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 08101That 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:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
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”
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.
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.
Appy American:
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.
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.
Why? What makes this one different? Hmmmmmmmmm?
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?
Never. And not now, either.
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.
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.
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?
Phil:
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.
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.
Phil wrote:
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.
brygenon,
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
Appy American says:
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?
Phil says:
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.
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.
HistorianDude,
…except in cases where the Constitution speaks about eligibility, right? You’ve already admitted that you’re OK that eligibility is not enforced.
-Phil
brygenon,
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
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.
Phil:
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.
And you are the only one in this thread who ever said they were.
Nice attack, Phil. Wrong hill.
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.
Spoken exactly like the died-in-the-wool, paranoid, irrational conspiracy theorist you appear to be.
Phil:
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.
Appy American:
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.
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.
Phil wrote:
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.
brygenon,
I’m simply stating what is my current perspective on your current assertion. Nobody ever said you had to like it.
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.
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?
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.
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
Phil says:
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.
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???
HistorianDude,
At least you’re being intellectually honest. It’s simply too bad you have such rank disrespect for the rule of law.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
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?
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
brygenon,
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
Phil:
I am.
Appy American:
Neither was I. I was talking about Obama.
Nobody in Hawaii has that authority. You know that.
But you know full well that he cannot do that without setting a disastrous precedent. Did you forget that there are court cases underway?
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?
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.
Phil:
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?
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.
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?
Phil says:
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.
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!!!!
brygenon,
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
Joseph Maine says:
And yet in the real world, it’s your side that gets trounced every single time.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
We kookoligsts see this all the time: you credophiles imagine yourselves to be skeptics.