Barnett v. Obama: Case Dismissed; “A Teachable Moment”
Today, US District Judge David Carter dismissd the eligibility case Barnett v. Obama, ultimately taking into conclusive account the Defense’s motion to dismiss. Judge Carter issued a 30-page opinion, below. “Opposition” site NativeBornCitizen covers a number of media links about this case.
As Mr. Obama has quipped in the past, I think that this opinion provides for a very poignant “teachable moment” regarding the eligibility movement. As a concerned citizen who has officially been opining about the eligibility movement since October 24, 2008, I am going to address some issues brought up in the opinion that are very likely to show that I am an Equal Opportunity Offender ™; when you’re as interested as I am in getting to the truth, you’re bound to upset individuals on all sides of an issue.
Let’s begin on page 23:
…Furthermore, the Twenty-Fifth Amendment sets forth the line of succession “in case ofthe removal of the president from office” or in case of his or her death, resignation, or inability to serve. The Amendment specifies a role for Congress in this process, but no role for the judiciary. The combination of Article I and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment leads the Court to conclude that there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue of the removal of a sitting president to a coordinate political department–the Legislative branch.
Judge David Carter (via OustTheUsurper)
In Nixon, the Court also discussed prudential considerations that counseled against judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings. 506 U.S. at 252 n.4. While Nixon involved the impeachment of a judge, the Court commented on the dangers of judicial review of impeachment of the President:
This lack of finality would manifest itself most dramatically if the President were impeached. The legitimacy of any successor, and hence its effectiveness, would be impaired severely, not merely while the judicial process was running its course, but during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated.
506 U.S. at 236. The potential upheaval to this country that would result from a branch other than Congress ruling on the removal of the President weighs heavily in this case as well. The founders of the Constitution created impeachment to allow an orderly process of transition and succession during which the country can continue to function. Plaintiffs’ request, asking this Court to sweep away the votes of over sixty-nine million Americans with the stroke of a pen and order a new election during which the country would be in a state of turmoil, ignores the Constitution’s processes and separation of powers that were developed by the founders.
Guess what? In this section (and I have attempted to preserve as much of Judge Carter’s context as this non-attorney concerned citizen can muster to make a point), Judge Carter is precisely right about not having the Judiciary actually remove a sitting President, and here’s why.
First of all, anyone would be absolutely hard-pressed to find any constitutional provision whereby the Judiciary is tasked with the power to actually remove a sitting President. After all, do you really want completely unelected individuals being able to almost arbitrarily (depending on the petition before them) make such absolutist decisions with respect to an elected individual? I can absolutely guarantee you that I wouldn’t want to live under such an oligarchy.
Secondly, Judge Carter makes an excellent observation: If the Judiciary were to remove a sitting President for whatever reason, how is that supposed to factor into an orderly succession of government? Remember: all aspects of impeachment are solely under the auspices of the Legislative branch, not the Judicial; the latter are elected, the former are selected. Therefore, what does it say about a government whereby the Legislative confirms the Electoral Votes for a presidential candidate, then the Judiciary removes such an individual, and then the Legislative goes about the process of installing a new President? Surely you can see the illogic — much less the unconstitutionality — of this thought process.
Have I sufficiently offended some of you yet? I have? Good! Because I’ve only gotten started. There’s still time for the rest of you currently unoffended or overjoyed individuals to become offended. Let’s continue.
From page 24:
At oral argument, Plaintiffs Drake and Robinson encouraged the Court to find that the redressability prong has been satisfied on the basis that President Obama’s removal from office would not require impeachment, which they agree is reserved by the Constitution for Congress. Because President Obama never met the constitutional requirements to run for President, they argue, he was never a valid candidate and could not be validly elected. Because he does not validly hold the office of President, he would not be subject to the Constitution’s requirements regarding the removal of a president from office through impeachment. Finally, they reasoned that, because whatever alternative process would be required to remove the President is not set forth in the Constitution, it is not clearly reserved for another branch and is therefore within the province of this Court.
There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the naturalborn citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.
Guess what (number 2)? Mr. Obama is the President of the United States. I don’t care what you think about the guy, or if you think he has usurped the office (for all anyone knows, that is always a possibility), or whatever. Nevertheless, as far as our Constitution is concerned, he still remains the President. Therefore, to try to impeach the President for no matter what the reason can and never will be under the auspices of the Judiciary.
However — however! — all is absolutely not lost in terms of determining the legitimacy of Mr. Obama to be President. I’ll explain.
You see, as I’ve already profusely commented on my site, I’ve never thought that this issue has been about impeachment; I have always thought this is has been about eligibility; our fervent opposition to questioning this President’s bona fides really need to understand this fine point. As has been quite succinctly laid out by Judge Carter, while it is true that the Judiciary could actually step in and try to impeach the President (I can only imagine what kind of smack-down would politically occur in that respect), the Judiciary should not do this, because that’s not its power, per the Constitution (and we’re about following the Constitution, right? Yes, you are).
OK, then, instead, what should happen, going forward? A few things:
- If an eligibility attorney were to read this post, I would encourage them to consider filing a petition with the Court addressing the ineligibility of the President and — in no uncertain terms — do not mention a thing about impeachment. In fact, the very word “impeachment” should only ever appear in full context that such a petition is not about removing the President. Instead, it is about determining the eligibility of the President. Need evidence? Challenge the authenticity of the Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — that might be one way to get the actual document into Court — and then challenge its ability to determine eligibility;
- As attorney Leo Donofrio points out in his own take concerning this story, push for a quo warranto action. Immediately after what I last quoted from Judge Carter, there was full and relatively complete discussion concerning this provision as an aspect of office entitlement from within the District of Columbia. It’s interesting to me that this hasn’t really been pushed much at all; it’s perfectly legal and appears to be a potentially useful tool to determine eligibility;
- Push for the federal Legislative branch to seriously consider presidential eligibility, specifically via HR 1503;
- Last but not least, 2012 presents the next time that these types of eligibility cases would be taken “seriously” by the Judiciary; Judge Carter as much said so. And if the opposition thinks that these questions are going to go away by then, well… let’s just let them keep on thinking that way!
In conclusion, I am going to broach another subject about which I’ve previously cooled heated commentary, because it has to do with a private individual. That is the subject of Mr. Siddarth Velamoor having become one of the newest law clerks for Judge Carter (h/t WND).
I had previously said in a comment that Judge Carter was perfectly within his right to bring on board anyone he wished to clerk with him. However, after further thought on the Judge’s move, I am officially considering this a very questionable and potentially unethical move on his part.
Why? As the link to WorldNetDaily details, while Mr. Velamoor may possess a perfectly capable and able legal mind, he hails from the same law firm that has been retained in the past to defend Mr. Obama regarding eligibility lawsuits. Furthermore, it has also been reported that edits on Judge Carter’s Wikipedia page show that the maintainers are clearly biased against “birthers,” which I find in anecdotally very bad taste.
While it is true that the US Attorney’s office has been representing the Defendants in this case and not a specific law firm, I think it can be reasonably assumed that Judge Carter knows from whence Mr. Velamoor comes and should have realized the potential conflict of interest that this could have caused.
All of that being said, I would again urge that if you have something to say concerning the private citizen Mr. Siddarth Velamoor and you simply cannot keep it to yourself, please be civil about your misgivings, else I’ll have to quash any such uncivil discussion ASAP.
Besides — I’ve already said enough in this posting to get virtually everyone mad at me, so remember to keep it civil.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
Another one bites the dust …
Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, Slip Op., No. 49A02-0904-CV-353 (Ind. App. Nov. 12, 2009) (for publication):
“Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party‟s nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
Birthers = 0%
Status Quo = 100%
brygenon,
Are you stupid ? That may sound abrupt, but you speak as if you were slightly dense. What is you problem ? The numbers were drawn ten hours after the election results.
By Abracadabra you want to change something around here.
Good luck; you’re fighting heaven. Have fun.
There was a midnight hour and the midnight-toll in between ? Yes.
Let’s say the numbers were drawn the same NIGHT as the election.
Your intelligence seems exceptionally dense and I’d really like it if you stop the ad hominem attacks saying I’m the one making the mistakes, it’s vexing.
Why don’t you mind your own business ? As if I was the one who made the Marks of the Beast fall on Obama’s shoulders all the same day. You’re the one choosing this Antichrist as your god. Let go of him and cut him loose.
He’ll be in jail in hours maybe.
Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
Not the first time eligbility-deniers have called check-mate.
Turned out they don’t even know how the pieces move.
And then we check the record. I did *not* say nor imply you were deliberately lying when you first claimed that the Illinois lottery drew 666 on election day, 4 Nov 2008. I pointed out that you were wrong, perhaps even careless, but I did not imply intentional deceit.
No need to lecture me on when the Illinois lottery actually drew 666; I was the one who pointed that out. It was the next day, the day after election day, November 5′th.
The problem, Geir, is that even after you knew the truth, you kept on asserting what you knew to be false. Had you been honest at the time, and explained how the you confused the next day’s drawing with election day, that would have passed. Yes, it was withing 24 hours. Understandable mistake.
Geir, the problem is you kept on asserting the falsehood, after you knew it not to be true. The Illinois lottery did not draw 666 on election day, but Geir, you claimed they did even after you knew that they did not.
Geir, what you are saying now just digs you deeper. Yes, the Illinois lottery drew 666 within 24 hours after election day. That would have been a plausible explanation for your mistake. All you had to do was stop saying it was *on* election day when you learned that to be false.
If you were wrong, even careless, made a mistake, held position more strongly that you should have — all understandable; just say so. Alas, that’s not what you chose. You decided to assert something you knew not to be true. When called on it, you proved that you do not really even care whether what you say is true. No, Geir, last year’s election day was not November 5′th; it was November 4′th, and you know it.
Who Are You Kidding says:
Your tortuous reading was just to fool yourself, Mr. Kidding. Those who read English require can simply do so for themselves.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i“. http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
So read 28 USC Section 1739 and see that, contrary to your claim, it does indeed cover state records.
My sources on Article IV (of the U.S. Constitution) and 28 USC Section 1739 are Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739. I also cited the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule Rule 902. I generally do not include links to those, as they are unambiguous as citations and easy to look up.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Your reference pointed out a difference in how out-of-state judicial proceedings invoke the other state’s law, in a way non-judicial records do not. You clearly have no idea what that means, so you just add some gibberish about “state laws” not being “covered by Article IV and 28 USC 1739″, as if that were somehow at issue here.
Except that it does: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
Mr. Kidding, you attributed “instantly authenticates” to me in *quotation marks*. I don’t think I wrote the words you literally attributed to me. I’m not asking how you might justify rephrasing something I wrote into your own terms. I’m asking where you got the *quote*.
So are you retracting quoting “instantly authenticates” to me or not?
If that quote appears in my writing, as you claimed, please cite it; I honestly forgot. If you misremembered my words — that can happen — just retract. But don’t fabricate a quote then pretend that’s O.K., as if we don’t know English well enough to understand what quotation marks mean.
It does exactly what I said: debunks your claim that Obama’s COLB would not be admissible.
It is not admitted as hearsay, but as a Domestic public documents under seal.
So your citation finds the FRE is a statute. Great.
That’s something going on your head, not your court citation.
“I certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the Record on File. Hawaii State Department of Health. [signed:] Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. State Registrar”
So you’re going to try and argue that the use of the stamp, rather than hand-signing each one, somehow invalidates it as evidence? Hawaii *designed* it to conform to the requirements.
‘“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”‘
http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
Any wonder why birthers are zero for 50-or-so in court? Federal court rulings have already recognized, albeit in dicta, that Obama released his birth certificate.
“Fukino’s statement is obviously clear and straightforward.” brygenon
When Hawaii DoH and its Director Fukino are now, and have been for months, acting contrary to Hawaii law in the matter of Obama’s vital records, then no reasonable person is likely be persuaded by an Obama cringe theorist’s true belief that statements or actions emanating from Hawaii DoH are clear and straightforward. Hence the close analysis.
“Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 encompass…state records…did you try reading them?” brygenon
The courtesies of civilized discourse suggest that when sources have been provided to rebut a claim then sources of equal authority should be provided to counter the rebuttal or the claim fails. I have provided sources; brygenon has provided none. The reason is simple to divine: there are no sources which support brygenon’s claim that “Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 encompass…state records” and consequently brygenon’s claim must fail. To have repeated an unsubsantiated “argument” with nothing more than opinion and cringe theory is either deceitful or kookological. The only fair consequence, brygenon having forfeited all credibility, is that nobody is expected to trust anything brygenon says.
As for me reading Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739: SCOTUS has ruled that state laws and public records are not covered by Article IV and 28 USC 1739. What I make of Article IV and 28 USC 1739 is irrelevant.
As for brygenon reading them: NO Hawaii COLB, and certainly not the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, has been authenticated in the manner 28 USC 1739 requires: i.e. by “a certificate of a judge…or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal…[or] clerk or prothonotary of the court…under his hand and the seal of his office“; and so, even assuming hypothetically that brygenon were right, on the foregoing basis, Obama’s COLB should not be given “Full Faith and Credit”.
“Did I say ‘instantly authenticates’?” brygenon
brygenon has claimed numerous times that Article IV and 28 USC 1739 instantly authenticate Obama’s COLB. For example:
March 25: “Obama’s birth certificate is stamped with an attestation by the record keeper and embossed with the great seal of the state….See 28 USC Section 1739. Records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit anywhere in the country as they do in the state of issue.” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.
March 30: “The form Obama showed…under 28 USC 1739 it enjoys the same faith and credit…” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.
June 3: “Obama’s COLB…It has the features Congress prescribed for state records (see 28 USC 1739) and thus enjoys full faith and credit (see U.S. Constitution, Art IV…)” Enjoys=present tense=now and at issue.
Readers may decide for themselves what brygenon intends by “records so proven enjoy the same faith and credit.”
“I know I wrote ’self-authenticating’…Federal Rules of Evidence…902(1)…” brygenon
brygenon’s first problem is FRE 902(1) cannot do what brygenon needs it to do: prove Obama eligible to the Presidency. Obama’s COLB as hearsay can only be admitted into evidence via one route: FRE Rule 803(9), the hearsay exception for vital records. To do that the COLB must be authenticated as a certified copy. FRE Rule 902(1) does not mention nor authenticate electronic records (which the COLB dataset most definitely is) or certified copies (which the COLB claims to be): if Rule 902(1) did such then Congress would not have framed Rule 902(4) to perform exactly this function. On the basis that “as the [FRE] were enacted by Congress, this Court must interpret them as it would any statutory mandate … as a statute, we begin with the text … if the language of the statute is reasonably definite, it must be regarded as conclusive” (US v. Houlihan, US District Court Mass., 1994), then applying Rule 902(1) to seek to authenticate Obama’s COLB concedes that it is not an electronic record nor a certified copy of a vital record, thereby making it unavailable for admission into evidence via Rule 803(9).
brygenon’s second problem is that Obama’s COLB has not been authenticated via Rule 902(4), which requires a non-routine comparison check between the COLB dataset in the DoH database and its printout, with a written attestation to that effect certified by a handwritten signature. Given neither of these are to be seen in the online images of Obama’s purported COLB, right now Obama has not proved his US citizenship nor his Presidential eligibility in a form admissible as evidence in any court.
Who Are You Kidding, @7:03 pm, Nice work, how many of these officials in Hawaii are going to face legal problems once the truth is fully known?
brygenon, you’re check-mated
You argued that Obama’s Marks of the Beast were not drawn on election day, but by doing that you’re actually drawing attention to this fact.
Many people who were unaware of the numbers of the Beast (Antichrist) learn about them.
If that is not enough I’m sending the link here to lengthy details of the meaning of the Marks of the Beast.
http://www.youtube.com/user/NamchuWangden
You claim to have PROVEN I have been knowingly lying about saying it happened on the same day.
I’ll moderate what I said, but still say it was the same day.
Why ?
Because it happened in the same 24 hours which is technically the same day.
Take a parking-ticket which says “You have one day to pay this ticket.”
Well the “day” is not from midnight that day till midnight the new day.
It’s from the time written on the ticket till same time next day. That’s a DAY.
You can argue yourself weary, we’ll lock up Obama meantime, try him for the nukes secrecy breaches on his false ID, which is the world’s worst ever crime in history and then execute him.
The time between his election announcement, to the number’s draw, was exactly ten hours and you’re wrong. Indeed, that’s fast as hell, and your backbiting is coming from way out of left field. An article I read from Illinois, about that day, said the journalist was preparing her Obama victory-article when all the state’s TVs flashed the numbers. She said she gulped and thought “sheeesh”, but soldiered on because she had to.
If you can’t look at a fact straight in the eye, then you’re not able to see what is happening.
Who Are You Kidding says:
And you can see it, direct from the Hawaiian government, at: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
Fukino’s statement is obviously clear and straightforward. The confusion and deception are going in in W. Kidding’s head. Watch the tortuous reinterpretation he has to manufacture to avoid avoid facing what the the Hawaiian News Release is so clearly telling him:
Conspiracy theories are like that. There’s no one they cannot fold into the conspiracy; no statement so clear they cannot imagine it to be an intricate deception.
Did I say “instantly authenticates”? I know I wrote “self-authenticating” — got it from the Federal Rules of Evidence.
“Rule 902 Self-authentication
Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required with respect to the following:
(1) Domestic public documents under seal.–A document bearing a seal purporting to be that of the United States, or of any State, district, Commonwealth, territory, or insular possession thereof, or the Panama Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or of a political subdivision, department, officer, or agency thereof, and a signature purporting to be an attestation or execution.”
Obviously they encompasses state records. Mr. (Ms.?) Kidding, did you try reading them? Did you think Hawaii puts a embossed seal and attestation of the record-keeper keeper, the very features 28 USC 1739 prescribes, just for decoration?
Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
Thus you cannot claim ignorance. At that time you were aware that the Illinois lottery did not draw 666 on election day. You continued to state it, even though you knew it to be false.
http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/History/Win2008.htm
we’ll put you in the film we’re preparing of this whole thing
like “ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN” with dustin hoffman and robert redford about the watergate and bernstein and woodward
we’ll say there was the Antichrist of the bible announced by marks of the beast on election day and then like Joseph Smith’s mormons that went their own personal way, we have the qwertyman Antichrist
a species of it’s own
like the “life of brian”
jesus’ neighbouring manger-kid
qwertyman has a quircky way of seeing things i.e.
“Obama’s election-day results being followed by marks of the beast drawn ten hours later… IS NOT CLOSE ENOUGH”
so the qwertyman followers are “STILL WAITING” !
it’s called the qwertycult
like the seventh day adventists they’re still waiting
…something like LOST Season twelve: they’re still waiting for someone to come save them
u’re a crackpot qwerty, if ten hours after election results – the marks of the beast – are not enough for you, well you just go wait…
we’ll call u the fifth hour adventists, OK ?
Is five hours after election results enough for a man to be the Antichrist, moron ?
The Marks of the Beast are awesome and incredible not just for the numbers per se, but their meaning.
I made a long explanation about that, money, Chicago mercantile exchange, the meaning of jesus chasing the merchants out of the temple etc… I developped that at length.
check out my U Tube pages.
I don’t post them much here, it’ll look like I’m propagating. Make the obots mad AGAIN.
“Want to know where Barack Obama was born? Look: [Fukino's July statement]” brygenon
Let’s look at Fukino’s July statement:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Fukino’s July statement in pertinent part:
“I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file…verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Many areas of confusion or deception emerge from this statement:
1 Fukino stated in July 2009 that she had “seen” the records which verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino did not state that she had examined these records, or had authenticated these records, or that these records were correct in verifying Obama’s birthplace, or that Fukino herself as DoH Director was verifying Obama’s birthplace.
2 The phrase “original vital records” has a technical meaning inside Hawaii DoH that differs from the meaning the public ascribe to the phrase “original vital records“: in Hawaii law vital records can be “superseded” by new vital records which then become the “new original vital records“. Given that Hawaii DoH via UIPA [local FOI] requests has confirmed that amendments (not apparent in his alleged online COLB) have been made to Obama’s birth record, Fukino could be using the term “original vital records” to refer to amended records containing information distinct from “superseded original vital records“.
3 In her statement of October 2008 Fukino said that she had “personally seen and verified that [DoH] has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” It is not possible to discern from this statement whether Fukino’s use of the phrase “original birth certificate” referred to Obama’s COLB or to another birth certificate. Moreover, Fukino does not explain in her July 2009 statement how or why an “original birth certificate on record” in October 2008 had become by July 2009 “original vital records maintained on file“: we are not told whether these usages refer to the same document(s), entirely separate document(s), newly considered document(s), newly discovered document(s), or newly registered document(s). What is known for certain is that Fukino consulted with Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett, immediately before issuing this statement, after UIPA requests were received at DoH seeking to discover if amendments had been made to Obama vital records.
4 The term “maintained on file” probably has a technical meaning inside Hawaii DoH that differs from the meaning the public ascribe to “maintained on file“: it may refer only to the electronic COLB dataset maintained in the COLB database on Hawaii servers and not any record from 1961, or it may refer to a document(s) file which has not been accepted by DoH as legally registering Obama. DoH has ignored questions on this matter which would resolve the ambiguity.
5 The term “natural-born citizen” used with a hyphenation is not always equivalent to the term “natural born citizen” used without a hyphenation. The US Constitution in Article 2(1)(5) does not hyphenate “natural born citizen” in the way Fukino hyphenates “natural-born citizen” in her July statement. Neither does the nebulous phrase “American citizen” necessarily connote “US Citizen.”
6 If Fukino’s October and July statements referred to records other than Obama’s COLB dataset, then Fukino did not take the opportunity to confirm online images of Obama’s COLB printout as legitimately issued by DoH to Obama, given Fukino is under no statutory obligation to withhold such comment.
7 Fukino’s statement is devoid of any supporting detail or explanation in a context where Obama has allowed his own website Fight The Smears, and the Annenberg Political Fact Check blog, to place online images of his purported COLB printout; where Obama has apparently claimed to have been born in a Honolulu hospital; and where Hawaii law permits DoH to devise and police its own privacy standards.
Under any circumstance Fukino’s statement by itself is informationally, morally, and legally worthless.
“I study fringe thinking. I’m a debunker.” brygenon
Who Are You Kidding studies cringe thinking. I’m a dethunker.
The difference between fringe thinking and cringe thinking? Fringe thinking is evidence without a conventional paradigm. Cringe thinking is a conventional paradigm without evidence.
The difference between a debunker and a dethunker? A debunker, to quote brygenon, says “I’m in this to debunk, not debate.” A dethunker says “I am in this to debate, not debunk.”
A good example of a debunker’s cringe thinking is brygenon’s deceitful or kookological belief that Article IV of the US Constitution, or its enabling statute 28 USC Section 1739, gives Full Faith and Credit not only to state judgements but also to state laws and public agencies and their records, and thus “instantly authenticates” Obama’s COLB printout and makes it admissible evidence in any court. Pure kookological nonsense, of course, which despite earlier invitations brygenon has been unable to substantiate with anything better than cringe thinking: a conventional paradigm (“Obama has proved his eligibility to the Presidency“) in no way inconvenienced by fact (Article IV and 28 USC Section 1739 do not encompass state laws nor public agencies and their records). Readers who doubt this can dethunk brygenon’s deceit or kookological belief for themselves by perusing:
“Theory Wars in the Conflict of Laws”, Louise Weinberg, Michigan Law Review, 2005. http://ssrn.com/abstract=754105
“The Full Faith And Credit Clause: A Reference Guide.” William Reynolds and William Richman, Praeger, 2005 http://tinyurl.com/FFCC-R-R
Further dethunking of brygenon’s cringe thinking may be enjoyed by his inability to spin away from the following facts:
1 Obama’s purported COLB has not been confirmed as genuine by Hawaii DoH.
2 Obama’s purported COLB has not been authenticated for admission into evidence by Hawaii DoH.
3 Obama’s purported COLB is not admissible into evidence due to hearsay within hearsay.
4 Obama’s COLB purports that Obama’s birth was “FILED” (and is “pending”) with DoH on 8 August 1961, not that it was “ACCEPTED” (and officially registered) by Hawaii DoH on August 8 1961. (“Certificates accepted subsequent to thirty days after the time prescribed for filing…“: 1955 Hawaii Revised Laws 55-19)
5 Hawaii DoH via a UIPA request confirm that Obama’s vital record(s) includes a delayed filing which occured more than 30 days after birth: this establishes that Obama’s mother did not accomplish a non-delayed registration within one year of his birth (simply by submitting a form and notarized statement of the facts of birth and reasons for delay); that no hospital or midwife registered Obama’s birth; and that either Obama was born before July 4, 1961 or Obama’s birthdate was faked to procure affidavit registration by someone other than his mother.
6 Hawaii DoH via a UIPA request confirm that Obama has amended the date of birth in his vital records but contrary to Hawaii law this amendment is conspicuous by its absence on Obama’s purported COLB.
7 Obama’s purported COLB has been faked to remove the amendment(s) and delayed registration and their summary statement(s) of supporting evidence OR the amendment(s) and delayed registration were never “ACCEPTED” and the purported COLB is tantmount to a fake which does not reflect the official circumstances of Obama’s birth. (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-16)
8 Hawaii DoH acting contrary to Hawaii law (UIPA and HRS 338-18) have lied to the public about what information can be released into the public domain.
9 Hawaii DoH acting contrary to Hawaii law have continually issued deceptive responses to UIPA and information requests.
10 Hawaii DoH acting contrary to Hawaii law are now also ignoring or improperly responding to UIPA requests.
11 Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett acting contrary to Hawaii law (OIP Opinion Letter 91-23) refuses to put into the public domain the advice he gave to Fukino.
12 Hawaii DoH Director Fukino acting contrary to Hawaii law (HRS 28-3) refuses to put into the public domain the documents upon which she based her July statement.
13 Obama’s primary and nomination papers filed in 49 states (except Hawaii) did not contain any reference to Obama being qualified to serve as president.
To reject these facts (arbitrarily stopped at 13 but there’s plenty more) is a key profession of true belief in the cringe theory that “Obama has provided proof of Presidential eligibility.” At the very least, proof of eligibility cannot derive from an amended and delayed registration whose amendments, delay, and summary statement(s) of supporting evidence, contrary to Hawaii law, are not included on Obama’s purported COLB. A cringe theorist must be a true-believing fanatic not to perceive or care that Cover-up + Too Big To Fail = Toxic Asset.
A fallback cringe theory is to deny that Obama can be required to provide such proof. Many cringe theorists fervently believe that Obama is eligible to the Presidency because his party fulfilled its duty of certifying Obama as eligible: but in 49 states his party never certified Obama as eligible. This is not legally consistent with the fact that in some states (e.g. Arizona ARS 16-242, Florida FS 99.021.2, Hawaii HRS 11-113 & 12-8, Indiana IC 3-8-2-7, and New Hampshire RSA 655:47) primary and–or election candidates are required to make attestations that they fulfill the constitutional qualifications for President. For our electoral system to be structurally reliant on the “integrity” of politicians and their parties is equivalent to our economy basing itself on the integrity of loan assessment contracted out to volume-paid help by ratings agencies hired by corporations pushing sub-prime mortgage securities: in both cases use of the word “fraud” was taboo and abuse ultimately guaranteed. When Obama was claiming that he was qualified, but his party had not certified Obama as eligible, in a functioning democracy this should have initiated formal challenges under local statutes within the period allowed, contesting eligibility and election code violations. Such challenges could not have been dismissed for lack of standing. Consequently, given Obama had sworn himself to be qualified on the basis of a delayed, amended, and unconfirmed registration, Obama would have been required to prove himself eligible because “the probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17) “Shall be determined [decided after investigation]…” means “This COLB is not to be presumed genuine so what’s your evidence?” in the context of, for example:
Georgia Code 21-2-5(a) “Every candidate for federal…office who is certified by the state executive committee of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
Georgia Code 21-2-5(b) “…any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate may challenge the qualifications of the candidate by filing a written complaint with the Secretary of State giving the reasons why the elector believes the candidate is not qualified…”
Georgia Code 21-2-5(c) “…The Secretary of State shall determine if the candidate is qualified…”
Georgia Code 21-2-5(e) “The elector filing the challenge…shall have the right to appeal the decision of the Secretary of State by filing a petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County … An aggrieved party may obtain a review of any final judgment …by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court…”
Other states have similar provisions, among them New Hampshire [ http://www.sos.nh.gov/rsa665.htm ] Hawaii [ http://tinyurl.com/HRS-11-113 http://tinyurl.com/HRS-NP-12-8 ] Kansas [ http://tinyurl.com/KS-25-308 ] Indiana [ http://tinyurl.com/IndC-3812 ] and Florida [ http://tinyurl.com/FL-Sts-102-168 ]
The fallback cringe theory is dethunked.
I don’t think Obama is the Antichrist. There, I said it. I’ll bet I’m far from the only person who feels that way.
Heck, I’ll put down at least 50-50 odds that Phil doesn’t think Obama is the antichrist.
If you think the results of a lottery is somehow proof that somebody is the Antichrist, then I don’t know what to do for you.
qwertyman, I have problems with your credibility
You seem to be systematically lying.
Its not open, It’s not frank, it’s insiduous and snide
What problem do you have with clocks and time ?
The election results are announced on one day and within a mere ten-hour span the numbers of the Lottery are drawn.
What do you require in your warped thinking ? That the time span be less than ten hours ? Moron ! See a shrink. You’re the kind who also require some confetti to fall from the sky.
Ten hours is ONE DAY to me.
I’m not functionning on your midnight deadline to DECLARE A DAY. When something happens within ten hours of another I declare that to be “the SAME DAY”. Also, the Marks of the Beast do not appear like in Spielberg films about aliens. Doubters will go to hell. Bible said that not me !
Really! You’re so wasted on this issue I’m appalled and ashamed for you. What agenda do you actually have ? Do you want to prove Obama is NOT THE ANTICHRIST ? And you’ll do anything, including forsake logic, honesty and morals for that sole goal ?
I’d like you to talk about the incredible numbers of the Marks of the Beast that were drawn in the one-day period of his election day. Do you have any moral backbone ?
Don’t you feel ashamed at back-biting like dogs ? Why don’t you come upfront and just say it: “I don’t think Obama is the Antichrist, but I’ll be damned if I can prove it.” ?
The day after election day is not election day. You keep saying it happened the day Obama was elected, but that’s not true. It happened the next day.
brygenon,
You have a short memory.
I ALREADY answered you.
The Marks of the Beast of Obama were drawn in the 24 hours period from Obama’s election. What is your answer to that ?
Obama is getting his birth certificate asked by several Congressmen today.
Are you attached to Obama ?
You seem to have mental problems but I won’t insist on this aspect. What exactly is wrong with you ?
Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
Mistake? No, no, Geir. The *first* time you claimed the Illinois lottery drew 666 on election day, *that* was probably a mistake. I followed with the actual numbers from election day, plus the actual day that you had confused, and a link for verification. http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/History/Win2008.htm
See the distinction, Geir? When you said something you thought to be true, but it turned out not to be — that was a mistake. Now you are saying what you know to be false. Mistake? No; now it’s something else.
Black Lion,Nice attempt at trying to change the subject. Black Lion please tell me why Obama can’t produce a long form birth certificate just like the BC the Nordyke twins received when they were born in Hawaii the day after Obama? If he was born in Hawaii he would have one, instead of a forged COLB that everyone knows is fake.
Even if he had a long form BC he still would not be eligible to be President since his father was British and Obama was born British and most likely still is a British subject.
We also have the State of Hawaii breaking their own laws and covering up Obama’s birth information. Information their laws say is available to the public is being hidden. Leo Donofrio asked to see the information Hawaii used to make the determination that Obama was a natural born citizen and Hawaii refused to release the info, even though Hawaii law says that info must be open to the public.
I’ll say one thing, you obots sure know how to cover for the Usurper, you guys are relentless, citing over and over about the infamous “COLB”. The document does not exist in the Hawaii data base, and there is no record of any transaction for anyone to have received it from Hawaii DOH.
Black Lion,Nice attempt at trying to change the subject. Black Lion please tell me why Obama can’t produce a long form birth certificate just like the BC the Nordyke twins received when they were born in Hawaii the day after Obama? If he was born in Hawaii he would have one, instead of a forged COLB that everyone knows is fake.
Even if he had a long form BC he still would not be eligible to be President since his father was British and Obama was born British and most likely still is a British subject.
When Orly says something like that, she’s citing an AOL online poll. This was not done by any polling agency. There was ultimate selection bias and no way of preventing people from voting multiple times. That number means absolutely nothing.
AOL online polls also predicted that John McCain would win 49 states last year.
Can anyone validate this story. The percentage of people who want to see proof of Obama’s eligibility is up to 81% across America.
bob strauss asks:
“Can an attorney Ad Lid um represent the Constitution in a Quo Warranto action to determine Obama’s eligibility?”
_________________
I believe you are referring to an officer known as a guardian ad litem, someone appointed by a court to act in a lawsuit on behalf of another person unable to represent himself, such as a child or an incapacitated adult.
The answer to your question is “no.”
Another Teachable Moment…
Fort Hood triggerman: Muslim psychiatrist
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115137
“…This was a deliberate act of execution”
Barack Hussein Obama:
“America’s relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida.”
“We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. …We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.”
“The United States has been enriched by Muslim-Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country… I know, because I am one of them.”
IT’S OVER
Don’t forget, the man is marked by 666 777 9
When he’s judged we’ll Reveal his evil nature in the Apocalypse.
Waterloobama
he fell just four hours after the vote in Jersey and Virginia
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/11/05/top-contender-for-ga-governor-wants-to-see-proof-of-obama-birth/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog
Top contender for Ga. governor wants to see proof of Obama birth
2:59 pm November 5, 2009, by Jay
Nathan Deal, the U.S. congressman from Gainesville and one of the leading GOP candidates for governor, wants to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate. (H/T Political Insider.)
In an online chat this morning, Tom Crawford of Capitol Impact, one of the most respected reporters at the state Capitol, asked Deal whether he believes Obama is legally eligible to serve as president. Deal replied:
“I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question.”
Back in July, Deal was asked a similar question by Mike Stark of the liberal Firedoglake blog. The exchange outside the U.S. Capitol was caught on a Youtube video. (Deal is at :45 and at 1:20 on the video.)
In the video, Deal is asked whether opponents need some basis in fact or reality to suggest Obama is not a legitimate president. Deal responds:
“You know, the best way to do that, I think, is to produce the birth certificate and let that be the end of it. I don`t think that`s been done yet.
In today’s online chat, Deal also enlisted in the 10th Amendment movement, promising that if elected governor he would “reassert the role of states rights” and “reclaim the rights that are reserved to our state” under the U.S. Constitution.
———
THE ANTICHRIST IS DOWN AND OUT
SPREAD IT WORLDWIDE
IT’S NOW
Thanks Phil for supporting a wide range of opinions here and not boxing it all into a. politics and b. legalistic lingo.
I think this is a question of personal liberty of the people of the world versus the world’s most powerful man: the POTUS.
Thus, thereby, it’s philosophical and religious.
Black Lion,
Christians are often the most shocked about speaking about Obama and the antichrist, because they often think they OWN the topic.
One Christian lady said to me, she thought Obama was the Antichrist but she objected to me being a Buddhist to talk about it, because “the Apocalypse would free Christians and all other faiths would go to hell”
I argued with her that she had made a mistake because the Bible announces that Jesus would return to free the whole world; not just Christians. Then I said something which was certainly too difficult for her to understand: that each religion would see what she calls Jesus as their own god. She hung up.
You’re not far less “far out” than her with your claiming that you know and no one else has the knowledge of right and wrong.
In the Bible, i told that lady, many false christs and false prophets would come claiming “I am the Way”
The Bible says “Don’t follow them”
I’m still waiting for her answer to THAT !!!!
I’ve never read WND, that newspaper, is it good ? The editor’s an arab isn’t he ?
I don’t know who the people are who think Obama is the Antichrist but I just know one thing because I’m a rationalist: the numbers of the Antichrist’s Marks of the Beast (666 777 9) were drawn on election day in Obama’s state of Illinois’ State Lottery.
It’s so close that I don’t think I can now afford to act as if HE WAS NOT THE ANTICHRIST !
What mistake do I risk committing ?
That he’s not the Antichrist.
Well, I take that risk. If I was wrong, I’ll just walk away. If he wants to sue, he can sue all 70 million of us. But he’s still a Muslim and that’s not very cool for the USA, a Christian nation. Muslims have been fighting with Christians since the Crusades and for about 1100 years now. I honestly can’t see a Muslim being POTUS and not being lead out in shackles.
Someone got the attributions wrong and either didn’t vet this guy or else didn’t check his ID before letting him in. America has always had a tumultuous history from the Civil War to the rough and tumble 50s.
Now I think America will usher in the Apocalypse, will host the Antichrist and afford the Revelation of that Beast.
Can an attorney Ad Lid um represent the Constitution in a Quo Warranto action to determine Obama’s eligibility?
bob strauss says:
“GeorgetownJD, Do you believe there is no need for Quo Warranto? Are you satisfied the President meets all of the qualifications to hold office?”
_________________
bob, I’m believe there is no need for quo warranto because I a satisfied that President Obama is a natural born citizen. You do not, so you are free to pursue whatever mechanism you believe is available to redress your doubt.
Are you, bob, entitled to bring a quo warranto suit? Quo warranto may only be initiated by one of three parties: The Attorney General (and we know already that Mr. Holder has declined to do so); any “interested person,” which is defined as the party who allegedly has the rightful claim to the office if the usurper were unseated (that would be John McCain, and he has likewise declined to pursue this avenue); or any party to whom the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has granted leave to file a quo warranto petition.
Since the birthers have struck out with permissible parties ## 1 and 2, your — bob’s — only option is #3. And I wished you all the luck in that pursuit.
Again, I am starting from your the argument you made that Chertoff and Obama by endorsing SR 511 have said that you have to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
What Chertoff said is if two citizen parents, then natural born citizen. So long as you recognize that this statement and SR 511 do not logically mean that you HAVE to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, then we can look at the copious amount of legal precedent that suggests you’re wrong, and move on from the grade school logical errors that you are making over and over again.
Yes.
Once again, this only works if this is a separate argument. This does not follow from the first statement.
The bit in parenthesis is something you’ve made up here. Chertoff and SR 511 never said only or exclusively or implied any limit. Now you are apparently trying to say that they did.
Absolutely not. A -> B does not mean that B -> A.
You may feel there’s a policy argument against it, but as a matter of pure logic, saying that A -> B means B -> A is incorrect.
qwertyman,
You can keep telling me I’m wrong – and miss the bigger picture – but it’s not going to change anything I’ve written.
I am operating under the notion that the definition for a NBC is that you must have two parent citizens. The argument I’m making can only be “wrong” if NBC actually has more than one definition and is applied to two different situations, or if there is a greater requirement for NBC. If there can be more than one definition for the term, then I am arguing that our laws of citizenship are irrational. If there is a greater requirement, then neither of the positions we are arguing is correct.
It is not a problem with my “formal logic” – it is a problem with you not understanding the argument in general. The logic is easy.
If I have two citizen parents, then I am a natural-born citizen.
I am a natural-born citizen, therefore I have two citizen parents.
Why? Because being born to two citizen parents is the definition of “natural-born citizen.”
If A, then B. (Because A defines B.)
B, therefore A.
If “B, therefore A” is incorrect because there is more than one definition, then it is my position that having both would be irrational as law.
If “B, therefore A” is incorrect because there is a greater requirement – such as being born in the country in addition to having two citizen parents – then I am stating that both of our positions are wrong with regard to this specific argument.
The bigger picture that you are missing:
Natural-born citizenship has not been defined. We are arguing based on different interpretations of the law. One position is reasonable; the other is not (or is less so), based on the philosophical principles of constitutional government and the natural rights of individuals and society.
Do try not to confuse proving me “wrong” with your inability to understand the argument being made.
The order of the sentence makes a major difference because it completely changes what it means.
1. I am a natural born citizen because I have two citizen parents.
That makes sense.
2. I am in the United States because I’m in New York
This too makes sense.
Your version:
1. I have two citizen parents because I’m a natural born citizen
2. I am in New York because I’m in the United States
This doesn’t make sense. I really hope that at long last you can see this and understand your basic grade school logical flaws.
You’ve made the claim that when Chertoff said “If two citizen parents then natural born citizen,” that that means that he said you HAVE to have two citizen parents. Based on Chertoff alone, that is a completely unwarranted conclusion.
When the structure of the sentence completely changes the argument, then you’re damn right you should be careful.
You’re welcome. Even though I know you’ll never admit it, I hope you’ve actually taken this as an opportunity to learn something about basic logic that you should have learned in elementary school.
Bystander, Geir gets his ridiculous ideas that the President of the United States is some sort of the “anti-Christ” from WND. They and some other similar sites have been pushing that idea for awhile in order “to denigrate and dehumanize the president of the United States”…
For instance ConWebWatch has detailed WND’s fascination with this innane idea…
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndobamaantichrist.html
“You’re WorldNetDaily. You’ve made your name (and a fair bit of money) by throwing every bit of mud you can find at President Obama, telling lies and beyond. You’ve even repeatedly depicted him as a Nazi. What do you do for an encore? Well, you reach for the trump card that resonates most deeply with your far-right, evangelical Christian audience: You liken Obama to the Antichrist.”
I mean it is insulting to even attempt to do that. As a Christian it is embarassing that some would allow their hatred of someone to make up stories and attempt to link our President with such a religious symbol of evil. However it is not a surprise. That is the unfortunate part.
qwertyman,
Oh, I see…I’m so sorry for having used the word “because.” My bad. I thought the point I was making was that the argument was about parentage. I didn’t realize that my argument was about where to put the word “because” and in which order the sentence ought to be. I figured that that was a secondary (or possibly even an irrelevant) issue – the primary one being that two citizen parents makes the NBC. But I can understand how confusing the “issue” becomes when you have to ignore the irrationality of your position. In the future, I will be sure to be extra careful when wording my sentence with the hope that the structure will not outweigh the merits of the argument. Thank you so much for pointing out what an “idiot” I am for being “illogical.” Now I can get on with my day knowing that I have been “corrected” by a brilliant and sophisticated computer screen. Thank you for that.
dunstvangeet,
“I’d claim that all those are Natural Born Citizens of the United States.”
Almost everyone here already knows that you would claim such a thing. The problem is, nowhere in our laws does it say that any of those situations creates a “natural-born citizen.” So, you can “claim” whatever you want, but it does not settle the matter.
Because we have two different positions here. Mine is based on taking a statement and applying formal logic. Yours is based on taking a statement, making a grade school logical error and then shouting to the rooftops that you’re actually right. You have been given the wiki link to the exact logical fallacy you’re making twice now.
Yes.
No.
This sentence should be the other way around. This is where your logic goes faulty. As I said last time, it’s not that you’re not NBC because you don’t have two citizen parents, it’s that you don’t have two citizen parents because you’re not NBC. This is a key difference.
I did not say sufficient by accident. Sufficient and necessary are two very different concepts.
Again, sufficient and necessary are two very separate words. Using only this statement:
If two citizen parents, then natural born citizen.
Two citizen parents = sufficient
natural born citizen = necessary
That’s because if you have two citizen parents, then you HAVE to be a natural born citizen. There is nothing in that statement that implies exclusivity.
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
You are making a policy argument. I’m saying that from the statement “if two citizen parents, then natural born citizen,” alone, that you cannot logically interpret that to mean that “if not two citizen parents, then not natural born citizen.” Remember how completely ridiculous “if not in New York, then not in US” is.
And you are misinterpreting me by continually saying that I’ve said that you’re not a natural born citizen BECAUSE you don’t have two citizen parents. That’s completely backwards. It’s a logical flaw that you have been shown direct links for multiple times. Please, please, PLEASE, read up on it before you post in this thread again.
Yes.
No.
Here’s what you’ve done.
If a was born to two citizen parents, then natural born citizen
If natural born citizen, then two citizen parents.
This is reversing without negating. It’s a logical flaw.
Let’s try that New York example again, and seriously, see how little this makes sense.
If I’m in New York, then I’m in the US.
If I’m in the US, then I’m in New York.
This makes absolutely no sense. It’s based on a logical flaw, the same logical flaw you’ve made when you say B therefore A.
Given your absolute inability to figure out grade school logic when shown to you multiple times, I have no problem calling you an idiot.
A Teachable Moment…
“Why did you completely ignore my story?”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256799099006&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
David…
Also, on Quertyman’s thing…
What Quertyman’s statement is that having 2 Citizen Parents is only one way of becoming a Natural Born Citizen.
He’s saying that another way is being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
So, if you’re not a Natural Born Citizen, then he’s saying that you don’t have 2 citizen parents (which is true). However, if you were born in the United States, to someone who was not 2 citizen parents, you would be a Natural Born Citizen.
Just as we could say that if you were not a Natural Born Citizen, you were not born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Is that the only way to be a Natural Born Citizen? No. You could be born outside the United States to 2 Citizen Parents.
Read the 8 ways that I put down there to become a Natural Born Citizen. If one of those ways applies, you’re a Natural Born Citizen. It does not mean that all requirements are required.
It’s A or B. What you’re stating… is A or B. A, therefore not B.
Bob Strauss, Barack Obama has produced a document that is good enough to prove his place of birth to the Federal Government. It also proves your place of birth to all of the 50 state Governments. Ultimately there is fundamentally no difference between proving your place of birth to the Federal Government, and proving your place of birth to the Federal Government. The fact that you cannot see this is sad.
bob strauss says:
November 5, 2009 at 10:56 am
Black Lion,If Obama was born in Hawaii why has it been so hard for Obama to come up with a birth certificate that looks like the birth certificates issued to the Nordyke twins, who were born the following day?
I have seen more evidence showing Obama was born in Kenya than I have showing Obama was born in Hawaii.
___________________________________________________________________
Bob, I would have to disagree with you. If you would give more weight to a Kenyan BC from a convicted forger named Lucas Smith (who was in the Dominican Republic in his infamous you tube video) and his so called Kenyan BC that he could not source or the other Kenyan BC (Bomford) based off a Australian BC which the creator showed was a hoax, then it is more about hate of Obama than anything having to do with evidence. So what other evidence are we talking about that claims that he was born in Kenya? A false affidavit by Ron McRae that claims his step-grandmother said Kenya where anyone that read the actual transacripts and listened to the tape can hear her say Hawaii. So far you have nothing credible which supports your born in Kenya beliefs.
As opposed to the evidence of the COLB, which is certified by the state of HI. The vital statistics index data that Leo got that showed the birth of BHO II. A statement from the director Dr. Fukino where she states that President Obama was BORN in HI. Even the inadmissible Indonesian School record says that he was born in HI.
President Obama released the only document available from the state of HI. The birthers keep making up some fanstasy about a long form BC but this document has been shown by state of HI statute to be unavailable. Only COLB’s will be issued by the state of HI. This fantasy about the Nordyke twins is also amusing. They never requested a BC after 2001 like the President did. If you want to compare them then the birthers should have one of the twins request their BC today and see what they get. I am pretty confident that it would be a COLB.
So there is no real evidence that the President was born in HI. Why do you think that the birthers are no concentrating on the fake 2 citizens must be parents in order to be a NBC theory. All so called Kenyan evidence is a joke and inadmissible. Even Judge Carter questioned it.
Overall I don’t believe there has been any evidence to contradict anything that the President has said regarding his birth. So an investigation is not warranted. The birthers can continue to believe in that fantasy, it is their right. But it is not going to happen.
David…
So, what you’re saying is that if Bill Gates did own Fort Knox, he would be rich? That entire thing (If A, then B) is my premise, and it is a true premise.
And by the way, yes, I do deny that 2 citizen parents are the ONLY way that to get Natural Born Citizenship. Here are other ways…
1. Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
2. Born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
3. Born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person
4. Born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States
5. Born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
6. Being of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States
7. Born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date.
8. Born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.
I’d claim that all those are Natural Born Citizens of the United States.
Barack Obama fits under #1 (Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof).
Black Lion,If Obama was born in Hawaii why has it been so hard for Obama to come up with a birth certificate that looks like the birth certificates issued to the Nordyke twins, who were born the following day?
I have seen more evidence showing Obama was born in Kenya than I have showing Obama was born in Hawaii. Birth documents all over the internet, certification of birth from Kenya, hospital birth certificate from Kenya, statements from Kenyan Ambassador, statements made during Kenyan governmental proceedings and the list goes on.
I haven’t even heard an explanation of why Obama can’t provide his long form birth certificate, the one that looks like the Nordyke twins certs. Supposedly we already know who his parents are, so what could be so embarrasing to Obama that he won’t release the long form cert?
I believe there is enough doubt about Obama’s history to warrant an investigation. The President must meet the Qualifications to hold office. America is not a television show where they allow actors to play President.
bob strauss says:
November 4, 2009 at 10:20 pm
So after 353 comments what has been determined? Obama’s father was not a citizen of the USA, this we know unless Obama lied. Obama’s father was British and his citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, the same Act governed the children of Barak Obama Sr. Obama’s mother was too young to transmit citizenship to Barack Obama Jr. according to the law at the time of Obama’s birth.
Everything argued so far is based on Obama having been born in Hawaii. If Obama was not born in Hawaii but was born in Kenya as his Grandmother says then he has absolutely no claim to US natural born citizenship at all.
__________________________________________________________________
Bob, just as an FYI his STEP-grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. No matter how many times you repeat that lie it will not make it true. She said in the interveiw he was BORN IN HAWAII. Once that happened the citizenship status of his parents became moot. And the too young to confer citizenship statement was only an issue if he was not born in the US. Since he was that point is moot also.
What we do know is that other countries law have nothing to do with US citizenship laws, so the President being born in HI means that he is a US citizen. And unless the Constitution states that there is some sort of magical third class of citizen, someone born in the US but not a natural born citizen, he meets the NBC requirements as decided by the SCOTUS in the Wong ruling.
GeorgetownJD, Do you believe there is no need for Quo Warranto? Are you satisfied the President meets all of the qualifications to hold office?
dunstvangeet,
“David, Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not a premise. It is a conclusion. The fact that you do not know the basic difference is sad.”
No, the problem with your logical equation is that it is arguing something we already know is not true. It was not at all “equivalent” to mine. Bill Gates does not own Fort Knox, so to use that as the premise – “If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.” – we must ignore what we already know as false. If I claim that I was born to two citizen parents and that such a birth would make me a NBC, I am not asserting something that is already known to be false. I may be asserting something that is not entirely true (as birth in the country may ALSO be a requirement), but it is not already false as a matter of fact.
The logical equation about NBC is this:
A: I was born to two citizen parents
B: I am a NBC
If A, then B.
B, therefore A.
A is not wrong as in the equation with Bill Gates. The two equations are not “equivalent.” The difference with the reverse in the NBC equation is that you believe there is another way to acquire NBC status. But the conclusion can be equally wrong if the requirement is even greater – i.e., two citizen parents AND born in the country. If two citizen parents is the only way to acquire NBC, then that equation is correct.
But this is all moot if you are arguing that parents do not matter in every situation. Why argue something that is irrelevant? Why not just do what you usually do and say that all “birthers” are idiots and claim that any illegal alien that downloads a child a few feet over our border fence can raise that child in their own country until the age of majority, then send them to the United States to one day run for president? Wouldn’t that be so much easier than using and explaining logical equations that are essentially meaningless to your argument?
qwertyman,
Let me see if I have this right, because you seem to “misremember” what you wrote. Here are some exact quotes.
You stated:
“If two citizen parents, then natural born citizen.
If it is sunny I will go to Yankee Stadium.
If A then B.
“Here are the valid inferences from those three sentences:
“If not B then not A.
If I did not go to Yankee Stadium, then it is not sunny.
If not a natural born citizen, then not two citizen parents.”
If not NBC, then no two citizen parents.
You then added:
“If two American parents -> natural born citizen
“From this, you could infer that if you are not a natural born citizen, then you do not have two citizen parents.”
If not NBC, then no two citizen parents.
I said:
“So, if one is not a NBC because one does not have two citizen parents – and that is an argument you have accepted as logical…”
You responded:
“Absolutely not. You misinterpret what I’m saying yet again.
“It’s not that one is not a NBC because one does not have two citizen parents.
“It’s one does not have two citizen parents because one is not NBC.”
My statement:
“This is qwertyman’s ‘valid inference’:
“‘If not a natural born citizen, then not two citizen parents.’
“He is stating that someone born NOT a natural-born citizen did not have two citizen parents.”
If not NBC, then no two citizen parents.
And you responded:
“Yes, I agree with this.”
Then you added:
“1. If I am in New York, then I’m in the US
2. If you have two citizen parents, then you are a natural born citizen.
“from these two sentences, a valid inference would be:
“1. If I’m not in the US, then I’m not in New York.
2. If you’re not a natural born citizen, then you don’t have two citizen parents.
“Both of those are valid inferences from the first statements.”
If not NBC, then no two citizen parents.
I’m not seeing where we have disagreed or where my logic is different than yours. I have quoted you exactly and I have reiterated exactly what you wrote. The difference is, I have demonstrated why, if we accept the two citizen parents position, the idea of being an NBC without them is irrational. As I stated, you ignore the logical conclusion to your position – that a NBC can acquire that status from different methods of conferring citizenship. So, essentially, this argument is pointless. Why argue such a position if it means nothing?
In any case, you are simply not understanding the argument you have made. This is the actual result of your “logic”:
If you are not a natural-born citizen, then you do not have two citizen parents. If you are not a natural-born citizen because you do not have two citizen parents, then the implication is that the parents are necessary (you say “sufficient”) for natural-born citizenship. If you are born in the United States to two people who are not citizens, then you do not have two citizen parents. If you do not have two citizen parents, which are necessary (you say “sufficient”) for natural-born citizenship, then how can you be a natural-born citizen? You claim, by being born in the United States.
If you are born in the United States, then you are a natural-born citizen.
If you are born to two citizen parents, then you are a natural-born citizen.
If you are not a natural-born citizen, then you were not born in the United States.
If you are not a natural-born citizen, then you were not born to two citizen parents.
The point I was arguing is that you claim we have two different definitions of what a “natural-born citizen” is. One relies on jus sanguinis and the other on jus soli. You claim that they are both in effect at the same time on the same subject, but in different situations. I am stating that such a position is irrational based on the philosophical principles of our federal government and the natural rights of individuals and society – and even on past laws. Perhaps you missed that part of my comments while you were too busy claiming that I was misinterpreting your position – even though I merely quoted and repeated what you wrote.
So maybe we can now move past the “logic” of the NBC/parents argument and focus on the irrationality that is implied based on those conclusions.
bob strauss says:
“It looks like Quo Warranto is warranted here …”
_____________
Go for it, strauss!!! Best of luck. (Hint: Under the statute, you must be an “interested” person. But hey, maybe you can persuade McCain to join your suit.)
So after 353 comments what has been determined? Obama’s father was not a citizen of the USA, this we know unless Obama lied. Obama’s father was British and his citizenship was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, the same Act governed the children of Barak Obama Sr. Obama’s mother was too young to transmit citizenship to Barack Obama Jr. according to the law at the time of Obama’s birth.
Everything argued so far is based on Obama having been born in Hawaii. If Obama was not born in Hawaii but was born in Kenya as his Grandmother says then he has absolutely no claim to US natural born citizenship at all.
It looks like Quo Warranto is warranted here to answer these questions about Obama and determine if we have a legal POTUS to conduct the business of our nation. This legal question needs to be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, if that’s possible.
A special prosecutor should be assigned to this case as soon as possible, to begin an investigation and resolve this troubling matter of whether or not Obama qualifies for the office of President.
Themis2009,
Frankly, I don’t care who’s right or wrong. For me, this process is about getting to the truth. But I thank you for the compliment. It’s a group effort as it is. Even from the opposition.
-Phil
bystander,
I think I’ve already quite profusely addressed the “timing” issue, as it were, concerning when I go about moderating comments on my site. Nevertheless: this site is a hobby of mine, which means that if there’s a lot going on in my life at any given time, the site is what gets the short-shrift on time. However, I can assure you (this being a case in point) that I do monitor comments on the site.
Now, to the bigger issue…
Let’s get the big claim of yours out of the way. I don’t speak for Rev. Manning, so I’m not going to put words in his mouth, nor am I going to speculate on your words that you’ve apparently chosen to put into his mouth. What he says on his sites or other media is his business. I don’t think there’s much more to say on that point.
Next, regarding “Geir” and his commentary RE: Obama = antichrist. Obviously, this is a theologically-based issue, and it’s equally as obvious that some individuals feel very strongly about Mr. Obama. I know I do, if for no other reason than the fact that most of his views are as far to the left as mine are to the right.
Is Mr. Obama, in fact, the Antichrist, as described in the latter half of the Bible? In my view, very likely not. However, is it possible that Mr. Obama operates under the auspices of the spirit of antichrist, typically defined as someone who not only practices evil behavior, but encourages that behavior in others? Absolutely. But, then again, I think that most individuals can fall prey to this, knowingly or unknowingly.
Remember — if I’m going to stop passionate debate as to one individual’s views of Mr. Obama, then I would have to stop the opposition’s views regarding eligibility; at this point, as long as things stay civil, that isn’t going to happen.
-Phil
jvn,
This question has already been asked and answered. Since there is no law that requires any Secretary of State, for example, to actually vet a candidate, then there can be no legitimate expectation of a “gone back and recanted,” as you put it.
For the reason I stated, this is a moot question; officials can only act within the confines of the law as it was at the time that their actions took place.
The phrase, “massive conspiracy encompassing bitter political rivals” is wholly your verbiage and not mine. I have never claimed any sort of conspiracy except, potentially, with Mr. Obama and potentially close associates him/themselves.
As I’ve already pointed out a few times on my site, if you ask any given elected federal officeholder what they define as a natural born citizen, you are likely to get as many answers as there are Members of Congress. As such, it could be perfectly reasonable to suggest that those who are part of the “vetting” process (for lack of a better term) may have absolutely no clue what they’re doing except pushing paper around.
Again, Mr. Obama merely signed a self-ascribing document wherein he claimed to be eligible for the presidency. There was no requirement for any sort of background documentation to actually substantiate such a claim. In other words, we have to take his word for it.
I don’t know about you, but I trust my government exactly no more than my government trusts me.
I think this precisely describes most individuals in America, unfortunately, be they public or private citizens.
-Phil
David, Bill Gates owning Fort Knox is not a premise. It is a conclusion. The fact that you do not know the basic difference is sad. And I used the Bill Gates example just to show you exactly why it is a logical fallacy.
Here are the premises…
1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
I don’t think anybody can argue that if someone owns Fort Knox, then he is not rich. Fort knox is filled with gold, and if they own Fort Knox, then it does also go there.
2. Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Do you deny that Bill Gates is rich?
So, the conclusion that comes from…
If A, then B
B
Therefore A
is that Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. Obviously he doesn’t. But that is as much of a argument as your…
It’s called affirming the consequent. Pretty basic logical fallacy.
David reasoned:
Epic fallacy.
Not only does David assert the grade-school logic error, he wrote wrote his reasoning there *after* dunstvangeet pointed out the “common logical flaw called denying the antecedent”, and gave David the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
When Bob Strauss implies that Michael Chertoff supports his theory, that’s clearly not an honest mistake. David, on the other hand, may just be really, really bad at logic.
Yes, I agree with this.
It’s sufficient. It’s not necessary. Two citizen parents CAN make this child a natural born citizen. There’s nothing in that statement that implies exclusivity.
This is where you are going wrong.
I’ll give one more example here of why an if/then statement does not imply exclusivity:
1. If I am in New York, then I’m in the US
2. If you have two citizen parents, then you are a natural born citizen.
from these two sentences, a valid inference would be:
1. If I’m not in the US, then I’m not in New York.
2. If you’re not a natural born citizen, then you don’t have two citizen parents.
Both of those are valid inferences from the first statements.
However, you’re taking statement 2, and trying to say that based on that:
2. If you don’t have two citizen parents, then you’re not a natural born citizen.
See what happens if you do the exact same thing with statement 1:
1. If you’re not in New York, then you’re not in the US.
See how this formulation of #1 is absolutely ridiculous? You could be in Chicago, or Topeka, or Boston, or Hawaii or Alaska. If you’re in New York, that’s sufficient to determine that you’re in the US. You don’t HAVE to be in New York to be in the US though.
If you have two citizen parents, then that’s sufficient to determine that you’re a natural born citizen. You don’t HAVE to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
If Chertoff had said “ONLY if you have two citizen parents, then you’re a natural born citizen,” then you might have a point. Nothing in his statement, or in SR 511 for that matter, implies exclusivity.
Yes, it is pretty simple. Pity that you seem incapable of understanding.