Jacqlyn,

“CHOW or NOW….I have important things to do like save my country from you left-wing radical LIBERALS!!!!!”

Actually, you are terribly misguided. You are not saving the country from anything. In fact, you may be destroying this country if some of you act on the comments that have been made. No one will emerge victorious. Sadly, whoever you think the enemy is will have won because you will have played right into their hands.
***************************************************************
Sue—Again…only your opinion and in my opinion you are the misguided one….take off your rose colored glasses and come to the REALITY PARTY….you are constantly trying to get folks here to not question The USURPERS ineligibility and let an unqualified…possibly illegal alien take over our country….all because he tells you words you like to hear???? The FRAUD has done nothing to pull this country together…if anything he has made it worse and more dangerous than ever as you have admitted here…..our economy has gotten worse and the jobs are disappearing even faster than before….whatever happened to that Stimulus money??? Oh yeah….we had to pay millions for a bogus Inauguration party and God only knows how many other parties he has thrown on our tax money!!!

The FRAUD preached transparency when he campaigned and all we have seen is concealment of almost every important legal document in his background….why wouldn’t people with any common sense be concerned….evidently you are lacking in that area as are many other LIBERALS and OBOT supporters!!! Just what will it take for you and your kind to start asking this FRAUD some of the same hard questions we are asking…do we all need to wait for another terrorist(man-made attack) on our own soil….or worse yet….we start killing our own friends and family members….this issue MUST be resolved if our country is to ever unite as one!!!

Sadly…it is appearing more and more that the enemy is our own government and even our court system has a hand in the corruption…Now you are starting to appear to be on the enemy side as well….that is your choice….myself I choose to be a citizen of the Constitution and when the law is not being followed then we have every right to do what we must to uphold the law and the Constitution!!

“We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln

“CHOW or NOW….I have important things to do like save my country from you left-wing radical LIBERALS!!!!!”

Actually, you are terribly misguided. You are not saving the country from anything. In fact, you may be destroying this country if some of you act on the comments that have been made. No one will emerge victorious. Sadly, whoever you think the enemy is will have won because you will have played right into their hands.

Jacqlyn Smith claimed,

I did answer..read more here if you want…one of the cases mentioned below with Justice Scalia

No, you responded but you did not answer, and you are still not answering. I asked what cases you were talking about when you wrote:

There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory.

I never questioned your ability to write or parrot long-winded legal sophistry. Where are these Supreme Court cases concerning Presidents Elect? If you were telling the truth, why will you not name these cases?

The one Supreme Court case you named, District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller, was about the handgun ban in D.C. It had nothing to do with a President Elect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

It was filed in District Court for the District of Columbia in February 2003, and finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2008. So Jacqlyn, who do you think was President Elect?

Is a little honesty too much to ask?

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

Brygenon————-Keep searching you will eventually find them..the cases are out there….I don’t have time to search for you….I am busy with organizing a “tea party” and I am part of a citizens grand jury so knock yourself out and keep looking…eventually you will find them and then you can PAT yourself on the back for doing your due diligence….CHOW or NOW….I have important things to do like save my country from you left-wing radical LIBERALS!!!!!

I did answer..read more here if you want…one of the cases mentioned below with Justice Scalia

No, you responded but you did not answer, and you are still not answering. I asked what cases you were talking about when you wrote:

There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory.

I never questioned your ability to write or parrot long-winded legal sophistry. Where are these Supreme Court cases concerning Presidents Elect? If you were telling the truth, why will you not name these cases?

The one Supreme Court case you named, District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller, was about the handgun ban in D.C. It had nothing to do with a President Elect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

It was filed in District Court for the District of Columbia in February 2003, and finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2008. So Jacqlyn, who do you think was President Elect?

Is a little honesty too much to ask?

BTW, which so called expert are you referring to?

Sandra Ramsey Lines. Go look up Keyes v. Lingle on my site; her affidavit is included therein.

While we’ve been over this many, many times before, the bottom line is that she is officially on record as saying that the online COLB is inconclusive to determine eligibility, and that, in her opinion, the original birth certificate would be needed to sufficiently determine eligibility.

Dr. Ron Polarik is also on record as having debunked the online COLB, though most illegitimizers have attempted to discredit this gentleman for the fact that he prefers to remain anonymous on the Internet (he’s already claimed to have had death threats levied against him).

What I would absolutely appreciate seeing is a forensics expert from the opposition who would go on record saying that the online COLB is conclusive with respect to determining eligibility.

-Phil

“Perhaps the question RE: their having seen the certificate is under what context did they see it. Again, the idea is that most health department workers aren’t going to haphazardly go around looking at birth certificates for grins.”

The Hawaiian Health Dept. officials were not looking at Obama’s BC for grins. The reason was to stop the excessive phone calls.

If Hawaiian Health Dept. officials do not have the authority to inspect/view people’s original BC, then how do you think they provide people with a certified BC when the information for the certified copy is taken directly from the original BC?

When the Hawaiian Department of Health officials stated that they had Obama’s original BC, they could not have said this if Obama had not been born in Hawaii as they would not have his original BC. And, that is the only issue regarding Obama’s eligibility–that he was born in Hawaii. The rest is just BS.

BTW, which so called expert are you referring to?

They said that “they had 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.”

Perhaps the question RE: their having seen the certificate is under what context did they see it. Again, the idea is that most health department workers aren’t going to haphazardly go around looking at birth certificates for grins.

Which leads us to the following:

Unfortunately, the Hawaii State Dept. of Health miscalculated that Americans had enough sense to know what ORIGINAL meant. The Hawaii State Dept. of Health would not have Obama’s ORIGINAL BC if Obama had not been born there.

I don’t think anyone is going to debate that Hawaii does not have the President’s original 1961 birth certificate. The issue is — and I keep saying this over and over again, apparently to no avail — that the question is one of eligibility. Further, HI Health officials cannot substantiate eligibility based on what they’ve seen, because that’s not in their power to do so.

To put it a different way, just because someone claims to have “seen and verified” a given document doesn’t mean that the individual about whom the document speaks is eligible for President. One must still go about determining requirements for eligibility, and thus far, the certification of live birth — that piece of paper upon which is derived, in theory, the contents of the original 1961 birth certificate — has already had one expert declare that it’s inconclusive to determine such requirements.

-Phil

“Remember that the bottom line is that the HI Dept. of Health only ever verified that they have a document on record. They never said (and cannot say) that it substantiates eligibility.”

Actually, the HI Dept. of Health said this:

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

They said that “they had 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.”

Unfortunately, the Hawaii State Dept. of Health miscalculated that Americans had enough sense to know what ORIGINAL meant. The Hawaii State Dept. of Health would not have Obama’s ORIGINAL BC if Obama had not been born there. And, don’t quote the foreign birth BS because that has already been debunked. And, I have yet to see anyone produce a Hawaiian BC of someone who was born in a foreign country, have you? Except of course for the 1906 one but that was prior Hawaii becoming a State.

I asked: Where are those Supreme Court rulings on Presidents Elect? If you told the truth, Jacqlyn, then why do you not answer?

*****************************************************************
I did answer..read more here if you want…one of the cases mentioned below with Justice Scalia…I will let you research for the others……..You have to understand the history of the discussions since the Constitution and the 14th Amendment was written….THINK IF YOU CAN…I know it is difficult being a LIBERAL and all!!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Beside 200 years of Presidential precedent, the great weight of authority supports the argument that Obama is not a natural born Citizen.

THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT

Despite popular belief, the 14th Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text. It just conveys the status of “Citizen”. And it’s very clear that in the pre-amendment Constitution, the Framers made a distinction between a “Citizen” and a “natural born Citizen”. The requirement to be a Senator or Representative is “Citizen”, but the requirement to be President is “natural born Citizen”.

From the 14th Amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

But even as to this conveyance of citizenship, those who were responsible for drafting the 14th Amendment made it clear that – to them – the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant subject only to the jurisdiction thereof.

Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow of The Hudson Institute had this to say about the issue at a Congressional hearing on dual citizenship from September 29, 2005:

The authors in the legislative history, the authors of that language, Senator Lyman Trumbull said, ”When we talk about ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ it means complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Senator Jacob Howard said that it’s ”a full and complete jurisdiction.”

This illustrates that Congress recently discussed the issue, and they can’t claim they were unaware. But we don’t have to take Dr. Fonte’s word for it. The following discussion by the various 14th Amendment Framers took place on the Senate floor. I took it from P.A. Madison’s research at http://www.14thamendment.us (use his link for footnotes):

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil. Again, we are fortunate enough to have on the record the highest authority tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee… and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Then Madison quotes Sen. Howard, another Framer, concurring with Trumbull:

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull’s construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

Mr. Madison continues with even more proof of what the 14th Amendment Framers meant:

Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Madison saves for last the greatest authority on the issue:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…[6]

It’s important to note this statement was issued by Bingham only months before the 14th Amendment was proposed.

In conclusion, I would like to thank reader “John Boy” for pointing to Justice Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia Et Al. v. Heller. In that case, Justice Scalia took into consideration a certain historical legal reference:

The common references to those “fit to bear arms” in congressional discussions about the militia are matched by use of the same phrase in the few nonmilitary federal contexts where the concept would be relevant… Other legal sources frequently used “bear arms” in nonmilitary contexts.10

Now look at “footnote 10″:

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) (“Since custom has allowed persons of rank and gentlemen of the army to bear arms in time of peace, strict care should be taken that none but these should be allowed to wear swords”);

Since Justice Scalia cited to this legal textbook in March of 2008, it’s not outrageous to think he might also refer to “The Laws of Nations” on the natural born Citizen issue?

I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Brygenon…..most of what you say is fabricated

It’s right there at the link I provided:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ

What’s the point of accusing me of fabrication when anyone who bothers to check the link will find the accusation to be false?

Jacqlyn, you had claimed:

There is a legal difference between “U.S. Citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” as you know. The Supreme Court has ruled on this in prior cases where the “President Elect” had been born in a U.S. territory.

I asked: Where are those Supreme Court rulings on Presidents Elect? If you told the truth, Jacqlyn, then why do you not answer?

“1. Hawaiian State officials cannot legally look upon the original birth certificate per State statute. They also never said they actually saw the document, nor did they actually confirm anything but that the certification of live birth was what it was.”

Again, please cite you source for your statement above. You did not provide me with your source for your above statement.

Sorry, I don’t have Hawaiian State statutes memorized word-for-word in my head. However, doing a simple search on my site as well as Google will show you a number of such citations. In fact, if you look under Martin v. Lingle and Keyes v. Lingle, you’ll find some actual postings about it.

Nevertheless, the point of the matter is that the authorities in Hawaii aren’t going around every day looking at peoples’ birth certificates just for grins; there has to be a defined purpose for doing such, and your quote regarding the Director of Health essentially states this.

Remember that the bottom line is that the HI Dept. of Health only ever verified that they have a document on record. They never said (and cannot say) that it substantiates eligibility.

-Phil

“Probably for the same reason that people keep making false statements that somehow the Hawaii Department of Health somehow verified that the certification of live birth stipulates that the President is eligible for his office.”

This seems pretty to the point to me.

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

“1. Hawaiian State officials cannot legally look upon the original birth certificate per State statute. They also never said they actually saw the document, nor did they actually confirm anything but that the certification of live birth was what it was.”

Again, please cite you source for your statement above. You did not provide me with your source for your above statement.