Your attempt to soft pedal what was another dramatic failure of the Birther movement is understandable, but not particularly convincing.

And your inability to be intellectually honest with me in these kinds of discussions once again brings another thread to a grinding halt (much less making it worth my time and energy to read past this sentence in your comment).

-Phil

We perceive reality and it is:

Science would tell us that you have that exactly backwards.

First, HD, you have not proven that the woman in question is a Federal Cop, not have your proven there even exists a definition of federal cop; Wikepedia could be re-edited between the time it takes us to exchange posts, certainly as a Historian you must realize that it is not a reliable source?

I also have not proven that the earth is spherical or that water flows downhill. These are not controversial issues requiring documentation. She is a Federal Cop. Call her and ask.

I did.

- Not a single eligibility case has ever been heard on its merits (it’s a bit difficult to “win” or “lose” a case until it’s actually been heard, at least here in the United States);

Nonsense. When a case is dismissed, the dependents have won and the plaintiffs have lost. Period.

That said:

1) Donofrio got to he Supreme Court without having failed the hurdle of “standing.” The briefs offered were specifically on the merits of the case. It was denied.

2) In Hollister v. Soetoro, Judge Robertson directed Phil Berg to appear in his court and establish the merits of his case prior to being certified pro hac vice. Berg has no excuse for failing to schedule the single best opportunity any Birther lawyer has had to date to get the merits of the case heard in court.

- Not “swaying” a single Electoral College member can hardly be considered a basis for a question’s legitimacy; the common political observer in America could reasonably conclude that such members would almost certainly have to be threatened with a lawsuit before they were to consider switching their votes (and, in some cases, this would have to be true, especially in those instances where States specifically forbid the member to do anything but vote for that State’s popular vote winner)

And yet the “swaying” of members of the Electoral College was a key focus of Birther efforts for weeks leading up the the State Certifications. Your attempt to soft pedal what was another dramatic failure of the Birther movement is understandable, but not particularly convincing.

- And the biggest spun pseudo-rationale-of-a-reason for the “obvious” eligibility of the President: the Joint Session of Congress not having fielded any objections! This argument is fraught with inconsistencies:

Before we consider these “inconsistencies” (you really should look that word up before you use it again) let’s note again that this was also the subject of weeks of Birther efforts, and delivered another goose egg.

– Objections were never actually called for (which is something that Kerchner v. Obama is addressing as being essentially unconstitutional)

Nonsense. Objections were called for 51 different times, as required by law. This is to occur after each State’s submission (the extra one being Puerto Rico, I believe). There is no Constitutional requirement for a call for objections at all… the process is defined by statute, not the Constitution. And there is no requirement for a final call for objections after the polling has taken place.

I swear, one of these days you guys should get around to actually reading the law.

– The Joint Session merely certified Electoral College votes, not the eligibility of the candidate;

And not a single member of congress, House or Senate or even Dick Cheney expressed any concern in the eligibility of Barack Obama for the Job.

– If objections would have been called for, and if an objection were to have been raised, this would still only be simply the final opportunity for such questions to be raised, certainly not the only opportunity

Excellent observation. This was only one opportunity for Birthers to have convinced a single person in a position of influence that they actually had a real issue. It was only one of several instances where the Birther movement was completely and conclusively dismissed as nonsense.

Psuedo-opinion?

Do you actually not know who James Madison was?

Mr. Selectively Obtuse ™,

My commentary directed to you had to do with your own interpretation (isn’t that what opinions are, anyway?) of what Mr. Madison said; it had zero to do with Mr. Madison, per se, and could not have, as I cannot, by definition, speak for a dead man.

-Phil

We perceive reality and it is: Obama and his gang, using white guilt and black racism, scammed the American people. He doesn’t have a birth cert. and only one American parent.
It’s time folks like this dude faced the larger reality: Obama is a willful puppet, a usurper, a felon, and a treasonous fraud and he will be exposed.

How’s the Hope and Change working for you, dude?

Krista Giaccio is a federal law enforcement officer for SCOTUS, threat assessment. Call SCOTUS and ask. 202-479-2369.

“http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same”

That’s not a legal citation, that’s a table someone’s built to show what they interpret the law to be. The table is wrong and not based on definitions of citizenship in current law. I find it discouraging that American adults are so easily influenced by “official” looking documents and “official” sounding statements that aren’t official at all.

“As far as I know (having done next to no research on Mr. Jindal at this time), Mr. Jindal was not anything other than an American citizen at birth, unlike Mr. Obama. We’ll have to see what further research turns up.”

HA!

In my study of “illegitimizers,” one phenomenon I commonly observe is the falsehood that somehow a case that has never reached a full hearing of its merits in Court as somehow being “lost.”

Here in the real world, nonstarter is a subspecies of loser.

brygenon [wrote:],

Oh, face reality. Barack Obama is not only eligible to be President of the United States, he is President of the United States.

Is it facing reality to suggest that since this President has not revealed any of his background documentation, that you know for a fact that he is eligible?

That would not constitute facing reality, no. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Also, what is unreal about the fact that he is the President of the United States? I never suggested otherwise.

What’s unreal is your refusal to face the result: Obama’s Presidency means you birthers lost, which was the point at issue.

Perhaps we should get somewhat Clintonian and begin defining what the term “lose” and “win” are:

Be as Clintonian as you like, but I’m going to stick with facing reality. When your case is dismissed and of your prayer for relief you get nothing, that’s “lose”. Same deal when you write to your representative in congress about how Obama isn’t eligible, and they certify his election without objection.

Seond, Brygenon,

While your quote looks interesting, you cite no page number, and give us a link that references a book which is not searchable or downloadable.

The link was: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ

Note where the page says “Search in this book”, followed by a text entry box then a button labeled “Search”. Note the button labeled “Download PDF”. At the time of the book’s publication such technology did not exist, but West Publishing made the original paper version searchable by placing the entries in alphabetical order. “Natural born citizen” is on page 4664.

While we’re on it, another citations under that entry:

The term “natural born citizen” of the United States” means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v. Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.

“I will admit that I grow tired of the childish arguments of the Obots here, but Phil is entitled to chat with whomever he likes, as it is his blog.”

So we will see if the great 0 is required to show proof of his eligibilty and we will see if SCOTUS will define the term “natural born citizen”. No more wasting my time trying to educate those who would not know truth if it bit them in the hind quarters. They voted for 0, what more can you say?

Thanks for the blog Phil!

Oh, face reality. Barack Obama is not only eligible to be President of the United States, he is President of the United States.

Is it facing reality to suggest that since this President has not revealed any of his background documentation, that you know for a fact that he is eligible?

Also, what is unreal about the fact that he is the President of the United States? I never suggested otherwise.

The birthers have lost over two dozen court cases, and counting appeals over three dozen disposition rulings. Additionally, they swayed not a single elector college member’s vote, and got a single member of the U.S. Congress to object to certifying the election.

Perhaps we should get somewhat Clintonian and begin defining what the term “lose” and “win” are:

- Not a single eligibility case has ever been heard on its merits (it’s a bit difficult to “win” or “lose” a case until it’s actually been heard, at least here in the United States);

- Not “swaying” a single Electoral College member can hardly be considered a basis for a question’s legitimacy; the common political observer in America could reasonably conclude that such members would almost certainly have to be threatened with a lawsuit before they were to consider switching their votes (and, in some cases, this would have to be true, especially in those instances where States specifically forbid the member to do anything but vote for that State’s popular vote winner);

- And the biggest spun pseudo-rationale-of-a-reason for the “obvious” eligibility of the President: the Joint Session of Congress not having fielded any objections! This argument is fraught with inconsistencies:
– Objections were never actually called for (which is something that Kerchner v. Obama is addressing as being essentially unconstitutional)
– The Joint Session merely certified Electoral College votes, not the eligibility of the candidate;
– If objections would have been called for, and if an objection were to have been raised, this would still only be simply the final opportunity for such questions to be raised, certainly not the only opportunity

If one were to follow the rules of logic, it is not necessarily true that the lack of behavior constitutes a direct, affirmative response for a given behavior. In other words, A does not necessarily equal B and B does not necessarily equal C, even though you seem to be suggesting, therefore, that A = C.

That your cases were non-starters is not a point in your favor. You guys have had such trouble with standing because Obama’s serious opponents want nothing to do with your nonsense.

Wrong. All evidence points to the fact that all of the Defense has specifically gone out of its way to disallow petitioners to request access to Mr. Obama’s background documentation, including a simple 1961 birth certificate which, of course, any American citizen has a right to question.

-Phil

That’s just a birther posting his made-up law on Scribd.

Apparently there is much such opinion being bandied about, even on my site.

In my study of fringe-thinking, one phenomenon I commonly observe is losing teams thinking they need to “educate” the winners. Texas-Ben, even Obama’s serious political opponents treat you guys as kooks. You have 100% loss rate in court. Why would anyone want to learn from you when failure and defeat are all you know?

In my study of “illegitimizers,” one phenomenon I commonly observe is the falsehood that somehow a case that has never reached a full hearing of its merits in Court as somehow being “lost.”

-Phil