Natural Born Citizenship: Statutory versus Constitutional
In my June posting, “Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know,” I had highlighted a remarkably objective page by Mr. Stephen Tonchen that provides one of the best surveys of the eligibility question, to date. In that page, Mr. Tonchen highlighted a vitally important aspect of citizenship, namely, “What is the difference between a ‘Constitutional’ and a ’statutory’ natural born citizen?“:
“Constitutional natural born citizen” refers to the term “natural born citizen” when it appears in the Constitution or in a Constitution-related document such as a Supreme Court decision. It refers to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides such meaning to be.
“Statutory natural born citizen” refers to someone who is deemed a “natural born citizen” as a result of a Federal or State law.
Currently, there is no Federal law that explicitly defines “natural born citizen” or explicitly conveys “natural born citizenship” to anyone. However, existing laws are sometimesunderstood or interpreted as conveying natural born citizenship to certain individuals at birth. At this point, we do not pass judgment on these understandings and interpretations. We merely say that, if someone is deemed to be a “natural born citizen” pursuant to a law or statute, we refer to such person as a “statutory natural born citizen”. [emphases original]
Key State Department verbiage that will be repeated further down this posting:
A statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily the same thing as a Constitutional natural born citizen. The U.S. State Department warns against confusing the two concepts:
…the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes (Top of page 9, inU.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual — 7 FAM 1130) [emphases original]
Mr. Tonchen’s posting goes on:
If we were to define “natural born citizen” to mean anyone who is a “citizen at birth”, our definition of “natural born citizen” would be statutory because it would depend on the statute or law which defines “citizen at birth”. Under existing law, all children born in the United States (except the children of foreign diplomats) are “citizens at birth”. Therefore, under existing law, almost all children born in the U.S. — including children of illegal immigrants — could be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.
However, H.R.1940, also known as the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, would change the existing law so that it would no longer grant “citizenship at birth” to children of illegal immigrants. If Congress were to pass H.R.1940, it would alter the meaning of “citizen at birth”, and therefore would alter our statutory definition of natural born citizen. If H.R.1940 were enacted, the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could no longer be regarded as statutory natural born citizens.
To summarize:
- “Statutory natural born citizen” is the meaning of “natural born citizen” when such meaning depends on a Federal or State law. As Federal and State laws change, the meaning of “statutory natural born citizen” changes accordingly.
- “Constitutional natural born citizen” is the meaning of “natural born citizen” as used in the Constitution.
If Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, he could be regarded as a statutory natural born citizen. But a statutory natural born citizen is not necessarily a Constitutional natural born citizen. [emphases original]
With the above in mind, a concerned citizen forwarded to me further analysis of the above by a Mr. Jason Hommel, a financial analyst specializing in precious metals, who originated a $100,000 reward for proof of Mr. Obama’s natural born citizenship status (a full explanation is at the referenced link).
Mr. Hommel posted a follow up article in which he opines more fully from his perspective why what Mr. Tonchen has said is so important to understand:
I’ll let God have the first word:
Deuteronomy 17:15 “be sure to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Israelite.”
Our Constitutional requirement may have come from the Bible! I was unaware of that before making my offer.
Part of the reason I made my offer was so I could further gather and share information, and I find controversy and debate and investigation to be fun. So, here’s a brief on what I know after 300 emails in nearly two days, many from greedy and angry know-it-all’s, and many from supportive and helpful researchers.
On who lies the burden of proof? Even for regular citizenship, it lies on Obama, so says the State Department. These are complex issues, because it involves not only the place where born, but also one’s parent’s nationality and/or citizenship, and as we know, people can have two parents of all different nationalities and citizenship, and even be born in a another place, creating complexity.
The State Department has a 103 page document on “ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH ABROAD TO U.S. CITIZEN PARENT”:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdfThe State Department said, “The burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.”
And that’s merely for plain old US citizenship, not “natural born” citizenship, which could be even more complex.
The State Department also asserts that “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.”[14]
Note that! Even “natural born” status given by statute may not work for Constitutional purposes!
How could that be? Let me guess. “Natural born” citizen status can be given by statute to a foreign born child if both of his parents are US citizens, but perhaps the State Department is recognizing that such a law would be superceded by the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, and those who interpret it, such as the Supreme Court.
Many have claimed that the Constitution does not define “natural born citizen.”
But there are clear legal distinctions between a “natural born citizen”, which is different from a naturalized “citizen”. According to the 14th Amendment, anyone born or “naturalized” in the US becomes a citizen, but not necessarily a “natural born citizen” as that wording was not used in the 14th Amendment.
Confusing? Yes! This issue is what most people are confused about: A person born in the USA is a citizen, but is not necessarily a “natural born” citizen, because even regular citizenship also depends on your parents, as the State Department clearly acknowledges in their 103 page document, over and over again.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a clear famous case of being a US citizen, but not a natural born citizen. Arnold was naturalized, he became a US citizen after his birth, and most people know he is not eligible to be President.
Also, people can become US citizens at birth, by being born in the US to foreigners, via the 14th Amendment, but it would not necessarily make them a “natural born” citizen either. People forget that.
It is clear that if you have three things, such as both parents being citizens of the nation, and being born in the nation, you would be undoubtedly, a “natural born” citizen.
But if one of those three things is in doubt, then natural born status is in doubt, implied the Supreme Court.
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1874) The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Here’s my understanding and explanation of why:
There are provisions for one or two US citizens bearing a child overseas, that child could still be a “natural born” US citizen, but that’s only by statute, and might not be enough, for Constitutional purposes, according to the State Department, remember.
Therefore, a similar situation could be true. A child born to foreign parents, born not in the nation of his parents, such as in the USA, would have citizenship of his parent’s nation, and also be a “14th Amendment US citizen”, but not a “natural born” US citizen.
This appears to be the case with Obama.
Obama’s father was Kenyan, and thus, his father could not give any “natural born citizen” status to Obama, except Kenyan citizenship, (or British).
Obama’s mother was American, but 17 or 18, depending on the reports. She was too young to give US citizenship to Obama by blood only, which is crucial for the circumstance of being born overseas, for which she would have to be 19.
From the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter Act):
http://algiers.usembassy.gov/crba.html
2) Born to one U.S. citizen and one alien parent
Born before or on November 13, 1986
The U.S. citizen parent must have been physically present in the United States for a cumulative period (or periods totaling) ten years before the birth of the child, at least five years of which were after the U.S. citizen parent reached the age of 14. If this requirement is met, the child acquires U.S. citizenship under the provisions of Section 301(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.’But even if Obama’s mother qualified, that would still only give “US citizen” status, not “natural born” status.
Yes, that’s for foreign born children.
It appears that if Obama was born overseas, and obviously Obama’s mother didn’t qualify to give him US citizenship, as she was too young, she may have found another simple way to get regular US citizenship for her son, which I speculate on a few paragraphs below.
Links for further research:
www.EligibilityQuestions.com [emphases original]
Mr. Hommel goes on:
The San Francisco Examiner remains unconvinced, as of today, July 29th, by the Hawaiian short form, and by the recent “congressional resolutions”.
Many people have tried to claim my reward by sending this link:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
But it does not remotely address the key questions, and says that you cannot obtain a “long form”, when a picture of the long form for another child from one day after Obama was allegedly born, is here:
A Hawaii Long Form Certificate from 1961
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347An interesting “argument” or “evidence” is that there is a “birth announcement” in a Hawaiian newspaper. A birth announcement in a newspaper is not proof of being “natural born”, nor even US born, as anyone can place a birth announcement.
Shockingly, it was apparently enough to convince Hillary Clinton’s camp to give up the issue. Maybe because they didn’t realize that being born in the USA, (which that implied, but did not prove) would only be enough, maybe, to become a 14th Amendment citizen, but not enough to become a natural born citizen.
That Hillary gave up the issue, was apparently enough to convince Ann Coulter that there is “nothing to this issue”. Really? To trust Hillary’s judgment? Based on a newspaper announcement is all that’s needed? Right. Wow.
I suppose I should place a newspaper blurb that Obama is Santa Clause, willing to give everyone their every wish! Some people will believe anything! We “birthers” as they call us, are not the gullible ones here!
A newspaper announcement might have been necessary to create documentation for an “application for registration of birth abroad”.
If Obama was born in Kenya, and if “no proof of birth” was available, his mother could apply for the “certification of live birth” by creating some kind of document like a baptismal certificate, or perhaps such as placing a newspaper birth announcement.
22cfr \ 22 CFR \ PART 50—NATIONALITY PROCEDURES \ § 50.5 Application for registration of birth abroad.
§ 50.5 Application for registration of birth abroad.- – - The applicant shall be required to submit proof of the child’s birth, identity and citizenship meeting the evidence requirements of subpart C of part 51 of this subchapter and shall include:
(a) Proof of child’s birth. Proof of child’s birth usually consists of, but is not limited to, an authentic copy of the record of the birth filed with local authorities, a baptismal certificate, a military hospital certificate of birth, or an affidavit of the doctor or the person attending the birth. If no proof of birth is available, the person seeking to register the birth shall submit his affidavit explaining why such proof is not available and setting forth the facts relating to the birth.
(b) Proof of child’s citizenship. Evidence of parent’s citizenship and, if pertinent, evidence of parent’s physical presence in the United States as required for transmittal of claim of citizenship by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 shall be submitted.
Many people have speculated that the Hawaiian newspaper birth announcement would be ridiculous to do merely to plan to hope to obtain the office of Presidency. Right! I agree. I believe it was merely to obtain normal, regular US citizenship, for a child born abroad, and certainly does not create “natural born” status.
If you know how the law works, and how loopholes exist due to normal uncertainty, you realize that you can just as easily have a birth at home and write it in your Bible, or have a birth overseas and place a newspaper announcement, and use any old statement of fact to get a birth certificate, and thus, regular citizenship.
More information is coming out that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother was in Hawaii during the time of his birth.
From:
Count the ways to get Hawaii ‘birth certificate’ – July 30th
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105371“And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept. 1960 to Feb. 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth,” the report said.
It has been said that the short form birth certificate from Hawaii was issued for such foreign births.
It appears that even a valid, Hawaiian short form is thus grossly insufficient to prove “natural born” status.
And it appears that the long form, even if it showed Obama born in the USA, would also be insufficient to prove “natural born” status, because Obama’s father was Kenyan, and his mother was too young.
But the long form might also prove that Obama was not born in the USA, and could easily cause many to quickly and easily see that a foreign born person, born to a foreign parent and an underage US citizen, could not be construed as being fitting with the plain meaning of “natural born” for Constitutional purposes.
Or, there might not be any long form altogether. This is why I jumped into the fray. Asking “Where’s the Birth Certificate”, I think, is the wrong question. But it got me and many others asking questions, and so that campaign helped.
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the first thing Obama did when taking office is to block the release of such records via executive order, as reported here:
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1668.htm
On Obama’s first day in office, he sealed his birth and personal records through executive order. Here’s the link to the executive order on the government website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf
Excerpt:
“Sec.2 — Notice Of Intent To Disclose Presidential Records
When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege.”
Why would Obama seal records if he had nothing to hide?
Also, remember, the burden of proof is on Obama, not us.
But if he refuses to prove that he can be the President, then he cannot issue any valid executive orders!
Thus, all of his executive orders, including, and especially the ones to block the release of important documents that might prove he cannot be the executive, are likely illegal orders.
I suppose any such people who are following such an illegal order could be guilty of being an enemy of the Constitution, or aiding and abetting an enemy of the Constitution, especially if they are guilty of “obstructing justice” by blocking the release of information that would call into question Obama’s executive privilege.
I understand that all Marines have a sworn duty to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Where are all the Marines? Oh yes, fighting wars overseas that Obama said he would end, but has not ended. I suppose all Marines in battle overseas are following illegal orders from an ineligible President.
The important point here is that truth is not established by Obama or Congress or Hawaiian officials issuing “orders” or “proclamations”.
Truth is established by the people, by two or three witnesses, by the Bible, by your conscience, by a rule of law, by tradition, by facts, by investigation, by debate, by cross examination, and can be established, but not necessarily, by courts. I think I got to the truth rather quickly by reviewing over 300 people’s reviews of the subject. This is why I have provided links for everything.
Am I a racist? No. I have established that two Muslims, Africans, or Asians, or any other nationality, could come to the US tomorrow, become naturalized 14th Amendment citizens, have a child on US soil, who would then be a “natural born” citizen according to my understanding, and would thus qualify to be President. [emphases original]
As a sidenote, Mr. Hommel goes on through the balance of his posting describing why he seriously questions the American Judiciary after he filed an appeal concerning his attempt to get a job without using his Social Security number (which, if I recall correctly, the law stipulates that only federal, State or local governments can require a citizen to furnish such a number for record keeping purposes). This page documents Mr. Hommel’s journey through dealing with that law.
Clearly, the concept of natural born citizenship is something that could potentially be resolved via a revelation of background documentation, such as a birth certificate. However, since it’s abundantly clear that some situations — such as with Mr. Obama — are not clear-cut, it is important for everyone to become as educated as they can regarding even the finer nuances of natural born citizenship.
Of course, for this to be important to you, every word in the Constitution must be important, else one practices Cafeteria Constitutionalism ™, picking and choosing what one is going to consider legal and dumping the rest (funny how some in the opposition try to turn the argument around and suggest that individuals such as myself are the ones trying to do this!).
TheBirthers.org present a new posting regarding the Unseen Hand, a description of what this is ultimately all about (excerpted):
People are constantly asking for our opinion about which court case against Obama is the best, or who we think is the best lawyer.
We have stayed away from picking sides for a reason. Every lawyer involved has done this country a service. Every plaintiff from the individuals suing their Secretaries of States, to the individuals and members of the military suing Obama, and to those suing both Obama and Congress for the good of our Nation has the absolute right to be called a patriot.
What we have noticed is that each lawsuit has approached the issue differently, in the beginning there was no case law as how to stop a usurper from causing this constitutional train wreck. The attorneys used their best judgment and no one should play armchair quarterback. What we have noticed is that each new lawsuit either added something new or took a previous case and applied the lessons learned. Through a learning experience, each new lawsuit is becoming stronger and stronger. The disappointments that we all shared in not having a court hear any of the lawsuits were not in vain, because we have learned from our collective experiences.
To be respectful to the courts some decisions given by the courts were vague, while others pointed out that while a candidate, Obama was protected under the first amendment to run within the political process, for he was not yet subject to the eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1. Some decisions before the civilian courts were trumped by the application of military law and policies. Other decisions have applied the rules of standing of civil proceedings because the cases were presented as civil proceedings. …
I believe it is for an unseen reason that standing has not yet been granted, that it is the unseen hand of Divine Providence protecting this Nation from our own sense of urgency and quietly strengthening one individual on whose shoulders rests the hopes of everyone who believes in a Constitutional republic and not the rule of the unbridled passions of body politic that is too often called democracy.
Perhaps this same unseen hand stopped the earlier lawsuits so the people could run with their passions, as the cry for “change” at any price made many to forget that this Nation is strong and our constitutional protections firm only when we govern ourselves with moral guidance. Did this unseen hand feed us the sweetness of our own egocentric desires, did this unseen hand pour a measure of the intoxicating wine of irresponsibility to the people as they ignored the foundations of our republic, and did this unseen hand do these things because we have forgotten our heritage and our place that Nature’s God put us in to guard against the events of the world that threaten the innocent? Did Nature’s God withdraw the hand of Divine Providence in the foreknowledge that it would come back to protect the Nation at its darkest hour, after the sweetness of desire turned bitter in our stomachs and the intoxication of irresponsibility shows that we have tossed off our clothes of morality only to see ourselves naked? If this is the answer then we with the hands that can be seen should show them joined in prayer to Nature’s God upon whose will Divine Providence is ordained. …
Who ever gets standing what we must do is bow our heads in silent prayer for it is this person that the Divine Providence of Nature’s God has uncovered and, that the argument they present to the courts comes from the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. Let us take comfort that in the unseen assurance that the same Divine Providence that protected our nation throughout the Revolutionary War still waits to protect us if we have the faith to call upon the name of Nature’s God.
Please join us at 2:01 PM Eastern time on Wednesday August 19, 2009 for one moment of silence as we bow our heads across the nation from the eastern most shores of Maine, to the western most island in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska to Nature’s God as we again ask for the protection of Divine Providence.
August 19th is an important date in American history it is the day we fought the final battle of the Revolutionary War, the Battle of Blue Licks, and it is the day that the grande dame of our Navy, the USS Constitution (how much more fitting can that be for those of us that swore allegiance to her namesake) scored our first victory of the second war of independence, the War of 1812, against the British ship the HMS Guerriere and earned her immortal nickname “old ironsides” as the British cannon balls bounced off her hull. The dark side of this day occurred 75 years ago in Germany when the position of the Führer was created by the simple majority of a democratic vote.
At the appointed hour on the August 19, 2009 let us take courage from the deeds of our history and resolve never to allow the dark passions of a desperate world to stain our national soul by believing that any one man or group of men are above the Constitution that empowers them. Let us move forward in our sworn duty, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” to guard our Constitution and our Republic from all enemies both foreign and domestic.
Be sure to also visit the following links for related eligibility info:
- You Might Be a Birther if… (AmericanThinker.com)
- Obama birthplace flap evokes Arthur debate: Ex-president lacked documentation, foe claimed he was born in Canada (MSNBC.com)
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Similar Posts:
- Donofrio v. Wells: Obama’s “at birth” Issue
- Could FactCheck.org be Plainly Stating Obama’s Biggest Citizenship Problem?
- Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
- Mario Apuzzo on 14th Amendment, Dual Citizenship
- #eligibility: Canadian-Born Governor Questioned on Citizenship; Taitz Applies for UN Protection
**To answer your question, I can see only two possibilities regarding the “vital records” that the great State of Hawaii has on hand:
1. They are, in fact, in possession of Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate. Perhaps if the HI State Legislature opens up vital records for public perusal, we may get to know all the details of Mr. Obama’s birth;
2. They are, in fact, in possession of other papers related to Mr. Obama’s 1961 birth in similar fashion to, say, Mr. Sun Yat-sen.**
Whichever of the two possibilities for the birth papers, there are only two possibilities regarding the HI state officials who have clearly and concisely stated the fact of Obama’s HI birth:
1. What they are saying is true; or
2. They are purposely misleading the public, as part of The Grand Conspiracy…
**Yet again, beyond this issue, there’s still the fact that Mr. Obama was born a British citizen and may still hold such citizenship.**
Which is, of course, irrelevant to his eligibility to be POTUS. The fact of his HI birth settles the eligibility issue.
Rob,
Your statement is quite right: the public (including you and I) have seen any actual evidence that supports what the image of the HI COLB purportedly shows regarding Mr. Obama.
To answer your question, I can see only two possibilities regarding the “vital records” that the great State of Hawaii has on hand:
1. They are, in fact, in possession of Mr. Obama’s original 1961 birth certificate. Perhaps if the HI State Legislature opens up vital records for public perusal, we may get to know all the details of Mr. Obama’s birth;
2. They are, in fact, in possession of other papers related to Mr. Obama’s 1961 birth in similar fashion to, say, Mr. Sun Yat-sen.
Yet again, beyond this issue, there’s still the fact that Mr. Obama was born a British citizen and may still hold such citizenship.
-Phil
**As far as I know, no law in the great State of Hawaii requires the Health Department to properly vet any data they receive with respect to any individual’s vital documentation. Therefore, they are not obligated to pursue anything outside of their purview.**
So you are saying that the information that the state officials reviewed (the information that supported the COLB) is a fake? And yet you have never seen the evidence, and have no evidence that it is forged.
Rob,
As far as I know, no law in the great State of Hawaii requires the Health Department to properly vet any data they receive with respect to any individual’s vital documentation. Therefore, they are not obligated to pursue anything outside of their purview.
-Phil
Phil,
Thank you for the kind welcome.
Second, HI State Officials have confirmed the only relevant fact of the COLB: BHO’s birth in the State of HI.
As BHO was born in HI, he is, without doubt, a Natural Born Citizen and eligible to be POTUS. See Perkins v. Elg, where the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling, affirming the citizenship of a child born to one alien parent and one citizen parent on US soil (identical to Obama’s situation) — referred to by both courts as a “natural born citizen.”
As far as your denial of a conspiracy, for what some people posit to be true (a faked COLB), the HI state officials MUST be part of a conspiracy, otherwise they would expose the COLB as a fake.
Phil wrote:
There’s no mystery to it. You choose to listen to the know-nothings and ignore serious experts and references because you don’t want the real answers. Your problem with Black’s Law Dictionary is not that it doesn’t answer the question; it’s that it does.
Leo Donofrio and Akhil Amar are not just two two guys with differing opinions. Amar publishes peer-reviewed articles in legal journals, teaches constitutional law at Yale and Harvard, and has been cited more than 20 times in U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Donofrio blogs his own legal sophistry and and when put to the test fails every time.
It’s a matter of law not of fact, and here’s what the judge in Keyes v. Bowen wrote: “The Secretary of State persuasively argues that the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15.” You were just quipping to me, “that’s what we have a Judiciary for.” Great, you have that answer from a judge.
The problem has never been that you are not getting answers. The problem, Phil, is that you are not honest. You don’t want the real answers. As we’ve seen over and over, it doesn’t really matter to you whether what you push on this blog is true, just so it lets you cast doubt on President Obama.
Snipping stuff doesn’t make the facts go away. Did you, Phil, actually believe that Obama’s first-day executive orders sealed his birth records? How, at this point, could you possibly be so misinformed? You know the Hawaiian state governmental and not the federal executive branch keeps those records. Why did you put that lie on your blog?
Rob,
First, thanks for commenting on my blog.
Secondly, my site has shown over and over again that I don’t really care who makes fun of asking a legitimate question.
Thirdly, the Hawaiian Department of Health has confirmed that they have vital documentation (not released to the public) concerning Mr. Obama. They have never confirmed any connection between their documentation and the image of the purported HI COLB allegedly of Mr. Obama.
On my site, I have never claimed that there was any conspiracy on the part of Hawaiian health officials; if there is any conspiracy, it is on the part of individuals directly connected with Mr. Obama regarding any and all background documentation that has yet to be publicly scrutinized.
Why wasn’t it scrutinized like so many other presidential candidates over the last couple of decades? Probably because — as commenter Sharon 2 so presciently pointed out — the press was busy in Wasilla, AK.
-Phil
It’s amazing to me that people will go to such efforts to create so many fantasy back stories to avoid a simple truth that is right in front of their face: BHO was born in HI and is a Natural Born US Citizen.
The claims of a false COLB are easily and completely debunked: see the various statements of various HI officials verifying its authenticity. (Sorry ladies and gentlemen, the HI state officials are NOT a part of some Grand Conspiracy, and would be well able to state if their records did not show the same as the COLB).
Fight the guy’s policies! But TRY to apply Occam’s Razor, and leave the wild conjecture out.
Thanks in advance, and looking forward with anticipation to the belly laugh to come from the next “lawsuit.”
Civis Naturaliter Natus,
In general, I think you’re pretty on target RE: biblical influence on American founding documents.
(Incidentally, I appreciate the way in which this subject is being handled in this thread)
Here’s the real truth of the matter, in my view. Since all humans are materially children of God (in the sense that all humans have infused in them the image of the Almighty), it necessarily follows that we are “like” God, but in a finite, primarily forward-looking state (as opposed to, obviously, being in an infinite state).
I think that the American founding fathers wholly understood that the entirety of human history has shown — in its worst form — the results of “unenlightened” (in this context, read: unsaved, and sometimes “saved” but corrupt (I’ve forgotten Martin Luther’s “simultaneously sinner and saint” Latin phrase)) individuals. They know they are of God, they know the inherent morality of what it means to be human, but if given too much unchecked power and influence, will ultimately implode on themselves.
This is why they pushed for the “least imperfect,” versus “most perfect,” form of government. Humans are frail and, by definition (since they cannot be a law unto themselves), require governing authorities. Since you’ve rightly pointed out that there is nowhere in the Bible stated that humans must absolutely have one form of government or another (merely calls to obey the governing authorities when those authorities are in the right), there has been no better form of government than a constitutional republic.
At least until Kingdom come
-Phil
earl,
I do not disagree that I said that “people filed these lawsuits ‘to make a point.’” However, everything else that you’ve attempted to append onto my statement is purely your own baseless leading conclusion(s).
I think I have now said this twice. Throw the statements back at me one more time and I’ll simply moderate them through without a response.
-Phil
Phil,
A non-monarchial form of government is not contrary to the Bible. Infact, when the Jews sought a king for Israel, God rebuked them saying that monarchies exploited their subjects, and that He was their only rightful sovereign…
Therefore the objection against the Biblical influences on this basis in our Constitution are false. In fact the contrary assertion is true…
brygenon,
It’s almost as if what you’re trying to say is that some of us should rhetorically pack up our bags and go home. Frankly, my first response to this comment was, “Yeah, and?”
So, what’s your point?
Maybe the point is wrapped up in your next comment:
And which authority has made the proclamation that Mr. Obama is, in fact, eligible for the presidency? And no, the response, “Well, Phil, it was the 2008 Joint Session of Congress that certified Mr. Obama eligible.” Of course, that’s factually wrong, as all they did was certify the Electoral College votes, per se, not Mr. Obama’s eligibility.
In fact, if you could singularly provide the evidence for which authority and by which law was Mr. Obama apparently declared eligible, in your view, that really could shed a lot of light on the whole question.
-Phil
Phil,
While it is true to say that the Bible teaches all authority comes from God (its actually a teaching of St. Paul), no where does it teach that the devolution of that authority is pleasing to God. So St. Paul says we should obey the Roman Emperor, but he never justified all the moral crimes commited by the one who assumed or siezed the imperial throne.
Likewise, just because in the Constitution, the people confer the authority, does not take away from the Christian teaching, that the authority confered, is from God.
How is God’s authority conferred, if man confer’s it?
Because God is essentially infinite authority; all created authorities must be similar to Him in some manner to merit the name.
Also because God governs all things by His unseen, and sometimes manifest, providence. Therefore God in foreseeing from eternity the wicked ruling over the just, permitted this; but God in electing some just to rule over just and wicked, orders the causes of the universe, such that His chosen one acquires the rule over others.
But if you examine the history behind the theory of the Divine Right of Kings, you will find that this is not a Biblical teaching in toto; that is, the Bible no where teaches that kings have a divine right to rule, prior to the consideration of all forms of government. Infact when the Israelites of old, admiring the kings of the pagans, sought a king from God, God rebuked them saying that such a request displeased Him who was their only rightful sovereign.
Thus the objection against the form of devolution of authority in the Constitution, being non-monarchichal, or anti-monarchical, as being a fact which argues against the Christian or Biblical basis of the Constitution, is just false…
HistorianDude,
Was it ever recorded why he took that position?
-Phil
realist,
The movement has never been an EITHER/OR, but a BOTH/AND logic gate.
Also, mind the tone; it sounds a bit over the top.
-Phil
JB,
If I could concatenate all of the “failure” calls from the cron jobs that automagically start with each ./opposition-response.py, this blog would surely have been circular file’d out of existence a long time ago.
“Failure” = “Quitting”;
“Quitting” != modus_operandi (“birthers”);
-Phil
Sue,
That’s quite an admission of triviality if you’re talking about the purported image of a HI COLB allegedly of Mr. Obama.
Just like I could claim that I have documentation that supports evidence of the actual existence of Santa Clause.
I think you’ve painted yourself into a corner on this one by virtue of your admission that nobody has anything with 100% statistical certainly as posted on the Internet — be it an image of a COLB or even the President’s MySpace or Facebook age.
Then again, if these folks have the actual piece of paper that precisely matches the image of what’s on the Internet (RE: HI COLB for Mr. Obama), I wonder why they haven’t actually produced it yet? Ah: “Because they don’t have to, Phil!” Yes, yes — the old standby argument. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
The irony here is truly compelling; neither side has been able to produce any evidence of anything, except really cool-looking Internet-based images.
-Phil
Is a “voodoo priestess” considered an “other health professional” under Obamacare?
Are “spells, trances, and sacrificing chickens and goats” considered “essential benefits” for “we the people” under Obamacare?
Witchcraft in the White House
http://atkinsonsadvice.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/15/witchcraft_in_the_white_house.thtml
America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
A BILL
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes [Socialism].
Division A – Affordable Health Care Choices
Title I – Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefit Plans
Subtitle C – Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits
SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL. – A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.
SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED. – The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals [Voodoo Priests and Priestesses].
Witchcraft in the White House
Posted by Kristen Atkinson on Saturday, August 15, 2009
http://atkinsonsadvice.blogtownhall.com/2009/08/15/witchcraft_in_the_white_house.thtml
The Obama White House is abuzz with talk of witchcraft by first grandmother, 72-year-old Marian Robinson, who lives in the White House residence. A close friend of Michelle Obama says the president is furious at his mother-in-law after learning that she was practicing Santeria, an African spirit cult, in the White House.
“The president is quite upset about this… he is worried about the political fallout if his enemies get wind of this. Rev. Wright was bad enough, but this would be political suicide,” a close friend of Michelle’s confided.
Religion took center stage during the campaign last year when videos showed the Rev. Jeremiah Wright shouting “God damn America.” Obama was forced to distance himself from the since-retired pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he worshiped for 20 years. Many people were shocked by the videos and questioned Obama’s fitness to be president. Since taking office, Obama has avoided worshiping in public and now prefers the chapel at the presidential retreat at Camp David.
This is how it happened. Marian Robinson became increasingly frustrated as her husband, Fraser Robinson, was hobbled by multiple sclerosis in the late 1980s. The family pastor prayed with her and counseled her, but “she turned to Santeria in a desperate hope,” Michelle’s friend said. “Michelle put her foot down when she heard that her mother took her dad to ceremonies where they did spells and trances, and sacrificed animals, chickens and goats I think. But Marian was desperate and kept going anyway, even when her husband was to sick to go with her. I don’t think the president knew anything about this earlier because it was before they met. Michelle and Craig (her brother) wanted to close the book on this and never talked about it again after their father died in 1991.”
The first grandma appears to be worried about her health now, even though doctors pronounce her in good shape. “Marian invited an old friend from Chicago to visit her at the White House, and she performed a Santeria ceremony in the residence. When Michelle saw this woman, a voodoo priestess she recognized her from when her father was sick, she had a fit. When she told the president about it, he blew up and said, ‘No voodoo in the White House. Absolutely. I don’t care what you call it.’ As far as I know, it only happened once,” the friend said.
The president was “totally in favor” when his mother-in-law moved into the White House as a live-in babysitter for 11-year-old Malia and 8-year-old Sasha. Obama reportedly told Michelle that her mother will have to go back to Chicago if she does not “stop this witchcraft mumbo-jumbo immediately” and ordered the Secret Service to not allow Marian’s friend to return to the White House.
Obamanomics
http://seekingalpha.com/article/157097-grab-your-shorts-the-correction-has-begun?source=yahoo
United States Physician Services
http://www.usps.com
Priority Flat Rate: A Simpler Way to Provide Healthcare and Ship Packages
United States Physician Services
http://www.usps.com
“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’
A BILL
To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes [Socialism].
Division A – Affordable Health Care Choices
Title I – Protections and Standards for Qualified Health Benefit Plans
Subtitle C – Standards Guaranteeing Access to Essential Benefits
SEC. 121. COVERAGE OF ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL. – A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 124 for the essential benefits package described in section 122 for the plan year involved.
SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED.
(b) MINIMUM SERVICES TO BE COVERED. – The items and services described in this subsection are the following:
(3) Professional services of physicians and other health professionals.
DIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
TITLE II—WORKFORCE
Subtitle C—Public Health Workforce
SEC. 2231. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS.
Part D of title III (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.), as amended by section 2211, is amended by adding at the end the following:
Subpart XII—Public Health Workforce
SEC. 340L. PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE CORPS.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established, within the Service, the Public Health Workforce Corps (in this subpart referred to as the ‘Corps’), for the purpose of ensuring an adequate supply of public health professionals throughout the Nation. The Corps shall consist of—
(1) such officers of the Regular and Reserve Corps of the Service as the Secretary may designate;
and
(2) such civilian employees of the United States as the Secretary may appoint.
I would also add that if we use Sue’s logic we would have to rule out ALL news sources.
This is the crux of the problem with the media in general these days. The public has learned that the media can not be trusted to present the news without adding spin and commentary. Or as in the case of Edwards infidelity (and child born out that relationship), totally ignored by the NBC, CBS, etc. All the while expending a great deal of resources covering the Sanford story. Thus giving rise to Internet sources to step in a take a major role in the news gathering arena. There will be a major shake out of the media in the next decade because of this very problem. The common thinking person who is not blinded by partisanship will gravitate to news sources that are giving it to them as straight as possible.
Eluding specifically to the George Obama story, I find the CNN piece to be the least credible. I have seen CNN reporters inject very strong bias into their reports, with no apologies for years. As far as I am concerned, they will slant the story to shine a positive light on liberal causes(or people) whenever possible.
Obamacare: United States Physician Services
http://www.usps.com/
Obama Goes Postal
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJ01reSCujDQ
Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) — “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.” — Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009
No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care — the Government Accountability Office’s list of “high risk” cases – - last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasn’t cashed in on TARP!)
That didn’t stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.
When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.
What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office?
What’s more, if the USPS is struggling to compete with private companies, as Obama implied, why introduce a government health-care option that would operate at the same disadvantage?
Obama Unscripted
These are just two of the questions someone listening to the president’s health-insurance reform roadshow might want to ask.
Impromptu Obamanomics is getting scarier by the day. For all the president’s touted intelligence, his un-teleprompted comments reveal a basic misunderstanding of capitalist principles.
For example, asked at the Portsmouth town hall how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:
“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”
Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?
Capitalism Explained
Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.
Llewellyn Rockwell Jr., chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of LewRockwell.com, put it this way in an Aug. 13 commentary on Mises.org:
“The only reason for a government service is precisely to provide financial support for an operation that is otherwise unsustainable, or else there would be no point in the government’s involvement at all.”
Rockwell sees no “economic reason for a government postal system” and would abolish it.
Of course, there’s the small matter of the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress the power “to establish Post Offices and Post Roads.” A series of subsequent statutes gave the USPS a monopoly in the delivery of first-class mail. Congress thought that without such protection, private carriers would cherry-pick the high-profit routes and leave money-losing deliveries in remote areas to the post office. (In those days, the USPS covered most of its expenses with revenue.)
Less Bad Option
It was only through exemptions in the law that private carriers, such as UPS and FedEx, were allowed to compete in the delivery of overnight mail.
Short of a constitutional amendment or a waiver from Congress, we are stuck with the USPS.
But back to our storyline. Everyone makes a mistake or flubs a line when asked questions on the spot, including the president of the United States. We can overlook run-on sentences, subject and verb tense disagreement, even a memory lapse when it comes to facts and figures.
The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.
The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.
Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.
(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net.
Sue: Typical. When you can’t refute the argument, change the subject.
Is this commentary only supposed to concern Obama’s eligibility? If so, my bad.
Phil didn’t block my comments, and you’re the one who said that I was spreading false information (on another thread, which WAS about his family).
So I do believe that I have a right to defend myself against your false allegations.
Someone else brought up the fact that he’s detached from his own family, since he apparently (if you believe him) didn’t know that his aunt was living illegally in this country. Of course, if you do believe that he knew about her, then there IS an eligibility problem, since he’s sworn to uphold the laws of these United States. Isn’t he?
You cited ONE source, FactCheck, which has already been shown to be dubious. For example, they took out of context one part of the CNN article and claimed that it disproved this “rumor.” NOT. Second reason they’re dubious is their connection to the Annenberg Foundation, for which Obama once worked.
Numbers are on my side. Are ALL of those various reporters liars? Is George’s neighbor a liar? Do you really expect people to believe FactCheck, but not the evidence of their own eyes (that is, the photographs of the shack)?
As I said, I will make my case, and you and FactCheck can make yours. The readers can judge.
Phil says:
August 19, 2009 at 9:27 am
“These are your words, not mine.”
And your words were, people filed these lawsuits “to make a point.” That is a blatant misuse of the justice system and shows that you and they realize the cases have no merit and no possibility of being heard other than “to make a point.” There are many ways to make your point in a constructive way, like Blogging (!) not clogging up the courts.
Clip from Channel 1 Russia, [Refusnik Orly] seen by approximately 125 million people
http://www.1tv.ru/news/other/149141
“This is the first clip from the most watched Russian TV. There is a written commentary below the clip. It talks about me and my legal cases. They explain that US pres needs to be a Natural born citizen with 2 US citizen parents and that Obama’s father was never a citizen. The explained to the viewers that in the US there are long birth certificates and short birth certificates ( I believe in Russia they have only long form BCs). They explained that Obama presented only the short version and refuses to show the long version, that should show the name of the hospital and the doctor. Amazingly, they even knew about congressmen and members of the media who signed up as my friends on Facebook. My uncle was a physicist and a refusnik, meaning a dissident, who for a number of years got refusals to leave communist Soviet Union. I remember how refusniks would smuggle information about Judicial abuses and media blackout of such abuses in the Soviet Union to the West, to US, Canada and Western Europe. This forced the Soviet regime to make some concessions, think twice before persecuting opposition and it embarrassed the regime and it’s puppet media. It feels like such a Deja vu. The tables have changed, there is more openness in Russia, people don’t want the atrocities of the socialist totalitarian regime ever again. Now I am bringing abroad information about abuses of the Judicial and law enforcement system in the US, about elected officials committing treason by letting a foreign National to usurp the position of the President and the Commander in Chief; about media executives, board members and reporters committing massive fraud and treason by knowingly and intentionally providing fraudulent information to the citizens.”
Thank you Orly,
Refusnik Benaiah
Phil wrote:
A federal judge called your thing a “conspiracy theory”. In addition to your 100% failure rate with the judiciary, you don’t have any notable constitutional scholars on your side, nor any articles from serious legal journals. You guys just feed each other your own legal sophistry.
No Phil, it’s that premise of your site that is entirely disingenuous. Questions do not remain open simply because you refuse to face the answers.
Hiding from the facts doesn’t make them go away. Here you push an article that tells the lie, “On Obama’s first day in office, he sealed his birth and personal records through executive order.” Phil, I find it hard to believe that this is some kind of honest mistake on your part. At this point you must know that the President’s order does not and cannot seal his birth records.
Teo Bear:
It is too bad that “section 212” never mentions “natural born citizens” once in any of the editions that existed at the time the Constitution was written. It certainly cannot be found in any of the French language volumes acquired by Franklin. Or for that matter, any English language volumes he possessed. Franklin was himself already dead for 9 years before the first translation of de Vattel’s book that included that particular translation even existed.
That was the 1797 London edition. It was published ten years after the Constitution was written, nine years after Franklin’s death, and 30 years after de Vattel’s death. Therefore, it cannot have had any influence whatsoever on the Framer’s definition of natural born citizen.
So… aging you are simply, factually, objectively, incontrovertibly wrong.
Phil:
I know you said “theological debate” and not “theological study,” but when discussing the theological position of our Founding Fathers, I always found the following detail fascinating.
When he established the University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson prohibited the teaching of theology completely.
“Case has been sent and received. Some wrangling going on about the signatures so all signatories had to overnight theirs and did on monday. Announcement due later today once it has been entered into the court records. It’s incredible how many obstacles they will place in front of you just to get it entered but, then again, we’re playing in their sandbox. I can’t wait to post the meat of the case as it takes an entirely different tact from previous ones.
You’ll all like the list of defendants.”
Why file a lawsuit, Carl? Did you lose faith in your mythical fifth branch of government grand juries, or the FBI and U.S. Marshals arresting everyone who ignored you?
He served his “resentments” on the FBI in the first trip to D.C. The FBI ignored them.
Now he says he’s gonna call for people to get the FBI to issue arrest warrants for all the congresscritters, ’cause they ignored the “resentments” too.
My favorite line is “Failure to act is not an option and ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
He talks mighty tough, for an abject failure. Mighty tough.In /dev/null no one can hear your screams.
Sue said:
Phil says:
August 19, 2009 at 9:29 am
Sue,
…”Do you honestly see what you type before you submit your commentary?
I don’t think you do, because to use that logic, since virtually nothing on the Internet can be 100% statistically verified to be factual, then we all might as well ignore everything we see on the Internet.
Of course, some of us have been trying to make this point all along, especially with respect to images of purported COLBs floating around and what not. But hey — better later than never to get the point.”
Do you Phil? The point all of you have missed is that the online COLB image was never meant to be a legal document. Why do you consider McCain’s published BC factual as reported on this forum?
The bottom line in all this is that President Obama’s attorneys would never have footnoted the online COLB in their pleadings if they could not produce the underlying document and the Hawaii Department of Health officials would never had confirmed that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
On the other hand, the birther lawyers will have a hard time producing any credible evidence of their claims if these lawsuits ever did get to the discovery phase.
Sue,
Do you honestly see what you type before you submit your commentary?
I don’t think you do, because to use that logic, since virtually nothing on the Internet can be 100% statistically verified to be factual, then we all might as well ignore everything we see on the Internet.
Of course, some of us have been trying to make this point all along, especially with respect to images of purported COLBs floating around and what not. But hey — better later than never to get the point.
-Phil
earl,
These are your words, not mine.
-Phil
“I suppose all of these reporters are liars? Read the stories about George Obama. Look at the photos.”
Oh yes, reporters lie. Factcheck.org is reliable as any you posted. So, who is telling the truth? I certainly do not know for a fact, do you? So why repeat something that you aren’t 100% sure is factual or not?
Final point. What does George Obama have to do with the eligibility issue whatsoever?
Swensson,
Thanks for the update. Once you’ve posted whatever on your site, I’ll be happy to report on it here.
-Phil
Phil says:
August 18, 2009 at 9:17 pm
“nothing more than common citizens wishing to make a point. ”
So finally you admit that these lawsuits are stunts to make a point and the people filing them know they have no real cases. At last, some honesty from the birthers. Tying up the court systems to “make a point” is mis-use of our justice system. Every time one of these frivolous cases has to be addressed as if it were a real case, it costs you and me and every American money. Well done, money-wasting, point-makers. Use your own resources to “make a Point”, not mine.
Case has been sent and received. Some wrangling going on about the signatures so all signatories had to overnight theirs and did on monday. Announcement due later today once it has been entered into the court records. It’s incredible how many obstacles they will place in front of you just to get it entered but, then again, we’re playing in their sandbox. I can’t wait to post the meat of the case as it takes an entirely different tact from previous ones.
You’ll all like the list of defendants.
Kind of telling that the article above doesn’t cite any court cases to back its argument!
Debunked? Hardly. FactCheck is hardly a reputable source for Truth. Why? Because I said so, that’s why.
They make claims. I make claims. Who’s correct? You be the judge. My claims to truth are as valid as theirs.
If they’re SO reputable, then why don’t they answer Phil’s questions? If they’re truly nonpartisan and TRULY interested in the truth, then why won’t they answer direct questions from other “fact checkers?”
Well, I did some fact checking, despite that I said that I wouldn’t do anyone’s research for him (or her).
How about you just quit making things up?
I suppose all of these reporters are liars? Read the stories about George Obama. Look at the photos.
Does that look like a shack? Oh, yes it does.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1119352,CST-NWS-brother21.article
http://www.usmagazine.com/news/barack-obamas-half-brother-discovered-in-hut-in-kenya
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/obamas-youngest.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4583353.ece
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/face-to-face-with-george-hussein-obama-barack-obamas-brother_10099079.html
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/developing-world-stories/2009/01/obama-bandwagon.html (scroll down to see the photo)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2595688/Barack-Obama-is-my-inspiration-says-lost-brother.html (Wow! This one gives the provenance of the corrugated tin shack. It was a gift.)
Finally, the piece de resistance: The very article that FactCheck claims disproves what they doubtless consider to be yet another “fishy” rumor:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/22/bts.obama.brother/
Direct quotes from that CNN article:
“We found Barack Obama’s half-brother living in a Nairobi SLUM.” (emphasis added)
Says George:
“‘I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges,’ Obama said.” (So, poverty in Kenya is relative. Living in a mud-floored, 6-by-8-foot, tin shack with a whole bunch of other people might be considered by some to be living well. Better than having no roof over your head, I suppose.)
A neighbor believed that Barack Obama should have helped his brother George:
“‘I would like Obama to visit his brother to see how he is living, to improve his way of life,’ said Emelda Negei, who runs a small dispensary near Obama’s house.” (So Emelda didn’t think that George was living very well, either.)
Surprisingly (or not), the video of a CNN reporter interviewing George in his slum shack is “no longer available;” but if you click the link anyway, it will turn up a still photo of George in the shack, reading his famous brother’s fictional (auto?)biography. Check out those nifty metal walls.
To say that he lived in a shack was not “false”. It’s the truth. Deal with it.
FactCheck is a farce. They took a quote out of context from the very CNN story that they themselves cited. Read the CNN story. Read the first line: they found him living in a SLUM!
Even CNN, whose Jon Klein recently ordered Lou Dobbs to FALSELY report that Hawaii destroyed Obama’s original birth certificate, told some semblance of the truth (with a little spin, of course).
George seemed upset that Vanity Fair apparently falsely stated that he lived on only a dollar a month.
But I didn’t say anything about his income. All I said was that he lived in a shack in Kenya. Which was the TRUTH.
But Sue can’t handle the truth.
As Fitzpatrick builds his case in Chicago, perhaps Congres people are waiting for a roundup, and that way, if Obama is rounded up for Chicago chicanery, they will escape their own unlawful activities. It would be so exciting if we had a real court somewhere. Sure would like to see all the liars on the mainstream networks and newspapers rounded up for obstructing justice and aiding and abetting fraud on the public, like CNN saying Hawaii got rid of all the old documents. Are there enough lawyers to deal with all these people?
brygenon,
Nice opinion on your part. Of course, it does sound like someone who takes a very theistic and/or agnostic viewpoint of reality that would post what you did. No disrespect meant, but when I see such verbiage as what you’ve put out from many years of online theological debate, it becomes very apparent, very quickly.
Truly, I had originally intended my site to break into theological discussions. However, as a Believer in the Messiah, it quickly became apparent that He had different plans.
Deo volente (Latin, “God willing”).
-Phil