Constitutional about the Patriot Act that Obama promised to ditch… I care. Anybody ? Try not to sound like a sleep-inducing Obama White House briefing.

  “Yet it seems you don’t quite understand what that means when in the same sentence you say that Constitution is a contract written by the people.” Koyaan

  “We the people of the United States….do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  I’m in with the people, not with the government. That’s our Constitution. “Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society…. Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Thomas Jefferson

  “Even when what the government is doing is deemed by the government to be “TOP SECRET”? “ Koyaan

  You really believe that whatever is deemed “TOP SECRET” by the national security state is not for us (who pay for it) to know ? A federal system which has limitless funds and deliberately misinforms the public from behind impenetrable layers of secrecy ? Where every group critical of public policy has members who report to state, federal, or military agencies ? The kind of intimidation that Stephen Pidgeon is running up against ? The extraordinary rendition program that Obama is retaining from the Bush administration ? Conditions at Gitmo being worse under Obama ? Obama rocketing innocent civilians in Afghanistan (and losing the war) ? These are constitutional issues that should transcend party (unless one is a Fascist), so I prefer to do my own thinking (use it or lose it !):

  a Obama Administration Claims Copyright Treaty Involves State Secrets?!?

  “When the Obama administration took over, there was a public stance that this administration was going to be more transparent — especially with regards to things like Freedom of Information Act requests. The nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International took that to heart and filed an FOIA request to get more info on ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement]. The US Trade Representative’s Office responded denying the request, saying that the information was “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.” This is a treaty about changing copyright law, not sending missiles somewhere. To claim that it’s a national security matter is just downright scary. As KEI points out, the text of the documents requested have been available to tons of people, including more than 30 governments around the world and lobbyists from the entertainment industry, pharma industry and publishing industry. But when the public asks for them, we’re told they’re state secrets ? This is transparency ? This is openness ? ” http://tinyurl.com/crun82

  b “While the Obama administration calls these secretive plans a development of “national security,” Richard Stallman, a prominent American software freedom activist, calls it a secret “war on sharing”: “Because we wouldn’t like it if we knew, they are trying to do policy laundering,” Stillman says. “Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want. I can only guess that it’s going to be nasty, because if it weren’t going to be nasty, they wouldn’t need to keep a secret”…Leaks of the text suggest that border guards will get unprecedented powers to search travelers without warning. They will be able to go through, copy and confiscate any digital material people have on their laptop. This means music, movies, and games as well as any other personal material…” http://tinyurl.com/cqx8c4

  Policing the internet, monitoring all traffic, eliminating anonymity and privacy: not for the people to know ? Deemed “TOP SECRET” ? Hasn’t Obama’s confirmed pick for #2 at Dept of Justice (David Ogden) worked extensively on behalf of giant media interests, not least corporate pornographers ? As I read somewhere: “If the media can’t win in the courts, with advertising, or education, or their lobbyists with Congress, they just get their guys into the DOJ…” I just can’t think why…why is Obama protecting big media ? I know….it’s complex.

  “But think hard: there’s gotta be a way round all that.” WAYK Gotta be a way around what? Koyaan

  It’s saddens me that an attempt at gentle irony didn’t quite reach Koyaan.
• Reality Check says:

  March 31, 2009 at 8:33 pm

  I will be the first to kick in 5 cents to the Stephen Pidgeon bail fund. This really sounds like a complete load of BS to me. First it was Homeland Security stalking him. Now it is the county mounties. What’s next? the Boy Scouts?
• Practical Kat says:

  March 31, 2009 at 7:36 pm

  Phil wrote:

  I don’t even know much about this guy, except for the fact that he was a community organizer for x-number of years.

  and also:

  I like thinking of solutions to problems, and that’s why I’ve gotten so excited over (1) State-based initiatives (as grassroots efforts to right wrongs is, to me, the best way to resolve issues) and (2) tea parties (these don’t actually “do” anything but allow folks to vent; the hope is that these lead to better awareness of issues in hopes of creating substantial change, going forward).

  Another word for “grassroots efforts” and your “tea parties” is…..”community organizing”.

  I’d note that Obama was a community organizer for 3 years, before he attended law school; then he was a law student for 3 years; then for the next 17-odd years he was a lawyer, law professor, and senator. It’s odd that you essentially focus on the job he had before he went to law school.

  But its also interesting to me because with your tea parties you are taking your first baby steps into the world of grassroots organizing, but at the same time you fail to recognize that, from a tactical perspective, you are following in Obama’s footsteps and have a lot to learn from him.

  That’s what puzzled me during the GOP convention as well, when Palin & Guliani were ridiculing Obama’s community organizing background. In politics – at least in a democracy — it is the best kind of background a person could possibly have. A good organizer can get things done by raising awareness of issues and bringing people together to advocate for their cause; the ultimate test of a good organizer is whether they can cobble together a strong enough coalition to win at the ballot box.

  So have your tea parties. I agree — its a good way to start. But you’ve got a lot to learn, and are making a lot of mistakes. (By “you” I mean collectively; that is, all the tea party organizers together). You don’t want to end up alienating more people than you attract. If your movement becomes an object of ridicule among the constituency who should be your natural allies, then you might want to re-evaluate your tactics and your goals.
• Practical Kat says:

  March 31, 2009 at 7:00 pm

  his voting record at the State level — especially all those “present” votes

  Phil, while Obama served in the Illinois Senate, he voted on approximately 4,000 bills. Of those votes, 129 times he voted “present” – which is on option equivalent to abstaining. There are a lot of reasons why a legislator might abstain — for example, there could be a personal or legal conflict of interest, or a disagreement with part but not all of a bill.

  Please don’t confuse campaign rhetoric with substantive issues. If he had simply not shown up on those days rather than vote “present” there would have been nothing to give his rivals anything to to make an issue over — I mean, I don’t think “Obama had only a 97% attendance record” would have gained much traction.
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  Phil wrote:

  Maybe you missed the first handful of times I’ve said this. I bring up Ms. Lines’ testimony for the fact that she addresses the issue of both authenticity and eligibility.

  More specifically, she said:

  4. In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.

  This is precisely the reason for wanting the original 1961 birth certificate in hand.

  And here I think Lines is allowing her partisanship to show.

  What she’s saying is that state officials cannot be trusted, and that the only way to definitively determine a candidate’s eligibility is to allow document experts into state vaults to examine the documents stored in those vaults.

  I’m sorry, but in my opinion this is just plain absurd.

  First of all, I didn’t realize that our country had laws that kept children from being of a nationality besides being an American citizen. If in fact Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, the question, in my mind, would still be how to deal with the issue of citizenship in another country (such as what the law was in 1961 regarding the then-Kenya/UK laws).

  There’s nothing to deal with. US nationality law in 1961 didn’t give a rat’s sphincter about whether or not some other country considered someone born in the US to be a citizen of their country.

  Secondly, this isn’t an issue of other countries dictating to us what our laws say. Rather, it’s an issue of too much undue foreign influence by someone who is simply not a natural born citizen.

  Yes. Which is why naturalized citizens were excluded from holding the office of President.

  k
• Practical Kat says:

  March 31, 2009 at 6:35 pm

  Rather, I think there are two issues at play: (1) analyzing the 1961 certificate

  Phil, no state would ever release the original long form document for inspection; their duty is to keep the original on file and secure.

  What many states will provide is a certified photocopy of part of the original long form document — but not the whole thing. A long form birth certificate has a whole lot of information on it beyond what most people think of in a birth certificate — such as medical information filled in by the hospital. For example, it will indicate how many pregnancies the mother previously had and how those pregnancies ended up. It will tell the manner of delivery (for example, it might indicate that it was a breech birth or that the baby was delivered by caesarean).

  You don’t usually see that information on what you consider a “long form” birth certificate simply because the standard procedure back when people were issued photocopies was to copy only the part of the page with the basic stats that you are accustomed to seeing.

  Hawaii does not issue copies of the long form certificate any more. You can verify this easily by writing to to the health department. Hawaii was one of the first states to fully computerize its records – and its policies now are simply to issue the COLB that is the source for the images Obama has distributed online.

  You are simply insisting on seeing something that would NOT be available for many candidates, and is less likely to be available in future years, as more and more records are digitalized and computerized.
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 6:29 pm

  Phil wrote:

  On the contrary. There absolutely must be State secrets; as I see it, what many on the Left who think the government should be absolutely transparent fail to realize that is “if you know about ‘it,’ then so does the enemy.”

  There is strength in secrecy — even simply the veil of secrecy.

  If the government can keep secret from its people what it is doing, then there can’t be any inalienable right of the people to know what their government is doing, and this establishes yet a further level of insulation between the people and the government.

  And how exactly is one to know whether something which is labeled secret is actually intended to keep it secret from “the enemy” rather than to simply keep it secret from the people?

  k
• Koyaan says:

  March 31, 2009 at 6:19 pm

  Phil wrote:

  What amazes me is that determining eligibility is not as difficult as you make it sound.

  It is if you don’t want there to be any questions about a candidate’s eligibility.

  The truth of the matter is that the Secretaries of State at the State level are already tasked with the constitutional authority to determine eligibility.

  Not really, no. It is the state legislatures that are tasked with the constitutional authority to appoint electors.

  This is why there have been a number of Secretary of State lawsuits having been brought at the State level (and some going to SCOTUS).

  Secretaries of State are only tasked with the authorities given them by their various state legislatures. And since state legislatures may appoint whatever electors they want by whatever means they want, there’s no constitutional issue involved here. The only constitutional issue is on the number of electors that may be appointed.

  After all, Mr. Caldero (if that’s his name), a Nicaraguan-born citizen, was removed from the ballot in a number of States. Therefore, the question was, how did the SoS make that determination, and how did they otherwise determine that Mr. Obama was a natural born citizen for the purposes of ballot placement?

  Because Calero never made any secret of the fact that he wasn’t even a US citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. He’s a resident alien living in the US on a green card.

  Also, there have been two cases in California (I’d been meaning to post on them) having to do with this very issue. One case says that only Congress can determine eligibility of a candidate, while the other says that the SoS can also make such a determination. This will likely be brought up when Dr. Keyes has a hearing on his appeal.

  State legislatures may by statute set the requirements and qualifications of anyone appearing on their state ballots, and those requirements may include that the candidate must be eligible under Article II. However there is nothing in the Constitution or federal law requiring them to do so. So again, this is purely a state issue, not a federal or constitutional issue.

  Now, regarding your questions, I think that this country ought to have a good debate on eligibility.

  Sure. I’m up for a debate.

  k