It seems we the citizens can force the issue by next election…we can make it mandatory for all person seeking to hold to prove their citizenship to the states. It can’t be a federal madate as the feds can’t regulate state electin laws, but we can certainly force our states to mandate supporting documents!

Please don’t forget to disclose THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 (1814), and Vattel’s Law of Nations to the courts in your defense of the Usurper in Chief.

With regard to Vattel, the Supreme Court of the United States, in THE VENUS, specifically stated, “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

Vattel’s Law of Nations, § 212, states “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Thus, your client is a usurper, and you are obligated to disclose this FACT…

Move forward? Obama is President and you are a conspiracy theorist. I’m not trying to move, just to make clear where we are.

Considering that I don’t know you and you don’t know me, and my official stance RE: the President’s eligibility is that “I don’t know,” I’m not sure I’d be throwing around such verbiage.

After all, I could say that you’re unpatriotic and a traitor to America because you won’t further question this President’s eligibility based solely on the absolute lack of evidence when it’s partially your responsibility to do so.

Oh, wait — is the DHS watching…?

-Phil

Then, since you don’t think I’m answering your questions, and you refuse to back up your historical claim about other Presidents, then apparently we can’t move forward on this issue.

Move forward? Obama is President and you are a conspiracy theorist. I’m not trying to move, just to make clear where we are.

I assume you both mean Sandra Lines, and if we look at her declaration, we find that Practical Kat is telling the truth; Phil, not so much.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

Contrary to Phil’s repeated reporting, she says nothing about drawing a conclusion on eligibility. She says the Internet images, specifically the ones with the certificate number redacted, cannot be relied upon as genuine. She did not examine the actual paper certificate, which the Obama campaign made available at their Chicago headquarters.

As Bill O’Reilly says, “the spin stops here.”

Do have a look at what Ms. Lines went on record to have actually said on my original report:

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.

Just in case I have to spell it out for you, she is not referring to the certification of live birth in her last sentence; she is referring to the “vault” birth certificate — as in, the original 1961 certificate, “if an original of any document eixts” (as she states in the opening sentence) — not to the original 2007 certification of live birth.

Your spin is that Ms. Lines didn’t analyze the paper copy of the online certificate of live birth. While that may be true, she specifically refers to the original certificate in paragraph 4 on which the certification is based.

-Phil

Refusing to face the answer does not make them go away.

Then, since you don’t think I’m answering your questions, and you refuse to back up your historical claim about other Presidents, then apparently we can’t move forward on this issue.

-Phil

Practical Kat [wrote],

I know about Patricia Lines, who did not say what you claim she said… but who is the other?

If you wish to disbelieve what she said — especially as I’ve already displayed her actual affidavit verbiage at least once to you — that is your prerogative.

I assume you both mean Sandra Lines, and if we look at her declaration, we find that Practical Kat is telling the truth; Phil, not so much.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/executedsandralinesdeclaration_1.pdf

Contrary to Phil’s repeated reporting, she says nothing about drawing a conclusion on eligibility. She says the Internet images, specifically the ones with the certificate number redacted, cannot be relied upon as genuine. She did not examine the actual paper certificate, which the Obama campaign made available at their Chicago headquarters.

Annenberg Political Fact-Check did examine the actual document, and took their own photographs of it: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

You haven’t answered my question; maybe you’ve misunderstood, so I’ll try it again, in a different way:

Refusing to face the answer does not make them go away.

Show me how it makes any sense that because the eligibility question hasn’t been consistently asked of every presidential candidate that this somehow disqualifies the question from being asked about this President.

Want to know where Obama was born? You can find out at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. Want to know what “natural born citizen” means? You can find out at http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ.

It means the truth is pretty much the opposite of what the birthers pretend.

You haven’t answered my question; maybe you’ve misunderstood, so I’ll try it again, in a different way:

Show me how it makes any sense that because the eligibility question hasn’t been consistently asked of every presidential candidate that this somehow disqualifies the question from being asked about this President.

-Phil

I know about Patricia Lines, who did not say what you claim she said… but who is the other?

If you wish to disbelieve what she said — especially as I’ve already displayed her actual affidavit verbiage at least once to you — that is your prerogative.

The bottom line is that she and Dr. Ron Polarik — whom I’m sure you’re simply salivating to say that since he has chosen to remain anonymous, that absolutely must mean that he cannot have credentials (as if somehow he is obligated to share anything with anyone along those lines), and someone about whom Ms. Lines spoke in her affidavit — have both said that the certification of live birth is inconclusive with respect to determining eligibility.

However, simply for the sake of discussion, let’s just say that you simply refuse to believe all that. All you have to do is show me a forensics expert who’s willing to sign an affidavit clearly showing that they think the certification of live birth is conclusive enough for an authority figure to substantiate eligibility.

Remember, neither you, me, nor anyone else has the authority to declare that Barack Hussein Obama is eligible to be President. In fact, in light of no legal enforcement of the eligibility clause, there really is no (Clintonian) “controlling legal authority” over this; it’s a he-said, he/she-said issue, which is why there’s a call for the Judiciary to rule.

This is why I think folks are very unpatriotic to suggest that there are some, such as myself, who refuse to accept what they’ve deemed as acceptable evidence. Neither one of us has the ultimate authority to make a clear distinction about this man. And further, there’s nothing wrong with anyone bringing the question forward.

So, again, you can either accept the evidence as it is or you can reject it. Either way, in my view, the question remains.

-Phil

Incorrect. He has shown what he claims is his certification of live birth, which is not a birth certificate.

You can check it out here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Note that it is, “CERTIFICATE NO. 151 1961 010641″, and in the last two words on the front of the doc it refers to itself as, “THIS CERTIFICATE”.

Also, I’m still trying to figure out what “is the only US President to show his birth certificate” is supposed to mean.

It means the truth is pretty much the opposite of what the birthers pretend.