Eligibility Update: Rep. Deal, Garrett on Birth Certificate; November 6 Resignations
As I had previously reported, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), also a 2010 Republican Georgia gubernatorial candidate, is seeking Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. Today, SavannahNow.com posted a story concerning Rep. Deal’s foray into eligibility with a number of editorial fallacies that I shall now correct:
“My office, and I’m sure many other offices,” the Gainesville lawmaker said, “continue to get inquiries. … The president has the ability to put this to rest completely, and I think he should do that. …
“It takes up my staff’s time. We are constantly required to answer these kinds of inquiries. … I’m willing to take his word for it, but I think he needs to convince those who still have doubts.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, only native-born citizens may serve as president. Hawaii became a state in 1959.
“Native-born citizens?” Someone needs to show Larry Peterson, the post writer, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution! It’s “natural born,” not “native-born!”
Early in the campaign for the 2008 presidential election, critics of Obama argued he was born in another country.
Obama’s presidential campaign posted online what it said was a copy of the document.
FactCheck.org said its staffers have “seen, touched and photographed” the certificate and concluded it’s genuine.
Good for the FactCheck.org blog. However, they’re still a blog, and regardless of their credentialed histories, nobody — to date — has been able to determine that the folks behind the blog have the forensic abilities to make any sort of document substantiation with respect to the certification of live birth (not a long-form birth certificate that would otherwise contain, for examples, the name of the hospital, doctor or mid-wife involved in the birth).
Further, even though those who promote FactCheck.org as being a promulgator of truth (though even that’s been in question) say that the organization has made itself available for any reporters or third parties to inspect the document, no such visits have actually been made.
Therefore, a “conclu[sion] it’s genuine” is, clearly, in the eye of the beholder.
PolitiFact said it sent an online copy to Hawaii’s Department of Health and that the department responded the document is authentic.
And this means what, exactly? Did the Department of Health confirm that the document actually originated from their offices? (No, they didn’t).
The Associated Press has reported it received the same response from the department.
Both fact-checking groups have posted online rebuttals of contentions by Obama critics that the document is a fake.
The point is that everyone sees an image of an alleged document. The legitimacy of the certification of live birth could be severely put to rest if it could be shown (1) who, exactly, requested it back in 2007; (2) the receipt procuring the document; and (3) an individual with professional credentials being able to examine the actual, in-hand document.
And FactCheck.org has posted online a copy of a birth announcement it said was published Aug. 13, 1961, in the Honolulu Advertiser.
The announcement says a son was born to “Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama” on Aug. 4.
Newspaper announcements are fine and all, but this is clearly circumstantial and anecdotal at best. In other words, try presenting that in Court and see how far you get.
In July, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed such claims as “made-up fictional nonsense.”
Asked why the issue keeps surfacing, Gibbs responded, “Because, for $15, you can get an Internet address and say whatever you want.”
“This question has been asked and answered, and I have no additional comment,” White House Spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai said Tuesday.
It’s very simple. There’s nothing wrong with anyone questioning the legitimacy of the President.
Deal, due to continue campaigning in Savannah today, said he and other House members will sign a letter to Obama asking him to provide the birth certificate.
“They just want to get it off their plate,” he said. “… It just needs to be put to rest.”
But he did not appear eager to press the matter.
“I did not think that was an appropriate question to be asking in regard to a governor’s race,” he said, referring to the initial inquiry.
A reporter posed the question during what was billed as an online chat between Deal and supporters.
If Obama will “simply tell us where we should refer … inquiries that come to our offices,” he added Tuesday, “we’ll do that. And we’ll be satisfied.”
And from commenter “Geir (Gerhardt) Smith,” the WashingtonIndependent’s David Weigel uncovered a YouTube video where Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) was confronted by an eligibility questioner:
Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the legitimacy of the President. In fact, it continues to fascinate me that there are those who continually castigate individuals such as myself for pursuing the matter. And while I realize that the issue may be settled for them, for me, it’s an issue that I simply don’t know for a fact that he is eligible.
Following up on my previous eligibility update, as John Charlton at The Post & Email originally reported, it appears that November 6, 2009 was quite the day of resignations for this Administration; the question is, why?
In an editorial by The Washington Prowler, “Obama goes to the Matresses”, we are told that Cassandra Butts, “a Harvard classmate of Obama’s and one of the administration’s highest-ranking African Americans . . . quietly resigned on Friday, November 6 . . .” .
This resignation preceded that of her immediate superior, Gregory Craig, who left the position of White House Counsel only days ago.
However, what The Washington Prowler writes is more telling in the intrigue and politics behind the Craig resignation and the ascendency of Robert Bauer, whose appointment to Craig’s old position was made last Friday:
“[Bauer] knows where all the bodies are buried, and this indicates that there is something amiss with this White House, or at least someone is nervous about what is going on,” says a former Obama transition team adviser. “You don’t just make these kinds of changes for the sake of rearranging the deck chairs, and not at this time with at least three legislative and policy decisions looming that the Counsel’s office would have been deeply involved in.”
“This doesn’t come close to the ‘Saturday Night Massacre’ in the Nixon days, but it’s pretty damn weird,” says Washington, D.C.-based Democrat lawyer, who has held counsel positions both in the Senate and in previous presidential administrations. “I’m surprised not only that the press seems to be ignoring the fact that two presidential lawyers have left at about the same time, but that no one seems to care that for the first time, I think ever, we have a President’s personal attorney also serving as White House counsel. I don’t care if Bob [Bauer] recuses himself from future personal legal business, this should be troubling to anyone who cares about the Executive Office of the President.” [emphases original]
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
“And that makes it less a lie… how exactly?” SanDiegoSam
1 If behind the mask of SanDiegoSam (whose resume is peculiarly suggestive of the TRSoL evictee HistorianDude) does indeed lie an unrepentant HistorianDude still obviously alienated from his conscience, how does SanDiegoSam expect anyone to trust anything he writes?
2 The exact logic which eludes SanDiegoSam demonstrates that without official DoH UIPA dis-confirmations that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate, SanDiegoSam cannot possibly know that Hawaii DoH’s official confirmations are a “lie“; SanDiegoSam does not have (= does not claim to have) any such dis-confirmations; therefore SanDiegoSam’s accusation that I have “lied” is no based on fact.
Statements with no basis in fact masquerading as fact are inventions, concoctions, fabrications, pretenses, and deceptions: clearly, we see a pattern. Furthermore, there is no evidence that SanDiegoSam has any interest in testing his statements against the facts as supplied by Hawaii DoH and has not encouraged anyone to do so: this also conforms to a pattern.
Given SanDiegoSam doesn’t have the interior resources to know, let alone care, what those patterns might be, SanDiegoSam should not expect anyone to trust anything he writes (as in a blind man attempting to be a landscape painter).
Obama might have actually been born in Hawaii just not as a natural-born U.S. citizen. His mother was underage and unable to confer NBC status because she was married to a foreigner. His father was a Brit and hence any offspring of a Brit in 1961 was also a Brit. This explains exactly why no Hawaiian BC has ever been released. The college records probably reflect Obama as an Indonesian or Kenyan and that is why those records are sealed. The only BC that has ever surfaced is from Kenya where his grandmother claimed Obama was born. Any way you look at it the man has never been even once for half-a-second a natural-born U.S. citizen and is therefore illegally holding office. Obama is an illegal-alien. THAT is why B.O. executed his first act as President, literally within 5 minutes of taking office, he signed executive order #13489 that sealed his own records, so much for being transparent.
And that makes it less a lie… how exactly?
“You are unfortunately in error.” SanDiegoSam
I say “to my knowledge” and SanDiegoSam can’t resist telling me what constitutes “my knowledge”. How about that? Let me try to adjust SanDiegoSam’s delusion that he knows better than me what it is I know. “My knowledge” that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate comes to me independently of Donofrio or TerriK.
“neither [Donofrio or TerriK] bothered to present any communication from the Hawaii DoH that actually justified the claim, [but] Donofrio and Terri together were able to at least prove” SanDiegoSam
Contrary to SanDiegoSam’s “factually inexact” claim, the blogs of Donofrio or TerriK were overladen with communications from the Hawaii DoH, and DoH did indeed confirm to TerriK that Obama’s vital records involved an amended birthdate. The illogicallity within SanDiegoSam’s “factually inexact” claim is that Donofrio and TerriK were able to prove something SanDiegoSam agrees with, but then failed to prove something else SanDiegoSam doesn’t agree with, although in both instances they were using the same communications. In other words, SanDiegoSam knows better than Donofrio and TerriK what their communications with Hawaii DoH were and what information they were given. That old familiar SanDiegoSam delusion.
Readers don’t have to trust in SanDiegoSam’s distorted thinking: unlike SanDiegoSam, I am here to encourage them to pursue their own inquiries and requests with Hawaii DoH and the facts of Obama’s vital records involving a delayed filing and an amended birthdate will speak for themselves.
“this one is funny.” SanDiegoSam
This one is even funnier:
There once was a fanatical Obama loyalist HistorianDude drummed out of TRSoL for sadistic aggression and narcissistic contempt (not least against Phil). This suitable case for treatment, HistorianDude, couldn’t stop himself from fantasizing that readers might be impressed with a resume (e.g. “Nuclear Warhead Maintenance & Assembly Officer in a NATO unit in the Republic of Turkey“) curiously similar to the resume SanDiegoSam has boasted about elsewhere at TRSoL.
For his own sake I hope we really are dealing with SanDiegoSam, because HistorianDude pretending to be SanDiegoSam would have made himself into someone who is never on any account to be trusted twice-over, and shown himself to be a man with a dangerous sense of the humorous and bizarre.
Who are you Kidding:
You are unfortunately in error.
Donofrio and TerriK/MissTickly together were trying to exploit the recently discovered UIPA angle when they originated the false claim that Hawaii had verified that Obama’s birth records were amended and both published the false claim to their respective blogs. Of course, neither bothered to present any communication from the Hawaii DoH that actually justified the claim, so it remains to this point a baseless accusation with no evidence.
So yes, Black Lion is absolutely correct. “Leo made that up.”
Alas, not all the effort was in vain. Donofrio and Terri together were able to at least prove that 1) Obama’s parents actually were married, and 2) Maya Soetoro-Ng does not have a Hawaiian Birth Certificate. So the effort did bear some fruit as these two of the most long lived Birther rumors were effectively proven false.
Now, once again we are struck by the humorously consistent Birther ploy of trying to inappropriately shift the burden of proof. The motivation is well understood, after all Birthers have no actual evidence for any of their beliefs regarding Obama’s eligibility. But this one is funny.
First… they would have had to confirm something, right? I mean… how can you “dis-confirm” something that was never confirmed int he first place?
And the Hawaii DoH has certainly never “confirmed” that there is anything about Obama’s birth records that have been amended.
” No…amended certificate because it doesn’t exist… That was something that Leo made up” Black Lion
Readers may discover for themselves elsewhere at this blog that Black Lion shamelessly repeats claims that have earlier been proven false. For example, the deceiving claim that (quote) “the Full Faith of State records clause of the Constitution supports the COLB because it is certified and signed by a state official”. Even after having been shown very politely that 1) Article IV does not apply to administrative records and 2) Obama’s alleged COLB has not been certified in accordance with Article IV’s enabling statute, Black Lion continued to maintain a claim which became a lie. That Black Lion would have the temerity to effectively call me a liar is conscienceless hypocrisy.
To my knowledge Donofrio has nothing to do with the confirmation from Hawaii DoH that document(s) were supplied to change Obama’s date of birth or that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing: I have been made aware of these facts from other sources. Anyone in doubt concerning the truth of this matter is advised to prove the facts for themselves with Hawaii DoH through UIPA. It’s very obvious that Black Lion’s accusation that I have lied is not based on facts supplied by Hawaii DoH, but is merely something he has invented. Black Lion himself will never seek clarification from Hawaii DoH and go on the record with its response because he knows that DoH will never dis-confirm anything it has already confirmed, therefore any comment Black Lion makes from ignorance on the matter is maliciously designed to spread further ignorance and deceive.
“…limerick regarding the wild unfounded claims of “Who are you kidding”…” Black Lion
Black Lion accusing me of being a liar feels very insulting, but hurling a badly written limerick at me is positively abusive. On the understanding that a “bot” is a parasite that burrows into living tissue or a programmed entity that fakes human intelligence, then
An infesting Obot dubbed Black Lion,
‘bout as good for your brain as a prion,
Will soil any fact
From his urinary tract
If his handlers pledge “that way to Zion”.
“Qwertyman is asking you for a link … I just wanted to see what these nutcases would come up with next.” Sue
Having earlier asked Sue the questions Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? she blithely ignores those uncomfortable questions and shamelessly asks for links (which cannot by definition exist), followed by the sneering confession that she believes she is dealing with a nutcase. Ignoring the insult:
First, Sue must answer my prior questions Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? otherwise it will be assumed she cannot bring herself to give a truthful answer and her credibility as a discussant is lost. Her choice.
Second, Hawaii DoH does not post its responses to UIPA inquiries but send them to indivduals: Sue can be one of those individuals, if she is confident that Hawaii DoH will dis-confirm Obama’s the delayed and amended filings within his vital records and she can thereby prove me wrong. Until then, Hawaii DoH’s recent official confirmations that Obama’s vital records do involve a delayed filing and amended birthdate, meaning Obama’s alleged COLB can never be prima facie evidence and has been faked, stand as fact. Again, her choice.
Sooo……. wheres the letter? Exactly?
Still being proof read maybe?
kj,
Unfortunately, Mr. Charlton did not provide any links back to my site, so I really don’t know to what he is specifically referring.
I had previously sent an email to the Vital Records department in HI essentially asking if a receipt for the alleged COLB purportedly on file with the FactCheck.org blog could be provided, and they simply responded that such information is not public record.
-Phil
Phil:
From the post and email:
“Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.”
Is this true? Have you heard back from the DOH in Hawaii? Is there a post containing this email?
KJ
Nov 29 and no Deal letter yet, still waiting? Is he a lying sack of ______? A Birther hero goes down in flames!
Black Lion,
“Sue, there is no link. That was something that Leo made up to explain away the fact that the vital records state that there is a birth record for a Barack Obama II. He screwed himself so he needed a way to get out of it. No one will find any proof of any sort of amended certifcate because it doesn’t exist…”
I just wanted to see what these nutcases would come up with next. It will be interesting to see what they come up with when Donofrio doesn’t “file his lawsuit” and all the “other lawyers” don’t file lawsuits either. ROTFL.
Who Are You Kidding says:
November 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Thanks to Expelliarmus over at Obamaconspiracies for the following limerick regarding the wild unfounded claims of “Who are you kidding”…
The birthers simply don’t have a clue,
about requirements the law says is due,
they don’t understand
that in every court in the land
you must prove up your case when you sue.
Sue says:
November 28, 2009 at 4:06 am
“Who Are You Kidding says:
November 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“ [citation needed] ” qwertyman
The source has already been given: Hawaii DoH. You may confirm it yourself through UIPA. If we don’t hear your result, it’s safe for readers to assume that DoH did not retract the information.”
Qwertyman is asking you for a link to the information where you claim “Hawaii DoH have officially confirmed that Obama’s birth is a delayed filing.”
___________________________________________________________________
Sue, there is no link. That was something that Leo made up to explain away the fact that the vital records state that there is a birth record for a Barack Obama II. He screwed himself so he needed a way to get out of it. No one will find any proof of any sort of amended certifcate because it doesn’t exist…
“a I am not here as a spokesperson. b Hawaii law expedites UIPA legal actions. c It would be very surprising if UIPA lawsuits do not happen.”
Actually, it will be surprising if they do.
“Who Are You Kidding says:
November 27, 2009 at 7:08 pm
“ [citation needed] ” qwertyman
The source has already been given: Hawaii DoH. You may confirm it yourself through UIPA. If we don’t hear your result, it’s safe for readers to assume that DoH did not retract the information.”
Qwertyman is asking you for a link to the information where you claim “Hawaii DoH have officially confirmed that Obama’s birth is a delayed filing.”
“ [citation needed] ” qwertyman
The source has already been given: Hawaii DoH. You may confirm it yourself through UIPA. If we don’t hear your result, it’s safe for readers to assume that DoH did not retract the information.
qwertyman asks a question (and receives an answer) but has the effrontery to ignore questions put to him; from which it can be taken that qwertyman and fellow loyalists siseduermapierda and Sue are unable to answer the following questions: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? The reason is obvious: there is no raised seal in Factcheck’s image of Obama’s alleged COLB, which means that the COLB the image purports to depict is not authentic and is a fake.
“Does it matter that it was an amended birth certificate?” Joseph Maine
Online images of Obama’s alleged COLB do not contain, as they should by law, the amendment(s) made to his vital records, which means that Obama’s “COLB” is a fake or the amendment(s) were never accepted by DoH. The implications would include:
1 Obama has provided no evidence of US citizenship and Presidential eligibility.
2 Forgery was commited in producing Obama’s online “COLB” and the newspaper announcements, fraud was committed in using them to solicit nearly a billion dollars in campaign donations and to get Obama elected.
“…just a bunch of…unofficial papers (affidavits)…with no real backing as to their veracity.” Joseph Maine
3 DoH rules in 1961 deemed affidavits could be sufficient to permit a birth filling to be accepted. DoH confirms it holds a filing on Obama from August 1961, confirms it holds a delayed filing for Obama, and confirms it holds documents concerning an amended birthdate. By law amendments must be specifically marked on COLBs and Obama’s is not so marked. Furthermore, under Hawaii law an amended COLB is not presumed to be true (prima facie) and its probity must be investigated when offered as evidence. The only way online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are not fake is if Obama’s birth filing was never officially accepted as registered by DoH (which is indicated by the item “DATE FILED” on Obama’s alleged COLB, when DoH rules showed “FILED” does not mean “ACCEPTED”). Consequently, there is no possibility that online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are authentic and, even assuming hypothetically they were, Obama’s COLB should have to be investigated before a court would admit it as evidence. Given substantial funds and effort have been devoted to keeping Obama’s COLB out of court, this cannot be simply to cover-up a birthday.
“The problem would be that no one can prove otherwise.” Joseph Maine
4 Obama cannot release his vital records because they don’t support his eligibility, otherwise online images depicting a fake wouldn’t be needed.
5 If Obama were to release vital records which differ from the alleged COLB Obama placed online, then see point 2.
“Does it matter because HE has to PROVE that he was born in the United States?” Joseph Maine
6 Election law in various states permits challenges against presidential nominees and candidates on ineligibility, and standing is not an issue. If online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are not to be presumed true (see point 3), the neccessity for their existence means Obama will not risk exposure by seeking another term in 2012.
7 Fukino’s July statement was a gift to “birthers”. Under Hawaii law (UIPA) Fukino is required, and will be compelled, to make public all the documents which informed her statement: if Obama could emerge from this without forfeit he wouldn’t have struggled so hard to avoid it. See points 1 and 2.
“So, why hasn’t somebody filed this lawsuit?” Sue
a I am not here as a spokesperson. b Hawaii law expedites UIPA legal actions. c It would be very surprising if UIPA lawsuits do not happen.
Phil,
“The problem with your interpretation of their opinion is that if what you say is, in fact, true, they have committed an unconstitutional act by creating law.”
Actually, all the appellate court did was base their decision on the Supreme Court decision of Wong Kim Ark which was an interpretation of the Constitution (14th Amendment) by SCOTUS. The SCOTUS interpretation (precedent) of the Constitution (14th Amendment) will stand until Congress passes a bill or amends the Constitution to overturn SCOTUS’ interpretation or SCOTUS overturns their own decision. Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.
[citation needed]
Who are you Kidding:
Good work. I am confident that this information is already acquired but the proper steps are being taken to fully collect and assemble the information as is appropriate to get to the bottom of this = transparency for once.
I have said that this was in fact the case the whole time, but it leaves a couple of questions:
(1) Does it matter that it was an amended birth certificate? I figured the whole time that it’s just a bunch of ruffled, unofficial papers (affidavits) that state he was born there, with no real backing as to their veracity. The problem would be that no one can prove otherwise. But perhaps this isn’t the issue, which leads to:
(2) Does it matter because HE has to PROVE that he was born in the United States? It then becomes another mud slinging argument. Nothing that was done was “legal” yet Hawaii happens to be a shady state and allows this kind of hanky panky (or DID allow it).
Obviously, a huge part of this in terms of honesty, the media, and the story lines is that he will be proven a fraud for claiming birth at Kapiolani, which we know didn’t happen. However, as is his style, HE never confirmed this verbally, others associated with him did or images on the internet seemingly did. They’ll then use these same arguments to try to smooth it over, which is indeed ironic.
Am I missing something? Ultimately, it seems that the only measure to be taken would be to put pressure on the powers that be to define NBC and how one is qualified to be president, which has been our sole purpose.
Added perks include final proof of the ridiculously biased media and a vindication for common sense points made by the “birthers.”
Thoughts from anyone are appreciated.
siseduermapierda,
The problem with your interpretation of their opinion is that if what you say is, in fact, true, they have committed an unconstitutional act by creating law.
I have already claimed that they have not done so; apparently you disagree. And I therefore disagree with your opinion on this matter.
-Phil
Who Are You Kidding,
“All siseduermapierda need do is ask Hawaii DoH via UIPA to dis-confirm that Obama’s COLB as filed August 8, 1961 is the result of a delayed filing with an amended date of birth; go on the record here with that dis-confirmation; and an effective rebuttal is achieved. Given Hawaii DoH is hardly likely to retract their own UIPA answers, especially when lawsuits under UIPA could put Obama’s vital records into the public domain as a consequence of Fukino’s July statement, readers can be very sure that siseduermapierda will never be in a position to rebut the new information coming out of Hawaii.”
So, why hasn’t somebody filed this lawsuit?
“…one of the singly most ignorant statements EVER…” siseduermapierda
There is a typo in my previous comment with the phrase “Obama’s parent’s met in October or early November 1961“, which should obviously have read “October or early November 1960 “. I can hope people familiar with the facts kindly made the allowance – well, except for siseduermapierda.
“Who Are You Kidding…doesn’t know where July 8th came from…It just sounded good” siseduermapierda
Anyone who thinks the date of July 8 was made up ‘cos it sounded good is conning themselves or conning others.
A delayed filing of a birth in 1961 was a filing submitted for acceptance more than 30 days after the child’s birth. Obama’s alleged COLB states it was filed on August 8, 1961. Hawaii DoH have officially confirmed that Obama’s birth is a delayed filing. This could have been the case only if the claimed date of birth was more than 30 days prior i.e. before July 8, 1961. Hawaii DoH also confirm that a person (currently unknown) sought to change Obama’s date of birth to August 4 1961.
“Where do you get the July 8 date confirmation…” Joseph Maine
Worried citizens using the Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act have recently engaged in a process of asking Hawaii DoH to confirm or deny (as is DoH’s legal duty) various details of Obama’s vital records. The absolutely reliable information given above has come to me from the people concerned. If siseduermapierda or Obama loyalists are skeptical they can double-check the details for themselves through UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH. Anyone else can be assured these details are rock solid and may consider the burden of proof is now upon siseduermapierda and Obama loyalists to provide evidence which rebuts the implications.
“ignoramus…dumba$$…idiocy…crazy…debunked BS…imbeciles…The only thing that matters is the date [of Obama's birth]” siseduermapierda
Abusive rage is not the rational way for siseduermapierda to dismiss an inconvenient truth and win respect for his argument. All siseduermapierda need do is ask Hawaii DoH via UIPA to dis-confirm that Obama’s COLB as filed August 8, 1961 is the result of a delayed filing with an amended date of birth; go on the record here with that dis-confirmation; and an effective rebuttal is achieved. Given Hawaii DoH is hardly likely to retract their own UIPA answers, especially when lawsuits under UIPA could put Obama’s vital records into the public domain as a consequence of Fukino’s July statement, readers can be very sure that siseduermapierda will never be in a position to rebut the new information coming out of Hawaii.
In the anticipation that DoH will only re-confirm what it has previously officially confirmed, maybe siseduermapierda would like to offer some thoughts on the implications of Obama or his sister or family friend Hawaii Congressman Abercrombie being “mistaken” about Obama being born in a Hawaii hospital, which were required to file births within 7 days, when Obama’s birthplace would have been specified in any birth certificate(s) issued to him or his family before COLBs were introduced in 2001; or Obama’s alleged COLB not showing, contrary to Hawaii law, that his date of birth has been amended; or Obama’s attorneys citing in court documents an illegal COLB and the 1961 newspaper announcements of his birth reporting (allegedly from a contemporaneous DoH list) an impossible birthdate not in the original 1961 record: which thoughts, to be seen as intelligent and persuasive in the context of new evidence, require something more of siseduermapierda than spewing obscenities and insults.
“http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html” brygenon
brygenon is citing as evidence the image of Obama’s alleged COLB [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] that has neither a discernible seal nor a summary of reasons for the amended date of birth. Until brygenon explains where or how to find the embossed Hawaii seal in that image, and why the alleged COLB does not contain a summary of reasons for the amended date of birth, readers are justified in rejecting the COLB it allegedly depicts as a fake.
“http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf” brygenon
brygenon is citing as evidence DoH Director Fukino’s July statement. Until Fukino complies with Hawaii law as mandated by UIPA, and places in the public domain the records and documents upon which she based that statement, readers are justified in rejecting it as incomplete and most probably misleading.
Bobert,
“If ol’ Barry is removed after the 2010 elections, there will be no chance in hell of starting over and passing Health Care Legislation, Cap & Trade, or an easy re-appointment of any/all Supreme Court clerks.”
Why do you think President Obama will be removed after the 2010 elections?–this birther BS?
“Re-appointment of Supreme Court clerks?” What on earth are you talking about?
Bobert,
“I could just sit here and laugh for the next 10 minutes, but instead I will do the right thing a point you to Mr. Donofrio’s site where you can read about the Indiana Appeals Court’s horrible mangling of Wong Kim Ark and how, when it finally gets to the US Supreme Court, they won’t be able to pull this crap with the very well versed and educated Supreme Court judges.”
Actually, it is Donofrio who mangles SCOTUS decision of Wong Kim Ark. Real constitutional lawyers and experts are laughing at Donofrio’s website and you for buying into his BS.
Black Lion,
So you are telling me that it is not possible (or even probable) for some very powerful men (ever heard of a conservative group called the “OLC in exile”?) to plan out a way to overturn all judicial appoints, treaties, and legislation passed since Mr. Obama has taken office and to do so in a manner that prevents any chance of the Presidential fill-in from reinacting everything quickly while the Senate still holds a “super majority”? I do believe that such a plan exists, and it has to scare the hell out of all of the liberal/socialist/marxists to just know that it is possible for all of this to go away in a flash.
I never said that Republicans would retake the House or Senate in 2010 – but if you think the Democrats will keep there super-majority in the Senate after 2010, you are living on another planet. If ol’ Barry is removed after the 2010 elections, there will be no chance in hell of starting over and passing Health Care Legislation, Cap & Trade, or an easy re-appointment of any/all Supreme Court clerks.
siseduermapierda,
Are you seriously relying on a judicial ruling by the Indiana State Court of Appeals as the final arbitrator of the Founder’s intent of “natural born Citizen”? Seriously?
I could just sit here and laugh for the next 10 minutes, but instead I will do the right thing a point you to Mr. Donofrio’s site where you can read about the Indiana Appeals Court’s horrible mangling of Wong Kim Ark and how, when it finally gets to the US Supreme Court, they won’t be able to pull this crap with the very well versed and educated Supreme Court judges.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/indian-court-of-appeals-trips-over-natural-born-citizen-issue/
And in case you are too lazy to visit the site (which I’m guessing you are since you obviously did not actually take the time to read the Ankeny & Kruse vs. Governor of the State of Indiana case) – and please be sure to let us all know where Mr. Donofrio is wrong on his assessment of the ruling:
Indiana Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue.
[Ed. UPDATE 6:48 PM. Advanced Indiana broke this story first yesterday.
Also, the Chester Arthur analysis in Footnote 16 reeks. This Indiana decision is pure evil. They have rewritten history to make it appear as if the whole world knew Chester Arthur was a British citizen at birth while history records this blog discovered that fact and first published it to the world in December 2008. Before that time, it was not known. The propaganda has spread from the press to the courts.]
The Indiana Court of Appeals in the Arkeny and Kruse case has just issued a lame judicial attempt at defining the “natural born citizen” clause. The errors of fact and law incorporated into the decision serve as a beacon outlining the desperation certain government factions now face. Obviously, the British birth issue is getting on their nerves and this was clearly an attempt to derail further national discussion on this issue.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs did not state a claim upon which relief might be granted, but then they went ahead and visited some of the underlying merits of the case in a rather cavalier manner. Since any appeal of this decision will be dismissed on other procedural grounds, no appellate court will ever review them on this issue. The upper courts will simply deny the appeal without reaching this aspect. So they took a crack at stopping this in its tracks.
And they failed miserably. And it’s very encouraging. The arguments presented by the Indiana Court of Appeals are weak. The facts used by them are also a fantastic attempt at propaganda. For example:
With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President. The bases of the Plaintiffs‟ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News…
That’s interesting. Later in the decision they reject this fact. Amazing. It appears that the Indiana Appellate Court was not willing to accept that Barack Obama Sr. was the President’s father. That alone tells you something was rotten in Denmark. But the legal arguments they proceed upon, particularly their selective quotations from the Minor and Wong Kim Ark cases illustrate a wonderful example of a court acting as one of the advocates.
Their main argument is to state that citizens are only born or naturalized. That fails to take into account the framers (and other original citizens) who themselves were neither born citizens nor were they naturalized. So the Court proves itself a bit wonky on that point. Still, I certainly do not dispute that today all US citizens are either born or naturalized. But that’s not the point. The necessary evaluation requires consideration of the various types of born citizenship. And on this important issue, the Indiana Court of Appeals has failed.
Born citizens can be broken up into three groups:
1. natural born
2. citizens by statute
3. 14th amendment citizens
- All three classes were born as US citizens, but not all three are the same. Persons born abroad are citizens by federal statute.
- A person born on US soil to alien parents who were domiciled here, according to Wong Kim Ark, is a 14th Amendment citizen.
- Natural born citizens are born on US soil to parents who are citizens.
All of the above are citizens, but each reaches their citizenship through different circumstances.
To be “natural born” is a circumstance of citizenship. It is not a separate level of citizenship. All citizens have equal rights. But naturalized citizens aren’t eligible for the office of President. This is because the natural born citizen clause is a national security measure, not a right of citizenship. The Indiana Court conveniently ignores this point.
Born citizens are not necessarily bestowed with citizenship in the same way. Some require a statute. Some require the 14th Amendment. Some were natural born and their citizenship was self-evident.
The Indiana court also pointed to dicta in a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case which labeled two children of an illegal alien as natural born. That case stated:
The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.
But nothing about the issue was discussed. The children were mentioned in passing dicta. Whether the children were natural born was not an issue in that case. And it was a mistake for the court to say they were natural born.
The Indiana Court of Appeals acknowledges that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not hold that the man was a natural born citizen. Essentially, the Indiana court acknowledges that the US Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint, but the Indiana Court of Appeals here doesn’t feel that they are restrained in that regard. How brave of them.
Furthermore, the Indiana Court chose to ignore the most relevant aspect of Wong Kim Ark where the SCOTUS clearly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not natural born:
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 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…’
That tells you right there that the child of the citizen and the child of the alien are not both natural born.
“…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
- he compares two children
- on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
- on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
The Indiana Court conveniently ignored this analysis. And that comes as no surprise to me. They had to ignore it because there was no possible way for them to distinguish it.
Leo C. Donofrio
Phil says:
November 24, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Where they say “natural born Citizens for Article II, Section 1 purposes” they mean Presidential eligibility. Tell me you didn’t need them to say it differently to understand what they meant.
*The reason why I’m stressing this point is that no law has been legally created by the Legislative branch,*
When the court makes a decision like they did, it becomes a legal precedent, which is in effect, the same as a law. The Supreme Court decided Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. The Congress did not need to follow up with a law expressing that. It was made as law by the court’s decision.
siseduermapierda,
Remember, this is an official opinion, not law. Further, I don’t see anything in the opinion where the Judges have specifically said that therefore anyone who conforms to what they’re opining RE: NBC means that they are eligible for the presidency.
The reason why I’m stressing this point is that no law has been legally created by the Legislative branch, to date, that specifically determines the definition of natural born citizen, nor what constitutes proper evidence and to what degree said evidence can substantiate such a claim.
-Phil
Bobert says:
November 24, 2009 at 12:55 am
Once again folks . . . the birth certificate is Obama’s red herring. It’s a complete distraction, and he knows it. The real question – the one that nobody in the media wants to ask is:
“Mr. Obama, if the 14th Amendment can’t make someone a “natural born citizen” because that designation, for purposes of Art. 2, Section 1, Clause 5, is something that takes place at one’s birth, then how do you maintain that you are a “natural born citizen” per A2S5C1 of the US Constitution if your father was a Kenyan national and British citizen at your birth? Doesn’t this result in you having “dual citizenship” and therefore potential “dual loyalties” that the Framers of our US Constitution took great pains to guard against by requiring that all U.S. Citizens (excluding the Framers and those born before effective date of the US Constitution) holding the office of U.S. President must be a “natural born citizen”?
This day is coming in early 2011. Do not think that the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are not fully aware of this. They are just sitting back and waiting. Letting all of the liberal/socialist/marxist cockroaches come out of the woodwork thinking that “now is the time” that we fundamentally change the U.S. Then Karl Rove shows up with the can of Raid Bug Spray to finsih them off for the next 90 years. There is a reason why Rush, Hannity, Beck, O’Riley, Laura Ingraham, etc. aren’t talking about this or simply dismissing it. They have their marching orders – which is “DO NOT” push for Obama’s removal or question his eligibility until after the 2010 elections when the GOP is back in a position of power in Congress. Do it too early and Joe Biden can just re-sign off on everything that Mr. Obama did after they run it back through the Dem lead House and super-majority Senate. Can’t do that after 2010 when the GOP has its filibuster powers back.
Just suck it up for another 12 months. The end-game is near.
___________________________________________________________________
And he will answer due to the ruling by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, where the Court explicitly stated that the founders used English Common Law to write the Constitution. This is germane because the Constutution does not define what a NBC is, if you recall the Court stated we needed to look at English Common law, which defined a natural born subject, or citizen, and someone born within the borders of the kingdom, or country. In other words since I was born in the US I am a natural born citizen.
Are you kidding me. Some grand plan by Rove and Cheney? Those guys will be more worried about not going to jail than anything else. You are delusional if you think that the GOP will pick up enough seats in the House and Congress to shift the balance of power. There is no birther calvary. The reason that Rush and the other wingnut idiots are not pushing the issue because even they realize that Obama is a NBC. They are just not as delusional as you seem to be.
Bill G says:
November 23, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Dear Qwertyman and Brygenon: I was trying to be brief but can elaborate. Two US citizen parents are required for NBC and this was admitted by BHO in endorsing the Senate resolution. In proposing the NBC language, John Jay explained to Washington to goal was to avoid dual allegiance for the commander in chief. The language was used with little record of disagreement. It was an obvious protection to include. Such was not assured by mere US citizenship which was separately cited for other office holders. NBC is different than US citizen and is intended to assure allegiance solely to the US. Each of your comments is a semantic twist that deviates from the intent of the founders. Have fun with your machinations, but you shed no light on what is a clear vision our Founders created and that America is now dismantling. Please do not pretend to justify what is obviously treason against the US. And do not kid yourselves or us regarding what BHO knows. He knows. He commissioned Perkin Coles to spend over a million dollars shielding the truth from us.
__________________________________________________________________
But Bill, the SCOTUS in Wong specifically stated that the founders intent in writing the Constitution was to use English Common Law. So how do you explain that? No where did the founders require that a NBC needed 2 citizen parents. If you can provide that citation for us it would be greatly appreciated. Now you will go to Leo’s blog and try and find it. Unfortunately you won’t and then you will come back and say “I just know it was their intent”, which is basically saying I know more that the the 6 justices back in 1896 during the Wong ruling when they specifically mentioned English Common Law. The only treason being committed is by Orly and her followers.
Just as an aside why do the birthers keep focusing on the so called millions of dollars that the President supposedly spent to defend himself. If you used your brain and not listening to the birthers you would know that for most of the eligibility cases the Presdent was defended by the Justice Department. So the taxpayers are footing the bill for these ridiculous wild goose chases being conducted by the birthers…
Bobert says:
November 24, 2009 at 12:55 am
*red herrings*
Have you been asleep at the switch. The Indiana Court of Appeals reminded everyone a week ago:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
With that one sentence, they blew away the dual citizen and two citizen parent theories.
Once again folks . . . the birth certificate is Obama’s red herring. It’s a complete distraction, and he knows it. The real question – the one that nobody in the media wants to ask is:
“Mr. Obama, if the 14th Amendment can’t make someone a “natural born citizen” because that designation, for purposes of Art. 2, Section 1, Clause 5, is something that takes place at one’s birth, then how do you maintain that you are a “natural born citizen” per A2S5C1 of the US Constitution if your father was a Kenyan national and British citizen at your birth? Doesn’t this result in you having “dual citizenship” and therefore potential “dual loyalties” that the Framers of our US Constitution took great pains to guard against by requiring that all U.S. Citizens (excluding the Framers and those born before effective date of the US Constitution) holding the office of U.S. President must be a “natural born citizen”?
Riddle me that one Mr. Obama.
Hold fast Birthers. The time is drawing near. The GOP machine is well aware of this fatal flaw. But it does no good to remove the usurper now. Wait. Wait for the Dems to pass Universal Healthcare. Wait for them to pass Cap & Trade. Wait for several more liberal US Supreme Court justices to retire when they think it is “safe” because Mr. Obama will appoint another ulta-liberal replacement. Wait until after 2010 when the GOP has given them enough rope to hang themselves with the decisions that they have made these past 24 months and they lose the super majority in the Senate. THEN, and only then, will the GOP heavy hitters bring out the hammer and finish the usurper. They will ask the courts to define “natural born citizen” and it will be determined that Mr. Obama does not meet the Constitution requirement. No riots will occur because Mr. Obama approval rating will be somewhere around 30% by this time. The result will be the removal of Mr. Obama and a revocation of all legislation and judicial appointments and treaties that Mr. Obama has enacted or signed. At this point, Mr. Biden will have to take over until a special election can be had per the Constitution, but he and the Dems in Congress will not be able to once again pass Health Care or Cap & Trade or get approval of liberal judicial appointments because the House will be much closer to a 50/50 split and the Dems will no longer be able to use a super majority to circumvent the GOP opposition.
This day is coming in early 2011. Do not think that the likes of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are not fully aware of this. They are just sitting back and waiting. Letting all of the liberal/socialist/marxist cockroaches come out of the woodwork thinking that “now is the time” that we fundamentally change the U.S. Then Karl Rove shows up with the can of Raid Bug Spray to finsih them off for the next 90 years. There is a reason why Rush, Hannity, Beck, O’Riley, Laura Ingraham, etc. aren’t talking about this or simply dismissing it. They have their marching orders – which is “DO NOT” push for Obama’s removal or question his eligibility until after the 2010 elections when the GOP is back in a position of power in Congress. Do it too early and Joe Biden can just re-sign off on everything that Mr. Obama did after they run it back through the Dem lead House and super-majority Senate. Can’t do that after 2010 when the GOP has its filibuster powers back.
Just suck it up for another 12 months. The end-game is near.
Dear Qwertyman and Brygenon: I was trying to be brief but can elaborate. Two US citizen parents are required for NBC and this was admitted by BHO in endorsing the Senate resolution. In proposing the NBC language, John Jay explained to Washington to goal was to avoid dual allegiance for the commander in chief. The language was used with little record of disagreement. It was an obvious protection to include. Such was not assured by mere US citizenship which was separately cited for other office holders. NBC is different than US citizen and is intended to assure allegiance solely to the US. Each of your comments is a semantic twist that deviates from the intent of the founders. Have fun with your machinations, but you shed no light on what is a clear vision our Founders created and that America is now dismantling. Please do not pretend to justify what is obviously treason against the US. And do not kid yourselves or us regarding what BHO knows. He knows. He commissioned Perkin Coles to spend over a million dollars shielding the truth from us.
qwertyman wrote:
Qwertyman, Bill G presented “BHO on NBC” and put that statement in quotation marks, falsely implying the words to be Obama’s. That’s not a logic error. Bill G is not accidentally mistaken.
False, it said that two US citizen parents were sufficient, not required to be a natural born citizen.
If I’m in New York, then I’m in the US.
If you have two citizen parents, then you’re a natural born citizen.
If I’m not in New York, then I’m not in the US.
If you don’t have two citizen parents, then you’re not a natural born citizen.
Notice how this makes no sense?
You’ve committed the logical error of denying the antecedent.