Kerchner v. Obama: Certain Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket

Update: Attorney Mario Apuzzo has linked to the following document regarding “non-conforming” documents via his web site:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 28 & 29 Judge’s Ltr Abt Ltrs Written by People Abt Case 20090629

Update: It appears that WorldNetDaily’s recent article concerning public comment on this case was, at the very least, misleading. The following is a full explanation by a concerned citizen who had recently heard Messrs. Apuzzo and Kerchner on The Chalice Show:

Family Security Matters and other bloggers:

Hello. I’m writing you all because of various post(s) on your websites pertaining to a letter writing campaign to a judge in the Kerchner v. Obama case.

There has been reporting about letters being sent to the judge and added to the court record; see http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.3582/pub_detail.asp and http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6404 for two examples.

However, some points need to be clarified so that people get this right and don’t waste their time by making critical errors. Kerchner and his attorney (Mario Apuzzo) were on a radio show tonight (June 28th) at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/PatriotsHeartNetwork/2009/06/29/The-Chalice-Show and discussed this letter writing campaign.

First of all, the judge did not solicit these letters; people sent them on their own initiative and they were added to the record. We don’t actually know why the judge added them, or if any will be added in the future (they might be, they might not; we don’t know for sure). In fact public letters being added like this is a very rare thing. Typically if an outsider wants to comment on a case, it has to be done via an amicus curiae brief. But for some reason, these letters were added to the record, and Kerchner is now encouraging people to send more letters. We don’t know if they will be added to the record or not, but they may.

Second, June 29th is NOT the letter deadline. There is no official letter deadline. June 29th was just the due date for the government’s response; they responded last week by filing a motion to dismiss, so June 29th is now out of the picture. The court will rule on the government’s motion to dismiss on July 20th, so people definitely need to get their letters in before then, and certainly they should do so as soon as possible.

Third, messages sent via fax may not be accepted. They might, but they might not. http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/FAQS.html#faxpleadings states that procedure requires original documents, so sending letters via USPS or FedEx is far more reliable if people actually want their letters to possibly be added to the record.

Fourth, letters need to be addressed not only to Judge Joel Schneider, but also to Judge Jerome B. Simandle. Judge Schneider is the referring magistrate judge; he is outranked by the presiding district court judge, Judge Simandle. Any letters should be addressed to BOTH judges. A good form is this:

The Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle, presiding
The Honorable U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, referring
Mitchell H. Cohen Building & U.S. Courthouse
4th & Cooper Streets, Room 1050
Camden, NJ 08101

That address comes from the official court website at http://www.njd.uscourts.gov/dir/JudgeListCamden.html

People also need to remember when writing their letters that this has to do with the Constitution and nothing else. If the judges gets letters saying things like “You have to stop Obama or else we will be destroyed by socialism,” it can only cause damage to this case. The courts are not a political branch, nor should they be. The courts are there to apply the law, not dabble in politics. The purpose of this letter campaign should be to highlight the significant Constitutional matters at hand and urge the judges to hear the case on Constitutional grounds and render fair and impartial judgment accordingly.

As an independent blogger, I also do my best to get things as correctly as possible before posting; that sometimes means that incomplete information gets posted and concerned citizens — from both sides — let me know what they think. Further, while I overall respect the efforts by WorldNetDaily and similar organizations, the bottom line to me is that if they get something wrong, then they get something wrong, and they need to change when appropriate.

Mr. Apuzzo also mentioned that the Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss:

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit was received today and is posted on the PACER system as Document 27. A copy of the motion and the supporting brief from the defendants’ attorney is available in the right frame of this blog. After months of stalling, this was the next expected tactic and has been the typical tactic used by Obama when he was just a candidate. But when he became the President Elect, and then was sworn in as the President, his position changed from being a mere candidate exerting his 1st Amendment political right to run, to becoming the President Elect and thus having to prove he is eligible under Article II of our Constitution. And the Congress failed us all by not vetting Obama as was their duty. Knowing their tactics, it was expected that they would try to move for a dismissal in this case too and we have been preparing for it. The motion return date is July 20, 2009. We of course will file a document opposing their dismissal motion prior to that date.

The following is the actual Motion:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress DOC 27-1 & 27-2 Defendants Motion & Brief to Dismiss

It is definitely worth a read. Basically, the Defense moves according to the following:

  • The Court does not have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to this case;
  • The Plaintiffs have no standing to bring this case;
  • Federal officials have immunity against cases such as this;
  • The Second Amended Complaint should be stricken because, essentially, it’s too long (and, hence, an unreasonable burden is placed on the Defendants to give an answer) and wasn’t filed properly

I’ll be looking forward to seeing how Mr. Apuzzo responds to the above.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

232 thoughts on “Kerchner v. Obama: Certain Public Commentary To Be Stricken From Docket”

  1. Something of Interest, posted elsewhere on the Net:

    “Discovery hearing re. Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am.

    08/21/2009 44 MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ONMOTIONS: (See document for
    details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

    CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CM/ECF Filer or PACER Login

    Notice:
    This is a Restricted Web Site for Official Court Business only. Unauthorized entry is prohibited and subject to prosecution under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. All activities and access attempts are logged

    This entry was posted on Saturday, August 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed”

  2. Dude, What particular documents have defendant’s lawyers filed? I have seen nothing but an alleged certification of live birth. A certification that has been discredited. The fact that you don’t want to accept it does not mean the issues brought forth are not correct.
    How is this candidate different? Start with being born a British citizen. Have you read nothing of the Founders belief that a person born to a foreign national while a citizen, is not a natural born citizen? Then we can get into his associates. You are known by the company you keep. If your idea of a loyal American is one who studies under and believes in communist sympathizers, I quit this discussion. Frank Marshal Davis, Saul Alinsky, Bill & Berna Dohrn, his endorsement by the New Party in 1995, Cornell West, Charles Ogletree, Robert Malley, Rashid khalidi, & the CPUSA who endorsed him. Not as damning, but certainly noteworthy were his decision to attend Trinity UMC and be counseled by Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger. None as a single issue would be a killer, but taken as a whole, convinces me that this man doesn’t have the same views as I do about what this country is and where it should be headed. Surely, surely you don’t agree with this group of people.
    His obvious respect for the Muslim faith. From talking about the 5:00 prayer call being the loveliest sound on earth, to his bowing and scraping to the Saudi Arabian king, to giving his first interview to an arabic site, and most galling to me, apologizing to ever tin pot dictator in the world. This you may agree with, but I do not.
    As to what was he thinking? Damn, I know I’m not an NBC, but if I claim I’m a native, there’s a sh*t pot full of peeople who won’t know the difference and will vote for me. And guess what? He was right. I’ll give him credit for that. There are way too many people who vote who could care less about he wanted to do and promised to try to do to this country. Hell, he’s black, let’s vote for him. And if you deny this, what more can I say?
    What specific proof of eligibility has he shown? Specifically.
    And finally this. I’m old enough to have served in the USAF 1965-1969. I’ve voted in every presidential race since Johnson and never have I seen as big a clusterf*ck as this president. My position on his eligibility is not ridiculous. The fact that every candidate before this election were all NBCs should have had no effect on the scrutiny this candidate should have received based on his known associates if nothing else. The media bias and the medias lack of effort in finding ANYTHING about this candidate was directly responsible for his election. Surely you won’t deny this. Had the media put 1/3 the effort into researching him as they did Sarah Palin the outcome would have been decidedly different. Surely you will admit this. I am old enough to know that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. BHO’s a duck.

  3. Of course,the judges and so-called Representatives in Dc never tell people the whole truth,which is that anyone can send a letter to Charles or Mario,and they can concur with it in a foreward and sendi it to the courts,whether they are dumped or not.Just as they ignore to explain how we lost our standing and how the government came to have sobereign and absloute immunity.Some of us do know.The pseudohistorians here are defending the trashing of the Constitution,not trying to educate poeple aes to how it was lost,and that is what this all comes down to you know.Not imperfect lawsuits or improper jurisdiction or standing,The judge in the GJ deal was erroneous in how he explained the GJs,though was correct on the Presentments.The “actual” GJ comment was ludicrous.The CJs are “actual” as well and never expected the Presentments to be enforced by the judge,but rather reviewed and appropriate action taken.It’s over for this nation.There is precendent for Mario to overcome the immuity claim by the defense,but the standing was taken away in 1946.

  4. Appy American:

    Dude, I disagree with your assumptions, and despite all the crap you keep throwing on the wall, they are still just your assumptions.

    Whatever would lead you to believe they are “assumptions?” I guess that you have not read any of the actual documents filed in court by the defendants’ lawyers. You should take some time off and do that. Then you will no longer be under so many mistaken impressions.

    As to the courts and general legal issues, what could be more important than actually providing proof that you are in fact eligible, which he has not done. He has given nothing that will actually provide that proof, and please don’t throw that factcheck thingy out here again.

    And with those two sentences you prove beyond doubt that you would not benefit from any additional “proof” since you already have rejected what is, by law, absolute legal proof of his eligibility.

    Run away from the “factcheck thingy” all you want. But recognize that by doing so you are only demonstrating that you really don’t care about proof of his eligibility one bit. You’ve had it for more than a year.

    You are correct in your statement that “he” has nothing to gain by releasing his bc. However he has much to lose while we the people have much to gain. Never in my lifetime has there ever been a need to question a candidate so thoroughly as this one.

    Why? What makes this one different? Hmmmmmmmmm?

    Nobody has ever had to question a candidates loyalty to the United States of America before this man.

    Nobody has to question Obama’s loyalty either. people question it because they choose to. What about him is different that would make you question his loyalty?

    Your support for him notwithstanding, please explain where in the past this country has had to deal with the constitutional question of eligibility such as this man’s eligibility, or lack thereof.

    Never. And not now, either.

    And which precedent was it that gives this man a free ride as to providing said proof of eligibility?

    Well… that’s a whole ‘nother question, isn’t it?

    Had he followed the precedent of every single Presidential candidate prior to him, he wouldn’t have shown you the COLB either. He has provided more prrof of eligibility than any other president in all of United States history.

    And your next to the last sentence is partly correct, partly opinion. Please quit trying to put out opinions as fact. I will give you age and 14 years, but it is simply your personal opinion that he is a natural born citizen. He will not even make that statement. He claims “native” citizenship, probably from that constitutional scholar gig, which he should know is not the same as a natural born citizen, your opinion to the contrary.

    Listen to yourself and think for just a moment. You are asserting that he is too careful as a “constitutional scholar” to ever say he is “natural born citizen,” but not so careful that he won’t run for President of the United States? What do you imagine his thinking would be here?

    “Oh, sure, I’ll fraudulently run for POTUS as a natural born citizen, but I’ll never actually say I’m one, because, gosh, that would be wrong!”

    You guys grasp for the most pathetic of straws in the face of the simple fact that all the evidence is against you, no court will accept your silly cases, nobody in government or the main stream media takes you seriously, and even your own lawyers are suing each other.

    And finally throwing snide remarks around about me and others who believe an injustice has occured only makes you look silly, not the other way around.

    I do not know how old you are, AA. But someday you will be old enough to realize that when one’s position is ridiculous, you should expect ridicule. If you think I look silly, good for you. I hope you would take that as the one small victory you will ever have as a Birther.

    Because I have also been correct in every prediction I have ever made concerning every decision made in every court regarding the Birther movement so far. If you go back and read some of my old debates with Phil on the Constitutionality of the “citizen’s grand juries” for example, you will see that I could have written Judge Lamberth’s recent slam dunk of them myself.

    I’d rather look silly and be right than be a dignified looking loser.

    How about you?

  5. Phil:

    I have profound respect for the rule of law.

    …except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.

    It is bad enough when your lies are subtle. Now you’re not even trying. You know full well that I never said I’m okay “that eligibility is not enforced.”

    You really need to work harder to remember the questions you asked.

  6. Brygenon, you’re spitting in the wind with this line of thinking concerning other presidents BCs. As I said, it has never been a problem before now, with the exception of Chester Arthur. He was able to keep his non-NBC status hid as has the current occupant. But, time wounds all heels and we expect this one will be wounded by the BC controversy, your paralogism notwithstanding.

  7. Phil wrote:

    You’ve long since formed your opinion and apparently you’re foolish enough to think that somehow folks like me are going to be convinced by folks like you to stop questioning.

    Ah, no, I never said that I expect to convince you. As I’ve explained, I like to put the debunk as close as possible to the bunk.

  8. Appy American says:

    Brygenon, you all need to quit throwing out this canard of nobody checking Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton’s birth certificates. Chester Arthur was the only other candidate who had a British father, therefore none of the other candidates posed a problem for the voters of this country as pertains to eligibility.

    If you’re just relying on ordinary biographical sources to tell you about Ronald Reagan, then look up Obama’s bio and we’re done.

    If that’s not enough, how do you really know who Ronald Reagan’s parents were? Did you see the official legal records? How can you be certain that Nelle Reagan didn’t take a secret trip to Kenya in 1911, to have baby Ronald there?

  9. Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President.

    Hate? I didn’t know that questioning a President’s eligibility is synonymous with hate.

    The questions were answered long ago, and you guys are only fooling yourselves.

    Phil, you featured an article trying to argue that President Obama has narcissistic personality disorder. No-Drama Obama, renowned for his even temperament, suffers from NPD? Really? The President of the United States thinks he’s a lot more important than he is? People see right through it, so you might as well just call him uppity.

    Earlier today you told HistorianDude, “Don’t be so ugly in the future on my site.” Wow. Comments comparing President Obama to Hitler, claiming his he’s a Muslim terrorists, or lamenting how, “The Blacks now have the power from Hussein down to Holder etc.” — those you approve without any such note. It’s HistorianDude’s arguments that you find ugly.

    1. brygenon,

      The questions were answered long ago, and you guys are only fooling yourselves.

      Who’s the bigger fool — the one who is promulgating controversial questions or the one foolish enough to think they can derail the questioning?

      I’m not surprised by your personal accusations against me. You’ve long since formed your opinion and apparently you’re foolish enough to think that somehow folks like me are going to be convinced by folks like you to stop questioning.

      Nevertheless, as I always say, it’s your prerogative to think and believe as you will.

      -Phil

  10. Dude, I disagree with your assumptions, and despite all the crap you keep throwing on the wall, they are still just your assumptions. You are correct about one point, that being that this question is about 2 different things. You are wrong about what those 2 things are. We are wanting to see PROOF of his eligibility as determined by his being born in Hawaii. He is trying to keep that from happening. He could care less about standing or any other legalese you want to hit the wall with. As to his British father and dual citizenship, I have an opinion about that but it just my opinion. I believe that it is an important question that should be decided by the Supreme Court.
    As to the courts and general legal issues, what could be more important than actually providing proof that you are in fact eligible, which he has not done. He has given nothing that will actually provide that proof, and please don’t throw that factcheck thingy out here again. His only “obligation” is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Anything else is primarily for his own personal trophy case.
    You are correct in your statement that “he” has nothing to gain by releasing his bc. However he has much to lose while we the people have much to gain. Never in my lifetime has there ever been a need to question a candidate so thoroughly as this one. Nobody has ever had to question a candidates loyalty to the United States of America before this man. Your support for him notwithstanding, please explain where in the past this country has had to deal with the constitutional question of eligibility such as this man’s eligibility, or lack thereof. And which precedent was it that gives this man a free ride as to providing said proof of eligibility?
    And your next to the last sentence is partly correct, partly opinion. Please quit trying to put out opinions as fact. I will give you age and 14 years, but it is simply your personal opinion that he is a natural born citizen. He will not even make that statement. He claims “native” citizenship, probably from that constitutional scholar gig, which he should know is not the same as a natural born citizen, your opinion to the contrary.
    And finally throwing snide remarks around about me and others who believe an injustice has occured only makes you look silly, not the other way around.

  11. Brygenon, you all need to quit throwing out this canard of nobody checking Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton’s birth certificates. Chester Arthur was the only other candidate who had a British father, therefore none of the other candidates posed a problem for the voters of this country as pertains to eligibility. This candidate DID have a British father, supposedly, and thus the question of his fitness to serve this country. And as events have transpired in the last 6 months, the questions should have been asked more forcefully. But he was way too cool, could read a teleprompter very well and offered too many mortgage payments to too many fools who voted. I am not calling you a fool. You may have had other reasons for supporting this man. I don’t know. But I do know that the vast majority who voted for him had not ONE clue about what he wanted to accomplish and how he was going to do it. Sadly, the rest of the country will have to pay for their mistake.

  12. Phil:

    And, yet, you absolutely insist upon typing my site’s domain name into your favorite web browser and continually take the time to actually make comments on my postings.

    Perhaps you need a more modern web browser. I haven’t typed your domain name in months.

    That said… I note again that rather than address the subject you once more try to change subjects. You know Phil… if you have no response, perhaps you would be better served by not responding.

    Of course. Yet, the fact that eligibility cases, to date, have been dismissed is not synonymous with their being conspiracy theories.

    And you are the only one in this thread who ever said they were.

    Nice attack, Phil. Wrong hill.

    Also, regarding the concept that the eligibility question is a conspiracy theory. I simply fail to see how background documentation that, being unsealed, would show exactly who the President is should somehow be construed as conspiratorial.

    When I corrected Sharon 2 on this weird confusion you Birthers seem to have on what a “conspiracy theory” is, I assumed (wrongly it appears) that your silence meant you did not share it. But now we see that you have no idea what a “conspiracy theory” even is.

    A conspiracy theory is any theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful Machiavellian conspirators, such as a “secret team” or “shadow government.” The Birther narrative is a conspiracy theory that tries to explain Obama’s presidency as the result of a secret plot… in many versions going all the way back to Obama’s grandparents decades before he was even born. You guys routinely include as members of the conspiracy almost every member of Congress, the judicial system, most organs of government to include the Justice Department, the SSS, the Republicans, the governments of multiple nations, even innocent hard working staffers in the Hawaii Department of Health.

    Releasing the documentation would not be “conspiratorial.” But your insistence that they are “sealed” is full blown conspiracy theory hoo-hah.

    If anything, the fact that folks such as yourself have a real issue with examining this President’s unreleased background documentation certainly gives credence to the argument that there is something to hide.

    Spoken exactly like the died-in-the-wool, paranoid, irrational conspiracy theorist you appear to be.

  13. Phil:

    At least you’re being intellectually honest. It’s simply too bad you have such rank disrespect for the rule of law.

    Wrong as usual, Phil.

    I have profound respect for the rule of law. What I do not respect is imaginary pseudolaw of the sort that you depend upon for nearly every legal opinion you present.

    I point out again that, regardless of what you imagine is or is not “respectful,” I have correctly called the result of the every legal decision made in this whole affair to this point, and you have not.

    All issues of “respect” aside, the paper trail shows that I actually understand the law… while you do not.

    1. HistorianDude,

      I have profound respect for the rule of law.

      …except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.

      -Phil

  14. Appy American:

    Dude, will you be so kind as to explain to me what disastrous precedent would be set by showing his original long form birth certificate?

    I am happy to make this point just as many times as you guys insist on pretending it has never been made.

    Keep in mind that what you are “fighting for” in these court cases and what Obama is “fighting for” in these court cases are two completely different things. You guys are fighting to see a birth certificate. He is fighting to preserve the foundational legal concept of “standing.”

    Were Obama to release even the most innocuous document in response to a frivolous or nuisance lawsuit such as these, a precedent would be set that eviscerates the concept of “standing” and creates a de facto judicial filibuster. All governmental action and resources could be overwhelmed in the courts by anybody with a word processor and an axe to grind.

    The entire issue of standing serves the critical purpose of ensuring that the courts are used only for the settling of genuine legal issues… not political vendettas.

    While you might find it frustrating, his obligations are somewhat more serious and significant than yours, and he has to keep his eye on the real issue, even if it is at some personal cost. He and his lawyers correctly understand that there is exactly nothing to be gained by releasing the long form birth certificate either legally or politically. Would it result in “one less reader for Phil?” Maybe… but who cares? Assuaging the concerns of conspiracy theorists has never been on the top 2,000 list of concerns for the defendants in any of these cases.

    I can see where it might be disastrous if he actually shows the real thing, but that’s surely not what you are talking about. Could you be talking about setting the precedent of proving your eligibility? I can see where that might be a problem. What in the hell is wrong with proving your eligibility???

    It has no more to do with proving eligibility than it has to do with determining what his eyeglass prescription might be.

    Understand that we already have more than two centuries of precedent on how we “prove” eligibility in this country, and it has never failed us. This is true even for the 35 or so of our Presidents that never had birth certificates at all. In Obama’s case, he has already provided more legal documentation than any other president in American history.

    And it is not simply a case of having provided “more.” He has in that process delivered absolute legal proof of his eligibility.

    A candidate is presumed to be exactly who he or she claims to be unless and until evidence is presented to contradict it. In more than a year of Birther hand wringing, not a single piece of evidence has ever been presented that contradicts these facts:

    Barack Obama is a natural-born American citizen. He is older than 35. he has lived in the US for at least 14 years.

    Nothing else is relevant.

  15. Phil wrote:

    brygenon [wrote],

    You want this president treated vastly differently from his predecessors, but — in case you haven’t noticed — we’re not letting that happen.

    Interesting — a direct challenge. Somehow you think you have the power and authority to “not let[] that happen.” I can only speculate on exactly how you’re going to actually enforce such a challenge.

    You snipped and missed it: we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President. If you can only speculate on how we’re doing it, well, again, you’re just not facing reality.

    1. brygenon,

      we Americans are not letting your hate change how we treat the President.

      Hate? I didn’t know that questioning a President’s eligibility is synonymous with hate.

      Perhaps you could push back from the keyboard for a few moments, let go of some of your over-the-top bias, and realize that some of us have legitimate questions.

      -Phil

  16. Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    You too were “OK with the fact” until this last election.

    I completely fail to see how you can draw any kind of conclusion such as this considering that my site has only existed since Friday, October 24, 2008, and so there is no way you could possibly know my thoughts on the subject.

    Of course you “completely fail to see”; that’s your thing. You even think that the fact you started your screeds in October of last year is somehow a point on your side. Where’s your outrage that no one officially checked Bill Clinton’s birth certificate or Ronald Reagan’s? You want to change the rules just for this particular president.

    You guys may be fooling yourselves, but you are not fooling America. You want this president treated vastly differently from his predecessors, but — in case you haven’t noticed — we’re not letting that happen.

    1. brygenon,

      Of course you “completely fail to see”; that’s your thing.

      I’m simply stating what is my current perspective on your current assertion. Nobody ever said you had to like it.

      You even think that the fact you started your screeds in October of last year is somehow a point on your side.

      I’m not after “points,” I’m after the truth. Unfortunately, your bias kept you from seeing the real point, which was that there is no way you could have made such a blatantly unfounded assertion concerning my person as expressed on my site because my site simply didn’t exist far enough into the past to provide enough of an archive to back up your claim.

      Where’s your outrage that no one officially checked Bill Clinton’s birth certificate or Ronald Reagan’s?

      Who’s to say that I did or didn’t do so? Who’s to say that not checking up on one President’s credentials is necessarily contingent with checking up on another’s? Who’s to say that there was or was not conjecture, at the time or since, that their ancestry shows that there was a possibility that they were or were not natural born citizens?

      You want to change the rules just for this particular president.

      Another unfounded assertion. In this case for this claim, I have repeatedly noted on this site that the issue is not one of changing the rules, but rather of enforcing the rules.

      Of course, it would be phenomenally easier if there were actually law enforcement in place. Yet, that’s the beauty of having the 10th Amendment.

      You want this president treated vastly differently from his predecessors, but — in case you haven’t noticed — we’re not letting that happen.

      Interesting — a direct challenge. Somehow you think you have the power and authority to “not let[] that happen.” I can only speculate on exactly how you’re going to actually enforce such a challenge.

      Nevertheless, be advised that there are at least as many folks who are interested in demanding the truth as there are as many folks who are interested in demanding that the truth never be found.

      -Phil

  17. Dude, will you be so kind as to explain to me what disastrous precedent would be set by showing his original long form birth certificate? I can see where it might be disastrous if he actually shows the real thing, but that’s surely not what you are talking about. Could you be talking about setting the precedent of proving your eligibility? I can see where that might be a problem. What in the hell is wrong with proving your eligibility???

  18. Phil:

    Are you saying you’re OK with the fact that there is no law that requires presidential, or any other, candidates to be vetted for eligibility?

    I am.

  19. Appy American:

    HD, I was not specifically referring to Earl taking a picture back there.

    Neither was I. I was talking about Obama.

    I was talking about somebody with authority in Hawaii.

    Nobody in Hawaii has that authority. You know that.

    Call PBHO and ask his permission to take a picture of his birth certificate and let qualified people see the picture.

    But you know full well that he cannot do that without setting a disastrous precedent. Did you forget that there are court cases underway?

    It should provide all the supporting data needed to prove who he is. Doctors names and places, and if all that jives, Phil will lose a reader.

    He has already proved who he is, AA. Every relevant name and place is already on the state issued and certified birth certificate he has already released. That document is, by law, absolute proof of his citizenship at birth.

    Why would anyone possibly care whether or not Phil loses a reader, let alone eviscerate the legal foundation of standing to make that happen?

    Seriously, for me and me alone, seeing the original bc will bring my questions about his eligibility to an end.

    I’m quite certain that such a possibility is not on the radar of anybody who actually matters. His eligibility does not depend on your personal standards of “proof.” There are formal, legal standards in place specifically to eliminate the ambiguity of personal affectation.

    This is why we have birth certificates in the first place.

  20. Phil:

    Therefore, dismissed Court cases must necessarily mean a conspiracy theory?

    Of course not. What a goofy question. It certainly resembles nothing that can be found in any of my posts. You really gotta stop just making stuff up.

    Here… I’ll explain it for you:

    Dismissed court cases automatically mean that the the plaintiffs have (for any number of reasons) no real case.

    The fact that a theory depend on elaborate, gargantuan, pervasive and ultimately impossible conspiracies is what necessarily means a conspiracy theory.

    Two different things. See how that works?

    And you wonder why most folks on my blog see you as a rather obtrusive blow-hard.

    Let me make sure i am hearing you correctly:

    People consider me a “rather obtrusive blow-hard” because you make goofy statements and falsely pretend that they have anything to do with something I said?

    I don’t think so.

    1. HistorianDude,

      Of course not. What a goofy question. It certainly resembles nothing that can be found in any of my posts. You really gotta stop just making stuff up.

      And, yet, you absolutely insist upon typing my site’s domain name into your favorite web browser and continually take the time to actually make comments on my postings.

      Who’s fooling whom?

      Dismissed court cases automatically mean that the the plaintiffs have (for any number of reasons) no real case.

      The fact that a theory depend on elaborate, gargantuan, pervasive and ultimately impossible conspiracies is what necessarily means a conspiracy theory.

      Two different things. See how that works?

      Of course. Yet, the fact that eligibility cases, to date, have been dismissed is not synonymous with their being conspiracy theories.

      Also, regarding the concept that the eligibility question is a conspiracy theory. I simply fail to see how background documentation that, being unsealed, would show exactly who the President is should somehow be construed as conspiratorial.

      If anything, the fact that folks such as yourself have a real issue with examining this President’s unreleased background documentation certainly gives credence to the argument that there is something to hide.

      -Phil

  21. earl, with all due respect, it’s a little ridiculous to cite FactCheck, when part of the issue is that they are co-dependents with the Obama campaign, with regard to obfuscating about this issue.

    Nevertheless, I looked at what FactCheck wrote. They don’t have a direct quote from the campaign, except for the part about “all the records . . .” Nobody said they requested multiple copies and nobody said that they requested them for use when applying to be on ballots.

    Notice that FactCheck says that they visited the “original birth certificate”. Completely untrue. The original resides in Hawaii, according to Fukino. Did FactCheck go to Hawaii? I don’t think so.

    In addition, since you believe FactCheck, that they SAW the COLB from which that digital image at their website was supposedly created, WHY didn’t/doesn’t the Obama campaign allow any and all OTHER members of the media to visit it, too? Where is the thing? Why doesn’t Robert Gibbs show it at a WH press conference? Why did they allow only FactCheck people to see it? Why didn’t FactCheck photograph the entire back side? WHY do YOU believe FactCheck? Isn’t it at all suspicious to you that instead of simply showing the document at a press conference, instead Obama spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent having to produce said document in a court of law?

  22. Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    [Joseph Maine wrote:]

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility?

    Hmmm… how to get this through… Did you see the movie The Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible tells her young son, “Everyone is special”. The kid astutely replies, “That’s just another way of saying no one is.”

    Are you saying you’re OK with the fact that there is no law that requires presidential, or any other, candidates to be vetted for eligibility?

    Sure, and lets face reality: You too were “OK with the fact” until this last election. There’s something about our 44’th president — the only one to publicly exhibit legal documentation that he was born a citizen — that makes you want to change the rules, and in violation of the Constitution impose your special requirement ex post facto.

    1. brygenon,

      You too were “OK with the fact” until this last election.

      I completely fail to see how you can draw any kind of conclusion such as this considering that my site has only existed since Friday, October 24, 2008, and so there is no way you could possibly know my thoughts on the subject.

      -Phil

  23. earl says:
    July 1, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    I put together a compilation of your answers to a previous response that I posted. Please look at what you have stated:
    – I am troubled that birthers insist on more identification from Pres Obama than any other President in history. Why is that?
    – Um, HUH? That statement makes no sense.
    – Ridiculous. Native does not mean naturalized. Websters: Native means born in a particular place or country. When Obama said he was a native American he was saying he was born in America.
    – We do know. He never acted on it. I read his book before he was a candidate, I read the born with dual citizenship part.
    – Utter nonsense. He was never adopted or naturalized. He recalled with pride how when he lived in Indonesia, he knew he and his mother were different: they were US citizens.
    – Yes, she is a natural born citizen of the US.
    – His mother never gave up her US citizenship. You are completely wrong. Where did you get that bit of bullcr@p? Completely voids your credibility.

    Earl, You have shown that you do not wish to enter into a substantive discussion. You have used the terms “utter nonsense” & “ridiculous” & “uh–makes no sense”, where clearly your arguments and responses, to not just my posts but others, are absolutely nonsense & that’s why I posed them to you. You talk about reading Obama’s books but you refuse to acknowledge all of his statements, which clearly contradict what you have taken from his books—if you have in fact read them at all. More importantly, you have stated that his sister is a natural born citizen, when not even she has made such a proclamation. Earl, you have listed me as a birther, but you don’t know me. I try not to list people, even when they expose themselves as you have. You speak with a racial and political tongue and most of the time, those who speak that way have no substance to his/her arguments. Please read your responses, and in closing to the points you’ve raised, your belief is that a person with dual citizenship is a natural born citizen, as you’ve stated about Obama & his family, and your argument does not even merit a response. You are making it about Obama and I’m interested in our country. If you are making about a “black” president, the framers made it where even now there are countless “black” men or women who are Constitutionally qualified to hold the office by meeting the “natural born citizen” requirement, but Obama is simply not the one. I’m sorry that there are people who are making it political and/or racial, rather than just American!!!! Good Luck on your endeavors!!!!

  24. Joseph Maine says:

    brygenon,

    You continue to baffle with ignorance (willing) and stupidity regarding the point of those you call “the birthers”.

    And yet in the real world, it’s your side that gets trounced every single time.

    You have to address the point(s) of the skeptics, which include the likes of Phil and myself, as well as others. Those points are included in the question to you:

    What evidence? You keep citing the evidence but the COLB is not official and has been changed many times. No Hawaiian official has gone on public record and said anything about the COLB.

    The COLB checks out:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    It has the features specified for state records in 28 USC 1739, and thus enjoys full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. I looked them up.

    Honest people, even on your side, will maintain that if Obama is legitimate, he has handled every step of this the wrong way.

    Does it take much practice to stay that far from reality? Even Barack Obama’s serious adversaries agree that he ran a brilliant campaign, and “Fight the Smears” was a significant part of that.

    You guys got debunked quickly then ignored. The Muslim rumor, probably started by Andy Martin, got more play, but the Obama campaign turned it into a story about false and bigoted attacks.

    For supporters, they don’t want to look at human nature and common sense, but legal rights. For skeptics, we look at why he won’t just show an original birth certificate OR have an official verify his supposedly real document. Which brings up the next point:

    THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Why? He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate! And that’s why a reasonable judge will go to discovery: the outcome can be decided or shown definitively.

    Of course it’s a conspiracy theory. He already showed his birth certificate, and allowed reporters to inspect and photograph it. You guys live in a fantasy where you discount the actual evidence and obsess over nonsense you build up in your heads.

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility?

    Hmmm… how to get this through… Did you see the movie The Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible tells her young son, “Everyone is special”. The kid astutely replies, “That’s just another way of saying no one is.”

    If so, why are you surprised that skeptics exist the way that Obama has handled this?

    We kookoligsts see this all the time: you credophiles imagine yourselves to be skeptics.

    1. brygenon,

      Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility?

      Hmmm… how to get this through… Did you see the movie The Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible tells her young son, “Everyone is special”. The kid astutely replies, “That’s just another way of saying no one is.”

      Are you saying you’re OK with the fact that there is no law that requires presidential, or any other, candidates to be vetted for eligibility?

      -Phil

  25. HD, I was not specifically referring to Earl taking a picture back there, but then you probably knew that. I was talking about somebody with authority in Hawaii. Call PBHO and ask his permission to take a picture of his birth certificate and let qualified people see the picture. It should provide all the supporting data needed to prove who he is. Doctors names and places, and if all that jives, Phil will lose a reader. Please do not lump me in with all those RWEers, you’re causing me to blush. Seriously, for me and me alone, seeing the original bc will bring my questions about his eligibility to an end. He either is or he is not. As to the British citizenship angle, I’ll leave that to people who have the suthority to make a ruling one way or the other. I can however read a simple piece of paper and determine whether or not I have been lied to.

  26. Earl wrote

    Nope, I’m right. USC 8 1401 defines in great detail who is a citizen at birth

    >>>that’s right earl, it defines who a US CITIZEN is at birth. BUT NO WHERE DOES IT DEFINE A NATURAL BORNE CITIZEN!! Why? Because EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A NATURAL BORNE CITIZEN REQUIRES TWO PARENTS TO BE US CITIZENS. THAT IS WHY. SO THE USC 8 DOESN’T NEED TO DEFINE THAT WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS, e.g the sky is blue, marriage is between a man and a woman, etc. FURTHERMORE THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS THE PRESIDENT MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, not a US CITIZEN, nor a US CITIZEN per USC 8 1401. GET IT? doh,, talking to this guy is liking talking to a [Bleep!] 2 yo. Perfect example of liberalism = a mental disease.

  27. Phil wrote:

    And you [HistorianDude] wonder why most folks on my blog see you as a rather obtrusive blow-hard.

    I assume you realize, Phil, how most of America sees your blog, when they see it at all. Was the mad, ranting e-mail Shepard Smith read so different from what we see here all the time?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxvunbIWNyI

    When they suggested taking a spin around the blogs to see the level of frightening anger and craziness, who did you think they were talking about?

    1. brygenon,

      I assume you realize, Phil, how most of America sees your blog, when they see it at all. Was the mad, ranting e-mail Shepard Smith read so different from what we see here all the time?

      When they suggested taking a spin around the blogs to see the level of frightening anger and craziness, who did you think they were talking about?

      Perhaps I haven’t made things abundantly clear in the past regarding my site’s handling of the eligibility issue, so I shall do so now.

      I do not require anyone’s validation, whether friend or foe, concerning what I post on my site. My statistics show that it (my site) is being read far and wide around the blogosphere by friend and foe alike, and I have received scads of emails in support of my site. I have a burgeoning email announcement list and several hundred Twitter “Followers.”

      On the contrary, my dear opposition commenter, not only am I having tons of fun, but I have a rather respectable audience that appreciates what’s posted and having a civilized debate on the issue.

      -Phil

  28. MGB:

    “We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. ”
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    The statement that “copies” (plural) were requested in 2007 to get ready for registering in the states was made by Tommy Vietor. I can’t find the campaign statement, but he still works for Pres Obama, he’s an assistant press secretary. Call him up and confirm. 202-456-1414. Better than a cite, you can get it direct from the horse’s mouth to your ear.

  29. Appy American:

    So, we are in agreement here that the original birth certificate still exists. This leads to my next question, which is, do you trust all politicians or government officials?

    No more than I trust all non-politicians or non-government officials.

    Do you believe that all politicians/govt officials will tell the truth with every thing that they say or do?

    Of course not. In fact, given the nature of their responsibilities and the information to which they have access, I do not desire them to tell the truth with everything that they say or do.

    Does blackmail, money, career advancement or anything like this that will benefit said people not cause concern?

    Of course. But no more concern than any other field or profession with impact and influence.

    This is my problem with this controversy. I don’t believe or trust politicians/officials farther than I can throw them.

    That is a reflection primarily on you. I do not share the extreme and automatic prejudice that you admit to here.

  30. Appy American:

    After rereading Earls last response,the question begs answering. Why not take a photo of the original and put it out for all to see?

    Probably because he does not have the original.

  31. Joseph Maine:

    With so many blatant falsehoods to choose from in your post, I will address only one:

    THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Why? He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate! And that’s why a reasonable judge will go to discovery: the outcome can be decided or shown definitively.

    Anyone who claims that “He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate,” has not apparently read a single one of the cases ever filed by Birthers on this issue. With the single exception of the non-Birther suit Martin v. Lingle, every such suit is based upon multiple or dissonant theories which would continue the cases even were a video released of his Hawaiian Birth with Don Ho in attendance. Even ignoring that he has already provided absolute legal proof of his place of birth, no cases and none of the contrived controversy would end were he to cough up the long form.

    This is a conspiracy theory by objective definition, because there is no evidence whatsoever that would genuinely satisfy the theorists. This is proven by the court cases themselves.

    1. HistorianDude,

      This is a conspiracy theory by objective definition, because there is no evidence whatsoever that would genuinely satisfy the theorists. This is proven by the court cases themselves.

      Therefore, dismissed Court cases must necessarily mean a conspiracy theory?

      And you wonder why most folks on my blog see you as a rather obtrusive blow-hard.

      -Phil

  32. Ramjet:

    Like I said before, in these modern times with document and image creation and altering software like PhotoShop, a digital image, or a printed out document created from that image, and then displayed only on the internet to the electorate and public is proof of nothing.

    And like I said before, you will never personally get to hold a certified copy of Obama’s COLB in your hand. The best you can ever aspire to is an image such as that online, backed up by the testimony of people who have personally examined the document and judged its authenticity.

    Obama’s COLB has been so examined and so judged.

    Now… if you possess something that no other Birther has ever been able to present, i.e. a single piece of evidence that contradicts the COLB, please show us. Otherwise understand that lacking any such evidence, the COLB alone meets the civil legal standard of “preponderance of evidence” on its face… no “expert examination” required.

    THIS is the most significant hurdle that the Birther movement has yet to cross. Not the issue of standing, but the issue that there is exactly zero evidence in favor of the Birther speculation.

  33. brygenon,

    You continue to baffle with ignorance (willing) and stupidity regarding the point of those you call “the birthers”. You have to address the point(s) of the skeptics, which include the likes of Phil and myself, as well as others. Those points are included in the question to you:

    What evidence? You keep citing the evidence but the COLB is not official and has been changed many times. No Hawaiian official has gone on public record and said anything about the COLB.

    Honest people, even on your side, will maintain that if Obama is legitimate, he has handled every step of this the wrong way. For supporters, they don’t want to look at human nature and common sense, but legal rights. For skeptics, we look at why he won’t just show an original birth certificate OR have an official verify his supposedly real document. Which brings up the next point:

    THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY. Why? He can end it all by just showing the birth certificate! And that’s why a reasonable judge will go to discovery: the outcome can be decided or shown definitively.

    Do you not recognize, as Phil has said many times (and is plain fact) that no one checks the candidates for eligibility? If so, why are you surprised that skeptics exist the way that Obama has handled this? That’s a natural reaction, among other things. If you don’t recognize the lack of checking, please refer me to the governmental agency that checks and tell me what their findings are.

    Wait, you can’t do that? Exactly. The point goes on: You can’t even direct me to one person or agency that has vouched or legitimized Obama by referring to the supposed COLB put on the internet! Even if it’s real still no one has verified it or used it to substantiate his claims!

    Why shouldn’t we be skeptical when this is the case? No one checks and you call us conspiracy theorists? You’ve got a lot of explaining to do.

  34. earl, you said, “The Obama campaign said it was one of several copies Barack Obama requested in 2007 to use for identification in filing to be on the ballot in all the states.”

    Could you please give us the source for this statement? I have never seen anyone else allege that they requested more than one copy or that they were to be used “for identification in filing to be on the ballot in all the states.” In fact, so far as I know, nobody has found ANY state that required Obama to provide identification, especially a birth certificate or COLB, in order to get on the ballot. That is exactly the gist of the problem.

    earl, you seem to have a tendency to throw out opinions or misreadings of statements as FACT. If the Obama campaign said such a thing, then please show us where we can find that exact statement.

  35. So, we are in agreement here that the original birth certificate still exists. This leads to my next question, which is, do you trust all politicians or government officials? Do you believe that all politicians/govt officials will tell the truth with every thing that they say or do? Does blackmail, money, career advancement or anything like this that will benefit said people not cause concern? This is my problem with this controversy. I don’t believe or trust politicians/officials farther than I can throw them. To blindly believe this group of people is, to my way of thinking, assanine. Especially the current resident of the White House. This one has proven himself adept at grandly promising to do one thing and then turn around and do the opposite. He allows nothing to stand in the way of what he wants to accomplish. Does Jack Ryan ring a bell? IF, he is what he says he is, prove it, without hiding behind all the rules and regulations Earl wants to provide links to. I must say Earl, that you do a good job of trying to back up your side of the argument. As a wise man once said, “trust but verify”. Or words to that effect.

  36. Appy American says:
    July 2, 2009 at 9:19 pm
    “HD,Earl & Brygenon,
    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession? My reason for asking is, one of the links, to a newspaper article that Earl keeps putting up, might lead one to believe that in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless, all old original birth certificates may have been destroyed. The article doesn’t actually state that point but it could be taken that way. This leads to my question. Is the factcheck.org image the only one left, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.”

    The photo on factcheck is of a certified copy of his Certification of Live Birth taken at Obama Headquarters in Chicago. The Obama campaign said it was one of several copies Barack Obama requested in 2007 to use for identification in filing to be on the ballot in all the states. Hawaii has all their birth records in a computer database now, but the Hawaii Dept of Health says they still have Pres Obama’s original on file. If all the copies in his possession were distributed, lost, stolen, whatever, all Pres Obama would have to do is request another one. The raised seal, the date and the signature are what makes it an official copy. That’s the beauty of electronic records, if the court house burns down or the bank with safe deposit box gets flooded, no worries, you can always get a new copy.

  37. Appy American asked:

    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession?

    Quite likely they still retain the old form. Either way, they now exclusively issue the COLB: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html as the official birth certificate.

    I’m a kookologist, not an archivist. The reason that the birthers insist on the old form is that they do not have it. A conspiracy theory will find a way to discount the actual evidence, but take perfectly normal absences as convincing proof for their cause.

  38. Phil:

    For the record, I have gone an additional step further. I have sent a request to the Hawaiian Department of Health specifically asking for the record — on or about June 6, 2007 — of the transaction that was produced that someone actually procured the certification of live birth. I have asked if this is something anyone from the public can request and, if so, what must be done to request the record. Since this is a holiday weekend, I’m realistically not expecting a response until sometime next week.

    Great. The response will settle the issue regarding whether or not “Dr. Polarik” is lying.

    If they respond with anything other than “no one requested such a record” then we will all know that he was lying.

    In addition, I wanted to point out some things regarding FactCheck.org’s recounting of the birth certificate issue.

    1. All discussions regarding the alleged certification of live birth are based on derived conclusions that originate from a discussion having to do with the actual 1961 birth certificate that the HI DoH claims to have on file. In other words, I have not found anything on the referenced page that is sourced to specifically talk about the COLB being directly and officially referenced by the Hawaiian officials nor that the COLB in any way substantiates Mr. Obama’s eligibility;

    I have read that paragraph several times. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

    While it may be true that “their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department,” even the State Department specifically says that there is no conclusive way to determine natural born citizenship for the purposes of presidential eligibility, to wit:

    Ed. 7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
    (TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)
    a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.
    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    1. You are not being honest when you assert that this statement “says that there is no conclusive way to determine natural born citizenship for the purposes of presidential eligibility.” It says nothing close.

    2. It mentions only the single and specific circumstance of “a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens.”

    3. The statement is completely silent on the very different circumstance of a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth on American soil. In that circumstance, it has been determined definitely by a court. I refer you (again) to Lynch v. Clarke, where the Supreme Court of New York surveyed the history of citizenship law and concluded that the correct interpretation of citizenship in the US Constitution is based on British Common Law (the law of the United States at the time of the American Revolution). The decision explicitly observed that a person born in the United States of alien parents was eligible to be president.

    Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

    “The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

    “It is an indispensable proposition, that by the rule of common law of England, if applied to these facts, Julia Lynch was a natural born citizen of the United States. And this rule was established and inflexible in the common law, long anterior to the first settlement of the United States and, indeed, before the discovery of America by Columbus. By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents. So if a Frenchman and his wife, came to England, and had a son during their stay, he was a liege man.”

  39. Phil:

    And as you are keenly aware by now, both FactCheck.org and FightTheSmears.com both clearly affirm that Mr. Obama was a British citizen at birth.

    And that has nothing to do with the State Department comment which refers only to American births abroad.

    Should you decide to read the laws that governed such nationalities at the time, you will see that geographical location did not matter; whether or not one’s father was a British subject was all that mattered.

    Which has exactly nothing to do with the State Department comment which was explicitly about American birth abroad.

    Therefore, in my opinion (which, incidentally, I’ll remind you, is no better or worse than yours), in the eyes of the law, he was born as a foreign citizen.

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with the comment by the State Department, which made no mention of foregn citizenship whatsoever.

    Therefore, in my opinion (which incidentally has proven vastly superior to your own based on the eventual accuracy of my predictions) your comment here is a transparent attempt to change the subject rather than address my observation.

  40. Appy American:

    Would either or all of please answer a question for me. That question concerns the “birth certificate”. Is it your opinion that the photo listed by factcheck.org is, in fact, the ONLY birth certificate that the state of Hawaii has in it’s posession? My reason for asking is, one of the links, to a newspaper article that Earl keeps putting up, might lead one to believe that in 2001 when Hawaii went paperless, all old original birth certificates may have been destroyed. The article doesn’t actually state that point but it could be taken that way. This leads to my question. Is the factcheck.org image the only one left, in your opinion? Thanks in advance.

    There is no good reason to believe that any of the original birth certificates were destroyed at the time the information was transcribed to an electronic database. Dr. Fukino’s statement last year was that he had personally seen the certificate, so it must still exist.

  41. To all — but especially to Earl and HistorianDude:

    Here is a quick demo to remind and educate people of how easy it is to create a digital image of a COLB document, just like the one that Obama has proffered as his on the internet. Then after you’ve made the phony document image and people question you why there are no fold marks, you can print it out on paper and tri-fold it to look like a real piece of paper that was mailed and show pictures of that on your campaign site, or an affiliated or supporters site, or on a website that does not dig any deeper than to take the campaign’s word for it. No expert document examiner in any official government capacity or better yet independently has ever been allowed to examine that paper pictured on the net in the second rounds of images placed on the net and to declare that it is a genuine COLB document for Obama. And all the reporters in the Main Stream Media is download and printout the same digital image and wave it in front of the cameras and say, look people here’s a copy of Obama “birth certificate” which is really not anything of the kind. Like I said before, in these modern times with document and image creation and altering software like PhotoShop, a digital image, or a printed out document created from that image, and then displayed only on the internet to the electorate and public is proof of nothing.

    YouTube video showing how easy it is to digitally create a “birth certificate” out of simple data bits in cyberspace:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg8U_N1i38Q

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

Leave a Reply