Barnett v. Obama: Judge Confirms Hearing Dates; Official Transcript Added
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Update:
On the same day as this posting was originally published (10/5/09), Judge Carter ordered the remainder dates for this case to be finalized, per the Civil Minutes, below:
Dr. Alan Keyes — one of the key Plaintiffs in this case — says on his blog that the case is moving forward and has not been stopped by a motion to dismiss. WorldNetDaily interviewed both the Plaintiffs and the Defense and they also seemed to confirm that no dismissals of any sort have yet to be granted.
In fact, in an interesting opinion, attorney Leo Donofrio states that Judge Carter has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the quo warranto complaint contained within this case and doesn’t understand why the US Attorneys haven’t grasped this aspect of the case as a means to sink it. After all, as he points out, according to federal statute, quo warranto is only to be heard in the US District Court for DC, the seat of government (which, incidentally, is not a State).
In my non-attorney citizen reporter opinion, what Judge Carter has done is taken the motion to dismiss “under submission” and likely as a part of one of the upcoming dates concerning summary judgment (that aspect of law, per the Conference Schedule, that attempts to ascertain whether or not a trial is needed to satisfy the grievances stated in the petition or whether or not the case should legitimately proceed to trial).
This would mean that the motion to dismiss has been neither granted nor denied, but can still be considered during a future date. Nevertheless, the case is moving forward, and as long as the case moves forward, there’s always a chance that it will continue to summary judgement and/or discovery and/or a trial.
In related news, commenter “reps” brings the following to our attention:
An interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that applies to Barnett v. Obama and may help Judge Carter with some of the decisions he has to make; an election issue regarding eligibility, subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and after election judicial action. Hopefully Taitz and Kreep will use this in a follow-up to Judge Carter.
The saga continues…
Sunday, October 18, 2009 Update: Here’s the official transcript (via NativeBornCitizen):
Keyes|Barnett v. Obama – Official Court Transcript From 10-5-2009 Hearing
As had been discussed on this blog, attorney Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Barnett v. Obama, hit its next major milestone with US District Judge David Carter making no new motions today except a promise to consider submissions from both sides and making known his concerns for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. This was revealed in a transcript of sorts by the opposition forum site, Politijab.com, via the site NativeBornCitizen:
Barnett v. Obama – Report on 10-5 Hearing
While the above document is a bit long at 33 pages, it is really the 32 page that I found the most informative of the entire document:
Carter then essentially cut off further argument saying that he needs more time. He did not make a tentative ruling today. He wants to consider the arguments that have been made both in the written papers and during the hearing.
He turned to plaintiffs and said, I’m most concerned about standing.
To the defendants he said, I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.
He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.
To the audience he said, your applause has not influenced me at all, one way or the other.
To Orly he said, apparently you’ve encouraged people to call me on your blog. Please discourage the phone calls. They don’t help. It was inappropriate for you to do that. However, it won’t bear on my decision.
He then stated, obviously you’ve had no scheduling conference, but we’ll stick by the dates previously set for now.
He thanked everybody and the hearing ended. [emphases added]
I’ll come back to some of these points in a minute. In the meantime, here’s a collection of sentiments regarding today’s hearing:
- John Charlton at The Post & Email summarizes the day’s events;
- Mr. Charlton also posted an interview with the case’s lead Plaintiff, Captain Pamela Barnett;
- WorldNetDaily posted their interview with one of the eligibility attorneys, Mr. Gary Kreep;
- The OCRegister.com provided relatively reasonable mainstream media coverage;
- The GiveUsLiberty blog sports a number of postings on today’s activity.
Getting back to Politijab.com’s “transcript” of the hearing, I will reiterate once again that The Right Side of Life’s position on contacting a Courthouse for the purpose of attempting to sway any official in any direction is to completely discourage such behavior. While the “transcript” is not an official one, considering the source, it is highly likely to be true to the Court reporter’s official one.
Instead of potentially causing further issues with the Court through political activism within the Judiciary, it is my view that a far wiser and significantly more powerful means of persuasion is prayer. It isn’t glamorous, it doesn’t necessarily provide the instant gratification of an ultimate decision on a moment’s notice (but then again, are you operating on God’s timing or your own? Be honest!), but at least you’ll recognize Who’s really in control in all of this.
Plus, you’ll keep your blood pressure down, it’ll give you a few moments of respite from your daily worries, and you’ll become more focused on what the Main Thing In Life ™ really is. Yeah, I know — the opposition will continue going on about how this case might get dismissed and so forth, but if you’re like me, you really don’t care about that, because this issue is and always has been about much bigger things in life, such as political accountability.
And where does political accountability come from? It comes from a sense of justice and morality that has been bestowed upon us via not only the Constitution but that even greater collection of literature, the Bible.
So, again — do you want to make a difference? Then get praying. Then think about what what skills and talents you have and start taking that first step, on faith (based on the fact that since you are created in the image of God, you do have at least one skill and talent bestowed upon you!), and be the change you want to see.
Oh, yeah — and if you don’t think that a handful of people can’t make a difference, then apparently you’re simply refusing to see the results of what happened with 12 guys that got together without any technology except sheets of paper and word of mouth roughly 2,000 years ago.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Photo courtesy GiveUsLiberty1776
548 responses to Barnett v. Obama: Judge Confirms Hearing Dates; Official Transcript Added
It looks like some are preparing for the Judge to rule against the birthers…
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2009/10/who-has-been-talking-to-judge-carter.html
“I was in the courtroom and this was not the same judge that said he was going to decide this case on the merits. No…this was a judge who was carefully covering his rear end and made it clear to this observer that he wants to punt! He doesn’t want to hear this case and he is doing everything to justify throwing it out!”
The simple question for the defense still comes down
to why not spend a mere $15 for the birth certificate,
Mr. Obama/Mr. Soetoro? Instead you want to waste $1.4
million in fighting against it—-why? Americans don’t
trust you and your ratings are falling fast. Stand up,
Mr. WH occupant and tell us who you are, release all
your records and quit the hiding.
Prayer… I like it!
Wow, Phil, that “transcript” was full of so many points. Where does one begin? [I agree with you about faith, and especially the twelve men spread the Gospel with no modern devices or amenities and under threat of death, 11 martyred]
Something that I really questioned in reading the transcript is the statement that Carter thinks it is ridiculous that it doesn’t matter where the mother has her baby. Why would he even care about the rest of the hearing? If you believe that the place of birth is irrelevant, then the only argument that even matters is the dual citizenship one. Does he think that is the crux of the legal argument if it could ever get past standing?
I thought Kreep did a good job of dealing with the impeachment issue.
One other point (and I really want to spend some more time with this transcript), Judge Carter believes that people should be heard and that any deficiencies regarding filing of papers, local rules, should be remedied but not used to stop a case from being heard. I like that, not because Orly is mistake prone, but for any party in any case.
If Orly asked blog readers to contact the judge, then she really needs to get a good PR person on staff to polish her behavior and image, and to discuss with her the consequences of actions before taken.
While not a lawyer the argument that a failure to have the secretaries of each state verify the eligibility somehow gets a pass on standing seems negligent by Judge Carter. The constitution is clear on who is eligible and if eligibility was not confirmed then there should be standing to do the verification after the fact. This is not the Miranda rule or the technicality that got bill ayers off for his terrorist actions, this is rather clear what is required and proof would be the birth certificate.
What if that Nicaraguan that was on 6 ballots had won. Would Judge Carter then think there was standing because he did not supply a birth certificate? Why would there be standing because he DIDNT do something as opposed to verifying that something that was fake was used to nullify standing?
I think Judge Carter, since 5 Sep, has come to realize the complexities of the case and the precedent-setting nature his actions would represent, however he rules. No matter how he rules, the case will doubtless be appealed to the 9th Circuit and then to SCOTUS, before discovery ever starts. This will be a matter of a long haul, but not 10 years like Senator Inhofe suggested, at least as far as discovery is concerned (unless SCOTUS tosses the case).
No matter what happens, the pressures will continue to mount.
Leon Brozyna
CW2, USA (Ret)
Something that I really questioned in reading the transcript is the statement that Carter thinks it is ridiculous that it doesn’t matter where the mother has her baby. (me)
This is where perspective is interesting. I read an interview with Charles Lincoln and he discussed that comment by Carter also but said it in terms of military wives. That would make sense given that Carter is a marine. The Politijab transcript did not put that into the same context.
1. If Obama paid $15 for a birth certificate from the HI Dept of Labor, what he would get back would be another COLB. But wait, you choose not to believe that it’s legitimate.
2. Obama has not spent $1.4 million fighting birther suits. First, not a single birther suit in the end actually cares about the production of documents – all of them allege that Obama is ineligible for other reasons based on legal arguments. Secondly, at least some of his lawyers are working pro bono on birther suits. Third, you are assuming based on FEC filings that every single penny that Obama has spent on lawyers went ONLY to fighting these suits. Legal costs are common for major campaigns, which would include leasing property (field offices), compliance with 50 state and federal election laws, maintenance of the largest campaign fund in history, indemnifications and other legal issues. But instead your allegation that Obama has spent $1.4 million on these suits assumes that Obama has not spent money to take care of ANY of these things, an allegation absurd on its face.
I think Judge Carter is very disturbed over the idea of the judiciary playing no role whatsoever. He was practically begging for a good argument on standing. (He was “troubled” if he could never get to the issue of the Electoral College because of standing) Look at how he cut off Kreep at the end to say that he needed more time. Charles Lincoln pointed out in his interview how well prepared Carter was for this hearing, even citing cases that were not briefed. IF Carter can find standing (tall order), I think he’ll let this case go on.
More from Lincoln (felon or not, he seems to have a good grasp of things):
MR. CHARLTON: What do you think is the likelihood that Carter will grant at least some plaintiffs standing? Will he make his decision in an in-chambers order, or at another hearing?
MR. LINCOLN: It will be a written order; and we expect this; I doubt that some plaintiffs and not all, the strongest standing claims are Flast vs. Cohen and the 9th Amendment; he was not impressed by oath arguments or political candidates standing: I predict it will be all or none.
***
I haven’t studied the standing arguments. I thought it was interesting that Carter wanted Kreep’s input on which issues to decide. I thought DOJ was weak today, even though Obama clearly has the stronger case. I couldn’t believe that DOJ said that there may have been standing before the election. Judge Carter saw through the flawed argument that once the election has taken place, eligibility challenges can’t be made without harm to the country and therefore should not be addressed. Carter wanted to know what the process would be if he were found to be ineligible. This is a discussion that many challengers to eligibility have engaged in. I was impressed that he spent time on that issue. It shows that he really has been pondering this whole case.
The million dollar question in my mind regarding this hearing today is; Did anyone see Eric Holder lurking in the area outside the court house drinking some coffee and heading back to his military jet prior to the Judges seemingly about face on really wanting to hear the case as he had previously stated…
If the sworn statement’s from the person’s in Georgia are true this case has also already been predetermined and twittered.
If Oath takers have no “standing”To a man that has himself been bound by it’s power and even a candidate on the ballot in the same election, no matter how much of a long shot,has no standing in this judges mind,then the oath they all take is nothing but hollow words left to the past.If the place of birth does not matter to Judge Carter,With what the constitution requires of a candidate then The saudi king or Nelson Mandela might well be a presidential candidate in our near future.
Kind of off topic but remember when Millie vanilly was on the top of the charts and then it was revealed that they lip synced their songs.We were all outraged and took away all there awards and they fell from favor. But they did do something…they broke the barrier of what was acceptable and now everyone lip sync’s songs when performing, same as vanilla ice and his ice ice baby.He stole the intro from Queen and we were all outraged but now every song is a remake/remix of an old song or sample’s from some other song and no one bats an eye.
I think it will be the same with our presidential elections. We are all outraged now but if this is made to stand we will soon be subjected to candidates from countries all over the world trying to win the big prize.And our children will not think twice about it.
I do think this judge might also have had a little bird twitter in his ear just as I think obama did with the Supreme court members early on right before the first case came before them,if that is the case now, I think this issue will only be resolved in 2012 if at all,and by that time I think we will be far beyond worrying about birth certificates and matters of standing.
I hope I wont live to see this in our nation’s near future
United States of America
1776-2008
RIP
I read the WavyDavy Transcript and Mr. Charles Lincoln’ interview at the P&Em, and the sense I get is that Judge Carter is an ignoramous when it comes to the law.
He is straining gnats and swallowing camels, and refuses to wake up and smell the coffe, that is, see the bigger picture.
There is no question of ineligiblity here, obama has claimed a foreigner as a father; therefore there is not question of harm, standing etc…
Carter did a skillful job in my opinion dancing around the NBC issue and kept the attention on standing, as if no one was injured enought by the crime of usurpation of the presidency.
He is an estasblihsment shill, in my opinion….
Leo’s correct: at his blog he says that we should not expect anything from Carter…he will toss the case…
Phil,
“While the “transcript” is not an official one, considering the source, it is highly likely to be true to the Court reporter’s official one.”
Why do you believe this?
Sharon 2,
“I haven’t studied the standing arguments.”
Does your comment above mean that you haven’t studied the standing arguments in this lawsuit or not at all?
Another great article. Throughout this whole ordeal praying is the one thing that has kept me sane : )
Probably because the politijab reports have consistently proven to be the most accurate source of info from the hearings, especially when compared with actual transcripts.
That’s a HUGE if. First of all, if everything in that affidavit were true, all it shows is that AG Holder got a cup of coffee in Columbus, Georgia. That’s no crime or even evidence of anything. But more importantly, on the day in question, AG Holder was in public at an event in Los Angeles at roughly the same time. You may think Holder may have influenced Land and then immediately hopped on a military jet for a cross-country flight, but it frankly doesn’t pass the smell test. The affidavit also described Holder as “not large of frame.” Holder is 6’3″.
Oh how quickly you turn on the guy. Judge Carter has gone WAY out of his way to give Orly and the birthers a fair hearing. He could have dismissed the case in July when Orly had gone almost six months without serving process, but made process happen. After that, Orly filed a more expansive amended complaint when she said she was going to narrow the case, and Judge Carter accepted it. She called the magistrate judge all sorts of names because he correctly applied the rules of procedure to her motion for the fake Kenyan birth certificate. Judge Carter did not admonish her for it. At the hearing, Carter went out of his way to say how he wanted there to be some sort of process, and when he issues his order for dismissal, he’ll probably talk about how removing a president is exclusively the role of Congress.
Maybe it’s not Carter and every other federal judge who’s heard these cases who are ignorant of the law – maybe it’s you.
It sure sounds to me like the Judge is planning to dismiss this case.
Federalist #68 makes it very clear that the Electoral College has the role of ensuring that the elected President is qualified to hold the office.
The birthers apparently sent certified packets of information concerning these issues to every elector prior to them gathering in their respective states to vote.
The Electoral College proceeded to elect the President, thus Constitutionally affirming his eligibility.
The Congress played it’s Constitutional role of certifying the propriety of the electoral vote. This was without objection.
The Courts have no role in this. The Constitutional process has been performed, and the President has been sworn into office.
Civis Naturaliter Natus says:
What bad luck eligibility deniers have, in that every judge they pull seems to be an ignoramus or a coward or a traitor.
I’m expecting a clear and detailed explanation. So far Judge Carter has shown amazing patience.
That doesn’t mean you won’t get anything. A California state court already sided with the defendant, and against Taitz, Kreep, and Keyes, “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.” If this federal court agrees that the matter is Congress’s call, wouldn’t that help answer some of your questions?
[See Keyes v. Bowen.]
Yes, we all must continue praying that the truth is allowed to come out. Ultimately, we Americans aren’t going to settle for anything less, whether a court orders it or not.
I read Orly’s blog every day, and I have never seen her ask or tell people to call the court. I wrote two letters, which I think is less intrusive and more professional. It doesn’t do any good to call.
It sounds as if the judge might wimp out because of the “standing” issue, but I was amazed that the DOJ lawyers actually admitted that “there might have been standing” before the inauguration. Well, plenty of lawsuits were filed long before Hussein’s coronation and nothing was done; every judge presented with a case still said that the plaintiff didn’t have standing.
So access to justice through the courts has been denied thus far. I hope Judge Carter makes a different decision.
I am thinking this might be, as Justice Carter alluded to yesterday, proceeding in unknown territory. When one thinks of judicial activism, one thinks of left-wingers using liberal judges to ram through liberal agendas. Yet, when good people like us want to proceed in uncharted waters like challenging Barack Obama’s constituional eligibility, the liberals do a 180 and start quoting established procedures why not to proceed.
Yet, if the roles were reversed, and the right had a conservative President that had eligibility questions, the weeny left wing kooks would insist on proceeding into an examination of that person’s qualifications. Bed-wetting liberals have never let the law get in their way. So tell me why moral people like ourselves can’t play by the rules that the snot-eating liberals play so well just this once.
Liberty says:
But it hasn’t helped win any cases.
I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions on the keeping-you-sane part either.
Hey brygenon, Why did you find it necessary to attack someone’s faith? Because you do not pray should not be a license to tell people their prayers are useless.
NewEnglandPatriot says:
That’s not true. These same lawyers, Taitz and Kreep, with lead plaintiff Alan Keyes, filed Keyes v. Bowen before the inauguration (a week after the election), and the defendants never even raised standing as an issue.
Greg Goss says:
That was an attack on their sanity, not their faith. Didn’t you see the recent article on Senator Graham (R-SC) saying calling birthers “crazy”. Don’t shoot the messenger.
The article Orly was all excited about on her blog was in today’s Washington Post. It is an interesting article that looks like it speaks for itself…
Some quotes from the article…
“Taitz, breathtakingly, reacted by accusing the judge of treason and comparing herself to Nelson Mandela. She fired off a response that suggested the judge was bowing to “political pressure” and “external control.” Land promptly issued another order requiring Taitz to tell him why he should not fine her $10,000 as a sanction for her misconduct. Today, a copy of that order lies on the floor of her car.”
“That’s the most ridiculous argument that I’ve ever heard,” she says of Land’s comment that Obama’s political opponents had ample opportunity to challenge his birth record. “Nobody has seen proper documents. Period.” Another breathtaking statement, or rather misstatement. After initially trying to ignore the controversy, Obama’s staff has indeed provided an official record showing that the president was born in Hawaii. The document is a computer-generated official certification of live birth attesting to the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health also has stated, rather wearily, that she has viewed the underlying vital records and that they are valid.
“She has developed a scenario whereby Obama’s American mother gave birth in Kenya, his father’s native country, then persuaded bureaucrats to falsify his records and ease him back into this country. She also conjectures that he may be a citizen of Indonesia, where Obama lived for a time after his mother remarried.”
Taitz is pinning her hopes on the California case, this one on behalf of a slew of plaintiffs, some of them former members of the military — a central thread running through her filings is the idea that soldiers owe no allegiance to an illegitimate commander — and assorted fulminators and fringe players, including Wiley Drake, a pastor who has said that he prays for Obama’s death.
“Taitz is also on the radar of militia groups, whom she sometimes addresses on her blog; in one posting, she urged “state militias” to descend upon southern U.S. borders and help check those arriving for signs of swine flu virus; in another, she called on “citizen’s militia” to protect people from being rounded up by government forces using swine flu as a pretext.”
“The birther conspiracy itself is now totally widespread among military and paramilitary [militia] groups and new, what we would call quote-unquote ‘patriot’ groups, which are groups that are virulently anti-government,” says Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center. Beirich says that a popular conspiracy theory among such groups is that the government is going to round up citizens and put them in camps operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”
“There are those who say that even if Obama were to provide every last record down to dry-cleaning receipts, no proof could satisfy birther proponents. In Taitz’s case, there’s what she calls “a two-prong test.” Bucking the common view that “natural born citizen” — the constitutional requirement for a U.S. president — means, generally speaking, born on American soil, she argues that to be president a person must not only be born here but must also be the child of parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. She allows that her decidedly non-mainstream interpretation would knock out her two older sons, born when she had only a green card, before she became a U.S. citizen.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html
Does your comment above mean that you haven’t studied the standing arguments in this lawsuit or not at all? (Sue)
In this case.
I thought Carter said there would be no delays…
Yet another dishonest federal judge. Surprise, surprise.
jvn alleges that the electoral college votes were accepted without objection. There is no record of VP Cheney asking for objections, as required by constitutional procedure. Is this reversible error?
As for predicting what the outcome of the instant case will be, reading tea leaves would be of more predictive value than words of the naysayers at this blog – and you must, by now, know who you are. If it is done to stir the pot and inflame temperment, well, I guess I can pray for you.
Not issuing a ruling from the bench is not the same as a delay. The Judge said that all the tentative dates are still applicable as of yesterday. Of course, it will be moot after the case is dismissed.
It’s been almost a year since the electoral college voted before Congress. There is not a single member of Congress who has said that they would have raised objections. The House unanimously voted for a resolution stating Obama was born in Hawaii. The most conservative senator on matters of citizenship, Orrin Hatch, said to the AGJ guys that one parent is sufficient to be a natural born citizen.
What are you imagining? Let’s say Cheney had asked for objections. What do you think would have happened? Who would have stood up? Who would be in a position and willing to raise an objection to the confirmation of Obama’s election, but then stayed completely silent about his willingness to object for almost a full year?
Unless you know a specific member of Congress who would have objected, what you have at best is a harmless error on the part of Vice President Cheney. Don’t you think he would have found any way possible to throw a monkey wrench into Obama’s election?
Liza Mundy- Google and see how the slant of the Orly article was a foregone conclusion (hint- Michelle Obama)
Very nice blogging!
Sharon 2 says:
October 6, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Liza Mundy- Google and see how the slant of the Orly article was a foregone conclusion (hint- Michelle Obama)
___________________________________________________________________
Slant of the article? Was there something the author said that was not true? If anything the article made Orly look almost sane.
For instance the article says “She has developed a scenario whereby Obama’s American mother gave birth in Kenya, his father’s native country, then persuaded bureaucrats to falsify his records and ease him back into this country.” Is that not correct? Isn’t it her wild and ridiculous scenario that a pregnant teenager with no money would fly halfway around the world on a propeller airplane (because there were no real jet service nor direct flights to Kenya) to give birth and then have the forsight to have someone contact the state of HI, register a birth, and then sneak a baby back into the US without leaving any sort of paper trail. What is this, Mission Impossible? The only slant in this article is how ridiculous that scenario really is.
Come on, if she looked or sounded crazy or unhinged in the article it is because she really is crazy and unhinged.
“I read Orly’s blog every day, and I have never seen her ask or tell people to call the court. I wrote two letters, which I think is less intrusive and more professional. It doesn’t do any good to call.”
Not true. Orly has instructed her patriots numerous times to call, fax and write the court beginning with SCOTUS. Would you like me to pull up some of them and post them here. I have many. Not to mention that she posts these letters on her blog and never once have I seen her instruct her patriots not to do this. Letters are not appropriate either and here is why. Orly has even provided the email info and addresses for her patriots on her blog.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/ex-parte/
Ex Parte Law & Legal Definition
It appears that Orly either doesn’t understand both procedural and ethical rules or just chooses to ignore them. This is one of the reasons that competent lawyers have openly voiced their criticism of Orly.
Sharon 2,
“In this case.”
How would the standing issues in this case be any different from the standing issues in the other cases?
Sue,
In previous postings about this story (to which I think I linked in this posting), I had received “wavey davey’s” “transcript” prior to the official transcript of proceedings. The biggest inconsistency I found was that “wavey davey” merely left some information out. Other than that, these “transcripts” that get posted on Politijab are pretty spot-on.
Remember, I don’t really care where I get my information, as long as the information is good. And if the information continues to be good, then that tends to increase my confidence in said source. In this case, it so happens that Politijab.com is a reasonable source to me.
-Phil
People, please! I’ve just about given up on this blog because I see nothing but childish name calling and fighting. None of it helps. It just adds to the continued division of our country.
Yes, we disagree, but don’t we all want a united country? After all, it is the UNITED States. Can you imagine how the Civil War pitted brother against brother? I beg you to stop and realize this one thing: full disclosure. We all win!
Not only can we put this incredible scenario to rest, we can concentrate on things that really matter. Obama needs all of us together for the strength of our nation.
Why do we blog with speculation on what might have happened, what might be on a document? For goodness sakes! The man is right here and just needs to answer a few questions.
I am not a racist, but if this is the best example the Democrats can provide for the first black president, pee-yoo!
Obama is obviously a coward and can only resort to Chicago-thuggery as a way to rule. Settle this, Mr. Obama. Open your records and let’s move on!
This is a serious question: Why would the judge care what happens next should Obama be found ineligible? Isn’t the question before the court whether or not he met the standard of eligibility outlined in the Constitution? Make the determination. Let the next chips fall where they may. It seems outside the scope of the suit to worry about what happens later on. Decide the issue of eligibility.
What struck me as the most amusing is that the telephone machine paid for by the taxpayers and the clerk who takes those messages from that machine, whose salary is paid for by the taxpayers, are now absolutely worthless to the public…since those paying for the equipment and the salaries are told to leave their paid-for court alone, and be patient and peaceful, as an illegitimate, out-of-control, run-amuck, communist/marxist president runs riot and creates havoc. It is getting funnier and funnier! It is like the wife who puts the tantrum child in time-out, and the father comes home and says you have no right to discipline my son, as she gasps for air. A president who uses other social security numbers is in control of the country….relax, stop calling the court. Is this not judicial abuse of the taxpayers. What would be far more interesting and appropriate would be a clerk who carefully captured every voice mail for posterity and attached it to the court case. It would forever capture the folklore of the lawsuit for historic purposes. But sadly….the public has been dumped. Pray we must! Ronald Reagan must be very concerned that communism can take over so boldly and the public are blamed for complaining.
Transparasaurus rex says:
October 6, 2009 at 11:36 am
*jvn alleges that the electoral college votes were accepted without objection. There is no record of VP Cheney asking for objections, as required by constitutional procedure. Is this reversible error?*
Unlikely. The speech or debate clause (Article I, Sec 6, Clause 1)prevents questioning the House or Senate outside of the House or Senate. The objections had to be in writing. Those people are not wallflowers. If there had been a Congressman and Senator ( must have one of each), who objected, they would have made themselves heard even if Cheney erred, and everyone would have known someone was going to object. It wouldn’t have been a secret. If there are members of Congress today that don’t think the President legitimately holds his office, they should file for articles of impeachment. No one has.
Then why did you not more than a few sentences later say “pee-you” about the Democratic party, and call President Obama a coward and a thug? Isn’t that engaging in the very name calling that you decried?
How about we stop questioning the legitimacy of a democratically elected president who was born in Hawaii according to every single person competent to give an opinion on the matter, and is legally a natural born citizen under the common law definition, which is considered the definitive interpretation of the term according to every single current legal scholar who has spoken on the subject? How about we unite on that ground, disagree honorably with each other and debate the merits of policy rather than launch completely personal ad hom attacks (see Jaclyn Smith yesterday)?
There’s lots of things that we need to fix in this country – how about instead of fighting unwinable battles, we raise the level of dialogue? Right here? How about we actually talk about how to make our country a better place, and stop yelling past each other and make our country a more divided and acrimonious place for political dialogue?
Anonymous says:
October 6, 2009 at 1:19 pm
*full disclosure. We all win!*
No, we All lose. If inside or outside of a courtroom, President Obama is forced to disclose information that he is not legally required to disclose, the burden of proof in this country will forever be shifted from the plaintiff/prosecutor onto the accused. The accused, criminal or civil, always has the benefit of assumption of innocence. Demanding President Obama exonerate/disclose/whatever is saying you don’t believe in the fundamental cornerstone of our justice system: innocent until Proven guilty. If the burden of proof gets shifted and the benefit of the assumption of innocence is taken away in the case of a US President, it will be lost for all of us. Ask yourself if that’s how you want to change our justice system, to require the accused to exonerate himself. I think if you were in the shoes of the accused, you’d want the burden of proof to be squarely on the person accusing you. Don’t say this is different. It isn’t. It’s like every other civil case ever filed in this country. The burden of proof is on those who accuse. If you think he’s not eligible to be President, Prove It.
qwertyman, I am not as you say questioning. I am observing to see if our laws are being followed. What a ridiculous mess. Is Obama here for me to call a coward? I don’t think so. I wish he was and I could speak to him directly. Do you smell something good coming from this administration?
And, thanks for addressing the true meaning of my message!
No, this is not judicial abuse. It is a fundamental tenet of the American legal system to avoid ex parte communications with the judge. Remember how Orly is accusing the government of trying to influence the case, and how that’s a total no-no? By calling the court and sending letters urging the court to rule the way you want them to, you are doing the exact same thing you accuse the government of doing!
Judges are to remain triers of fact and law of the case argued before them. They receive lifetime appointments to the federal courts expressly for the purpose of not being subject to political or popular pressure. This is extremely important, and Orly’s encouragement of her fans to call and write the court violates this basic tenet of the judiciary, and is yet another example of her absolute incompetence and violations of CA bar ethics rules.
siseduermapierda,
That’s not true. Obama chose to run making the privacy issue moot.
The case is simple if Judge Carter has the fortitude to take the issue directly:
This is a clear separation of powers issue, the courts have no jurisidiction to remove a sitting President. That is why Keyes’ grievances cannot be redressed. His portion of the case needs to be tossed, since the courts cannot change the political process. I think that train has pulled out, and once Obama was sworn into office, the separation of powers kicks in and places the removal of the President with Congress.
However, Barnett’s grievance is immediate and redressable. The Court does not have to rule Obama ineligible for Office or attempt to remove him, a trial should take place to determine whether Obama has the qualificiations under the constitution to deploy troops into battle. This is a civil action, and can be undertaken immediately as Jones v. Clinton determined a sitting President can be sued. Along those same lines, citizens who are adversely affected by any law signed by Obama can similarly file suit to determine whether he has the qualifications to do so under the constitution. Once the courts determine he does not have the qualifications to govern, effectively emasculating the President of authority, then Congress would have no choice but to undertake impeachment proceedings because government could not function.
He DOES NOT have to be removed by the courts for the plaintiffs to have redress of grievances. A ruling in favor of Barnett throws the military chain of command into chaos, forcing congressional action on impeachment.
The defense would ask for a stay on the ruling and appeal to the Supreme Court. Then we would all benefit, since the natural born issue could be determined once and for all.
The defense is saying removal of the President rests with Congress. That is absolutely true, but the redress of Barnett’s grievance does not have to include removal of the President. and it is clearly in Judge Carter’s purview to hold a a trial to determine Obama’s qualifications, which directly impact Barnett.
I think Orly encourages public contact of the courts is not to influence a judge, which personally I would think a ridiculous effort, but to show there is huge public concern and the plaintiffs are not alone or a fringe bunch, and this is a case of public significance. It is not different for the public to contact their own courts than it is for the media to discuss issues, which currently the media is not doing. So We the People are expressing their views. I think the public should contact whomever they want and those contacted should treat the public with utmost respect rather than tossing their viewpoints in to the garbage. This is more a whiny clerk who never has to do much and now has to do too much and is complaining. Tons of phone calls and letters to a court is far better than riots and bloodshed on the streets.
Also, since this is a political party scamming the public, and the majority of that party controls the Congress and is feeding misinformation to congressional members left and right, it is not logical to think they would remove “one of their own.”
I hope the DNC is charged with the RICO act for defrauding the public vote and scamming millions of dollars and is shut down. They are seeming to be as corrupt as ACORN.
I hope Carter looks into the Social Security fraud and if Obama committed crimes before, records or not, he is removed by the courts, not the Congress. The balance of powers means the four powers, the 3 branches and We the People balance each other. In the end, it is We the People who must act (such as harass poor pathetic clerks with phone calls), to bring justice.
The numerous phone calls, while unwanted, are successful in showing this is not an isolated case and the public is very aware of what is happening in this court room.
Orly is right. Shine the light on the actions of these people. Sure they do not like it. Everybody prefers doing illegal things in the dark.
from post&email:
If Hilary Clinton just simply said simple one sentence, this week, it would cause the Obama administration to implode; resurrect the Democratic party as a viable entity in the 2010 elections, and be met with a swift ground swell of support from the entire people of the United States who still believe in the rule of law.
What is this sentence?
“After careful legal and historical study, I don’t believe Obama is a natural born citizen; and therefore I request Congress to hold hearings to determine whether he lawfully occupies the office of President of the United States, in accord with the objective requirements of Article II, Section ii, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution!”
Such a statement would show the following about Hilary Clinton’s character:
1) It would definitely demonstrate that she is a person of integrity, who puts the U.S. Constitution before all else.
2) It would definitely prove that, as a woman, she is not a follower but a leader.
Such a statement would have the following beneficial results from either her point of view, or objectively speaking.
1) It would show Democrats and Republicans that there is life in the political corridors of Washington, D.C., and that her sense of integrity will not be silenced on any issue.
2) It would revitalize the Democratic Party; not only by energizing the Hilary Democrats, but by giving her fellow Democrats who are Senators and Representatives a way of saving their 2010 relection campaigns, by definitively distancing themselves from the constant parade of lies from Obama and his ongoing campaign.
3) It pull the planks out from under the Republican Party, who has not shown even as much integrity or honesty on the issue; and forestall their claim to this issue in the 2010 elections.
4) It would create a political climate in which Carter and Simandle could uphold the constitution.
5) It would completely demolish the house of cards upon which Obama has built his candidacy and regime.
6) It would be simply be the truth.
7) It would be the consummate political maneuver of the century.
8) It would put her in line to ascend to the presidency, when Obama and Biden are shown to be fraud and co-conspirator in fraud, as they are.
9) It would be her right, for having been robbed of the Democratic Nomination by fraud in the primaries (TX, MI, FL).
10) It would be “impeachable testimony,”* because it is manifestly evident from the books of law and history, and from Obama’s biographies, that his father being a british subject, at the time of his birth, causes him to be ipso fact, NOT a natural born citizen; and therefore ineligible to be president.
siseduermapierda, your reasoning is odd. A person is not qualified until papers shown. You seem to think a person is qualified by word of mouth and hearsay. Asking for documentation is not the same as accusing of a murder. You are innocent until proven guilty, and not hired until documented and verified.
Hopefully, someday on every street corner we’ll hear the words “Papers, please.” That’ll be great, no?
If Carter dumps this case, being faced with social security number fraud, I will consider America an illusion that is no longer. But strive to live it, even if not surrounded by it. Watching standing used against military and voters in an election situation is the most surreal experience I have ever had. Where automatic standing should be granted, standing is used to obstruct. Military who are faced with daily possibility of being called to active duty is the opposite of speculative or hypothetical. It is their contract with the government and they have given their lives for the rest of us. What a slap in the face to those who are on possible recall. To ask them to prove they face real injury. Amazing. No wonder lawyers are one of the unhappiest group of people if this is what they deal with every day, people twisting and misusing words to obstruct each other.
“Anonymous says:
October 6, 2009 at 1:40 pm
siseduermapierda,
That’s not true. Obama chose to run making the privacy issue moot.”
Please cite your source that elected officials lose their right to privacy?
Phil,
Thank you for your reply.
brygenon says:
October 6, 2009 at 9:45 am
“Liberty says:
Another great article. Throughout this whole ordeal praying is the one thing that has kept me sane : )
[brygenon replied]
But it hasn’t helped win any cases.
I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions on the keeping-you-sane part either.”
*******
Phil, the above is a case in point. What purpose is achieved, in the course of honest debate, by insulting someone’s heartfelt religious beliefs and then proceeding to question the person’s sanity?
Are we not lectured to be tolerant and to celebrate diversity? Does this apply only to those who believe as the lecturers believe? Does this disallow tolerance for religion? Or is someone equating religion with insanity?
The Court does not have to rule Obama ineligible for Office or attempt to remove him, a trial should take place to determine whether Obama has the qualificiations under the constitution to deploy troops into battle.
Ask Michael New how well that one went over for him. (Captain Rhodes, too.)
I’ve been praying, and I will continue to do so. I’ve been praying that Judge Carter would have the fortitude to rule on the merits of this case and not fold to the incredible amount of pressure we all know he’s been subject to by the defendants and their henchmen. At this point, I’m beginning to wonder whether or not Anyone is listening. Either way, I’ll just start praying more often and more fervently.
You are questioning whether Obama is eligible. You want Secretary Clinton to opine that Obama is ineligible, and somehow that would lead to the chain of succession forgetting about the third and fourth persons in line for the presidency (not to mention somehow Biden also gets thrown out in this weird fantasy).
Again, every single person with the competence to give an informed opinion on this issue has stated that Obama was born in Hawaii, and not a single current legal scholar has stated that under current American citizenship law, people born in the US are not natural born citizens.
I realize that you and other posters on this blog are deeply opposed to President Obama’s agenda. You’re welcome to that. That doesn’t mean that everything you hear from Orly Taitz or Birther Blog #8472 is accurate or true. And just because you’re not calling Obama a name to his face doesn’t mean that the childish name calling that you did engage in (in the very post in which you decried childish name calling!) doesn’t bring down the rhetoric.
And to the poster talking about calling the court, again, ex parte contacts are a fundamental breach of judicial rules. I’m sorry that you don’t understand this basic point of the American judiciary, but it’s true. You can’t lobby judges the same way you lobby members of Congress. You are not supposed to be calling them and telling them to rule the way you want. Judge Carter is absolutely right to say he will ignore these calls, and it would be extremely improper if he allowed ex parte contacts to influence his decision.
As to standing – that too is a fundamental aspect of the judiciary. Maybe instead of something being wrong with several judges from all parts of the country, something is wrong with Orly and company attempting the same suit over and over again when judges have made it clear that there must be an actualized, individualized injury. Paula Jones had standing because she accused President Clinton of being personally sexually harassed. What is Barnett’s individualized injury? The answer is there is none for which any court could provide a remedy.
How would the standing issues in this case be any different from the standing issues in the other cases? (Sue)
There may be no difference. I haven’t looked at the cases. I have been loosely following events because of my schedule.
The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Sanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).
MGB,
Simply put, if the shoe fits, wear it. If the shoe doesn’t fit, toss it.
Attempting to go about refuting every conceivable piece of opposition would be like trying to sift through the world’s beaches for the perfect granule of sand. If you want to do it, so be it. Otherwise, it’s going to be an excruciatingly long and arduous process.
My bottom line (and I’ve said this before): I don’t need the opposition’s validity on what I believe to believe what I believe. However, at the same time, I appreciate the opposition’s points as a means to make sure that I know, for sure, what I already believe.
-Phil
qwertyman,
While I couldn’t agree with you more on the rest of the same paragraph from which this quote is pulled, I will simply have to say — as I’ve said for nearly a year now — I don’t know whether or not Mr. Obama is constitutionally eligible for the presidency. Further, I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution of exactly how Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is to be enforced. So, when you say that he’s eligible “according to every single person competent to give an opinion on the matter,” while you may think you know what you’re talking about, I don’t think as such.
The bottom line is that my site is a part of the great court of public opinion. Sometimes things get stated wrongly, but usually, with enough eyes on the subject, the truth eventually outs.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of egos involved in the process, which makes things more difficult to get to the truth. However, being more difficult clearly does not necessitate with not possibly getting to the truth.
And I aim for the truth every day.
-Phil
For the people that are supporting Orly, you do realize how much of a loon she is…I mean she stated the following on her site…
“What I’ve noticed it that Obama supporters are publishing some COMPLETE GARBAGE calling it unofficial transcripts. In reality they are distorting each and every word I am saying and trying to show me in a negative light. Somebody by name “Waveydavey” has written such garbage and distortions and Phil from “Right side of Life” posted it.”
First of all as Phil indicated before usually “Waveydavey” is more are less accurate with his/her recaps. So for Orly to say that, it goes to show her state of mind. She was percieved in a negative light because that is how she comes off with her lack of legal knowledge.
And to say the following…
“In reality I carried most of the hearing on my shoulders.”
“What concerns me more then anything else, is that Judge Carter sounded completely different from what he was in prior hearings on July 13 and September 8.”
At 11:01 line 13. he says “I wish this would be resolved on it’s MERITS QUICKLY. And he is either not the president or he is”
At 11:07 line 1 Judge Carter states “I mean if he is not president, he shouldn’t be president, if he is he should be. And we need to resolve it on the MERITS”
“On September the 8th judge Carter told the US Attorneys West and DeJutte that the chance of him granting motion to dismiss due to lack of standing is extremely law (sp “low”) and he is ready to rule and have a hearing on this on Sept 11 in 3 days. At that time Gary Kreep squeezed himself in the case representing 2 out of 48 plaintiffs and demanded more time. The hearing was postponed by nearly a month. During this month something happened. At October 5 hearing Judge Carter sounded as a completely different person. He did not sound as a brave Marine any more. He sounded scared, intimidated by somebody or something. He was trying to find ways to dump this case on another court- like DC court, drag his feet by telling us to plead the case again or dismiss on technicality- claiming no one has standing.”
“I poured my heart out for over an hour, and at least he didn’t come up with a negative decision right then and there, but I am concerned. We had a clear deal back in July. If Judge Carter makes a 180 degrees turn now and rules for Obama and does not give me expedited discovery and hearing on the merits as he repeatedly promised during the July 13 hearing, then I and my clients were defrauded by the court. Then there is no system of justice for the citizens of this country.”
So in Orly’s world she “carried” most of the hearing. But what we find more interesting is her implication that she and the Judge had some sort of “deal” that he would hear the cases on the merits and not dismiss it. Now I know 2 people can infer different things from the same event but this is ridiculous even for Orly. If she actually believes that then she is more confused and deluded than we had first thought.
I listed to Waveydavey on a radio interview and he makes fun of and mocks Orly. Just as in this write up he says Cook was pronounced Kook. Subtle and blatant mocking. Carter has clearly been pressured to back off the case and is faced with justifying himself if he moves forward. I can imagine the political pressure applied on him by Holder and Rahm Emanuel, etc. This is a real test of Carter and can he see through the DNC scamming and get to the truth. Waveydavey is just that, and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There are few believes in Orly who expect her to perform as a polished mega lawyer from a big firm…which makes her efforts all the more beautiful. Absolutely sincerity confronts absolute corruption. Her mistakes make her shine the brighter, because she is not ashamed to fight for her country in front of all the mockers and critics and make mistakes, fall and get up again. I feel sad for those who scam her. That they would stand up for a man who seals all his records while he pretends to be president. At least the rest of the world is catching on, and his “fabulous charisma” did not bring home the Olympics so all his business cronies could not profiteer from their land deals in Chicago. Mock Orly all you want, it only shows a great lack of awareness of what a mom will do for her kids. Let the whole world spit in her face, to give them a life.
Sue,
“Cite your source that elected officials lose their right to privacy.”
Answer: Common sense.
Try and get some.
Of course “Off Shore Bob” over at the American Grand Jury was not a happy camper with the results of the hearing…From his site
…
“Judge David O. Carter issued no ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. He did not grant discovery. He cited his need to sort out the complex legal issues, consider all the arguments carefully. Give the Usurper and the defense a plus ONE on this argument. However, there is nothing complex about the judge’s reaction here. The judge is probably fearful for his job. After all, he is a government employee living in one of the most “liberal” and “government controlled” states in the nation.”
“Regarding military plaintiffs, Judge Carter mentioned that there was a ruling in the 9th circuit which denied “standing” to oath takers on the basis that this was not a particularized injury. The judge was concerned about standing claims and wanted to know what the actual injuries were, and how standing was being justified. This has now become the “famous” cop-out being used by judges around the Country. My God, you would think they could find something a little more convincing. Standing my ass.. EVERY PERSON that voted in the last United States election has standing. Every US Citizen that has had to put up with his rights being usurped by this foreign-born national living in the White House has standing. The Constitution has had standing from the day it was signed into law 220 years ago. Judge Carter.. this is total BS, trying to use the excuse of “standing” is without merit.”
I guess there will be another “presentment” by the fake “grand jury” against Judge Carter in our future…
http://americangrandjury.org/did-judge-o-carter-of-the-us-district-court-just-wimp-out#comments
But even scarier are some of the comments over there…
You have the delusional….
“You all fail to realize that Judge Carter has no authority. The Constitution has failed and is no more. No law that Congress signs is legal because ALL LAWS requires the signature of a PRESIDENT. Therefore, no taxes are legal, no expenditures for Federal expense are legal (e.i. the salary of a federal judge) so any ruling Carter makes is null and void. No Federal money can be paid to the Supreme court…no president is in office to sign such an authorization of payment. The Constitution is only in force when we have a President to sign the bills and legislation for taxes and payments.Currently, you are only a citizen of your state. Nothing Carter (he’s no longer a Federal judge) means a tiddle. He is merely a common citizen expressing a personal opinion. Why do you even care what he has to say?”
But even worse you have the ones that believe in violence…
“Looks like the judicial system has been ursurped also. Maybe we need another 2 million men marching on D.C. again….. Armed!”
“I think we should put together a plan following the next grand jury and carry it out until Obama is out.”
“I think that we should give the Judge a reasonable amount of time to come to a decision (Three Days) then we should take a stand “Do Or Die” We must be as strong as our Founding Fathers. They showed us the right direction. We have tried every other peaceful means…”
“There are many around the internet especially on the resistnet group that cite the case of Bennedict Arnold and how the matter of treason was handled by our fore fathers. Maybe we the people would have standing in precidence in using our fore fathers’ example here. 2 million or so people bent on justice could be hard to stop.”
“I will be willing to give him a month if he needs that long. I would be calling everyone I know within the military, trusted members of the federal government, state government, and fellow judges. Notice I said, trusted. I am going to hope for the best, but be prepared for the worse. I view this situation, the same way I view a serial killer. They will keep killing, until someone stops them. They are sociopaths, just like Obama(not all sociopaths murder.)”
So the so called “true patriots” are advocating violence or a coup? Were they reading newsmax last week? Come on, this is America, a nation of laws. So every time there is an election result some don’t like they have the right to violence? For true Americans this kind of talk and rhetoric is scary…..
Black Lion: So in Orly’s world she “carried” most of the hearing. But what we find more interesting is her implication that she and the Judge had some sort of “deal” that he would hear the cases on the merits and not dismiss it.
Well, she obviously has been carrying the most. She has a much more expansive knowledge of everything that has been evolving throughout this past year. Gary Kreep seems like a nice little man who doesn’t want to rock the boat, but his forever little man carping about Orly – why she’s getting in his way, etc., sounds so petty and if that’s the same attitude he puts forth in a court he must appear rather wimpy. I mean it was his decision to continue to push himself on this case where he isn’t wanted. Very passive aggressive. He can’t have it both ways or he looks like the little brother who wants to hang around the big kids but slows everything down. He sounds just “reasonable” but always blaming Orly on the various talk radio shows he’s on. A whiner, but couching it in such a nice way! Ick! But when a caller asked him about the NBC question he said that he didn’t believe in the definition accepted by most conservatives – sorry, but that right there would have made any attorney working for just that to not want him anywhere near her arguments. Kreep said that IF his client/s asked him about that question THEN he would research it more and do what the clients wanted. Wow! What a background of knowledge and conviction on this whole subject. Frankly, Orly has a response with precedents that usually exceeds the understanding of those she is arguing with. And that’s usually because they are just not as interested/knowledgable in the question nor have the passion. I think if most examined what really irritates them about her it’s her drive and aggressiveness – esp. for a female!!
And….after all of the energy, time and money that it appears she’s spent on this cause, why would she want someone to paraphrase her words/arguments? Leo Donofrio has also resented others paraphrasing him to others/blogs, etc. People who have researched the finer points and gathered massive amounts of questionable information naturally resent others, without the same understanding, generalizing about their efforts. It’s human nature. And I don’t see others getting all of this out to the public – which is the only way to get more people even interested. Other media, even conservative, sure haven’t pushed it.
As far as any “deal” – she is holding a man to his own words and implications of them – not just once, but twice. Maybe if Kreep hadn’t horned in and extended the time until Oct. 5, there would not have been the time for Carter to be influenced away from his original stance. The more people just sit back and passively report on what others with passion do, the more time is lost to actually do anything about all their complaints. Sounds like the description of “this generation is like those who sit and give orders – I played you a tune but you didn’t dance, etc.”
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/
Here is an interesting observation of the day in court, quite different from Waveydavey, who mocks Orly, as all good Alinsky kids learn to do.
Your personal interpretation of common sense does not constitute federal law, nor does it take the unprecedented step of shifting the burden of proof from a plaintiff making allegations to a defendant.
And while waveydavey is certainly no fan of Orly, when looking at actual transcripts subsequently published, he has every time been more accurate in his depiction of events than Orly.
And Phil:
The US attorney at the hearing yesterday I think gave the most appropriate answer. If the president were found to be ineligible for office, that would constitute incapacity under the 25th Amendment. This would give the authority to a majority of the Cabinet or Congress. The only times the constitution uses the word “sole” is to describe Congress’ power to impeach and remove the president. Enforcement of the eligibility clause has been granted to Congress.
Observer says:
October 6, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Black Lion: So in Orly’s world she “carried” most of the hearing. But what we find more interesting is her implication that she and the Judge had some sort of “deal” that he would hear the cases on the merits and not dismiss it.
As far as any “deal” – she is holding a man to his own words and implications of them – not just once, but twice. Maybe if Kreep hadn’t horned in and extended the time until Oct. 5, there would not have been the time for Carter to be influenced away from his original stance. The more people just sit back and passively report on what others with passion do, the more time is lost to actually do anything about all their complaints. Sounds like the description of “this generation is like those who sit and give orders – I played you a tune but you didn’t dance, etc.”
________________________________________________________________
Oberver, interesting points. However part of hearing a case on the merits involve the issue of standing. It is not the fault of Judge Carter that Orly and Charles Lincoln with their limited legal knowledge did not understand that. The first question any judge would ever ask regarding a hearing is if this is the right venue to hear the case. The Constitution is explicit regarding who can bring charges against the President. And when he asked about standing, of course she had no answer because there is none. Only Congress can bring charges against the President. So there was no “deal”. He heard her merits regarding the case, and heard the merits of the argument of the government. Of course the government would bring up the standing issue, which is proper. She just needs to accept the fact that she cannot win that battle.
SOMEBODY is getting to the judge.
Is it the same somebody who’s kept Obama so protected, so long?
I believe this judge is afraid.
ch says:
October 6, 2009 at 2:02 pm
*A person is not qualified until papers shown. You seem to think a person is qualified by word of mouth and hearsay. *
I am not aware of any law or regulation that requires any candidate anywhere to release any document. Please cite them for me. Also please list the documents you have personally seen for John S McCain, George W Bush, William J Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Why did you believe Sarah Palin was qualified to be Vice President? Vice President has the same qualifications for office as President, what documents did Palin show to the public that satisfied you she was eligible? She didn’t. You just took her word. Why are you satisfied with Palin’s say-so? You don’t really know any more about Palin than Obama. All you have is hearsay from others. Get out that list of documents of Obama’s you want to see. How many did Palin show? McCain? Romney? Huckabee? That’s right, none of them showed any similar documents, not even birth certificates. Not even McCain. Why are you OK with taking their word, but not Obama’s? Why do you want to hold Obama to a different standard? A standard that is not supported by current law?
Phil, if your still reading.
Read all 32 pages.
Impressions:
1. Carter seemed like a fair guy trying to get it right.
2. I personally don’t think that Judge Carter should concern himself with ‘impeachment’ which is legislative responsibility. His job is only to judge if the Constitution has been violated and people have been harmed. Money is an appropriate compensation if they have been ‘harmed’. The removal part is up to the legislative branch, or D.C. court.
3. I affirm the Judges belief that shopping will continue, and someone needs to state what constitutes standing for ‘joe public’. There is more danger in claiming ‘no standing’, then in granting standing, in a Constitutional Republic when it comes to questioning government. Granting standing will at least make succession or armed insurrection as an ‘alternatives’ much less likely.
4. I believe him when he says that writing letters interferes with his job, and I don’t want to do that. I hope everyone respects that.
5. I believe that if no court takes this issue, that it will set precedence for future voter fraud cases. That means, your better off breaking the law and getting in. Future questions on voter fraud will never have ‘standing’ because precedent has been set.
6. Judge Carter was utterly and completely wrong about one thing. When it comes to power and money, people are 90+% corruptible. I think more than any single issue, this is why he won’t hear the case. I base this on his ‘what if’s', I don’t see ‘what if’ Obama is eligible for the office he holds!
7. Judge Carter’s says that it should have been addressed prior to the inauguration, I agree. This points a finger right at the SCOTUS, who could have reviewed the issues prior. He should direct blame at the SCOTUS, not the plaintiffs.
Honestly, it looks like Judge Carter is looking for a reason to grant dismissal then he will find what he is looking for. I think it will forever weaken the people’s ability to safeguard themselves from despots and corruption though non-violent means. Worse yet, even if Obama isn’t in-eligible, the path has now been laid for whatever political party to win control by any means, legal or illegal, and to the victor the spoils. The words of Rush Limbaugh “wait until we get back in and use all this stuff against you” echo in my mind.
The future will be inevitable; uncontrolled, totally corrupt, unaccountable government…and with it will usher the next revolution and/or succession. So,….let the games begin.
ch says:
October 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm
*I think the public should contact whomever they want and those contacted should treat the public with utmost respect rather than tossing their viewpoints in to the garbage. *
It isn’t proper for a private citizen to contact the court ex parte attempting to make arguments to sway a decision. Calling, writing, faxing, emailing the judge on how you think he should decide a case is not like calling your congressman and telling them you think they should vote a certain way on the health care bill.
You heard it right from Judge Carter – he said please don’t do it.
siseduermapierda, You are funny. Is Palin president? I have a sneaky suspicion if Palin were asked to show her full birth certificate, it would have taken less than a day. If asked to show her college applications, less than a week.
You keep asking people to “cite their sources.” To cite a source is to merely refer to the written thoughts of another person. Since when does that validate anything? I have confidence in my own thinking.
Can’t you think for yourself? Or do you have to “cite a source” to validate your own weak logic.
God bless you!
When the official transcript is obtained, Wavey Davey’s version will be spot on. Orly’s, not so much. This has already been proven to be the case. I think Orly hears what she wants to hear rather than what is actually said.
Black Lion: Oberver, interesting points. However part of hearing a case on the merits involve the issue of standing. It is not the fault of Judge Carter that Orly and Charles Lincoln with their limited legal knowledge did not understand that. The first question any judge would ever ask regarding a hearing is if this is the right venue to hear the case. The Constitution is explicit regarding who can bring charges against the President. And when he asked about standing, of course she had no answer because there is none. Only Congress can bring charges against the President. So there was no “deal”. He heard her merits regarding the case, and heard the merits of the argument of the government. Of course the government would bring up the standing issue, which is proper. She just needs to accept the fact that she cannot win that battle.
I think your argument is with the judge, not Orly. If not then I don’t know what materials you are using for your reference. The argument for standing was duly presented. The judge made the statement that he is involved with a unique case without precedent guidance for himself. Such a statement opens himself to review the case from a perspective outside of the defense’s lack of answers (which, btw, the judge was not happy with).
Again, from your assessment of what was presented, I really don’t know what script you were reading from. Write your own book, but here stick to the facts.
It is not the fault of Judge Carter that Orly and Charles Lincoln with their limited legal knowledge did not understand that.
Glibness doesn’t substitute for the reality either. And certainly the many witnesses, beyond the attorneys, to the conduct and statements of Judge Carter in HIS court in the previous hearings witness to his outline for the future of the case. If he now is in some kind of denial of his own actions previously that certainly is not Orly’s fault…it’s his and his lack integrity. He’s been guiding the proceedings … the buck stops with him.
Sue says:
October 6, 2009 at 6:17 pm
When the official transcript is obtained, Wavey Davey’s version will be spot on
Soothsayers we have here too!!
When the official transcript is obtained, Wavey Davey’s version will be spot on
Soothsayers we have here too!!
It was a comment based on their respective track records, not soothsaying.
Bob says:
October 6, 2009 at 6:52 pm
When the official transcript is obtained, Wavey Davey’s version will be spot on
Soothsayers we have here too!!
It was a comment based on their respective track records, not soothsaying.
Meaningful discussions don’t bother with personally denegrating assumptions which themselves result from prejudicial error.
Meaningful discussions don’t bother with personally denegrating assumptions which themselves result from prejudicial error.
The prejudice resulting from Taitz’s own inaccuracies is her own fault.
Funny how you ignored the part of his post about how there’s no prior president who has been subjected to this degree of questioning on this subject. Why do you have such grave doubts over Obama that nobody has had over any other president before? Why do you think that the President is lying about his own birthplace? What evidence leads you to that conclusion?
It makes me laugh to watch every tom, dick and harry play attorney or judge; they say the most ridiculous things. Sue, when the official transcript becomes available, the plaintiffs and defendants will all have the exact same copy from the court reporter. There won’t be a his version vs. her version. So you can squelch your plans to mock Orly Taitz.
Phil, I am so glad you suggested to incorporate prayer; thank you for having the boldness to get to the core of things. You people may choose to believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, but it doesn’t change the true fact that he wasn’t. His place of birth is indeed Kenya, and you can’t change that no more than you can erase God off the face of the earth just because you can’t see him. It’s true you cannot lobby judges. No one should be calling any judges’ chambers to sway their opinion unless, of course, you are Obama. Sorry, I just couldn’t resist that one. LOL!!
For those who follow the Lord, remember God is the all-knowning, all-seeing Supreme Judge. We will all stand before HIM on judgment day, even earthly judges. So since God is higher and just than any judge, it makes sense to turn this entire situation into His hands. You don’t go before an earthly judge without names. Then get your names out and present them to God as if you were standing in Court. Those who serve God have STANDING in His courtroom. Let the pegans trust and believe in a fallen, corruptable system. We have STANDING. Let’s release our petitions to God and state our case about Obama and his administration to the Supreme Judge. After all, that’s what He is waiting for. The power of God will shed light on the dark areas and bring everything that is hidden into the light. The battle is much easier to fight this way and the results work toward everybody’s benefit. It’s a win/win situation.
Correct me if I’m wrong but this seems so bogus. Congress is not the only one that can bring charges against the President, First off, if the POTUS comes to my town and starts stealing, beating his mistress or pulling out a gun to rob or murder someone, the local Sheriff could arrest him and throw his ass is in jail! He might make bail but he might not. He along with the Secret Service could be a threat to run so until then he might have to sit. And if he’s expeditiously prosecuted and found guilty he could end up in Leavenworth. Oops! How’s that. He was removed from the Presidency by a lowly Sheriff and a local judge! So, if there were criminal charges brought against a sitting president, it wouldn’t be done by the Supreme Court would it. It would be done by a City, County, or District Court. Any of which could prosecute him and send him to jail forcing his removal from office. So why is it the DOJ thinks a lowly U.S. District court can possibly have the power to remove the President. The POTUS is not above the law! Once he’s found guilty, the Senate might impeach and remove him from office, but in this case maybe not because he might not even be eligible to be impeached! In conclusion, the POTUS is dispensible. He can be replaced by a million other Joes! I just hope Judge Carter can remember this and think like a man! All U.S citizens have standing. All mothers and faterhs of Dead Soldiers have standing and can demonstrate damages. Pull the plug, if he’s found to be guilty make him step down, if he’s not, then “My guitar gently weeps!”
I think it’s worth thinking about what motivates Judge Carter. I have no special insight here, just an understanding of what motivates trial judges in general. Typically, a prime motivation for such judges is avoiding getting reversed on appeal. That motivation causes trial judges not to be particularly eager to break new ground, reach unprecedented conclusions etc. It’s the state of mind where describing an argument as “creative” is criticism, not praise. Thus, the safe ruling here for Judge Carter is to dismiss. He has case authority telling him there is no standing and no justiciability (because it’s a political question allocated by the Constitution to Congress). From his point of view, it’s not persuasive to him to either use non-legal arguments about how important this case is or patently political arguments that depend upon a complete rejection of Obama as the sitting president. He needs to be shown how this case is NOT “unprecedented” and that standing and justiciability here fall within the broad framework of accepted law. Orly does not appear to have the legal ability to make such arguments; indeed, this is probably not her fault because as far as I know there are no such arguments. This case does not fall within the usual framework of standing and justiciability. To allow this case to continue (and not be dismissed), Judge Carter would have to take an unprecedented step, basically invent new law on standing and justiciability, and thus expose himself to almost certain reversal on appeal. And Judge Carter, like most federal district judges, is most likely not interested in doing that.
Chris: He needs to be shown how this case is NOT “unprecedented” and that standing and justiciability here fall within the broad framework of accepted law. Orly does not appear to have the legal ability to make such arguments; indeed, this is probably not her fault because as far as I know there are no such arguments.
Except that the judge discussed the lack of precedent for guidance already in this particular case – so he described it as rather “unprecedented” himself. And Orly’s argument for standing has been based on that fact but intermingling it still with citizen redress under the Constitution.
And to Bob – “inaccuracies” or technicalities do not cause personal prejudicial attitudes that leave no room for the broader reasoning. Prejudice such as this only blinds one from noticing the more important movement of getting hearings where no one else has succeeded thus far. Persistence is admirable.
qwertyman,
While the US attorney has every right to their opinion of what the law says, the only contextual use of “sole” is with respect to impeachment. However, this is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. One cannot impeach an illegitimate President, assuming that it can officially be found that Mr. Obama is ineligible for office; it’s rather difficult to impeach someone who is, by definition, unqualified for the position.
Regarding enforcement of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that makes reference to enforcement of said clause. While you can certainly hold the opinion that enforcement has been granted to Congress, I see no verbiage that states that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility enforcement. After all, we do have we, the People (both via the election process — read: campaign — as well as the 10th Amendment); yes, the Congress; the States; the respective political parties; and the Electoral College.
In other words, not only is there no known law for eligibility enforcement, there is also no known degree to which it should be enforced (e.g.: how much is enough to make such a determination?), nor is there any law that speaks as to whom is the authority for such enforcement. In this case, per the Constitution, anything that is not specifically enumerated within the document (e.g.: up to the feds) must necessarily flow down through to the States and/or the People, respectively.
-Phil
A small, perhaps reversible step ahead, for the “birthers’” cause – a much larger and of good omen step ahead in the destruction of the liberal wing of the Dem party:
And here are a the alternatives we face:
1) Judge Carter will let the case travel to the January, 2010 hearing, which is good for nice people and bad for crooks…
a) or judge Carter will throw out the case entirely sometime before the January 2010 hearing, the plaintiffs’ ensuing action being:
b) arguing against this in 9th Circuit, which, at its turn, may either accept the merits of the case, which is good for nice people and bad for crooks, or…
c) or kick the case out, the case moving rapidly on the SCOTUS venue, where…
As causing a spectacular fall of the house of lies that the Dems have built & maintain for Obama, I doubt that this particular action will do it, and probably Obama will finish this term in the house.
However, the fact that this case now is legitimely travelling in the court system will in a longer run cause much damage to the Dems, and eventually will erode their electoral position in great extent.
Obama will be eventually proved as a fraud, yet even after being proved as a fraud he will be absolved somehow, on political grounds – and here’s the sunny side of this: no political cushioning of his fall will be able to muffle the growing crimial scandal around him, i.e., his having been KNOWINGLY INVOLVED IN A FRAUDULENT FUNDRISING SCHEME ($700 millions) SINCE HE WAS AWARE OF HIS BEING INELIGIBILE FOR THE POSITION HE WAS RISING MONEY.
This will be Obama’s undoing -
“inaccuracies” or technicalities do not cause personal prejudicial attitudes that leave no room for the broader reasoning.
But being caught in bald-faced lies will.
Prejudice such as this only blinds one from noticing the more important movement of getting hearings where no one else has succeeded thus far.
If getting a hearing on a motion is considered a success, congratulations. (Although that would be odd since the subject of two of those hearings was Taitz’s incompetence, i.e., failure to properly serve.)
I’d suggest, though, saving the champagne for when the government’s motion to dismiss is actually denied.
God The Highest Judge,
I don’t think I could have said this part of your comment any better. Excellent job. This is precisely what anyone of the faith should be doing in the spiritual realm with all of this.
In theology, some people have called charismatics, “name-it-and-claim-its.” However, I prefer to call standing on God’s promises “declare it and move boldly forward under the auspices that He’s already prepared the path forward anyway.”
You people are great, even the opposition commenters. I continue to be proud of the fact that my non-moderated comments policy seems to be achieving its desired affect — excellent, robust debate while maintaining a reasonable threshold of civility.
Keep it up.
-Phil
brjam says:
October 6, 2009 at 8:04 pm
*Correct me if I’m wrong but this seems so bogus. Congress is not the only one that can bring charges against the President, First off, if the POTUS comes to my town and starts stealing, beating his mistress or pulling out a gun to rob or murder someone, the local Sheriff could arrest him and throw his ass is in jail! *
You’re wrong. The President is immune from arrest, indictment and criminal prosecution while in office. Now he could be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate and removed from office for criminal offenses, and then perhaps prosecuted after being removed from office.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/expresident.htm
But a sitting President is immune from arrest and criminal prosecution. The Secret Service wouldn’t let your local sheriff anywhere near him.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/1997Presidential.pdf
“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”
The ONLY way to remove a sitting President is by Impeachment and Prosecution. Barack Obama is legally the President.
We are all adults here, and as adults we know there are consequences for are actions, so if you do not agree with his policies, you can a) do nothing, b) support him, c) not support him, d) protest and picket, its your choice, live the dream! As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I would not bet the farm on this one. She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a crazy Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all these legal filings, her travel and all her wigs? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I heard they are now playing the victim card as well. Please, feel sorry for us the “Birth Certificate” that we built our entire case around and that we have been dancing around turn out to be a big “Fake”. Her material might work on “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.
ch says:
October 6, 2009 at 6:03 pm
*Is Palin president? I have a sneaky suspicion if Palin were asked to show her full birth certificate, it would have taken less than a day. If asked to show her college applications, less than a week.*
The eligibility question preceded Obama becoming President. You were asking about his eligibility before the election, that’s why I listed the other Presidential candidates, and the VP candidate, who must meet the same constitutional eligibility requirements as the Presidential candidates. Why didn’t you demand to see their kindergarten records? Why does the “list of documents requested from Obama” include Baptismal records when there is no religious test to hold public office in this country? What is the basis for your positive “sneaky suspicion” about Palin? Why are you willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and not Obama? Her college transcripts might contain interesting information about her qualifications to hold the office of VP, but they have nothing to do with her consitutional eligibility. My sneaky suspicion is she would be reluctant to release them. They really don’t matter. McCain was asked to show his birth certificate but never did. The one posted by a reporter didn’t come from McCain and hasn’t been authenticated. We only know where he ranked in his Naval Academy class because it’s a public record. So why do McCain and Palin get a pass and Obama doesn’t? Why did Hillary? Or Ron Paul? Why do you want to verify only Obama?
how come on one has filed a declaratary judgement case against Obama to determine his citizenship status??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment
how come on one has filed a declaratary judgement case against Obama to determine his citizenship status??
Craig (in which cert. was denied, BTW) was sort of an attempt to do that.
But same reason as always: standing.
(And declaratory judgment is rarely allowed a freestanding complaint; it is usually associated with another cause of action, such as breach of contract.)
Sise: The President is immune from arrest, indictment and criminal prosecution while in office,
He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office or he wouldn’t have to bring in personal attorneys to fight such requests. If those point to illegality then you have a whole different situation where there simply is no legal office that can resort to the usual legal pathways of removal. If he isn’t legal he can’t be impeached.
Paul: As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants
And who within the myriad of cases and attorneys thus far and still in the pipeline, and even the further 9 cases yet to be filed by Kreep, DOES have that proof???? Why are you being so selective?
Bob: I’d suggest, though, saving the champagne for when the government’s motion to dismiss is actually denied.
Who knows the outcome. But whatever, it’s no call for sour grapes while the attempt is being made. Success would be desired but faithfulness is still important. As Mother Theresa said – “we’re not called to be successful, only faithful”.
An interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that applies to Barnett v. Obama and may help Judge Carter with some of the decisions he has to make; an election issue regarding eligibility, subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and after election judicial action. Hopefully Taitz and Kreep will use this in a follow-up to Judge Carter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2356333/posts
But whatever, it’s no call for sour grapes while the attempt is being made.
Unless that attempt is abusive of the judicial process, and wastes precious judicial resources.
As Mother Theresa said
Taitz is no Mother Theresa.
And who within the myriad of cases and attorneys thus far and still in the pipeline, and even the further 9 cases yet to be filed by Kreep, DOES have that proof????
No one; that’s the point.
He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office
Obama also doesn’t have to comply with such a request, and no attempt to judicially enforce such a request has been successful.
he wouldn’t have to bring in personal attorneys to fight such requests
His “personal” attorneys only represent Obama in the few cases that were initiated prior to him becoming president.
RE siseduermapierda Re brjam:
RE: You’re wrong. The President is immune from arrest, indictment and criminal prosecution while in office. Now he could be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate and removed from office for criminal offenses, and then perhaps prosecuted after being removed from office.
But a sitting President is immune from arrest and criminal prosecution. The Secret Service wouldn’t let your local sheriff anywhere near him.
Sise, keep shining wisdom around: if a president is proven that before election he murdered in cold blood, bestially someone, the legal action for bringing him to justice has to wait ’till the president exhausts his term, and obviously, uses all his powers to quash any (rightful) legal action against him? That is, say, three years, in which an entire nation has to meekly watch how a proven criminal is enjoying the highest honors and benefits the president’s office offers, without objecting anything, politely waiting for some hypothetic impeachment to come?
Can you enlarge a bit upon this? And upon the “L’etat, c’est moi” pronouncement by late Obama XIV-th?
siseduermapierda,
You ask why not seek the records of the others. Personally, I never saw any reason to believe Palin was born elsewhere and did not have American parents. Nothing in her behavior concerned me. Quite the opposite. Watching the way the media attacked her and studying the changes she made in Alaska, I was very impressed and new they were after her big time, as she was a real threat to the media goal of Obama being President. I voted for McCain/Palin, because I knew they were not into killing babies. When I saw court efforts to verify Obama, asking for simple records, a birth certificate, and saw people being blocked in court, I wrote the DNC for their verification. They responded my request was forward to the Legal Department and I never heard another peep. I watched the Obama lawyers blocking access to his records rather than pulling out a $10 certificate. If I had seen Palin do this, or McCain or anybody else, I would be equally concerned. Watching Obama’s dance, I began to see his connections to Soros, Rezko, his growing up, his communist agenda. Most of all, I visited a Carmelite monastery and asked them to pray for our country. I had a friend from Chile who had alerted me about half a year before the elections that Obama was extremely DANGEROUS. I laughed, what do you mean? Chile had been taken over by communist thugs, and he knew what was happening. Just like Orly knows what was happening. But I started to notice. Obama was not normal. His campaign was not normal. He made me extremely uncomfortable when he spoke. Creepy. Hollow. At the Carmelite monastery I received quite a surprise. The Mother Superior said Obama was a student of Alinsky. I said, Who is Alinsky? I came home and studied. ALINSKY WROTE A BOOK DEDICATED TO THE FIRST REBEL SATAN, ON HOW TO GET POWER. It explained everything. Obama’s lies and behavior, saying one thing, doing another. He claimed transparency as he sealed all his records. He lied lied lied lied. I began to see the Alinsky pattern. I watched McCain be a gentleman in the campaign and try to even protect Obama. I watched the Obama media mock and belittle people. I have watched them mock Orly, and interrupt her constantly when she tries to speak, and twist everything people say, like they toyed with Palin. Completely sickening behavior towards another person. I began to see Obama was not only not walking the talk, but when I read his schooling to Harvard was provided by Arabian money, and watched him bow to the ground to the Saudis, hardly American behavior, or presidential behavior, it all added up. I knew the McCain had been a prisoner of war, and while he was older, I never saw him act in a way the showed betrayal of America. His choice of Sarah Palin was amazing. Sarah was amazing in her standing up to corruption in Alaska. Obama said he would not tolerate lobbying, as he placed lobbyists throughout his office. I read how his wife got her salary doubled at the hospital she worked at, when Obama became Senator. Obama seldom voted on issues in Illinois. So, in answer to your questions, Obama’s behavior has driven my concern. If Sarah or McCain had behaved the same, and started hiding all their records, and lying about everything, I would be equally concerned. If Obama cannot show simple birth certification, then he has yet to be seated as president, in my opinion. If he has to hire big law firms to block access, then he is obviously not qualified and hiding something. If he proceeds to seal university records which would show whether he attended as American or foreign student, then he is hiding something. If he has to seal all his passports, then he is obviously hiding something. If this were happening with Sarah or McCain, I would be equally concerned. People say he “has a right to privacy.” I say he has to yield to the same yardstick he uses for others. Obama himself had an opponent for the US Senate’s divorce records which were sealed, opened. Obama said “the public’s need to know is greater than his need for privacy.” That is the real Obama. He drove his opponent out of the race. I think if he cannot respect the privacy of others, then his own privacy is not to be respected. If you want to have the position of president of the US, then you have to expect your life to be examined. He is not willing to have his life examined, while he parades the lives of others for public view. This is contemptible and I think that when all of his records come to light, those who supported him and going to be quite embarrassed for who they defended. I have not seen anybody come forward with any information that makes Sara Palin look to not be eligible to be president. She seems to be natural born citizen, with 2 US parents and born in the US. McCain seems to have 2 citizen parents and lied about where he was born. I think this information would have come out, and I would have studied who he was. I do think that with military parents, this creates an exception. But I am told that the military manual informs military that if there children are born overseas, they will not be “naturla born” and eligible for the presidency. This is evidently why Congress held a special meeting to say he was eligible to run. Which now it looks like they had no legal basis for doing that. Obama seems to not be eligible to be president. He has one citizen parent who was too young to even pass citizenship, he has shown no proof of being born in a hospital in the US, only a short form that needs to be backed up by the long form, and he has a foreign father. So Obama has failed the qualification test. If he comes forth with a birth certificate showing he was born in the US, and had an American father, then he will be eligible to be president, but guilty of fraud, posing as having a Kenyan father. So you see, it is the behavior of Obama, that started my concern, His unwillingness to bring forth a simple document all Americans have. Then my friend from Chile had laid the groundwork because he had researched Obama’s connections and knew he was sneaking in with a group that was disastrous, posing as something else. Then Obama’s behavior escalated, as everybody’s efforts by writing the Secretaries of state, as I did, and many across the nation, contacting the DNC and being ignored, all fed into the sad fact, that Obama is part of a group of tricksters, and it will be quite a fight to get them out. But Truth always wins. I hope that answers your questions.
ch says:
That’s a fine example of conspiracy theory thinking: treating a purely imaginary showing of Palin’s birth certificate as if it’s somehow better than Obama’s actual disclosure of his.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVBXzf4eUJg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72owr0i69MQ&feature=related
October 13, 1917, The Mother of Christ appeared at Fatima and warned of communism, the “errors that would spread from Russia.”
Pray the Rosary and sacrifice….to protect America from communism.
Someone fancying himself God The Highest Judge wrote:
These sorts of religious declarations are pretty much the opposite of rational argument. One can always proclaim one’s self the winner in some unknowable future action before God, no matter how god-awful one’s case in the courts we can actually see.
Pastor Wiley S. Drake, a plaintiff in the action at issue here, has stated that he prays for God to kill President Obama*. I’ll attack that prayer as revolting, but I’ll defend it as his legal right, Constitutionally protected by our secular government.
[* Alan Colmes' Show, 2 June 2009]
The great American traditional of religious liberty doesn’t mean that “God is on my side” is an intelligent argument.
What I really want to know is this…why is there a US Attorney sitting next to the defense, defending the eligibility of a man who admits having held British Citizenship at birth, and opposing the protection of the Constitution of the United States of America, which he has sworn to uphold?
Thats pretty blunt and straight to the point. This is shenanigans and the US Atty has failed his duty and responsibility, and effectively has committed an act of treason by aiding and abetting a usurper of the Office of the POTUS.
Observer,
“He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office ”
Bingo! The long list of personal records demanded have nothing whatsoever to do with his office or the eligibility issue, some that are protected by privacy laws. The only document required to prove eligibility is the certified COLB issued by the State of Hawaii which clearly states that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no other information required to prove eligibility. That document has been released by President Obama and certified authentic by Hawaii DOH officials.
Sue,
When did Mr. Obama ever release his birth certificate and when was it certified as authentic by Hawaiian DOH officials?
There was a short form document posted on the internet that was claimed to his “Certificate of Live Birth”, but this document is a questionable origin. Also, a “Certificate of Live Birth” is NOT proof of where he was born unlike a “Birth Certificate”
Has Mr. Obama ever presented a certified copy of his “Birth Certificate” in response to any of the many court cases? Or has he, through his legal team fought these cases on technicalities?
There have been no official releases of documents by Mr. Obama!
ch says:
October 7, 2009 at 12:48 am
*Personally, I never saw any reason to believe Palin was born elsewhere and did not have American parents.*
You have no reason to believe Obama wasn’t born here. You know more about Obama’s birth than Palin’s. You’ve seen a scanned copy of Obama’s COLB that shows he was born in Hawaii, you’ve heard 2 statements from the Hawaii director of health confirming Obama was born in Hawaii and you have the index data from the Hawaiian dept of health that shows Obama was born in Hawaii. You know his mother was an American. You don’t really know where Palin was born, or who her parents really are. You only have her word. You still haven’t explained why you were willing to take her word.
*Nothing in her behavior concerned me.*
If it was Obama’s behavior that concerned you, your remedy was at the ballot box. His behavior has nothing to do with his eligibility to be President. If you don’t think he’s eligible, prove it. If you just don’t like him or his behavior,find a candidate who can beat him in 2012.
*I voted for McCain/Palin, because I knew they were not into killing babies.*
I have never heard anything that suggests Obama is “into” killing babies.
*I wrote the DNC for their verification. They responded my request was forward to the Legal Department and I never heard another peep.*
There is no law that requires candidates to publicly prove their eligibility. If you don’t like that there isn’t a law, work with your congressman to write legislation. You don’t get to just make up laws.
*I watched the Obama lawyers blocking access to his records rather than pulling out a $10 certificate.*
Obama scanned his COLB and posted it online in early 2008. People called it a forgery. He had no obligation to show you a birth certificate. After doing more than he needed to do, why would he do more? The people accusing him of not being eligible have the burden of proof, not Obama. Obama has the benefit of assumption.
*If I had seen Palin do this, or McCain or anybody else, I would be equally concerned. *
McCain was asked to show his birth certificate and never did. You voted for him anyway. Apparently you weren’t that concerned. Why are you concerned about Obama, but not McCain? Why are you applying a different standard to Obama than McCain and Palin?
Tom says:
October 7, 2009 at 6:39 am
*Has Mr. Obama ever presented a certified copy of his “Birth Certificate” in response to any of the many court cases? Or has he, through his legal team fought these cases on technicalities?
There have been no official releases of documents by Mr. Obama!*
President Obama has the benefit of assumption. Scanning his COLB and putting it online was more than he was required to do. After people called it a fake, why would he do more? He showed good faith and had it thrown back in his face. Why do you think he’s going to give you the time of day? He doesn’t have to respond to lawsuits in which his accusers fail to present proof of their accusations. The burden of proving he’s not eligible falls on people who accuse him, not on Obama. Not releasing any and all information to counter accusations is not a sign of hiding something. If you were accused of something in court, and people said “all you have to do is prove it’s not true”, you wouldn’t respond by releasing anything and everything they demanded. Your lawyer wouldn’t let you do it. It’s up to your accuser to prove it. Do you really want the burden of proof in this country to be shifted to the accused? Would you like to see our system turned around so someone has to prove their innocence? That’s what your asking of Obama. If it gets changed for the President, it will be changed for all of us.
Standing, Jurisdiction and Justiciability are not technicalities. Failure of a plaintiff to satisfy Burden of Proof is not a technicality. Just because a case never reaches the discovery phase or presenting of evidence and testimony in court doesn’t mean it was decided on a technicality. Where did you get this idea?
Sue says:
October 7, 2009 at 5:52 am
Observer,
“He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office ”
Bingo! The long list of personal records demanded have nothing whatsoever to do with his office or the eligibility issue, some that are protected by privacy laws. The only document required to prove eligibility is the certified COLB issued by the State of Hawaii which clearly states that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no other information required to prove eligibility. That document has been released by President Obama and certified authentic by Hawaii DOH officials.
Sue, you need to prepare yourself better on the Constitutional questions. If you really have no interest in the background questions then please spare those who do and are seemingly far better researched than yourself the monotonous knee jerk sound bite responses of the new Stepford Wives. How many times are you willing to buy that same bridge??? The British citizenship question links to the present day through the nuances of British law. Your intellectual curiosity is apparently stifled by your built in obeisance to the wishfulness of “trendiness”.
Paul says:
October 6, 2009 at 10:06 pm
We are all adults here, and as adults we know there are consequences for are actions, so if you do not agree with his policies, you can a) do nothing, b) support him, c) not support him, d) protest and picket, its your choice, live the dream! As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I would not bet the farm on this one. She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a crazy Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all these legal filings, her travel and all her wigs? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I heard they are now playing the victim card as well. Please, feel sorry for us the “Birth Certificate” that we built our entire case around and that we have been dancing around turn out to be a big “Fake”. Her material might work on “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.
__________________________________________________________________
Paul, Amen. I too have wondered why the birther movement has been so quick to rally around a Soviet/Russian from Israel who is not a “so called real natural born” American. They claim that President Obama is not one but will follow and believe someone that we all know is not one. How do we really know who she really is? We have never seen any real documentation from her. She is causing a deep chasm in our country and has supported people to take it on themselves to remove the duly elected President by any means. Even armed insurrection. That is sedition and treason.
She has also made wild allegations without any proof. She seems to have money to support her “jihad” without telling people where it came from. Do we know it is not from any terrorist financing? Has she supplied bank records? How do we know she is not someone sent here to disrupt our country? By continuing to push this “Obama is not a legitimate President” crap, she is causing people to not support our President and for Americans to turn against each other. Your enemy is weakened if he is fighting with himself. I believe that the Communists believed that the US could be weakened from within, which is what Orly is doing. So who really is the Communist? An American born in HI or a Russian born in the USSR? I makes you wonder what her ultimate goal really is.
Bob says:
October 6, 2009 at 10:56 pm
But whatever, it’s no call for sour grapes while the attempt is being made.
Unless that attempt is abusive of the judicial process, and wastes precious judicial resources.
That hasn’t proven so since each new case has built upon the former and each new case has further instructed the wanting judiciary re: the Constitutional question.
As Mother Theresa said
Taitz is no Mother Theresa.
We all strive to follow those who have succeeded.
And who within the myriad of cases and attorneys thus far and still in the pipeline, and even the further 9 cases yet to be filed by Kreep, DOES have that proof????
No one; that’s the point.
Of course the question was to your selective personal derrogations. All, with the exception of yourself, speak to the question of promised transparency and against official HI attempts at “secret law” that must continue to be challenged by those who love their freedom to do so while they can stil do so.
He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office
Obama also doesn’t have to comply with such a request, and no attempt to judicially enforce such a request has been successful.
There has not been a judicial attempt so far. And IF that had happened he certainly would have to comply with such an order. The enabling of secrecy in such a great country is both chilling and signaling of surrender to the now created national trauma:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_trauma_of_obama.html
he wouldn’t have to bring in personal attorneys to fight such requests
His “personal” attorneys only represent Obama in the few cases that were initiated prior to him becoming president.
So what? Besides, that just isn’t so.
Hmmmmm-the nonsense continues without interuption. There is not a whole lot to argue about. Do you remember Senate Resolution 511 passed unanimously (4-30-08)stating in its last two lines,” Whereas John Sidney McCain III was born to American citizens(s), on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now therefore be it Resolved, that John Sidney McCain III is a “natural born citizen” under Article II Section I of the Constitution of the United States.”
So you see folks, BHO could have been born in a Manger in the Oval Office or even in Hawaii, but the FACT that his father was Kenyan and not an American Citizen, according to our beloved Senate,makes him Constitutionally ineligible to be our President. (Its about the Constitution everybody!)
The reasons why this part of the issue has been brushed aside by the legislators themselves (following the McCain investigation) and by the Media are too numerous, sordid and corrupted to be discussed without causing one to feel like they just took up skydiving without a parachute.
“Also, a “Certificate of Live Birth” is NOT proof of where he was born unlike a “Birth Certificate””
You are wrong.
http://birthdocs.us/faq.htm
“What are the short forms of birth certificate?
A. Short forms of birth certificate, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a “Certification of Birth” or “Certificate of Birth Registration”. The short form typically includes the child’s name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child’s parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels.”
Observer says:
October 7, 2009 at 9:38 am
Sue says:
October 7, 2009 at 5:52 am
Observer,
“He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office ”
Bingo! The long list of personal records demanded have nothing whatsoever to do with his office or the eligibility issue, some that are protected by privacy laws. The only document required to prove eligibility is the certified COLB issued by the State of Hawaii which clearly states that President Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no other information required to prove eligibility. That document has been released by President Obama and certified authentic by Hawaii DOH officials.
Sue, you need to prepare yourself better on the Constitutional questions. If you really have no interest in the background questions then please spare those who do and are seemingly far better researched than yourself the monotonous knee jerk sound bite responses of the new Stepford Wives. How many times are you willing to buy that same bridge??? The British citizenship question links to the present day through the nuances of British law. Your intellectual curiosity is apparently stifled by your built in obeisance to the wishfulness of “trendiness”.
____________________________________________________________________
Observer, good point regarding the British question except you have not explained how any type of British citizenship law superceeds or affects US citizenship law. This is not addressed in the Constitution. There is no law regarding citizenship that states that a American, born in the US, is subject to the citizenship laws of any other nation.
The problem with the so called British theory regarding dual citizenship is that the US doesn’t care what the Brits say. As long as you are born on US soil, you are a citizen of the US. In addition uner the Perkins v. Elg SCOTUS ruling a minor cannot lose their US citizenship. So unless President Obama AFFIRMED this so called possible British citizenship, it really doesn’t matter. In the eyes of the US he is only an American citizen.
A legitimate “dual citizen” with US citizenship has made an OVERT choice to be a dual citizen. They have received a passport from another country or done something to acknowledge their dual citizenship status with that second country. This is not the case with President Obama. There is not evidence that he ever accepted or acknowledged citizenship as an adult with any other country. And there is no case law defining dual citizenship and it’s effect on being a natural born citizen, so there is no true definition, which means that saying that because he might have been eligible at one time to be a citizen of another country disqualifies the President from being eligible is just speculation.
Stock says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:17 am
Hmmmmm-the nonsense continues without interuption. There is not a whole lot to argue about. Do you remember Senate Resolution 511 passed unanimously (4-30-08)stating in its last two lines,” Whereas John Sidney McCain III was born to American citizens(s), on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now therefore be it Resolved, that John Sidney McCain III is a “natural born citizen” under Article II Section I of the Constitution of the United States.”
So you see folks, BHO could have been born in a Manger in the Oval Office or even in Hawaii, but the FACT that his father was Kenyan and not an American Citizen, according to our beloved Senate,makes him Constitutionally ineligible to be our President. (Its about the Constitution everybody!)
The reasons why this part of the issue has been brushed aside by the legislators themselves (following the McCain investigation) and by the Media are too numerous, sordid and corrupted to be discussed without causing one to feel like they just took up skydiving without a parachute.
________________________________________________________________
Stock, nice that you cite a non-binding Senate resolution. But it is not case law. And by your theory only someone that was “born to American citizens(s), on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936″ could be designated a “natural born citizen” under Article II Section I of the Constitution of the United States.” So no one else other than John McCain III could be eligible to be President. See how asinine your conclusion is?
The Senate resolution was specific for one individual, who unlike Barack Obama was not born in the United States. So the Senate decided to clarify things. But if according to you we are to take the statement as the intent of the Senate you have to take the entire statement. You cannot pick and choose what to select to support your point of view. When you cite something as a legal precedent, you have to include everthing. Meaning you have to include born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to your definition of “natural born”, which you cannot or no one else could ever be President. Nice try though.
President Obama was born in the United States. That is all that matters. Whether or not that was in a manger doesn’t matter. Neither does the fact that his father was from Kenya. Unless you can find us actual case law that says otherwise.
siseduermapierda:
First, posting a document regardless of its validity online is not proof. Spending hundred of thousands of dollars fighting lawsuits on “Standing, Jurisdiction and Justifiability” rather than producing a $10 document that would prove his origin of birth makes no sense! What is he hiding that is worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal services?
True, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. But what about the Democratic Party, Congress AND the media who ignored the possibility that he isn’t a natural born citizen?
I am an American citizen as are my children. They are being subject to future burdens, possibly trillions of dollars of debt and international political acts. These will effect their future. Our founding fathers made the “natural born citizen” requirement for the president to avoid having someone holding that office from subversion. I and my children have a right to know that the man now holding the office as President is NOT a foreign citizen.
The requirement is in the Constitution and the Congress and the Courts are ignoring that requirement.
Observer,
I agree with Black Lion’s response. Thanks Black Lion.:)
Tom says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:35 am
*I and my children have a right to know that the man now holding the office as President is NOT a foreign citizen.*
You already know he is natural born citizen of the United States. He posted a scan of his COLB. The director of the Dept of Health of the State of Hawaii made 2 statements that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii. Last Friday the State of Hawaii released the index data that said Barack Obama II was born in Hawaii. It’s more information about the circumstances of birth than you have ever gotten for any US President or candidate for President in the entire history of this nation.
There is no proof he is a foreign citizen. In the response to the Allen case, the State Dept clearly says: ” To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, or is or ever was a citizen of Indonesia, those allegations are denied.” And “To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, or is or ever was a citizen of Kenya or a British subject, those allegations are denied.” The fact that they outright deny the allegations means the State Dept has proof the allegations are untrue. To deny something in a legal response without proof would be perjury.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20704651/ALLEN-v-SOETORO-14-ANSWER-to-1-Complaint-by-Hillary-Clinton-Eric-Holder-Janet-Napolitano-Barry-Soetoro-U-S-Citizenship-and-Immigration-Servic
If you’re still not satisfied, that’s your problem, not Obama’s. Failing to satisfy you is not evidence of anything.
Sue says:
October 7, 2009 at 11:04 am
Observer,
I agree with Black Lion’s response. Thanks Black Lion.:)
_____________________________________________________________
You’re welcome…
Additionally there is an interesting article in the Scientific American regarding how deeply held beliefs make it easy for some to accept the absurd…Kind of explains the birther reasoning…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-of-a-notion
Tom says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:35 am
*First, posting a document regardless of its validity online is not proof.*
An online document plus two statements from the Director of the Dept of Health, plus the index data that agrees with what was posted online is more than adequate proof.
*Spending hundred of thousands of dollars fighting lawsuits on “Standing, Jurisdiction and Justifiability” rather than producing a $10 document that would prove his origin of birth makes no sense! What is he hiding that is worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal services?*
The idea that Obama has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars is an exaggerated myth. You have no way to know what he has spent on legal fees. But we can guess it’s not very much. First, few of the cases thus far have listed Obama as defendant. The ones that have were dismissed early. We can look at the case of Keyes v. Bowen as an example where we know what his costs were. The judge ordered the losing plaintiffs to pay defendants’ costs. He ordered $520 to be paid to Obama and $520 to be paid to Joe Biden. And that was one of the bigger cases. So if he has similar costs in the other already-decided cases, we can estimate he hasn’t spent more than a few thousand dollars. He is now represented by the Justice Dept so it’s no longer costing him anything.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Keyes-BowenCosts.pdf
You’re assuming because he hasn’t disclosed everything you demand to see he’s “hiding” something. Please look at the definitions of “burden of Proof” and “benefit of presumption of innocence.”
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=109&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
http://tipmra.com/new_tipmra/presumption_of_innocence.htm
” The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. ”
You need to try to grasp that once accused, he has no obligation to reveal anything. If it were you, you wouldn’t. Your lawyer wouldn’t let you. Not revealing everything is not a sign of hiding something, it’s availing himself of his right to the benefit of assumption. There’s no law that requires any candidate to prove to the general public they are eligible.
Problems with this reasoning:
1) Any document he produced would be classified by some large segment of the birther population as fraudulent, and the merry-go-round would continue on.
2) A large segment of the birther population thinks the fact that his father was not an American citizen is sufficient to disqualify him as president, and there’s no court decision that’s going to make them think otherwise.
Those are just two off the top of my head.
You are making a logical flaw. You are saying that because a senate resolution said that if you have two citizen parents, you are a natural born citizen, that means that if you DON’T have two citizen parents, you are NOT a natural born citizen.
You are saying, when simplified:
If A -> B
then
If not A -> not B
This is a logical flaw. To use another example of the if A -> B, consider this:
If I’m in New York, then I’m in the US.
Based on that statement alone, could I logically say:
If I’m not in New York, then I’m not in the US?
No, of course not. You could also be in Los Angeles, Boston, Scranton, Tulsa, or many, many other places.
So taking a Senate resolution (that was merely declaratory of existing law) that stated that McCain was eligible because of his parents, and using that resolution as proof that Obama is ineligible because of one of his parents is a logical flaw that does not follow from the resolution.
Just because having two citizen parents is ONE way to be a natural born citizen does not mean that it’s the ONLY way to be a natural born citizen.
Per someone’s request for another scholarly take on NBC:
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07
btw, the “index data” has NO context. No dates. No parents’ names. No birthplace. Ergo, it indicates nothing except that A birth was registered. May be a foreign birth. May be to different persons that previously named as parents. Once again, for your reading pleasure.
That hasn’t proven so since each new case has built upon the former and each new case has further instructed the wanting judiciary re: the Constitutional question.
And the courts build upon those past cases to dismiss the present ones.
How many of these cases (how many of Taitz’s cases?) need to be ruled frivolous before acknowledging that these cases are, in fact, frivolous?
We all strive to follow those who have succeeded.
Then emulate Mother Theresa and help those in need.
All, with the exception of yourself, speak to the question of promised transparency and against official HI attempts at “secret law”
Obama showed his COLB; that’s sufficient transparency. And there is no “secret” law; that’s the conspiracy talking.
must continue to be challenged by those who love their freedom to do so while they can stil do so
And which secret FEMA re-education camp will you be attending?
There has not been a judicial attempt so far.
Subpoenas in Keyes v. Bowen were issued (and quashed).
And IF that had happened he certainly would have to comply with such an order.
Operative word being “if.” But hope springs eternal.
The enabling of secrecy in such a great country is both chilling and signaling of surrender to the now created national trauma
So strange how this fear of secrecy started only on January 20, 2009.
So what? Besides, that just isn’t so.
Name one case that was initiated after Obama became president where he is represented by private attorneys.
Your original “point” was that Obama’s use of personal attorneys indicates he isn’t immune from disclosure. Proptor hoc. Obama is represented in a few cases by private attorneys because he was sued prior to becoming president; the DoJ could not represent him then as he wasn’t federal officer then.
MGB says:
October 7, 2009 at 1:02 pm
*No dates. No parents’ names. No birthplace. Ergo, it indicates nothing except that A birth was registered. May be a foreign birth. May be to different persons that previously named as parents. Once again, for your reading pleasure.*
That is a misrepresentation of the facts. The index data is proof of birth in Hawaii. Why hasn’t anyone gone to the Hawaii State Offices to look at the index data? A scan of a legal COLB, 2 statements from the director of the Dept of Health that Obama was born in Hawaii and index data. 4 separate items. Each alone is proof. It is disingenuous to keep trying to parse what you know into not meaning what it means.
No dates.
Go to Hawaii and request the index data for Aug. 4, 1961. It’ll say a male named Barack Obama was born on that date.
No parents’ names.
Not required for eligibility. (And if Obama Sr. wasn’t his father, there goes that two-citizen-parent argument!)
No birthplace.
Hawaii; that’s sufficient for eligibility.
Ergo, it indicates nothing except that A birth was registered.
Birth registration is not a vital event; birth is vital event.
May be a foreign birth.
Wouldn’t be recorded in Hawaii.
May be to different persons that previously named as parents.
Speculation isn’t evidence.
Black Lion says:
October 7, 2009 at 10:24 am
Observer says:
October 7, 2009 at 9:38 am
Sue says:
October 7, 2009 at 5:52 am
Observer,
“He’s not immune from showing personal records that have nothing to do with his office ”
Bingo! The long list of personal records demanded have nothing whatsoever to do with his office or the eligibility issue, some that are protected by privacy laws.
In your dreams. You too ought to refresh yourself on the other ongoing questions beyond the limited and questioned material presented.
The problem with the so called British theory regarding dual citizenship is that the US doesn’t care what the Brits say. As long as you are born on US soil, you are a citizen of the US. In addition uner the Perkins v. Elg SCOTUS ruling a minor cannot lose their US citizenship. So unless President Obama AFFIRMED this so called possible British citizenship, it really doesn’t matter. In the eyes of the US he is only an American citizen.
We’re not speaking of the past. The outstanding question (and your “unless” is revealing to the admittance that you just don’t know such facts) relates to the present status via status of various British citizen types to this day. And it would appear that folks here aren’t keeping up to snuff with the ongoing discrepancy of statements coming out of HI officials. They cannot say that they have officially registered backup material that authenticates Constitutionally mandated definition nor what is publicly assumed by the limited COLB. They are fudging on their own regs and people are aware of the various paths to state accepted registration of births there whether or not they equal what would be accepted under the Constitutional question.
Sue says:
October 7, 2009 at 11:04 am
Observer,
I agree with Black Lion’s response. Thanks Black Lion.:)
Big Whup!
sise says, “That is a misrepresentation of the facts. The index data is proof of birth in Hawaii. Why hasn’t anyone gone to the Hawaii State Offices to look at the index data?”
1. Not a misrepresentation. They supplied NO context. No date. No parents’ names. No birth place. It is NOT proof of birth in Hawaii. It is proof of registration of A birth which may have taken place anywhere in the world, according to Hawaiian law.
2. Perhaps nobody has gone to the offices to look because the office is in Hawaii. Do you live in Hawaii? I don’t. How do you know that nobody has gone? Assumes facts not in evidence.
MGB says:
October 7, 2009 at 1:37 pm
*1. Not a misrepresentation. They supplied NO context. No date. No parents’ names. No birth place. It is NOT proof of birth in Hawaii. It is proof of registration of A birth which may have taken place anywhere in the world, according to Hawaiian law.*
- Huh? Of course there’s a date. The index data is derived from records of vital events and their dates. It’s completely in context. Go to the Hawaii Dept of Health and ask them for the index data for August 4, 1961. It will show there was a birth of a male, Barack H. Obama II. The index data proves there was a birth on Aug 4, 1961 in Hawaii, Not just a registration from somewhere anywhere. Certainly you realize vital records record vital events: births, deaths. Not registrations. The Index Data is Proof of the birth of Barack Obama in Hawaii. Absolute Proof. Obama deniers are trying to spin the index data to not mean what it really truly absolutely proof-positive means: Barack H Obama II WAS born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961.
*Perhaps nobody has gone to the offices to look because the office is in Hawaii. Do you live in Hawaii? I don’t. How do you know that nobody has gone? *
Are you saying there is not a single person in Hawaii Who is curious about the index data? I bet you are correct, though. Someone from the Obama deniers or the Leo D team has already gone and looked, but the index data says exactly what Hawaii reported. We won’t hear about it until an Obot goes to look.
The outstanding question (and your “unless” is revealing to the admittance that you just don’t know such facts) relates to the present status via status of various British citizen types to this day.
Under the KIA of 1963, Obama lost his CUKC status. Obama has had no ties to Britain for over 40 years.
They cannot say that they have officially registered backup material that authenticates Constitutionally mandated definition nor what is publicly assumed by the limited COLB.
Because of the relevant privacy laws.
They are fudging on their own regs and people are aware of the various paths to state accepted registration of births there whether or not they equal what would be accepted under the Constitutional question.
Hawaii has repeatedly and unequivocally stated Obama was born in Hawaii. For all reasonable people, that ends the question of eligibility.
sise: But the person requested the data based upon NAME, not date. Therefore, the name was the search argument. Not the date. The response given included the ONLY items of data that can be provided under Hawaiian policy: name, sex, event.
Know of what you speak before you speak. Or write.
I have no idea whether or not anybody has gone to look at the data at the office. But you certainly don’t know that nobody has gone. Do you?
On the topic of taxpayer paid “anonymous” commenters:
http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/10/07/the-obama-justice-departments-secret-blogging-team-is-it-illegal/
Remember how someone (was it Pam Geller?) traced the IP number of someone who commented at his or her blog directly to a Justice Dept. computer? Is it ethical or even legal to use public resources for partisan activities? And here I thought they worked for FactCheck.
Bob says:
October 7, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The outstanding question (and your “unless” is revealing to the admittance that you just don’t know such facts) relates to the present status via status of various British citizen types to this day.
Under the KIA of 1963, Obama lost his CUKC status. Obama has had no ties to Britain for over 40 years.
A more studied opinion of the nuances of British law that goes beyond the unelaborated sound bites you provide:
http://volubrjotr.com/2009/07/30/obama-the-president-of-the-u-s-is-currently-a-british-citizen/
They cannot say that they have officially registered backup material that authenticates Constitutionally mandated definition nor what is publicly assumed by the limited COLB.
Because of the relevant privacy laws.
No, they must, by their own regs state whether such records exist or not while not revealing their content.
They are fudging on their own regs and people are aware of the various paths to state accepted registration of births there whether or not they equal what would be accepted under the Constitutional question.
Hawaii has repeatedly and unequivocally stated Obama was born in Hawaii. For all reasonable people, that ends the question of eligibility.
People are asking for backup materials, not relying on a parsed personal statement re: “files” with various possibilities. This same official you rely upon also made the additional unsolicited statement that Obama is a NBC. They’ve had the revelation that no one else has so far!! One should be wary of personal statements without the necessary verification esp. from those documented now as misdirecting the public on these most important queries governed by their own regulations on just what must be provided to the public. You sound like “if the teacher said it, then it must be true” type!
But the person requested the data based upon NAME, not date. Therefore, the name was the search argument. Not the date.
Do you have any evidence that Obama was born later than January 19, 1974? If not, irrelevant to eligibility.
Bob: But hope springs eternal.
Now we’re gettin somewhere!
And the “since inauguration” personal attorney defense:
Kreep/Occidental college records.
A more studied opinion of the nuances of British law
Apuzzo is wrong. Really wrong. Here’s what he doesn’t mention: The BNA of 1981 (which repealed portions of the KIA of 1963) repealed the very section of the BNA of 1948 that originally granted Obama CUKC status.
No, they must, by their own regs state whether such records exist or not while not revealing their content.
Which still implicates privacy laws. And not only has Hawaii stated that such records exist (i.e., the index data), it actually has provided what may be publicly released.
People are asking for backup materials, not relying on a parsed personal statement re: “files” with various possibilities.
Which implicate privacy laws. The DoH has already said this, and if Donofrio can be bothered to actually file his suit, the Hawaiian courts will agree with the DoH.
This same official you rely upon also made the additional unsolicited statement that Obama is a NBC.
A statement based on prevailing American law. Big whoop.
They’ve had the revelation that no one else has so far!!
The DNC explicitly has come to that conclusion as well. And the Electoral College and Congress also have implicitly done so.
One should be wary of personal statements without the necessary verification
Then verify! Hawaii has told you where the index data may be verified. Get off the internet and do something.
You sound like “if the teacher said it, then it must be true” type!
There’s no competent evidence suggesting the State of Hawaii is wrong. Doubt based solely on speculation is not reasonable.
And the “since inauguration” personal attorney defense:
Kreep/Occidental college records.
Part of Keyes v. Bowen, which was filed prior to the inaugeration.
MGB says:
October 7, 2009 at 2:46 pm
*Know of what you speak before you speak. Or write.*
The Index Data proves Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Re-read the Hawaiian vital records policy. It doesn’t say they release only name, sex and event. Here is what it says:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
“Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.”
“and such other data as the director may authorize” – they can release whatever data the director approves. The director chose to release only the name and sex and event to Leo and Co. It doesn’t mean other data isn’t there. The data is in a relational database. They can sort it by any field they want. And in reality, the date isn’t important, since it’s well known President Obama is older than 35.
Bob says:
October 7, 2009 at 3:46 pm
And the “since inauguration” personal attorney defense:
Kreep/Occidental college records.
Part of Keyes v. Bowen, which was filed prior to the inaugeration.
So what? New query for personal info continuing to be defended against by Obama’s personal attorneys. My original point. He is using personal attorneys to defend against requested personal info outside of info re: any current official position. Your arguments are really getting strained and going outside the realm of common sense – swallowing camels, etc.
Hey, possibility of denial of motion to dismiss CA case?? Based on logical reading of latest order – but without direct order to dismiss. As you say,… “hope springs eternal”!
New query for personal info continuing to be defended against by Obama’s personal attorneys.
As part of an old case. Obama had to use private attorneys because that case was initiated before he was president.
Hey, possibility of denial of motion to dismiss CA case??
Possibility; sure. Where’s the words “motion to dismiss” and “denied”? (The order explicitly says the motion was taken under submission.)
Hope springs eternal. (Or, more aptly, “Nuts!”)
Observer says:
October 7, 2009 at 4:21 pm
*Hey, possibility of denial of motion to dismiss CA case?? Based on logical reading of latest order – but without direct order to dismiss. As you say,… “hope springs eternal”!*
Um, no. It’s not what you all, including Orly, think it is. And I’m just gonna say toldjaso right up front. It’s simply the minutes of Monday’s hearing. Remember at the end, Judge Carter said we didn’t get to a scheduling conference, but I assume you’re all OK with the dates? Sheesh, you guys are gonna crash hard when you realize it doesn’t mean the motion to dismiss is denied. There’s no order on the motion. And did Charles Lincoln really send an email to the US Attorney saying basically ” Surrender Dorothy”? Mr West’s response “Nuts” is hilarious given its historical context.
A statement based on prevailing American law
By what evidence? All past Presidents except for one who showed acknowledgment of the accepted definition by fraudulently hiding his ineligible facts of birth? That’s precedent. It’s rather “prevailing” misinformation.
Desired acceptance of personal opinions without evidence is dangerous.
People are asking for backup materials, not relying on a parsed personal statement re: “files” with various possibilities.
Which implicate privacy laws.
What it currently implies is permission for further queries since statements have been made publicly by HI officials. They are, by their attempts to obfuscate, placing themselves in positions to answer demands for further discovery. Looks like the PR person fits into the Peter Principle!
Bob says:
October 7, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“Nuts!”
Lovin’ the USA West!
By what evidence?
The Hawaiian Attorney General can read Wong Kim Ark just like everyone else.
All past Presidents except for one who showed acknowledgment of the accepted definition by fraudulently hiding his ineligible facts of birth?
And Obama released his COLB, which is sufficient.
What it currently implies is permission for further queries since statements have been made publicly by HI officials.
Provided those inquiries don’t violate privacy laws. The DoH has gone over all this.
They are, by their attempts to obfuscate, placing themselves in positions to answer demands for further discovery.
Which is why the DoH has and will continue to deny those requests. And if Donofrio can be bothered to file his suit, the courts will tell him the same thing.
Orly’s site is reporting that Judge Carter denied motion to dismiss.
I would be very wary about taking Orly at her word regarding anything.
PACER shows nothing, and her “proof” that the motion wasn’t dismissed was a routine email showing that the dates that were tentatively set at the September hearing are still operative. This does not imply that the motion to dismiss was denied.
Orly’s site is reporting that Judge Carter denied motion to dismiss.
And Taitz is…wait for it…wrong.
The order explicitly says the motion was taken under submission. “Under submission” does not mean “denied.”
Bob: They are, by their attempts to obfuscate, placing themselves in positions to answer demands for further discovery.
Which is why the DoH has and will continue to deny those requests.
So, you’re on the side of states creating secret law – beyond what their own regs require?
And let’s all chant together “And Obama released his COLB”! Don’t be bothered with what may be on file but not officially accepted by registrar with the required info back up. Then again he’s one of their own with more connections to officials’ personal causes so obfuscation in this particular case is rationalized.
Phil can you confirm this:
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/judge-carter-denies-motion-to-dismiss-in-barnett-vs-obama/
If it is true, it looks like the case is going to trial.
Also, do you have a link to the actual docket?
All the best!
So, you’re on the side of states creating secret law – beyond what their own regs require?
Except there is no secret law. The DoH has been pretty clear.
Don’t be bothered with what may be on file but not officially accepted by registrar with the required info back up.
Under Hawaiian law, the COLB derives its data from the birth certificate. And there’s no competent evidence contradicting the COLB.
Doubt based solely on speculation is not reasonable.
If it is true, it looks like the case is going to trial.
The Post & Email conveniently snipped the language about the motion being taken under submission.
Let’s see how many OBOTS spin this story…..Go Patriots!!
Judge Carter Denies Motion to Dismiss, in Barnett vs. Obama!
October 7, 2009 by John Charlton
COURT ORDER FINALIZES SCHEDULE FOR TRIAL!
by John Charlton
(Oct. 7, 2009) — Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED
you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial.
O RLY? Then why would the court also set dates for a motion for summary judgment? (A summary judgment motion can also dispose of a case before trial.)
And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED.
Which is why the order explicitly says the motion was taken under submission.
Let’s see how many OBOTS spin this story
Oh, the irony.
Jacqlyn Smith says:
October 7, 2009 at 5:11 pm
*Judge Carter Denies Motion to Dismiss, in Barnett vs. Obama!
October 7, 2009 by John Charlton*
What was entered today was the minutes from Monday. The entry is not an order to deny the motion to dismiss. It clearly says the motion is under submission. Don’t you remember at the end of the hearing Monday when Judge Carter said, we didn’t get to do a scheduling conference, but I know you’re ok with the schedule. He entered the schedule so he doesn’t have to do another scheduling conference.
Here is the link to the order. It clearly says “Motion taken under submission.” It’s housekeeping.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20761725/Barnett-v-Obama-Minute-Order
I hate to agree with a Marxist,but sist… is right.Where does it say Carter denied the MTD? This is the same thing Orly does every time.She issues statements and rumors based on her feelings,and not facts.What’s more,this was from Monday,not today.It says the MTD is still under submission.One word left out in every statement from Orly is : “tentative”.Plans are made in advance with schedules in case each hurdle is jumped.When she took the bait to re-serve the defendants it essentially wiped out her case against Obama as a private citizen and the venue then had to be in DC under QW.That’s why the DOJ stepped in.Read her story last night on how she was tricked[to give her the benefit of the doubt] into the deal.Meanwhile,people’s guard is down as they pin all their hopes on this one atty.Simandle will wait for Carter to dismiss,and then he will do the same with the Kerchner case.Orly should never have caved in.Carter should’ve signed the default judgment months ago.We are being played.
Jacqlyn Smith says:
October 7, 2009 at 5:11 pm
*Judge Carter Denies Motion to Dismiss, in Barnett vs. Obama!
October 7, 2009 by John Charlton*
You know,I understand your fears and concerns.But you are gullible.That’s why you get emotional with all the Marxists that infest this comments section.In fact the whole group of you over at CW are in denial and spread rumors.When someone there tries to educate your little clique they get jumped on.If either one of these blogs represent the bulk of Americans we are screwed.
I do not know what to make of some of the posts on Orly’s site. Is she just going over what happened on the 5th? The following is posted on her site: dated today, 10-7-09
Looks like it’s a go with the eligibility trial
Posted on | October 7, 2009 |
I just got an order from judge Carter. He does not say outright that the motion to dismiss, but he says that the dates for trial are final. We might need to ask for the clarification, but from the first glance it looks like a go.
And this: Posted on | October 7, 2009 | Department of Justice was contacted via phone and e-mail and was asked to stipulate to discovery in Barnett et al v Obama et al
Pragmatic Dog says:
October 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm
*We are being played.*
I don’t think so. I think current law just doesn’t support your position. No one has standing. If there was an issue, it should have been raised by the other candidates before the Convention. The Constitution is clear that only Congress can remove a sitting President through impeachment. And absent concrete proof that Obama was not born in the US to Ann Dunham, you wouldn’t get far with any members of Congress. You’re looking backwards trying to change the past from a position that isn’t supported by the law. I think you guys should take all your energy and passion and enthusiasm and start looking forward towards the next elections.
siseduermapierda… wrong.I know it must be QW in DC.I know most of these cases are in the wrong venue.I know some of the lawyers are either incompetent or shills.But I do not think this con crisis is some kind of joke or the work of racists or haters of Obama as most commenters here do.We lost our standing in 1946.I’ve explained that before.The fact is that our government in all three branches covered for Barry.They were informed of our concerns outside of lawsuits last year and refused to investigate for we the people.The reason is that we are entering global governance and this nation is to be destroyed in the process as a sovereign nation.
siseduermapierda…I apologize if you are not a Marxist.
It looks like what Orly is making assumptions about is the minutes of the hearing. It says “civil minutes-general”. That would mean that the finalized dates were set at the hearing, not afterwards – before “Motion taken under submission”. Jumping the gun again it would appear.
Pragmatic Dog says:
October 7, 2009 at 6:48 pm
siseduermapierda…I apologize if you are not a Marxist.
Oh gosh, I’m no Marxist. I don’t get too excited about labels tossed around on blogs!
“Internet Troll dba Siseduermapierda Gets Job As New Energizer Bunny, Physicists Intrigued By His Relentlessness, Wonder Whether It’s Genetics Or Improper Medication – More Later” (AP 10/07/09: 4:20 PM PST)
Heavens! While Obama’s (i)legitimacy is a very serious issue, it is also hilarious to look at the Obamabots’ posts here, particularly Sise—-X, who’s been tireless cranking the same circular arguments for days and days and days.
Sise, get real – you can’t convince anyone around here who believes that Obama’s ilegitimate of contrary, and all your contortions are useless. Can’t you find a better use of your time than running around your tail, barking?
You can’t change a iota in the uraveling of this affair – the hearing date has been set for January, and we’ll see then what’s happening.
In case judge Carter will dismiss the case ’till then (and there is this posibility), the case will be rapidly appealed in the 9th. Circuit, and we’ll be there –
Man, man! To what creepy inner necessities of yours your logorrhea responds to, I don’t know – but definitely you got a serious problem.
(Since the other two losers, Black Lion and Brygenon are not in such a critical state like yours so I limit myself so far to just observe them, giggling).
misanthropicus says:
October 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm
*Man, man! To what creepy inner necessities of yours your logorrhea responds to, I don’t know – but definitely you got a serious problem. *
Man, Man! Creepiest post ever on trsol. You took the time to write that cr*p? You talk to your co-workers like that? Dude, definitely You got the serious problem.
“The president cannot be removed except by impeachment.” When you have a major political party found to be corrupt, and in the majority in Congress, which would never impeach their boy in the presidency, the power falls to the people. What country based on We the People could survive if a criminal party placed a criminal president. They broke their part of the contract by running an ineligible candidate when presenting him as eligible. To rely on the criminal party to solve the problem would be foolish. When the contract is broken, then We the People can enforce in whatever manner they choose, through the governors, a convention, the courts. I would hardly think a criminal majority congress would be counted on by a free republic to clean their own crime.
Breaking News! Scientists Find, Name Internet Compulsive Behavior After A Certain dbs “Siseduermapierda” (More Later)
Sise, here’s your today’s activity: you did 14 posts in about 10 hours, all posts being essentially the same breathless delivery of the same circular argument – Obama’s COLB is true because I said this before that it is true.
7:32, 7:48, 11:10, 11:35, 1:09, 2:19, 3:46, 4:33, 4:39, 5:19, 6:10, 6:27, 6:58, 8:02 –
Whether intense political persuasion or just keyboard compulsion, I don’t know – but definitely you’re crossed the line of normal behavior.
Relax, get a life – you can’t convince anyone, you’re a very poor sophist, relying strictly on endless hair splitting and circular argumentation. All that’s impressive about your activity is the frenzy – hardly a honorable thing.
We’ll see what will happen with Obama, either in January or, possibly before – ’till then, don’t forget to take your medicine (or in case you actually kept taking some drugs, stop it, and seek medical assistance.)
Bye -
When the contract is broken, then We the People can enforce in whatever manner they choose, through the governors, a convention, the courts.
“Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly ‘protect and preserve’ those very principles.” — Judge Land.
ch says:
October 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm
“The president cannot be removed except by impeachment.”
You fools need to stop playing “lawyer”.Quo Warranto is on the books and the DOJ admits it in their MTD!!! That has nothing to do with impeachment my dizzy commenter.It is questioning the validity and right of a sitting president.But it has to be done in DC under strict guidleines.Carter does not have subject matter jurisdiction to try a QW case.Nor do the plaintiffs have standing.
Phil said in above article commentary– “So, again — do you want to make a difference? Then get praying.” Amen!!! Read 2 Chronicles 7:14– “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”—— Strange things today in Barnett case.If this goes forward we have been set-up for the kill as I’ve thought for months.Carter does not have subject matter jurisdiction to try a QW case.It will be killed on appeal after the trial,and this will drag out until the nation is crushed.WE have no repentance on antional level,but people praying for this case to be heard.Meanwhile,the killing of the unborn continues unabated,and people having home bible group studies are persecuted.Wake up America!
misanthropicus says:
October 7, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Dude, seriously, you need a break from this as much as Jacqlyn Smith.
ch says:
October 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm
” their boy in the presidency”
And you insist you’re not racists. You’re calling your President “boy”? Fascinating.
misanthropicus says:
October 7, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Man, man! To what creepy inner necessities of yours your logorrhea responds to, I don’t know – but definitely you got a serious problem.
(Since the other two losers, Black Lion and Brygenon are not in such a critical state like yours so I limit myself so far to just observe them, giggling).
___________________________________________________________________
I am glad Brygenon, siseduermapierda, and I can entertain you. I guess you find the truth amusing, which is OK. What I find more amusing is Orly. I mean could your side find a worse attorney? And everyone’s favorite disbarred attorney Charles Lincoln. Or Larry Sinclair and Lucas Smith. And then to top it off you have the great DWI lawyer Mario Apuzzo and the professional poker playing lawyer Leo Donofrio leading the charge. I mean with people like that as the face of your so called movement to illegally remove a duly elected President, is it any wonder that they are all combined 0 for 50? Now that is funny. And Bry, Sise, and I are sitting back with some popcorn laughing at the rampant incompetence being shown by all of those individuals. Truly funny stuff…
It is not “boy” but “their boy” which is used commonly in non-racial instances. Just a quick google showed this:
Let he or she who is without sin — or who has never made an off-color remark or joke — cast the first stone. (Of course, that won’t stop Rush Limbaugh — and all those “senior McCain advisers” who are hugging themselves because of all the archival footage of Biden’s “gaffes,” even though their boy McCain doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite or how many homes he owns, to name just two recent verbal faux pas.)
http://jtwoo.blogspot.com/2008/08/apparently-obama-was-biden-his-time.html
Keep takin’ that high road Black Lion. I find the issue quite serious, no matter who is leading the charge. And Denofrio isn’t leading the charge. No one is leading. People like TerriK (who has a full time job) are taking on the job of investigative reporters. Check out her new website. She has poured lots of work into it.
http://misstickly.wordpress.com/ Website for MissTickly. (and a correction: Donofrio)
siseduermapierda says:
October 7, 2009 at 9:24 pm
ch says:
October 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm
” their boy in the presidency”
And you insist you’re not racists. You’re calling your President “boy”? Fascinating
One person uses a word you find racist and you tag us all racists?You are a hypocrite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RE Black Lion:
[...] I am glad Brygenon, siseduermapierda, and I can entertain you. [...] What I find more amusing is Orly. [...] And Bry, Sise, and I are sitting back with some popcorn laughing at the rampant incompetence being shown by all of those individuals. [...]
Black Lion:
1) you and Brygenon rank amongst the honorable Obamabots I met on these “issue-oriented” sites. Yes, whatever reasons are behind your cyber activities, both of you are “listenable” – and I respect you.
Yet Sise isn’t in your league – he’s just a hyperactive dolt, whose argumentation is nothing but an absurd regurgitation of self-validating notions. Whether you’re cahoots or not, I don’t know – yet his efforts are hilariously counterproductive – ineffective jamming would be the most clement description of his efforts.
2) while a card carrying birther, I agree with your view on Orly – after her first rounds I bacame weary, close to see her almost as the Jim Garrison of the situation we debate. After that, what can I say – if it’s true that she (besides her stumbling through the procedures), asked people to e-mail judge Carter, then… as Talleyrand said, “This is not a crime, it’s more than that, it’s a stupid thing!”
Enthusiastic I am not about Berg, and other figures, either – yet Gary Kreep is a fine lawyer, with a solid reputation in California (incidentally, I’m broadcasting from California, too), and his presence in this affair helps a lot, as esteem goes, in the local legal & yakking millieu.
Now, back to the core issue, Obama’s legitimacy – for me things are very simple, as I stated before (with Sise relentlessly circling, beating a drum & yelling):
a) Judge Carter will let the case go to the January hearing – if he’s doing this, no Sise hystericals can stop the unfolding of this case on that direction, whatever that might be -
b) Judge Carter may kick out the case (we still have three moths to go) for whatever reasons, and in that advent, the case will be rapidly appealed in the 9th. Circuit, again, Sise’s hystericals having no influence whatsoever on the unraveling of this affair on that direction – so, some patience, since the situation is beyond our control now.
As far as popcorns & laughing, my dearest Black Lion, maybe you want to channel Yogi Bera and find out what did he mean by “It’s not over until it’s over” -
’till then, best regards –
Misanthropicus -
Jacqlyn Smith says:
October 7, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“Let’s see how many OBOTS spin this story…..Go Patriots!!
Judge Carter Denies Motion to Dismiss, in Barnett vs. Obama!
October 7, 2009 by John Charlton”
Nah. I’d rather watch you get all excited about the civil minutes documenting the hearing. Jacqlyn, better get your reserved seat for that trial on January 26.
Gary Kreep is a fine lawyer, with a solid reputation in California
“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.” — Judge Land
Judge Carter may kick out the case (we still have three moths to go) for whatever reasons, and in that advent, the case will be rapidly appealed in the 9th. Circuit
And? None of these cases have faired any better at the circuit level (or with SCOTUS). That “most liberal” 9th Circuit will surely see it Taitz’s way….
Bob says: “Gary Kreep is a fine lawyer, with a solid reputation in California.” Bob,Kreep put out a piece of disnfo and misinfo on the nbc issue and the eligbility issue.This has little to do with Barry’s BC.
“When she took the bait to re-serve the defendants it essentially wiped out her case against Obama as a private citizen and the venue then had to be in DC under QW.That’s why the DOJ stepped in.Read her story last night on how she was tricked[to give her the benefit of the doubt] into the deal.Meanwhile,people’s guard is down as they pin all their hopes on this one atty.Simandle will wait for Carter to dismiss,and then he will do the same with the Kerchner case.Orly should never have caved in.Carter should’ve signed the default judgment months ago.We are being played.”
Please go find a competent attorney to explain this case to you and take Orly with you. Orly never accomplished proper service on President Obama, as an elected official or private citizen. And she certainly was not tricked into anything. Orly was never going to be granted a default judgement by Judge Carter because she never accomplished proper service. Read the official court transcript of the July 13, 2009 hearing.
Orly misrepresents the facts again. She contends that on July 13, the USAG moved to INTERVENE in the action and DEMANDED that she serve them.
The Facts: USAG did NOT intervene on July 13, and they did NOT demand to be served.
1. They appeared as an “interested party,” which every 1L knows, is very different from an “intervening party.”
2. They did not demand to be served. In fact, they initially resisted the suggestion that they accept service. (See Official Transcript page 19, Lines 3-6). They reluctantly agreed to accept service because the Court ordered them to do so. (See id, pp 19-20.) Link provided to official transcript:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19746232/KEYES-v-OBAMA-OFFICIAL-COURT-TRANSCRIPT-7132009-Hearing?secret_password=9nob8el1zifnycvtv8r
Now, Phil has wavey davey’s unofficial transcript posted here. Go to page 16, line 11-23. According to Judge Carter, Orly filed this lawsuit 11-22-08 at 3:00 P.M. (time stamp) which was after President Obama was sworn into office.
I do not know if Orly misrepresents the law and the facts because she chooses to or because she does not understand the procedural and ethical rules of law. Orly’s misrepresentation of the Minute Orders today is yet another example. BTW, has Kreep released a statement regarding the Minute Orders?
PS: However…one of those 12 guys was God.
“PS: However…one of those 12 guys was God.”
This is not factual. None of the 12 guys were God. However, all of the 12 guys were disciples of Jesus Christ. Some believe Jesus Christ was God incarnate or the Son of God. The Jews believe Jesus Christ was a man.
http://judaism.about.com/od/beliefs/a/jesus.htm
“According to the New Testament and the Christian church, Jesus is divine, the son of God, the Messiah. In sharp contrast, Jews believe Jesus was a man – period.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Supper
“Last Supper
In the Christian Gospels, the Last Supper (also called the Mystical Supper) was the last meal Jesus shared with his Twelve Apostles and disciples before his death. The Last Supper has been the subject of many paintings, perhaps the most famous by Leonardo da Vinci.”
misanthropicus says:
October 8, 2009 at 12:28 am
*Now, back to the core issue, Obama’s legitimacy *
Yes, let’s get on topic and talk about the law if you’re through insulting others. You truly live up to your name.
*so, some patience, since the situation is beyond our control now.*
The situation was never in your control. Even if Judge Carter dismisses the MTD, discovery won’t go forward. The USA’s will immediately appeal to the 9th. They might hear arguments in January, then 3 months to a decision. If the 9th upholds Judge Carter’s dismissal, they’ll appeal to the USSC. If the judges decide to hear the appeal, they won’t hear it until late 2010. The case won’t come back to Judge Carter for more than a year from now. And that entire time, discovery would be stayed. The same is true if Judge Carter dismisses the case. Orly will appeal up through the same route. Still no discovery. My money is on Judge Carter dismissing within 2 weeks. I also predict an Orly smackdown by Judge Carter in response to her motion to remove the stay of discovery. Pop your corn and stay tuned!
Not for nothing, but why does Orly keep making these dumb mistakes?
I am no fan of hers or the birthers, in fact, I think they’re nuts, but does she think that making these claims that the Judge has already denied the MTD while he is still actually considering it is helpful to this case?
Yes, it gets her devotees all jazzed up and maybe they will send her more money, but could it not also have a huge negative influence on the Judge at the very moment when he is deciding on the motion?
I can almost see and appreciate the e-mail requesting discovery activity because, well, that’s the kind of thing that lawyers should try to do, especially when the other side has a better case, but that should have been done quietly and unassumingly. It still would have gotten nowhere, but it would have been worth the effort. Making that communication public as well seems to show that she is not so much concerned with the “injury” done to her clients as she is in promoting herself.
No surprise there, but would any of the birthers like to comment on the wisdom of this publicity?
misanthropicus says:
October 8, 2009 at 12:28 am
RE Black Lion:
Black Lion:
1) you and Brygenon rank amongst the honorable Obamabots I met on these “issue-oriented” sites. Yes, whatever reasons are behind your cyber activities, both of you are “listenable” – and I respect you.
___________________________________________________________________
Misanthropicus, I appreciate that. Unlike some of the others on your side you address the issues and not make specific personal attacks. I know we will probably not change each other’s mind, but like Phil has stated before that fact that we can have a civil discourse and debate is the American way. I know we both believe different things but I would wager that we both love our country and want what is best for it.
That being said either side that is successful in regards to Monday’s hearing is going to appeal the decision to the Appellate court. So either way we will probably be continuing this debate a year from now. At the end of the day we will probably be in 2012 dealing with the next election. Then we will see if the President will be re-elected or not. If not then some people would have got what they wanted and President Obama will be out of office.
Edit: (And XXXX — even though you are not a lawyer, I think you could would figured this out for yourself if you had followed the link from the post. ALWAYS read source material — never take anyone’s word for what a case says without reading the case itself, especially if it is the word of a birther. In this case, the statement, ” Ultimately, it was ruled that Zolliecoffer WAS ineligible to serve as Altus Mayor. ” is absolutely false — the ultimate ruling was that the COURT LACKED JURISDICTION, and there was no ruling as to whether Zolliecoffer was, or was not, eligible).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Update] Who is the Mayor of Altus?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 at 9:00AM | Jerald Sharum
excerpt
As for Governor’s two remaining questions to Attorney General Daniels, it is unclear how the Governor would be legally prohibited from commissioning Zolliecoffer after the Arkansas Supreme Court had rejected every challenge to his election, and indeed suggested that there were no other obstacles to his election. See Post, No. 08-723, at 5.
Importantly, however, section 21-2-101 requires that candidates-elect must be commissioned. While not framed as a sine non qua, this section likely means that Zolliecoffer must be commissioned by Governor Beebe.
It should also be noted that the actual language of this section 21-2-102(b)(1) is a mess. It appears to be inconsistent with the sections to which it is citing and it contains conjunctions that break up the language into nearly incoherent chunks. For example, section 21-2-102(b)(1) refers to the “time period specified in subsection (a)” as the period in which the elected official must apply for or receive the commission from the Secretary of State, but the relevant periods in subsection (a) refers to the 60-day period in which public officers are required to send to the Secretary of State their commission fees. As a result of these drafting issues, a court may interpret it differently than what I hav laid out above.
Irrespective of the Governor’s legal obligations, Hog Law believes that the Governor should also look to the larger picture at issue: the people of Altus voted and selected Zolliecoffer. For the Governor to suppose that he can disturb that election would be hubris. Section 21-2-101 does not give him that discretion and the courts have rejected each obstacle that would be keep Zolliecoffer from being considered the duly-elected mayor of Altus. The Governor should therefore commission the person that the people selected.
http://www.hoglaw.org/home/2009/3/10/up … altus.html
Sue,
You are such an expert.
1. Yes they were all men. They existed and were historical figures. The New Testament (as well as other sources) records their acts and teachings. I appreciate your admission of this fact.
2. Christianity does not deny that Jesus was a man. You missed the boat on that one. Christianity believes the resurrected Messiah (Isaiah 53) was 100% man and 100% God. Saying Jesus was a man is no criticism of the doctrines of Christianity.
3. How do you know he was not God? That is the part left up to those who have the knowledge of faith.
4. BTW, yes they were all Jews and they believed he was the Divine Messiah (who could forgive sin, and raise himself from the dead).
5. Current Judaism is a product of the Pharisees teachings. Other Jewish groups existed at that time whose teachings are reflected in the NT (Essenes, etc.). Most of these groups did not survive the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (70 A.D.), but they were also Jews despite how the Pharisees (or their disciples) deny them Jewish status.
Courage and Godspeed,
-Tychicus
panta isxuw en tw endunamunti me (Philippians 3:13)
RE Bob says:
[...] Judge Carter may kick out the case (we still have three moths to go) for whatever reasons, and in that advent, the case will be rapidly appealed in the 9th. Circuit
And? None of these cases have faired any better at the circuit level (or with SCOTUS). That “most liberal” 9th Circuit will surely see it Taitz’s way… [...]
Bob, ALL, BUT ALL other legal actions regarding Obama’a (i)legitimacy were dismissed because the plaintiff(s) lack of standing, i.e., for a technicality – none was accepted for any form of judicial analysis, therefore the merits of the complaints weren’t scrutinized and debated. Now, the present situation appears to develop in a positive direction (from a birther’s POV).
A big difference, buddy –
Relax now -
Standing is not a technicality. A technicality would be issues like a failure to serve, a failure to sign your name on your filings, a failure to limit your pleading to the mandated number of pages, all requirements that Taitz has repeatedly ignored. Those are technicalities. Standing is important in determining whether a court should hear a case in the first place. Saying something like “Every voter has standing” may sound good as a policy, but it is not the state of the law. You will not get a district court judge to overturn decades of precedent on the nature and scope of standing on a case like this.
Additionally, in dicta several of the judges have addressed the merits of these complaints, and not one has said anything other than that the complaints were completely frivolous. Judge Land’s ruling in Rhodes really illustrates how completely baseless the complaints are.
Judge Carter has no juridiction. QW against POTUS is only available in DC District Court. This is all a dog and pony show. I think Orly is a Double agent, bought and paid for.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/the-natural-born-citizen-blog-is-now-restricted/
The USA’s will immediately appeal to the 9th. They might hear arguments in January, then 3 months to a decision.
And that is being optimistic. Berg’s case has been at the 3d Circuit for nearly a year, and the 9th has a much bigger caseload than the 3d. Average time of disposition in the 9th is around 2 years.
Bob says: “Gary Kreep is a fine lawyer, with a solid reputation in California.” Bob,Kreep put out a piece of disnfo and misinfo on the nbc issue and the eligbility issue.This has little to do with Barry’s BC.
No need to tell me; I was just quoting misanthropicus.
sise says: “The Index Data proves Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Re-read the Hawaiian vital records policy. It doesn’t say they release only name, sex and event. Here is what it says:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
“Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.”
“and such other data as the director may authorize” – they can release whatever data the director approves. The director chose to release only the name and sex and event to Leo and Co. It doesn’t mean other data isn’t there. The data is in a relational database. They can sort it by any field they want. And in reality, the date isn’t important, since it’s well known President Obama is older than 35.”
In this case, it matters not whether the director could release more information if he or she chose to do so: The director deliberately chose NOT to release anything more than the basic information. They MUST release what they released. They MAY release other data, IF the director chooses.
Did I EVER state that there is NO other information in the database? I’m willing to bet that I know far more than you do about Vital Records, hospitals, AND relational databases.
What I did say is that they released NO date, NO parents’ names, NO birth place.
It is a FACT that Hawaiian law allowed for registration of a foreign-born child in Hawaii in 1961. That registration would produce an index record. However, the minimal index data that was released does NOT prove a Hawaiian birth. It proves a Hawaiian REGISTRATION. A registration that may be of a foreign birth to two Hawaiian residents. That’s it. Say what you will, you cannot get around the facts.
“Tychicus says:
October 8, 2009 at 9:52 am
Sue,
You are such an expert.”
No, I’m not. But, you missed the entire point of my comment. Linda Starr stated one of the 12 men was God. Not true. None of the twelve men were God. The twelve men were Jesus Christ’s disciples. That was my point.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/178/story/866356.html
Why won’t this woman go away?
NO date
Any evidence Obama was born later than 1973? If not, then irrelevant.
NO parents’ names
Irrelevant for eligibility.
NO birth place.
Hawaii, as it is Hawaii’s index data.
It is a FACT that Hawaiian law allowed for registration of a foreign-born child in Hawaii in 1961.
You, of course, have a source for that FACT.
That registration would produce an index record.
Birth registration is not a vital event; birth is. You keep insisting birth registration would be included in the index data, but have cited no source to support that supposition.
misanthropicus says:
“ALL, BUT ALL other legal actions regarding Obama’a (i)legitimacy were dismissed because the plaintiff(s) lack of standing, i.e., for a technicality – none was accepted for any form of judicial analysis, therefore the merits of the complaints weren’t scrutinized and debated. Now, the present situation appears to develop in a positive direction (from a birther’s POV).”
mis, mis, mis. You missed the mark by a wide margin. Twice. Standing is a substantive requirement, and thus dismissal for lack of standing is NOT a dismissal on a “technicality” — do your homework. It is a decision on the merits, such that res judicata and collateral estoppel attach. If — no, when — the District Court dismisses the Barnett case for lack of standing, standing will be the ONLY issue before the Ninth Circuit. The merits of that mess of a First Amended Complaint will not even be considered.
Bob: Refer to the Hawaiian statutes for registering births. They have been cited and linked here many times. Do the research yourself, if it’s so important for you to have citations. It’s a fact, however. You can’t get around the facts.
Parents’ names are certainly relevant. You can claim whatever you like, but saying so doesn’t make it true, nevertheless.
Refer to the Hawaiian statutes for registering births.
As you are the one asserting that birth registration is a vital event, the onus is on you to provide a citation. “Because I say so” certainly won’t cut in a court of law.
As for the registration of foreign births, HRS 338-17.8 did not go into effect until 1982. And see how easy it was for me to cite the relevant law; why can’t you?
It’s a fact, however. You can’t get around the facts.
Without a citation, it is “fact” only in your head.
Parents’ names are certainly relevant.
Explain how the names of Obama’s parents are relevant to eligibility.
Bob, if you knew the statute, why did you ask me to cite it?
This statute allows for adults to register their own births, so it doesn’t matter when the statute went into effect, does it, so long as the registration took place after 1982?
Since the index data provided by the DoH gives NO date for the registration, we don’t know when the registration took place, so we don’t know which statutes were in effect at the time of the registration. Until we do, nobody can make any determination about eligibility.
What process was used prior to this statute? A simpler one, that did not contain the language about proof. In 1961, a birth registration could be done by affidavit or even by mail application. That the process was tightened in 1982, is to Hawaii’s credit.
What leads you to believe that a birth registration (by affidavit or otherwise) is NOT a vital event?
Where is your proof that a registration of birth is not a vital event resulting in index data?
Obviously, parents’ names are important in deciding natural born citizenship because one must know the US citizenship status of the parent(s) at the time the person was born. In addition, the age of the mother is also important, depending upon the birthplace.
Because the issue is multifactorial, one must know all of the facts before any decision can be made about natural born citizenship status.
I said, “It’s a fact, however. You can’t get around the facts.”
Bob retorted, “Without a citation, it is “fact” only in your head.”
Therefore, by your reasoning, Barack Hussein Obama’s (purported) birth in Hawaii after statehood to Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), thus making him a natural born citizen, is a fact only in your head because you cannot cite definitive PROOF of the particulars of his birth.
Barack Hussein Obama’s (purported) birth in Hawaii after statehood to Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama), thus making him a natural born citizen, is a fact only in your head because you cannot cite definitive PROOF of the particulars of his birth.
COLB, index data, newspaper annoucements, Fukino’s statements.
But other than that….
Bob, if you knew the statute, why did you ask me to cite it?
In case you were referring to something else.
Assuming Obama post-1982 could and actually did register his own birth (of which there is no actual evidence that this happened), the birth certificate would list his actual place of birth. HRS 338-17.8 does not permit a foreign-born person to obtain a birth certificate listing the actual place of birth as Honolulu.
Since the index data provided by the DoH gives NO date for the registration, we don’t know when the registration took place, so we don’t know which statutes were in effect at the time of the registration.
Again: index data records births, not birth registrations. The existence of the index data proves a Hawaiian birth.
What process was used prior to this statute? A simpler one, that did not contain the language about proof. In 1961, a birth registration could be done by affidavit or even by mail application.
Of course you have a citation to back this claim up, right?
And, of course, you have some evidence that any of this applies to Obama? Because your speculation is certainly not evidence.
What leads you to believe that a birth registration (by affidavit or otherwise) is NOT a vital event?
Now I could tell you to do your own research. Rather, I’ll provide a citation: “Vital records (birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates) for events that occurred in Hawaii are received and preserved by the Office of Health Status Monitoring, a unit of the Department of Health.”
1. Births, not birth registrations.
2. Occurred in Hawaii; Hawaii doesn’t record out-of-state births.
What do you have?
Obviously, parents’ names are important in deciding natural born citizenship because one must know the US citizenship status of the parent(s) at the time the person was born.
In Donofrio’s world, but this two-parent rule is not supported by case law. (And Obama has already admitted he doesn’t have two citizen parents, so mucking about with index data is a waste of time.)
In addition, the age of the mother is also important, depending upon the birthplace.
If born in the United States (which the index data confirms), it isn’t.
Because the issue is multifactorial, one must know all of the facts before any decision can be made about natural born citizenship status.
There are sufficient facts; you just don’t like the conclusion.
There are an awful lot of comments here but there appear to be only about a half dozen constant commenters!! And they all seem to be self anointed as the last word on the subject even though no one can actually verify anything they present as their own personally chosen but limited acceptable proof!
On the one hand they want to convince with their few available finds that are in the public domain but then on the other hand they argue that privacy concerns prevent the public from the verification of those finds. Go figure. They live in the world of Catch 22 and actually seem to enjoy it, and invite others they try to convince to come join them in “Happy Dale”!
New Docket Entry:
10/08/2009 83 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY 82 : The Ex Parte Motion is hereby DENIED. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
10/08/2009 83 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY 82 : The Ex Parte Motion is hereby DENIED. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 10/08/2009)
Nuts!
Judge Carter made it clear that he had NOT denied the motion to dismiss:
“Pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the stay of discovery shall remain in place”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818334/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-83-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-DENYING-EX-PARTE-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-OF-DISCOVERY-82-Gov
siseduermapierome
You are funny, thinking “boy” is a racist comment. Perhaps for you it is, so you project your own racist tint on other people’s comments. By boy, I mean to me he seems emotionally immature as did Bush. Obama and Bush both seem to be trying hard to please their wealthy backers. With Obama, it seems to be Soros and Oprah, and others. Bush is white, so it is hardly racist. There are black plaintiffs challenging Obama, so it is hardly a racist issue, as hard as the Obama fanatics try to make it. I notice the mainstream are no longer bringing on Dr. Manning for debate, since they started the “racist” tagging game. He would sort of blow their cover. I hope you expand you vocabulary beyond racist, and maybe explain what you think is going on with the numerous social security numbers Obama is found to have used. Or even explain why the President feels it is unimportant to follow the law and pay traffic tickets. That is a new one!! This is who you are fighting for? What do you think is going on?
Bob:”In Donofrio’s world, but this two-parent rule is not supported by case law.”
Can you then site case law that supports a less-then-two-parents definition (using the actual term “natural born citizen”)?
Can you then site case law that supports a less-then-two-parents definition (using the actual term “natural born citizen”)?
Wong Kim Ark, among others.
“An interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that applies to Barnett v. Obama and may help Judge Carter with some of the decisions he has to make; an election issue regarding eligibility, subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and after election judicial action. Hopefully Taitz and Kreep will use this in a follow-up to Judge Carter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2356333/posts”
Several of the lawyers at PJ have stated that the Arkansas Supreme Court decision supports the DOJ argument in Barnett v. Obama.
Mimi -
Let me ask you something.
Given the fact that the SCOTUS had several cases raising these issues before them prior to the Electoral College vote, the Congressional certification of that vote and the inauguration, but denied those cases a hearing, what does that indicate to YOU about the validity of the claim that one needs to have both parents as citizens to be eligible to be President?
http://washingtonindependent.com/63366/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Mimi,
My son is taking a college Govt. and Politics course. The college textbook does not make one reference to Law of Nations or de Vattel. Not one, especially in the chapter regarding presidental eligibility. If American citizenship and NBC was based upon Law of Nations and de Vattel, don’t you think a college textbook would reflect this? However, there are numerous references to common law.
If American citizenship and NBC was based upon Law of Nations and de Vattel, don’t you think a college textbook would reflect this? (Sue)
Please don’t be so naive about the slant of college textbooks. I think others may have provided this link, but I’ll cite it again. Please read it with an open mind.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/
If American citizenship and NBC was based upon Law of Nations and de Vattel, don’t you think a college textbook would reflect this?
Are you kidding? Watch out … your naivete is showing!
http://washingtonindependent.com/63366/obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
Joining the ranks of those other great choices of modern history – Jimmy Carter and Arafat. Mother Theresa, once again, spins in her grave!!
Let’s see if this grand scheme of manipulation of the (now world accepted impression) weak U.S. president will get the world socialists what they want – U.S. to disarm itself completely! Ummmm, can they take it back IF the “vote present” president actually makes a real decision for once and sends those much needed reinforcing troops to Afghanistan?? Of course that might shock those who expect the “hate America first” president to once again wimp out to their advantage.
what does that indicate to YOU about the validity of the claim that one needs to have both parents as citizens to be eligible to be President?
Nothing … because the question was never heard on its merits and precedent arguments were never raised. It’s all been political rather than Constitutional in recent years. Thank you last 5 decades of U.S. public education and teachers’ unions!!
A little refresher course for those still apparently suffering from public school hangovers re: long term history:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ASKShow/2009/10/09/The-Andrea-Shea-King-Show
Bob says:
October 9, 2009 at 3:50 am
Can you then site case law that supports a less-then-two-parents definition (using the actual term “natural born citizen”)?
Wong Kim Ark, among others
____________________________________________________________________
Wrong again Obama obfuscator. Wong Kim Ark was a narrowly decided case about the citizenship of children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens. Although it talked about the Natural Born Citizen, and quoted the Minor v. Happersett (1874) case directly ( which said that the definition is not in the constitution, thus it cannot be in the 14th Amendment, which was in 1866, and also said that it was NEVER DOUBTED that NBCs were the product of Citizen PARENTS), the court found Wong to be a CITIZEN NOT NBC. If that is the case Obama hangs his hat on he will lose.
From the US Attorney’s Motion to Dismiss regarding the case under reivew by Judge Carter…
“Plaintiffs ask this Court to entertain a challenge to the 2008 election of President Barack Obama by requiring the President to disprove, in this Court, their innuendo alleging that he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs cannot use this Court to investigate and decide the President’s fitness for office or their related claims, however, without contravening the very Constitution that they purport to uphold, which provides that the Electoral College and the Congress have exclusive jurisdiction of such political disputes.
Plaintiffs also seek to litigate in this Court a variety of vaguely-defined claims purportedly related to a hodgepodge of constitutional provisions, civil and criminal statutes, and the Freedom of Information Act. These claims are equally flawed, either because Plaintiffs have failed to meet the jurisdictional and statutory prerequisites or again seek to have this Court adjudicate issues that are textually committed to other branches.”
The motion goes to the heart of the matter. And doing so shows why it will be very difficult for Judge Carter not to dismiss Orly’s lawsuit.
JVN,
SCOTUS never considered the merits of NBC for any of those cases. They were all dropped because of standing.
Bob,
Please note the exact text that explicitly defines the term Natural Born Citizen. And then cite the text that then applies that definition to Wong Kim Ark.
Mick says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:24 am
Wrong again Obama obfuscator. Wong Kim Ark was a narrowly decided case about the citizenship of children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens. Although it talked about the Natural Born Citizen, and quoted the Minor v. Happersett (1874) case directly ( which said that the definition is not in the constitution, thus it cannot be in the 14th Amendment, which was in 1866, and also said that it was NEVER DOUBTED that NBCs were the product of Citizen PARENTS), the court found Wong to be a CITIZEN NOT NBC. If that is the case Obama hangs his hat on he will lose.
__________________________________________________________________
Mick, the ruling in Minor doesn’t help the cause of the birthers either….
If we take a look at Minor we note that first and most important thing regarding the Minor ruling is that the language regarding “taking a look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural born citizens of the US” is taken out of context. The context in which the “doubt” language in Minor v. Happersett appears is in a section analyzing the law before the adoption of the 14th amendment. President Obama was born under the 14th amendment, making Minor not relevant to his situation. The 14th amendment makes parentage of no account for citizenship.
Further Minor also says that there are exactly two kinds of citizen: native or natural born citizens and naturalized citizens (note the equivalence of natural born and native). There is no special class for those born citizens but natural born citizens. As long as anyone is born a citizen (and Barack Obama undoubtedly is one of these) then they are a natural born citizen. This is certainly true since the passage of the 14th amendment even though the court in Minor had some unexplained doubts that it was the case before. Finally one notes that Minor cites no authority for its doubts, and that the comment is part of the dicta (commentary) of the case, and not the decision.
So although Minor might say that a natural born citizen is born to 2 parents that are US citizens, the Court had doubts. In the ruling for the Minor case, the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY said they would NOT address the question of children born to alien parents. The Court only had questions regarding whether children born to alien parents became citizens of the US, period. No third class of citizens was discussed in this case. Throughout English legal history it was assumed that native were the same as natural born. Natives or natural born citizens were different from aliens or foreigners. And finally the Wong Kim Ark case determined that the children of non citizens, or aliens, are citizens of the United States.
So President Obama can use Wong to support his argument regarding being a natural born citizen. And so do a majority of the current Supreme Court justices look favorbly on Wong regarding citizenship issues. So as much as you attempt to discredit the Wong ruling, actual legal professionals know its value.
Mick pretend ended to know,
Obviously nonsense since SCOTUS cited Wong Kim Ark in Perkins v. Elg.
False. There is no case where anyone was found not to be natural born citizen while being a citizen by birth. That would be a contradiction. On the meaning of “natural born”, the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark quotes British jurist A.V. Dicey, writing, “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”
As a matter of language and not law, “natural born citizen” means citizen by birth. Just as a foreigner who is made a citizen is “naturalized”, a citizen from birth is “natural born”. As Akhil Reed Amar explains it for a lay audience, “The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.” http://slate.com/id/2183588/
The fact of the matter is that ‘bbama went behind the scenes and hand-picked himself as winner of the peace prize. the imposter has brought no peace yet has caused strife across the land and vaulted on his campaign promise to end a war. has also lost approval ratings and if survives till next election will lose. this is cnn reporting your worldwide news source thanks for tuning in.
Roderick says:
October 9, 2009 at 11:47 am
The fact of the matter is that ‘bbama went behind the scenes and hand-picked himself as winner of the peace prize. the imposter has brought no peace yet has caused strife across the land and vaulted on his campaign promise to end a war. has also lost approval ratings and if survives till next election will lose. this is cnn reporting your worldwide news source thanks for tuning in.
________________________________________________________________
So how exactly did he do that? You make the claim that he “went behind the scenes and hand picked himself as the winner, so you must have some evidence. Especially since the Nobel prize is voted for by people all over the world.
“Nominations of candidates for the prizes can be made only by those who have received invitations to do so. In the fall of the year preceding the award, Nobel committees distribute invitations to members of the prize-awarding bodies, to previous Nobel prize winners, and to professors in relevant fields at certain colleges and universities.”
“Upon invitation, members of governments or certain international organizations may nominate candidates for the peace prize. The Nobel Foundation’s statutes do not allow individuals to nominate themselves. Invitations to nominate candidates and the nominations themselves are both confidential.”
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567175/Nobel_Prizes.html
So I guess this President Obama conspiracy theory involves him doing what? Making all of the secret Nobel voters vote for him. I mean being the President of the US is powerful but that may be giving him too much credit. I guess the voters see him a bit differently than you do.
Several of the lawyers at PJ have stated that the Arkansas Supreme Court decision supports the DOJ argument in Barnett v. Obama.
A quick read does show that it supports Obama.
The Arkansas Supreme Court made it clear there was jurisdiction for a post-election challenge because there was a statute that explicitly provided for a post-election challenge. No such statute in Barnett.
The Arkansas Supreme Court, however, dismissed the case because the petition was based on a pre-election-challenge statute, and the court had no jurisdiction under that statute because the election had passed.
To say “jurisdiction exists for election challenges” is a gross oversimplification.
(And, years later, the challenge lingers. The petitioner was eventually certified by the election board as the winner, but the governor has not given him his mayoral commission.)
Roderick says:
October 9, 2009 at 11:47 am
*The fact of the matter is that ‘bbama went behind the scenes and hand-picked himself as winner of the peace prize.*
Wow, he sure wields a lot of power in the world, doesn’t he Roderick? He controls the Nobel Committee too. Just more of the same from Obama deniers: try to dismiss the honor and belittle everything he accomplishes.
Roderick says:
October 9, 2009 at 11:47 am
The fact of the matter is that ‘bbama went behind the scenes and hand-picked himself as winner of the peace prize. the imposter has brought no peace yet has caused strife across the land and vaulted on his campaign promise to end a war. has also lost approval ratings and if survives till next election will lose. this is cnn reporting your worldwide news source thanks for tuning in.
_________________________________________________________________
Roderick, Below is the reasoing on why the Nobel Committee decided to give the 2009 award to President Barack Obama of the United States of America…
“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”
As Americans we should proud that our President won, but as we all know there will be some that will diminish the award or attempt to discredit the man…
Obviously nonsense since SCOTUS cited Wong Kim Ark in Perkins v. Elg.
This comment really sums it up:
“It’s ironic that the same people who can’t even understand the import of particular court proceedings are the ones arguing we’ve got it all wrong on the meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution.”
Phil, in the article, wrote:
At this point, a couple realizations should have dawned on observers: The U.S. Attorney’s office knows what it is doing and Leo Donofrio does not. Look at WaveyDavey’s report: Judge Carter is well aware that D.C. District Court is the proper forum for federal quo warranto. A half-century old descision from the 7′th Circuit that isn’t binding on this Court is not such an important citation.
Assistant U.S. Attorney West agreed that quo warranto is a matter for the D.C. District Court, but he prefaced with, “If quo warranto were applicable at all,” and followed with, “However, quo warranto does not apply here.” There are four defects with the quo warranto action: The plaintiffs cannot bring quo warranto; only the D.C. District Court, and not this court, hears federal quo warranto; quo warranto cannot remove the President; and Obama’s warrant is insuperable. Of these defects, the only one the plaintiffs can fix is the second — they could try the D.C. District Court.
Leo Donofrio thinks the U.S. Attorneys’ office should attack the one defect that is fixable, and wonders why they don’t do so using his old and non-binding citation. “It comes as quite a shock to me,” Donofrio writes, “that the DOJ did not cite this case in its motion to dismiss.” Hey Leo, maybe they know what they’re doing. Maybe the side that wins every time doesn’t want the advice of someone who loses every time.
Black Lion, Why do you suppose an investigator found Obama using other people’s social security numbers. Do you think this has been made up? If it is true, would it bother you? Or are you a blind supporter? Why do you think he is sealing his passport travel? Just curious! By the way, I am a racist…I love all races.
ch says:
October 9, 2009 at 2:46 pm
*Why do you suppose an investigator found Obama using other people’s social security numbers. Do you think this has been made up?*
Yes, it’s made up. No one has proven Barack Obama has used other people’s social security numbers. Orly has lists of names and numbers. She’s never tied them to use of a social security number by Barack Obama. She has never shown she has Barack Obama’s real social security number. As for Susan Daniel in Ohio, if she has searched credit records or run credit reports not part of an active case with a lawyer hiring her to run reports, she has probably broken the law.
Black Lion if I’m not mistaken many of these same attributes were afforded to hitler
Roderick says:
October 9, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Black Lion if I’m not mistaken many of these same attributes were afforded to hitler
____________________________________________________________
Now if you could just provide some proof of that then we could then debate the merits. However you are bringing up the usual Beck/Limbaugh right smear of the President calling him everything from a Nazi to a Communist to a Fascist.
A non-partisan, multi-national vote was held and they selected the President of the United States as the winner. For most people that would be a source of national pride. However most on the right are acting like the President did something wrong. However this is not a surprise since we saw how some were happy last week that the United States did not get the Olympics. Some went as far as to say that the so called “international community” no longer was “blinded” by the President. I guess we can definately put that rumor to rest.
ch says:
October 9, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Black Lion, Why do you suppose an investigator found Obama using other people’s social security numbers. Do you think this has been made up? If it is true, would it bother you? Or are you a blind supporter? Why do you think he is sealing his passport travel? Just curious! By the way, I am a racist…I love all races.
________________________________________________________________
Again do you have proof that the President was using the social security numbers of others? Or do you have Orly’s word for it? And since we have seen some of her other “evidence”, we know that anything she says cannot be taken for face value. It is amazing how you will believe whatever Orly or others say without demanding any proof but you require that the President provide proof on top of the proof he has already provided. I definately believe that this was made up.
Secondly he is not sealing his passport travel. That is protected under federal privacy laws. Besides what does passport records of President Obama have to do with him being eligible for President? Additionally Orly has claimed that Obama has scrubbed his passport records when there was that breach last year, so even if it was released and showed nothing, you would just claim that the records were altered and could not be taken as true.
“COLB, index data, newspaper annoucements, Fukino’s statements.”
None constitute PROOF of the PARTICULARS of his birth; thus, none constitute proof of his purported natural born citizenship.
IF they prove what you seem to believe they prove, then convince your paramour to present all of the original documents to any court of law for verification.
“the birth certificate would list his actual place of birth”
Has anyone SEEN the “birth certificate?” No. So how do you know what place of birth is on it?
“index data records births, not birth registrations”
Again, you make this claim but with nothing to back it up.
Bob, are you a bystander?
“Why do you suppose an investigator found Obama using other people’s social security numbers”
Have you actually read the affidavit?
““COLB, index data, newspaper annoucements, Fukino’s statements.””
Birthers won’t accept the above as proof that President Obama was born in Hawaii, yet, they would be accepted as evidence and proof of place of birth by the court.
Black Lion,
Blind support is dangerous, of either Obama or Orly. That is why we have a court system. I would think you would be eager for Obama to vindicate himself. If I was in favor of Obama, and saw him causing greater concern rather than clearing up issues, I would back off. I personally believe in a judicial court system. Obama’s passport travel would clear up a lot of questions. I personally am concerned that people are finding social security activity and would like the court to verify this, and not blindly believe Orly. I would also like to know what nationality Obama attended school under, and his sealing these records raises an alarm, as the black police officer who is a plaintiff states. Obama is a fascist, since he supports the government purchasing an auto company rather than having it broken up and sold off. He wants government health care, which would lead to unethical health care…as in England where a mother had to hold her preemie while it died in her arms, because their great free health care did not allow for helping 22-week old preemies. I like to see issues settled by the courts, not by the politicians…balance of power. If Obama cannot pull out a little piece of paper showing the hospital where he was born, he has caused the controversy, not all the “racists” who love all races. His friend Bill Ayers whom he has publicly denied but spent time together with on a board of Directors, is another serious concern. They are finding that Obama could hardly write anything, but Bill Ayers has a writing style that is reflected in Obama’s “books.” Yet he lies about this friendship. This is why people are concerned. it is not a blind hatred. It is measured and reasonable concern that all is not right in the White House. So why do you not encourage your beloved Obama to be a man and step into court and vindicate himself. That would be very “presidential” of him. Following any human being blindly is foolish. Obama or Orly.
ch says:
October 9, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Black Lion,
“Blind support is dangerous, of either Obama or Orly.”
I would agree with you….
“I personally am concerned that people are finding social security activity and would like the court to verify this, and not blindly believe Orly.”
If this was true I would agree with you. But there has been no real evidence that this has happened. Orly makes these claims, but they are unsupported by any real evidence.
“I would also like to know what nationality Obama attended school under, and his sealing these records raises an alarm, as the black police officer who is a plaintiff states.”
What nationality doesn’t matter. He was born in the US. Again these records were not sealed by him. You have to stop listening to the birther talking points. His records are protected by federal privacy laws. And besides none of the records have anything to do with presidential eligibility.
“If Obama cannot pull out a little piece of paper showing the hospital where he was born, he has caused the controversy, not all the “racists” who love all races. His friend Bill Ayers whom he has publicly denied but spent time together with on a board of Directors, is another serious concern. They are finding that Obama could hardly write anything, but Bill Ayers has a writing style that is reflected in Obama’s “books.” Yet he lies about this friendship.”
He has already produced this information. It shows him being born in the US. So he is not causing any controversy, it is the people that choose to not believe the COLB, the index data Leo got, or the statement from Dr. Fukino. Ayers did not write his book. That was a lie pushed by WND. There has never been any independent statement that supported that claim. I could care less about the washed up Bill Ayers.
Black Lion:
Time will tell. A lot of us care a lot about thing you care nothing about. That is why it would be great for a court to investigate. If Orly has phony information, it will soon enough come out in court. You want a President with a secret background. Many of us do not. You support secrecy. Obama had sealed divorce papers unsealed, to harm an opponent and eliminate competition. I say lets do the same with Obama. Our need to know outweighs his need to conceal, so all your “federal privacy laws” can go up in smoke! If he wants to destroy other people and parade their sealed divorce papers, then he has relinquished his own right to privacy, it would seem. You cannot go after a top job without invading your own privacy. If Obama really wanted “privacy” he would have stuck to surfing! He wants power without the headaches. I admire Orly much more, since she is willing to step into a court room and is willing to be shown to be a big phony. Obama refuses….so by comparison….she seems to be “presidential.”
Back to the question of why the USSC denied hearings to the cases raising the NBC issue before it.
We are told that the USSC would IGNORE AN “OBVIOUS” USURPATION OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT because they felt that there was a technicality that prevented them from hearing the cases.
They also supposedly wouldn’t suggest privately to members of Congress that the President “obviously” wasn’t qualified so that Congress could deal with the issue at certification.
Please.
If the SCOTUS is “in on this” y’all are going to lose this no matter what, huh?
This is amazing: http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=353#
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33213245/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann
Health care reform: Saving American lives
Keith Olbermann on what really matters when it comes to health reform
brygenon says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:58 am
Mick pretend ended to know,
Wrong again Obama obfuscator. Wong Kim Ark was a narrowly decided case about the citizenship of children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens.
Obviously nonsense since SCOTUS cited Wong Kim Ark in Perkins v. Elg.
Although it talked about the Natural Born Citizen, and quoted the Minor v. Happersett (1874) case directly ( which said that the definition is not in the constitution, thus it cannot be in the 14th Amendment, which was in 1866, and also said that it was NEVER DOUBTED that NBCs were the product of Citizen PARENTS), the court found Wong to be a CITIZEN NOT NBC.
False. There is no case where anyone was found not to be natural born citizen while being a citizen by birth. That would be a contradiction. On the meaning of “natural born”, the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark quotes British jurist A.V. Dicey, writing, “‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.’”
As a matter of language and not law, “natural born citizen” means citizen by birth. Just as a foreigner who is made a citizen is “naturalized”, a citizen from birth is “natural born”. As Akhil Reed Amar explains it for a lay audience, “The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.” http://slate.com/id/2183588/
___________________________________________________________________
Wrong again Obama Obfuscator. Happersett said specifically that the definition of NBC is NOT in the constitution. Since the case was in 1874 and the 14A was in 1866, then it’s not in the 14A. They had doubts as to whether the child of a foreignor was even a citizen, much less NBC. Nothing is out of context. Where is the Supreme court case which says that a child born of aliens in the US is a NBC. If you want to cite Perkins v. Elg, SCOTUS specifically said that Miss Elg, born of Citizen parents, in the US (the mother was automatically naturalized by 1855 law when her husband was naturalized, so don’t go there) was a Natural Born Citizen, as was Mr. Steinkauler (with the ability to become President). Mr. Bohn, on the other hand, born in the US of Alien parents was deemed “citizen” not NBC like Steinkauler and Elg, who were born of US Citizen PARENTS. There is No equality in the terms natural born Subject and Natural born citizen. It is laughable to even sugest it, since the very subjucation of british “subjects” is what the framers were escaping. I know none of this means anything to a purveyer of relativity and not truth such as yourself.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/the-congressional-natural-born-citizen-part-iii-mccain-s-res-511-were-meant-to-sanitize-obamas-ineligibility-to-be-president/
Black Lion says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:50 am
Mick says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:24 am
Wrong again Obama obfuscator. Wong Kim Ark was a narrowly decided case about the citizenship of children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens. Although it talked about the Natural Born Citizen, and quoted the Minor v. Happersett (1874) case directly ( which said that the definition is not in the constitution, thus it cannot be in the 14th Amendment, which was in 1866, and also said that it was NEVER DOUBTED that NBCs were the product of Citizen PARENTS), the court found Wong to be a CITIZEN NOT NBC. If that is the case Obama hangs his hat on he will lose.
__________________________________________________________________
Mick, the ruling in Minor doesn’t help the cause of the birthers either….
If we take a look at Minor we note that first and most important thing regarding the Minor ruling is that the language regarding “taking a look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural born citizens of the US” is taken out of context. The context in which the “doubt” language in Minor v. Happersett appears is in a section analyzing the law before the adoption of the 14th amendment. President Obama was born under the 14th amendment, making Minor not relevant to his situation. The 14th amendment makes parentage of no account for citizenship.
Further Minor also says that there are exactly two kinds of citizen: native or natural born citizens and naturalized citizens (note the equivalence of natural born and native). There is no special class for those born citizens but natural born citizens. As long as anyone is born a citizen (and Barack Obama undoubtedly is one of these) then they are a natural born citizen. This is certainly true since the passage of the 14th amendment even though the court in Minor had some unexplained doubts that it was the case before. Finally one notes that Minor cites no authority for its doubts, and that the comment is part of the dicta (commentary) of the case, and not the decision.
So although Minor might say that a natural born citizen is born to 2 parents that are US citizens, the Court had doubts. In the ruling for the Minor case, the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY said they would NOT address the question of children born to alien parents. The Court only had questions regarding whether children born to alien parents became citizens of the US, period. No third class of citizens was discussed in this case. Throughout English legal history it was assumed that native were the same as natural born. Natives or natural born citizens were different from aliens or foreigners. And finally the Wong Kim Ark case determined that the children of non citizens, or aliens, are citizens of the United States.
So President Obama can use Wong to support his argument regarding being a natural born citizen. And so do a majority of the current Supreme Court justices look favorbly on Wong regarding citizenship issues. So as much as you attempt to discredit the Wong ruling, actual legal professionals know its value.
________________________________________________________________
Wrong again, as usual. Here is the diresct reference to Subjects and citizens in Happersett:
“For convenience, it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose, the words “subject,” “inhabitant,” and “citizen” have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the states upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense, it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.”
Members of US society were decided BY THE CONSTITUTION to be CITIZENS, not subjects.
And here is the reference to Natural Born Citizen. Notice how it says that the Constitution DOES not, not DID not , as in referring to before the 14A.
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their
Page 88 U. S. 168
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
So they weren’t deciding who was a Natural Born Citizen, just Citizen. I realize that reason and truth mean nothing to the Obama Obfuscators and Internet Propagandists though.
Mick went on,
Of course it isn’t. Neither is definition of “fourteen Years a Resident”, nor the definition of “Age of thirty-five Years”. The words simply have their English meanings, and “natural-born citizen” means a citizen from birth.
Spewing word-salad does not help your case.
You’re citing a birther rant? Did you look up the guy I cited, Akhil Reed Amar? Google is your friend. Taking clues is optional, but here it is again:
As a matter of language and not law, “natural born citizen” means citizen by birth. Just as a foreigner who is made a citizen is “naturalized”, a citizen from birth is “natural born”. As Akhil Reed Amar explains it for a lay audience, “The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.” http://slate.com/id/2183588/
If you want to try to respond, please learn to use the blockquote tag, and try keep it somewhat coherent.
ch says:
October 9, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Black Lion:
Time will tell. A lot of us care a lot about thing you care nothing about. That is why it would be great for a court to investigate. If Orly has phony information, it will soon enough come out in court. You want a President with a secret background. Many of us do not. You support secrecy. Obama had sealed divorce papers unsealed, to harm an opponent and eliminate competition. I say lets do the same with Obama. Our need to know outweighs his need to conceal, so all your “federal privacy laws” can go up in smoke! If he wants to destroy other people and parade their sealed divorce papers, then he has relinquished his own right to privacy, it would seem. You cannot go after a top job without invading your own privacy. If Obama really wanted “privacy” he would have stuck to surfing! He wants power without the headaches. I admire Orly much more, since she is willing to step into a court room and is willing to be shown to be a big phony. Obama refuses….so by comparison….she seems to be “presidential.”
_______________________________________________________________________
By a “lot of us” you are referring to less than 1% of the population of the US. Even though the President is for the entire US, he can’t worry about the 1% that wants to believe in that nonsense. He is more concerned with the other 99% that recognizes that he is the President of the United States and that he has to do what is best for our country…and what is best is not worrying about Orly, Leo, and the others that are making wild and unsubstantiated allegations.
Secondly the “release of his opponents divorce records” is not accurate. Now if you have some evidence of this then link to it. Other than that you are following the usual birther playbook, make wild accusations that have no evidence to support it and pretend that it is true.
The documents you seek have nothing to do with Presidential eligibility. So why should the law of privacy, that protects every American, not protect our President. And the only phony is Orly and her manufactured evidence. If that is being “presidential” then let her run in 2012. She is a joke and un-American. And hopefully Judge Carter will dismiss her wild fantasy and people will finally figure out she has no clue.
Here is perhaps a more important question for the O-bots:
What would you say if it comes out that he WAS NOT born at Kapiolani as he claimed? That is, there is factual proof, evidence, indisputable support to this claim.
What then? Will there be some desire for investigation? Or will you distract all the more?
I’m just wondering because this very well could be shown, and before the end of the year. Would you continue to call people here crazy if that is shown?
I respectfully would request a response. Thanks.
Black Lion thanks for tuning in. The imposter is a marxist and leninist all rolled up in one. cnn refused to research this and fed the public a bunch of garbage that they willingly consumed. i don’t care about any birth certificate as i don’t feel that that weighs as heavily as someone who has an agenda to subvert the government and install numerous slaves for his wifey in the white house so that she can know what it feels like to be snooty. i have a good friend of mine who voted for ‘bama only because he was on the democratic ticket. in other words ‘bama chose to be a democrat so he could brown nose his way to the top. ‘bama will never be a successful person only someone who rides in on the coattails of others. harry truman should have won the nobel peace prize for saving thousands of American lives by letting loose with nuclear bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki.
Joseph Maine says:
October 10, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Here is perhaps a more important question for the O-bots:
What would you say if it comes out that he WAS NOT born at Kapiolani as he claimed? That is, there is factual proof, evidence, indisputable support to this claim.
What then? Will there be some desire for investigation? Or will you distract all the more?
I’m just wondering because this very well could be shown, and before the end of the year. Would you continue to call people here crazy if that is shown?
I respectfully would request a response. Thanks.
___________________________________________________________________________
Joseph, if it came out that he was not born in the hospital but born in HI, then it would not be an issue because he was born in the US and meets the qualifications of the Constitution.
Now if you say that there was undisputable proof that he was not born in the US, than as an American I would support an investigation.
However I don’t believe that any evidence will ever come out that President Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. There is too much evidence that meets the legal requirements and proves that he was born in HI. The so called Kenyan birth never made any sense, financially or logistically. A person would have to suspend a lot of common sense to believe in those improbable scenarios.
Either way Orly is crazy. However if by some chance that it was shown, then obviously then the small number of people that believed that would be proven right. So they would not be crazy.
That is your response.
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Joseph Maine says:
First I would, of course, ask how he got it wrong. Mr. Maine, have you plotted out the rest of your story? Are you picturing the future president born in a taxi on the way to Kapiolani or what?
So the conspiracy theory isn’t crazy because you can imagine factual support?
Other varieties of cranks can and do advance the same kind of challenge Joseph Maine poses: “What would you say if it comes out that…?” Many seem to believe, as Joseph Maine said, that their counterfactual query is “a more important question” than what the actual evidence shows.
We obots can play that game. What if Barack Obama showed the official document that bis birth-state of Hawaii provides? What if he allowed independent reporters to examine and photograph the certificate, and they found it to be legitimate? What if announcement of his birth had appeared in local Hawaiian papers contemporaneously? What if state officers attested to the fact that original Hawaiian state records show Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? Would you eligibility deniers be willing to admit you were wrong, were you faced with such overwhelming evidence?
‘Course when we obots tell our tail, the “what if” is facetious. Them’s the facts:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
“ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
Orly!
brygenon says: Course when we obots tell our tail, the “what if” is facetious. Them’s the facts:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf I can’t stop the laughter.You are still kneeling at the altar of factcheck.org.Unreal.Please,talk about the Nobel Peace Prize joke or something to attempt to sway weak minds,but not that discredited website.
MGB says:
October 10, 2009 at 10:13 pm
*ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.*
Which is why the only help Orly can find to go along with her is a guy who’s been disbarred in 3 states.
Pragmatic Dog says:
October 11, 2009 at 6:33 am
*factcheck.org.but not that discredited website.*
Please point us to where factcheck has been discredited.
*talk about the Nobel Peace Prize joke *
No joke PragDo, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Just more of the same ol’ sour grapes from Obama deniers.
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3677
Orly Taitz Defends Disbarred Assistant Charles Lincoln III
siseduermapierda says:
“No joke PragDo, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Just more of the same ol’ sour grapes from Obama deniers.”
**************************
So what if Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! So was YASSER ARAFAT! And that says what about BO and the Nobel Peace Prize? Besides the fact that Obama has done absolutely NOTHING to earn it and people like Yasser Arafat have won it, just proves what a politically motivated joke the Nobel Peace Prize has become. Obama fits right in with Arafat since they’re both cut from the same cloth.
The nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize were decided back in February when BO had only been in office for two weeks. What exactly did he do in those 2 weeks to win the prize? In fact, what has he done since? That speaks volumes about the “seriousness” of the prize. In truth, if they’re going to go ahead and choose Obama as the winner, they technically should have given it to the TOTUS (Teleprompter of the U.S.) since Obama can’t live or speak without it. What a joke.
Sorry to disappoint you but no “sour grapes” here. I find it humorous and pathetic at the same time. I think a reality check is in order on your end.
RE qwertyman (1) & RE georgetownJD (2) RE Misanthropicus “technicalities like standing”:
1) [...] Standing is not a technicality. A technicality would be issues like a failure to serve, a failure to sign your name on your filings, a failure to limit your pleading to the mandated number of pages [...]‘
2) [...] You missed the mark by a wide margin. Twice. Standing is a substantive requirement, and thus dismissal for lack of standing is NOT a dismissal on a “technicality” — do your homework. [...]
Good shot, Qwertman/ georgetownJD – however, how would you reconcile your description with the following one (quotation) from:
-*-
- United States Justice Foundation –
« Obama eligibility to see its day in court?/ Judge delays ruling on dismissal of Wiley Drake’s ‘birther’ case/ by Bob Allen/10.08.09>>
(NB: the “standing” matter is addressed in the last paragraph, and the capitalisation is mine).
SANTA ANA, Calif. (Associated Baptist Press) — A federal judge heard arguments for three hours Oct. 5 about whether or not he should dismiss a lawsuit questioning Barack Obama’s birthplace and the legitimacy of his presidency. In the end, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter decided not to rule immediately, saying he needed more time to consider arguments made both during the hearing and in written documents.
Carter did refuse, however, to grant a motion by former Southern Baptist Convention second vice president Wiley Drake and another plaintiff in the suit to separate their case from other plaintiffs represented by Orly Taitz, a California lawyer, dentist and real-estate agent they fired as their attorney in July.
Drake’s new lawyer, Gary Kreep, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation, told the pro-”birther” website Give Us Liberty that whether the judge will allow the case to move forward is “all up in the air.”
[...]
Taitz said she believes something has occurred to influence the judge to change his mind.
“It was not the same Judge Carter that I’ve seen in July and not the same Judge Carter that I’ve seen in September,” she told Give Us Liberty. In those hearings, she said, Carter assured the plaintiffs their case would be DECIDED ON MERITS AND NOT DISMISSED OVER A TECHNICALITY LIKE STANDING.”
-*-
Best regards -
misanthropicus says:
October 11, 2009 at 9:36 am
*how would you reconcile your description with the following one (quotation) from..Taitz said she “Carter assured the plaintiffs their case would be DECIDED ON MERITS AND NOT DISMISSED OVER A TECHNICALITY LIKE STANDING.”
*
Easy. Orly Taitz thinks standing is a technicality. Orly Taitz is wrong. Judge Carter never called standing a technicality. Judge Carter did call failure to serve defendants a technicality. Counsel for defendants agreed to accept the service Orly served even though Technically, she never served them properly. If he haddismissed the case for something like failure to serve, not timely prosecuting her case, she could have just refiled. If, when, he rules on standing, jurisidiction or justiciability, she won’t be able to refile. Ask yourself, has Orly Taitz been right about anything thus far? No.
siseduermapierda, those of us that were around at the time Orly served Obama and his Nation of Islam handlers, know that proper service was served. Obama and his group of merry men refused to accept service, then the server made a phone call and was directed to the justice dept., and to serve Obama there. Obama and his merry men were served prior to his inauguration when Obama was a citizen, just as Orly states. Obama and his thugs did everything in their power to avoid service, knowing full well that being served as a citizen, before he was president would strip Obama of the protections the Constitution gives to the President. Your assertion that Orly failed to serve the usurper properly is BS.
misanthropicus says:
“RE qwertyman (1) & RE georgetownJD (2) RE Misanthropicus “technicalities like standing”:
1) [...] Standing is not a technicality. A technicality would be issues like a failure to serve, a failure to sign your name on your filings, a failure to limit your pleading to the mandated number of pages [...]‘
2) [...] You missed the mark by a wide margin. Twice. Standing is a substantive requirement, and thus dismissal for lack of standing is NOT a dismissal on a “technicality” — do your homework. [...]
Good shot, Qwertman/ georgetownJD – however, how would you reconcile your description with the following one (quotation) from:
-*-
- United States Justice Foundation –”
« Obama eligibility to see its day in court?/ Judge delays ruling on dismissal of Wiley Drake’s ‘birther’ case/ by Bob Allen/10.08.09>> * * * ”
____________________________________________________
You cite an article — by an online journalist who has no law degree — that standing is a mere technicality? THAT is your source? Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor … my chair fell over I was laughing so hard.
My source, and Qwertyman’s, and suse’s, and brygenon’s, is the body of decided law. “[T]e core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. See, e. g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984).” Lujan, at 560. “[S]tanding … is a threshold issue in all cases since putative plaintiffs lacking standing are not entitled to have their claims litigation in federal Court.” Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. v. Wagoner, 944 F.2d 114, 117 (2d Cir. 1991). Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiff’s case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i. e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, at 560-61.
So, mis, mis, mis — you are getting farther and farther from the target. Your wide mark is several hundred miles, and growing. Cite some precedent — some real law — and we’ll let you back in the game.
bob strauss says:
October 11, 2009 at 12:05 pm
*know that proper service was served. Obama and his group of merry men refused to accept service.Your assertion that Orly failed to serve the usurper properly is BS.*
Good one. Tell that to Judge Carter. The idea that Orly could serve President Obama as a private citizen is a fantasy and Judge Carter told her as much. Orly didn’t file Keyes v Obama until after Obama was inaugurated. Merry men? Hilarious. I believe you have mistaken the Secret Service, who have guarded Obama since 2007, for some other organization. Asserting that Orly had properly served any defendant in Keyes v Obama before Judge Carter ordered her to serve the US Attorney is the BS. All one has to do is read the transcript from July to know you are trying to re-write history. He ordered Orly to serve the US Attorney that very day and she still failed to do so until late August. It still was not complete service, but the USA accepted it anyway.
sise-, You are right, it was his secret service handlers that refused the service for Obama as citizen of Kenya, and directed the server to the DOJ in order to serve Obama there, and pretend they were never served. Very important to Orly’s case that Obama was served prior to the inauguration, and every attempt to do so was made, Obama and his legal team did everything in their power to avoid service and misrepresent the facts. It’s called a cover up, read the affidavit of the server describing how the service was given.
Read the transcript from July? Read the transcript on the internet, Obama was served back in January, look at Orly’s documents if you want to cite the chronology of the events leading up to Obama not showing up in court and pretending they were never served.
Obots version of what happened surrounding the service of Obama is a coordinated strategy to avoid the truth.
Timing of service is a strong point of her case, to serve Obama before he received the protections of the presidency and the Constitution of the United States of America.
bob strauss says:
October 11, 2009 at 1:13 pm
*Very important to Orly’s case that Obama was served prior to the inauguration*
bob, Orly could not have served Obama prior to the Inauguration, because the suit wasn’t filed until after the Inauguration took place. Orly may continue to insist she could complete service on Obama as an individual, but it’s not so and Judge Carter explained this to her in July. It’s water under the bridge anyway because the USA accepted service for all the defendants. Also, if you have proof that Pres Obama is or ever was a citizen of Kenya, please link us to it. From the US Govt’s response in Allen v Soetoro ” To the extent this paragraph alleges that President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, or is or ever was a citizen of Kenya or a British subject, those allegations are denied.” Apparently the State Dept can prove it or they wouldn’t have outright denied it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20704651/ALLEN-v-SOETORO-14-ANSWER-to-1-Complaint-by-Hillary-Clinton-Eric-Holder-Janet-Napolitano-Barry-Soetoro-U-S-Citizenship-and-Immigration-Servic
It’s ironic, that an illegal alien usurper of the presidency of the United States of America is now hiding behind the protections the Constitution gives to it’s citizens. Obama needs to prove he worthy of those protections, but of course we all know he can not even come up with a birth certificate showing he was born in the USA, and don’t tell me he already has produced the birth certificate, we are not fooled.
Sise said, “Please point us to where factcheck has been discredited.”
This blog. Texas Darlin blog. Leo Donofrio’s blog. And the blog of a person who has a JD but who shall remain unnamed out of courtesy to Phil, who must tread lightly when mentioning her pseudonym.
The FACTS are that Factcheck does NOT check facts. Ergo, they are discredited.
MGB says:
October 11, 2009 at 2:12 pm
*Sise said, “Please point us to where factcheck has been discredited.”
This blog. Texas Darlin blog. Leo Donofrio’s blog. And the blog of a person who has a JD but who shall remain unnamed out of courtesy to Phil, who must tread lightly when mentioning her pseudonym.*
The blogs you mention have criticized and disagreed with factcheck, but have never disproven what factcheck says. Nice try though. Blogs, Orly and Leo as proof. Rich. ( no disrespect to Phil)
bob strauss says:
October 11, 2009 at 1:55 pm
*Obama needs to prove he worthy of those protections*
Actually he doesn’t. You need to prove he’s not if you think he’s not.
brygenon,
you and others have said things like “So the conspiracy theory isn’t crazy because you can imagine factual support?”
First of all it isn’t a conspiracy theory, because we can KNOW right now the details of his birth, but for whatever reason, he won’t show it.
And no, nothing is crazy because neither of us actually know where he was born. In fact, there is good evidence through the UIPA acts that he has an amended birth certificate.
The reality is that he can’t prove he was born in Hawaii. Does that mean he wasn’t born there? Not necessarily. But legally he can’t prove it, and so he won’t show that the questionable nature of his vital records. Period.
Given that is the case, it WILL show that he was not born at Kapiolani. So he is burned by a lie, which then makes a cover-up look likely.
I’m not imagining anything. He has left everything to imagining, not me. And you WILL see that he wasn’t born at Kapiolani. The question is, what excuse will you make up then?
Surely you can’t blame people for being suspicious then, when a) he never showed anything and b) he is shown to be untruthful about a claim of his birth. If you do continue to defend these things baselessly, openmindedness and logic are not in your equation, which makes me unsure of why you post on this board.
“Obama needs to prove”
President Obama doesn’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the plaintiffs, not President Obama. To date, there has been no credible evidence, admissible in a court of law that would prove President Obama was not born in Hawaii.
However, Factcheck.org published photos of his certified COLB, the Hawaii DOH officials verified that President Obama was born in Hawaii which is credible evidence, admissible in a court of law.
Here are the court transcripts of two of the hearings held in this lawsuit. Dr. Taitz tends to misrepresent the facts.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19746232/KEYES-v-OBAMA-OFFICIAL-COURT-TRANSCRIPT-7132009-Hearing
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19777637/KEYES-v-OBAMA-OFFICIAL-COURT-TRANSCRIPT-982009
bob strauss says:
“sise-, You are right, it was his secret service handlers that refused the service for Obama as citizen of Kenya, and directed the server to the DOJ in order to serve Obama there, and pretend they were never served. Very important to Orly’s case that Obama was served prior to the inauguration, and every attempt to do so was made, Obama and his legal team did everything in their power to avoid service and misrepresent the facts.”
_____________________
sise has already pointed out that Keyes v. Obama, now known as Barnett v. Obama, was FILED hours after the inauguration. So let’s not belabor that point. So to address your fantasy that Obama was “served” in February because Mary Ann was stopped at the White House gate and attempted to persuade the Secret Service to accept the summons — bob, all I can say is that you need to make the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure your bedtime reading tonight. Pay attention to Rule 8 and particular attention to subsections (e) and (i). Come back tomorrow and point us to the (nonexistent) part of the rule that says the Secret Service is Obama’s “agent” for purposes of receiving process on Obama AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. We are all waiting.
And it will be a loonnnnnnnnnnnng wait.
BTW, even if Obama were served in his capacity as a private citizen (which Judge Carter has ruled is not the case, as the proceeding goes to the heart of the Office of the President), nevertheless Rule 8 required Orly to also serve the United States Attorney for the District in which the case was filed. And we all know that wasn’t even attempted until September, despite Judge Carter’s ORDER for Orly — on July 13 — to march herself downstairs and do it.
I apologize. The following post should reference Rule 5, not Rule 8. (That is another discussion for another day — Orly’s inability to craft a coherent complaint in compliance with Rule 8.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iShCXx_xZDQ&feature=player_embedded
Ronald Reagan on Socialism to Communism.
“But legally he can’t prove it,”
Yes, he can.
Not only that, this article is citing Orly Taitz’s version of the hearing. Nevermind the fact that the actual transcripts are available thanks to Politijab (probably because Taitz would never want the actual transcripts to be read). And just because Taitz thinks that standing is a technicality doesn’t mean that anybody else feels the same way. Georgetown gave a great short blurb about standing as a substantive hurdle.
And then Maine based on pure speculation believes that the Department of Health has been telling blatant lies for a year now and that the original says “LOL HE’S ACTUALLY KENYAN” or something like that, and based on that possibility, demands to know how obots would react.
And then bob strauss seems to have forgotten that we’re in the United States, where there’s a presumption of innocence – that in a civil case, the plaintiff, not the defendant must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. The fact that no birther has even come close doesn’t mean that switching the burden around in some unprecedented reversal of justice is somehow justified.
Kenyan birth certificate from hospital in Mombasa, Kenyan certification of live birth from 1964 when his mother was divorcing dad , statements made by grandmother in Kenya saying he was born there, Factchecks declaration he was born British, under the BNA of 1948, no plaque at any hospital in Hawaii, concealment of all of Obama’s records, I would say the preponderance of the evidence shows Obama was born in Kenya, just like his proud grandmother said.
Sise, just because someone is a blogger doesn’t mean that they cannot uncover FACTS. It is a FACT that Factcheck did NOT check the facts with regard to the birth announcement, for example. They took the story off of another blog and reprinted it AS fact, without independently verifying it AS fact. The number of corrections that they make indicates that they don’t check FACTS. They cite other blogs. OTHER blogs. Factcheck itself IS a blog. And just because they claim they are nonpartisan, doesn’t make them so. They are supremely partisan. Just read their writing. Does it sound objective? Uh, not by a long shot.
bob strauss says:
October 11, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Kenyan birth certificate from hospital in Mombasa, Kenyan certification of live birth from 1964 when his mother was divorcing dad , statements made by grandmother in Kenya saying he was born there, Factchecks declaration he was born British, under the BNA of 1948, no plaque at any hospital in Hawaii, concealment of all of Obama’s records, I would say the preponderance of the evidence shows Obama was born in Kenya, just like his proud grandmother said.
______________________________________________________________________
You know repeating false birther stories many times does not make them true. You are claiming that a preponderance of the evidence against the President includes all of the stuff you mentioned. Did you read what you wrote? I mean what Kenyan COLB? The fake one that was based on an Australian document that was proven to be a forgery? Or are we talking about the fake Kenyan BC from the convicted felon forger Lucas Smith? When you decide to reference documents proven to be fake, you need to be specific. There is not statement from his Grandmother. It was a so called affidavit by Ron McRae from a tape that when it was listened says that Obama was born in Hawaii. And there has been no concelement of any records. Personal records of all Americans are protected by privacy laws. And finally no plaque at the hospital. Are you kidding us? That’s evidence.
Comparing that to the COLB that was certified by the state of HI. Also you have the so called index data that Leo was able to get released that states that a male named Barack Obama II was born in HI. Additionally we have a statement from the director of vital statistics of HI that officially stated that “Barack Obama was born in Hawaiii”. You are right. When comparing the evidence, it is not even close. The birthers lose 10 out of 10 times.
Black Lion, Let’s make a deal, Hawaii shows us everything they have on Obama’s birth, Kenya shows us everything they have on Obama’s birth, Obama shows us his college records, passport records, and we will go away knowing the truth. No more court cases, no more lies and Obama’s subjects will fade into history.
Isn’t it about time for the TRUTH? All of this speculation about the citizenship of the president needs to be resolved, because right now it appears as if he is hiding evidence in order to usurp the presidency.
MGB says:
October 11, 2009 at 6:42 pm
*just because someone is a blogger doesn’t mean that they cannot uncover FACTS. *
You are trying to equate speculation and innuendo with facts. Correction of an error is just that, not evidence of wrongdoing.
“Blacklion says: Comparing that to the COLB that was certified by the state of HI. Also you have the so called index data that Leo was able to get released that states that a male named Barack Obama II was born in HI. Additionally we have a statement from the director of vital statistics of HI that officially stated that “Barack Obama was born in Hawaiii”.”
Pot\kettle\black You know repeating false Obot stories many times does not make them true.
For instance: Hawaii DoH refuses to verify the so called COLB, nor even agree that the information is accurate contained within, nor agree that a 2007 COLB was ever released (in fact they denied that they had issue one for 2007). The Hawaii data set appears to have been amended, and the statement “filed” instead of “accepted” appears to mean the data hasn’t been accepted, or that the COLB is invalid (see Ms Tickly blog and Natural born citizen blogs). Moreover, the mis-direction and failure to provide LEGAL information suggest the Hawaiian DoH is involved in nefarious activities. Factcheck.org has political and financial connections with Obama(s) and Ayers via the Ford Foundation. Confirmatory LEGAL documents in Hawaii or ‘missing’ such as pages from a 1964 divorce and Obama’s grade school records, both of which should have contained information or his original birth certificate. Moreover, the term “African” could not have been used in 1961 on a Birth Certificate, as the State of Hawaii was following national registry collection criteria for race of parents at birth. Finally, the ‘legal opinion’ for the aforementioned statements by Hawaiian officials has thus far illegally been suppressed, in violation of Hawaiian laws.
The most obvious fact here is that NONE of the information provided to the public appears to have credible verification. The Kenyan BC might be false-although the footprint should be indisputable- and I would hope that when discovery occurs they get investigated. The Hawaiian COLB is clearly NOT verified, only the index data, which probably has been amended or NOT ACCEPTED, but certainly FILED. There is strong evidence, see above, that the original information has been ‘amended’. Interestingly, since the index data says Obama was born male, I presume he has the adoption pathway, rather than sex change, for the ‘filed’ but not accepted, data set.
I’m going to make this simple for all to understand. We the people have never received proper records or historical information to make an informed choice. The continued lies that Obama was vetted will not make it true, even with the DOJ posters, taxpayer paid I might add, blogging lies. I can hardly wait for discovery, I’m sure that everyone is just as excited as I am to see the real facts. Finally, while I believe that the information from Discovery will be eye popping, Obama himself has CLAIMED that he was born a VASSAL (property/subject) of the English Crown, making him in-eligible.
There is direct proof of where he is born. It’s called the Certification of Live Birth. It is direct proof of where he was born, so much so that the United States State Department accepts it as direct proof of place of birth.
My question to you, Joseph Maine, is if the State Department didn’t accept it as proof of location of birth, then why do they accept it as proof of citizenship? If you do not think that they accept it as proof of citizenship, please go to the application for passport as to what qualifies as proof of citizenship. The only thing that it can possibly prove is location of birth, and therefore qualifying under the “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the U.S. Citizenship Code?
He’s already proven his citizenship. Just because you close your eyes, put your hands over your ears, and start yelling “It’s not true!” at the top of your lungs, doesn’t actually change that fact.
When did “we the people” become a synonym for ultra-conservative right wing teabaggers or birthers? A majority of the population felt they had enough information to elect Barack Obama as president. Every single member of the House of Representatives feel they had enough information to vote for a resolution declaring Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
“filed instead of accepted”
Every HI COLB you’ll see says “date filed with registrar” on it.
“refused to confirm”
Except they have. Several times. In July Okubo explicitly said that the vital records show that Obama was born in Hawaii (and because of that is a natural born citizen, regardless of the century-old disregarded legal argument birthers have latched onto).
“No more court cases, no more lies and Obama’s subjects will fade into history.”
No it won’t and you darn well know it. President Obama was sued. When you get sued, you do not release anything whatsoever; especially when those who sue are not entitled to the documents in the first place.
If we are dealing with an illegal alien (Obama), It would be his responsibility to prove he is a citizen, and natural born to be president. It is an office that comes with qualifications and proof is needed to determine if Obama meets those qualifications. Normally he would show his proof to the nominating committee but in this case we know that wasn’t done for Obama. Now the records are sealed, and nobody is allowed to see them. At least show us the evidence the DNC saw to determine Obama meets the qualifications.
I suggest all of you take the time to read this website especially the link regarding evidence.
http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/
Kenyan birth certificate from hospital in Mombasa, Not authenticated and is fake.
Kenyan certification of live birth from 1964 when his mother was divorcing dad–gee there is two? Not authenticated. Where is this one posted at? Provide the link for your so called evidence.
statements made by grandmother in Kenya saying he was born there–fabricated by birthers; btw, wasn’t his “grandmother.”
Factchecks declaration he was born British, under the BNA of 1948–So? He was born American first, in Hawaii.
no plaque at any hospital in Hawaii–see if the FRE consider this admissible evidence.
concealment of all of Obama’s records, I would say the preponderance of the evidence shows Obama was born in Kenya, just like his proud grandmother said–you might say but a court of law does not agree with you. There is no requirement for any candidate running for any office to release any personal records. Show me where this is a requirement? You can’t.
“It would be his responsibility to prove he is a citizen,”
He has. However, when someone sues you, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendent. Judge Land explained that to Orly already.
Sise, no, YOU are confusing speculation and opinion with facts. Factcheck is a blog, too. They do not check facts, because if they did, they would not have to correct “errors.” In addition, they would not take unconfirmed information off of an anonymous blog and post it on their website as fact, without first checking its authenticity. It’s a fact that they swiped the image of the birth announcement off of the Texas Darlin blog. It’s a fact that they did not know the provenance of that image, but they put it on their blog and stated that it proved that Obama was born in Hawaii. NOT.
A great read:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/a_closer_look_at_obamas_odysse.html
siseduermapierda,
What’s even more interesting to this incorrect opinion is that I have been recently posting a link at the bottom of each eligibility-related posting to where FactCheck has been documented as being not 100% accurate.
To circumvent a potential “yes, but” reply, I am personally not suggesting that the FactCheck blog should be 100% accurate (since nobody is). However, previous to this documentation, there have been many individuals on my site and elsewhere who appeared to have given them a bit too much of an air of superiority that they simply don’t have — certainly no more or no less than any other blogs on the Internet.
After all, just because you have lots of sheepskins behind your name doesn’t mean you can’t make mistakes
-Phil
An example for all (partial comment-now keep in mind, NUK says he is NOT an Obama fan …)
http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/39859#comment-122832
I give credit to Obama for jerking these morons around. Make them spend tons of money and waste their time and look like conspiracy nuts. I can almost guarantee you that 95% of the birther crowd uses the words “Ruby Ridge” at least once a week.
Not an Obama fan, but he is right on how he handles some things and this is definitely one of them.
Submitted by NUK_1 on Fri, 10/09/2009 – 4:46pm.
I suppose by my copying this comment, that means I used the words “Ruby Ridge” this week. Did it again. Now I’ve used it twice.
(Anyone out there writing a book on “birthers” needs to keep a balanced perspective.)
Pete says:
October 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm
For instance: Hawaii DoH refuses to verify the so called COLB, nor even agree that the information is accurate contained within, nor agree that a 2007 COLB was ever released (in fact they denied that they had issue one for 2007). The Hawaii data set appears to have been amended, and the statement “filed” instead of “accepted” appears to mean the data hasn’t been accepted, or that the COLB is invalid (see Ms Tickly blog and Natural born citizen blogs). Moreover, the mis-direction and failure to provide LEGAL information suggest the Hawaiian DoH is involved in nefarious activities.
____________________________________________________________________
Pete, are we channeling Orly? I mean you are making statements without supplying evidence. For instand you are saying that the index data says filed instead of accepted. Can you tell us what that means? Just because some blogger Ms. Tickly says that it means that the data was not accepted or was ammended, that doesn’t make it so. Can you provide us with the HI statute that says that? Probably not because again you are relying on Leo and Ms. Tickly’s beliefs and not proof. Then you make a claim that the HI DOH is engaged in nefarious activities, without providing any evidence. Then of course you repeat some claims about the COLB being invalid, when it contains the signature of the registrar and the seal of HI. Overall you make claims that have no actual evidence to back them up. And yet you claim that the President cannot prove where he was born. With the serious lack of evidence the birthers have, they will never be able to meet their burden of proof. So the President doesn’t need to do anything other than worry about being President.
bob strauss says:
October 11, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Black Lion, Let’s make a deal, Hawaii shows us everything they have on Obama’s birth, Kenya shows us everything they have on Obama’s birth, Obama shows us his college records, passport records, and we will go away knowing the truth. No more court cases, no more lies and Obama’s subjects will fade into history.
Isn’t it about time for the TRUTH? All of this speculation about the citizenship of the president needs to be resolved, because right now it appears as if he is hiding evidence in order to usurp the presidency.
_________________________________________________________________
Bob, what does the college records and passport records have to do with being eligible for being President? That is where you lose and credibility. Most Americans don’t care about any passport and college records. No other President released those records so why do we need them now. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt.
As far as HI goes, the statement by Dr Fukino saying that “Barack Obama was BORN in HI, along with the COLB, and the index data that Leo was able to get released is all that most people need. Since the President is an American, I don’t care if Kenya has any records because they probably wouldn’t. The President has proven what he needs to. Most Americans, Congress, and the world recognize him as the President of the United States. Period.
Hey, Pete…
Direct quote about the COLB from the Hawaii Department of Health…
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”
That sounds as if they verified it over a year ago.
Remember, just because you cover your ears, close your eyes, and yell at the top of your lungs, “It’s not true” doesn’t change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Leo says , Leo says….Leo says
After all, as he points out, according to federal statute, quo warranto is only to be heard in the US District Court for DC, the seat of government (which, incidentally, is not a State).
>>sorry but Leo is wrong, that statute says “may”, not must or shall. And the other part of it says to be brought by the “people of the United States”. The plaintiffs here are not the “people of the United STates” but another specified group and entity. Read the statute , read the words. Leo is wrong, wrong and wrong again. Why quote this person when he is obviously wrong???
Phil wrote:
Sure, and long before Obama announced his candidacy. They’ve repeatedly corrected and updated articles.
No, no. Blogging is a medium. The source — Annenberg Political Fact-Check of the University of Pennsylvania — has earned the public’s trust. Truth tellers such as APFC and spreaders of lies such as Phil can both blog on the Internet.
Joseph Maine says:
Obviously it’s a conspiracy theory, and acceding to the insensate demands is worse that useless in dispelling such crankery. Obama has finished proving he can be President. He is President.
You see why they don’t want to give you more? All that you got from Hawaii supports what Obama said all along, but the more evidence you get, the more of this nonsense you make up.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
I post to debunk your nonsense, as I’ve explained quite a few times. Mr. Maine, when you argue that I’d have nothing to say to your imaginary facts, you make debunking easy. I don’t need to debate against that, just underline it.
bob strauss says:
October 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm
*If we are dealing with an illegal alien (Obama), It would be his responsibility to prove he is a citizen, and natural born to be president.*
Sheesh bob. Obama? An illegal alien? Come on. You sound like one of those Japanese guys found hiding in a cave, totally isolated from society 20 years after the war was over. There is no US law that requires a candidate or President to prove to the general public he is eligible to be President. The Constitution tells a candidate what makes him eligible. It doesn’t say he has to prove it to every individual. It doesn’t say you have a right to have a President prove to you personally he is eligible. If you don’t like the law, then work with your federal legislators to change it. (the states can’t change the rules for federal office, which is why no state’s birth certificate law would be Constitutional) The reason Obama deniers are getting nowhere is you are trying to enforce rules that don’t exist.
sise, “there is no US law that requires a candidate or president to prove to the general public he is eligible to be President.”
I believe Obama has taken full advantage of this.
But, When there is a question about the credentials of an office Holder,(pun intended), in the US government we have a way to see those credentials, it is Quo Warranto, “show us the proof you are qualified to hold office” . The President must answer to the “general public” AKA the people.
bob strauss says:
October 12, 2009 at 9:41 am
“When there is a question about the credentials…. we have Quo Warranto”
Not really. You’d have to convince a prosecutor there is a reason to challenge. There is no proof Obama is not eligible for the office he holds. Obama deniers have speculation, innuendo and unauthenticated birth certificates (that conflict with each other), but no real evidence. On the other hand, there is a COLB, index data, 2 statements by Hawaiian officials, congtemporaneous birth announcements, 2 biographies, and the recollections of the Obamas’ and Dunhams’ contemporaries, that all support that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. It is unlikely you could convince a Judge to allow discovery in a civil trial let alone convince a prosecutor to file for quo warranto with such thin information. It’s not even enough evidence to form the basis of a complaint even if anyone could get past the necessary conditions of standing and justiciability, which are not merely technicalities.
dunstvangeet says:
October 11, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Hey, Pete…
Direct quote about the COLB from the Hawaii Department of Health…
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”
That sounds as if they verified it over a year ago.
Remember, just because you cover your ears, close your eyes, and yell at the top of your lungs, “It’s not true” doesn’t change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.
******
Now, please read this article at Free Republic to see how disingenuous (to put it kindly) dunstvangeet is:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2037877/posts
She backtracked immediately, upon being questioned. NOBODY at the Hawaiian DOH has EVER verified Obama’s online COLB. NOBODY! To say otherwise is an outright lie.
brygenon says:
October 12, 2009 at 4:38 am.
In the above cited comment, brygenon appears to call Phil, his host, a liar.
“spreaders of lies such as Phil”
In my opinion, the only way Phil spreads lies is by giving rude people such as brygenon a forum. Just my opinion.
Case in point, my last comment wherein I prove that dunstvangeet lies by omission, which he or she does deliberately, because I have already debunked this claim several times.
Therefore, when dunstvangeet repeats this misleading untruth, he or she does so deliberately TO mislead, because he or she knows better.
congtemporaneous birth announcements,
Where is that Nordyke twin birth announcement anyways?
siseduermapierda
what kool aid are you drinking?
the man , obamao, can’t even produce a $12 birth certificate
and resorted to posting a forgery on the internet?
you come on
show us the money sis
the facts
not some fact BS
First of all, your article starts with the quote from Okubo explicitly saying that it’s a valid birth certificate. The entire rest of the article is about conspiracy theorists attempting to poke holes in that statement.
And this “backtracking” is saying that she doesn’t know beyond a doubt what it means? That’s not backtracking, that’s acknowledging the possibility that there was a fraud perpetrated 48 years ago. The statement put out in July stating that original vital records reflect Obama’s birth in Hawaii means that either you think the DoL is lying or that every single document the DoH has is fraudulent.
But at this point you’ve become fixed on your conclusion, and you are forcing every piece of evidence that has ever come out to fit that conclusion. You ignore the fact that birthers have been telling BLATANT lies for over a year now (travel ban to Pakistan, multiple forged Kenyan birth certificates, Indonesian constitutional prohibition on non-citizens attending school) because you have this one item on your agenda – have Obama removed from office by any means necessary. So it doesn’t matter if Orly lied yesterday, or if Leo is lying today, because in some way, it may help either get Obama removed from office, or to convince some nut to take drastic action.
siseduermapierda:
How are things there at the DOJ blogging effort going? Sort of like Potemkin Village with a URL apparently. Must be fun to live in hog heaven off of taxpayers’ dollars and be urged to attack them!!
Most of the citizenry know you for what you are – and it ain’t complimentary. In fact people generally are beginning to realize how they’ve been duped by a guy who is unwilling to show his eligibility to hold the office he now occupies (but just says “trust me” instead … yeah, right!!).
Despite all the Obot nonsense and palaver on this and other sites, the Constitution does REQUIRE by the use of the word “shall” the man to be a natural born citizen and since he loudly, proudly proclaims that daddy was a Kenyan and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was so governed by the same law … well, it makes it very clear why he ain’t a NBC and why he’s unwilling (unable) to show that he is (he can’t).
One of the best sites to obtain a very comprehensive legal education in the eligibility requirements is the Apuzzo website – the attorney in the Kerchner et al legal action currently awaiting a ruling on a procedural (”stalling”) basis. The link is:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
… and there are many excellent articles on the site as well as *.pdf copies of a series of over a dozen privately-funded articles called “advertorials” that together represent a virtual textbook on the eligibility issue. There is even a link on this site to anyone wishing to donate to help this educational effort (as the funds are used only for this purpose) at:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm
Over and above all that, though, those of us who are truly members of one of the parties to the contract that is our Constitution (since we are known as We The People) should get off our well-padded backsides and contact the judges in these eligibility cases – either the Kerchner et al case (Simandle) whose address is in DOC 39/40 on the above Apuzzo website or the Barnett et al case (Carter) whose address can be found at Orly’s website.
The judges may need reminding of something they learned long ago in their legal education/experience but seem to have forgotten. It is perhaps best expressed by a saying from ages ago:
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Chief Justice Marshall is saying to the courts that these cases MUST be heard on merits and that doing otherwise is “… treason to the Constitution …”. It may help “focus” judicial attention to this need (which surpasses the judicial fictions of “standing”, “jurisdiction”, etc.) and get THEM off THEIR well-cushioned backsides and move forward lest even further damage be done to our country and way of life.
For a while yet (but perhaps not for much longer) it is still a country with free speech and surely We The People still have the right to transmit our opinions to these eligibility judges. The message need not be eloquent or extensive but does need to be done if you wish to play your part in keeping this country as we have known it for over 233 years. Write the judges – and yes both they and the Obots will tell you that it does no good or even is a “bad thing” … NONSENSE!! We The People are one of the 2 parties to the contract which is our Constitution – and it would be nice to keep it that way (Obots be damned)!!! Let the other party know where we stand!!
da verg says:
October 12, 2009 at 11:50 am
*can’t even produce a $12 birth certificate*
Sure he did. The online scan of Obama’s COLB was for visual demonstration, not for assessing its authenticity. No candidate has an obligation to prove to you personally he has an authentic birth certificate. Where in the world did you get the idea you are entitled to personally hold it in your hands or qualified to assess for yourself whether it’s authentic? That’s what people like, oh say, the director of Health in Hawaii are authorized to do. But not you. You have to take the word of the people authorized to assess. Even if Judge Carter issued an order, copies wouldn’t be ordered and distributed. The USA’s would bring a signed sealed copy to his chambers and give it to the judge to look at. Judge Carter would declare it authentic, dismiss the case and you’d have to take his word. I mean really da verg are you expecting each American to get their own personal sealed signed copy?
jtx says:
October 12, 2009 at 12:26 pm
*How are things there at the DOJ blogging effort going?*
DOJ doesn’t blog. Why blog when you have the law on your side? If Leo, Mario, Orly et al had the law on their side, they wouldn’t need to blog.
More deliberate obfuscation by qwertyman, who claims the article begins with Okubo saying the COLB is valid. Wrong. Here’s the beginning:
“A senior official in the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Director of Communications Janice Okubo, confirms that the image published and circulated by the Obama campaign as his “birth certificate” lacks the necessary embossed seal and signature. Backing away from a quote attributed to her that the image on the campaign site was “valid,” she told the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times in an article published yesterday: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”"
What part of “backing away” do you not understand?
You might read the article that the Free Republic article links:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12944.htm
I am not saying that the DoH is lying outright. I am suggesting that they parse their words carefully, as do you, in order to mislead and obfuscate.
They did NOT affirm that he was born in Hawaii. They said that documents ON FILE purport to verify his Hawaiian birth. Yet they will not state what documents these are or whether or not they have been authenticated.
For example, is the document that “verifies” his Hawaiian birth nothing more than an affidavit by his grandmother? They will not answer.
In addition, your accusations are insulting to the nth degree. I could as easily accuse you of inciting violence, because you support someone who claims something that he will not prove, when it should be easy to produce the records that he claims exist.
Why instead does he choose to allow this controversy to fester?
You pigeon-hole everyone who simply asks for the man to prove that he is who he claims to be. I am responsible for what I say. I am not responsible for whatever “lies” others spread. I am certainly not responsible for the actions of others. Are you?
The Constitution of the United States requires the POTUS to meet certain tests of eligibility. An honest person would meet those tests and be transparent about allowing those he expects to follow him, indeed perhaps give their lives following him, to satisfy themselves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is eligible.
MGB says:
Look one article back at Phil including “Commentary by Beckwith”, including”, including “lawyers’ fees = $2,000,000; birth certificate = $15″, and “records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser.” At this point, Phil has no honest mistake defense. Those are lies and he spread them.
Annenberg Political Fact-Check doesn’t act anything like that. They occasionally get points wrong, and when they find out they correct them.
Ah, Israelinsider, the site that had that exclusive from the “intelligence agent” who said that HI changed its laws to protect Obama? And then that “change of laws” turned out to be the HomeLands website clarifying its language to make it explicit that the COLB is and was always an acceptable form of ID to them?
Of course the DoH says that that’s what the documents say. Nobody at the DoH was physically present at Obama’s birth in 1961. Documents are all they (or anybody besides eyewitnesses) can go on.
Your allegation that the “verification” is nothing more than an affidavit is nothing more than idle speculation with nothing to back it up. Haven’t you heard that Glenn Beck refuses to deny that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990?
I don’t make the incitement to violence argument lightly. Pastor Drake, one of the plaintiffs in a birther case, has said multiple times that he prays daily for Obama’s death. Do you think that might not have an impact on people?
Orly Taitz has multiple times publicly called on the military to consider a coup d’etat. A Newsmax column endorsed the idea of a military coup. I see birthers calling for an armed uprising against Obama almost daily. Jaclyn Smith did that several times here just a few days ago and threatened to kill herself over it. The leaders of the movement, particularly Taitz, are encouraging an atmosphere of “any means necessary” to develop, and it’s not outside the realm of possibility that at some point some birther takes this to heart. Do you think it’s coincidence that the Secret Service has said that Obama (as of June) gets 4 times the death threats that Bush did?
As for “allowing the controversy to fester,” I think every birther on this website believes that Obama is ineligible because of his father, and in the end, not a single document Obama could possibly produce would change that conclusion. You’ve created for yourselves a controversy that could only be stopped by the removal of Obama from office. Either by impeachment, quo warranto, or as Pastor Drake prays for, his death.
qwertyman, if you sincerely believe what you say, then why do you continue to comment upon this issue, if you do not want to “incite violence” yourself? If you truly believe that the controversy might result in violence, then why do you participate in ramping up the controversy? I have no idea who “Pastor Drake” is and I’m certainly not responsible for whatever he says. Ditto for Dr. Taitz and anybody else you mentioned. I don’t know what you’re talking about with regard to Glenn Beck, but your allegation sounds libelous. I might ask you whether you’ve stopped beating your children yet. If you refuse to answer, does that mean that you DO beat your children? I will pray for you.
Sis said
da verg says:
October 12, 2009 at 11:50 am
*can’t even produce a $12 birth certificate*
Sure he did.
>>>who was the doctor or midwife?
Where are the fingerprints and footprints?
If you are talking about that green blob, that is
no birth certificate and if you think it is one
you are full of sh*t
I’m not ramping anything up. I’m not the one making death threats and advocating military coups. I’m pointing out that people who are leaders in implementing your agenda are making some frankly reckless statements.
Wiley Drake was Alan Keyes’ vice presidential running mate. The theory is that because of him there could theoretically be standing. He publicly celebrated the death of George Tiller and has told the media he prays for Obama’s death.
I haven’t said that you have said any of these things, but people who are leaders in your movement have. Many people in your movement have. The fellow who shot up the Holocaust Museum a few months ago posted birther screeds on FreeRepublic. There are some people very fucking far out there in the birther movement, and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that one of them takes Wiley Drake or Orly Taitz’s message to heart.
As for the Glenn Beck comment, thank you for proving my point for me. You said that it was suspicious that the DoH refuses to confirm or deny that the “verification” is nothing more than an affidavit. This allegation is pure speculation based on exactly zero facts. The allegation that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 is also pure speculation based on no facts. Generally, it is poor form to pass off speculation with no facts as truth. See the point?
siseduermapierda said:
They would blog for the same reasons that everyone else in the political universe does. The court of public opinion counts. It affects the outcome of elections. Election results determine which party is in power, which party nominates judges. etc. etc.
And for those who still haven’t figured it out: Elections have consequences.
Swaying public opinion is critically important to the fortunes of either party. That is why they would blog.
qwertyman said, “I’m pointing out that people who are leaders in implementing your agenda are making some frankly reckless statements. . .
people who are leaders in your movement. . .”
First of all, I have no “agenda”. I have no “leaders”. I am part of no “movement.”
I am an individual citizen with questions that should be answered by the person we employ as president.
The Constitution demands the person be eligible. My only question is WHY he will not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that what he says is TRUE.
As for my presenting speculation as fact. I did no such thing. I said that the DoH will not answer questions about what type of documents they have on file which purport to “verify” his Hawaiian birth. It is a fact that they will not say what these documents are.
There are many reasons to wonder about his documentation, because of the ever-changing, obfuscating comments made by persons at the DoH.
Not releasing documents that prove one’s eligibility is the cause of all speculation because there would BE no controversy had Obama simply authorized the DoH to provide the documents when they were first requested.
Fighting lawsuit after lawsuit in an effort to prevent showing the documents invites speculation concerning WHY he won’t simply show the documents if they DO, indeed, prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States and thus eligible to be president.
AnotherReader: sise says DOJ doesn’t blog. Possibly true. But do they comment at blogs? You see, it all depends upon what the meaning of “blog” is.
Yes, I believe that he is ineligible based upon my understanding of Constitution. But that being said, what I would want to see happen is the following:
1.) A leader that actually does what they promised during the campaign cycles. I don’t see the most transparent, most ethical government ever,as was promised many times. True leaders don’t hide their background information from the public. If there were truly nothing to all of this he would gladly provide ALL of the requested background information to put this to rest. But he has not, nor will he. And I find that to be as damning as anything. Spare me the “he doesn’t have to” remarks. This has nothing to do with the law and everything to do with being seen as a true leader.
2.) The Supreme Court take up the issue of Natural Born Citizen as it is related in the Constitution regarding the specific case of presidential eligibility.
3.) Laws created that ensure that ALL FUTURE candidates would be mandated to provide all documentation and materials to prove their eligibility to an unbiased third party for confirmation. And yes, this would include the 2012 election.
As far as incitement goes, this is one of the most hypocritical stances of the left. It seams that only conservatives can incite violence ???? If a left leaning cause is protesting, they are simply practicing their free speech rights. Left wing commentators and media are constantly throwing incendiary comments out into the public airwaves, blogshpere, etc. I don’t see any of you denouncing them. And of course, you won’t. Why? Because of your blinders, you don’t see it.
When I start seeing you apply these standards to your own, I’ll be more willing to give your arguments more credence.
Again with the f-bomb.
AnotherReader: Great commentary.
How about the leaders of their movement? Farrakhan, Wright, Ayers, Sharpton, Jackson, Kos, Huffington, Pelosi, Reid, McKinney, Van Jones, Jackson Lee, et al. Have they ever made incendiary remarks about a president? Have they ever “incited violence?” In the case of Ayers, he participated in violence.
Again MGB, you are being near willfully dishonest. Every single birther suit has said that Obama is ineligible already, generally because of the status of his father. No release of any documents would make a difference in a single one of these lawsuits. Even if Obama had released every single document you want, that would not have stopped Orly Taitz from filing a single lawsuit; that would not stop Phil here from arguing over and over that Obama was born ineligible for the presidency.
You did present your speculation as what you think actually happened. You said that because the DoH hasn’t said what documents it used to reach its determination of Obama’s HI birth, then there’s at least a possibility that the verification is a grandmother’s affidavit. And as I said, Glenn Beck has refused to answer questions about whether or not he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Do you not see how putting that sort of thing out there is an easy way to make a cheap sliming of somebody?
And you know absolutely nothing about me other than that I think the birther movement is silly and potentially dangerous. I haven’t told you who I voted for and you know nothing about my politics. You are making assumptions. But yeah, Bill Ayer’s actions as a member of Weather Underground were despicable, Charlie Rangel seems like a guy who should be removed from his committees, Obama didn’t deserve the Nobel Prize, etc. But as far as I know, this is a blog about the eligibility controversy. Several of the most prominent figures in this controversy challenging the president’s eligibility have prayed for Obama’s death in public and called for a military coup d’etat while on a military radio station.
How about we at least agree that those things that they said (wishing for Obama’s death, advocating a military coup) should be condemned?
Hi all, Did you all see this? Goat
—————————————————
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/federal-courts-are-committing-treason.html
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall.
The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Link to the treason quote:
http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/chiefjusticemarshallwordsontreasontoconstitution.jpg
Link to Summary:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1821/1821_0
Link to Full Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=19&invol=264
The Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
CDR USNR (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
——————————————
I am not being dishonest, willfully or otherwise.
IF as Obama has said, he is eligible under the Constitution of the United States to be POTUS, then he should have no objection to releasing the documents that prove that fact.
I don’t care what “birther” lawsuits claim or don’t claim. I am not a party to those suits.
I am a citizen asking the president to prove his eligibility. He is the one who claims that he is eligible. All he need do, therefore, is present the documents to his employers that prove the truth of his statements.
Once we know the facts of his birth, then we can determine eligibility under the Constitution.
You’re correct. I know nothing about you or your politics, including who you voted for. (And vice versa) I don’t recall making any assumptions about who you voted for. I know for sure that I didn’t mention Charlie Rangel.
So you don’t make assumptions about me when you talk about my “agenda”, my “leaders”, and my “movement”?
Here, this will make your day: I absolutely condemn anyone who has prayed for ANYONE’S death, and that includes the president. I also condemn any “military coup” that occurs outside the law.
However, if you consider what took place in Honduras to be a military coup, then we disagree on terminology.
Will I condemn a legal removal of a sitting US POTUS? No, not so long as it is done within the law and under the Constitution. That’s why there are provisions in the law for removing a president. Legally. Peacefully. Correctly. Ethically.
Did I say peacefully? Yes.
Did you think Bush should have been impeached? How about Clinton? How about Nixon? If so, then why do you think anyone should rule out discussing removal of THIS POTUS? Is he somehow exempt from the law of the land? When people talked about impeaching Bush, did you blog or comment on blogs about how dangerous this type of language is, considering there are troops in harm’s way, considering that it might incite people to violence?
qwertyman said, “You did present your speculation as what you think actually happened. You said that because the DoH hasn’t said what documents it used to reach its determination of Obama’s HI birth, then there’s at least a possibility that the verification is a grandmother’s affidavit. And as I said, Glenn Beck has refused to answer questions about whether or not he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Do you not see how putting that sort of thing out there is an easy way to make a cheap sliming of somebody?”
It’s a fact that there is a possibility that the documents consist of affidavits. I did not say that’s what “actually happened.” But it remains a possibility.
If you present an employer questionable (or no) documents and if your employer asks for clarification and proof, is that “sliming” you?
If you don’t see the difference between asking for a clarification of documents used to claim eligibility under the Constitution to be POTUS and accusing someone of rape and murder, then all I can do, as I said before, is pray for you.
AnotherReader says:
October 12, 2009 at 1:56 pm
*They would blog for the same reasons that everyone else in the political universe does. The court of public opinion counts. It affects the outcome of elections. Election results determine which party is in power, which party nominates judges. etc. etc.
And for those who still haven’t figured it out: Elections have consequences. *
At last! An Obama denier who admits the question about President Obama’s eligibility is a political question. You admit the question about Obama is about public opinion and the outcome elections. Then you certainly see why the question does not belong in the Judicial Branch.
da verg says:
October 12, 2009 at 1:39 pm
*who was the doctor or midwife?
Where are the fingerprints and footprints?
If you are talking about that green blob, that is
no birth certificate and if you think it is one
you are full of sh*t*
You sir are the one who is full of it. Fingerprints and footprints are on Hospital Souvenir certificates, not official birth certificates. You don’t even know enough about late 20th or 21st century vital records to have an intelligent debate. I challenge you to write to or go to the county of your birth and ask for an official copy of your birth certificate. I guarantee you will not get a document that has the doctor or midwife or fingerprints or footprints. I guarantee what you will get is something that looks like what you call a “green blob”. Go learn something.
sise, the question is about the TRUTH.
MGB says:
October 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm
sise, the question is about the TRUTH.
You already know the truth based on the preponderance of the evidence: the COLB, the index data, not just 1, but 2 statements by the health director, 2 newspaper announcements based on information sent to the papers by the health dept ( index data!!!), 2 autobiographies, reports by friends of the Obamas and the Dunhams tell you Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug 4, 1961. The preponderance of the evidence tells you what is true. Preponderance of the evidence is the standard of proof in a civil proceeding, not satisfy MGB beyond a reasonable doubt. It is unfortunate you want to equate speculation and presumption and innuendo with real evidence. You will never hold Barack Obama’s original birth certificate in your hands. You may never be completely satisfied. Oh well. Don’t vote for him in 2012. I feel sorry for you that you can’t look at everything you know and admit you know the truth even though you don’t like it.
Who do you want “the documents” released to? President Obama’s birth certificate is on the internet. Do you want a copy for yourself? If you want a single one of these lawsuits to be a forum for document production, you need to know that in the end, the documents don’t matter. That is because in every single one of Taitz’s, Donofrio’s, Kreep’s suits, there are alternate legal theories for Obama’s ineligibility.
You are posting on a blog devoted to the eligibility “controversy” making comments that suggest that you doubt whether the president is eligible for the office. You have made many of the same points as any other birther regarding the birth certificate on the internet, the multiple contemporary birth announcements, the index data and statements by the Department of Health. Apologies to the extent that saying that your agenda aligns with people like Taitz and Donofrio is unfair.
Congratulations for not being a complete nutjob.
What happened in Honduras is a situation that was made complicated for several reasons involving major structural errors in the Honduran constitution, including the absolute prohibition on even discussing amendments and the lack of an impeachment procedure. Every government in the world that had any comment, the UN and various other international organizations, believes that what happened in Honduras was an illegal coup.
When people talked of impeaching Bush, they were citing his blatant violations of the Constitution, such as warrantless wiretaps. The reason this blog has talked about removing (we rarely hear about impeachment of Obama here) Obama is because of a belief that he was ineligible because of his father.
But again, you’re morphing what I said about leaders in the birther movement actively praying for and advocating a military coup d’etat with people advocating for their elected representatives to start an impeachment proceeding. I am not saying that discussion of impeachment (which under the Constitution is the sole means of legally removing a president involuntarily) is dangerous. In this case, I think it’s entirely frivolous, since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was not born in the US, and any legal theory about the definition of natural born citizen that would exclude Obama was discredited over a century ago. I am saying that statements of the leaders of the movement about praying for his death (“will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”) or actively calling for the military to disobey orders or even rise up in revolt IS dangerous.
Edit:
That’s not quite an accurate analogy. It would be more apt if you were at the airport, and security had accepted your passport and let you through while the guy a few spots behind you in line yells out that you’re actually a terrorist, with absolutely no evidence to prove that allegation.
Obama is the president. The entire Congress had no objection (at the very least has voiced none), the Chief Justice swore him in, almost 70 million voters gave him their vote and he endured heavy vetting from two very strong candidates in the primary and general elections. Your doubts and the doubts of people like Phil and Donofrio and Taitz does not mean that President Obama should drop everything to placate you, especially because they could only be placated if Obama were to leave office.
Oh, I forgot:
It’s also a fact that there is a possibility that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I did not say that’s what “actually happened.” But it remains a possibility.
Well, there’s always the possibility that qwertyman and sise work for the Obama administration, paid for by our tax dollars.
Who do I want the documents released to? How about any of the judges overseeing the lawsuits?
There are alternate theories of his ineligibility because first of all, he said that he’s a “native born” citizen, not a natural born citizen. Second of all, he admitted on his website that he was a UK citizen AT BIRTH, subject to UK law.
Sticks and stones, sticks and stones. I won’t congratulate you for not being a “complete nutjob.” Sorry.
I don’t care what the UN says. I can read and I can see that what happened in Honduras was NOT an illegal coup. It matters not that their Constitution has no provision for changing it. It’s the law of their land. And their law says Zelaya lost his presidency because he violated the Constitution.
sise, I wouldn’t mention the two “auto”biographies as evidence. They are, admittedly, fictional. The first was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. Ayers recently admitted it. A new book cites Michelle Obama as admitting it. That would be William Ayers, the terrorist.
jtx says:
October 12, 2009 at 12:26 pm
*One of the best sites to obtain a very comprehensive legal education in the eligibility requirements is the Apuzzo website*
The site provides Kerchner’s/ Leo’s theoretical definition of natural born citizen. Yes, theoretical. They don’t have any law that backs them up. In fact, the SC case history suggests they are completely wrong. Tell us why, if Kerchner’s/Leo’s theory is so comprehensive and legal, Kerchner is represented by a New Jersey DUI lawyer, not a well-known constitutional law expert.
http://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/mario-apuzzo-1050467
There has to be discovery before there would be any document production. Before there would be discovery, a case has to withstand a motion to dismiss, to show that even if all the facts were true, that the court could provide relief. No birther case has survived this motion, and no birther case will. As much as Orly cries about this being a procedural technicality, standing is a substantive hurdle that all civil suits must meet to go forward. There is plenty of precedent for the proposition that the sorts of cases that birthers file lack standing.
And what would Obama possibly have to gain from releasing any documents anyway? This site would stay up on the legal argument, Orly, Donofrio and the rest would keep going with their long-discredited legal arguments. You’d have created a horrible precedent that a president should do whatever a small but loud group of people say. The people who Obama would be trying to placate are, again, only going to be placated with Obama’s removal from office. Anybody else has already accepted the birth certificate available online, the birth announcements, the index data, statements of the Department of Health and Obama family members as sufficient proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
I’ll say this again: Obama releasing documents to a judge in one of these cases is Obama trying to win over a group of people whose most prominent figure has repeatedly and publicly called for a military coup. I see no room for compromise there.
MGB says:
October 12, 2009 at 4:51 pm
*The first was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers. Ayers recently admitted it. A new book cites Michelle Obama as admitting it. That would be William Ayers, the terrorist.*
Boy you are gullible aren’t you. If you read or listened to the news you’d know what Bill Ayers really admitted is he tells right-wingers he ghostwrote for Obama to f*ck with their heads. And you are inventing Michelle Obama admitting anything. I bet you can’t point me to what book. You are lost in a right wing blog fantasy world MGB. Like I said, you will never hold Obama’s original birth certificate in your hands. Sooner or later, you will have to believe someone or simply choose to never be satisfied. Oh well. Vote for someone else in 2012. I truly believe there are a few just like you, who even in the face of a declaration from Judge Carter that he has seen a COLB and is satisfied, would still shake your fist at the sky and shout ” Obammmmma!”
Again, if there had been a constitutional impeachment procedure, there would almost certainly not have been this controversy. Zelaya did violate the constitution (I don’t judge whether the provision he violated was reasonable or not). This set up a constitutional crisis because there was no legal process for the removal of a president.
Members of the military breaking into President Zelaya’s house while he was asleep and forcibly exiling him to a foreign country, even if there was a warrant signed by a single Supreme Court justice, does not strike me as perfectly consistent with rule of law. Every country that has commented agrees with me. There is not a single government in the world that has stated they agree with you (outside the coup government itself, of course).
But here’s the weird thing about this tangent – you brought up Honduras out of nowhere. You don’t think it was a coup. Though unstated, I read your comment about it to mean that if that sort of series of events happened here, you would be supportive. And I’ve seen a distressingly large number of right wingers on blogs like this one (hell, you can see them in just about any given FreeRepublic thread) who see Honduras as a template for removing Obama here.
MGB, just wondering one thing that perhaps you can answer.
Since when does a British Law passed after the revolution affect American Citizenship Law one bit? Are you truly giving a foreign country veto power over who can and cannot be President?
Furthermore, let me give you a situation. Currently, Italy allows dual citizenship until death to the child of every one of their citizens. So, here’s a situation for you:
2 Itilian Citizens immigrate to the United States. They marry and have children. After they have children, the Naturalize and become U.S. Citizens.
So, we have the first generation Italian-Americans (children of these immigrants) who are both Italian and American Citizens for life, since neither country requires the renouncing of other citizenships to maintain their citizenship.
Now, this 1st generation Italian-American marries another Itilian-American who has both Italian and American citizenship. They have Children, who are U.S. Citizens born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents. However, under Italian Law, this 2nd Generation are also Italian Citizens from birth.
My question to you would be is this 2nd Generation Americans eligible for the Presidency? Are they, under your definition, Natural Born Citizens?
They are U.S. Citizens born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents. This would seem to qualify under your definition of “Natural Born Citizen” under Vattel.
However, they are also Dual Citizens. You say that being born with dual citizenship prevents someone from being a Natural Born Citizen, so under that definition, that would prevent someone from being a Natural Born Citizen, as they have divided loyalties at birth.
So, which is it? Are they a Natural Born Citizen, or aren’t they? And if they are, then why are you arguing at all dual citizenship, as dual citizenship doesn’t affect citizenship status? And if they aren’t, then it doesn’t matter that his parents were not American Citizens. It was another country’s laws that prevent Natural Born Citizenship, and you’re effectively giving another country veto power over who can and cannot be President of the United States. What happens when another country decides to give everyone born in America citizenship at birth in their country? Does this mean that every person born in America from that date on would all of a sudden be ineligible for the Presidency?
See the problems with your arguments. They’re contradicting eachother. You state that because he’s a dual citizen, he’s ineligible. Americans who are born to 2 citizen parents can automatically be dual citizens at birth to another country, as what at least 7 Presidents have been, such as Ulysseus S. Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald R. Ford were born with both French and American citizenship, despite being born to 2 American Parents. Heck, Grant, T. Roosevelt, and Taft actually served while being eligible for both U.S. and French Citizenship.
Hi Phil and fellow truth patriots,
Wow. I used to come to this blog daily to get the latest on issues & legal battles about eligibility, state sovereignty and saving the constitution of the United States of America. Doesn’t matter if 299,000,000 out of 300,000,000 voted for PINO: the USA is still a constitutional republic based on laws. The constitution is the law.
It is really sad now, here, to see all the pro-Obama infiltration … hello, Phil, are you out there?
Obviously ‘they’ (pro PINOs) are just having a great ol’ time commenting away nonsensically with incorrect facts. They keep pointing back to the sad ol’ COLB which says “date filed by register” (= on file but NOT yet accepted) instead of “date accepted by the state register” (= accepted AND on record).
There is a LEGAL difference being investigated through OIPA records in Hawaii right now. Q: Hawaii’s own laws, will they follow them? (Check out details at Miss Tickly’s site)
Truth needs a bit of light and even though Hawaii is doing their darndest to cover it up, the truth will come out. A “filed by” points to data not yet on record nor accepted! Put that in your pro COLB pipe and smoke it.
Come back Phil. Guess will have to get info elsewhere as these sad ol’ pro PINOs are giving me a headache. ta
I like that you say we talk about “incorrect facts” and then say that it’s the slightest bit unusual that the COLB says “filed by registrar” instead of accepted. I have no idea where this argument came from. Look at the sample COLB posted on obamacrimes. It says “filed by registrar.”
http://obamacrimes.com/new/COLB%20Facts.htm – about halfway down the page
Saying that something on the COLB means that the state hasn’t accepted Obama’s birth as being in HI is accusing the Hawaii Department of Health of telling blatant lies for the past year. They have repeatedly stated that their documents reflect Obama’s birth in HI. We have multiple samples of other COLBs which use identical language. Now, unless you are saying that this birther site’s own template is also somehow not accepted by the state of HI, you have been caught in a bit of a bind here.
Just another birther dishonest statement – take a look at it with the slightest bit of skepticism and it completely falls apart (just like the travel ban to Pakistan, the Indonesian constitutional ban on non-citizens in schools, and the multiple forgeries birthers have tried to submit to courts).
I am rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you… get over it.
I’m not convinced McCain or PINO are eligible to be POTUS. At least McCain fronted his actual records rather than hiding behind a COLB which does not, in face value (…. barf) point to documents that are even ‘accepted’ per Hawaiian law.
… crickets….
Why did ‘ol PINO go to Pakistan anyways? Doesn’t seem like a fun place to go IMO.
Aaaaah, but we’re all entitled to opinions right. Or do you and the government now insist I think a certain way now also? damn! So much for free thought.
The COLB is the only birth certificate given out by Hawaii. If you were born in Hawaii and ask for a copy of your birth certificate, what they will give you is the COLB. It is accepted for passports and is prima facie evidence of the facts on it in any court of law. It is self-authenticating under FRE.
If you are referring to the language on the HomeLands website, you are somehow taking a part of the page that said it would take longer to fully authenticate a COLB and somehow morphing that into a conclusion that the COLB was not accepted. Of course, HomeLands now correctly points out that it would be silly for Hawaii’s only birth certificate to be unacceptable, and edited its website to make that more clear for the birthers who seemed incapable of understanding that the first time.
Well, you seem to be extremely lazy, because this was the first hit on a Google search for Obama Pakistan travel:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
And actually, yeah, it does sound like fun to be able to travel to Pakistan and India, especially if you’ve got a friend to show you around. Sorry you don’t see the possibility of traveling to a very different place and experiencing a whole new culture with somebody to show you around fun.
LisaGinNZ writes:
I saw this argument somewhere (perhaps Miss TIckly’s blog), but I haven’t seen anything to show that there actually is such a distinction in Hawaii law. It seemed to be taken for granted that there was a distinction between something which was “filed” and “accepted,” versus just a difference in nomenclature. Care to share a cite to Hawaii law?
For what it’s worth, my son’s Missouri birth certificate — check that, when I sent away for a copy they sent me a “Birth Certification” — has a “Date Filed”, and says nothing about being accepted by the state registrar. Hopefully that doesn’t torpedo his chances to run for president. (It also lists only a smattering of facts — date of birth, county of birth, mother’s and father’s names, age, and states of birth, and date the certification was issued — but that’s another matter altogether.) It was good enough to get him into public school and get him a passport, though.
qwerty,
who cares about the COLB.
Obama will have to show the vital records because Fukino said he is an NBC. Both this and the fact that he put his COLB out on the internet (supposedly) demonstrate a waiver of any privacy rights.
Also, the Atty General’s opinion letter WILL BE part of the public record, and Obamagate will commence once that bad boy comes out …
Trust it, as the stink stuff, fries up
brygenon,
The day is coming, and very quickly, where you will not be able to hide behind your unsubstantiated “he doesn’t have to” defenses.
You will soon have to explain specific things regarding untruths, lies, deceptions, that will only have hard answers.
I am awaiting that day, because it will be the day you will not appear any longer on this board, because your ego will not show you man enough to say that you were wrong.
If you are man enough you will, and at that point, I will respect you, and forgive your falsehoods. But the odds are, you’ll be a no-show.
It’s coming soon. Enjoy your canards while the darkness lingers.
Would you first care to explain why we keep hearing easily verifiable lies from birthers everywhere?
Why did WND report dozens of times that Americans were banned from traveling to Pakistan in 1981, especially in light of the fact that the whole time there was a State Department Travel Advisory that was public knowledge that explicitly stated Americans could obtain tourist visas?
Why have there been two forged Kenyan birth certificates submitted to courts and passed off as valid evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii?
Why did Lisa just now say that “filed by register” was something extremely unusual when another sample COLB on a birther website uses the exact same language?
How about the lie that the HomeLands Department did not accept COLBs when they merely said that a COLB would take more time?
Why are prominent birthers publicly praying for President Obama’s death and advocating a military coup d’etat?
You say that there are lies that “obots” will have to answer for. How about answering some of these blatant lies that have been told and debunked over and over again?
Frankly, I’d have no problem with release of the attorney general’s letter. The Dept of Health has released the index data they relied on to make their public statement, and it’s available for viewing at their office.
You’ve based EVERYTHING on the conclusion that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and so you fit all your speculation around a theory that will reach that conclusion. You seem to think that the HI AG’s letter would somehow be a smoking gun that would be a directive telling the Dept of Health to blatantly lie – or that the index data or an original birth certificate is fake, or just a grandmother’s affidavit. Based on what? Well, it’s to fit your conclusion that you’ve pre-determined for yourself. To reach that conclusion you and your fellow birthers have peddled lies, produced forgeries, lied to courts on myriad occasions, and publicly called for a military uprising. Even MGB, who was trying to be reasonable, implied that if the military coup was similar in method to what happened in Honduras that he would support it.
Q – As a woman, I’m in the anti-sharia-law camp. I wouldn’t want to travel to a muslim country where I’d have to wear a burka, thanks. I’ll stick to Western 21st century instead of barbarism 7th century lifestyle.
I know why PINO went to Pakistan – my question was sarcastic. “Real” American kids/teens usually prefer a college break say at the beach in Florida: You know college kids right?
I’ll wait until we get to see all of PINOs records. If you support him so much, why don’t you support getting to see all of his papers, grades etc so you actually know what type of person he is? I suppose u still think he wrote his own books, too.
U happy being a mushroom, staying in the dark and being fed crap?
Lisa, your prejudice is showing. Pakistan is not Saudi Arabia or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The burqa is not mandatory. Ever heard of Benazir Bhutto? She was a democratically elected prime minister.
That’s not to say there aren’t major problems in Pakistan, but “barbarism 7th century lifestyle” makes it seem like you’ve never met a Pakistani in your life.
It certainly didn’t sound sarcastic. But whatever. I guess you’ll hold the fact that Obama enjoyed traveling the world against him. God forbid that we elect somebody as America’s representative abroad a person that actually has experienced and enjoyed other cultures.
Obama’s birth certificate is on the internet. There are multiple contemporary birth announcements in HI papers. There are multiple statements from the Dept of Health. Every member of the House of Representatives agrees that Obama was born in Honolulu. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind suggesting that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
The crap I don’t appreciate being fed is being told that “filed with registrar” is somehow extremely unusual. I don’t appreciate being fed that there was some mystical travel ban to Pakistan. I don’t appreciate being fed the crap of multiple forged birth certificates. Every allegation made by birthers about how Obama was either born abroad or is not a natural born citizen is either a blatant lie or extremely misleading.
Can’t be a NBC if daddy is Kenyan and NOT a USA citizen. Simple. Not elligible. There, solved it for ya.
Funny, that interpretation of natural born citizen appears nowhere in the constitution, in no statute, in no Supreme Court case (besides Dred Scott lol) and is supported by absolutely no current legal scholars. This information about Obama has been public knowledge since he wrote an entire book about it, and no other candidate, no government agency, no member of Congress raised the slightest objection on that ground.
Donofrio’s “holy grail” on this was a law journal article written a decade before Wong Kim Ark by one of the losing lawyers on the case, and rationalized that legal interpretation through blatant misogyny and racism. It literally argued that a father could pass his citizenship to his child, but a mother could not pass her citizenship to her child.
You are making a legal argument that has been discredited for over a century and has not been cited in a single court in the country since Wong.
My stuck in the mud friend Q:
PINO’s “Certification of live birth” was posted on the net. All it does is “certify” another document exist which, apparently, was “filed” but not accepted by the registrar. Another mystery! What doc is it ‘certifying’ exists if it doesn’t or was never ‘accepted’?
Certainly not “his birth certificate” – YOU LIE!
There ya go, fixed it for you.
this is getting boring… no wonder Phil isn’t around
<PINO’s “Certification of live birth” was posted on the net. All it does is “certify” another document exist which, apparently, was “filed” but not accepted by the registrar. Another mystery! What doc is it ‘certifying’ exists if it doesn’t or was never ‘accepted’?
I’ll write this out using short sentences since you don’t seem to understand lengthy paragraphs which require reading comprehension skills.
The COLB has been Hawaii’s only birth certificate for several years now. If you were born in Hawaii and asked for a copy of your birth certificate, you would receive a COLB. You could not get your original birth certificate from the Department of Health if you wanted to.
The COLB is self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and is prima facie evidence in any US Court. This means that unless you have specific evidence that the facts contained on it are not true, then that’s the end of the discussion in any court of law.
The COLB is also good for a passport, and is considered valid as identification in any state or federal context.
You say that “filed by registrar” is a sign of something unusual. However, a sample COLB provided by somebody else (on a birther site no less!) also uses that exact same phrase.
And in case you didn’t bother to click the link the first time, here it is again:
http://obamacrimes.com/Michele-front.jpg
Please, reread that last paragraph, because you seemed to miss it last time. Do you think the birther site’s sample COLB is also somehow fatally flawed? Or is it more likely that this is another example of a birther lie that falls apart under scrutiny?
Q – sorry Q, since you lied by stating the “birth certificate” is posted on the internet, I don’t believe anything else you say.
Period. have some more koolaid… it’s nice
Hey, childish as well as prejudiced against all Muslim countries. What a winning combination.
Maybe this is why many of the birthers have left RSoL. After being presented with facts and confronted with the plethora of blatant lies and falsehoods presented by prominent birthers like Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, they either leave the movement or join up with a forum where they don’t have to face dissenting voices, perhaps somewhere like FreeRepublic.
However much you may not want to believe it, the COLB is Hawaii’s official birth certificate. Obama posted his COLB on the internet. This has been backed by the Department of Health multiple times.
For Q: here is what a ‘birth certificate’ from 1961 looks like
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347
Q is a name-caller and Alinsky-follower. Typical “progressive” and true to form. I am anti-muslim and DAMN proud of that. You wanna be a happy muslim and chop off heads, be my guest. I feel sorry for the women in your life.
Hey Q: go live in a muslim country… don’t let the door hit you in the a&& on the way out.
Here’s your hat, what’s your hurry?
sticks and stones ya’ll…
Well then. Frankly, it’s not that often that somebody admits to being bigoted against 1/7th of the entire world. I have visited Muslim countries and have several very good friends here who are Muslims. What a shame that you are a bigot and a racist. I’m sorry that you’re so ignorant that you are unable to grasp that not all Muslim countries are as repressive as Saudi Arabia, or as unfriendly for women as Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. I’m sorry that you’re too close-minded to even attempt to understand the culture of a large percentage of the entire world.
Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t purport to be from 1961. It was produced in 2007, as Obama was running for office. It is consistent with other COLBs and has been backed by the Department of Health multiple times.
But again, it’s the birthers who have told lie after lie in this whole thing. What say you about that fictitious travel ban? How does it feel to know that the leaders in filing lawsuits have attempted to pass off multiple blatant forgeries in court so far? Does it not matter if they lie so long as your goal of removing Obama from office is achieved?
Remember PINO stated he has his said “birth certificate” – came across when he was, ahem, ‘writing’ his book.
So he has it in his posession. It makes much more sense to spend LOTS of time, mucho denero and foment hatred in the USA by not showing the document he says he has.
yep, makes sense…
nice name-calling by the way, you must be a professional.
Q – don’t forget how well women are treated, oh in, egypt, india, china or africa – don’t circumsize my girl parts! Don’t trade me into prostitution!
I’m not going to walk behind you, agree to be a 2nd class citizen, not go to school or be educated just cause I’m a girl, wear a burka or be demeaned by any man on the planet.
again, reallllly sorry for the women in your life… you like sharia law? Winner for idiot of the day = Q!
I’m not ‘racist’, I’m a realist. 1/7 on the planet? Now that is scary. More reason to be anti-muslim.
Again, Q, you got lotta friends who are muslim? GO LIVE in a muslim country then – have a GREAT time dude!
see ya – wouldn’t want to be ya!
Way to deflect away from what I asked you about. How do you feel about the constant stream of lies that have come from birthers for over a year now? At what point do you start to doubt the truthfulness of Orly’s next wild accusation?
For any authority competent to comment on the matter, Obama has proven his eligibility. The fact that you refuse to accept this is immaterial. Go ahead and vote for another candidate next time.
Anyway, as to your blatant bigotry:
Islam /= sharia. I do not support Sharia law. I am a feminist and support equal rights for men and women, and believe that we need to do more in this country to ensure that women are paid equally with men for the same work.
I will not be moving out of this country; I’m proud to be an American. This country has provided me and my immigrant relatives with innumerable opportunities. At the same time, I enjoy traveling and seeing other areas of the world. Yes, there are major and serious problems in much of the Muslim world. Yes, there are many Muslim countries where women are subjugated and treated as second-class citizens, and that’s a terrible thing. FGM is a human rights violation that we need to work to stop. Islam is not inherently anti-woman. There are constant reports out of Iran that much of the population, especially the youth, is very pro-American. To reflexively oppose them, along with more than a billion of your fellow humans around the world, is the very definition of prejudice and bigotry.
The extent of my “name calling” is to call you out on your bigotry, which you are proudly announcing to everybody who reads this blog.
Q – How do you feel about the constant lies from the state run media? Oh going on for about a couple decades now. Lefty progressive state run media did a great job puttin’ the hate on ol’ George Bush now didn’t they. Yep, everything wrong is Bush’s fault now. Sun rose? Bush fault. Acne? Blame Bush… tiresome lefty lies and propaganda all of it…
‘birthers’ seek the truth. Being anti-muslim is not against any ‘race’. I’m against the horribly ideology that is muslim. Glad you like it… enjoy your beheadings then? …nice!
All Americans are immigrants… unless you’re Navajo or something.
I am proud to be a constitutionalist and no, muslims did not form the USA. It is a christian/judeo country and hopefully will remain so. Time will tell.
Have fun living under the tyranny you desire, Q. I feel sorry for you. Your lies don’t convince me about anything.
You don’t really even know what being American is all about.
I feel sorry for your bigotry about what America is about. The majority of us are conservatives and we have awoken.
hugs
For a third time you complete refuse to answer questions about the fact that Orly Taitz and the other prominent figures in the birther movement have been telling you lies. Passing off one forged Kenyan birth certificate (which Orly to this day says is legit), and then another. Claiming over and over again that when Obama when to Pakistan Americans were not allowed to go there. None of these are a search for truth. What you are searching for is the removal of Obama from office. To achieve it, I’ve seen across the board intellectual dishonesty.
You know nothing of my politics except that I think the birther movement is ridiculous and that I am not xenophobic against over a billion people. For that you say I don’t understand America. How ironic that you accuse me of name-calling and then engage in it yourself. I call you a bigot because you admit you are bigoted against all Muslims. You say that I don’t understand America because I say that I am not bigoted against all Muslims.
My parents are immigrants. They came here in search of a better life, and achieved it. I have spent my life feeling fortunate to be born in such a country where even a blatant bigot such as yourself has every right to spout the hateful language you are saying. I feel secure in knowing that 50 years from now, somebody like you will be thought of the same way segregationists are today, as bigots who were on the wrong side of history.
Q: *sigh* you dont’ get it… neener neener boo boo … love the name calling! But sorry dude, I remain unconvinced.
Are you one of the paid Bots roaming around trying to stir it up and get everyone to love love love your annointed O…? We ain’t buyin’ it, so go somewhere else with you sales pitch.
I’m not going to answer your lame questions. You can call me any name in the book. You lie therefore you are a liar.
Why don’t you go post at Huffington or some other lame progressive blog? Oh, right… you’re trying to take over this one…
sheeeeesh, get over yourself… I know way too much to ever drink the koolaid you are selling. Find a sense of humor. You’re gonna need it with current clowns ‘running’ the federal government.
I noticed you never reponded to any facts I pointed out … so tit for tat. We’re done.
For Q: here’s a good site for all the fun jihad and muslim crap going on world wide… have a read and enjoy the info
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Now this is a lie. The one “fact” that you pointed out was that you thought it’s unusual that the COLB says “filed by registrar” rather than “accepted.” I responded to this directly by pointing out that there are other sample COLBs (on birther websites!) that use the exact “filed by registrar” language. Everything else you have posted is your opinion. You are calling me a liar because I disagree with your opinion.
It is your opinion that the COLB is fraudulent. In contrast, it is not opinion, but fact, that the two Kenyan birth certificates Orly has filed in court are both forgeries. It is not opinion, but fact, that there was no travel ban to Pakistan in 1981. It is a fact, that you yourself have admitted, that you are bigoted against all Muslims. You have admitted that you are prejudiced against all Muslims.
Why do I post here? Because I detest lies, especially when it’s so easy to show how they’re false. You again assume that I’m some liberal, but I’ve said nothing to make you think that except for the facts that I think birthers are ridiculous and I’m not prejudiced against Muslims.
If you want to put forth any allegations or accusations about Obama’s eligibility for the presidency, go ahead. All you’ve done for the past four hours is brag about how much you hate all Muslims and called me anti-American for saying that birthers are ridiculous and that Muslims are not all bad.
1) Q’s said the “birth certificate” has been posted online.
2) COLB isn’t the birth certificate.
3) PINO sais he ‘has’ his birth certificate.
4) If he has it, show it: prove elligibility!
….. crickets…..
But he won’t? he can’t? yep… mystery indeed.
People like Q just keep towing the company line: lie lie and lie some more.
The real story is since both candidates weren’t elligible, America was punked. An entertainment folly! There probably won’t be any more ‘free’ elections. The bilderberg group will just pull out 2 more rabbits out of their hat…
If you throw out the constitution, there will be hell to pay, Q.
We the people have caught on.
Go tell your progessive blog payroll boss that one… go cry to mommy…
last word – last word – nonny nonny boo boo!
I know you’re not going to admit you’re wrong on this, but here goes once again.
#2 on that list is where you go wrong. COLB is a valid and legal Hawaii birth certificate. It is the only form of birth certificate Hawaii has produced for several years. It is prima facie evidence of everything on it and is self-authenticating. It is valid for passports and any other form of ID in Hawaii or the United States.
Obama’s birth certificate states he was born in Honolulu. This was sufficient for the DNC, for the electoral college, for the entirety of both houses of Congress, for the Supreme Court’s chief justice, and for the vast majority of the American people.
He has proven his eligibility to anybody in a position to have a say in the matter. You allege that Obama is ineligible – the burden of proof lies with you. So far, no birther has come close despite the stream of falsehoods, misleading statements and blatant forgeries that have come forth.
Also, you should learn how to spell eligibility at some point. Also, try not being bigoted against a billion people. There are plenty of good, friendly Muslims out there. There are several modern Muslim countries out there. Maybe you could try Turkey some time, or UAE.
Phil:
Could you please start a post for people who want to flame war? Can you divert all flame comments to that post?
I regret having to bring this up, but all of the “flaming” gets in the way of the informative comments.
Thank you.
I’ll say it again slowly: COLB is not a “birth certificate”, Q. I already provided a link to one for twins born around the time PINO states he was born.
If PINO has his cert, as he wrote he did in his book, why won’t he provide it?
In Qs logical fallacy land, college grads don’t have to show their diplomas either since they post “graduated from ABC college” on their resumes online. Where is diploma? On the net. You, the employer, have to prove I didn’t graduate.
Bing! Incorrect! Grads have to provide the actual diploma! Sorry, thanks for playing though, Q.
Keep on believing your own lies Q. You have stick-to-it-ness like you’re being paid to be a Bot. Hope you getting more than minimum wage to fight the ellllllligibility battle.
Ooooooops, spelled wrong again.
Phil won’t ban the bots, KJ. Bots are on over drive now that actual court cases are making their way through the system.
Lefties are scared! And they should be.
We the people are on to them.
siseduermapierda:
I see quite a number of Obot “names” on this thread including yours from the DOJ Blog Team. Nothing like a lot of mis/disinformation to confuse the public, we see.
You’ve obviously not read the legal action submitted and presented on the Apuzzo website. The thing you call a “theory” is very well supported by US history, Constitutional law and SCOTUS decisions.
If you’d troubled to educate yourself on the matter by reading the numerous papers that are accessible from the website you’d actually know something instead of spouting such nonsense.
You Obots – or, more correctly. Fling Monkeys – are like peas in a pod … and just about as green. Talk about gullible; you’ve truly been gulled by the biggest, most brazen con artist of all time.
jtx says:
October 13, 2009 at 6:08 am
*You’ve obviously not read the legal action submitted and presented on the Apuzzo website. The thing you call a “theory” is very well supported by US history, Constitutional law and SCOTUS decisions*
If Kerchner’s case were so well-supported by the law, he’d have an army of conservative constitutional law experts clamoring to help with his case. Instead he’s represented by a NJ DUI lawyer. If they thought they had a winning case, they wouldn’t be taking out full-page ads in DC papers. A sign that yet another Obama denier team knows this is a political question. Judges rule based on the law, not on public opinion.
“you’ve truly been gulled by the biggest, most brazen con artist of all time.”
Nope, I’ve still got my money. It appears to me the birthers have been fooled by several “con artists.” Berg, WND, Taitz, Lincoln, Kreep, Pidgeon, PRN, AGJ, Cont. Cong. and all the rest who have a pay pal button on their website. Wonder how much the infomercial, yard signs, faxes, pink slips, and other birther trinkets and trash produced by these individuals cost compared to what they charge you? Have any of you ever received an accounting from any of these individuals?
I did not contribute one dime to the Obama campaign. And, I assure you, the Obama campaign or adm. has not paid me one dime.
Have any of you taken the time to check the credentials and track record of these “birther lawyers” and self professed “constitutional experts?” It appears to me that you guys have spent a whole lot of money with very poor results. Why didn’t you hire a real “constitutional lawyer?”
Has anyone ever wondered why Dr. Taitz in Texas, Florida and Georgia, when applying for pro hac vice in those States, has not been able to find one sponsoring attorney in those States? Has anyone ever wondered why a competent, ethical and reputable attorney has not offered to assist Dr. Taitz? Has anybody bothered to check the background of Charles Lincoln, III to get the true facts of his disbarments and felony conviction? Has anybody bothered to find out what the California State Bar requires a lawyer to do when they hire someone who has been disbarred or convicted of a felony and what that employees restrictions are?
I suggest you take the time to investigate the above before you tell me that I’ve been “conned.” Just my opinion.
A fool and their money soon part.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/871822.html
Columbus attorneys disapprove of Taitz’s actions
In what world do you live in where an official transcript is not good enough for a job interview? In what world do you live in where an interviewer demands that you actually bring your physical diploma to an interview? What the hell sorts of jobs are you interviewing for that when you hand a stamped and sealed official transcript to an employer (which gives your date of graduation), the employer turns around and goes “but this isn’t a diploma?”
Diplomas are souvenirs, tokens. Generally they’re big and unwieldy, and you frame them and hang them up somewhere. A diploma is not something that you put in your folder and hand to an interviewer along with your resume and cover letter. Either you are not a college grad, or you have interviewed with some very weird places.
I don’t know. The reference to it is on page 26. He was looking through some old papers while he was in high school. That’s 30 years ago by now. Maybe he lost it – he has traveled around a lot, and it’s been a long time. The campaign said that they had Obama request several copies of his birth certificate from HI to present to various officials to meet requirements, and then put one online to fight baseless attacks from people like you.
What he put online was a valid and legal Hawaii birth certificate, and from the birthers he has in return received nothing but baseless accusations and wild allegations. Every member of Congress was satisfied, and the campaigns of Hilary and McCain actually looked into this and saw there was nothing to it. Chief Justice Roberts was satisfied – he swore Obama in. And of course, 70 million Americans were satisfied that Obama was qualified for the presidency.
To provide anything at this point would set a terrible precedent. Sometimes we see that long list of irrelevant documents that birthers want to have produced, a good chunk of which probably don’t exist, and many of which are protected by federal law or attorney-client privilege. If Obama produced any original birth certificate, it would immediately be denounced by birthers as fraudulent. It would be giving in to accusations that are backed by nothing but pure speculation. It would be saying that there’s something to these speculations. It would even be making a racial statement, that the black president has to provide something that the white president does not. Have you ever seen George Bush’s birth certificate?
Mostly, to produce any original birth certificate at this point would be an attempt to satisfy those who could ONLY be satisfied with Obama’s removal from office. We’re talking about a movement where members talk daily about a military coup d’etat (see the tacit endorsement given by posters yesterday), whose leaders publicly call for a military coup while on a radio station that is heard on military bases, publicly pray for Obama’s death, and have already declared that no matter where Obama was born, they believe he is still ineligible.
Edit: I also love that because some “obots” have posted here multiple times, we MUST be getting paid by the government to do it and don’t, you know, actually believe what we type. I guess I could say that the birthers posting here are paid agents of Orly Taitz – after all, she’s got to do something with those PayPal donations…
sue WAKE UP you ARE LOSING MONEY !!!
Stimulus to the tune of over $789 billion at an average
cost of over $35000 per tax paying family in USA
US DOLLAR down, which means YOUR BUYING POWER is down
US standing in world down because of this clown and fake in WH
and there is more coming
HEALTH CARE per natzi obama style
and your taxes are going up
and if you own a home , it’s value is likely DOWN and property taxes UP due to OBAMA’s policies
then there are costs for paying for the sins of obama abortion
and health policies. Don’t think there is NOT a moral, ethical and American value loss there.
So your thinking is sick and twisted if you don’t think you are paying for this clown
then there is the loss of life due to his idiotic military engagement rules and the disintegration of the military. The man is trying to gut our militay, we will all pay for that like we paid when Clinton gutted our military.
we all are paying, the sooner we
get this fake and fraud of a clown out of the White House and return to normal. It’s people like you who have their head up their proverbial you know what , throwing out the rule of law, our Constitution. The radicals like yourself are ruining this once great nation. The man can not even produce a simple birth certificate like the rest of us can, and his lawyers in courts are not even using that green blob anymore so don’t even go there.
Time for real change, oppps, except if it’s climate change then….well you see the hyprocrisy and lunacy of the radicals in power.
so you have your head buried
Joseph Maine says:
Same thing, over and over. You imagine factual support coming, while what I’ve been saying all along just keeps turning out to be true: The only real open question is how much defeat birthers need to heap upon themselves.
I’ve been debunking kooks on the net since before there were birthers, before there were 9/11 “truthers”. I’ve heard fantasies like Joseph Maine’s many times before: on some unspecified day in the future their theories will be vindicated. Meanwhile, here in reality the cranks show naught but falsehood and folly and failure.
It has been “coming soon” for quite a while now, hasn’t it? Any specifics, such as a deadline?
The article here is about Barnett v. Obama. At the “Tea Party” protest last month in Washington D.C., the attorney who filed it said that she could have Obama out of office in 30 days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGPo-HfbGgY
Let’s see… that was September 12′th, and today is…
New Docket Entry:
10/13/2009 28 ORDER denying 24 Motion for Recusal; denying 25 Motion for Extension of Time. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 10/13/2009. (lra) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
$20,000 SANCTIONS, 43 PAGE OPINION. Judge Land has also sent the order to the California State Bar.
qwertyman: “There has to be discovery before there would be any document production.”
Well, no. Obama’s defense in their initial response could have had Hawaii send all vital records to the court. Then they could ask for the case to be dismissed.
Where is it written that a defendant can’t produce evidence prior to the judge ordering discovery? Get real.
qwertyman: “only going to be placated with Obama’s removal from office.”
Wrong. If he can prove what he claims to be true, that he is a natural born citizen of the USA and eligible under the Constitution for the presidency, then I would glad to see that he’s finally being transparent, as promised, instead of playing mind games with the American people.
If he’s not a NBC, I would expect him to be removed from office by not being allowed to run for POTUS again. He would be ineligible to be on the ballot.
The deficiencies in the political/legal process is what brought us to this point. Of course, if he’s not a NBC, then Congress can impeach. It’s up to them. That’s the legal process. It will be up to the courts to decide what happens with any laws passed, etc.
It would be nice for a leader to be open and aboveboard and to be transparent, as promised. Wouldn’t it?
However, it was good to hear one honest comment from President Obama, when he recently said that he doesn’t deserve the Nobel Prize.
qwertyman, I forgot to quibble with your analogy.
You said, “It would be more apt if you were at the airport, and security had accepted your passport and let you through while the guy a few spots behind you in line yells out that you’re actually a terrorist, with absolutely no evidence to prove that allegation.”
No, a more apt analogy would be:
If you were at the airport and security accepted a one-page, one-sided digital image that purports to certify the existence of an authentic passport in your name–an image that you present to security by pulling up a blog on your laptop computer. When security lets you through, someone a few spots behind you in line yells out, “That’s not a passport and it proves nothing.”
And then security cannot even confirm with the State Department that you do indeed have an authentic passport, because you have somehow managed to have all of your records “sealed” and subsequently you spend countless hours and dollars fighting in multiple courts to prevent anyone from authenticating your records.
Taitz sanctioned $20,000 by Judge Land.
Poor Orly, I wonder how much longer people will follow this lunatic off the bridge…Thank God for Judge Clay Land. He has basically said what most have been saying about Orly for months. I hope she continues to engage in this terrible behavior so that she is sanctioned even more than the $20,000 she has already racked up…I guess her paypal donation button will be working overtime to get her delusional followers to help bail her out of this mess. Or maybe the disbarred one, Charles Lincoln can try and write her way out of this again. Since he did such a great job the last time. This was a great laugh early in the morning.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
A quote from the first page that describes Orly and her inane filings and theories…
“For justice to be administered efficiently and justly, lawyers must understand the conditions that govern their privilege to practice law. Lawyers who do not understand those conditions are at best woefully unprepared to practice the profession and at worst a menace to it.”
And from the second page that sums up the way Orly does “business”….
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.”
Amen….
sise: No, I’m not gullible. I know that it’s as likely as not that Ayers was engaging in Alinsky-like disinformation. Perhaps I said that to mess with YOUR head. Think so?
On the other hand, it’s as likely as not that he’s telling the truth but pretending to lie.
In fact, it’s more likely than not that he’s telling the truth, but as with everything else, he and his friends will be opaque and as slippery as possible.
Here’s the link to a story about this issue. Be sure to read the analyses by Jack Cashill of the wordsmithing in the book.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ayers_admitted_authorship_to_n.html
The name of the book:
Barack and Michelle
Portrait of an American Marriage
By Christopher Andersen
btw, sise, I do read the news. I remain puzzled why you cannot simply accept that people might not agree with you and (even worse, perhaps) that they can logically debate and refute many of your claims. Why must you personally attack and insult those with whom you disagree? It weakens your arguments.
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 11:08 am
qwertyman, I forgot to quibble with your analogy.
You said, “It would be more apt if you were at the airport, and security had accepted your passport and let you through while the guy a few spots behind you in line yells out that you’re actually a terrorist, with absolutely no evidence to prove that allegation.”
No, a more apt analogy would be:
If you were at the airport and security accepted a one-page, one-sided digital image that purports to certify the existence of an authentic passport in your name–an image that you present to security by pulling up a blog on your laptop computer. When security lets you through, someone a few spots behind you in line yells out, “That’s not a passport and it proves nothing.”
And then security cannot even confirm with the State Department that you do indeed have an authentic passport, because you have somehow managed to have all of your records “sealed” and subsequently you spend countless hours and dollars fighting in multiple courts to prevent anyone from authenticating your records.
________________________________________________________________
Actually MGB, your analogy would be apt except that no govermental agency is requesting the President’s records. You and the birthers are not the government. So it is more like what qwertyman said. The customs or TSA has accepted the documentation that has been provided. But some guy way in the back that does not like you decides that your documentation is false, and has no evidence to back up his accusations other than he believes that it is. So he keeps filings suits to get to see the documentation that the govermental officials have already accepted, using unsubstantiated claims and fantasy legal theories to prove that the documentation that you have provided is not suffcient. However since the law is on your side you don’t have to spend a nickel. You have federal privacy laws, which protect all Americans, and you realize that the so called “legal minds” trying to compel these records include a DUI attorney, a poker playing attorney, and a unaccredited online attorney graduate that just got sanctioned by a judge in her last case. Those are some real legal minds there. So you are not worried and go about your business while that guy behind you whines and cries that it shouldn’t be so.
qwertyman said, “Zelaya did violate the constitution (I don’t judge whether the provision he violated was reasonable or not).”
It’s not FOR you to judge whether the Honduran Constitution is “reasonable or not.” The LAW is the LAW. The only possible mistake the Hondurans made was in putting Zelaya on a plane out of the country. But it was perfectly legal for them to remove him from office. In addition, there’s another provision in Honduran law that allowed for the exile, if they determined that he was a threat to national security, which, of course, they did.
qwertyman also said, “But here’s the weird thing about this tangent – you brought up Honduras out of nowhere.” Uh, NOT! You brought up military coups (qwertyman; October 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm) first.
Why did I mention Honduras? Not because I see a parallel here with regard to removing a president. Absolutely not.
The parallel lies in an ILLEGAL attempt by a president to remain in office beyond the term limits of the Constitution. And to claim that a referendum passed by a majority of the electorate trumps the Constitution.
Do you think that people here don’t suspect that Obama and his supporters might make a similar claim that IF a majority of the people in a democratic vote (not an electoral college vote) want him to serve more than two terms, despite what the Constitution says and despite that it has not been legally amended, that he should be allowed more than two terms?
It’s not as if we haven’t already heard similar arguments. Such as, Obama got a majority of the popular vote, so that’s good enough for the people, despite that he might not have proven eligibility under the Constitution. The people don’t care about the requirements of the Constitution. It’s an outdated document. He was elected democratically, so that trumps the Constitution. Sound familiar?
qwertyman also said, “I’ve seen a distressingly large number of right wingers on blogs like this one (hell, you can see them in just about any given FreeRepublic thread) who see Honduras as a template for removing Obama here.”
Exactly how many blogs like this one do you read? And why? Perhaps it’s your job? Who pays your salary, btw?
http://washingtonindependent.com/63558/orly-taitz-sanctioned-for-20000
Orly Taitz Sanctioned for $20,000
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 10:57 am
*The deficiencies in the political/legal process is what brought us to this point.*
Yet another admission this is a political issue. Judge Land agrees with you. Please read Judge Land’s ruling where he asks what if you didn’t believe the President was over 35 years of age? Would you sue him in court to produce a birth certificate? That’s a condition of eligibility too.
I’m glad to see many of you are finally coming around to recognizing this is a political question. You have two options: convince Congress to convict and impeach Obama or find someone who can get more votes in 2012. Get to work.
dunstvangeet said, “Are you truly giving a foreign country veto power over who can and cannot be President?”
No, but if he was born into the allegiance of another country, to a father who was not a US citizen or even a legal, long-term US resident, then that puts his natural born citizenship in question.
You know as well as I do that the issue has not been definitively decided upon by the SCOTUS. Therefore, we must ask SCOTUS to rule upon his particular situation, ONCE WE KNOW FOR SURE what his particulars are.
Yes, under your scenario, the second-generation Italian-Americans are NBCs because both parents were US citizens at the time of their birth. That’s my opinion. It may not be the opinion of the SCOTUS. Their opinion remains to be seen.
I don’t recall ever arguing that all dual citizenship disqualifies people from being NBCs of the USA. I do recall your numerous comments about Italian/US dual citizens. I did not follow closely. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.
qwertyman, why are prominent True Believers cryng out, “God damn, America?” Why are prominent True Believers yelling, “America’s chickens comin’ home to roost?”
See how that works? Just because we agree on some issues with people, doesn’t mean that we agree with everything they say or promote. Do you agree with Wright? Do you agree with Farrakhan? How about Van Jones?
LisaGinNZ: You’re makin’ my day. Glad for the reinforcements!
qwertyman, “What a shame that you are a bigot and a racist.”
I assume that you are a man because if you were a woman, you would not take LisaGinNZ’s comments so lightly. Have you ever read the Koran? It is a frightening document for women. It is frightening to see what happens to women in many Muslim countries because of what’s in that document.
btw, how is LisaGinNZ “racist”?
How do you know what race Lisa is? If you presume she’s white, then have you noticed that a good many Muslims are Caucasians?
Aren’t we all members of the human race? Isn’t “race” a social construct?
Again, why do you persist in personally attacking people, bullying, and calling names?
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 11:21 am
sise: No, I’m not gullible. I know that it’s as likely as not that Ayers was engaging in Alinsky-like disinformation. Perhaps I said that to mess with YOUR head. Think so?
On the other hand, it’s as likely as not that he’s telling the truth but pretending to lie.
In fact, it’s more likely than not that he’s telling the truth, but as with everything else, he and his friends will be opaque and as slippery as possible.
Here’s the link to a story about this issue. Be sure to read the analyses by Jack Cashill of the wordsmithing in the book.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ayers_admitted_authorship_to_n.html
The name of the book:
Barack and Michelle
Portrait of an American Marriage
By Christopher Andersen
btw, sise, I do read the news. I remain puzzled why you cannot simply accept that people might not agree with you and (even worse, perhaps) that they can logically debate and refute many of your claims. Why must you personally attack and insult those with whom you disagree? It weakens your arguments.
___________________________________________________________________
MGB, using Jack Cashill as a reference is kind of counter-productive. His is a shill for WND. He is the one that started the rumor that Ayers wrote President Obama’s book. And the book by Andersen used Cashill as its source to make the same claim. So you have a guy making an unsubstantiated claim. He never had any analysis done. You think if legitimate analysis supported his dubious claim, he would not be citing that source? The bottom line is that until you can provide some evidence that an expert, and Ron Polarik (Ronald Jay Holland) is definately not one, has analyzed the book and writings of both men and come to that conclusion, then it is like all other birther statements, unsubstantiated rumor.
Actually someone did try and get someone to support the claims of Cashill, an English professor in Oxford named Peter Millican, and his preliminary analysis seemed to not support the allegations of Cashill…..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5063279.ece
“Millican took a preliminary look and found the charges “very implausible”. A deal was agreed for more detailed research but when Millican said the results had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved, interest waned. Millican said: “I thought it was extremely unlikely that we would get a positive result. It is the sort of thing where people make claims after seeing a few crude similarities and go overboard on them.”
Either way Ayers admits that he wrote Obama’s book…Just to mess with people…
http://washingtonindependent.com/62828/yes-bill-ayers-is-messing-with-people
http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2009/10/bill_ayers_jokes_about_writing_obama_book_rightbloggers_become_punchline.php
So it is more that likely that the President is telling the truth. So far there has been no admissible evidence to prove otherwise. The people with the inability to tell the truth so far are Cashill and anyone that writes for WND, Orly, Lucas Smith, Larry Sinclair, and most of the people associated with the so called birther movement.
“Exactly how many blogs like this one do you read? And why? Perhaps it’s your job? Who pays your salary, btw?”
I read lots of birther blogs. As many as I can. Why? I certainly don’t get paid. I do it because I would like to prevent another cop, security guard or federal judge from being murdered. Would it surprise you that the two shooters were both commenters on freepers? I send everything I find to federal law enforcement.
Some Congressmen have made comments regarding violence toward judges that have possibly only made it worse. It will be interesting to see how these Congressmen feel when the violence is possibly directed at them.
However, Phil is to be commended because he doesn’t allow these types of comments on his blog.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/10/holocaust-museum-shooting_n_213831.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512560,00.html
http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/gun-nut-that-killed-three-pittsburgh-cops-didnt-like-our-rights-being-infringed-upon/
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_aapss.shtml
http://www.jrrobertssecurity.com/security-news/security-crime-news0080.htm
http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=900005552445
LisaGinNZ: Must correct you. Even Navajos are immigrants.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
This is a bad day for birthers, a federal judge writes 45 pages destroying Talitz’s birther cases and stupid antics, before fining her $20,000 and reporting poor lawyering to the CA Bar.
Now wait just for Judge Carter to issue his dismissal with equal strength and completeness.
These judges are making sure that the Federal appeals courts will never send these cases back to their respective court rooms.
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 12:00 pm
qwertyman, why are prominent True Believers cryng out, “God damn, America?” Why are prominent True Believers yelling, “America’s chickens comin’ home to roost?”
See how that works? Just because we agree on some issues with people, doesn’t mean that we agree with everything they say or promote. Do you agree with Wright? Do you agree with Farrakhan? How about Van Jones?
____________________________________________________________________
MGB, interesting point. First of all when you allude to “true believers”, I assume you mean in the Constitution of the United States. Because the people that support the President are the ones that believe in the Constution. They are the ones that know if you want to remove the President, you need to start impeachmemt. They are not the ones that are advocating a coup against the lawfully elected government of the United States.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/nmcoup.html
So called true believers are not the ones that are “Praying for the death of the President of the United States” like good old Pastor Wiley Drake. True Believers are not the ones that are calling the President of the United States “a racist that has a deep hatred for white people” like Glenn Beck (who ironically went after Van Jones because Jones was the one that called for a boycott of Beck’s show which has cost him 80 advertisers so far).
So is this a contest to see if either side can be associated with more reprehensible people? I mean that is your point with bringing up Jones, Wright, and Farrakhan, right? Or is it because all of the people you brought up happen to have something else in common? That social construct you alluded to earlier. Beware when you play the guilt by association game, usually that is when some unknown things come to light.
I have read the Quran. In some places it is entirely outdated and not suited for the modern world. Of course, the Bible explicitly endorses slavery as well. You have to put these things into context – the world of 1500 or 2000 years ago is very different from our own. Of course, Wahhabis, who want to go back to the 7th century, should be resisted in their goals.
And even you managed to make the distinction that LisaG couldn’t. What happens to women in many (NOT ALL) Muslim countries is terrible. Apparently she forgot that Pakistan twice elected a woman as prime minister, or more likely, never bothered to look it up or check. Again, check out Turkey and see how oppressed women are there. Calling names? When LisaG says that she is proudly anti-Muslim, I denounce her as a bigot. Apparently being prejudiced against over a billion people is something you don’t have too much of a problem with either though…
This is a website about the birther movement, for birthers. It’s not my fault that several of the most prominent of them have said and done some ridiculous things. Again, you seem to be “unsure” but that seems to make you alone among birthers on this site. LisaG brought out the old “two parent requirement” canard, and the vast majority, if not all the other, birthers on this site subscribe to that theory. Again, not a single birther suit would stop if there was video footage of Obama’s birth, as Orly puts it, in the Oval Office itself.
Just because you believe it doesn’t mean that you’re not being paid to write it.
qwertyman, I am very sure of myself; I am not a “birther”; and I do not appreciate you lumping me in with whatever stereotype of “birthers” you have created in your own mind. If you would get beyond stereotyping and actually read and address the logical points people make her, instead of lumping them all together in a knee-jerk fashion, then perhaps we could make progress on sorting out this problem.
Where is it written that Phil’s blog is here only to discuss Obama’s eligibility? I didn’t know that. Perhaps Phil can enlighten us?
Sue gets off on others’ failures.
Sue that is exactly what Orly wanted
now she can prove her case via damages
wait and see
LisaGinNZ says:
Do you have a source for that? In Dreams from My Father, Obama says he came across his birth certificate when he was in high school, not when writing the book. That would be at least 30 years ago.
Now Hawaii issues certifications of live birth, and that is the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
da Verg,
Please explain to me exactly how Orly is going to do this.
LisaGinNZ says:
*Remember PINO stated he has his said “birth certificate” – came across when he was, ahem, ‘writing’ his book.
So he has it in his posession.*
Utterly false. On Page 26 of “Dreams From My Father” here is what Barack Obama wrote:
“I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,”
“when I was in high school”. You have no way of knowing how old a copy it was, when it was issued. If it was in his mother’s things, it probably was put away. That’s the beauty of being able to request copies. If you lose or don’t have access to a copy, you can request one or more. It is stunning how carelessly you toss around misinformation.
Black Lion said,”You and the birthers are not the government.”
Wrong. WE the People of the United States of America ARE the government. This is a government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People.
Thank you for excluding me from the universe of “birthers”.
MGB says:
“The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly.” — John S. McCain, 04 Nov 2008.
da Verg,
Please explain to me exactly how Orly is going to do this.
>>>what part of wait and see , don’t you understand? Sue?
Two quick notes:
MGB – the SCOTUS has already denied cert to several of these cases, thus rendering their opinion on the “issues raised.” You may not like the fact that they do not think these issues are even worth a hearing, but rule they have – and the President is still President.
Lisa – You are certainly not a second class citizen, but if you keep posting the bilge you have been, many may wonder if you are a second class intellect.
Black Lion: I pray that you are never on an airplane with fellow passengers who got through security by showing their credentials in digital form on a blog.
sise, I said “political/legal” issue. Not completely either one. The political process was the incomplete and/or disingenuous “vetting” of his eligibility by his POLITICAL party prior to getting on the ballot. The legal issue is the requirements of the Constitution. It’s both political AND legal, but you seem to want to avoid the legalities altogether.
what part of wait and see , don’t you understand? Sue?
The part that is based in reality.
Taitz would have to appeal and the circuit court would have to agree that the fine was so large that she was entitled to a trial. (And Judge Land already addressed why he thinks that won’t happen.) Then there would be a trial, except the president’s eligibility wouldn’t be on trial; Taitz’s intent would be. She’d have to prove what she knew then, and wouldn’t be entitled to go on a fishing expedition to demonstrate that she possibly was post hoc correct.
da verg says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:04 pm
da Verg,
Please explain to me exactly how Orly is going to do this.
>>>what part of wait and see , don’t you understand? Sue?
Sue, that is birther speech for I have no clue and neither does Orly. So lets make something up and hope it sounds reasonable. If any birther had acutally taken the time to read the judge’s ruling, they would see that Orly has no chance in a legal venue of ever winning her case. If she thinks legally she can move her case along by appealing the damages then she is really not a smart lawyer or person. Orly had her case heard and it was denied. And showing her disrespect of the law and the judical process she tried to retry the case instand of following the Judges orders. She can’t even follow the rules of civil procedure. She is clueless. But if that is the person that some believe will eventually lead them to the holy grail, they are in for a long wait. And yes a lot of people were quite amused by Orly’s failure. It is not like most people with any common sense did not see that coming.
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Black Lion said,”You and the birthers are not the government.”
Wrong. WE the People of the United States of America ARE the government. This is a government OF the People, BY the People, and FOR the People.
Thank you for excluding me from the universe of “birthers”.
___________________________________________________________________
No problem. However the fact remains that we the people ELECT representatives to form our government. We the people, although powerful are not the government. That is in the Constitution. Just like the fantasy grand juries are not real grand juries and have no power to issue any real indictments, we cannot demand the President release anything. We are a nation of laws and rules.
The problem is that not one out of the 535 of this country’s elected officials believe that the President is ineligible. As a matter of fact they believe that he is eligible to be President. They address him as “Mr. President”. Remember when they had an opportunity to challenge the election, they did not. So now whether you like it or not the President will be in office until at least 2013. The birthers will not get any state to violate federal privacy laws nor will any of these cases get past the Constitutional requirement of standing. Those are the facts.
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:21 pm
*sise, I said “political/legal” issue. Not completely either one. *
Oh, then I take back that pat on the back. You’re wrong. It’s entirely political.
*The legal issue is the requirements of the Constitution.*
You’ve had at least 3 judges tell you it’s a political question with its resolution in the first branch. Who has to tell you before you believe it, internalize it and move along? It has become willful disregard. I find it hilarious that the traditionally authoritarians defy all authority in this matter. You are correct on one point, your solution is in the Constitution. Article II, Section 4. or the 12th amendment. One or the other or both if you like!
Black Lion said, “First of all when you allude to “true believers”, I assume you mean in the Constitution of the United States. Because the people that support the President are the ones that believe in the Constution. They are the ones that know if you want to remove the President, you need to start impeachmemt. They are not the ones that are advocating a coup against the lawfully elected government of the United States.”
Black Lion, you are behind the curve. Qwertyman, sise, myself, and others hashed this out earlier in this thread. Please read all comments, so you can keep up. However, you seem to use the same playbook.
I have this vision of busy little bees, sitting somewhere in the equivalent of a “call center”, with their binders of stock arguments and insults, complete with index tabs, typing out responses that seem to fit whatever anybody they disagree with says. You know, like those techs in other countries that give “tech support” that has only an incidental relationship to the issue enquired about.
I digress . . .
“True Believers” is my name for those who seem to believe in everything Obama says, despite a sad lack of evidence that much of what he says is true. It’s my answer to “birthers”.
Black Lion said, “So called true believers are not the ones that are “Praying for the death of the President of the United States” like good old Pastor Wiley Drake. True Believers are not the ones that are calling the President of the United States “a racist that has a deep hatred for white people” like Glenn Beck (who ironically went after Van Jones because Jones was the one that called for a boycott of Beck’s show which has cost him 80 advertisers so far).”
Been there, done that. Yesterday!
btw, it sure does seem as if Glenn Beck has been added to your most recent hit list (aka marching orders). Boy, his truths must really be getting to you. Aren’t you all proud about how the White House is spending so much time attacking a news organization, instead of, say, working on the serious problems that face this country? Just sayin’.
Black Lion said, “So is this a contest to see if either side can be associated with more reprehensible people? I mean that is your point with bringing up Jones, Wright, and Farrakhan, right? Or is it because all of the people you brought up happen to have something else in common? That social construct you alluded to earlier. Beware when you play the guilt by association game, usually that is when some unknown things come to light.”
I’m not playing any guilt-by-association game. I’m responding to the “guilt by association” game you and others have tried, instead of actually addressing the questions that rational people have about Obama’s eligibility.
IF you notice, the people I mentioned are friends of Obama. It’s not my fault that they happen to possibly share other characteristics with him. However, if you were up to date on this discussion, you would find the longer list of examples that I gave yesterday. These people are very diverse, but for their blind support of Obama and a tendency to make inflammatory remarks about this country and/or people who have the gall to exercise their God-given rights of freedom of speech and (horrors!) thought.
It seems to bother you that Glenn Beck has suggested that Obama is racist. However, you seem to have no qualms about suggesting that I am racist. I find your innuendo completely and totally insulting. I have no qualms about what I speak or write, and I don’t have to “beware” that “unknown things” will “come to light.” Wanna know why? Because what you allude to does NOT exist.
Since you have no idea what race I am, where do you get off? Grow up.
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Black Lion: I pray that you are never on an airplane with fellow passengers who got through security by showing their credentials in digital form on a blog.
_________________________________________________________________
MGB, I am not worried about that. I am sure the proper government officials will have viewed the passports and other relevant documents required by and allowed by law of my fellow passangers. Just like I am confident that Congress, that certified the vote were satisfied by whatever evidence was provided. Also I am confident in the statement “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii by Dr. Fukino and the COLB which was issued by HI, all proper government officials.
oooooo, I’m so scared of JVN now (… right), the bilge is on you buddy…
“To be a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. and meet the test of the Constitution put in there by John Jay and George Washington one must be born of two citizen parents and born in the country per the common law established by our U.S. Supreme Court as exemplified in the Venus decision and the Minor vs Happersett decision and as codified in Vattel’s, The Law of Nations and Natural Law. See this excellent essay by our own Attorney Mario Apuzzo.”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Yep, even if we had video of the birth in the oval office: his DAD was KENYAN – he ain’t elllllligible!
carry on Obots… u guys are so much fun!
Black Lion, I’m sorry that I do not share your blind faith in government. Neither did the Founders, which is why they set up the government the way they did.
For those who talk about how other governments view the legality of what happened in Honduras: Who cares what other countries or the UN think? The people of Honduras decide what their Constitution says and means. Nobody else. Since when must countries go to the court of world opinion to decide what their laws and their Constitution mean? Have you ever heard of sovereignty?
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Black Lion, you are behind the curve. Qwertyman, sise, myself, and others hashed this out earlier in this thread. Please read all comments, so you can keep up. However, you seem to use the same playbook.
I have this vision of busy little bees, sitting somewhere in the equivalent of a “call center”, with their binders of stock arguments and insults, complete with index tabs, typing out responses that seem to fit whatever anybody they disagree with says. You know, like those techs in other countries that give “tech support” that has only an incidental relationship to the issue enquired about.
It seems to bother you that Glenn Beck has suggested that Obama is racist. However, you seem to have no qualms about suggesting that I am racist. I find your innuendo completely and totally insulting.
______________________________________________________________
Oh I did read your argument earlier in this thread. But the point is still the same. The President of the United States is Barack Obama. Period. No matter how much you want to make ineligibility claims and what ifs the fact remains that he is the President. And the only way he can be removed before 2012 is by impeachment. Good luck with that.
I was thinking the same thing. I evisioned that there is a central birther command. A place where the same recycled debunked theories and rehashed and the same excuses are given for the lack of any legally admissible evidence. A place where when you can’t win on the legal argument accuse you opponent of “Alinsky tatics” or cite the “De Vattel” argument. Or when discussing the Supreme Court, always cite the minority oppinion in Wong or throw out the Minor ruling. But most of all when backed up in a corner always try and shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff (Orly and the other birthers) to President Obama by saying “all he has to do is release the information we request and this woud be over” chant when we all know that this is not the case.
Actually a lot this things bother me about Glen Beck, especially how un-American he is, but this is not about him. I never called you a racist. I alluded to the fact that in your comment the three people you mentioned as examples were all of the same “social construction”. I was just pointing that out. But I never called you a racist. I leave such inflamatory comments to our un American friend, Glenn Beck. If you can show me where I directly made that accusation, then lets see it. If not lets continue to address the facts. Such as Orly getting her judical reward today. That was some of the best reading I have had in a long time.
MGB says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Black Lion, I’m sorry that I do not share your blind faith in government. Neither did the Founders, which is why they set up the government the way they did.
For those who talk about how other governments view the legality of what happened in Honduras: Who cares what other countries or the UN think? The people of Honduras decide what their Constitution says and means. Nobody else. Since when must countries go to the court of world opinion to decide what their laws and their Constitution mean? Have you ever heard of sovereignty?
__________________________________________________________________
I have faith in the Constitution and the judical process. Which is working the way it is supposed to work. It is just that you don’t like the outcome of the election or the judical process. But that is why the founding fathers set it up the way they did. And that is why we are the United States and not Honduras. The situation that happened there would not happen here because we have a specific remedy in our Constitution regarding ammendments that they did not. And as much as it pains Newsweek and some of the commenters on Orly’s blog, Americans would not stand by and allow a coup to happen in the US.
LisaGinNZ says:
October 13, 2009 at 2:53 pm
oooooo, I’m so scared of JVN now (… right), the bilge is on you buddy…
“To be a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. and meet the test of the Constitution put in there by John Jay and George Washington one must be born of two citizen parents and born in the country per the common law established by our U.S. Supreme Court as exemplified in the Venus decision and the Minor vs Happersett decision and as codified in Vattel’s, The Law of Nations and Natural Law. See this excellent essay by our own Attorney Mario Apuzzo.”
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Yep, even if we had video of the birth in the oval office: his DAD was KENYAN – he ain’t elllllligible!
carry on Obots… u guys are so much fun!
__________________________________________________________________
Lisa, I’m impressed. You are citing Mario Apuzzo, that infamous DUI/DWI lawyer from NJ and legendary (in his own mind) Constitutional scholar. I don’t want to burst your bubble, but he is wrong. As a matter of fact, he can’t find one constitutional scholar other than the deceased George D. Collins that supports his inane argument. And Collins was the losing attorney in the Wong Kim Ark case. Mario’s other bib problem is that he cannot find any case law that supports his contention that there are more than 2 types of citizens, natural born or naturalized.
Also I am not surprised that Mario cites the “Venus” ruling. It has all sorts of juicy quotes he can pull out of context and maybe even some he can leave in context. It’s important to note when reading the case to note that “the law of nations” refers to international law, and not de Vattel’s book per se. The court suggests that it has consulted several “writers” on “the law of nations”.
Let us remember for a couple of cases that exist in which Mario can twist its meaning to support his theory, there is legitmate case law against him. For instance the Wong Kim Ark and Lynch v. Clarke cases support the position that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” comes from the English common law and not from Vattel. Wong and Lynch are sweeping surveys of the history of citizenship in law and common law, and of course they are the ones the SCOTUS would cite most frequently. And English common law specifically states that a person born on soil of the king is a natural born subject. This is defined today to mean if you are born on the soil of the United States (Hawaii in this case), you are a natural born citizen. Period. Additionally in Smith v. Alabama the Court states the following…
“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”
Additionally, the Wong Kim Ark v. United States is the most cited case by courts in related immigration cases (including PERKINS V. ELG, 307 US 325, MORRISON V. CALIFORNIA, 291 US 82, ZARTARIAN V. BILLINGS, 204 US 170, CHIN BAK KAN V. UNITED STATES, 186 US 193, UNITED STATES V. SING TUCK OR DO, 194 US 161, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK v. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 536 U.S. 88, WEEDIN V. CHIN BOW, 274 US 657, ROGERS V. BELLEI, 401 US 815, TRUAX V. RAICH, 239 US 33, KWOCK JAN FAT V. WHITE, 253 US 454, AFROYIM V. RUSK, 387 US 253, HENNESSY V. RICHARDSON DRUG CO., 189 US 25, THE SAO VICENTE, 260 US 151, MONTANA V. KENNEDY, 366 US 308, TILLMAN V. WHEATON-HAVEN RECREATION ASSN., INC., 410 US 431, SOUTH CAROLINA V. UNITED STATES, 199 US 437, MICHIGAN V. MICHIGAN TRUST CO., 286 US 334, PEREZ V. BROWNELL, 356 US 44, MACKENZIE V. HARE, 239 US 299, etc. just to mention some of the Supreme Court cases, not to mention those from the lower courts).
So President Obama’s Dad is from Kenya. I wouldn’t matter if he was from Krypton. His Mom was an American. And most important of all he was born in the US.
“I have read the Quran. In some places it is entirely outdated and not suited for the modern world. Of course, the Bible explicitly endorses slavery as well. You have to put these things into context – the world of 1500 or 2000 years ago is very different from our own. Of course, Wahhabis, who want to go back to the 7th century, should be resisted in their goals.”
The Bible most certainly does not endorse slavery of any kind. One of the problems is, is that the translators used the word “slave, slavery,” but the word should be translated as hired servant. And it’s by context, of course, because the Israelites were “slaves” in Egypt. Slavery causes oppression. But anyone that has someone working for them in their field or working for them, this is a hired servant who gets paid. The same thing is done today.
I guess Orly either doesn’t believe in the power of the court or she has a wish to be disbarred. Either way she is not smart….
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho.php?ref=fpb
“Still defiant after months of legal wrangling and, by our count, three written denunciations by federal district court Judge Clay Land, Taitz said she had absolutely no plans to pay the $20,000 fine. “Are you kidding? Of course not,” she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. “This is a form of intimidation.” Instead, she plans to file yet another written response (though it’s unclear whether the court will even accept one).”
You have to wonder about some people after reading her response to the Judge’s order.
kittycat: The amazing thing is that some people think that by citing some other religious text that (arguably) condones slavery, that somehow exonerates “religious” texts (that are arguably actually political texts) that explicitly condone lying, killing “infidels” without mercy, subjugation of women, etc.
Why don’t you guys cite the New Testament? You know, that religious text that supersedes the Old Testament, at least among many Christians?
See Paul’s letter to Philamon regarding the treatment of your slaves.
I am a Christian. Jesus’ message is one to aspire to and follow. But there are parts of the Bible that are simply inapplicable in the modern world. What sort of cruel God orders a man to kill their only son as a test?
Many evangelicals are still fond of the Old Testament though, citing Leviticus as why homosexuality is an abomination, or placing monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses. The fact that there are portions of the Bible that just do not apply today and the existence of sects like Opus Dei who would have us return to that era do not represent the whole of Christianity, just as portions of the Quran inapplicable today and the existence of terrorists who pervert Islam for their ends do not make a billion people barbarians or backwards. There are major problems in Islamic countries and some practices are human rights violations (honor killings, FGM, etc.) but the response should not be to turn your back on a billion people entirely.
But this is a HUUUUGE tangent away from the point of this blog and this post in particular, which is talking about Taitz’s California case. We’ll see how she responds to the sanction imposed on her by Georgia.
30 days ago, at the 9/12 protest, she said she could have Obama out of office in 30 days. The sanction represents a fitting way to mark that deadline. And if you believe her when she says she can get “discovery” from this, if you still believe pretty much ANYTHING she says at this point, then you’re simply deluding yourself. She has lied to you and me far too many times to be considered credible any more. And any sanction appeal would turn on whether her motion to reconsider was entirely frivolous or not – for some reason she thinks that an appeal of the sanction would give her a second opportunity to try the entire case.
kittycat wrote:
What a breathtakingly ignorant claim. Leviticus 25:39-46 (NIV):
39 If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly
Phil, our host, likes to think that our nation was founded on Biblical principles. In fact, the ideas of government by the consent of the governed, separation of powers, and representative democracy came from Greek and Roman traditions and are conspicuously absent from the Bible. The idea that we can make slaves of people as long as they are not our own kind — that we got from the Bible.
“You have to wonder about some people after reading her response to the Judge’s order.”
Yep, you sure do. However, Charles Lincoln, III is in control and is coaching Orly now. Charles Lincoln, III is leading Orly down the yellow brick road and the prize is disbarment, using the same playbook that got Charles Lincoln, III disbarred.
But there are parts of the Bible that are simply inapplicable in the modern world.
Out of the mouths of babes here! Yes, those “moderns” in leadership promoted here and thus their “modern world” ways that are promoted as well outdo even your most “concerned” examples as they use their power to form law that has now resulted in an average of 1,000,000 babies a year slaughtered in the most barbarous ways imaginable in this once great country. And the number of those born alive and then slaughtered (since the intended death didn’t pan out the way it was supposed to) had also grown by permission of your hero who wouldn’t offer a comforting medical aid …. even within a hospital setting for them. It might “complicate” things for the woman and her “doctor” (abortionist). May the God Who gave His only Son for the conversion of such evil minds and hearts have mercy on this country. But then, that’s up to the free wills of those such as we have here who defend such pagan and brutal “leaders” and their “modern” minions.
Black Lion writes:
Over at Politijab 1Lishell noted that Rule 11 sanctions “must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct,” and thus wondered whether Orly will be the first person executed under Rule 11.
Are the half a dozen or so folks who repetatively comment here seemingly 24/7 on welfare? Otherwise either the family or the employer is being cheated!!
Cnn is always good for a laugh or two. If they are such great reporters why didn’t they investigate the imposter for selfishness, anti-americanism, subversive activities, etc. president of the world make me laugh. Last time I checked Canada has their own President and doesn’t need any help from the rabble-rousing mobster presently squatting wherever it is that said person is squatting. I am a natural born citizen and I refuse to buy into anything the imposter speaks. Case closed. See ya.
Maybe you should check again whether Canada has their own President.
But yeah, good to know that you are completely close minded and not willing to even listen to alternative viewpoints. I guess that’s why you think that Canada has their own president, even after checking your facts.
MGB,
Nothing says that my blog exists solely for the purposes of discussing eligibility. In fact, the fact that I post no more than 1 posting a day means that there’s considerably more latitude in the wide array of commentary on my site. I have followed this philosophy from the beginning on my site and I see no reason to stop now.
-Phil
I see where Orly has filed a RICO action against Obama and his minions. This should get the attention of the obots, and will undoubtedly stir another batch of postings from the defenders of the usurper.
I read from one blogger that said this RICO action immediatly gives Orly and her plaintiffs standing, in a political fraud case, and the blogger declared “checkmate” against Obama and his lawyers.
OK obots lets hear your response to this one, Obama is going down, for using multiple Social Security numbers, and the Number Obama uses now is from a man born in 1890. I wonder if he is getting a monthly check from SS at age 119.
brygenon,
I must say — I am proud of the fact that you’re quite willing and able to quote from the Bible — and correctly at that. However, what you’re missing is the overall point of servitude.
Do you not think that when people lose their trust in God and put their trust in material goods — with credit cards being the greatest enabler of this situation — that one does not become a slave to the bank?
Do you not think that when our leaders practice this “worship” of material goods to a macroeconomic level that they have absolutely zero problems in plunging America into more debt than it could possibly get out of (well, almost)?
Do you not think that when individuals lose sight of God and put the basis of their hope for the future (if they haven’t already given up on life) in highly addictive substances that they end up succumbing to the negative spiral of the slavery of addiction?
You see, it appears that when you read the verses as laid out in the above Levitical quotes, you equate this as to being a solely physical enslavement. However, it is quite obvious that slavery goes well beyond the physical realm into whatever realm that any given society happens to be dealing with.
Also, you apparently didn’t see the parts of the above verses (again, well-picked) talking about the Year of Jubilee (v. 40), which — if I recall correctly — was to happen every 50 years (roughly once a generation, it would appear). Further, verse 43 and 46 speak about slave-masters and their treatment of slaves. Regardless, when you take even these two paragraphs as a whole (in context), you will see that while it was permissible for the Israelites to take slaves, it was also mandated that the slaves would be freed at regular intervals.
Wouldn’t it be great if everyone followed this example, whether they were physical, financial, spiritual or other types of slaves?
If you stop and quit placing contemporary mores upon historical remembrances, you will then begin to see that — as usual — the Bible treats the time in which it was written as it was, not as it would like to be.
If there is one thing you can say about the Bible, it is that it treats humans for what they are — flawed beings who require a relationship with God.
And to bring this all full circle, it would clearly appear that the founders of America based their belief in a Creator and knew that certain individual rights belonged to the individual as an endowment of God, and that the government had no business and certainly no right to in any way circumvent those rights. It is also true that the founders understood the corporate concept of “original sin” — that is, human beings are frail, and if left to their own consolidated devices, would tend to be politically combustible and mortally hazardous to the rights of the governed.
-Phil
MGB, I’ve seen time and time again that Birthers go back to the argument of “He was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948. How can a Natural Born Citizen be subject to this act.”
That argument is basically stating, “He was born a dual citizen. He cannot be a Natural Born Citizen, if he was a dual citizen.” That’s at the heart of the argument that refers to the BNA. If you don’t believe that, then what another country’s laws are should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not someone is a Natural Born Citizen. So, you should not bear any argument trying to refer to something that has no bearing.
You posted this line in this: “Second of all, he admitted on his website that he was a UK citizen AT BIRTH, subject to UK law.”
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7428&cpage=7#comment-24234
If you didn’t believe that another country’s citizenship laws affected Natural Born Citizenship, then why argue that he “admitted…that he was a UK citizen AT BIRTH, subject to UK law.”
If, you as you say think that it’s being born to 2 U.S. Citizen Parents means that, why mention this at all? Ultimately, whether or not he was a UK citizen at birth (he was actually a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, instead of a UK citizen) has no bearing on whether or not he is a Natural Born Citizen. If he was born to a parent in a country that didn’t confer citizenship on jus sanguinus, then he wouldn’t be any more of a Natural Born Citizen, in your opinion, because he still wasn’t born to the two U.S. Citizen Parents.
You say that you don’t think other laws affect the United States, then you go back into arguments that basically gives other countries veto power over who the U.S. can elect President and cannot elect President.
It hasn’t been just you that’s been arguing this. JTX has been arguing this as well, and so has every birther lawsuit. If foreign law really didn’t matter, then they would drop these arguments from their suits.
bob strauss says:
October 13, 2009 at 8:41 pm
* “checkmate”*
bob, I saw that checkmate post too and I would say your blogger got over-excited. My guess is Judge Carter will strike Orly’s judicial notice filing. He might order her to show cause why he shouldn’t sanction her for not properly redacting the personal information she filed electronically. Orly’s plaintiffs don’t have standing. It was bad form to file anything while the Judge is considering the motion to dismiss. She filed what was a thinly disguised attempt at amending her complaint and changing it to a RICO case. Judge Carter won’t be amused. If there’s any checkmate, it might be on Orly.
On 10/13/09 Judge Land said:
“Counsel and her followers certainly have the right, as
citizens, to seek from their President proof of where he was born.”
My conclusion: Judge Land is a “birther”!
Judge Land’s remedy if Orly’s charges are true:
“In addition to the obvious opportunity
that exists during a presidential campaign to scrutinize a candidate’s
qualifications, the framers of the Constitution provided a mechanism
for removing a President who “slips through the cracks,” which is how
counsel describes President Obama. Upon conviction by the Senate of
treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the President
can be removed through impeachment. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4; see
also id. art. I, §§ 2 & 3. Thus, if the President were elected to the
office by knowingly and fraudulently concealing evidence of his
constitutional disqualification, then a mechanism exists for removing
him from office.”
My conclusion: Land, by omission doesn’t recognize quo warranto as a remedy for removing an ineligible POTUS. Leo Donofrio will not be pleased. Land articulates Orly Taitz’ exact charges against Obama and rather than disparaging them, instructs Taitz on the most straightforward constitutional remedy.
But then, shockingly, Judge Land identifies the one exception when the judiciary “will participate in…the removal of the President”:
“But it is clear that the Constitution does not contemplate that the judiciary will participate in the selection or removal of the President, unless an individual can
clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are somehow violated by the process.”
Holy Fleep!
Hidden in Judge Land’s ruling in which he must uphold the dignity of the federal bench when under assault from well-intentioned but deluded and reckless counsel regardless of his personal views on the case, Judge Land, in my reading, has declared his support for participation of the judiciary in the removal of the President if (and only if) “an individual can clearly demonstrate that his individual constitutional rights are somehow violated by the process.”
How about Keyes individual right to a fair election which Judge Carter has already verbally affirmed as being a legitimate right of the candidate plaintiffs of Taitz and Creep?
Note Land’s language “violated by the process”! Obama wouldn’t even need to be aware that he was ineligible to be removed by the judiciary if it was proved that a flawed process allowed an ineligible candidate to become president, it seems Land is saying.
Note that Judge Land’s statement covers not only the pre-inauguration “selection” process, but “removal of the President”, as in the inaugurated President! Judge Land says the judiciary can “participate” in the removal the sitting President under this exception!
I hereby pronounce Judge Land to be a Patriot and a credit to the federal bench!
bob strauss says:
“I see where Orly has filed a RICO action against Obama and his minions. This should get the attention of the obots, and will undoubtedly stir another batch of postings from the defenders of the usurper.
I read from one blogger that said this RICO action immediatly gives Orly and her plaintiffs standing, in a political fraud case, and the blogger declared “checkmate” against Obama and his lawyers.”
________________________
Orly “filed” the RICO claim on July 14 when she added a RICO count to the First Amended Complaint on July. She just failed to plead it in the detail required by the courts.
If Orly thinks the RICO claim gives her plaintiffs standing, she is sorely mistaken. In Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corporation and Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation the Supreme Court held otherwise.
Black Lion says:
“Lisa, I’m impressed. You are citing Mario Apuzzo, that infamous DUI/DWI lawyer from NJ and legendary (in his own mind) Constitutional scholar.”
_______________
Black Lion, aren’t you being a bit unfair to Mario Apuzzo regarding his litigation experience? After all, he represented a crazy cat lady who housed 42 felines in her apartment.
bob strauss says:
Checkmate? Taitz and your blogger there don’t even know how the pieces move.
For a civil suit, you’d need a plaintiff who was a victim of such defraud. Taitz can’t bring criminal cases.
For Phil, non-trolls or non-Obots still left reading this blog:
Debating leftists is like debating Charles Manson:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lscott/2009/10/12/debating-leftists-is-like-debating-charles-manson/
- and –
The self-censorhip of liberals: its too scary to look
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/the_selfcensorship_of_liberals_1.html
AT has more interesting commentary today than reading Bryg-none’s tired ol’ repetitions & blathering on about his Messiah who is NOT an natural born citizen per the USA constitution and thus is not eligible to be prez. Blood and mud. 2 USA parents + on USA soil = NBC = eligible. Simple. … cover up indeed …
We ALL know the COLB is not a birth certificate legally or otherwise.
We ALL know his supposed mother was to young to confer citizenship.
Thus if his dad was Kenyan, PINO ain’t the prez.
…yadda yadda, heap some hate on Apuzzo, bla bla bla …boring crap-ola… rinse repeat… boring Brgyg-none has nothing new… and noone left to convince of anything
“We ALL know the COLB is not a birth certificate legally or otherwise.”
No, *We* don’t. *You* are *Not* correct.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/hawaii-no-longer-issues-long-form-birth-certificates/
“The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.”
http://apostille.us/abc/birth_certificate.shtml
Short forms of birth certificate
“The short form typically includes the child’s name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child’s parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances. Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels.”
I suspect this is what President Obama mentions in his book.
“Most hospitals in the U.S. issue a souvenir birth certificate which typically includes the footprints of the newborn. However, these birth certificates are not legally accepted as proof of age or citizenship, and are frequently rejected by the Bureau of Consular Affairs during passport applications. Many Americans believe these souvenir records to be their official birth certificate, when in reality it holds little legal value.”
Phil wrote:
Don’t care.
No, you need to read those two paragraphs again (Leviticus 25:39-46). Only fellow Israelites had to be freed eventually; they were indentured servants, not true slaves. From those not among God’s chosen people Israelites could take slaves, to be treated as property and never freed.
You have me confused with someone else. All texts, religious or otherwise, are products of the people and the time. The great lie of holy scripture is to put the flawed work of flawed people under the heading, “Thus saith the Lord.” This is no dry academic point. Our nation held slaves into the 1860′s and used the ancient and supposedly divine law of the Israelites to justify it.
GeorgetownJD says:
October 13, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Black Lion says:
“Lisa, I’m impressed. You are citing Mario Apuzzo, that infamous DUI/DWI lawyer from NJ and legendary (in his own mind) Constitutional scholar.”
_______________
Black Lion, aren’t you being a bit unfair to Mario Apuzzo regarding his litigation experience? After all, he represented a crazy cat lady who housed 42 felines in her apartment.
_________________________________________________________________
GeorgetownJD, you are correct. I did slight Mario regarding his litigation experience. I can see why when we include that case how he thinks he has the requesite legal expertiese to litigate these cases and understand the complex law regarding constitutional eligibility.
LisaGinNZ says:
October 14, 2009 at 4:05 am
For Phil, non-trolls or non-Obots still left reading this blog:
AT has more interesting commentary today than reading Bryg-none’s tired ol’ repetitions & blathering on about his Messiah who is NOT an natural born citizen per the USA constitution and thus is not eligible to be prez. Blood and mud. 2 USA parents + on USA soil = NBC = eligible. Simple. … cover up indeed …
We ALL know the COLB is not a birth certificate legally or otherwise.
We ALL know his supposed mother was to young to confer citizenship.
Thus if his dad was Kenyan, PINO ain’t the prez.
…yadda yadda, heap some hate on Apuzzo, bla bla bla …boring crap-ola… rinse repeat… boring Brgyg-none has nothing new… and noone left to convince of anything
________________________________________________________________
Lisa, you would actually make sense if you could cite some case law to support your “statements”. Where you write “2 USA parents + on USA soil = NBC = eligible. Simple” if you could just point us to the section in the Constitution that says that, we would all be happy and this issue would be resolved. Not in the Constitution, OK. How about pointing us to a SCOTUS ruling that states that this is the ONLY definition of what a NBC is? In a majority ruling that came after the Wong ruling. We will be waiting.
Secondly if you could just point out to us where it states that a COLB is not a Birth Certificate or legal proof. That one should be easy for you to do. All you would need to do is go to the state of HI website and I am sure that it will say what you just posted. And of course there is no “full faith in state records” clause in the Constitution that requires the Federal government to accept state records.
That is all you would need in order to support your statements. Come on, that shouldn’t be that difficult. I mean you are so sure that “if his dad was Kenyan, PINO ain’t the prez” that you can provide the forum with some proof. Because if you can’t I would suppose you are the one repeating “bla bla bla …boring crap-ola…” and unable to convince anyone of anything because you, like Apuzzo, are wrong.
You can repeat this to yourself as often as you want, but that don’t make it true.
Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 658
State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b. 20, 24-26.
Wong explicitly rejects your theory of citizenship starting on page 666 of the Wong decision.
Mother was too young? The age of the mother is irrelevant if you’re born on US soil. Obama’s birth certificate has been backed by the Department of Health on multiple occasions, index data supports that Obama was born in Hawaii, multiple birth announcements, and not a shred of credible evidence suggests that Obama was born outside Hawaii.
Once again, the burden of proof in the US lies with the party making the allegations. You allege that Obama was not born in the U.S. The burden of proof lies with you, and so far, the birthers haven’t even come close.
I guess the new approach by the birhters will be to accept that the President is Mr. Obama so that they can find someone dumb enough to begin impeachment proceedings…Of course this comes from WND so you know it will not be grounded in any reality…
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112223
However the funny part is that for their definition of impeachment, they accept the fact that English Common law was known to our Founding Fathers.
“Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The key phrase here is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a concept in English common law well-known to our Founding Fathers, but grossly misunderstood in this day and age. “High crimes and misdemeanors” essentially means bad behavior.”
So when it comes to impeachment we need to look to English Common law and not De Vattel? Does Leo and Mario know this? It is hilarious how the theories can change when it suits the purposes of the birthers…
Of course the article is crazy, but it really goes of the rails when the author makes the following statement…
“Impeachment is no more or less than the recall of an elected official who isn’t up to the job. Obama deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis, and he was replaced by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a special recall election Oct. 7, 2003, in California…”
You really can’t make this stuff up. He makes the claim that the President “deserves recall much more than Gov. Gray Davis” without giving you any facts. It is because you don’t agree with his politics?
This is where this stuff is going. The birthers must not have much regard for the American people if they think that we cannot see this for what this is, an attempt to overturn the will of the people from the 2008 election. Anyone legal scholar will tell you that it would take a lot more that not agreeing with a President’s policies in order to begin impeachment proceedings against them. If it was that easy then George W. Bush would have been impeached. Either way it shows ridiculous nature of some associated with the birther movement.
this is in response to the lemmings on the left who post on this board blindly following their heil hitler oblivious to the facts and the very nature of the political corruption ongoing in the WH
I would point out that in Cohens v. Virginia, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1821, Chief Justice Marshall wrote that for a court to refuse to exercise its jurisdiction was “treason” to the constitution.
Judge Land has built his entire assault against Orly’s integrity based on the doctrine of abstention—that he has jurisdiction which he should ignore. The 11th Circuit Mindes case from 1971 specifically found constitutional questions regarding the military and the application of its rules were subject to Judicial challenge, yet Judge Land ignores the substance of the very precedent he cites.
Judge Land issued a 43 page order condemning Orly, for among other things, utilizing the Courts for political purposes, and yet he proposes to use the $20,000.00 he expects to obtain from Orly for what can only be called a political contribution to advance certain political positions and philosophical assertions within the army.
Judge Land is clearly utilizing his power under Rule 11 to attempt to sanction Orly for legitimate exercise of her First Amendment Right to Petition, and that of her clients. Post-judgment motions and an appeal will be filed—your readers can rest assured of that. Orly is exploring the possibility of a direct appeal or request for stay of judgment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Needless to say, Judge Land’s abuse of his position just makes Orly more determined, angrier than ever.
Orly does feel that this is further evidence that the U.S. Judiciary is subject to political pressures analogous to her “memories of life in the former Soviet Union”, and those are her words because I have no such memories
black lion
obama is NOT a natural born citizen
he was born to a foreigner
who next? the son of Chavez or putin or mao
or lenin for president?
get your head out of the sand
LisaGinNZ says:
Yeah, no one ever says, “Thanks for debunking me.”
And Lisa, when you claim the COLB is not a birth certificate, then I cite a Hawaiian DoH official saying that the COLB is “the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii”, you done got debunked.
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
I would be wary of quoting Charles Lincoln verbatim. Remember that he’s been disbarred in three different states and is a convicted felon for his activities as a lawyer. Relying on him for good legal advice is problematic at best.
Taitz was specifically sanctioned for filing additional frivolous motion to reconsider within days of a specific order from the judge ordering Taitz to stop making any frivolous pleadings. Her factually inaccurate accusations and wild allegations and gratuitous insults were the icing on the cake. You should read the opinion rather than relying on Lincoln himself – he’s got a pretty bad track record of avoiding discipline from various jurisdictions.
Those guys would probably be eligible, though they might be considered the children of diplomats born abroad.
If not though – our Constitution goes out of its way to say that no punishments shall be inflicted on children for the sins of their relatives. If Putin Jr. is born in this country and is 35 years old and has spent at least 14 years in this country, and then manages to get elected, then Putin Jr. is the president. At some point in a democratic republic you have to respect the will of the people. That’s something birthers don’t seem to grasp though.
Black Lion, NBC issue is not complex it is very simple, Born in the USA and both parents are citizens of the USA.
What makes it complex is Obama’s supporters, trying to change the meaning of NBC to fit Obama’s circumstances, as told by Obama himself.
Black Lion, Claims were made long before the election and long before he was president, that Obama wasn,t eligible, and Obama just kept plodding along ignoring the law. This is a legal issue not a race issue, the Constitution says what the qualifications are to be eligible to be president, written long before Obama was born.
bob strauss says:
October 14, 2009 at 10:20 am
Black Lion, NBC issue is not complex it is very simple, Born in the USA and both parents are citizens of the USA.
What makes it complex is Obama’s supporters, trying to change the meaning of NBC to fit Obama’s circumstances, as told by Obama himself.
_________________________________________________________________
Bob, if you could only find some law to support your contention, you would be in the game. Unfortunately there is no law to support your “Born in the USA and both parents are citizens of the USA” definition for NBC. The Constitution does not define it. Neither does the SCOTUS. The most relevant SCOTUS case involving citizenship is Wong Kim Ark.
What makes this issue complex is that the birthers are attempting to change the definition of what is a NBC. Fortunately there is no legal precedent regarding this new definition. Presidential denialists are attempting to change the results of the election by getting rid of a person they dislike.
bob strauss says:
October 14, 2009 at 10:38 am
Black Lion, Claims were made long before the election and long before he was president, that Obama wasn,t eligible, and Obama just kept plodding along ignoring the law. This is a legal issue not a race issue, the Constitution says what the qualifications are to be eligible to be president, written long before Obama was born.
__________________________________________________________________
Claims may have been made but obviously these claims were not supported with any real evidence. Just because you make a baseless claim doesn’t mean that a law is being ignored. President Obama meets the qualifications of the Constitution. You are correct, it is a legal issue. And so far every legal challenge has been unsuccessful Did you ever think that it may be that the birthers don’t have a valid legal argument? So far the law, the courts, and the Constitution all find Mr. Obama eligible to be President.
qman?
what dimension of history did you come from? You are entirely clueless about our history, AMerican that is, and our Constitution
you said:
At some point in a democratic republic you have to respect the will of the people.
>>>bull,
read what the framers and founding fathers said about mob rule.
get a clue , clueless wonder throws the entire constitution under the bus with that ridiculous statement.
you have demonstrated a complete failure of understanding our history and how our laws came about.
Obama is not above the law
or our constitution
his time will come
putin jr would not be a natural born citizen, just like obama, he would have dual allegiances
again go back in history and read what our courts and our founding fathers said about that
then you will find , once again, you are grossly misinformed.
Since you are grossly uneducated in this matter , your post has been completely decimated.
bob strauss says:
October 14, 2009 at 10:20 am
*Black Lion, NBC issue is not complex it is very simple, Born in the USA and both parents are citizens of the USA.*
Untrue. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “natural born citizen” as “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.” It then defines “naturalized citizen” as being “A foreign-born person who attains citizenship by law.” It does not list any other kinds of citizen, only by birth or naturalization. It does not require two citizen parents. This points to the conclusion that Obama is a natural-born citizen. There are those who wish the definition to be 2 citizen parents, but it isn’t. Prove otherwise.
*What makes it complex is Obama’s supporters, trying to change the meaning of NBC to fit Obama’s circumstances, as told by Obama himself.*
Oh the irony. The 2 parent definition was a theory put forward by Leo D in spring 2008. A 1-1/2 year old theory. Birthers are trying to change the definition of Natural Born Citizen to exclude Obama. And millions of other Americans. Bobby Jindal, for example.
Claims may have been made but obviously these claims were not supported with any real evidence
from black lion
Obama’s own writings prove he is a brittish subject
the only “claims” that the courts have held were not based on the facts or merits of the case but on
- standing
- moot
- jurisdiction
- and in one case the defense said that the plaintiff’s pleadings were “too long to respond to”
they, OBAMA , that is stopped using the fake green blob.
The evidence is overwhelming
- no hospitol
- no doctor
- fake addresses in Hawaii
- fake social security numbers
- obama’s grandmother in Kenya
- Kenyan Birth certificate
- his mother was in Seattle in 1961 of August not
in Hawaii , registering for classes
- obama selective service records are fake
- his college records show he registered as foreigner
- Indonesia shows his real name is Saotao
- no record in USA has cropped up changing his legal
name back to Obama
- he got aid as foreign student from Suadi prince
want more?
Sis
Black’s law dictionary DID NOT EXIST AT TIME THE CONSTITITION WAS WRITTEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
doh
and at the time of the Constitution, there was Vattel’s LAW of NATIONS which was found on John Jay’s desk as well as George Washington and it clearly states NBC requires two parents
also during the Constitution there were only TWO types of citizens, natural born and non natural born , and based upon article II the only way OBAMA could qualify is if he’s over 200 years old. And we know he’s not.
So use some common sense for once and stop spinning out.
Even the author of the 14th ammendment, as well as Patrick Leahy, and Chertoff all said the same thing as Vattel.
Black is obviously out in left field and Black can not change the fundalmentally defintion that existed at the time of the Constitution nor can Black change the defintion of “is” or make traditional marriage “gay marriage. Black is obviously trying to change the Constitution without 3/4, that is 75%, of the states approving.
Furthermore, once again, decimating your post OBAMA’S DEFENSE TEAM HAS NEVER, NOT ONCE, in NEARLY ONE HUNRED cases and over $3 million dollars spent EVER ONCE,….get it ONCE…mentioned BLACK.
sort of decimates your post , again. Don’t make me take you to the tool shed again. You must like the pain
brygenon: sorry, unfortunately we got slavery from the practice OF slavery among the peoples of Africa, who enslaved each other. They captured members of other tribes and then sold them to European slave traders. Slavery continues to this day in parts of Africa and the Middle East, among other places. It does not exist (legally) in the United States.
Black Lion, aren’t you being a bit unfair to Mario Apuzzo regarding his litigation experience? After all, he represented a crazy cat lady who housed 42 felines in her apartment.
The crazy-cat opinion is great; the 3d Circuit slams Apuzzo for filing a shotgun pleading. It also calls the case easy to decide (code for “why did you bother?”) and quickly rules against Apuzzo’s client once it deciphers his filings.
For the “Putin, or Mao, or Chavez”, you forget one thing. The “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause specifically excludes people who are not subject to the laws of the United States.
So, if Chavez came here, he would have diplomatic immunity. Now, if his wife had a child here while here, both the wife, and the child would not be subject to the jurisdiction because of a little concept called “Diplomatic Immunity”. That at least covers Chavez. The others would depend upon when they had the child, and whether or not they had diplomatic immunity at the time.
Ooh, fair enough. Let’s go with what the Founding Fathers thought. All women, blacks, and those who don’t own land get their right to vote taken away. Is that what you want? It’s really quite stunning to hear from you that you are literally an opponent of democracy.
But with each new post you put yourself further and further into right field. Black’s Law Dictionary, though not 220 years old, is nonetheless well respected in the legal community and is commonly cited as secondary authority by the Supreme Court and all courts in the US.
Take another look at the post I made at 8:34, this has quotes from a multitude of cases that all state that from the beginning of the Republic, the common law definition of natural born citizen has applied.
And once more for the sake of completion, let’s go piece by piece through the disinformation:
The evidence is overwhelming
- no hospitol
Learn how to spell hospital. Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital. It is irrelevant for a COLB, especially when it states Obama was born in Honolulu, and is backed by the Department of Health.
- no doctor
See above. The birth certificate and statements of the Department of Health are sufficient.
- fake addresses in Hawaii
The address on the birth announcement was that of Obama’s grandmother, where Obama’s mother did live.
- fake social security numbers
You still take Orly Taitz at her word? After all the blatant lies she’s told you and the forgeries she’s shown everyone else?
- obama’s grandmother in Kenya
Who said that Obama was born in Hawaii and that it was obvious. You did listen to the unedited audio, right?
- Kenyan Birth certificate
Which one? The one that a few days later was revealed to be a prank? The one that was signed by Dudley Dooright? The one where the alleged hospital administrator twice misspelled his own name? The one that says the registrar’s name was Kwame, a name you’d never see in Kenya? Or are you talking about the one created by a guy previous convicted of fraud who put a video on YouTube purporting to be in Kenya but was actually in Dominican Republic? Note that several of those are from the same forgery.
- his mother was in Seattle in 1961 of August not
in Hawaii , registering for classes
She was likely there a few weeks after giving birth.
- obama selective service records are fake
The Departments of State and Defense disagree with you.
- his college records show he registered as foreigner
Really? Are you talking about the article that was actually an April Fools joke that birthers apparently failed to get was a joke?
- Indonesia shows his real name is Saotao
lol
- no record in USA has cropped up changing his legal
name back to Obama
He never legally changed his name. There’s a school registration form that says Soetoro (see how I actually spelled it right?), but that in no way means there was a legal name change.
- he got aid as foreign student from Suadi prince
Completely false. The person who was said to have given Obama aid, Khalid al Mansour, completely denies this and says he never met Obama. The person who said Mansour gave Obama aid was Percy Sutton. Sutton’s own spokesperson and fellow family members said that Sutton was wrong.
Wow, what a mountain of
evidencebull you posted there.da verg says:
October 14, 2009 at 11:52 am
da verg you know perfectly well modern American judisprudence is not base solely on what was written in the Constitution. If that were true, slavery would still be legal, women would not be allowed to vote and there would be no plan for Presidential succession. The Law defining natural born citizenship, like every other law in this country, is based on the Constitution, its amendments, the statutes that detail what is outlined in the Constitution and the legal case history. The only time you can snip a piece out of the Constitution and say it’s still exactly so is if there is no amendment, law or legal precedent that changes the original. One example is Article II, Section 4. You should familiarize yourself with it. At least 3 judges have told you therein lies the remedy to the question of Obama’s eligibility. Natural born citizenship on the other hand is not defined in the original Constitution. But we know what it means based on an amendment, a statute and legal precedent: we know that the 14th amendment defines only 2 types of citizen: native and naturalized. We know from the US Code Title 8, Sec 1401 that a person born in the United States is a citizen from birth regardless of his parentage. And from several Supreme Court decisions, we know the terms, native, citizen from birth and natural born citizen were all used interchangeably. These form the basis of the definition in Black’s law dictionary, as well as the definition in the English Common Law. Our Constitution was based on the English Common Law, not on Vattel’s writings. If the two parent definition weren’t just a LeoDono fantasy theory, conservative constitutional scholars would have been coming out of the woodwork long before the Congress certified the Electoral College vote. They would have been out in force before the primaries!
Even now, birtherism is shifting toward impeachment-ism. And guess where impeachment-ists are getting their definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? The English Common Law! Oh, the irony!
MGB, I’ve never seen a more ignorant statement than that.
The earliest record of slavery is actually found in some of the earliest legal records around, such as the Code of Hammurabi. Slavery has been found in Egypt, Assyria, Akkad, Ancient Greece, Rome, and virtually every single society. We did not get the idea out of Africa, and more did it out of the Middle-Eastern and European Societies that we grew out of.
Did Africans have slavery? Yes. However, European Society did not get the idea out of Africa, as it was already well established in their societies as well.
MGB says:
October 14, 2009 at 12:09 pm
brygenon: sorry, unfortunately we got slavery from the practice OF slavery among the peoples of Africa, who enslaved each other. They captured members of other tribes and then sold them to European slave traders. Slavery continues to this day in parts of Africa and the Middle East, among other places. It does not exist (legally) in the United States.
___________________________________________________________________
MGB, you are kidding right? You are no trying to imply that the US had slavery because there was a practice of slavery in Africa? Wow that is really some revisionist history there. I guess under your theory the Dutch and later the English were FORCED by the native Africans to take these people they had captured for no reason and bring them to the Americas to work as slaves. You might want to do some research on that.
The fact is that the European traders paid some tribes to bring them people to be sold as chattel in the Americas. This was a business that was very profitable for the Europeans. And by the way slavery does not legally exist in any of the countries in Africa either. I am just trying to figure out where you got this misinformation from anyway….Unbelievable…
dunstvangeet: surely, you jest. You yourself have written many “more ignorant statements.”
Again with the personal insults. HAD you read and understood the comment to which I responded, then you would have understood (possibly) the context of my ensuing reponse.
brygenon referred to the history of slavery in this nation. THIS nation, not the ancient origins of the practice of slavery.
Here’s the brygenon quote: “Phil, our host, likes to think that our nation was founded on Biblical principles. In fact, the ideas of government by the consent of the governed, separation of powers, and representative democracy came from Greek and Roman traditions and are conspicuously absent from the Bible. The idea that we can make slaves of people as long as they are not our own kind — that we got from the Bible.”
Black Lion, I’m not engaging in revisionist history. With eyes wide open, instead of in PC mode, I am engaging in the truth. But many of you cannot handle the TRUTH.
Did the Dutch and English engage in the slave trade. Certainly. Did the practice of slavery in Africa precede contact with Europeans who did also willfully engage in it? Certainly.
Were people who were captured and sold into slavery by one African tribe selected because they were from ANOTHER tribe and therefore not of their “own kind.” Certainly. Did these tribes already hold slaves from other tribes, before they encountered any Europeans? Most certainly.
Are Slavic peoples called Slavs because, hey, they were considered to be synonymous with SLAVES? Certainly. Guess who were their slaveowners? Ouch! The Romans.
Did slavery of “the other” already exist in THIS hemisphere prior to the arrival of what some like to call “the White Man”. Again, most certainly.
You see, I do know history. You, apparently, do not. I do not have to do research. I know what I know through benefit of a pre-PC, classical, open-minded education.
It is the sad history of the world that slavery of “the other” was practiced among nearly EVERY culture, throughout history. No one people or race carries the blame.
To this day women legally remain chattel in many countries in this world, including Africa and the Middle East.
Let me ask a question. Do you believe that prior to the arrival of the Mayflower, all of the “native” inhabitants of this hemisphere lived together in peace and harmony?
Another question: Do you believe that the Olmec culture is African in origin?
Phil, thank you for permission to digress from the eligibility issue. I’m tired of being chided for stepping outside the bounds that others have decided to draw around your blog.
da verg says:
So Vattel could not have been writing about our law. Black’s Law Dictionary, on the other hand, is about American law.
What a mess. Have you considered that lawyers who lose every single time on this might not be your best source of legal scholarship? I’ve asked over and over if eligibility deniers can cite even one noted legal scholar that says Obama is not eligible. No citations yet, but the challenge is still open.
You simply don’t know what you are talking about. The editors of Black’s Law Dictionary actually have the expertise that eligibility deniers pretend. They’re not changing the law; they’re telling you what it already is.
to q man
Ooh, fair enough. Let’s go with what the Founding Fathers thought. All women, blacks, and those who don’t own land get their right to vote taken away. Is that what you want? It’s really quite stunning to hear from you that you are literally an opponent of democracy.
>>>>which part of the Constitution are quoting, and what does this have to do with allegiances , oaths, and NBC? Nothing, let’s move on as you show the typ lib spinning out disease.
But with each new post you put yourself further and further into right field.
>>>read on, and that will apply to your posts doubly so.
Black’s Law Dictionary, though not 220 years old, is nonetheless well respected in the legal community and is commonly cited as secondary authority by the Supreme Court and all courts in the US.
>>>so what, OBAMA never used BLACK’s alleged misconstruction of the definition, not once. Why? Because it doesn’t hold up. So far you are batting 0-2.
Take another look at the post I made at 8:34, this has quotes from a multitude of cases that all state that from the beginning of the Republic, the common law definition of natural born citizen has applied.
>>>your post at 8.34 is full of crap and misinformation . 0-3.
And once more for the sake of completion, let’s go piece by piece through the disinformation:
The evidence is overwhelming
- no hospital
Obama was born at Kapi’olani Hospital. It is irrelevant for a COLB,
>>>Doh, kind of like the Constitution is irrelevant because it has a little clause that says president has to be NBC. Another illogical statement. 0-4. Also, funny thing this Hospital has repeatedly denied any records on Obama, no mid wife or doctor has come forth. 0-5.
and is backed by the Department of Health.
>>>the Hawaii DOH is under heavy scrutiny now for not following it’s own laws, misrepresentation of it’s own statements, and now claiming not to release information because of “client confidentiality”. Sounds more and more like a cover up to me. And recently DOH announced that Obama vital records were ammended, and when asked for the Obama records , it said it did not have any, therefore no birth certificate is heavily implied. 0-6 you are batting now.
- no doctor
See above. The birth certificate and statements of the Department of Health are sufficient.
>>>>they are sufficient for a cover up and a lie. 0-7. Obama is not even using DOH any more, 0-8.
- fake addresses in Hawaii
The address on the birth announcement was that of Obama’s grandmother, where Obama’s mother did live.
>>>no they were not, the neighbors said the OBama’s never lived there !! 0-9 Dunham was in Seattle in August of 61, not Hawaii , her school records say as much. 0-10.
- fake social security numbers
You still take Orly Taitz at her word? After all the blatant lies she’s told you and the forgeries she’s shown everyone else?
>>>>>no Orly , an ex Scotland Yard detective. 0-11.
- obama’s grandmother in Kenya
Who said that Obama was born in Hawaii and that it was obvious. You did listen to the unedited audio, right?
>>>did you? You understand Sawahili? It was pretty obvious she meant she was there in Kenya. The Ambassador from Kenya said Obama was born in Kenya, the Foreign Minister from Kenay also said so,the Kenyan national assembly has drawn up allegiances in writing. What are we now up to 0-15?
- Kenyan Birth certificate
Which one? The one that a few days later was revealed to be a prank? The one that was signed by Dudley Dooright? The one where the alleged hospital administrator twice misspelled his own name? The one that says the registrar’s name was Kwame, a name you’d never see in Kenya? Or are you talking about the one created by a guy previous convicted of fraud who put a video on YouTube purporting to be in Kenya but was actually in Dominican Republic? Note that several of those are from the same forgery.
>>>>no one has officially called this a forgery, the Kenya government has no said yes or no on this. 0-16.
- his mother was in Seattle in 1961 of August not
in Hawaii , registering for classes
She was likely there a few weeks after giving birth.
>>>>>>yeah right. 0-17
- obama selective service records are fake
The Departments of State and Defense disagree with you.
>>>>>>how so?
- his college records show he registered as foreigner
Really? Are you talking about the article that was actually an April Fools joke that birthers apparently failed to get was a joke?
>>>nope, I am talking about the real records that his many universities hold. I never saw any Aprils Fools joke. 0-18 so far.
- Indonesia shows his real name is Saotao
lol
>>>funny ? That we have a fraud in WH. Screw you and your
fake sense of the law and what’s right and wrong, typical
liberal immorality. you get five points off for your unethical
apathy and treasonist response 0-23.
- no record in USA has cropped up changing his legal
name back to Obama
He never legally changed his name. There’s a school registration form that says Soetoro (see how I actually spelled it right?), but that in no way means there was a legal name change.
>>>>yep, my point exactly , he is not who he says he is
0-24.
- he got aid as foreign student from Suadi prince
Completely false. The person who was said to have given Obama aid, Khalid al Mansour, completely denies this and says he never met Obama. The person who said Mansour gave Obama aid was Percy Sutton. Sutton’s own spokesperson and fellow family members said that Sutton was wrong.
>>>yeah right, and you believe these guys? 0-25.
Wow, what a mountain of evidence bull you posted there.
once again your post completely decimated, you want to come to the tool shed again? for more?
Byrg
wrote
Black is obviously out in left field and Black can not change the fundalmentally defintion that existed at the time of the Constitution nor can Black change the defintion of “is” or make traditional marriage “gay marriage. Black is obviously trying to change the Constitution without 3/4, that is 75%, of the states approving.
You simply don’t know what you are talking about. The editors of Black’s Law Dictionary actually have the expertise that eligibility deniers pretend. They’re not changing the law; they’re telling you what it already is.
>>>funny thing, OBama doesn’t even agree with you. He doesn’t use Black and his misconstrued NBC text in any of his defenses. So therefore you are just plain wrong. Black does not give the definition of NBC that was in the Constitution when it was written, it is pretty obvious that it doesn’t if you would just read the Constitution and what it says. But alas, you are one of those kool aid drinking liberals who wants to CHANGE the Constitution by not following the 75% requirement. Get out of town. Us Consitutitionists say NO NO NO and NO.
you lose , yet again.
sis
per your last post
on common law defining NBC?? Sorry you are wrong, go to Mario A. site he completely decimates that postulation and he does a pretty good job of it.
None of the other amendments you proposed changed the NBC eligibility issue.
As far as slavery and women and other stuff you post, you are spinning out and it has nothing at all to to with the NBC issue.
OBama obviously has dual allegances, he is both a Brittish subject and an American citizen. The framers said NO NO NO to this situation and specifically put in the NBC clause to prevent it.
Now it is up to our three branches of government to decide the issue once and for all.
I for one , do not accept this ACORN fraud and obvious sleeze in the WH. Every single American has to provide a REAL birth certificate in everything they do in this nation. Except of course if you are an illegal alien then you are allowed to get away with Sh*t, because of the liberals and the DEMS. Now they have pushed this to the highest office in the land? I say no, it’s time to end this charade and destroy the Democratic BS party in the process who refuse to uphold our laws and our constitution at every step throwing it, along with our military, under the bus.
If this is not stopped then we have truely lost our nation.
Name a single member of Congress, judge or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of natural born citizen. You will find none. However, if you take a look at Jill Pryor’s piece in the Yale Law Review on the natural born citizenship clause, 91 Yale L.J. 881, you will see plenty of support, unanimous among 20th century legal scholars, that anybody born on US soil with minor exceptions for invading armies and foreign diplomats, are natural born citizens.
Again, Blacks’ Dictionary, like it or not, is a respected secondary source for definitions of legal terms. In the past two years alone, the Supreme Court has cited it positively in 25 cases.
As much as you may call the direct quotes from Supreme Court cases “disinformation,” they are nonetheless direct opinions of the courts throughout even the 19th century regarding the definition of natural born citizen being derived from common law.
However, you continually make your stripes clear. To you, this is somehow a partisan issue. You actually have announced on this blog that you are an opponent of democracy.
The Kenyan government HAS said that the forgeries out there are forgeries, and if they get the opportunity, would prosecute Lucas Smith for document fraud. There is an actual 1961 Kenyan birth certificate that was posted on WND. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106220
There was also one in the Standard, a Kenyan paper that looks identical in format.
As for your “dual allegiances” argument, if this were true, you would be giving every nation on earth veto power over who could be eligible for the presidency. You would immediately disqualify every Jew in the country, since Israel offers Israeli citizenship to every Jew in the world. Italy offers citizenship going back three generations. The grandson of Italian immigrants would be ineligible under your definition, all because Italy passed a law. Taken to it’s logical extreme, under your argument (that if another country claims you as a citizen, you are ineligible), Kim Jong Il could make every American ineligible for the presidency by granting them North Korean citizenship at birth.
The Department of Health never “announced Obama’s records were amended.” That’s just simply never happened. Hell, there’s a COLB online that shows that if a birth certificate is amended in any way, there’s a note of that on the birth certificate itself.
I know you’re going to take all these things and go nuh-uh and then claim victory, but think about this – you’re saying that direct quotes from a Supreme Court case is disinformation on my part. You’re claiming that the #1 legal dictionary in the country is some fringe left publication. You’re saying that you would not respect the will of the people if they elect somebody you disapprove of. You are making some very extreme statements, and I’m not sure to what extent that’s because of your ignorance of American legal practice or that you are just that extreme in your politics.
da verg says:
October 14, 2009 at 1:35 pm
*Sorry you are wrong, go to Mario A. site *
Mario is a DUI/Car Accident/ Municipal case attorney, not a constitutional scholar.
http://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/mario-apuzzo-1050467
If there was one shred of veracity to any of this 2 citizen stuff, conservative constitutional law experts would have been coming out of the woodwork before even the primaries.
*As far as slavery and women and other stuff you post, you are spinning out and it has nothing at all to to with the NBC issue.*
It does. It explains that what was written in the original Constitution does not stand alone when there are amendments, statutes and judicial precedent that changed it or defined it. You are either very uninformed or you’re being deliberately obtuse.
*he is both a Brittish subject and an American citizen.The framers said NO NO NO*
There is no proof that Barack Obama is now, or ever was a British Subject. And please, point me to the NO NO NO clause.
*Now it is up to our three branches of government to decide the issue once and for all.*
You have been told repeatedly your remedy is in the first branch.daverg, the facts and the law are not on your side, but you need to be talking to your Congressman or one of the sponsors of HR1503. Maybe Michelle Bachmann will take on initiating Article II, Section 4.
*I for one , do not accept this ACORN fraud and obvious sleeze in the WH. .*
Political concerns. You have two options: Article II, Section 4 or the 12th amendment. But never fear, if those fail, you can always count on the 22nd amendment to come through for you eventually.
MGB says:
Another amazingly ignorant comment. We got slaves from Africa, that much is true, but that’s not how we justified legalizing slavery here. Many Christians at the time abhorred slavery and regarded it as antithetical to their faith, but their religious arguments were undercut by the Bible’s clear endorsement of slavery, such as I quoted from Leviticus.
da verg wrote:
Yes, you have Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, and Orly Taitz. You win in your own heads and on (some of) your own web sites. Understand, that’s it for you. Your ability to convince yourselves is not particularly impressive.
As I write this, Mario Apuzzo’s site is leading with, “The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall”, which roughly translates to, “Waaah! I’m not getting my way.”
MGB says:
October 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Black Lion, I’m not engaging in revisionist history. With eyes wide open, instead of in PC mode, I am engaging in the truth. But many of you cannot handle the TRUTH.
____________________________________________________________________
MGB, I would have no problem debating history with you. I guess I must have misread your post or your intention with the post. The way your post came off was that the practive of owning slaves in American was because the practice was ongoing in Africa. Yes the practive of owning slaves has been around for centuries and may cultures engaged in that reprehensible practice. However the practice of segregation and “jim Crow” based on race was purely an American twist. Many of the founding fathers were slaveowners. And in the Constitution a slave was equated with 3/5 of a person. Good or bad that is the history of our country. I guess my question would be is what point are you attempting to make. If it is just to respond to Bry then I guess that was going somewhere. If your point is to state that the practice of enslaving people has been around for a long time then I would imagine we would all concur. Whatever truth you want to espouse I have no problem with it. Especially if it is historically accurate and not someone’s opinion of something.
sis
wrote
There is no proof that Barack Obama is now, or ever was a British Subject.
>>>Obama wrote it in his own book
the rest of your post is jibberish and says nothing new, I rebuked it earlier. I am not wasting my time with you again.
How many times you want to go to the tool shed?
Obama has spent millions of dollars hiding a $12 birth certificate that now DOH of HAwaii is saying it doesn’t have.
We have a fake in the WH, and the sooner more Americans realize that they have been duped, the sooner we can remove him and restore our Constitution.
The fact remains, NONE of the citizenship ammendments CHANGE the eligibility requirements, nor the definition of NBC that was in place at the time our Constitution was written. That is not obtuse, that is fact.
Oppps, you liberals wouldn’t know a fact if it hit you square in the forehead.
Take your BS comments elsewhere, please.
byg wrote
yes you have….blah blah blah
and Byg
you have a fake in the WH that can’t even produce
a legit birth certificate, isn’t a NBC, and has spent
over 2 million dollars trying to hide the truth about his eligiblity.
He is using NONE of the arguments you are using. He is saying things like:
- no standing
- moot
- no jurisdiction
- the plaintiff writings are “too long to respond too”
- and let’s fine the living daylights out of them.
The truth will be revealed soon, deal with it. I am ready for the truth. Are you?
da verg says:
October 14, 2009 at 3:35 pm
*How many times you want to go to the tool shed?*
As many times as I have to take you there to explain that your remedy is in the 1st branch. Article II, Section 4. Or the 12th amendment, or eventually the 22nd amendment. That’s all you’ve got da verg. Judge Carter will tell you this, again, when he issues his ruling. Will you believe it then? You’re getting left behind daverg. Birtherism is over. You need to either join the impeachment-ist movement or the movement to find a candidate for 2012 who can get more 12th amendment votes than Obama, or be left behind. Best wishes and good luck in making your choice da verg!
da verg says:
October 14, 2009 at 11:46 am
Claims may have been made but obviously these claims were not supported with any real evidence
from black lion
Obama’s own writings prove he is a brittish subject
the only “claims” that the courts have held were not based on the facts or merits of the case but on
- standing
- moot
- jurisdiction
- and in one case the defense said that the plaintiff’s pleadings were “too long to respond to”
they, OBAMA , that is stopped using the fake green blob.
The evidence is overwhelming
___________________________________________________________________
You must have never read any of President Obama’s writings because he never says he was a “British Subject”.
Black’s Law Dictonary is pretty specific…It says…
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.
Notice how it cites the Wong Kim Ark Case? That is because for citizenship issues in the US, that is the case the SCOTUS references…No matter how much you want to diminish it the fact remains.
As much as you think the poker player Leo Donofrio and the cat lady DUI guy Mario Apuzzo are “constitutional scholars, here is what real scholars say about citizenship…Notice there is nothing about a mythical “third type of citizen” or a 14th amendment citizen. That was made up by Leo and Mario…
“There are two basic paradigms of acquiring citizenship: by birth, and by naturalization. The Immigration and Nationality Act currently in effect defines “naturalization” to mean “the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever.” There should therefore be no doubt that a “natural born Citizen” as described in Article II of the Constitution is one who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, and not through naturalization. The law of naturalization is therefore not discussed in any detail here.
http://www.ssbb.com/index.php/publications/entry/90
Harvard Law Professor Laurence H. Tribe and former Solicitor General (under Bush) Theodore B. Olson issued the following statement regarding their opinion on what is a Natural Born Citizen and it’s effect on John McCain. These are well respected legal scholars. Inadvertently they also defined it for President Obama.
“The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress…. and to the common law at the time of the Founding….These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance….”
” If the Panama Canal Zone was sovereign U.S. territory at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, then that fact alone would make him a “natural born” citizen under the well-established principle that “natural born” citizenship includes birth within the territory and allegiance of the United States…Premising “natural born” citizenship on the character of the territory in which one is born is rooted in the common-law understanding that persons born within the British kingdom and under loyalty to the British Crown–including most of the Framers themselves, who were born in the American colonies–were deemed natural born subjects.”
Letter by Theodore Olson and Laurence Tribe, reported in 154 Cong. Rec. S3645-46 (Apr. 30, 2008).
Also…
“… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic…” Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside..” US Constitution 14th Amendment
Also from the PUMA site, from the person that originally tracked down the birth announcements for President Obama….
on July 22, 2008 at 9:36 pm | Reply Lori
“Hi, I’ve talked to the Department of Vital Records and the Honolulu Advertiser.In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.”
“Next, the announcement is from Sunday, August 13th and Obama was born on Friday, August 4th. Hospitals usually don’t take birth certificate information the first couple days to avoid changes. So it was likely filled out on the 4th or so, as hospital stays were usually 3 – 5 days at the time. Lastly, having worked in a newborn nursery in college, hospitals don’t ask for documentation. If mom says she’s married, that’s what they write. They have no authority to question her statement.”
Actually, no, he isn’t a British Subject and an American Citizen. He’s just an American Citizen. He hasn’t ever been a British Subject. The correct term you were looking for is “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies”. He hasn’t been a CUKC 1963, when Kenya gained it’s independence (see the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963).
He lost his Kenyan Citizenship on his 23rd Birthday (August 4, 1984) when he didn’t renounce his American Citizenship (see the Kenyan Constitution), and swear an oath to Kenya. If you actually think he did this, then you’re going to have to prove it, and have something other than, “He might have done this.” If you have no evidence that he renounced his U.S. Citizenship, then it is presumed under American Law that he did not.
If you’re going to use the dual citizenship argument, at least get your facts right. Obama is not now a Dual Citizen, and hasn’t been one for 25 years.
da verg says:
October 14, 2009 at 1:23 pm
- fake addresses in Hawaii
The address on the birth announcement was that of Obama’s grandmother, where Obama’s mother did live.
>>>no they were not, the neighbors said the OBama’s never lived there !! 0-9 Dunham was in Seattle in August of 61, not Hawaii , her school records say as much. 0-10.
__________________________________________________________________
Actually you are wrong da verg. According to our friends at WND, a pro birther site, they have even confirmed that the grandparents of President Obama lived at that address….
“Both newspapers, the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, carried the announcement that Barack Obama Jr. was born Aug. 4, 1961, to Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama, residing at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu, Hawaii. Additional research has established that the grandparents, Madelyn and Stanley Dunham, lived at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, not Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=107337
- obama’s grandmother in Kenya
Who said that Obama was born in Hawaii and that it was obvious. You did listen to the unedited audio, right?
>>>did you? You understand Sawahili? It was pretty obvious she meant she was there in Kenya. The Ambassador from Kenya said Obama was born in Kenya, the Foreign Minister from Kenay also said so,the Kenyan national assembly has drawn up allegiances in writing. What are we now up to 0-15?
______________________________________________________________
Actually you are wrong again….
“None of that stopped Berg from stoking the conspiracy theorists. On Oct. 16, an Anabaptist minister named Ron McRae called Sarah Hussein Obama, the president-elect’s 86-year-old paternal step-grandmother, at her home in Kenya. Two translators were on the line when McRae asked if the elder Obama was “present” when the president-elect was born. One of the translators says “yes.” McRae contacted Berg and gave him a partial transcript of the call with a signed affidavit. He opted not to include the rest of the call, in which he asks the question more directly—”Was he born in Mombassa?”—and the translators, finally understanding him, tell him repeatedly that the president-elect was born in Hawaii.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2206033/pagenum/all/
Or…
The grandmother tape actually says he was born in Hawaii
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/faq-on-obamas-hidden-birth-certificate/
You know it is too easy to debunk the birther lies. So I would say that with just these 2 points the birthers are the ones that are 0-2. I mean these stories are pretty easy to debunk. You have to try and get some new stuff so it is at least a challenge.
I said, “brygenon: sorry, unfortunately we got slavery from the practice OF slavery among the peoples of Africa, who enslaved each other. They captured members of other tribes and then sold them to European slave traders.”
The lovely brygenon replied, “Another amazingly ignorant comment. We got slaves from Africa, that much is true, [uh, exactly what I said] but that’s not how we justified legalizing slavery here. Many Christians at the time abhorred slavery and regarded it as antithetical to their faith, but their religious arguments were undercut by the Bible’s clear endorsement of slavery, such as I quoted from Leviticus.”
Again, with the insults. I refer you to my prior response to you, dunstvangeet, and Black Lion. I said nothing about how anyone “justified” legalizing slavery here. I answered your claim about how this nation came to be involved in slavery. If you were speaking only to justification, then I misunderstood your point; but what I responded was neither “ignorant” nor untrue.
Black Lion, fair enough. Thanks for your equanimity.
You said, “the practice of segregation and “jim Crow” based on race was purely an American twist.” Well, I agree that “Jim Crow”, including the terminology, is American; but I sincerely doubt that it is a “purely American twist” that persons have been segregated on account of belonging to a particular cultural category (based upon race, tribal affiliation, or any other characteristic) with that segregation being enshrined in law. The Indian caste system is a case in point. In its earliest beginnings, the caste system was based upon ancestry, so in a way it involved “race”.
My point was solely to respond to brygenon’s statement.
I do know the sad history of slavery in this country. I was not in any way attempting to excuse it. However, at the same time, I don’t think we should overlook the fact that reprehensible, inhuman practices existed in the past in ALL cultures throughout the world, amongst all races of people. It’s the human history of the world. I don’t think that any particular race, culture, or nation should be singled out for disapprobation.
And I’m sure everyone else is tired of reading this, so I will get off my soapbox now.
The big problem for those who claim that Vattel was the basis for the NBC clause is that Vattel was not talking about a special group of citizens who alone could aspire to political power – THAT CONCEPT DID NOT EXIST UNTIL THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT BEGAN IN 2008. De Vattel was setting out a definition for CITIZENSHIP at BIRTH!!! (Of course, he never even said “both parents” but who cares?)
If De Vattel IS the source then many, if not most Americans AREN’T EVEN CITIZENS. That would be because unless they could ALL trace ALL of their ancestors through lines that contained ONLY two parents who were citizens at the time of the child’s birth, NO ONE IN THAT LINE WOULD BE A CITIZEN.
So either they have to come up with proof that the Founders intended to create a new class of citizens such that had never existed in the world before or hardly anyone in the country is a citizen.
Which is it guys?
MGB, the thing about it is that you’re writing revisionist history. Slavery was not started in this country because of slavery in Africa. Slavery was started in this country because they had slavery in Europe. They had Slavery in Europe, because of slavery in the Roman Empire.
It is not a situation where the Americans went over to Africa and said, “You know, these guys practice slavery. Maybe we should too.” It’s a situation where slavery had been practiced as old as time in European, Middle-East, African, and most every other culture.
To suggest that the reason we had slavery in America was because of slavery in Africa is not anywhere near the truth, and is just revisionist history to suggest that the only reason slavery was practiced in America was because of Slavery in Africa.
In response to the comment “There is no proof that Barack Obama is now, or ever was a British Subject.” da verg wrote:
Where? I cannot find anywhere in any of his books where Obama wrote he was ever a British subject.
Could you please provide a quotation and page number?
JVN posting here is full of cr… and is an obvious Obot spin doctor or a person who is grossly uneducated in civics.
Natural born citizens of a nation as defined by Vattel are typically the most populous and largest group of citizens of a nation. They are the three leaf clovers of citizenship types, not four leaf clover types.
Natural Born Citizen = 3 Leaf Clover Citizens 4 Leaf Type:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985
Citizenship: Citizen, Born Citizen, Natural Born Citizen:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1467&p=5549#p5549
M Publius Goat
Read More about Vattel and Other Subject at Goat’s Ledge:
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=105
mtngoat61 says:
Instead of pretending to be some kind of scholar, have you considered just looking up “natural born citizen” in Black’s Law Dictionary? That’s what any competent lawyer would do. No need to make a federal case of it.
For over a hundred years, references on U.S. law have been explaining that any child born in America is a natural-born citizen, (with such exceptions as children of foreign diplomats or invading armies). See, for example: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ How come we didn’t hear a peep of objection about that until Barack Obama became a presidential candidate?
The eligibility deniers are not legal scholars and certainly not patriots. They’ve shown no interest in actual constitutional scholarship; they just want to justify their refusal to accept that Barack Obama is President of the United States.
Ok I don’t want to hear another word about slavery. Slavery is over said and done. Just because slavery was in effect 160 years ago doesn’t mean african americans are supposed to hold every political office that there is. And that is basically the contention of the disciples of ‘bama.
MGB says:
I guess that’s as close to an apology as I’m going to get. Obviously I was talking about the moral justification. What I wrote was, “The idea that we can make slaves of people as long as they are not our own kind — that we got from the Bible.”
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly” — Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV)
“Who sails the ships out of Guinea, Ladened with bibles and slaves?” — Molasses to Rum, from the musical 1776.
Lots of Obama Bridgetender Propogandists out tonite!! Trying to shout down any dissent of Dear Leader. Here’s the definition of NBC from SCOTUS Minor v. Happersett (1874).
“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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Natural Born Citizen is Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents. How can Obama be a Natural Born Citizen when he admits that at birth his citizenshiop was “governed” by Great Britain? The reason that the Constitution Constrains Obama is because it prevents him from legally being President.
Roderick says:
October 14, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Ok I don’t want to hear another word about slavery. Slavery is over said and done. Just because slavery was in effect 160 years ago doesn’t mean african americans are supposed to hold every political office that there is. And that is basically the contention of the disciples of ‘bama.
______________________________________________________________
Can you point out to us where anyone stated what you implied? Obama is President because he was elected by a majority of Americans that voted. Not for any other reason. However it seems from your comments that you disagree. The only contention of the “disciples of ‘bama” is that he be treated the same as the other 43 former Presidents of the United States. African Americans, just like anyone else are eligible for any office in the US. And if the people elect them, they deserve the office that they are elected to.
Did you find that out from the same place you checked to make sure that Canada still has a president?
And way to assume that anybody who supports Obama is actually racist against white people. It really takes quite a deep set of knowledge and psychological understanding to say that 70 million Americans are blatant racists.
Mick:
Minor v. Happersett (1874) offers two definitions for NBC, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Why do you ignore the one that disagrees with you?
“COLB has been Hawaii’s only birth certificate for several years now. You could not get your original birth certificate from the Department of Health if you wanted to.” qwertyman
There is nothing in Hawaii law that prohibits Hawaii DoH from issuing a certified copy of a long form birth certificate to whomever they choose whenever they choose. That’s why the Department of Hawaii Homelands until a couple of months ago sent native homestead applicants down to the Hawaii Vital Records help window to ask for one.
“The COLB is self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence…prima facie evidence in any US Court.” qwertyman “If you could just point out to us where it states that a COLB is not a Birth Certificate.” Black Lion “a Hawaiian DoH official [is] saying that the COLB is “the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii’…” brygenon
a Self-authenticating means that Obama’s COLB, as a printout of an electronic file or as an alleged certified copy of a public record, would have to be submitted under Rule 902(4) of the Federal Rules of Evidence together with a special, non-routine certificate subscribed with the handwritten signature of its custodian attesting that he (Onaka) had personally compared the COLB’s dataset with the originating COLB database and found they were identical. If Obama’s attorneys try to avoid presenting his COLB as a certified copy of a public record by seeking to authenticate Obama’s COLB under another FRE 902 Rule and subsequently have it admitted under vital records Rule 803(9) – an absolute necessity – they still have to demonstrate that Obama’s COLB is what they claim it to be: a genuine vital record. Given i) Obama’s COLB is not a birth certificate under any Hawaii law but only a certification that references a certificate, ii) Obama’s COLB contains an undetermined number of amendments not accepted by Hawaii DoH, and iii) a document which satisfies hearsay exception Rule 803(9) must be a genuine vital record, Obama’s attorneys will be unable to demonstrate his COLB is what they claim and therefore it will never be admissible as evidence in a federal court.
Even qwertyman‘s fellow Obama loyalist Sue confirms this below (quoting http://birthdocs.us/faq.htm ):
“What are the short forms of birth certificate? Limited information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is usually titled a ‘Certification of Birth’…”
This is substantiated by Obama’s purported COLB, which on its face sports the prominent disclaimer that it is merely prima facie evidence of the “fact of birth“, not of “the facts–S [plural, i.e. the circumstances] of birth“, and contains the originating birth certificate’s index number: both deliberately placed to denote that Obama’s alleged COLB is no more than an official notification that a birth certificate exists. Conversely, certified copies of original, witnessed birth certificates make every claim to be evidence of the circumstances of a registrant’s birth and can point to nothing else except the several attesting witnesses. No witnesses = no circumstances.
Simple version: Obama’s attorneys can only hope to avoid authentication under electronic records Rule 902(4) by claiming his COLB is not a certified copy of a public record (which it isn’t !), but if it’s not a certified copy of a public record then it is inadmissible as hearsay under vital records exception Rule 803(9), while the reason they “must” avoid Rule 902(4) is because Obama’s COLB is an electronically stored Certification (not a Certificate) and nobody at Hawaii DoH despite repeated invitations will acknowledge (much less non-routinely certify with their own signature) that Obama’s filed-but-not-accepted COLB printout (if it exists) is a genuine vital record (because of its unrecognized amendments). There’s got to be some kind of a prize awarded to Obama for creating this farce. The PINO?
b Prima facie evidence is rebutted under FRE 301 by ANY evidence which would lead to alternative logical conclusions to those technically presumed prima facie. Assuming hypothetically against the facts that Obama’s COLB is prima facie evidence of the circumstances of his birth, with the production of any rebutting evidence the burden would fall upon Obama’s attorneys to show that it is impossible for anything else to be true except that Obama was born in Hawaii etc., otherwise the presumption fails. Such rebutting evidence is available, but the fact is that its production would be superfluous: under FRE Rules 106 and 1002 opposing attorneys can require the best evidence or original writing from which Obama’s edited, reduced, and abstracted electronic COLB dataset originates – the 1961 records – altogether bypassing the paper COLB (if it exists). This is especially true when there are apparently no living witnesses to Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. Given the complexities attaching to Obama’s COLB, applying Rules 106 and 1002 would be the most reasonable, judicious, and procedurally correct decision to make, and accounts for Obama’s desperate struggle to ensure his COLB (if it exists) never sees the inside of any court-room, whatever it costs.
“…a sample COLB provided by somebody else (on a birther site no less!) also uses that exact same phrase ["FILED"]…Do you think the birther site’s sample COLB is also somehow fatally flawed?” qwertyman
There can be no excuse that qwertyman does not know he is citing Ron Polarik‘s analysis of what Polarik claims is incontrovertible evidence that Obama’s online COLB is a criminal forgery. A significant part of the evidence that Polarik uses against Obama’s online COLB is the very same “Michele COLB” that qwertyman cites as verifying Obama’s online COLB! Given qwertyman does not accept Polarik‘s work is sufficiently trustworthy to demonstrate that Obama’s online COLB is a criminal forgery, out of what bizarre logic does qwertyman mobilize the exact same evidence, for which Polarik is the only “fatally flawed” source, to promote Obama’s COLB as genuine? Given neither qwertyman, nor anyone other than Polarik, has knowledge of the individual behind the “Michele COLB” or the circumstances of her birth and registration, Polarik would be be very happy with qwertyman‘s vote of confidence; as Polarik wrote: “I love it when my critics provide the evidence in favor of my findings that they thought would negate them.” If the “Michele COLB” is the best that qwertyman can do, it’s safe to say that there is no COLB for any officially registered Hawaii birth that is designated “FILED” rather than “ACCEPTED“. Conclusions: officially registered births are only “ACCEPTED” and never “FILED“, Obama’s birth and–or amendments are not officially registered, and therefore his alleged COLB is not a genuine vital record. Implications: see above…or read Polarik‘s Report at qwertyman‘s link.
“Provided those inquiries don’t violate privacy laws.” Bob
There is nothing in Hawaii law to prevent DoH revealing any vital record or details of a vital record to whomever they choose whenever they choose, or as the relevant statute HRS 338-18 reads, disclosure is governed “by rules adopted by the department of health,” unless the certificate has been altered to record the recognition or rejection of parentage, adoption, change of sex, or witness protection. Obama loyalists assert none of these factors apply.
“…the ‘release of his [Obama's] opponents divorce records’ is not accurate. Now if you have some evidence of this then link to it.” Black Lion
Maybe (only maybe) Black Lion has not read http://tinyurl.com/NYT-BHO-Hull
“…Hawaii supports what Obama said all along…’I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino…have seen the original vital records…” brygenon
Hawaii DoH defines the “original” vital record as the current vital record: under Hawaii statute a “new original certificate of birth” replaces “the superseded original certificate“! An amusing question to be asked of Fukino would have been: do Obama’s current original vital records replace his superseded original vital records? Obama loyalists and Fukino were using the same word (“original”) in two different ways and the American public were none the wiser.
Given Hawaii DoH finally admitted that there are amendments to Obama’s file, the American public is now very much the wiser about manipulation through weasel words at DoH. Hawaii statute gives DoH great power but DoH officials, whose duplicity and cover-up is by now clear to all, have become intoxicated with unquestioned power, and now believe that whatever is their collusive understanding of Hawaii law is the law. Unless DoH quickly remember they are the servants of the people this delusion is going to be tested in Hawaii courts very soon.
“…you [don't] have a right to have a President prove to you personally he is eligible.” siseduermapierda
There are states which have unadvertised provisions for Presidential candidates filing for inclusion on the ballot to be legally challenged regarding their eligibility. Lack of standing is not grounds for dismissing these challenges. On this basis if no other, Obama will not run again in 2012. Better get used to it.
“If you lose or don’t have access to a copy [of a birth certificate], you [Obama] can request one or more.” siseduermapierda
So where is the birth certificate that student, world traveler, parking violator, lawyer, college professor, Illinois and US Senator Obama must have used before he allegedly requested a COLB in 2007? Lost or no access?
“…’full faith in state records’ clause in the Constitution that requires the Federal government to accept state records.” Black Lion
It has been outlined to Black Lion several times that “full faith in state records” in the US Constitution and federal statute has never applied to administrative records. Black Lion has so far not managed to refute this. Black Lion must cite and quote a decision from SCOTUS on down that applies the “full faith in state records” clause or statute to administrative records or failing that, if he has a scrap of integrity left, Black Lion should stop pushing this malicious absurdity.
“…not one out of the 535 of this country’s elected officials believe that the President is ineligible…” Black Lion
If “birthers” are such an isolated fringe, not even comprising 1% of the country and nothing much to worry about, what has Obama’s online stormtroopers (whose loyalty is their honor) so worried that they have muscled in here to bust up this meeting with the openly and shamelessly admitted intention of killing debate through “debunking”? Visitors are being frightened away from TRSoL by out of control, strutting bullies. As one disrupter candidly boasts: “this is why many of the birthers have left RSOL.”
If they are not worried by the non-existent prospect of “birther” success, why are Obama’s stormtroopers cussing and bashing such an insignificant rabble of no-hopers? For the no-hope birthers’ own good? To clean out thought-crime? The only possibilities: Obama’s online stormtroopers really are very worried that their Leader is truly ineligible — or they’re fulfilling a sadistic mission as Obama’s Thought Police — or they’re mercenaries.
SandiegoSam says:
October 14, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Mick:
Minor v. Happersett (1874) offers two definitions for NBC, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Why do you ignore the one that disagrees with you?
________________________________________________________________
There’s only one definition, and it was given.
Here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen again Obama Propogandists, read it slowly.
“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. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
Born in a country of PARENTSSSS who were citizensssss.
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts….”
Doubts resolved by Wong Kim Ark.
Mick says:
October 15, 2009 at 12:34 am
Here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen again Obama Propogandists, read it slowly.
____________________________________________________________________
Of course as with most birthers Mick you neglect to address the entire ruling. Which is not surprising. Or you neglect to address the fact that Minor was decided before the Wong Kim Ark case. And becasue Wong clarified issues that Minor did not, that is why Wong is considered to be the case regarding citizenship…
Let us look at Minor again…It states the following…
“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Notice Minor clarifies that there can only be two types of citizens…That is important because it throws out Leo’s and Mario’s crazy US Citizen but not a natural born citizen or 14th amendment citizen theories…
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Two important points from the Minor case is that the Court does admit that there are doubts on how native or natural born citizens are defined but they for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve those doubts. Secondly the Court is making a distinction between natural born citizens and aliens and not plain citizens and natural born citizens.
So in summary the Minor case tells the following…a) us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized, b) there was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens, c) Minor does not resolve this question, d) it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized), e) United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.
Mick, you may want to reread the entire ruling before just repeating birther talking points…
Obama is President because he was elected by a majority of Americans that voted
>>>>the majority of AMericans were defrauded, and the framers of the Constitution wrote extensively about how to protect the republic from a tyrant
Quit ignoring the facts. OBAMA is not a NBC he can’t even produce a simple birth certificate. He is NOT a true American either, he was born in KENYA, the world knows it and he is making a mockery of our nation.
Time for the gallows for this fraud.
black lion, your own words point to definition of NBC from above
” 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
…never doubted that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens….note plural parents and citizens. Not any clearer than TWO parents are required, not one, like OBAMA had.
Case closed, by your own post.
Replying to Black Lion at 10:38 pm:
Slavery is being used as a tool by the ‘bama administration in his speeches about the Bible. In other words he is bringing up scriptures in the Bible to make people stop and think “Whoa what have I been following all this time?” Slavery is said and done and is not even an arguing point for running for a political office. Now let’s look at the ten commandments which I choose to follow. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc. Now for some poitician to tell me not to follow the Bible I can read the Bible at my leisure and put into context what I feel ascribes to me in this day and age. Long after ‘bama is voted out of office we will still have freedom of religion because all of the members of the Senate follow the Christian Bible and are daring the imposter to take one step in the wrong direction so that they can get enough evidence on him to boot said person.
Case closed, by your own post.
Did you miss the part where Black Lion wrote: “Or you neglect to address the fact that Minor was decided before the Wong Kim Ark case. And becasue Wong clarified issues that Minor did not, that is why Wong is considered to be the case regarding citizenship…”
Ignoring Wong Kim Ark won’t make it go away.
da verg says:
October 15, 2009 at 11:08 am
black lion, your own words point to definition of NBC from above
” 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
…never doubted that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens….note plural parents and citizens. Not any clearer than TWO parents are required, not one, like OBAMA had.
Case closed, by your own post.
____________________________________________________________
Please reread the post. I said that they did not say that was the only definition of what a NBC was. Plus the Wong Kim case was decided after Minor and that definition regarding citizenship is what the courts use.
Your problem is that you did not read the Minor ruling completely. Especially where they use the words DOUBTS. Go back and reread the post. Especially where it says “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” The ruling did not EXCLUDE “as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. So as I said before the Minor ruling does not EXPLICTLY state that ONLY the children of citizens can be natural born citizens. It says that there is no question about those but there is a question about others. And that was resolved in the Wong ruling later on.
You are correct, case is closed by my post. A natural born citizen is someone that is born in the jurisdiction of a country.
black lion
you are full of crap
Your own post says what the definition of NBC is-by your own words : parents and citizens. The Wong case re affirmed it. You can not spin it out any other way.
I hate to say it, but I think you actually lack basic reading comprehension skills. Earlier I posted a series of quotes from that case and other cases that explicitly state that natural born citizenship does not depend on the state of one’s parents. A person could be born to two immigrants on US soil and be natural born. This is what Wong says along with successor cases. This is the accepted definition.
You responded by saying that my direct quotes from Wong were disinformation and the #1 legal dictionary in America was leftist-biased. If you think that Wong “reaffirmed” your proposed definition of natural born citizen, then you simply did not read the case.
.Home » Activism, Barnett v. Obama, Eligibility, POTUS
Barnett v. Obama: Judge Confirms Hearing Dates
Submitted by Phil on Wed, Oct 7, 2009514 Comments.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Update:
On the same day as this posting was originally published (10/5/09), Judge Carter ordered the remainder dates for this case to be finalized, per the Civil Minutes, below:
Barnett v. Obama Minute Order
Dr. Alan Keyes — one of the key Plaintiffs in this case — says on his blog that the case is moving forward and has not been stopped by a motion to dismiss. WorldNetDaily interviewed both the Plaintiffs and the Defense and they also seemed to confirm that no dismissals of any sort have yet to be granted.
In fact, in an interesting opinion, attorney Leo Donofrio states that Judge Carter has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the quo warranto complaint contained within this case and doesn’t understand why the US Attorneys haven’t grasped this aspect of the case as a means to sink it. After all, as he points out, according to federal statute, quo warranto is only to be heard in the US District Court for DC, the seat of government (which, incidentally, is not a State).
In my non-attorney citizen reporter opinion, what Judge Carter has done is taken the motion to dismiss “under submission” and likely as a part of one of the upcoming dates concerning summary judgment (that aspect of law, per the Conference Schedule, that attempts to ascertain whether or not a trial is needed to satisfy the grievances stated in the petition or whether or not the case should legitimately proceed to trial).
This would mean that the motion to dismiss has been neither granted nor denied, but can still be considered during a future date. Nevertheless, the case is moving forward, and as long as the case moves forward, there’s always a chance that it will continue to summary judgement and/or discovery and/or a trial.
In related news, commenter “reps” brings the following to our attention:
An interesting decision in the Arkansas Supreme Court that applies to Barnett v. Obama and may help Judge Carter with some of the decisions he has to make; an election issue regarding eligibility, subject matter jurisdiction, precedent and after election judicial action. Hopefully Taitz and Kreep will use this in a follow-up to Judge Carter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2356333/posts
The saga continues…
As had been discussed on this blog, attorney Dr. Orly Taitz’ case, Barnett v. Obama, hit its next major milestone with US District Judge David Carter making no new motions today except a promise to consider submissions from both sides and making known his concerns for both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. This was revealed in a transcript of sorts by the opposition forum site, Politijab.com, via the site NativeBornCitizen:
Barnett v. Obama – Report on 10-5 Hearing
While the above document is a bit long at 33 pages, it is really the 32 page that I found the most informative of the entire document:
Carter then essentially cut off further argument saying that he needs more time. He did not make a tentative ruling today. He wants to consider the arguments that have been made both in the written papers and during the hearing.
He turned to plaintiffs and said, I’m most concerned about standing.
To the defendants he said, I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.
He turned back to plaintiffs and said, if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.
To the audience he said, your applause has not influenced me at all, one way or the other.
To Orly he said, apparently you’ve encouraged people to call me on your blog. Please discourage the phone calls. They don’t help. It was inappropriate for you to do that. However, it won’t bear on my decision.
He then stated, obviously you’ve had no scheduling conference, but we’ll stick by the dates previously set for now.
He thanked everybody and the hearing ended. [emphases added]
I’ll come back to some of these points in a minute. In the meantime, here’s a collection of sentiments regarding today’s hearing:
■John Charlton at The Post & Email summarizes the day’s events;
■Mr. Charlton also posted an interview with the case’s lead Plaintiff, Captain Pamela Barnett;
■WorldNetDaily posted their interview with one of the eligibility attorneys, Mr. Gary Kreep;
■The OCRegister.com provided relatively reasonable mainstream media coverage;
■The GiveUsLiberty blog sports a number of postings on today’s activity.
Getting back to Politijab.com’s “transcript” of the hearing, I will reiterate once again that The Right Side of Life’s position on contacting a Courthouse for the purpose of attempting to sway any official in any direction is to completely discourage such behavior. While the “transcript” is not an official one, considering the source, it is highly likely to be true to the Court reporter’s official one.
Instead of potentially causing further issues with the Court through political activism within the Judiciary, it is my view that a far wiser and significantly more powerful means of persuasion is prayer. It isn’t glamorous, it doesn’t necessarily provide the instant gratification of an ultimate decision on a moment’s notice (but then again, are you operating on God’s timing or your own? Be honest!), but at least you’ll recognize Who’s really in control in all of this.
Plus, you’ll keep your blood pressure down, it’ll give you a few moments of respite from your daily worries, and you’ll become more focused on what the Main Thing In Life ™ really is. Yeah, I know — the opposition will continue going on about how this case might get dismissed and so forth, but if you’re like me, you really don’t care about that, because this issue is and always has been about much bigger things in life, such as political accountability.
And where does political accountability come from? It comes from a sense of justice and morality that has been bestowed upon us via not only the Constitution but that even greater collection of literature, the Bible.
So, again — do you want to make a difference? Then get praying. Then think about what what skills and talents you have and start taking that first step, on faith (based on the fact that since you are created in the image of God, you do have at least one skill and talent bestowed upon you!), and be the change you want to see.
Oh, yeah — and if you don’t think that a handful of people can’t make a difference, then apparently you’re simply refusing to see the results of what happened with 12 guys that got together without any technology except sheets of paper and word of mouth roughly 2,000 years ago.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
■The background:
■Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
■Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
■Obama Citizenship Facts
■What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate
■The questions:
■Leo Donofrio Affirms FightTheSmears.com’s Obama Citizenship Admission
■Fallible FactCheck.org: TheBirthers, Donofrio Cause Change on Obama Citizenship
■Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
■Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
■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)
Photo courtesy GiveUsLiberty1776
Popularity: 22% [?]
ShareThis
.
514 Comments »
qwertyman says:
October 15, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Your own post says what the definition of NBC is-by your own words : parents and citizens. The Wong case re affirmed it. You can not spin it out any other way.
I hate to say it, but I think you actually lack basic reading comprehension skills. Earlier I posted a series of quotes from that case and other cases that explicitly state that natural born citizenship does not depend on the state of one’s parents. A person could be born to two immigrants on US soil and be natural born. This is what Wong says along with successor cases. This is the accepted definition.
You responded by saying that my direct quotes from Wong were disinformation and the #1 legal dictionary in America was leftist-biased. If you think that Wong “reaffirmed” your proposed definition of natural born citizen, then you simply did not read the case.
da verg says:
October 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm
black lion
you are full of crap
Your own post says what the definition of NBC is-by your own words : parents and citizens. The Wong case re affirmed it. You can not spin it out any other way.
Black Lion says:
October 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm
da verg says:
October 15, 2009 at 11:08 am
black lion, your own words point to definition of NBC from above
” 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
…never doubted that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens….note plural parents and citizens. Not any clearer than TWO parents are required, not one, like OBAMA had.
Case closed, by your own post.
____________________________________________________________
Please reread the post. I said that they did not say that was the only definition of what a NBC was. Plus the Wong Kim case was decided after Minor and that definition regarding citizenship is what the courts use.
Your problem is that you did not read the Minor ruling completely. Especially where they use the words DOUBTS. Go back and reread the post. Especially where it says “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” The ruling did not EXCLUDE “as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents”. So as I said before the Minor ruling does not EXPLICTLY state that ONLY the children of citizens can be natural born citizens. It says that there is no question about those but there is a question about others. And that was resolved in the Wong ruling later on.
You are correct, case is closed by my post. A natural born citizen is someone that is born in the jurisdiction of a country.
Bob says:
October 15, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Case closed, by your own post.
Did you miss the part where Black Lion wrote: “Or you neglect to address the fact that Minor was decided before the Wong Kim Ark case. And becasue Wong clarified issues that Minor did not, that is why Wong is considered to be the case regarding citizenship…”
Ignoring Wong Kim Ark won’t make it go away.
Roderick says:
October 15, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Replying to Black Lion at 10:38 pm:
Slavery is being used as a tool by the ‘bama administration in his speeches about the Bible. In other words he is bringing up scriptures in the Bible to make people stop and think “Whoa what have I been following all this time?” Slavery is said and done and is not even an arguing point for running for a political office. Now let’s look at the ten commandments which I choose to follow. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc. Now for some poitician to tell me not to follow the Bible I can read the Bible at my leisure and put into context what I feel ascribes to me in this day and age. Long after ‘bama is voted out of office we will still have freedom of religion because all of the members of the Senate follow the Christian Bible and are daring the imposter to take one step in the wrong direction so that they can get enough evidence on him to boot said person.
da verg says:
October 15, 2009 at 11:08 am
black lion, your own words point to definition of NBC from above
” 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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
…never doubted that children born in a country of parents who were its citizens….note plural parents and citizens. Not any clearer than TWO parents are required, not one, like OBAMA had.
Case closed, by your own post.
da verg says:
October 15, 2009 at 11:04 am
Obama is President because he was elected by a majority of Americans that voted
>>>>the majority of AMericans were defrauded, and the framers of the Constitution wrote extensively about how to protect the republic from a tyrant
Quit ignoring the facts. OBAMA is not a NBC he can’t even produce a simple birth certificate. He is NOT a true American either, he was born in KENYA, the world knows it and he is making a mockery of our nation.
Time for the gallows for this fraud.
Black Lion says:
October 15, 2009 at 8:07 am
Mick says:
October 15, 2009 at 12:34 am
Here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen again Obama Propogandists, read it slowly.
____________________________________________________________________
Of course as with most birthers Mick you neglect to address the entire ruling. Which is not surprising. Or you neglect to address the fact that Minor was decided before the Wong Kim Ark case. And becasue Wong clarified issues that Minor did not, that is why Wong is considered to be the case regarding citizenship…
Let us look at Minor again…It states the following…
“To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Notice Minor clarifies that there can only be two types of citizens…That is important because it throws out Leo’s and Mario’s crazy US Citizen but not a natural born citizen or 14th amendment citizen theories…
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Two important points from the Minor case is that the Court does admit that there are doubts on how native or natural born citizens are defined but they for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve those doubts. Secondly the Court is making a distinction between natural born citizens and aliens and not plain citizens and natural born citizens.
So in summary the Minor case tells the following…a) us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized, b) there was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens, c) Minor does not resolve this question, d) it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized), e) United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.
Mick, you may want to reread the entire ruling before just repeating birther talking points…
_________________________________________________________________
First of all, I am not a “birther”, I am a Dualer. It does not matter where he was born. The fact that Obama already admits, that he was a dual Citizen with Great Britain at birth is enough to disqualify him aa a Natural Born Citizen. You’re right, The Minor case was before WKA, and WKA is a case that Liberals have abused for 100 years to undermine our security, identity and culture. WKA was a narrowly decided case about the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens (the parents were excluded by the Chinese Exclusionary Acts to Naturalize despite being longtime residents and business owners). Justice Gray compared Wong to the children of Slaves, given citizenship despite the murky citizenship (and jurisdictional) issues of their parents. Wong was declared a “citizen” not a NBC, read the case. The framing of the issue with “the case said that there was only 2 kinds of citizenship” is pure obfuscation. Minor was very clear, IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED that the children of citizen parentsssss born in the US were Natural Born Citizens. Then it goes on to say that there were doubts as to whether children of aliens WERE EVEN CITIZENS. The anchor baby issue has never been decided by the SCOTUS, if it were, they would not be citizens.
da verg says:
October 15, 2009 at 1:11 pm
black lion
you are full of crap
Your own post says what the definition of NBC is-by your own words : parents and citizens. The Wong case re affirmed it. You can not spin it out any other way.
__________________________________________________________________
And you have an obvious reading comprehension problem. The court in Minor stated that the 2 parents must be citizens is just ONE WAY that you could be considered a NBC. The court recognized that being born in America regardless of the citizneship status of one’s parents was another. I have stated that on numerous occasions. Let me break it down for you. The definition of NBC is inclusive. Whether or not your parents were citizens does not matter as long as you were born in the US.
No matter how many times you ignore that part of the ruling along with the Wong ruling it is not going to make it go away. So continue to bury your head in the sand and ignore the rest of the evidence. Fortunately the ones that count, the SCOTUS, recognize the value of Wong and realize its importance.
Mick:
You are quite wrong.
The first definition is this:
“…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
The second definition is this:
“…children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
They are not mutually exclusive. The first is just a subset of the second.
da verg:
When are you going to show us where Obama said in his book that he was ever a British subject?
Or is your silence an admission that you just made that up?
Black Lion says:
October 15, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I read some of your posts and most of your argument is ridiculous…….let’s say Ahmadinejad and his wife visit New York, she has her child there, and he can become President??
Are you comfortable that a foreigner who, after birth, proceeded to live in his country for 35 years, moved to the states and became pres?? Talk about divided loyalties and allegiances?? Where would his be?? Your suggestion is ludicrous.
Two U.S. citizens and born on American soil…no other way.
And it’s for this country’s security.
Here is the definition from SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett (1874)
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Born in US of Citizen Parents— NEVER DOUBTED.
Born in US of Citizen Parents— NEVER DOUBTED.
True.
Wong Kim Ark, which is good law, states the definition of natural born citizen is not limited to that category.
Mick says:
October 15, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Here is the definition from SCOTUS in Minor v. Happersett (1874)
“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. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
Born in US of Citizen Parents— NEVER DOUBTED.
_________________________________________________________________
Correct. That was what the SCOTUS said in 1874. But if you notice they also say “some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” You see the SCOTUS acknowledges that you can be a natural born citizen also if you are born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of parent. That is the line that the birthers always neglect to include when they go and try to cite the Minor ruling as a definition of NBC. However whatever doubts were clarified in 1898 with the Wong Kim Ark ruling. So to recap, a NBC can be someone born in the US who’s parents may or may not be citizens. That is why President Obama is eligible….
Let us recap the Wong Kim Ark case decision…
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
In summary, the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
• is born in the United States
• of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
Bob says:
October 16, 2009 at 2:13 am
Born in US of Citizen Parents— NEVER DOUBTED.
___________________________________________________________
True.
Wong Kim Ark, which is good law, states the definition of natural born citizen is not limited to that category.
_______________________________________________________________
Realy Bob? here is what Wong Kim Ark says”:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
It makes the distinction of a child born of aliens(domiciled here) and Citizens. The latter being Natural Born, although their rights are the same, only the NBC is eligible for POTUS.
If you Obama Propagandists want to use WKA think again:
US v. WONG KIM ARK
The leading citizenship case issued by the US Supreme Court – US v. Wong Kim Ark – stated the following:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
Only the child of the citizens is Natural Born. The child of a DOMICILED alien is a citizen (not anchor babies).”They both have the same rights, except that the NBC is eligible for POTUS.
SandiegoSam says:
October 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Mick:
There’s only one definition, and it was given.
You are quite wrong.
The first definition is this:
“…all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
The second definition is this:
“…children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”
They are not mutually exclusive. The first is just a subset of the second.
____________________________________________________________________
Wrong again. They were saying that there were doubts as to whether children of aliens were even citizens, not Natural Born Citizens. Read what it says, not what you want it to say.
SandiegoSam says:
October 15, 2009 at 7:31 pm
da verg:
When are you going to show us where Obama said in his book that he was ever a British subject?
Or is your silence an admission that you just made that up?
_________________________________________________________________-
In his book he admits it by the admission of his father’s Kenyan Citizenship (de facto). He also admits it in fight the Smears, look down below the big green COLB, under Factcheck. He admits that his citizenship was Governed by Great Britain.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
What an obscene abuse of ellipses. Wong Kim Ark also says “O…b…a…m…a….is….S…a…t…a…n” if you want to play that game.
Look at the full quote:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Donofrio (from who you stole this from) is exceedingly deceptive in his selective editing. The “distinction” that Donofrio attempts to create exists only if snip the guts of the quote out.
Mick says:
October 16, 2009 at 12:11 pm
*They were saying that there were doubts as to whether children of aliens were even citizens, not Natural Born Citizens. Read what it says, not what you want it to say.*
You found, or someone else found and you are parroting, a phrase in the introduction to the decision in Wong that supports your point of view. You then fail to read or understand that the rest of the decision puts to rest any doubts. The majority opinion removes any doubts that Wong was a citizen from birth. It also uses interchangeably the terms ‘citizen from birth’, ‘native’ and ‘natural born citizen’. The case determined that a person who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ status. Read what it says, not what you want it to say.
Bob says:
October 16, 2009 at 3:46 pm
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here… if he hath issue here… his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
What an obscene abuse of ellipses. Wong Kim Ark also says “O…b…a…m…a….is….S…a…t…a…n” if you want to play that game.
Look at the full quote:
Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”
Donofrio (from who you stole this from) is exceedingly deceptive in his selective editing. The “distinction” that Donofrio attempts to create exists only if snip the guts of the quote out.
___________________________________________________________________
Obama Sr, was never domiciled in the US, he was here on a student visa. Try again. That quote makes a distinctyion of Born of a Citizen (Natural Born) and born of a domiciled alien (citizen). Try Again?
siseduermapierda says:
October 17, 2009 at 9:40 am
Mick says:
October 16, 2009 at 12:11 pm
*They were saying that there were doubts as to whether children of aliens were even citizens, not Natural Born Citizens. Read what it says, not what you want it to say.*
You found, or someone else found and you are parroting, a phrase in the introduction to the decision in Wong that supports your point of view. You then fail to read or understand that the rest of the decision puts to rest any doubts. The majority opinion removes any doubts that Wong was a citizen from birth. It also uses interchangeably the terms ‘citizen from birth’, ‘native’ and ‘natural born citizen’. The case determined that a person who is a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ status. Read what it says, not what you want it to say.
____________________________________________________________
I have read it many times and understand perfectly that you are a Bridgetender Propagandist. It makes a distinction between the child of a domiciled Alien (citizen), and a child of a US Citizen (Natural Born Citizen).
Mick, did you forget this line from Wong (quoting U.S. v. Rhodes): “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
Mick, the fact is that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark lined up dozens of quotes saying this exact thing, and then does nothing to say, “Yes, they are citizens, but they’re not Natural Born Citizens.”
Obama Sr, was never domiciled in the US, he was here on a student visa.
Being in the United States on a student visa automatically precludes being domiciled? Try again.
That quote makes a distinctyion of Born of a Citizen (Natural Born) and born of a domiciled alien (citizen).
Only if you edit the quote like Donofrio did. The fuller context of the case makes it clear that being born in the United States confers citizenship. “[A]ll persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens” makes it pretty clear that the distinction that Donofrio is trying to create doesn’t exist; you find no caselaw that says Wong Kim Ark says what Donofrio thinks it says.
And Donofrio completely overlooks how the court arrived at its conclusion: Applying English common law. Not de Vattel.
Mick says:
October 17, 2009 at 10:31 am
*I have read it many times. It makes a distinction between the child of a domiciled Alien (citizen), and a child of a US Citizen (Natural Born Citizen).*
It does not. The majority opinion in Wong clearly states, more than once, more than twice, that a person born under the jurisidiction of the US, is a citizen from birth, a natural born citizen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a US citizen and a legal resident…no matter how you or Leo tries to parse the decision, you’re not fooling anyone, other than maybe the people who want to believe he’s not. You are merely parsing from the decision what you want to believe. As an aside, if you read the Oct 5 Barnett v Obama transcript, you will find Judge Carter is also of the mind that a citizen from birth is a natural born citizen.
siseduermapierda says:
October 17, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Mick says:
October 17, 2009 at 10:31 am
*I have read it many times. It makes a distinction between the child of a domiciled Alien (citizen), and a child of a US Citizen (Natural Born Citizen).*
It does not. The majority opinion in Wong clearly states, more than once, more than twice, that a person born under the jurisidiction of the US, is a citizen from birth, a natural born citizen. Barack Obama, born in Hawaii to a US citizen and a legal resident…no matter how you or Leo tries to parse the decision, you’re not fooling anyone, other than maybe the people who want to believe he’s not. You are merely parsing from the decision what you want to believe. As an aside, if you read the Oct 5 Barnett v Obama transcript, you will find Judge Carter is also of the mind that a citizen from birth is a natural born citizen.
_________________________________________________________
First of all Carter has no jurisdiction for QW. It can only be brought in DC District Court. Second, in your typical obfuscation, you use the lawyer tactic of framing the question. A citizen at birth is not always a Natural Born Citizen. I hope that WKA is used as defence by Obama, because reliance on it is a losing propositition. It was a narrowly defined case about the children of DOMICILED UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens, not children of aliens here onn a student visa. Besides, it found Wong a Citizen, not a NBC, no matter what you say.
Bob says:
October 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Obama Sr, was never domiciled in the US, he was here on a student visa.
Being in the United States on a student visa automatically precludes being domiciled? Try again.
That quote makes a distinctyion of Born of a Citizen (Natural Born) and born of a domiciled alien (citizen).
Only if you edit the quote like Donofrio did. The fuller context of the case makes it clear that being born in the United States confers citizenship. “[A]ll persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens” makes it pretty clear that the distinction that Donofrio is trying to create doesn’t exist; you find no caselaw that says Wong Kim Ark says what Donofrio thinks it says.
And Donofrio completely overlooks how the court arrived at its conclusion: Applying English common law. Not de Vattel.
______________________________________________________________
Pure Obfuscation again by the hyenas of the Obama Bridgetender Propagandists. The fuller context of the case says that children of DOMICILED UNNATURALIZEABLE (parents were Chinese nationals, domiciled but unnaturalizeable due to Chinese Exclusionary Acts- but of course you fail to mention that) aliens born in the US are “Citizens” (it never said Wong was a NBC). There is no such thing as English Common Law in the US. Our Law is the Constitution. The Framers fought to get away from the Subjugation of individual freedom in British Common Law, silly.
dunstvangeet says:
October 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Mick, did you forget this line from Wong (quoting U.S. v. Rhodes): “All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”
Mick, the fact is that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark lined up dozens of quotes saying this exact thing, and then does nothing to say, “Yes, they are citizens, but they’re not Natural Born Citizens.”
________________________________________________________
Wrong again Obfuscator. Rhodes is a Circuit Court Case, and cannot supplant a SCOTUS decision. It also doesn’t say that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (2 can play that game). You’re not very good at this are you?
Rhodes is a Circuit Court Case, and cannot supplant a SCOTUS decision.
It doesn’t supplant; it was cited with approval by SCOTUS; clearly SCOTUS agreed with Rhodes.
It also doesn’t say that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (2 can play that game).
By the logic and analysis used by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, Wong (and Obama) are natural born citizens.
The fuller context of the case says that children of DOMICILED UNNATURALIZEABLE (parents were Chinese nationals, domiciled but unnaturalizeable due to Chinese Exclusionary Acts- but of course you fail to mention that) aliens born in the US are “Citizens”.
Try reading Plyler v. Doe.
There is no such thing as English Common Law in the US. Our Law is the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark plainly said definitions of words used in the U.S. Constitution may be defined by English common law, and then did exactly that.
A citizen at birth is not always a Natural Born Citizen.
Wong Kim Ark explicitly says there are two categories of citizens: naturalized and natural born. So you claim in the very decision that it announced these two classes of citizens, it also created a third: citizen-at-birth-but-not-natural-born. And there are no other cases that acknowledge this third “secret” class of citizenship.
Besides, it found Wong a Citizen, not a NBC, no matter what you say.
SCOTUS did hold Wong was a citizen, but it was silent as to natural born citizenship. However, since the case explained there only two kinds of citizenship, and Wong wasn’t naturalized, he must be the other.
You’re not very good at this are you?
Oh, the irony.
Bob says:
October 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Rhodes is a Circuit Court Case, and cannot supplant a SCOTUS decision.
It doesn’t supplant; it was cited with approval by SCOTUS; clearly SCOTUS agreed with Rhodes.
It also doesn’t say that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen (2 can play that game).
By the logic and analysis used by SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark, Wong (and Obama) are natural born citizens.
The fuller context of the case says that children of DOMICILED UNNATURALIZEABLE (parents were Chinese nationals, domiciled but unnaturalizeable due to Chinese Exclusionary Acts- but of course you fail to mention that) aliens born in the US are “Citizens”.
Try reading Plyler v. Doe.
There is no such thing as English Common Law in the US. Our Law is the Constitution.
Wong Kim Ark plainly said definitions of words used in the U.S. Constitution may be defined by English common law, and then did exactly that.
A citizen at birth is not always a Natural Born Citizen.
Wong Kim Ark explicitly says there are two categories of citizens: naturalized and natural born. So you claim in the very decision that it announced these two classes of citizens, it also created a third: citizen-at-birth-but-not-natural-born. And there are no other cases that acknowledge this third “secret” class of citizenship.
Besides, it found Wong a Citizen, not a NBC, no matter what you say.
SCOTUS did hold Wong was a citizen, but it was silent as to natural born citizenship. However, since the case explained there only two kinds of citizenship, and Wong wasn’t naturalized, he must be the other.
You’re not very good at this are you?
Oh, the irony.
_______________________________________________________________
You are wrong, and desperate on every point. But there is no point in arguing with the hypnotized, since they never lie. You love your master Obama the Usurper more than the truth. Everyone here that is not a paid bridgeteender propagandist can see that you are wrong.
Being in the United States on a student visa automatically precludes being domiciled? Try again. Bob
You disappoint me, Bob. Domicile has been such a crucial part of the law for centuries, I thought you were more familiar with it. For example:
1 “Residence in fact, coupled with the purpose to make the place of residence one’s home, are the essential elements of domicile.. the actual fact of the place of residence and the person’s real attitude and intention with respect to it as disclosed by his course of conduct are the controlling factors in ascertaining his domicile.” U.S. Supreme Court, State of Texas v State of Florida 306 US 398 424 (1939)
2 “To acquire a domicil of choice, the law requires the physical presence of a person at the place of the domicil claimed, coupled with the intention of making it his present home.” US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, Janzen v Goos 302 F.2d 421, 425 (1962)
3 “The Hawaii Supreme Court has stated that ‘to acquire a new domicile there must be residence or bodily presence in the new location and an intent to remain. Act and intent must concur and there must be an intention to abandon the old domicile’.” Blackburn v. Blackburn , 41 Haw. 37, 40. (1955)
4 “…the domicile of origin or a domicile once established is presumed to continue and one alleging that a change has taken place has the burden of proof.” Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, Puckett v Puckett 94 Haw. 471, (2000)
5 “In McNutt 298 U.S. at 189 in determining whether the amount in controversy satisfied the [domicile] requirement, the Court directly and specifically set forth preponderance of the evidence as the appropriate standard of proof … [In] Perez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348, 351 (1st Cir. 2004)…’the court concluded once a party’s domicile is challenged, the party invoking diversity jurisdiction must prove domicile by a preponderance of the evidence, even if a party is alleging a new domicile’.” United States Court Of Appeals Third Circuit, US McCann v Newman Trust 458 F.3d 281 (2006)
Obama Sr. gave several press interviews where he stated for the record that he was an African nationalist whose personal destiny was to participate in the development of his beloved and soon-to-be-independent Kenya. Perhaps most decisive was the fact that Obama Sr. had a home, a legal wife under British Kenyan law, and two children back in Kenya waiting for his return, which he did as soon as he completed his studies. All of this establishes that Obama Sr. had no intention of making either Hawaii or the US his home, and therefore Obama Sr. was never domiciled here. Bob himself has to try to prove otherwise by the preponderance of the evidence. Which is…?
You are wrong, and desperate on every point.
What a convincing argument; so based in logic and supported by facts.
But there is no point in arguing with the hypnotized
Again with the irony!
Obama Sr. gave several press interviews where he stated for the record that he was an African nationalist whose personal destiny was to participate in the development of his beloved and soon-to-be-independent Kenya.
It would be nice if you actually provided a citation to the interviews. And people’s intentions change: little things, like getting an American pregnant and then marrying her, might have changed his plans.
Regardless, the whole domicile argument is a red herring; it’s widely concerned to be dicta, and later shown to be unimportant in Plyler v. Doe.
Bob says:
October 18, 2009 at 10:58 pm
You are wrong, and desperate on every point.
What a convincing argument; so based in logic and supported by facts.
__________________________________________________
I already gave the facts. Minor and WKA support the view that children of Aliens are not Natural Born. There is nothing left to argue. I HOPE that when it comes down to it, Obama relies on those cases. No sense arguing with the unyielding hypnotized propagandists. Everyone here that has a brain already knows your wrongheaded view.
Minor and WKA support the view that children of Aliens are not Natural Born.
Your “arguments” have huge gaps of logic, rely upon dishonest editing, are not supported by subsequent case law, and are contradicted by actual constitutional scholars.
But other that….
No sense arguing with the unyielding hypnotized propagandists.
The irony; it is too much….
Phil: Seriously, is this trial under Judge Carter seriously
moving forward in January. I don’t see anything definitive about
it anywhere?
Mary Seales,
As far as I know, the dates have been confirmed for a trial, assuming that the pretrial Conference doesn’t change the case’s course or that Judge Carter doesn’t rule in the affirmative on the Defense’s motion to dismiss.
-Phil
Mary, honestly, that really means nothing.
I’m a witness in a criminal case. The trial there has been postponed at least 2 times, and I’ll see this week if it’s been postponed another time.
We’ll see…
My guess is that Carter will dismiss the case on issues of standing, and political question doctorine. The proper place for this is the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial.
Judge Carter grants motion to dismiss, making this story mute!
link to full order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD
When will all this Obama citizenship nonesense stop?
snopes.com: Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.? •••
Is Barack Obama a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?
…five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which…
…mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence,…
…Philip Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that Obama was actually born in…
Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:30:37 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
snopes.com: Barack Obama Birth Certificate •••
Is a Certification of Live Birth document provided by the Obama campaign a forgery?
…the certificate was actually an altered version of one issued to Barack Obama’s half-sister, Maya.) Aside from the inherent absurdity of such claims…
…as the basis for a suit in U.S. District Court challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency on the grounds that Obama was actually born in…
…Hawaiian officials reported that they had personally verified that Barack Obama’s original birth certificate was in the Hawaii State Department’s files:…
Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:23:09 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
snopes.com: Obama’s Occidental College Records / Meet the Soetoros •••
Recently released records document that Barack Obama received college financial aid in the U.S. as a ‘foreign student from Indonesia’?
…Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, Obama Eligibility Questioned, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow…
…concerning Obamas legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship…
…as the 1979-80 freshman ‘Lookbook’ published at the beginning of President Obama’s first year at Occidental, list him as Barack Obama. All of the…
Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:39:24 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/occidental.