Exclusive: Donofrio, Pidgeon to Collaborate on Quo Warranto, Chrysler Bankruptcy Appeal

by Phil on 12/6/2009

Sunday, December 6, 2009 9:30pm et update:

An associate of Mr. Pidgeon has taken a number of questions from me regarding the logistics, process and expectations of both the bankruptcy appeal and the quo warranto petition. I expect to have then posted as another update and/or posting after I’ve received and reviewed them.

Stay tuned…

Sunday, December 6, 2009 update:

In what has become the first exclusive for The Right Side of Life blog, I have been able to confirm specific details of the excellent work that Dianna Cotter of the Portland Civil Rights Examiner began.

My communications with attorney Leo Donofrio can now reveal that he, attorney Stephen Pidgeon, and lead Plaintiff James Anderer will be collaborating on the cases for multiple dealers for a Chrysler Bankruptcy appeal as well as quo warranto:

The story is true.  The lead plaintiff James Anderer announced it on Fox Business News on Friday night.  He also spoke to the Wall Street Journal on Friday and gave them a legal memo we prepared.

Mr. Anderer originally contacted me after somebody asked him to read my blog.  I then took a long look at the entire Chrysler Bankruptcy and found strong grounds to appeal.  We found problems with the Bankruptcy Court’s handling of the Rejection Motion that had not been previously pointed out to the dealers.

Based upon Mr. Anderer’s lengthy discussions with other dealers and various attorneys, everyone was very impressed with the concepts raised, not just quo warranto but the actual Bankruptcy Court Rejection Order and Opinion as well.  I then suggested we bring in an experienced litigator to partner with me on this.  Steve Pidgeon was the best candidate for the job.  So the three of us put this together.  I prepared legal memos.  Steve checked them and added his thoughts and then we brought our case to the dealers through Mr. Anderer.

And so we’ve been retained going forward from here.  It is not a pro bono case.

We anticipate having papers filed next week for the bankruptcy action and quo warranto to follow the week after.

Steve and I have formed a law office as a result.

Ms. Cotter also followed up with me — she is apparently an avid reader of my site (shameless plug; many thanks to her!) — concerning some overall details of the story. She communicated with me that there could be upwards of 50 to 100 dealers involved, depending on how many wish to take part in the suit. She also mentioned that the bankruptcy case will be filed in the Southern District of New York and the quo warranto will be filed in DC.

I want to once again thank a concerned citizen who originally brought this story to my attention as well as Ms. Cotter and Mr. Donofrio who, to date, have provided the additional details.

Original story begins below the dashed line.

Developing…

Cross-posted at FreeRepublic.com.

—-

Dianna Cotter of the Portland Civil Rights Examiner wrote a posting today having to do with how Chrysler and GM dealers lost their franchises practically overnight through what they saw as an unlawful federal government intrusion into the automotive industry (where some creditors alleged to have been threatened by the White House over the deal).

With this as a backdrop, Ms. Cotter quotes “an anonymous source” as saying that attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon, of Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Broe v. Reed, respectively, have teamed up with certain dealers in DC District Court:

Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:

1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.

This case may initially slide under the MSM radar; however, it may be the single most serious case to be brought against The Obama Administration and the President himself to date.

I shall be following up with Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon to confirm if they’re able to shed further insight on this story, as we are essentially dealing with an unconfirmed report at this time.

Further, Mr. Donofrio has recently reported, in part, the following on his site:

After the electoral college certified Obama, I predicted every eligibility law suit pending against him would fail on procedural grounds unless brought via the DC District Court under the the DC quo warranto statute.

That prediction is batting 1000.

Mr. Donofrio had previously shed some light on his opinion regarding the quo warranto writ: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

TRSoL News (semi-automatically-generated headlines every day): News.TheRightSideOfLife.com

There are 227 comments in this article:

  1. 12/5/2009jvn says:

    GM and Chrysler were going to go bankrupt – the dealerships were going to close anyway. That they ended up being closed by the reformatted companies has really very little to do with the Obama administration except that federal money was used to help the companies have the funding to reorganize.

    As far as these dealers having standing to file a QW case, I am highly skeptical, but we’ll see what the court says.

    The big problem they are going to face if they ever do successfully raise the QW question, (which is: “By what authority do you exercise the power of your office?”) is that answer will be: “The Electoral College elected me, the Congress certified the results of that election and the Chief Justice swore me in.”

    End of QW suit. That is all that is Constitutionally required.

    I hope that these dealers will have better lawyers if they are serious in seeking damages, these guys will leave them owing more money.

  2. 12/5/2009Sue says:

    If I were serious about filing a lawsuit, I sure would not hire Donofrio and Pidgeon as my lawyers. Wonder if these guys have consulted real lawyers regarding this?

  3. 12/6/2009Black Lion says:

    Sue says:
    December 5, 2009 at 11:27 pm
    If I were serious about filing a lawsuit, I sure would not hire Donofrio and Pidgeon as my lawyers. Wonder if these guys have consulted real lawyers regarding this
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Sue and JVN, I was thinking the same thing. If they are really using Leo and Pidgeon as their lawyers it must be because competent attorneys did not think there was much of a case. And if you recall since GM and Chrysler even after the bailout were still in charge of their own operations. So for there to even be a case we would have to believe that somehow the President was involved in forcing GM and Chrysler to close those dealerships. I am curious to see if Leo is really involved and how far this case could actually get in regards to the QW statute. Stay tuned…

  4. 12/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    In order to achieve his high aims of “correcting” America, leveling her to the same category of Tobriand Island and Paraguay (and, considering our shameful past & present, we should be at a lower level, anyway), dba Obama employs the not-that-new procedures used by the communist all over the world – ruining the middle class and creating a national, amorphous mass of government-conditioned workers.

    It is not by chance that Obama’s recession-fixing policies contain no measures aimed at helping the middle, entrepreneur class, that “bourgeoisie” so intently hated by Lenin, Stalin and their followeres across the world – contrary, the tea-parties, expression of this category’s anxieties are constantly derided and no effort is spared in trying to neutralize them.

    Why help some sinister car dealers? Kulaks! Slavers! Thives! Oppressors!
    What we need to do is to give more money for ACORN – they are the forces of progress in America!

    I don’t remember Ceaucescu, Mugabe, Castro or Chavez, even in their more difficult moments, abandoning this communism-ensuring policy, the destruction of the middle class –

    And Obama sure doesn’t err from those luminous examples – and we can see that this time-tested policy of undermining the middle-class societies is applied on America -

  5. 12/6/2009Dennis says:

    RE: If I were serious about filing a lawsuit, I sure would not hire Donofrio and Pidgeon as my lawyers. Wonder if these guys have consulted real lawyers regarding this (Sue says: December 5, 2009 at 11:27 pm)

    What is wrong with Donofrio and Pidgeon? What do you mean by real lawyers?

  6. 12/6/2009Mick says:

    JVN Says:
    The big problem they are going to face if they ever do successfully raise the QW question, (which is: “By what authority do you exercise the power of your office?”) is that answer will be: “The Electoral College elected me, the Congress certified the results of that election and the Chief Justice swore me in.”

    End of QW suit. That is all that is Constitutionally required.
    ________________________________________________________________

    I have seen your other illogical relativist postings at Leo’s site before (he embarrassed you more than once). Read your Constitution silly. It also says that he must be 14 years resident, 35 yrs. old and …. Get this, A Natural Born Citizen (born in the US of Citizen Parents). It doesn’t say by WHO’s authority, it says by WHAT authority (What meaning that silly thing called the LAW).

  7. 12/6/2009qwertyman says:

    A Natural Born Citizen (born in the US of Citizen Parents)

    There is no judge, no member of Congress, and no current legal scholar who believes that that is the definition of natural born citizen.

  8. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Despite your prattling Mick, you’re right, the question IS: By WHAT authority…

    But the answer remains the same.

    The Electoral College has the constitutional duty to ensure that the president they elect is qualified. The Congress has the constitutional duty to ensure that the EC vote was conducted appropriately and constitutionally.

    So the answer to the question: “By what authority do you hold office” is, more accurately, “By the authority of the United States Constitution as administered and certified by the EC and the Congress and with the oath sworn to by the CJ.”

    At no point will a federal court look at the political question of eligibility.

  9. 12/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE jvn:

    […] At no point will a federal court look at the political question of eligibility. […]

    Unfortunately, I kind of have to agree here – yet (are we talking about mister Obama, by the way?), a court is in its natural environment when looking in SOMEONE’S RISING FUNDS FOR A POLITICAL POSITION, FULLY AWARE THAT HE WAS/IS ACTUALLY CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE FOR THAT POSITION.

    Swindle, scaming – since we are talking about mister Obama, he has rised considerable amounts of money from unsuspecting citizenry under FALSE PRETENSE, claiming that he was eligible for the position he was electioneeering for –

    And the obstacle of standing here disappears because any disappointed voter who at a certain time donated money to Obama can claim that was harmed – the only way for Obama to exit this situation being… demonstrating that he was/ is a legitimate president by showing his birth certificate –
    Bingo!

    Remember, Al Capone wasn’t nailed for murder or racketeering – it was for skipping paying taxes, little detail initially though of no importance by his defense

  10. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Interesting theory Mis, really, but it wouldn’t work even if you found an Obama donor to go along.

    Someone claiming that they were scammed because the President isn’t eligible to be President would fail because he IS the President, ipso facto he’s not ineligible.

    The same constitutional authorities, the Electoral College and the Congress who represent the authority under which he serves for QW purposes are the same constitutional authorities who have ascertained that he is eligible.

    I understand that you disagree with the method they used to determine his eligibility, I even understand that you disagree that anyone born in the United States is an NBC, but those disagreements do not give you the right to overturn the decision reached by the EC and the Congress.

    You do have the right to try to change the system and/or the definition of NBC… Have at it!

  11. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    “1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.”

    Question to lawyers who comment here.

    Wasn’t this bankruptcy court ruling 8+ months ago and wouldn’t this be a motion that is out of time and will not be considered by the court?

  12. 12/6/2009yo says:

    I hope leo gets somewhere with this suit, but….

    let’s face it folks, the courts have shown us thus far that they have no more interest in deposing the usurper than the media or the elected pols or even the dnc.

    I’m disturbed that leo might be off the investigation into the hawaii doh. I think we must prove that the usurper lied in some major way on his bc for us to get anywhere. Otherwise, the truth is banging it’s head against a big brick wall. yes, i understand that dual citizenship disqualifies, but the courts and the people just don’t care and won’t remove him on that issue. the birth certificate will get the public off the dime…..

  13. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    “yes, i understand that dual citizenship disqualifies,”

    No, actually, it does not.

  14. 12/6/2009Pete says:

    “Blacklion: Sue and JVN, I was thinking the same thing. If they are really using Leo and Pidgeon as their lawyers it must be because competent attorneys did not think there was much of a case. And if you recall since GM and Chrysler even after the bailout were still in charge of their own operations. So for there to even be a case we would have to believe that somehow the President was involved in forcing GM and Chrysler to close those dealerships. I am curious to see if Leo is really involved and how far this case could actually get in regards to the QW statute. Stay tuned…”

    Leo was looking for ‘interested parties’, those individuals whom would qualify under QW (who had been directly harmed by Obama’s taking office and his actions). There can be little doubt that those dealership owners that lost everything, in the political move by Obama to reward Democrats with taxpayer money (via the GM debacle), have become an ‘interested party’.

    The problem isn’t that Leo doesn’t have legal education or skills, but that he still believes the legal system and truth work in the United States.

  15. 12/6/2009Nick says:

    Please keep us posted on what they say. It would be great if we could get confirmation on this. If WorldNetDaily covered it — and I think they indeed might choose to do so, if it’s true — that would be a great first step in making the public aware.

  16. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”… To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Moreover, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

    Obama acknowledges at his Fight the Smears website that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948 – Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

  17. 12/6/2009Joss Brown says:

    Sue wrote:

    “yes, i understand that dual citizenship disqualifies,”
    No, actually, it does not.

    Dual citizenship later in life does not disqualify a person from the office of President. If I remember correctly the FAM advises against dual citizenships for government employees, but this is surely not mandatory. In the Quo Warranto the unanswered question here—or as Donofrio put it: the “matter of first impression”—is whether a born dual citizen, i.e. Obama who was at birth a native born US citizen and also a natural born subject of the United Kingdom, can be regarded as a natural born citizen of the US. If the court’s answer is no, then his ineligibility is the only logical consequence, no matter what his current citizenship status is.

    I’m just wondering: It says “motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections”. I think it is probable that the court will dismiss this part. My question is if point 2 (Quo Warranto) will be thrown out together with the motion to reconsider. (??)

  18. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Pete,

    “The problem isn’t that Leo doesn’t have legal education or skills”

    While Leo may have the “legal education” (law degree/license), I disagree (My opinion) that Leo has the “skills.” I’m pretty sure Leo has never actually been a “practicing attorney.” But, I could be wrong. My understanding is that Leo has been a poker player/rock band star.

  19. 12/6/2009Joss Brown says:

    Benaiah wrote:

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).

    If natural born citizen is interpreted in the light of common law, then Obama is definitely eligible, because a natural born subject under common law also includes children born in the dominion of the British crown of non-British parents.

    But this quote is not part of the ruling in Wong Kim Ark. In the ruling Wong Kim Ark was only declared a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Furthermore SCOTUS in its ruling explicitly indicated that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen. They clearly distinguished between two paths of acquiring citizenship: (a) by the ruling in Wong Kim Ark, and (b) by natural birth. Two different paths to citizenship. That’s what they ruled.

    Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark is a very specific case pertaining only to dual citizen children born in the US of a foreign parent, who is permanently domiciled and has permanent residence in the US. This argument by SCOTUS was necessary to separate mere territorial jurisdiction from complete jurisdiction. Obama’s father was not permanently domiciled in the US, had no permanent residence, because he was only a foreign exchange student. So the case Wong Kim Ark doesn’t even apply to Obama, meaning that Obama is not even a 14th Amendment citizen.

  20. 12/6/2009Joss Brown says:

    Sue wrote:

    My understanding is that Leo has been a poker player/rock band star.

    So in your view this makes him a bad attorney, unfit for practicing law? Or what? That’s utter lunacy.

  21. 12/6/2009qwertyman says:

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    Benaiah, I realize that you’re incapable of posting anything more than what you copy and pasted from some other website, but after the first several times you got called out for citing The Dred Scott Case how come you haven’t at least edited that one out? Are you really using arguments used to justify slavery to back your argument about the natural born citizen clause? Are you still going to continually cite the worst decision in the Supreme Court’s history, one that was overturned by the 14th Amendment?

    No court has cited Vattel in the context of citizenship since the dissenting opinion in Wong. That should tell you the extent to which this legal theory is valid.

  22. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

  23. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    According to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

    Obama acknowledges at his Fight the Smears website that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948 – Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

  24. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”… To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

  25. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

  26. 12/6/2009MGB says:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574363073023596.html

    Perhaps this is related? If it looks as if the case(s) might get traction, they will simply revisit the issue and pressure, satisfy, or buy off the dealers, somehow. Just as the military person saw orders rescinded, when the case went to court.

  27. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

  28. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

    S. RES. 511

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

    APRIL10, 2008

    Mrs. MCCASKILL(for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mrs.CLINTON, Mr. COBURN,and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary APRIL 24, 2008 Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment APRIL 30, 2008 Considered and agreed to

    RESOLUTION

    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;

    Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;

    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

  29. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Ben –

    You can selectively quote from court rulings, but here’s one from just a few weeks ago.

    “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” – Indiana Appeals Court

    This was 2009.

    On this case.

    On the merits.

    Care to offer some comment?

  30. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Barack Hasan ObaMao: “I’ve now been in 57 States”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

    57 States
    http://www.oic-oci.org/member_states.asp

  31. 12/6/2009Black Lion says:

    Pete says:
    December 6, 2009 at 11:51 am
    Leo was looking for ‘interested parties’, those individuals whom would qualify under QW (who had been directly harmed by Obama’s taking office and his actions). There can be little doubt that those dealership owners that lost everything, in the political move by Obama to reward Democrats with taxpayer money (via the GM debacle), have become an ‘interested party’.

    The problem isn’t that Leo doesn’t have legal education or skills, but that he still believes the legal system and truth work in the United States.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Actually both companies had filed for bankruptcy protection. By doing that they allowed the courts to decide on how the companies would reorganize. So Leo would also have to sue the courts because they had were involved in the decision making. Leo is reaching for straws trying to connect this to a QW statute. But that shouldn’t suprise anyone because he is always looking for unique theories and not actual law.

    You can believe in whatever you want. That is your right. However fortunately for us there is real law. Not fantasy law that Leo thinks there is. He was never a practicing attorney with experience in these kind of cases. Either way truth is on the side of the law. And we have seen the truth over the last 60 cases where the birthers have been unsuccessful.

  32. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

  33. 12/6/2009Black Lion says:

    jvn says:
    December 6, 2009 at 1:16 pm
    Ben –

    You can selectively quote from court rulings, but here’s one from just a few weeks ago.

    “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.” – Indiana Appeals Court

    This was 2009.

    On this case.

    On the merits.

    Care to offer some comment?
    __________________________________________________________________
    JVN, all Beniah does is recycle the same cut and paste postings from Leo or Mario sites. It is the same posts that he has been posting over the last few months. So you can’t expect anything different. All of the so called conclusions have been addressed many times on this blog but he will wait a couple of weeks and return with the same tired postings about Dred Scott, Venus rulings , Minor, and De Vattel. Yawn….

  34. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    jvn,

    This judge also implied in two footnotes that it doesn’t matter where the child is born to be a NBC, hence eligible for President according to her analysis in the main case. I haven’t seen how she arrived at that conclusion. I guess she doesn’t believe in the process for amending the Constitution. The Supreme Court has yet to apply the WKA analysis to the NBC requirement for the presidency. I don’t see how Judge Brown can make the jump that where the child is born doesn’t matter either.

  35. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    [15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States;” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” also declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    [121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  36. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “Just as the military person saw orders rescinded, when the case went to court.”

    Both the Cook and Rhodes case went to court. Cook’s orders were rescinded. Rhodes orders were not. Do you know why?

  37. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    BL,

    I think you need to read MGB’s comment and link. Quite interesting, this part:

    GM , which already offered a similar review process, said it now would disclose specific reasons why a dealership was being closed and offer binding arbitration to settle disputes. It touted the plan as a more suitable alternative than proposed legislation in Congress that it said would “raise a variety of legal and constitutional concerns.”

    I throw this to Q as well concerning the abuse of power topic on the previous thread.

  38. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”… To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

  39. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Sharon2 says:
    December 6, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    “This judge also implied in two footnotes that it doesn’t matter where the child is born to be a NBC, hence eligible for President according to her analysis in the main case.”

    Sharon, in the footnotes I see the court indicate that they are not answering the questions as to John McCain being an NBC, that is, whether a child born abroad with two US citizen parents is an NBC, but the implication that “it doesn’t matter where the child is born to be an NBC” comes not from this court but from the Congress of the United States who have the authority to – and have – set our laws on citizenship to reflect that very thing.

    What’s your gripe and how is that relevant to President Obama?

  40. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    FONG YUE TING v. UNITED STATES. WONG QUAN V. UNITED STATES. LEE JOE V. UNITED STATES., 13 S. Ct. 1016, 149 U.S. 698 (U.S. 05/15/1893)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [18] The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners, who have not been naturalized or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of the country, rests upon the same grounds, and is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the country.

    [19] This is clearly affirmed in dispatches referred to by the court in Chae Chan Ping’s case. In 1856, Mr. Marcy wrote: “Every society possesses the undoubted right to determine who shall compose its members, and it is exercised by all nations, both in peace and war. A memorable example of the exercise of this power in time of peace was the passage of the alien law of the United States in the year 1798.” In 1869, Mr. Fish wrote: “The control of the people within its limits, and the right to expel from its territory persons who and dangerous to the peace of the State, are too clearly within the essential attributes of sovereignty to be seriously contested.” Wharton’s International Law Digest, § 206; 130 U.S. 607.

    [20] The statements of leading commentators on the law of nations are to the same effect.

    [21] Vattel says: “Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, or doing it a manifest injury. What it owes to itself, the care of its own safety, gives it this right; and in virtue of its natural liberty, it belongs to the nation to judge whether its circumstances will or will not justify the admission of the foreigner.” “Thus, also, it has a right to send them elsewhere, if it has just cause to fear that they will corrupt the manners of the citizens; that they will create religious disturbances, or occasion any other disorder, contrary to the public safety. In a word, it has a right, and is even obliged, in this respect, to follow the rules which prudence dictates.” Vattel’s Law of Nations, lib. 1, c. 19, §§ 230, 231.

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

  41. 12/6/2009bob strauss says:

    qwertyman,”There is no judge, no member of congress,and no current legal scholar who believes that that is the definition of natural born citizen.”

    Must I remind you again, the US Senate voted unanimously that John McCain met the definition of natural born citizen. The US Senate said McCain was born on American soil to two American citizen parents.

    That is exactly the definition Benaiah posted.

    Your definition works OK for the description of citizen, but fails to meet the requirements of Article 2 in the Constitution, or Senate Resolution 511.

    To be a natural born citizen and satisfy the Constitutional requirements to be President one must be born in America to citizen parents. Natural born American, not the son of a British citizen.

  42. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

  43. 12/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm
    Nice parse. But McCain’s status was in question and involved his parents because he was born in Panama. We know Obama was born in Hawaii. And since Hawaii actually is within the borders of the United States, Obama, is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents, as decided by the US Supreme Court over 100 years ago in the case of Wong Kim Ark. Sorry you don’t like the outcome, but it is what it is and as far as current law and court precedent go, President Obama is absolutely eligible to be President.

  44. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies”

    Khalid Sheik Obama: “My administration is now committed to diplomacy [appeasement] that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran [Mullahs] , and the international community [57 Islamic States]. This process will not be advanced by threats [except to American infidels who oppose allah and my administration]. We seek engagement [submission to Islam] that is honest [deceptive] and grounded in mutual respect [deception]…”

  45. 12/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 6, 2009 at 1:31 pm
    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    More parsing from Benaiah today! Sorry, you’re wrong as the Indiana court of appeals recently reminded us all. Courts have repeatedly used the terms “natural born”, “native” and “citizen at birth” interchangeably. They all mean the same thing. The 14th amendment tells us there are 2 types of citizens: natural born and naturalized. USC 8 1401 explains who are the natural born citizens. You are putting forth a silly argument that might comfort you that maybe you’ve found some loophole to disqualify Obama, but with the slightest examination of the Constitution, the Law and legal precedent, it is clear there is no class of super-citizens that are “natural born” for Article II purposes. The Indiana court of appeals made this very clear for those of you who wish it weren’t so.

  46. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    EDIT:

    From this point forward, I would ask that all commenters refrain from defaming Mr. Leo Donofrio on this site. Said commenter should also realize that while I can only control what’s on my site, similar commentary on other sites could also be construed as forming a defamation case (past history) against such an individual or entity.

    Should such discussion continue, those comments will be moderated and complete contact info of commenter — to include received name, email address and IP address — shall be forwarded to Mr. Donofrio and/or other interested parties for potential legal action.

    Frankly, such commentary goes against the civil standards of discourse on my site, and I apologize that this had to be pointed out to me before I could do something about it. I shall endeavor to make sure that I’m not as lax in the future.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  47. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Barack Hasan ObaMengele:

    “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death…”

    “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller [and being euthanized]…”

  48. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Leo’s big problem is that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, and he has an outsized view of his own abilities…

    He believes an arcane theory of the NBC clause in the Constitution. Nothing wrong with that, but, he’s absolutely wrong in that belief.

  49. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    “This eligibility issue is so politically charged that no big name lawyer is going to take it.”

    False. The reason “no big name lawyer” has filed an eligibility lawsuit is because these are frivolous lawsuits and have no merit. There is no “NBC issue” except in Donofrio’s half baked theory that the “bithers” have foolishly bought hook, line and sinker because of their hatred of President Obama.

  50. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    Have you made your quote yet for that comment Sue?

  51. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    quota, not quote

    Time for a break

  52. 12/6/2009jtx says:

    And here’s a bit of “Holiday Cheer” for the White House that includes a color version of the Washington Times B&W ad of the “three monkeys” that caused the Flying Monkeys to lose their cookies – and the quote near the end of the video by one of the originators of natural law precepts ain’t bad either:

  53. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    “Have you made your quote yet for that comment Sue?”

    I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you meant “cite the source” for my comment? My source is the 8th grade civics class/textbook and the college govt. class/textbook that I took. My son is presently taking college govt./politics and his textbook states the same thing as mine did. Both textbooks clearly state that if you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS. There is no requirement that your parents also be citizens anywhere in this book regarding POTUS eligibility. There is also no mention of deVattel or Law of Nations anywhere in this book.

  54. 12/6/2009MGB says:

    Sharon 2: I confess that I don’t know the difference between Cook and Rhodes. Care to enlighten?

    My basic point was that whenever there’s a slippery eel with weasely lawyers, eel and weasels will find a way to continue to slide out from under, whenever they look to be caught.

    That’s how honest, transparent persons behave, you know.

    Too cute by half.

    Not transparent. Not honest.

    As Elspeth says, “full disclosure.”

  55. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    without getting too bogged down in details, Cook was a military plaintiff in one of Orly’s cases. He was refusing to deploy, and filed suit,but his orders were rescinded. The case was later dismissed (I think) on standing. Captain Rhodes (also Orly’s client) filed an emergence stay and was refusing to deploy until the eligibility issue was resolved. This is the case where Orly was sanctioned by Judge Land. Rhodes lost and ended up deploying. Cook has filed a civil suit because he was fired after his case was dismissed.

    Both were military plaintiffs who refused to deploy.

    More later…

  56. 12/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sharon2 says:
    December 6, 2009 at 2:26 pm
    *I want to see the Supreme Court rule officially on the NBC clause as it affects eligibility. *

    Perhaps Ankeny and Kruse will appeal their case. If the Indiana Supreme Court declines to hear it, they can appeal to the US Supreme Court. If they don’t appeal, or if either court declines to hear the case, then the decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals will stand:

    “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.”

  57. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    I am sorry for that poorly worded response. Confusion at the house for the moment-I’ll try to catch up later.

    Take care

  58. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    Just because the SCt refuses to hear a case appealed from a state court doesn’t mean that the state court decision is the law of the land for all states. You can check with someone else on that.

    bye

  59. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Sharon,

    Yes, the Indiana court decision does not apply to all states and would not if the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, but the status quo would stand at that point so your point is irrelevant.

  60. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “My basic point was that whenever there’s a slippery eel with weasely lawyers, eel and weasels will find a way to continue to slide out from under, whenever they look to be caught.”

    Your basic point is not factual and I certainly hope that you don’t consider Major Rebecca Ausprung to be a “weasely lawyer.”

    To ask you why Cook’s orders were rescinded and Rhodes’ orders were not is a reasonable question to ask you, based upon what appears to be the implication of your comment, which you confirmed in your next comment. There is nothing dishonest or lacking transparency in my question to you.

  61. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Article I, Section 2: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

    Article I, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

  62. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    “Cook has filed a civil suit because he was fired after his case was dismissed.”

    Actually, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. See docket entries below.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2461&start=175

    “11/24/2009 DIS-2CIV (Letter to district court enclosing dismissal order) issued. To:Gregory J. Leonard; c:Eric Fleisig-Greene; c:Mark B. Stern; c:Orly Taitz No
    11/24/2009 Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-2(c), this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to file brief and record excerpts within the time fixed by the rules. No”

    “New Docket Entry…

    USCA notification to Judge Land of dismissal.

    11/30/2009 17 USCA Order dismissing 11[RECAP] Notice of Appeal filed by Stefan Frederick Cook. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter – 11/24/09)(tls) (Entered: 11/30/2009)”

  63. 12/6/2009Benaiah says:

    Constitutional Eligibility Requirements

    Article I, Section 2: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

    Article I, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

  64. 12/6/2009Sharon2 says:

    Sue,

    I wasn’t referring to the civil suit for the case involving deployment.

  65. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    I assume you are referring to Cook v. Simtech? I don’t believe an appeal has been filed in this lawsuit, but I could be wrong. However, I don’t think so.

  66. 12/6/2009MGB says:

    Sorry to add to the confusion. I thought Sharon 2 asked the question, not Sue. As for the weasel comment, if the weasel shoe fits, wear it. As for transparency, I was referring to the eel.

  67. 12/6/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Sharon 2:

    Both were military plaintiffs who refused to deploy.

    Actually, neither refused to deploy. In fact, neither even threatened to refuse to deploy.

  68. 12/6/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    This case may initially slide under the MSM radar; however, it may be the single most serious case to be brought against The Obama Administration and the President himself to date.

    First there has to actually be a case.

    Who’s holding their breath on this one?

  69. 12/6/2009Mike says:

    An Open Letter to Sarah Palin
    TIME TO COME TO THE AID OF YOUR COUNTRY

    (Dec. 1, 2009)

    Dear Mrs. Palin:

    Congress long ago provided a way to simply ask of an office holder, “By what warrant (right) do you hold office?” There is a harder way (Section 16—3502 of the Quo warranto statute in the District of Columbia Code) and an easier way (Sec. 16—3503, your way) to pose this question. The place to do it is the D.C. District Court. To quote Mr. Donofrio:

    Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an ‘interested person’ to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC. An ‘interested person’ may sign a ‘certified complaint’ which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The ‘interested person’ gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

    Now the beauty of this for you, Sarah, is that once you have established that you are an interested person and have stated your factual reasons for questioning Obama’s right to hold office under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution (the natural born citizen clause), you are done. Voila, you have done your duty to God and country. As per Mr. Donofrio, “If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an ‘interested person’ then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.” See how easy it is for you, Sarah, to relieve this nation of the injustice of a fraudulent election under which it now suffers?

    So it is up to you, Mrs. Palin, to petition the D.C. District Court to verify that Obama is eligible for office. You are uniquely positioned to serve the nation in this way, as you clearly “have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large.” (Donofrio 10-08-2009)

    comp article on link

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/01/an-open-letter-to-sarah-palin/

  70. 12/6/2009Dennis says:

    Attn.: Black Lion, Pete and Sue

    RE: “Leo was looking for ‘interested parties’, those individuals whom would qualify under QW (who had been directly harmed by Obama’s taking office and his actions). There can be little doubt that those dealership owners that lost everything, in the political move by Obama to reward Democrats with taxpayer money (via the GM debacle), have become an ‘interested party’. (December 6, 2009 at 11:51 am)”

    Yes they can prove injury but it is unclear and improbable if they can proceed under 16-3503. Because according to case law an “interested person” probably would have to be cheated out of the same office that the defendant holds. One case provides a little more room – but there is a small chance that they would be accepted under 16-3503.

    They could proceed under 16-3502, and if the administration and the courts were not corrupt they would have an excellent chance.

    RE: “The problem isn’t that Leo doesn’t have legal education or skills, but that he still believes the legal system and truth work in the United States.”

    You are 100% correct. Some readers, maybe Sue, called Leo incompetent. He is very smart and competent. However, he underestimates the deep moral corruption and political correctness of the courts and the administration.

    Look it this way. The judges, the DOJ officials and members of Congress took oaths to uphold and protect the Constitution. So even if the slightest cloud casts shadow on a serious possible violation of the constitution, they have the absolute duty to investigate and assure “We the People” that no such violation took place or remedy it if it did.

    If they do not do that they are guilty of “dereliction of duty” as Alen Keyes put it. They refusal makes the Constitution unenforceable, and if continues, will lead to chaotic lawlessness or dictatorship by a thin layer of the elite, a typical banana republic.

    So what is the solution? The truth will not surface without political change. Leo’s blind faith in the law is almost naïve. Nevertheless an action by the car-dealers would steer up more political mud than the other lawsuits caused so far. So he deserves support (if the rumor is true).

    If the unpopular legislations, that the administration is forcing, succeed, the political landscape could change in 2010. That will be the time to bring the lawsuits.

  71. 12/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Mike says:
    December 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm
    * you clearly “have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large.” *

    Why would Palin have standing? She wasn’t a candidate for President. The only person who could possibly have standing is John Sidney McCain. You guys should have caught him on Friday when he was all pi$$ed off, he might have signed on!

  72. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Per one of the “docket checker” at PJ regarding Cook v. Simtech.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1986&start=300#p90960
    “There is nothing on the docket in the 11th Circuit to indicate an appeal has been filed in the Simtech case, nor anything filed in the lower court to indicate her intent to file an appeal.”

  73. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    No, Dennis, Leo doesn’t have the legal skills to be a lawyer of Orly’s ability.

    Which is to say his legal skills are on par with Mario Apuzzo…

    :)

  74. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Dennis,

    “You are 100% correct. Some readers, maybe Sue, called Leo incompetent. He is very smart and competent. However, he underestimates the deep moral corruption and political correctness of the courts and the administration.”

    I said that Leo is not a “practicing attorney.” He has a law degree/license but lacks the experience. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears the only lawsuit Donofrio ever filed was the one with SCOTUS which was dismissed.

    “If they do not do that they are guilty of “dereliction of duty” as Alen Keyes put it. They refusal makes the Constitution unenforceable, and if continues, will lead to chaotic lawlessness or dictatorship by a thin layer of the elite, a typical banana republic.”

    Actually, these judges, elected and appointed officials are upholding the Constitution. It is the so called “patriots” who are trying to change the Constitution to fit their own political agenda.

    “So what is the solution? The truth will not surface without political change. Leo’s blind faith in the law is almost naïve. Nevertheless an action by the car-dealers would steer up more political mud than the other lawsuits caused so far. So he deserves support (if the rumor is true).”

    I suspect the time is fastly approaching when the courts will become less tolerant of these frivolous lawsuits and being professionally and personally attacked by these “birther lawyers.” If will be interesting if Donofrio signs his name to these rumored lawsuits.

  75. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Sue,

    I don’t think I mentioned anything about an appeal.

    ___________________
    Refused to deploy- not explained well by me. Wanted their cases decided before deployment. In Cook’s case, it didn’t matter because his orders were rescinded. Rhodes’ emergency case was decided, and she deployed.

    I think you just want to pick another fight.

  76. 12/6/2009qwertyman says:

    Why would Palin have standing? She wasn’t a candidate for President. The only person who could possibly have standing is John Sidney McCain. You guys should have caught him on Friday when he was all pi$$ed off, he might have signed on!

    McCain might have standing, as might Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.

    You are 100% correct. Some readers, maybe Sue, called Leo incompetent. He is very smart and competent. However, he underestimates the deep moral corruption and political correctness of the courts and the administration.

    Leo’s first problem is that he’s spent a year trying to make a legal argument that has not been accepted in any court in the United States for over a century. He’s bright and cunning (it takes more brainpower than you think to win a WSOP bracelet). Beyond the fact that his theory has been out of touch with both the legal and popular conception of the natural born citizen clause for over a century, there was absolutely no chance that a court is going to retroactively declare a former president ineligible for the presidency as well as nullify a national election. The Supreme Court does not like to cause major constitutional crises unless it can avoid it; they’re not going to declare a president-elect or a sitting president ineligible when there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the natural born citizen clause that’s been in effect for over a century.

  77. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Sue,

    Sharon2 says:
    December 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    quota, not quote

    As in quota of the usual retort.

    “Both textbooks clearly state that if you are born in the U.S., you are a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS. There is no requirement that your parents also be citizens anywhere in this book regarding POTUS eligibility.”

    Do the books clearly state that it doesn’t matter where your parents are born or is that your extrapolation of natural born citizen? Funny that no Supreme Court case has made any ruling about NBC as regards the presidency.

    This is just a cursory look at errors in history books:

    In 2002, for the first time in 11 years, pub­lish­ers sub­mit­ted high school U.S. History books for Texas approval … and again the education estab­lish­ment missed most factual errors. In 1991, we found 231 un­de­tect­ed factual errors in six high school U.S. History books after the state approval process certified them error-free. When this year’s process ended, we found 249 still-un­cor­rec­ted factual errors in four books – more mis­takes over­looked in fewer texts. This despite publish­ers’ claims to have beefed up their fact-check­ing, despite Texas Education Agen­cy emphasis on verifying accuracy to the State Textbook Review Panel, and despite an $80,000 Texas Tech review team backing them up.

    http://www.textbookreviews.org/index.html?content=nl_11_02.htm

    Just because it is in a textbook, doesn’t make it so.

  78. 12/6/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Sharon 2:

    Funny that no Supreme Court case has made any ruling about NBC as regards the presidency.

    Why would you find it “funny” that the Supreme Court has not made a ruling over what is a genuinely non-controversial issue? They have also completely failed to rule on which direction gravity operates, on the shape of the planet Earth, or whether or not Oswald acted alone.

    I guess you find that “funny” too?

  79. 12/6/2009qwertyman says:

    Just because it is in a textbook, doesn’t make it so.

    True. Is there a single textbook in the past 50 years that you can actually name and point to that says being born in the US is insufficient for being a natural born citizen?

    Is there a single member of Congress who agrees with the birther view of natural born citizen? A single judge? A single current legal scholar?

    I’ve been asking this question for a year, and never gotten a response.

  80. 12/6/2009chris says:

    qwertyman says:
    December 6, 2009 at 6:30 am

    A Natural Born Citizen (born in the US of Citizen Parents)

    There is no judge, no member of Congress, and no current legal scholar who believes that that is the definition of natural born citizen.

    You do consider Mr. Leahy a member of congress don’t you? Note the plural parent(s)
    At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, 2008 Sen. Patrick Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.

    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.

    By their own definition, Obama, not eligible.

  81. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Cook requested the court to recognize him as a conscientious objector in his petition for emergency relief.
    __________________

    Q- The issue has not arisen before now regarding presidential eligibility. I wouldn’t expect it to be in text books. There are three judges in Indiana who have made a ruling. No other court has addressed the issue of presidential eligibility.

    A court can’t fit a ruling to avoid obstacles when it comes to constitutionality. Also, there has to be a case that forces the issue, unless other courts make a ruling on the issue such as the Indiana court. Maybe quo warranto will force a ruling. What may happen is if come states come up with legislation requiring proof of eligibility that differ from one another and there is a split of court decisions across the country. Then you may see a Supreme Court decision to resolve the split. That is sometimes a reason why the S Ct. will take a case, to resolve the split in decisions in various circuits. These are just my thoughts, somewhat rambly as I should comment when I can concentrate without distraction.

  82. 12/6/2009jvn says:

    Sharon,

    The other thought you need to have is to understand that the SCOTUS has already had several chances to grant these theories a hearing – which they would have IF THEY THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INELIGIBLE.

    The Supeme Court has “reached” for cases that contained important constitutional issues throughout it’s history.

    Don’t believe for a second that they would allow someone who they believe is not eligible in office because of any issue they could waive aside.

  83. 12/6/2009qwertyman says:

    Q- The issue has not arisen before now regarding presidential eligibility. I wouldn’t expect it to be in text books. There are three judges in Indiana who have made a ruling. No other court has addressed the issue of presidential eligibility.

    Prior to Heller, the Court had never considered the scope of the Second Amendment either. Would you expect for no civics or constitutional law textbook to discuss that issue?

    The natural born citizen question is well-settled, and I’ll go ahead and cite the Jill Pryor note again.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9655857/Jill-Pryor-Natural-Born-Citizen

    Is there a single member of Congress, judge or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause?

    A court can’t fit a ruling to avoid obstacles when it comes to constitutionality. There has to be a case that forces the issue, unless other courts make a ruling on the issue such as the Indiana court. Maybe quo warranto will force a ruling. What may happen is if come states come up with legislation requiring proof of eligibility that differ from one another and there is a split of court decisions across the country. Then you may see a Supreme Court decision to resolve the split. That is sometimes a reason why the S Ct. will take a case, to resolve the split in decisions in various circuits. These are just my thoughts.

    Courts write opinions that avoid constitutional questions all the time. See Newdow v. Elk Grove Unified School District, the Pledge of Allegiance case. After getting all the way to the Supreme Court, the Court found that Newdown didn’t have standing, though no party had made that argument in any stage of the litigation before the Supreme Court took it up.

    I agree with you that if there was a split in circuits or state opinions, the Court may take up the situation to resolve the split. However, the odds of that happening are pretty close to nil. I would predict that no court in the country would agree with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

  84. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon 2,

    “I don’t think I mentioned anything about an appeal.”

    ““Cook has filed a civil suit because he was fired after his case was dismissed.””

    You are correct, however, that case was dismissed and there has been no appeal filed.

  85. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    I agree with you that if there was a split in circuits or state opinions, the Court may take up the situation to resolve the split. However, the odds of that happening are pretty close to nil. I would predict that no court in the country would agree with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    – Maybe not. I don’t know. With the make-up of our country, the issue seems likely to arise again. Take the case of Bobby Jindal, for example. Although he has expressed no present interest in the presidency, that may change depending on the field.

    If there are states that pass legislation for proof of eligibility that result in court cases with differing results, Congress may be forced to deal with legislation proving that a candidate meets the NBC clause.

  86. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    Prior to Heller, the Court had never considered the scope of the Second Amendment either. Would you expect for no civics or constitutional law textbook to discuss that issue?

    – The Second Amendment is a fluid issue that involves many different aspects. The NBC regarding eligibility was not relevant in past elections and is a pretty simple question, unlike Second Amendment litigation. NBC first arose with McCain.

    I think we both know where each other stands on the eligibility issue. I’ll leave the topic for the moment while civility is in play.

  87. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon2,

    “Refused to deploy- not explained well by me. Wanted their cases decided before deployment. In Cook’s case, it didn’t matter because his orders were rescinded. Rhodes’ emergency case was decided, and she deployed.

    I think you just want to pick another fight.”

    Are you speaking to me? As I recall, Orly filed TRO’s on behalf of both plaintiffs and both cases were denied/dismissed.

    “Cook requested the court to recognize him as a conscientious objector in his petition for emergency relief.”

    So did Rhodes.

    MGB and Sharon2,

    You haven’t answered my question. Why were Cook’s orders rescinded and Rhodes required to deploy as ordered? (orders not rescinded)

  88. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    A couple more things that I missed:

    Is there a single member of Congress who agrees with the birther view of natural born citizen? A single judge? A single current legal scholar?

    I’ve been asking this question for a year, and never gotten a response.

    << That would involve polling every single person in those groups. I wish you would not use "birther" view. You're a good writer. You can find a way not to be offensive.

    "Courts write opinions that avoid constitutional questions all the time."

    <<I was referring to the Court making a decision to avoid obstacles, whether the decision is correct or not. I don't think the Court would do that. For example, I don't think the Court would decide that Obama is eligible merely because what a mess if he weren't.

    Maybe I misunderstood this phrase:

    "The Supreme Court does not like to cause major constitutional crises unless it can avoid it;

    I have kids to get to bed…

  89. 12/6/2009Sue says:

    Sharon2,

    “If there are states that pass legislation for proof of eligibility that result in court cases with differing results, Congress may be forced to deal with legislation proving that a candidate meets the NBC clause.”

    Very, very doubtful that the courts would issue differing opinions regarding citizenship. But, I suppose it could happen, but very doubtful.

    “NBC first arose with McCain. I wouldn’t expect it to be in text books.”

    Not true. The eligibility issue is in my son’s college textbook.

  90. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    I think you just want to pick another fight.”

    I wasn’t referring to you Sue.

    As for your other question, just make your point. I am a little tired and don’t remember the specifics of Cook and Rhodes concerning deployment. I’ll have to answer at another time, unless you just want to make some kind of point that I am missing.

    “Very, very doubtful that the courts would issue differing opinions regarding citizenship. But, I suppose it could happen, but very doubtful.”

    Besides the above, I was also referring in part to legislation requiring proof of eligibility- what one state may require may be different than what another state requires (apart from the definition of a NBC)

  91. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    My comments keep getting lost or they are not showing.

    Oh brother, I have no idea what happened to my response to you Q.

    I’ll try to quickly rephrase because I have to get kids to bed.

    “Courts write opinions that avoid constitutional questions all the time.”

    <<< I was referring not to avoiding constitutional questions but writing a decision that decides constitutional questions merely to avoid hardships.

    Maybe I misinterpreted this phrase of yours:

    "The Supreme Court does not like to cause major constitutional crises unless it can avoid it; "

    "Is there a single member of Congress who agrees with the birther view of natural born citizen? A single judge? A single current legal scholar?"

    <<< I haven't spoken to all of the people in these groups.

    Would you please avoid "birther"? You are a good writer and creative enough to find a way to avoid being offensive.

  92. 12/6/2009Sharon 2 says:

    I have tried again and again to post comments to no avail. I probably won’t remember what I said, but I’ll try again another time. Probably because I have made several and they are being moderated for spam.

    I have to get kids to bed.

    If I can in a nutshell quickly respond:

    1) I was talking about the Court deciding constitutional issues in a way to avoid hardship, not avoiding the issues altogether.

    2) As for names of scholars, Congressmen, etc. I haven’t polled them all.

    3) Please try to avoid using “birther.” You are smart enough to find another way of phrasing your question without being offensive.

    4) I am about out of edit time. I really have to go.

  93. 12/6/2009uberVU - social comments says:

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by trsol: Post Update: Exclusive: Donofrio, Pidgeon to Collaborate on Quo Warranto, Chrysler Bankruptcy Appeal http://bit.ly/4XRwUJ

  94. 12/6/2009art o says:

    Phil. I don’t think you’re batting 1000. Have forgotten the many quo warrentos Orly and others had before theDC court and before Holder for 8 or 9 months now? A better question is how do we nail Holder for obstruction of justice, he’s sitting on this and the RIco charges. Good luck in this effort

  95. 12/6/2009Phil says:

    art o,

    Phil. I don’t think you’re batting 1000. Have forgotten the many quo warrentos Orly and others had before theDC court and before Holder for 8 or 9 months now? A better question is how do we nail Holder for obstruction of justice, he’s sitting on this and the RIco charges. Good luck in this effort

    I think you misread Mr. Donofrio’s quote (he said it, not me, and I happen to think he’s absolutely right).

    I’m not sure how many quo warranto petitions that Dr. Taitz has actually brought before the DC District Court; that number could be zero. Further, as far as I know, the situation described in this posting goes far beyond what any other form of litigation has done to date — challenging the federal government over its constitutional ability (or inability) to step into the automotive industry and essentially take control of it.

    Nevertheless, I agree; I hope something positive comes from this effort, hence the numerous questions I’d like to know about it, having followed at least the eligibility issue for over a year now.

    -Phil

  96. 12/6/2009Damaged Chrysler Dealers : Quo Warranto : Obama : - suijurisclub.net says:

    […] up to be an interesting situation to follow, what with Birth Certificate questions and all. The Right Side of Life Exclusive: Donofrio, Pidgeon to Collaborate on Quo Warranto, Chrysler Bankrup… __________________ Heir of Freedom Nothing in this post should be construed as Legal Advice, nor […]

  97. 12/6/2009Christinewjc says:

    No time to read all of the comments here right now, but perhaps this might be THE case that nails Obama (and Holder) to the wall! I now think that Obama’s regime will come crashing down through this lawsuit, rather than the ineligibility ones. Just my gut feeling at this moment.

    The shutting down of dealerships is unconstitutional and should NEVER have been done! I sincerely hope that all of the owners of those dealerships are vindicated through this lawsuit!

  98. 12/6/2009sus says:

    New goalpost? Ok.

  99. 12/6/2009qwertyman says:

    If I can in a nutshell quickly respond:

    1) I was talking about the Court deciding constitutional issues in a way to avoid hardship, not avoiding the issues altogether.

    2) As for names of scholars, Congressmen, etc. I haven’t polled them all.

    You don’t need to poll them all – all I want is a single one that agrees with your view of the natural born citizen clause – heck, a single member of Congress since 1897.

    A single current legal scholar. I’m not asking if there’s a majority, I’m asking if there’s just one. I’ve not gotten a single answer to this question yet.

    3) Please try to avoid using “birther.” You are smart enough to find another way of phrasing your question without being offensive.

    4) I am about out of edit time. I really have to go.

    Well, hope things are well with you and your family and kids.

  100. 12/7/2009GeorgetownJD says:

    Phil said:

    “I shall be following up with Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon to confirm if they’re able to shed further insight on this story, as we are essentially dealing with an unconfirmed report at this time.”

    _______________________

    While you’re at it, Phil, you may want to ask Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon how familiar they are regarding bankruptcy law, particularly as respects Chapter 11 proceedings. Oh, and you might do them a favor by advising them to get a substantial retainer UP FRONT on the case against Chrysler. Then mumble something about “the debtor-in-possession’s unilateral right of rejection of executory contracts … .”

  101. 12/7/2009JeffM says:

    We shall see how far this goes. I predict it won’t make it past the Federal Court in D.C.

    No, it won’t be because the court will dismiss this case. Class action suits like these will drag on for years, where the quo warranto will be dropped by 2012.

    If it were my decision I’d have every dual citizen deported back to where they came from. Or require citizens to give sole allegiance to the U.S. We don’t need so-called “citizens” in the U.S. with two-faced allegiance like our usurping clownboy has. It’s counterproductive and traditionally un-American. And this lack of allegiance is why our nation struggles to pay for itself with 30 million illegals on-board. Dual citizens won’t force their own “citizens” to go back home because of this dual allegiance.

    But I guess this is the new America where half the men and women are married and have a “significant other” at the same time. How fitting we have a Kenyan to represent the people of this nation that was once deeply rooted in moral and ethical beliefs of our framing fathers.

    We deserve to fail. We are not worthy of the nation our founding fathers fought so hard to forge. We are not worthy to carry the torch of liberty because we have no allegiance to ourselves. And we don’t follow the laws of the land because we are now a lawless society bereft with corruption and greed.

  102. 12/7/2009qwertyman says:

    We are not worthy to carry the torch of liberty because we have no allegiance to ourselves.

    This is what’s inscribed on the torch of liberty:

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

  103. 12/7/2009Dennis says:

    Attn.: jvn

    RE: “The other thought you need to have is to understand that the SCOTUS has already had several chances to grant these theories a hearing – which they would have IF THEY THOUGHT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS INELIGIBLE (jvn says December 6, 2009 at 7:34 pm)”

    Strange logic. SCOTUS never ruled on merit of any of the eligibility cases before them. You are taking their “dereliction of duty”, as Alen Keyes calls it, equivalent with ruling on merit.

  104. 12/7/2009brygenon says:

    Dennis says:

    Strange logic. SCOTUS never ruled on merit of any of the eligibility cases before them.

    The Court denied Schneller leave to proceed in forma pauperis because they were satisfied the petition was “frivolous or malicious”. Is that not clear as to the merits?

    You are taking their “dereliction of duty”, as Alen Keyes calls it, equivalent with ruling on merit.

    Alan Keyes’ bitterness is understandable. Barack Obama first clobbered Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate race in Illinois. Then in 2008, as Obama was elected our 44’th president, Keyes managed to lose the presidential race *three times*. After that, Keyes moved to fighting and losing in court, with the help of his attorney, Orly Taitz. Even though Keyes picked the fights, Barack Obama has trounced Alan Keyes every time — over and over and over.

    On the SCOTUS issue, Dennis, have you considered learning how the Court works? If one pays the fee and then files an obviously merit-less petition/application, it simply gets dismissed without comment. Thus if you refuse to take a clue from anything less than an explicit Supreme Court ruling on Obama’s eligibility, the result is that you remain clueless as, of course, Barack Obama remains President of the United States.

  105. 12/7/2009jvn says:

    Let’s talk for a minute about potential state requirements for ballot access.

    First off, not one state has changed it’s laws yet to my knowledge, and I don’t really anticipate that any will. It also seems unlikely that Congress will pass any law changing the so called “vetting” requirements.

    But for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that several states would require “proof of eligibility” for ballot access for presidential candidates.

    President Obama would have his campaign staff simply show his COLB to the appropriate state official and… And… He’d be on the ballot!

    No lawsuits. No need for court rulings. Show the proof that he was born in the United States and ballot access is secured.

    Some of you are no doubt hoping that some states pass laws defining a “natural born citizen” as “someone born in the US with two parents who are citizens at the time of birth.” That won’t ever happen because, number one, that would be counter to the actual definition of what makes an NBC, and two, states don’t have the right to define federal constitutional law to suit their own purposes. If you are hoping for this, keep dreaming.

    But like I’ve noted, no state has even come close to changing the current requirements (which had the President on the ballots everywhere), and the issue will be less and less important as we move into the next election cycle.

  106. 12/7/2009Sue says:

    Jeff M,

    “If it were my decision I’d have every dual citizen deported back to where they came from. Or require citizens to give sole allegiance to the U.S. We don’t need so-called “citizens” in the U.S. with two-faced allegiance like our usurping clownboy has. It’s counterproductive and traditionally un-American.”

    Interesting. So you want to deport every dual citizen back to where they came from? So an individual, “born in U.S.” with dual citizenship rights would be deported to where exactly?

    “And this lack of allegiance is why our nation struggles to pay for itself with 30 million illegals on-board. Dual citizens won’t force their own “citizens” to go back home because of this dual allegiance.”

    The “illegals” I have been in contact with work harder and have longer days than many Americans I know. Most have multiple jobs and the entire family works. Their children do well in school and they are an asset to their community. They work in jobs that some Americans look down upon. These individuals come to America to provide a better life for themselves and their families, just like my ancestors did.

  107. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    jvn says:
    December 7, 2009 at 7:13 am
    *But for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that several states would require “proof of eligibility” for ballot access for presidential candidates.*

    The states can’t change the requirements for federal offices. For example, states with term limits for state offices can’t set term limits for their federal congressmen and senators. It’s unlikely any of the states will pass any legislation about this. Sure, you’ll have the guy in Oklahoma who proposes a bill, but it, like Posey’s House bill, will die in committee. A few like to huff and puff to pander to a group whose support they might like to maintain, but nobody’s really serious. By the way, it’s Dec 7th, Nathan Deal, where’s your letter to Obama? Like I said, huffery, puffery pandering.

  108. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    GeorgetownJD says:
    December 7, 2009 at 12:12 am

    While you’re at it, Phil, you may want to ask Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon how familiar they are regarding bankruptcy law, particularly as respects Chapter 11 proceedings. Oh, and you might do them a favor by advising them to get a substantial retainer UP FRONT on the case against Chrysler. Then mumble something about “the debtor-in-possession’s unilateral right of rejection of executory contracts … .”
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Georgetown JD, one of the few actual attorneys on this blog has already given us the answer. This case is going down the “dismissed for lack of merit” path. Both GM and Chrysler were in bankruptcy. This isn’t a case where these dealers were closed because the company wanted to do it for no reason. Legally this maybe another of Leo’s “exotic, unique, and conceptual” theories. Which means he is attempting to make up law. It will be very difficult for a court to allow this case if it ever gets filed to proceed very far.

  109. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    I am curious to know just when Jim Anderer appeared on Neil Cavuto and talked about a case. A check of Fox Business News has video of him appearing 5/18 on Cavuto’s show talking about losing his Chrysler dealership. He appeared 6/5 on Alexis Glick talking about the Chrysler Fiat deal and she mentioned he had “been in court yesterday arguing the case for dealers”. On Aug 24th he appeared representing Island Mitsubishi on Long Island talking about cash for clunkers. Surprise surprise, WND’s article 5/27 about Chrysler dealers who were GOP donors links to the same Cavuto interview on 5/18. Is Cotter writing about a 7 month old interview and trying to make it sound recent? Who are the other plaintiffs in this case being filed this week? How many dealers do you really think want to be involved in a challenge to Obama’s legitimacy? I call BS. Not holding my breath that if anything is filed this week or next it will have anybody on board but Anderer. Just listen to him on Cavuto, the guy’s an a$$clwon.
    http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/22317760/explaining-the-chrysler-closures.htm#q=anderer

  110. 12/7/2009bob strauss says:

    sise, why don’t you try to contact “Cotter” yourself, you sure sound worried.

  111. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    bob strauss says:
    December 7, 2009 at 9:51 am
    *sise, why don’t you try to contact “Cotter” yourself, you sure sound worried.*

    Not at all. Quo Warranto = Birther = Kooks. How many former Chrysler dealers who’d like to have their dealership back are going to sign on to a birther case? And of course I wouldn’t contact Cotter myself because if I did and reported her answer, you would be the first one to call me a liar. Phil’s the one who has showcased her article.

  112. 12/7/2009Sue says:

    MGB and Sharon2,

    Here is the thread on PJ that explains why Cook’s orders were rescinded by the Army.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1883&start=275#p47297

  113. 12/7/2009kj says:

    Phil,

    If LD is willing to let you present what he is doing on this case, and since LD’s blog is down, it would be nice if you could also get updates on what is going on in Hawaii with the UPIA related activities. Last word on Hawaii was that LD was going to file a lawsuit to force Hawaii to follow its own laws.

    KJ

  114. 12/7/2009DCA says:

    JeffM says:

    “If it were my decision I’d have every dual citizen deported back to where they came from.”

    So they would be deported to where they came from, huh?

    That would be the United States in most cases.

    There, mission accomplished.

  115. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    Sue, I have already said that I don’t know.

  116. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    Christinewjc said, “The shutting down of dealerships is unconstitutional and should NEVER have been done!”

    Much of what has been done is unconstitutional–forcing banks to take bailout funds when they didn’t want them, forcing out executives and setting pay at private companies, putting some creditors ahead of others, refusing to accept monies that bailout recipients wanted to return, among others. All of the offended parties should have filed suit IMMEDIATELY, although it’s not too late. More power to them.

  117. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    Who wrote the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? Emma Lazarus. From http://www.sonnets.org/lazarus.htm

    “Raised in a wealthy Jewish family in New York, Emma Lazarus devoted herself to Zionist and Marxist causes after hearing about the pogroms in Russia in the 1880s. She translated several important Jewish works, and “The New Colossus” is inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.”

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that. :)

  118. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    Sue, you continue to link to politijab, but some are not members and I, for one, am not going to join. If you have a point, then please extract it for us. In addition, you have said that you provided links to evidence that others besides FactCheck blog were given access to the COLB. You said Phil wouldn’t post them. You have again said that there is proof that other members of the media could have seen the COLB. Could you please link us to that proof (but if it’s on politijab, can you please summarize the proof for us)?

  119. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    jvn: The way I understand it, no state must change its laws. There’s a point in the process where persons can object to ballot placement. There’s a deadline on that process and that’s where people fell down on the job. Next time, expect a LOT of objections.

  120. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Christinewjc said, “The shutting down of dealerships is unconstitutional and should NEVER have been done!”

    Huh? Chrysler and GM reorganized under Chapter 11. Chapter 11 allows the company, the debtor to cancel its contracts, including franchise agreements. Not many of the dealerships were completely shut down. Jim Anderer for example is still selling Kias, Mitsubishis, Mazdas and Subarus at his Long Island dealership. He lost his Chrysler franchise, not his dealership. Boo Hoo.
    http://www.newsday.com/business/3-li-chrysler-dealers-to-focus-on-foreign-brands-1.1244022

    Silliness.

  121. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    Sue said, “The “illegals” I have been in contact with work harder and have longer days than many Americans I know. Most have multiple jobs and the entire family works. Their children do well in school and they are an asset to their community. They work in jobs that some Americans look down upon. These individuals come to America to provide a better life for themselves and their families, just like my ancestors did.”

    The entire family works? What about child labor laws? Oh, I forgot. Break one law, who cares about another?

    Their children do well in school? Don’t we hear ad nauseum about the achievement gap? Are they making those statistics up, too?

    There are illegals who commit felonies and end up in American prisons. There are illegals who belong to violent gangs that traffic in drugs and behead rivals.

    While there are illegals who “work harder and have longer days,” the fact remains that they REMAIN ILLEGAL. Few other countries behave towards illegals as we do.

    For example, what does Mexico do with illegals? Imprisons and/or deports them.

    What does Mexico have on its southern border? The military.

    Do illegals in Mexico enjoy the privilege of working? No.

    Do they enjoy free education in their native tongues? No.

    Did your ancestors come here illegally? I bet not.

    What part of ILLEGAL don’t people understand? It’s not a good start on becoming an AMERICAN to break the law. Come here legally.

    Few oppose immigration. MANY oppose breaking and entering, thereby jumping ahead of people who want to do it the right way, respecting our laws.

  122. 12/7/2009qwertyman says:

    What part of ILLEGAL don’t people understand? It’s not a good start on becoming an AMERICAN to break the law. Come here legally.

    Agreed, I’d like to see every immigrant come here legally.

    Take a look at this:

    http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/uploaded_images/immigration-764383.jpg

    How about we make it easier for people to immigrate into this country legally? You say you’re not against immigration, let’s back that up with action. Let’s make it for unskilled laborers to enter this country who want to work. Let’s up the national quotas, since to get a legal visa can take many years. Immigration is what made this country great; let’s make it easier for our country to continue to benefit from the talent and hard work of those who want nothing more than a chance at a better life.

  123. 12/7/2009Mick says:

    Well here they are folks. Out of the woodwork like a thousand Ticks. They are the paid Obama Bootlicker Bridgetender Brigade. (OBBBs)Sitting on as many posts as possible that could be telling the Truth about the Usurper. Here to Obfuscate, shout down, ridicule and flat out lie. They insist that our constitution is British Common Law, which is itself comical, since our founders fought and sacrificed to escape the tyrranical nature of BCL!!
    There is not an on point case that is decided by the SCOTUS about the Natural Born Citizen requirement of the POTUS. There are 3 cases that discuss it though, Minor v. Happersett (1874), Wong Kim Ark (1898), and Perkins v. Elg (1929). ALL THREE point to the “Law of Nations” definition of Born in the US of 2 US Citizen Parents. The OBBBs like to bring up circuit court cases decided by activist judges and British Loyalists that they would have us believe Supercede the Supreme Court, even though Marbury v. Madison (you know, the watershed case) held that the SCOTUS is the sole determiner of all constitutional phrases. M v. M also held that it was INADMISSABLE to construe the meaning of one phrase in the USC that would make another moot. Therefore, the argument that a Born Citizen of the 14th Amendment is considered a Natural Born Citizen is INADMISSABLE since there would be no need for A2S1C5. Minor v. Happersett (1874), said that the definition is NOT IN THE USC, so it is definitely not a “born” citizen of the 14A (1866). Show us that SCOTUS case, all you OBBBs, that says that a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen Parents. There isn’t one.

  124. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Mick says:
    December 7, 2009 at 12:24 pm
    * Show us that SCOTUS case, all you OBBBs, that says that a Natural Born Citizen is anything less than Born in the US of 2 Citizen Parents. *

    The US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case that a person born within the borders of the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. Now, if you want to play word games and say they wrote ” citizen at birth” and insist that is not the same as “natural born citizen”, have at it. It’s a losing proposition. The terms “natural born”, “native” and “citizen at birth” are used interchangeably in each of the SC decisions you list. That’s why birtherism can’t find a reputable constitutional scholar to back you up. 2 citizen parents is a theory invented by Leo Donofrio in June 2008. He even admitted it was an exotic theory.

  125. 12/7/2009qwertyman says:

    by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

    Under the Constitution, anybody born in the US was a natural born citizen. This is direct text from Wong.

    Since 1897, there is no court in the US that has cited Vattel as reflecting American citizenship. Perkins says nothing about Vattel.

    I’ll ask you the same question I ask every birther: can you name a single member of Congress in the past century, a single judge in the past century, or a single current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause?

  126. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    Article I, Section 2: No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

    Article I, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    To reiterate, “No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.”

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” (Wong Kim Ark: Paragraph 16).

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”… To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Moreover, according to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”. Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

    Obama acknowledges at his Fight the Smears website that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948 – Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

  127. 12/7/2009Joss Brown says:

    qwertyman wrote:

    Under the Constitution, anybody born in the US was a natural born citizen. This is direct text from Wong.

    Yes, but it’s not part of the ruling. It’s one opinion, and there was also a dissenting opinion on this constitutional interpretation. And in the ruling SCOTUS clearly declared Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the US and furthermore specifically indicated that he was not natural born. Your reasoning, qwertyman, is therefore false. However, it is feasible to assume that the DC district court would argue in the exact same way as the SCOTUS opinion in Wong Kim Ark that you quote, and would then declare Obama eligible, but by doing so they would go beyond what SCOTUS ruled in Wong Kim Ark, where they only declared him a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

    In any case, Wong Kim Ark is not applicable in Obama’s case, because it’s about US-citzen-plus-foreign-subject children born in the US of foreign parents, who are permanently domiciled and have permanent residence in the US. Obama’s father did not fall into that category. Therefore Obama is definitely not a 14th Amendment citizen, i.e. a citizen under the constitution, but only a citizen under a statute.

  128. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 7, 2009 at 12:48 pm
    * a whole bunch of snippets of cases, quote etc *

    Benaiah, picking snippets out of court decisions and pieces of quotes that you think support your position does not a valid argument make. You continue to ignore the Consititution and the Supreme Court’s decision in Wong Kim Ark that a person born within the borders of the US is a natural born citizen regardless of his parents’ status. The facts and the law are not on your side.

  129. 12/7/2009Sue says:

    “The entire family works? What about child labor laws? Oh, I forgot. Break one law, who cares about another?”

    Hmm, I have worked since I was 12 and earlier at home. Babysitting and cleaning houses and I’m not an illegal alien. Not to mention all the chores I had at home–gathering eggs, feeding livestock, tending garden, etc. Were my parents breaking child labor laws? I was a member of my family and everyone was expected to work. My son has hauled hay, worked cattle, sheep, goats, fixed fence and farmed from an early age. Do you think I am breaking child labor laws? I believe children are born knowing how to play and it is more important to teach them how to work. I was taught to get my homework and chores done first; then I could play. I have taught my children the same work ethics as I was taught.

    “Their children do well in school? Don’t we hear ad nauseum about the achievement gap? Are they making those statistics up, too?”

    What part of “the one’s I know” did you not understand.

    “There are illegals who commit felonies and end up in American prisons. There are illegals who belong to violent gangs that traffic in drugs and behead rivals.”

    There are American citizens who do this also.

    “While there are illegals who “work harder and have longer days,” the fact remains that they REMAIN ILLEGAL. Few other countries behave towards illegals as we do.

    For example, what does Mexico do with illegals? Imprisons and/or deports them.

    What does Mexico have on its southern border? The military.

    Do illegals in Mexico enjoy the privilege of working? No.

    Do they enjoy free education in their native tongues? No.

    Did your ancestors come here illegally? I bet not.”

    You think America should aspire to be like Mexico or other countries? Ditto to what qwertyman said. I have no idea if some of my ancestors were here illegally or not.

  130. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Joss Brown says:
    December 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    *Yes, but it’s not part of the ruling. It’s one opinion, and there was also a dissenting opinion on this constitutional interpretation. *

    Utter nonsense. The majority opinion in a Supreme Court case IS the decision of the court. The dissenting opinion has absolutely no weight of law and is merely a courtesy to the minority. Quoting from the dissenting opinion in a case to try to support an argument shows your ignorance. The Supreme Court found in Wong Kim Ark that a person born within the borders of the US is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents.

    Regardless of The Status of His Parents.

  131. 12/7/2009qwertyman says:

    Yes, but it’s not part of the ruling. It’s one opinion, and there was also a dissenting opinion on this constitutional interpretation. And in the ruling SCOTUS clearly declared Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the US and furthermore specifically indicated that he was not natural born. Your reasoning, qwertyman, is therefore false. However, it is feasible to assume that the DC district court would argue in the exact same way as the SCOTUS opinion in Wong Kim Ark that you quote, and would then declare Obama eligible, but by doing so they would go beyond what SCOTUS ruled in Wong Kim Ark, where they only declared him a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

    A dissenting opinion has absolutely no legal weight, especially if the case has never been overturned, as in the case of Wong. Claiming that because there was a dissenting opinion that the majority opinion is not the law is like saying abortion is not legal because there was a dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade.

    And nowhere in the opinion did the Court say that Wong was not a natural born citizen. By the logic of the quote I posted, Wong has to be a natural born citizen.

    In any case, Wong Kim Ark is not applicable in Obama’s case, because it’s about US-citzen-plus-foreign-subject children born in the US of foreign parents, who are permanently domiciled and have permanent residence in the US. Obama’s father did not fall into that category. Therefore Obama is definitely not a 14th Amendment citizen, i.e. a citizen under the constitution, but only a citizen under a statute.

    Can you name a single member of Congress, judge, or current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of citizenship?

    You are even wrong under statute. See 8 USC 1401(a)

  132. 12/7/2009Margie says:

    The Law of Nations…..The natives or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As a society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, this children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and suceed to all their rights.

    The U.S. Constitution.. To define and punish piracies and felonies commited on the high seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.

  133. 12/7/2009Sue says:

    MGB and Sharon2,

    “You said Phil wouldn’t post them”

    No, what I said was they didn’t get through moderation; however, I asked Phil and he explained to me that they probably went to spam/trash if they had 3 or more links. I will have to find the information again.

    I figured you and Sharon2 could have figured out by now why Cook’s orders were rescinded and Rhodes were not.

    Here is an article that explains why Cook’s orders were rescinded and Rhodes were not.

    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/777472.html
    Soldier who says Obama isn’t president doesn’t have to deploy, Army says
    BY LILY GORDON
    excerpts
    “Earlier today, Quon said Cook submitted a formal written request to Human Resources Command-St. Louis on May 8, 2009 volunteering to serve one year in Afghanistan with Special Operations Command, U.S. Army Central Command, beginning July 15, 2009. The soldier’s orders were issued on June 9, Quon said.”

    “A reserve soldier who volunteers for an active duty tour may ask for a revocation of orders up until the day he is scheduled to report for active duty,” Quon said.”

    “She added that there is an administrative process to request revocation of orders. As of this afternoon, Cook had not asked for his orders to be revoked, Quon said. She could not say why the soldier’s orders were pulled today by 3 p.m. CDT.”

    “Because of the Privacy Act I couldn’t go into it,” Quon said.”

    It appears that service of the TRO constituted constructive notice to the military of a request for revocation of orders.

    Captain Rhodes was “active military” and did not “request to be deployed”, but was “ordered” to be deployed.

    Here is additional info regarding Cook and Taitz.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-12278-Louisville-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d4-Wihich-one-is-lying–Major-Stefan-F-Cook-USAR-or-Orly-Taitz-Repost

  134. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Margie says:
    December 7, 2009 at 1:20 pm
    *The Law of Nations…..The natives or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. *

    That’s actually not the way it was written. Vattel wrote in French and did not use the term “natural-born”. In addition, he was probably using the convention of matching plurals, just as we do:

    – children of employees are admitted to the picnic free
    – children of members may use the pool

    Of course these phrases don’t mean that both parents must be employees or both parents must be members, we match the plural in our writing and speech. You don’t say “children of an employee”, or “children of a member”. Too much has been inferred from Vattel to try and make it seem relevant and say what you want it to say. In the end, one can’t ignore the Supreme Court’s decision.

  135. 12/7/2009Mick says:

    siseduermapierda says:
    December 6, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Nice parse. But McCain’s status was in question and involved his parents because he was born in Panama. We know Obama was born in Hawaii. And since Hawaii actually is within the borders of the United States, Obama, is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents, as decided by the US Supreme Court over 100 years ago in the case of Wong Kim Ark. Sorry you don’t like the outcome, but it is what it is and as far as current law and court precedent go, President Obama is absolutely eligible to be President.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Another Obama Bridgetender manning the post, obfuscating, shouting down and outright lying to protect the master. SCOTUS in WKA never said that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen, only citizen, read the case. That was a narrowly defined case about the children of UNNATURALIZEABLE aliens that were DOMICILED here. The parents were Chinese aliens that lived and worked in the US but could not Naturalize due to the Chinese Exclusionary Acts. Judge Gray compared Wong to new former slave citizens whose parents were not allowed to naturalize although their children were born here. He also said that the CITIZEN CHILD OF AN ALIEN had the same rights as THE NATURAL BORN CHILD OF A CITIZEN. He clearly made a contrast between the 2 categories.

  136. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Margie says:
    “law of nations”

    US Supreme Court: A person born with the borders of the US is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents.

    Actually as used in the Constitution Article I, Section 8, it’s just a phrase. The entire title of De Vattel’s treatist is “LAW OF NATIONS OR PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS”. It’s not a legal code book of international law or a reference of law. Besides, it’s legally meaningless to quote an obscure French treatise and ignore a Supreme Court ruling. Why do you think a phrase used in Article I Section 8 of the constitution has anything to do with Article II Section 1 anyway?

  137. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Mick says:
    December 7, 2009 at 1:57 pm
    *SCOTUS in WKA never said that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen, only citizen, read the case. *

    If you think that’s what they said, then YOU haven’t read the case! What the Supreme Court found was that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. The terms “natural born”, “native” and “citizen at birth” all mean the same thing. Trying to play word games may comfort you, but you’d get nowhere legally trying to argue that they are different. There are only two kinds of citizen: natural and naturalized.

  138. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    [15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States;” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” also declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    [121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  139. 12/7/2009kj says:

    Phil:

    If you will be posting comments from Leo on this case, perhaps you can ask him about the Hawaii UIPA suit against the DOH that was to be filed to get Hawaii to follow its laws.

    Thank you for keeping us updated.

    KJ

  140. 12/7/2009observer says:

    And nowhere in the opinion did the Court say that Wong was not a natural born citizen.

    Kinda like the “logic” used in all those jobs being “saved” while the unemployment rate skyrocketed beyond their hopes!!

  141. 12/7/2009observer says:

    But like I’ve noted, no state has even come close to changing the current requirements (which had the President on the ballots everywhere), (while others of similar questionable backgrounds were removed, btw) and the issue will be less and less important as we move into the next election cycle. ha!

  142. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm
    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    “natural born”, “native” and “citizen at birth” mean the same thing. The 14th amendment defines only 2 types of citizen: natural born and naturalized. Wong wasn’t naturalized, he was born a citizen = natural born. You are deliberately ignoring what the court said and trying to make it mean what you want it to mean. There is no “special” category of citizen that is eligible for President. That little game of words will get you nowhere legally. The Indiana Court of Appeals specifically addressed this because they recognized the sleight of hand you people are trying to play with Wong Kim Ark and the 14th Amendment:

    “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.”
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf

  143. 12/7/2009bob strauss says:

    Phil, the Post&Email site is confirming, Donofrio,Pidgeon Case with the Chrysler dealers and quo warranto. Saw the link at CW.

  144. 12/7/2009MGB says:

    I think that America should enforce its laws in the same way that countries like Mexico enforce their laws. Should America “aspire” to be like Mexico? In this case, yes I do. Fyi, my family has roots in Mexico. While that country has problems, it’s a great and beautiful country with a rich history and diverse peoples. Not unlike the USA.

    As for making it easier for persons to come here, it’s a privilege to become an American. Why should it be easy?

    In this economy, why should we import workers when there are so many American citizens out of work?

    I decline to respond to non sequiturs.

  145. 12/7/2009brjam says:

    BTW ….When are we going to ask for academic review for all of these scientists that created climategate. When I took science in college, falsifying and creating fraudulent scientific data is a capital crime in the educational and science community. They need to have their academic degree’s and certifications ripped from them.

  146. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    Joss Brown says:
    December 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Yes, but it’s not part of the ruling. It’s one opinion, and there was also a dissenting opinion on this constitutional interpretation. And in the ruling SCOTUS clearly declared Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the US and furthermore specifically indicated that he was not natural born. Your reasoning, qwertyman, is therefore false. However, it is feasible to assume that the DC district court would argue in the exact same way as the SCOTUS opinion in Wong Kim Ark that you quote, and would then declare Obama eligible, but by doing so they would go beyond what SCOTUS ruled in Wong Kim Ark, where they only declared him a citizen, not a natural born citizen.

    In any case, Wong Kim Ark is not applicable in Obama’s case, because it’s about US-citzen-plus-foreign-subject children born in the US of foreign parents, who are permanently domiciled and have permanent residence in the US. Obama’s father did not fall into that category. Therefore Obama is definitely not a 14th Amendment citizen, i.e. a citizen under the constitution, but only a citizen under a statute.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Really? Your theory is nice but not supported by any law or legal scholar. First, the Founders did not rely on the so-called “Law of Nations” in defining citizenship or natural-born citizenship, because, as has been made clear, there WAS none. Vattel says one thing, but Pufendorf, Grotius, Burlamaqui all say something different. Vattel says one thing, but there was no uniformity in how nations practiced citizenship. See Story on Conflict of Laws, Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark on this complete lack of a “Law of Nations!”

    Secondly it has been shown that the Founders believed in English Common law adopted from British rule. Specifically natural born = born here, regardless of parental citizenship and jus sanguinis by statute.

    Thirdly you assume a certain amount of stupidity on the part of Gray, and on the part of the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Everyone involved in the case, the United States Government, George D. Collins as Amicus, Wong and his amicus, and the dissent, thought that if the court decided for Wong, he’d be made eligible for the Presidency. Instead of disabusing them of this conclusion, Gray cites US v. Rhodes, which says that children born here are natural born citizens, regardless of their parents’ citizenship! Not once does he attempt to distinguish the condition of children born of aliens from that of children born of citizens. Instead of distinguishing Lynch v. Clarke, which explicitly said, in dicta, that a child born of an alien could run for President, he calls it “elaborately argued” and “decided upon full consideration.”

    Fourth: You ignore the parts of Wong that are eviserateyour case. Wong rejects the notion that the “Law of Nations” said anything about our citizenship. Wong finds there to be NO “Law of Nations” on the subject! It rejects any distinction between the phrase “natural born” when used with citizen and when used with subject. Wong also does not distinguish between a citizen born here of alien parents and a citizen born here of citizen parents. There is nothing in the case to suggest that the former would not be able to run for president.

  147. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”, not whether WONG was an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Suffice it to say, a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States at birth” is not synonymous with an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. An Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States is always a “citizen of the United States at birth”. A “citizen of the United States at birth” is not always an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    WKA recognizes three types of citizens:

    1. Naturalized Citizens
    2. 14th Amendment Citizens at Birth
    3. Article II Natural Born Citizens

    Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of President…

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803): “It cannot be presumed that any clause [natural born citizen] in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

    UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [13] The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    [15] The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States;” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” also declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    [121] The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

  148. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    Mick says:
    December 7, 2009 at 1:57 pm
    *SCOTUS in WKA never said that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen, only citizen, read the case. *
    ___________________________________________________________________
    The case has been read. You make the fatal mistake that there is some sort of difference between Natural born, native, and citizen born in the US. There isn’t. If you look at history, the founders born in America thought themselves natives and pointed out a few of them were not and would be excluded by a native-birth exception. Clearly, native and natural born were use interchangeably in the early republic so it is reasonable that the founders thought so as well. In addition, the term “natural born citizen” was used in America even before the convention by Continental Congress and the states and they were clearly not referring to only people born after 1776.

    The states all adopted the common law after 1776 and under the common law only the natural born had the right to inherit or hold land. Therefore, the states from time to time during this period gave aliens the rights of the natural born. Thus, it appears that there were natural born citizens of the states prior to the constitution and these could only be native born Americans in a world where native and natural born were conflated.

    This is shown by the following….

    “…he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity… (Dr. William Rawle 1759-1836)”

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be entrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people.” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1842 ed.) (Story elsewhere made clear that native born citizens did not need citizen parents and Story generally rejected Vattel definition even for purposes of international law).

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” “NATIVES. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered as natives.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.” Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

    “The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ” Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)

    “The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, (it is. in fact,made by them.) It only intends and recognizes such of them as are natural—home-born—and provides for the naturalization of such of them as were alien—foreign-born—making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former. …” Attorney General Bates, Opinion of Citizenship, (1862)

    “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution…” Rep. Wilson, 1866 Civil Rights Act debates. 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115, 1117 (1866)

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Justice Swayne, United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott, US 28 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866)

    This one is for our friend Beneiah, who loves to quote the infamous Dred Scott decision….

    “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

    Either way the mistake is made because the birthers misinterpret Vattel by thinking that it says notion that, in order to be a Natural-Born Citizen, one had to be born from TWO parents who were US citizens. Unfortunately, that is NOT what Vattel says. Vattel says that it is enough for the FATHER to be a US citizen for the child to be a “Naturel”. Since this is the 21st century that means one parent was enough to be considered a natural born citizen.

    Our law says you are a natural born citizen IF you are either:
    A. Born here – regardless of parents’ citizenship;
    OR
    B. Born abroad to citizen parents.

    By US Law, Obama is a natural born citizen, of the United States. If other countries consider him a natural born citizen can only be determined by looking at their laws. But, it doesn’t matter, because at no point in deciding whether someone is a natural born citizen of the United States does our law look at the decisions of other nations!

  149. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 7, 2009 at 2:58 pm
    *WKA recognizes three types of citizens*

    It most certainly Does Not. You are either confused or deliberately misrepresenting the Court’s decision. There are 2 and only 2 types of citizen: natural born adn naturalized. The only reason you want to “invent” a third type a super-special-Presidential-eligible-citizen is to try to disqualify President Obama. Utter Nonsense.

  150. 12/7/2009qwertyman says:

    I think that America should enforce its laws in the same way that countries like Mexico enforce their laws. Should America “aspire” to be like Mexico? In this case, yes I do. Fyi, my family has roots in Mexico. While that country has problems, it’s a great and beautiful country with a rich history and diverse peoples. Not unlike the USA.

    As for making it easier for persons to come here, it’s a privilege to become an American. Why should it be easy?

    Because the alternative is either waiting for years to have the opportunity to go to the US, perhaps just temporarily; when that happens, you give people incentive to break the law.

    It is a privilege to become an American – it should be easier to come legally because the U.S. has depended on immigration since the very beginning of the Constitution.

    In this economy, why should we import workers when there are so many American citizens out of work?

    This is an argument against all immigration, not just illegal immigration.

  151. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens

  152. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm
    The single question presented in WKA, which the WONG court affirmed, was whether WONG “at the time of his birth” became “a citizen of the United States”. Hence, the WONG court concluded WONG was a “citizen of the United States at birth” not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    And like I wrote in my earlier post a citizen at the time of his birth and natural born citizen is considered the same thing under the law.

    From the Minor ruling…

    “To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership…Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, ” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”

    “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    Note the affirmation of the common-law definition and the equivalence of “natives” and “natural born citizens”.

    Two important points from the Minor case is that the Court does admit that there are doubts on how native or natural born citizens are defined but they for the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve those doubts. Secondly the Court is making a distinction between natural born citizens and aliens and not plain citizens and natural born citizens.

    So in summary the Minor case tells the following…

    a) us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized,
    b) there was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens,
    c) Minor does not resolve this question,
    d) it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized),
    e) United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.

    There is no special class for those born citizens but natural born citizens. As long as anyone is born a citizen (and Barack Obama undoubtedly is one of these) then they are a natural born citizen. This is certainly true since the passage of the 14th amendment even though the court in Minor had some unexplained doubts that it was the case before.”

    In the Wong ruling…

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

    “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    That is very specific…So no matter how much you try and ignore it or attempt to parse it and try and make the words mean something else, the fact of the matter is that Wong ruled that by using English Common law that “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    This is what is cited in the most recent IN appeals court ruling…

    “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    And they specifically reject Vattel, just as the Wong court rejected George Collins and his Vattel interpretation back in 1896…

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

    Again, all you need to do is find a SCOTUS or other court ruling that rejects that definion that was made after the Wong ruling in 1896. All you need is one case. Or find a jurist or legal scholar that disagrees with Wong and supports the birther position. That should be easy since Wong was decided over 100 years ago. Or better yet go to Westlaw. Wong has been cited over 1,000 times. Find another ruling regarding citizenship that was used or cited more since 1896. You can’t and you know it. That is why you try and use the Venus or Minor to support your beliefs. Unfortunately the law does not work that way. The most recent ruling is the most relevant case law. However nice try.

  153. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm
    Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    _________________________________________________________________
    Senator Leahy…”and born outside of the United States unlike President Obama who was born in HI”…

    “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.” Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

    No mention of citizenship status of parents…However that was 1857…Try again…We need something after 1896…Come on Benaiah, you can do it. I am sure Leo or Mario has something for you…We just need something that is more recent that Wong that addresses citizenship…

  154. 12/7/2009qwertyman says:

    Guys,

    Stop letting yourself get trolled by Benaiah. He has absolutely nothing to say that’s not copypasta from somewhere else. He doesn’t even have the wit to at least remove the Dred Scott case from his list of sources.

    He’s never going to respond to you. You’re talking to a brick wall. Just ignore him, like Geir, and eventually he’ll go away. He’s not actually going to try and respond to anybody.

  155. 12/7/2009Greg Goss says:

    Good work Phil, Congrats!

  156. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Benaiah says:
    December 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm
    *Scott v. Sandford*

    Dred Scott? You’re citing Dred Scott? You, Benaiah, are an idiot.

  157. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

    “No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President” and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Suffice it to say, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…

    To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

  158. 12/7/2009Phil says:

    Greg Goss,

    Good work Phil, Congrats!

    Not only is this a group effort, but more updates are to come.

    -Phil

  159. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    Obama acknowledges that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

    British Nationality Act of 1948
    Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies
    Citizenship by descent

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth…

    To reiterate, Obama acknowledges that his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    Thus, Obama was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” at birth because his father was “a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth”.

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States…

  160. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    bob strauss says:
    December 7, 2009 at 2:45 pm
    Phil, the Post&Email site is confirming, Donofrio,Pidgeon Case with the Chrysler dealers and quo warranto. Saw the link at CW.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Bob, that means absolutely nothing. As Georgetown JD explained to you earlier in this thread, Chrysler and GM were in bankruptcy under Chapter 11. Under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) a debtor-in-possession (such as Chrysler Corporation) may unilaterally terminate an executory contract (such as a franchise agreement). You know what that means. That according to the law they can do what they want regardless of any existing contracts. Leo and Pidgeon are barking up the wrong tree. But since they are not real litgation attorney’s, we are not surprised.

    Just for your edification, Chapter 11 means the following…(from Wikpedia)…

    “Chapter 11 bankruptcy retains many of the features present in all, or most bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. It also provides additional tools for debtors as well. Most importantly, 11 U.S.C. § 1108 empowers the trustee to operate the debtor’s business. In Chapter 11, unless appointed for cause, the debtor acts as trustee of the business.[2]

    Bankruptcy affords the debtor in possession a number of mechanisms to restructure its business. A debtor in possession can acquire financing and loans on favorable terms by giving new lenders first priority on the business’ earnings. The court may also permit the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts. Debtors are also protected from other litigation against the business through the imposition of an automatic stay. While the automatic stay is in place, most litigation against the debtor is stayed, or put on hold, until it can be resolved in bankruptcy court, or resumed in its original venue. The court is ultimately responsible for determining whether the proposed plan of reorganization complies with the bankruptcy law.”

    Read the entry again. Chapter 11 allows “the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts.” So Chrysler and GM are legally allowed to cancel any contracts subject to court approval. So since this is the law what is Leo going to argue? He is going to attempt to file a case saying that even though the law allows Chrysler to cancel the franchise contract, I disagree? He is going to file a motion that states that even thought it is legal to cancel contracts, because the President is a usurper then it shouldn’t have happened? Or maybe that the President forced Chrysler to do something they legally had the right to do? That this was part of some wide ranging Manchurian conspiracy involving fake Kenyan BC and a misapplication of the NBC statute and Vattel?

    Legally Leo’s case is what he called a unique and conceptual theory. In other words he has no law to back this up. I would be interested in this surviving a moting to dismiss. Mainly because how can he link even through QW the President and the decision by Chrysler. It may be difficult for him to even establish a prima facia case. However you can see why no real litigation or constitutional lawyers are involved in this crap. This has about as much chance as the other 60 cases that have been dismissed.

  161. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    I am still unable to find an appearance on Fox Business or Fox News by Jim Anderer after Aug 24. During which interview he talked about how many clunkers he clunked at his MITSUBISHI dealership.

  162. 12/7/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Mick:

    SCOTUS in WKA never said that Wong was a Natural Born Citizen

    They didn’t need to. They had already explicitly defined natural born citizen earlier in the decision.

    It was the definition of English Common Law, no other.

  163. 12/7/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    The lead plaintiff James Anderer announced it on Fox Business News on Friday night.

    Jim Anderer was not on Fox Business News on Friday night.

  164. 12/7/2009Sharon2 says:

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d5-Cars-quo-warranto-and-Obama

    “(Update: Cavuto’s show was guest hosted by Charles Payne who did the interview) “

  165. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    someone needs to post the video because Fox Business website has video of 4 interviews Charles Payne did on the 12/4 show, and none of them is Jim Anderer. There is video from other Anderer appearances earlier in the year, but not last Friday. I suspect he mentioned Quo Warranto. Fox Business doesn’t want to get any birther on them, so they probably ditched that video pronto. Quo Warranto means one thing – Birtherism, not Car Dealership-ism. Besides Anderer still has a thriving Long Island car dealership selling Mitsubishis, Mazdas, Kias. He lost his Chrysler franchise, not his dealership.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/neil-cavuto.htm

  166. 12/7/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Jim Anderer was not on Fox Business News on Friday night. Not in an interview with Cavuto, and not in an interview with Payne.

  167. 12/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    SanDiegoSam says:
    December 7, 2009 at 6:44 pm
    *Jim Anderer was not on Fox Business News on Friday night. Not in an interview with Cavuto, and not in an interview with Payne.*

    I think you’re right. But Ms Cotter insists in an update that Payne interviewed Anderer Friday night. Put their money where their mouth is with video. The 4 videos posted from Cavuto’s show hosted by Payne on 12/4 account for 20 minutes of the show, with 20-25 minutes of commercials, and there’s 3/4 of the show accounted for in interviews alone. Then there’s the chit-chat and discussion without a guest. We need video.

  168. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    FranciSiseduermapierda,

    I know you are but what am I?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8

    Benaiah

  169. 12/7/2009Benaiah says:

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

  170. 12/7/2009jondos says:

    Kenyan Born Maybe?

  171. 12/7/2009Pete says:

    “Blacklion says: Chapter 11 allows “the debtor in possession to reject and cancel contracts.” So Chrysler and GM are legally allowed to cancel any contracts subject to court approval. So since this is the law what is Leo going to argue? He is going to attempt to file a case saying that even though the law allows Chrysler to cancel the franchise contract, I disagree? He is going to file a motion that states that even thought it is legal to cancel contracts, because the President is a usurper then it shouldn’t have happened? Or maybe that the President forced Chrysler to do something they legally had the right to do? That this was part of some wide ranging Manchurian conspiracy involving fake Kenyan BC and a misapplication of the NBC statute and Vattel?”

    Actually I think they are going to argue that the Executive branch, under Obama, forced closings car dealerships under the restructuring. This means that actions of the Executive branch have caused harm. Since they have been directly effected, they have a right for relief under QW. Should there have been no executive branch interference, the ‘restructuring’ would have occurred differently.

    Actually, this is rational use of QW, and provides virtually a carbon copy of prior utilization of QW. We must note that it will force Obama to produce documents to support his position, but it’s only a few dollars to release those records to the DC court anyway.

    I suspect that the DC court will just make a ruling of the internet documents, rather than force Obama to produce and independently verify his 2007 COLB, and that ends the QW challenge.

  172. 12/7/2009Erica says:

    This is really fabulous news. It was Leo’s comments that inspired me to create these graphic illustrations to simplify the issue of NBC and quo warranto for the general public.

    Quo Warranto to Remove Obama from Office
    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/quo-warranto-to-remove-obama.html

    Obama The Unconstitutional Usurper
    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-obama-unconstitutional-usurper.html

    Graphic Defining “Citizen” v “Natural Born Citizen”
    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/11/graphic-defining-citizen-vs-natural.html

    Graphic Defining Natural Born Citizen
    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2009/10/graphic-defining-natural-born.html

  173. 12/7/2009Black Lion says:

    Pete says:
    December 7, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    Actually I think they are going to argue that the Executive branch, under Obama, forced closings car dealerships under the restructuring. This means that actions of the Executive branch have caused harm. Since they have been directly effected, they have a right for relief under QW. Should there have been no executive branch interference, the ‘restructuring’ would have occurred differently
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Pete, good point but legally problematic…The plaintiffs would have to show that the decision was forced by the Executive Branch for starters. That would be tough because the law is specific that Chrysler and GM because they were in bankruptcy are allowed to cancel the contracts. Not only would Leo have to prove that the Executive branch made the decision, but that the decision was not in the best interests of Chrysler and GM. That will be tough for them to prove.

    Either way this case may not survive a motion to dismiss. With the exception of Leo and Pidgeon, no other lawyers see this case having any possibility of success. It is a novel and unique theory but not sure if there is a legitimate legal argument there…

  174. 12/8/2009syc1959 says:

    jondos says: Kenyan Born Maybe?

    Here are some more

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/kenyan-historian-ali-mazrui-states-obama-kenyan-citizen/

    Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya’s Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth)

    and the following

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-is-a-foreign-national-and-kenya-knows-it/

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT

    Wednesday, 5th November, 2008

    The House met at 9.00 a.m.

    Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.

    Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request! *****[note – “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”!]

  175. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    “Joss Brown says:
    December 6, 2009 at 12:41 pm
    Sue wrote:

    My understanding is that Leo has been a poker player/rock band star.

    So in your view this makes him a bad attorney, unfit for practicing law? Or what? That’s utter lunacy.”

    No, not at all and you edited my comment.

  176. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 8, 2009 at 8:12 am
    jondos says: Kenyan Born Maybe?

    Here are some more

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/kenyan-historian-ali-mazrui-states-obama-kenyan-citizen/

    Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya’s Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth)

    and the following

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/obama-is-a-foreign-national-and-kenya-knows-it/

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT

    Wednesday, 5th November, 2008

    The House met at 9.00 a.m.

    Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.

    Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request! *****[note – “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”!]
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Not bad Steve….Recycling the same stuff….It gave me a good chuckle this morning…But then I read the following and smiled…

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

    “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

  177. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request! *****[note – “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”!]

    Means nothing more than if an Irish politician called JFK an Irishman.

  178. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    Ah, Steve Pidgeon (famous for Broe v. Reed) ….It is good to see him back on the birther radar…Some had been wondering if the so called black helicoptors or the guys in the Surburbans had got to him….

    Was it just back in January that he released the following information?

    “Discordant publicity is affecting his ability to complete this research. He is literally getting different degrees of heat from across the globe, from all sides. The closer we get, the hotter things become and the greater the need for precise communications. Earlier communication miscues aside, for now, Stephen will provide information he is ready to release to Plains Radio Network through me. I will write the press release, and after I show them to Ed, place them here.

    Stephen believes that we must all stand together! This is very important to all of us. Stephen asks that each of us stay focused and not lose sight of our purpose. He said “We must not allow anything to divide us. Stay strong, stay united. We are a far cry from being done with the research. Also, the litigation strategies have just begun.” He continued, “There is no need for division in the ranks tearing each other down.”

    Currently we have the following activities taking place:

    * A London Solicitor is working on the UK connection
    * We have Operatives on both coasts looking for the POE information
    * We have SERIOUS leads in Seattle
    * A few leads in DC are being followed
    * Related to the Document number released earlier, there is follow-up underway. (Nope, no document yet… but this is NOT discouraging news….)

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/01/15/stephen-pidgeon-research-and-litigation-strategies-have-just-begun/

  179. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Anybody found that invisible appearance of Jim Anderer on Fox Business last Friday night? How about a mention in the WSJ?

    :o

  180. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    So Phil… any word back from that “associate” of Pigeon?

    I had heard word back from Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon yesterday, hence my more current posting on quo warranto.

    The story will move forward as circumstances warrant.

    And I think with your history on my site, you already knew that.

    -Phil

  181. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    ” Sharon 2 says:
    December 6, 2009 at 7:26 pm
    Cook requested the court to recognize him as a conscientious objector in his petition for emergency relief.”

    Yes, Orly/Cook did and it appears that this may be the reason he lost his job.

  182. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    I said, “As for making it easier for persons to come here, it’s a privilege to become an American. Why should it be easy?”

    qwertyman responded, “Because the alternative is either waiting for years to have the opportunity to go to the US, perhaps just temporarily; when that happens, you give people incentive to break the law.”

    So there you go. The devil made me do it.

    Here lies the great divide between “progressives” and their opposites.

    Personal responsibility.

    If someone breaks the law, it’s because some external factor MADE him do it. He has no control over his own actions. He had no choice BUT to break the law.

    As for my making an argument against all immigration, for me to state that the US ought to consider current economic conditions and the millions of Americans who are out of work at this point in time, is not to say that I, therefore, oppose ALL immigration at ALL times.

    Is it reasonable to oppose putting the general welfare of the American people ahead of the welfare of citizens of other countries?

  183. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    MGB,

    I said, “As for making it easier for persons to come here, it’s a privilege to become an American. Why should it be easy?”

    qwertyman responded, “Because the alternative is either waiting for years to have the opportunity to go to the US, perhaps just temporarily; when that happens, you give people incentive to break the law.”

    So there you go. The devil made me do it.

    Here lies the great divide between “progressives” and their opposites.

    Personal responsibility.

    If someone breaks the law, it’s because some external factor MADE him do it. He has no control over his own actions. He had no choice BUT to break the law.

    As for my making an argument against all immigration, for me to state that the US ought to consider current economic conditions and the millions of Americans who are out of work at this point in time, is not to say that I, therefore, oppose ALL immigration at ALL times.

    Well said, and my sentiments, too.

    -Phil

  184. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “So there you go. The devil made me do it.

    Here lies the great divide between “progressives” and their opposites.

    Personal responsibility.

    If someone breaks the law, it’s because some external factor MADE him do it. He has no control over his own actions. He had no choice BUT to break the law.”

    I do not condone or advocate someone breaking the immigration laws.

    “As for my making an argument against all immigration, for me to state that the US ought to consider current economic conditions and the millions of Americans who are out of work at this point in time, is not to say that I, therefore, oppose ALL immigration at ALL times.”

    The illegal immigrants that I have come in contact with are hired in jobs that go unfilled because Americans do not apply for these jobs. If they do, they do not take the job. If they do take the job, they do not stay.

    “Is it reasonable to oppose putting the general welfare of the American people ahead of the welfare of citizens of other countries?”

    I don’t believe anyone here has advoated this.

  185. 12/8/2009Black Lion says:

    A good article by Andrew Sullivan following up on Charles Johnson’s (Little Green Footballs) article last week regarding distancing themselves from the current incarnation of the GOP, which has become no place for any moderate point of view…I think you will begin to see more people that feel that way leave the GOP or not support candidates like Palin that pander to the extremes of the base without providing any real solutions…2012 will be an interesting barometer regarding this issue….

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/leaving-the-right.html

    Some excerpts…

    “I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.”

    “I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.”

    “I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.”

    “I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism.”

    “I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.”

    “I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.”

  186. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    So there you go. The devil made me do it.

    Here lies the great divide between “progressives” and their opposites.

    Personal responsibility.

    If someone breaks the law, it’s because some external factor MADE him do it. He has no control over his own actions. He had no choice BUT to break the law.

    Did you even see the link I posted? If you are not related to an American, or you don’t have a particular set of skills AND have a job lined up, then it is all but impossible to immigrate into the United States. In those circumstances, if you want to have a better life in the US, then you don’t have any choice but to break the law.

    What you are saying is that if you are not lucky enough to have an American relative, or have a particular skill set that we want, then You Are Not Wanted Here!

    As for my making an argument against all immigration, for me to state that the US ought to consider current economic conditions and the millions of Americans who are out of work at this point in time, is not to say that I, therefore, oppose ALL immigration at ALL times.

    Is it reasonable to oppose putting the general welfare of the American people ahead of the welfare of citizens of other countries?

    Immigration increases the number of American jobs. There are tens of thousands of brilliant people from around the world who want a chance to bring their talent and labor to this country. Their ideas and hard work have always been a benefit to this country. Andrew Carnagie was an immigrant – his steel business created many thousands of jobs. Alexander Graham Bell was an immigrant as well – his invention helped make the U.S. a world leader in telecommunications.

    I favor an immigration policy that would make it easier to legally immigrate because that puts our general welfare ahead of the welfare of other countries.

  187. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    Sue, I referenced a comment by qwertyman, on the previous page of comments, and I quoted qwertyman. Therefore, I did not say that you advocated breaking immigration laws.

    If you read qwertyman’s comment, perhaps you will understand where I’m coming from in my response to him. Phil understood my comment, and I thank him for the compliment.

    I particularly responded to qwertyman’s implication that I oppose all immigration, which I do not. I do not appreciate it when people confuse, perhaps deliberately, opposition to ILLEGAL immigraTION with opposition to IMMIGRANTS, with the further implication that it means that the opponent is bigoted, xenophobic, or racist. This strawman has been thrown out many times, directed at me and others who oppose ILLEGAL immigraTION. It’s a distraction and indicates that the person doesn’t want to debate or, especially, to cede a point.

    As for the canard that illegals do the jobs that Americans “won’t do,” it’s logical to assume that what may have happened in the past, when Americans refused certain jobs, may not happen today, in this economy.

  188. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, “you don’t have any choice but to break the law.”

    Every human being has a choice. It’s called free will. If a person chooses to break the law, then that person and that person alone is responsible for his choice. The LAW did not MAKE the person break the law.

  189. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, “You Are Not Wanted Here.”

    IF a person’s first act in his quest to become an American is to break American law, then I agree, that person is not wanted here. Do we want law-abiding, America-respecting immigrants? I would say, yes we do. Do we want lawbreakers? I would answer, no.

  190. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    IF a person’s first act in his quest to become an American is to break American law, then I agree, that person is not wanted here. Do we want law-abiding, America-respecting immigrants? I would say, yes we do. Do we want lawbreakers? I would answer, no.

    I agree with everything you’ve said here.

    Every human being has a choice. It’s called free will. If a person chooses to break the law, then that person and that person alone is responsible for his choice. The LAW did not MAKE the person break the law.

    And I suppose Jean Valjean also deserved everything that happened to him for stealing a loaf of bread. Yes, he broke the law, and yes, immigrating to this country illegally is breaking an American law. But most people don’t want to break the law. Nobody likes living in fear of being caught and deported and imprisoned. So why not make it easier for people who want to come here legally to do so?

    I particularly responded to qwertyman’s implication that I oppose all immigration, which I do not. I do not appreciate it when people confuse, perhaps deliberately, opposition to ILLEGAL immigraTION with opposition to IMMIGRANTS, with the further implication that it means that the opponent is bigoted, xenophobic, or racist. This strawman has been thrown out many times, directed at me and others who oppose ILLEGAL immigraTION. It’s a distraction and indicates that the person doesn’t want to debate or, especially, to cede a point.

    I didn’t call you a racist or a xenophobe. You are setting up a preemptive strawman.

    However, here is what you said:

    As for making it easier for persons to come here, it’s a privilege to become an American. Why should it be easy?

    In this economy, why should we import workers when there are so many American citizens out of work?

    This is an argument against all immigration, not just illegal immigration.

    As for the canard that illegals do the jobs that Americans “won’t do,” it’s logical to assume that what may have happened in the past, when Americans refused certain jobs, may not happen today, in this economy.

    You may be right on that point. Maybe more American citizens would be willing to work as farmhands in sub-minimum wage conditions.

    Nonetheless, people all over the world want to immigrate to America. And why shouldn’t they? This is the greatest country in the world, one that allows for an amazing degree of possibility. We should make it easier for those who want to come here and make our country a better place to do so.

    At the moment, it is very difficult to come to this country legally. If you don’t have an American relative or have a particular set of skills, it may be impossible. Let’s not shut the doors on our country to outsiders; after all:

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    is exactly what made our country great, and we should take care to not forget that fact.

  191. 12/8/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “Sue, I referenced a comment by qwertyman, on the previous page of comments, and I quoted qwertyman. Therefore, I did not say that you advocated breaking immigration laws.”

    I read them and simply was responding to my position on this issue.

    “If you read qwertyman’s comment, perhaps you will understand where I’m coming from in my response to him. Phil understood my comment, and I thank him for the compliment.”

    See above

    “I particularly responded to qwertyman’s implication that I oppose all immigration, which I do not. I do not appreciate it when people confuse, perhaps deliberately, opposition to ILLEGAL immigraTION with opposition to IMMIGRANTS, with the further implication that it means that the opponent is bigoted, xenophobic, or racist. This strawman has been thrown out many times, directed at me and others who oppose ILLEGAL immigraTION. It’s a distraction and indicates that the person doesn’t want to debate or, especially, to cede a point.”

    Your opinion.

    “As for the canard that illegals do the jobs that Americans “won’t do,” it’s logical to assume that what may have happened in the past, when Americans refused certain jobs, may not happen today, in this economy.”

    Not true because as a rule, “Americans” want/demand to be paid more money than what the market will allow or is worth. Examples of the jobs are in the equine industry, dairy industry, agriculture industry, etc., etc. You cannot pay someone $30.00/per hour plus benefits to plow your field from 8-5 with an hour off for lunch. If you do, you will go broke.

  192. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Phil:

    The story will move forward as circumstances warrant.

    And I think with your history on my site, you already knew that.

    Honestly? I am not actually able to discern any relationship between how stories move forward and what the “circumstances warrant.” But that is neither here nor there.

    There is a reason that they are called “expectations.” When you set them, your readers will be interested in their resolution.

    N’est-ce pas?

  193. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    Phil:

    The story will move forward as circumstances warrant.

    And I think with your history on my site, you already knew that.

    Honestly? I am not actually able to discern any relationship between how stories move forward and what the “circumstances warrant.” But that is neither here nor there.

    There is a reason that they are called “expectations.” When you set them, your readers will be interested in their resolution.

    N’est-ce pas?

    Similarly, I’m not sure where you’re going with all of this, and considering your history on my site, I will assume it is for malevolent intentions.

    Nevertheless, after having run this site for well over a year, I think I have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn’t. Besides, I have only ever said that certain expectations have been set; I never said exactly when said expectations would be fulfilled. Obviously, the “when” question is an issue of both reality and readers.

    -Phil

  194. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman, I make no argument against ALL immigration. I prefaced my remark with “in this economy.” As for why everyone who wants to come to American shouldn’t be allowed in: common sense would dictate that we need an orderly process that does not harm current citizens and, quite simply, there are far too many people who would come here, given the chance. No country in the world has open borders and allows for unrestricted immigration.

  195. 12/8/2009MGB says:

    Yes, Sue, I do tend to give my opinion instead of someone else’s. Perhaps I’m unique in that regard.

  196. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman, I make no argument against ALL immigration. I prefaced my remark with “in this economy.” As for why everyone who wants to come to American shouldn’t be allowed in: common sense would dictate that we need an orderly process that does not harm current citizens and, quite simply, there are far too many people who would come here, given the chance. No country in the world has open borders and allows for unrestricted immigration.

    I suppose you would be right if I had advocated unrestricted immigration. But good job knocking down that strawman that you set up.

    But very well. You only make an argument against all immigration “in this economy.”

  197. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Phil:

    Similarly, I’m not sure where you’re going with all of this, and considering your history on my site, I will assume it is for malevolent intentions.

    Oh… not malevolent at all. Perhaps I am going in a direction that you do not like, but that is only from the most benevolent of intentions. After all, I’m one of the good guys.

  198. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    Phil,

    I note that your article, along with several others, get cross-posted to freerepublic.com.

    I must admit that I’m disappointed about this. FreeRepublic is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.

  199. 12/8/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Phil,

    I note that your article, along with several others, get cross-posted to freerepublic.com.

    I must admit that I’m disappointed about this. FreeRepublic is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.

    What a coincidence! There have been many opposition commenters that have claimed, over the past year, that my site “is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.”

    Or, maybe was that the “postings” and not the “commentary?” There have been so many accusations about my site that I simply do not keep track any more.

    In fact, I think I recently remember seeing commentary where some in the opposition state that I lie in my postings.

    -Phil

  200. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    What a coincidence! There have been many opposition commenters that have claimed, over the past year, that my site “is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.”

    This is pretty typical Freeper fare:

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/conservative-blog-commenters-target-malia-obama-with-racial-slurs/

    I could pull up dozens of examples of threads with commentary like this where that sort of invective is not just tolerated, but encouraged.

    No rational person should be getting themselves involved with people as blatantly racist and hateful as Freepers.

  201. 12/8/2009Benaiah says:

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

  202. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    qwertyman,

    “You may be right on that point. Maybe more American citizens would be willing to work as farmhands in sub-minimum wage conditions.”

    I wonder if MGB is in agribusiness? We are and I can assure you that the above is not factual. If they do take the job, they don’t stay long. The work is hard, hours are long in the rain, sleet, snow and unbearable heat in the summertime. Livestock do not observe Christmas and other holidays and want to be fed. Livestock cannot tell time as they give birth after 5 PM and on weekends.

    When we have hired individuals who aren’t familiar with the farming/ranching industry, generally, they cost us more in the long run as they tear up expensive machinery and injure themselves.

    Contrary to what some believe, there is an art to farming and ranching and very specific skills required.

  203. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    December 9, 2009 at 4:40 am
    *Contrary to what some believe, there is an art to farming and ranching and very specific skills required.*

    It’s a bit of a pickle, isn’t it? You need people with certain skills, not just anyone has them, and yet you budget your labor cost as unskilled labor. Why do you expect to pay people with artistic knowledge and very specific skills sub-minimum wage? Or is it that you hire illegals with the skills and pay them sub-minimum wage because you take advantage of the fact that they are illegal? They want to stay under the radar so they are willing to take a job that doesn’t compensate them properly for their skills. Have you built this taking advantage of people into your labor estimates for so long you’ve lost perspective of the real value of the specific skills required for the job?

  204. 12/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Phil says:
    December 8, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    What a coincidence! There have been many opposition commenters that have claimed, over the past year, that my site “is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.”

    Or, maybe was that the “postings” and not the “commentary?” There have been so many accusations about my site that I simply do not keep track any more.

    In fact, I think I recently remember seeing commentary where some in the opposition state that I lie in my postings.

    -Phil
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Phil, I just want to point out that not all “opposition posters” feel that way. I personally don’t feel that you fit into any of those categories nor does your site. Unfortunately there are some out there in the anti-Obama movement that do have such beliefs and values. And sometimes they make it seem like everyone attached to that movement feel the same way. But like I have said on numerous occasions I respect your blog and the time it takes to run it. I also respect that as Americans we all have different opinions. So if we differ that is OK. As long as it doesn’t denigrate into hate filled rhetoric it is a great opportunity to debate and discuss the issue. Just my 2 cents….

  205. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    Black Lion,

    Phil says:
    December 8, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    What a coincidence! There have been many opposition commenters that have claimed, over the past year, that my site “is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.”

    Or, maybe was that the “postings” and not the “commentary?” There have been so many accusations about my site that I simply do not keep track any more.

    In fact, I think I recently remember seeing commentary where some in the opposition state that I lie in my postings.

    -Phil
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Phil, I just want to point out that not all “opposition posters” feel that way. I personally don’t feel that you fit into any of those categories nor does your site. Unfortunately there are some out there in the anti-Obama movement that do have such beliefs and values. And sometimes they make it seem like everyone attached to that movement feel the same way. But like I have said on numerous occasions I respect your blog and the time it takes to run it. I also respect that as Americans we all have different opinions. So if we differ that is OK. As long as it doesn’t denigrate into hate filled rhetoric it is a great opportunity to debate and discuss the issue. Just my 2 cents….

    I would have hoped this went without saying, but I think it’s worthy to make my response explicit on this issue.

    If all opposition commenters thought as negatively as I was responding, above, I would not allow dissenting viewpoints on my site. That would be a site way out of control and not worth visiting by anyone.

    On the contrary, those who have principled disagreements far outweigh those who are simply stirring the proverbial pot and, as a fellow pot-stirrer, I welcome that kind of dissent.

    For those who don’t appreciate my stance, the only thing I can say is: perhaps you should learn to take some constructive criticism in your own life. Nobody learns anything by being in a rhetorical echo chamber.

    Allowing others to voice their opinions — even if those opinions are wrong, in your view — without there being serious consequences is a quintessentially American trait. It takes a strong dose of suspension of disbelief to be able to tolerate some discussions; I can do this, some can’t.

    -Phil

  206. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    For those who don’t appreciate my stance, the only thing I can say is: perhaps you should learn to take some constructive criticism in your own life. Nobody learns anything by being in a rhetorical echo chamber.

    As I said, I don’t think this site is a hate site. FreeRepublic is absolutely a racist hate site. Everything you say about echo chambers and negative feelings is epitomized by that site.

  207. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    Sise,

    “It’s a bit of a pickle, isn’t it? You need people with certain skills, not just anyone has them, and yet you budget your labor cost as unskilled labor. Why do you expect to pay people with artistic knowledge and very specific skills sub-minimum wage? Or is it that you hire illegals with the skills and pay them sub-minimum wage because you take advantage of the fact that they are illegal? They want to stay under the radar so they are willing to take a job that doesn’t compensate them properly for their skills. Have you built this taking advantage of people into your labor estimates for so long you’ve lost perspective of the real value of the specific skills required for the job?”

    We do not hire illegal immigrants–never have. Regardless of the “skill” involved in a job, you can still only pay what the market will bear. If you do pay more than what the job is worth, you will go broke. Along with that hourly wage, we provide housing, all utilities, and a vehicle/fuel.

    American auto workers are a prime example.

  208. 12/9/2009MGB says:

    siseduermapierda says:
    December 9, 2009 at 9:05 am

    sise: Thanks so much for saving me the trouble of pointing those points out to Sue and other readers.

  209. 12/9/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman: Free Republic is a forum. It’s open, like Wikipedia. There are viewpoints from all sides. You can’t paint the entire site with such a broad brush.

  210. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    December 9, 2009 at 10:56 am
    * Regardless of the “skill” involved in a job, you can still only pay what the market will bear. If you do pay more than what the job is worth, you will go broke. Along with that hourly wage, we provide housing, all utilities, and a vehicle/fuel.*

    Like I said, it’s a pickle. I think small farms are a national treasure and small farmers are (mostly) the best stewards of the land. It’s a vocation, not just a living. The unfortunate thing is, farmers have faced the labor cost problem since time immemorial – where to find people with good skills without paying what the job is really worth – I think this is why farmers of the past had such big families, they created and trained their own labor force. I meant no disrespect, I sincerely meant it is a dilemma for farmers to make it beyond just subsistence.

  211. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman: Free Republic is a forum. It’s open, like Wikipedia. There are viewpoints from all sides. You can’t paint the entire site with such a broad brush.

    All of this is what I could find in three minutes on that site:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403473/posts
    Post #9 praises Governor George Wallace for his opposition to school desegregation.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403483/posts?q=1&amp;;page=151

    To: TheThinker
    It’s really their fault because they practice race mongering against their own race and degrade it because of their own twisted sense of guilt.

    Absolutely…and now with the marxist muslim in office, the other races are being ‘emboldened’. It’s disgusting and there will be no choice for us but to defend with deadly force.
    152 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:44:49 AM by Outlaw Woman (If the First Amendment is taken away, we will be forced to move on to the next Amendment)

    To: blueyon

    And they wonder why “white people” seek to separate themselves from this “culture”.

    That’s going to have to be the way we avoid an all out war. Separation.

    Wow… I’m a “separatist”.

    180 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:38:56 AM by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he’s working for.)

    To: StormEye

    “I mean how obvious do these savage pack of animals have to be?”

    It’s quite clear now it’s best to never go into the jungle unarmed.

    184 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:01:32 AM by ScottinVA (The arrogance of this Congress is staggering. November 2010 can’t get here quickly enough.)

    To: B-Chan

    Worst mistake this country ever made (other than electing Obama) was to bring slaves here.

    213 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:00:58 AM by ilovesarah2012
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

    I wouldn’t make such a big statement solely because of just one thread full of racists:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2400918/posts

    To: Second Amendment First
    Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Insane Obama

    He said that all must lend a hand and turn our country into banana land. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Insane Obama

    He said we must be fair today and give the lazy half our pay. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Insane Obama

    He said that we must take a stand and take our money from the “man”. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Insane Obama

    He said red, yellow, black or white all commies are equal in his sight Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Insane Obama

    Yes We Can — single payer is our plan to devastate the mother land. Mmm, mmm, mmm! Barack Insane Obama
    2 posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 8:08:44 AM by IbJensen (Merry Christmas to everyone, especially the ACLU)

    To: Second Amendment First
    Five Reasons Why a Mulatto Chicago Street Thug Became President:

    1. White guilt and the excitement of being the first white on your block or at the office to take ‘credit’ for electing the first mulatto president.

    2. Blacks. They vote liberal, victim, welfare as a block. If there is still a black conservative left in this country he’s targeted!

    3. Jews. They vote liberal, social justice, money.

    4. Leftist Control of Higher Education. Brainwashing.

    5. A weak, blue-blood, liberal, media-suckup Republican party which excludes Conservative ideals, patriots, and true Americans who support the Constitution of the United States of America.
    20 posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 8:51:09 AM by Doc Savage (SOBAMP!)

    To: Second Amendment First

    The average black wants the wealth and power now! “The Divine One” knows that such an attitude put into practice would cause disaster. Hence, the wealth and power transfer are going a little slower than what blacks desire, causing a not a little angst.

    34 posted on Saturday, December 05, 2009 11:37:11 AM by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)

    I could find 5 threads with crap like that in ten minutes. It’s not just tolerated, it’s encouraged by JimRob himself.

    FreeRepublic is a racist hate site.

  212. 12/9/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Nice cherry-picking there. If I got my news exclusively from you, you’d make everyone think all of us who fall on the right/libertarian-side of things were a bunch of racist bigots.

    -Phil

  213. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    Nice cherry-picking there. If I got my news exclusively from you, you’d make everyone think all of us who fall on the right/libertarian-side of things were a bunch of racist bigots.

    -Phil

    If you got your news exclusively from me, I’d make everyone realize how hateful and racist FreeRepublic is. Several of my very best friends are Republicans, and there are several aspects of conservatism and the GOP that I agree with.

    However, FreeRepublic is a bastion of hatred and racism. If you think that my last post was just some particular cherry-picking, let’s take a look at some other threads, shall we?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403064/posts

    Just another good reason to

    STOP GOING TO THEIR CASINOS!!!!!!!!!

    8 posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:18:55 PM by scoobysnak71

    Wow, 3.4 billion will buy a LOT of fire water…

    12 posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:25:11 PM by Nervous Tick (Stop dissing drunken sailors! At least they spend their OWN money.)

    Heapum shakedown, ug

    19 posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:36:16 PM by Pajama Blogger (Pajama Power)

    Enough is enough! They keep coming back to the trough time and time again! it’s time to no longer recognize reservations, stop funding the Indian Health Care and education schemes. It is time to cut the “native” Americans off at the knees because the tribes have enough money to cover their the needs of their people if they use it wisely.

    24 posted on Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:48:45 PM by WellyP

    All those were in the first 25 posts of that thread. At what point does it stop becoming cherry picking and start becoming straight racism? How come the moderators never do anything in response to blatant racism like this?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2402094/posts

    AMNESTY….What does 20 million people actually look like?

    Do you realize if this AMNESTY happens we are in effect creating the equivilant population of over 17 of our states to this country? And that’s not even considering the chain migration that is in every amnesty bill or the millions of illegal alien anchor babies intent on carrying out the terror of their Mexican drug cartels. (Remember, anchor babies are US citizens..voters….who aren’t counted in the illegal alien numbers!)

    My teacher relatives say the schools in Florida are filled with fat little immigrant kids that all get taxpayer funded lunch, every day.

    I have to assume those are their parents I see in the grocery store waddling around with two full grocery carts and paying with food stamps.

    I can’t image Maryland could have it any worse than my state.

    5 posted on Monday, December 07, 2009 11:57:50 AM by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)

    California was destroyed by illegal aliens.

    They are spreading across the USA like locusts, and they destroy whatever infrastructure they feast upon.

    It’s so disgusting to see this happening to our Nation.
    19 posted on Monday, December 07, 2009 12:21:04 PM by GI Joe Fan (GI Joe represents Real American Heroes, not a bunch of globalist drones.)

    Again, this took five minutes to find. these are all different posters. Every one of these posts happened this week. No moderator is doing anything about it. FreeRepublic is a racist hate site.

  214. 12/9/2009Pete says:

    >>>Blacklion says:
    Pete, good point but legally problematic…The plaintiffs would have to show that the decision was forced by the Executive Branch for starters. That would be tough because the law is specific that Chrysler and GM because they were in bankruptcy are allowed to cancel the contracts. Not only would Leo have to prove that the Executive branch made the decision, but that the decision was not in the best interests of Chrysler and GM. That will be tough for them to prove.<<<

    Blacklion,

    I disagree. They only have to prove that the Executive Branch made the decision, or INFLUENCED IT. The Influenced it is grossly obvious, so it is a done deal. Second, the Contract decisions were NOT in the best interests of the Manufactures, since they closed the more profitable 'republican held' dealerships and kept the less profitable democratic dealerships in the same geographic area.

    Your right, it won't survive a motion to dismiss…..NOT BECAUSE THE CASE ISN'T VALID, nor because harm wasn't done, nor because the harm done wasn't politically motivated. No it won't survive the MTD because the court system and government are CORRUPT, and to many wealthy elites are afraid of spending time in Kansas.

    The fundemental difference between you and I is I believe that the means doesn't justify the end, and people who are popular and powerful shouldn't be above the law. Then again, I agree that my priciples are antiquated.

  215. 12/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Pete says:
    December 9, 2009 at 1:01 pm
    * Second, the Contract decisions were NOT in the best interests of the Manufactures, since they closed the more profitable ‘republican held’ dealerships and kept the less profitable democratic dealerships in the same geographic area.*

    That myth was debunked Pete! Chrysler announced in Feb 2008, long before Obama was President that they planned to reduce the number of dealerships in close proximity to each other.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chrysler.asp

    Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, a well-respected analyzer of statistics, looked at the actual data and found: Car Dealers are Republicans! When he looked at the political donations by people who identified themselves as car dealers he found that 88% of the political donations went to, wait for it, Republicans! Even Fox News said they don’t find support for the claims.

  216. 12/9/2009Sue says:

    MGB amd Sise,

    “where to find people with good skills without paying what the job is really worth”

    Do either of you have employees?

    We pay above current minimum wage and provide several perks–housing, utilities, vehicle and fuel which is easily another $600-700/mo. We pay overtime or comp. time depending.

    So, how much do you think a farm/ranch worker should make? What do you think that job is worth?

    BTW, we train them ourselves and they stay. Our farm/ranch hand has been with us about 18 years now and is considered “family.” We’ve tried to work “city boys” but they don’t want to get their hands dirty, tear up expensive equipment and generally don’t show up after the first week; many times after the first day.

    We don’t “cowboy” our livestock as a feedsack is worth 10 cowboys. However, when we do require cowboys, we hire “day workers.”

  217. 12/9/2009Dennis says:

    Attn.: brygenon says: December 7, 2009 at 5:33 am

    Dennis said: “SCOTUS never ruled on merit of any of the eligibility cases before them.“

    This is a fact not conjuncture. You deny that fact – it is your right. I only wish that you could be less condescending.

    You quoted Schneller. I don’t have the time to verify what you said, so let’s take it that it is true that SCOTUS said it was frivolous. Frivolous or not, no ruling was rendered on merit.

    At most of the eligibility cases SCOTUS did not state a reason why they decided not to hear the case on merit. This includes a request which had nothing to do with Mr. Obama, which simply asked SCOTUS to define the constitutional term “natural born citizen”.

    Four votes are necessary to hear on merit. So far no eligibility law suit or request achieved the four votes.

    RE: You said: “Thus if you refuse to take a clue from anything less than an explicit Supreme Court ruling on Obama’s eligibility…..”

    All rulings of SCOTUS are explicit. Anything else is conjuncture. “Taking clue” from refusal of hearing a case on merit is pure speculation, regardless of the stated or unstated reason for not hearing the case on merit. We simply do not know how they would have ruled. So you are engaging in that in pure speculation. Which is of course your constitutional right.

    RE: You said: “Alan Keyes’ bitterness is understandable. Barack Obama first clobbered Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate race in Illinois.”

    I agree with that, but being bitter does not mean that Ambassador Allen Keyes is wrong. In 2004 during a campaign debate (between Keyes and Obama) the following documented verbal exchange took place:

    “MR. OBAMA, FOR THE RECORD AND IN RESPONSE TO MR. ALAN KEYES’ STATEMENT THAT OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, STATED IN QUICK RETORT, “SO WHAT? I AM RUNNING FOR ILLINOIS SENATOR, NOT THE PRESIDENCY”.

    So in 2004 he admitted that he is not nbc. In 2008 he said that he is. If you were his opponent would you have the right to be bitter as well ? – and you would be right.

    Look, we don’t know if he is nbc or not. Maybe he is, maybe not. It is the duty of SCOTUS (and the lower courts) to answer the question. Or at least define nbc. The judges took oaths to uphold and protect the constitution.

    Will you agree that this is a constitutionally extremely important question of enormous national significance?

    The taxpayers pay these judges high salaries and expect them to do their duties and honor their oaths – especially for such extremely important question. They refusal to do so, as Ambassador Alen Keyes says is “dereliction of duty”.

    Once the nbc is defined it is up to congress to act or not to act. The courts can not remove a sitting president. On the other hand, Congress can not and should not define nbc. (Separation of powers.) So SCOTUS’ refusal to define nbc, is again, nothing less that dereliction of duty”.

  218. 12/9/2009qwertyman says:

    “MR. OBAMA, FOR THE RECORD AND IN RESPONSE TO MR. ALAN KEYES’ STATEMENT THAT OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, STATED IN QUICK RETORT, “SO WHAT? I AM RUNNING FOR ILLINOIS SENATOR, NOT THE PRESIDENCY”.

    I’ve seen this a few times and it really puzzles me. First of all, I’ve reviewed the transcripts of all the Obama-Keyes debates and never seen that exchange or anything close to it. Secondly, Keyes is actually suing Obama on this and he has never repeated or made that allegation about Obama saying that.

    You need to back this up with some documented evidence, if indeed you still believe this is something that actually happened.

  219. 12/10/2009bystander says:

    MGB

    FreeRepublic is most definitely not an open forum. To say so is laughable. It is closed to everyone that does not support a far right agenda – even Republicans supporting Guilini and Romney are regularly banned – or weren’t you paying attention during the last election? Any new poster that questions the status quo will be banned within a day. On the other hand I can point you to a genuinely open forum that discusses the eligibilty issue, but I doubt you have the courage or ability to pit your wits there.

  220. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    Phil said, “Nice cherry-picking there. If I got my news exclusively from you, you’d make everyone think all of us who fall on the right/libertarian-side of things were a bunch of racist bigots.”

    That’s the goal. Alinsky style.

  221. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    bystander: Where’s the proof of your allegations? Free Republic accepts comments from all sides. I have seen no indication otherwise. I doubt you have the courage to pit your “wits” there. What’s this wonderful open forum that you want to point me to?

  222. 12/10/2009MGB says:

    btw, bystander, I doubt that you have wit, courage, or ability. So there with your snide insults. What the heck is the problem with most of you Obama supporters? Can you EVER get off your high horse,with your arrogance, smugness, elitism, and general all around jerkness? What is your problem with people who simply don’t agree with you? Is there ANY point that you will EVER cede? Is there ANY statement that I can make with which you WILL NOT disagree? Some of you even tell me that I don’t know what my own opinion is. Sheesh. Grow up, all of you. Please.

  223. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    bystander: Where’s the proof of your allegations? Free Republic accepts comments from all sides. I have seen no indication otherwise. I doubt you have the courage to pit your “wits” there. What’s this wonderful open forum that you want to point me to?

    I got “zotted” after one post I made a couple of years ago that was critical of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program.

    http://vdare.com/misc/gheen_050211_shot.htm
    They’ve even purged conservatives they view as not conservative enough.

    Again, FreeRepublic is a racist hate site. I found over a dozen blatantly racist and hateful comments in four different threads that were all posted this week; moderators have done nothing about any of them. But let’s see what else I can find by “cherry picking” for two minutes?

    Again, at what point does it stop being cherry picking, and start being a site that is filled with racists and hatemongers, tolerated by the site admins?

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2359069/posts

    School desegregation was a mistake. The cultures of white and black Americans are too different to be successfully integrated. Kudos to the Berkeley school board for their backhanded recognition of this fact.

    PS — Yes, I am a racist. Abuse Button below.
    1 posted on Friday, October 09, 2009 6:03:53 PM by B-Chan

    Note that this was posted two months ago – apparently nobody hit that abuse button, or nobody cared that this guy was posting racist crap.

    But you know, that was a relatively small thread. Maybe if the thread has hundreds of posts the moderators will take notice:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403483/posts?q=1&amp;;page=251

    To: B-Chan

    I suspect 99% of blacks hate white people. This is no surprise.

    257 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:51:23 AM by oldvike

    To: metmom
    Why, exactly?

    While white culture has twisted itself into a pretzel bending over backward to indulge bestial behavior, blacks have been free to blame the failure of their “culture” on the white man. I’s encouraged. These people think we’re weak as individuals.

    Some day the worm is gonna turn. It’s going to come as a big surprise.
    281 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 2:36:25 PM by Stentor

    To: oldvike

    Let them strew in their own hatred and self destruct. Remove welfare and Darwin will take control.

    296 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:56:48 PM by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)

    To: ROCKLOBSTER

    “OK, in that case: The blacks need to be liberated from the horribility of economic freedom and evil white people”

    Well, let the transports to Africa begin.

    301 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:13:08 PM by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)

    To: B-Chan

    No hate crimes here. Move along.

    Seriously, some people are animals.And like predators, they need to be dealt with in the same manner that predators are dealt with.

    Midnight basketball is not going to do the trick.

    302 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:14:59 PM by exit82 (Democrats are the enemy of freedom. Sarah Palin is our Esther.)

    HOW MANY MORE DO I HAVE TO POST BEFORE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT FREEREPUBLIC IS FILLED WITH RACISTS?!

    To: Windflier; rockabyebaby; dynachrome; MrCFdovnh; beaversmom
    This sort of gangster thuggery has plagued the black community for a very long time, and in much greater depth than it has on the rest of the culture. You don’t hear about the atrocities that occur in “the hood” too often, but there’s a near epidemic of violence occurring there.

    Must be some sort of innate jungle tribal instinct just too difficult for their race to overcome.

    319 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:41:48 PM by whatisthetruth

    Note that this post also contains some blatantly race-bating imagery.

    To be fair, there was somebody offended by that:

    quote:

    To: whatisthetruth
    Must be some sort of innate jungle tribal instinct just too difficult for their race to overcome.

    You’ve not only just offended me, but you’ve also offended Justice Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Lt. Col. Allen West, Star Parker, Bob Parks, Lloyd Marcus, Alphonzo Rachel, JC Watts, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, Thomas Sowell, and every uniformed black person who ever fired a shot in the defense of America, including my father and my brother.

    “whatisthetruth”, indeed.
    320 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 9:51:13 PM by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)

    But this voice of reason is shouted down:

    To: whatisthetruth
    Offended you how and why? I merely gave one possible conjecture about it, pls enlighten as to yours.

    Don’t play dumb. Your statement below is a demeaning generality, and you know it.

    Must be some sort of innate jungle tribal instinct just too difficult for their race to overcome.

    The statement is highly invalidative, and racist on its face. It’s too late for you to try the intellectual route. You insulted an entire race of people, not unlike what the thugs in the story above did.

    As for my thoughts, experiences, and feelings on the matter, they’re detailed in several posts upthread.
    328 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:46:02 PM by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)

    To: Windflier
    I appreciate that you’re offended. This subject is intrinsically offensive. But if we don’t honestly address the offensive realities of race relations in America verbally, we in this nation will eventually be forced to address them physically.

    That being said, I wonder if you could address the point under contention: namely, that some sort of “tribal instinct” lies at the root of the problems blacks have in every part of the world. There must be some reason that Detroit, East St. Louis, and Africa are hellholes, after all. Would you care to speculate on that reason, or do we have to stop talking about this now because you’ve become offended?
    330 posted on Wednesday, December 09, 2009 10:51:11 PM by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)

    To: Windflier
    Are you suggesting that most black people are violent thugs?

    I’m suggesting that I consider many of them animals and will continue to do so until they clean up their own act. As a group, they are some of the most predjudiced that I have ever come in contact with.
    368 posted on Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:45:32 AM by Sarajevo (You’re jealous because the voices only talk to me.)

    All of this was within the past 24 hours.

  224. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    This was the first thread I came across on the front page:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2404706/posts
    Hey, a thread about Michelle Obama I’m sure we won’t find hateful and racist commentary here:

    To: kristinn

    She walks like a plow horse.

    2 posted on Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:58:17 PM by gibtx2 (End Tenure)

    To: gibtx2

    She looks like a plow horse. That’s what those big belts were…harness hookups.

    3 posted on Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:59:56 PM by Sacajaweau

    To: gibtx2
    “…She walks like a plow horse…”

    Or…

    This person then posted a picture of Bigfoot.

    To: netmilsmom

    dress like a black woman?

    You mean in purple with a big hat?

    19 posted on Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:08:48 PM by hoe_cake (A member of the Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Constitution.)

    Again, all of this was posted today. I suspect any thread I find that mentions any minority will have commentary like this throughout. How many threads would I have to show you to convince you that I’m not cherry-picking, but showing example after example of an extremely disturbing trend and tendancy for freepers to display blatant racism and hatefulness without any retribution from moderators, who will nonetheless “zot” me if I make a single post pointing out that the warrantless wiretap program was unconstitutional.

    FreeRepublic is a right wing racist hate site, and I stand by that.

  225. 12/10/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “What’s this wonderful open forum that you want to point me to?”

    Here is the link. Lots of practicing lawyers at PJ and other professionals. I am the token agribusiness but I am also a health care professional. These lawyers at PJ have predicted these birther lawsuits 100%. They have been kind enough to share their legal expertise regarding these lawsuits with other PJ members who are not in the legal profession.

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/index.php

  226. 12/11/2009brygenon says:

    Dennis says:

    Attn.: brygenon says: December 7, 2009 at 5:33 am

    Dennis said: “SCOTUS never ruled on merit of any of the eligibility cases before them.“

    This is a fact not conjuncture. You deny that fact – it is your right.

    Is that supposed to be a response to something I wrote?

    I only wish that you could be less condescending.

    You quoted Schneller. I don’t have the time to verify what you said, so let’s take it that it is true that SCOTUS said it was frivolous. Frivolous or not, no ruling was rendered on merit.

    If you’re that determined to stay clueless, don’t expect my tone toward you to change.

    At most of the eligibility cases SCOTUS did not state a reason why they decided not to hear the case on merit. This includes a request which had nothing to do with Mr. Obama, which simply asked SCOTUS to define the constitutional term “natural born citizen”.

    The Supreme Court is not in the business of spoon-feeding you definitions.

    RE: You said: “Alan Keyes’ bitterness is understandable. Barack Obama first clobbered Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate race in Illinois.”

    I agree with that, but being bitter does not mean that Ambassador Allen Keyes is wrong. In 2004 during a campaign debate (between Keyes and Obama) the following documented verbal exchange took place:

    “MR. OBAMA, FOR THE RECORD AND IN RESPONSE TO MR. ALAN KEYES’ STATEMENT THAT OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, STATED IN QUICK RETORT, “SO WHAT? I AM RUNNING FOR ILLINOIS SENATOR, NOT THE PRESIDENCY”.

    You say it is documented, so document it. Some eligibility-deniers recently started reporting it, but none found any record of it from 2004. Keyes’ attorney, Orly Taitz, reported asking him about it, and Keyes did not recall such an exchange.

    So in 2004 he admitted that he is not nbc. In 2008 he said that he is. If you were his opponent would you have the right to be bitter as well ? – and you would be right.

    How can he be bitter about something he doesn’t recall ever happening?

    Look, we don’t know if he is nbc or not. Maybe he is, maybe not.

    If you choose to remain ignorant, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.

    It is the duty of SCOTUS (and the lower courts) to answer the question. Or at least define nbc. The judges took oaths to uphold and protect the constitution.

    Will you agree that this is a constitutionally extremely important question of enormous national significance?

    Fortunately you can just look it up:

    Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    Say Dennis, if you choose to reply, I think your documentation of that 2004 exchange between Obama and Keyes would be particularly interesting, as no one else has been able to find any. You said it is documented, so let’s see it.

  227. 12/21/2009slcraig says:

    brygenon says:
    December 11, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Say Dennis, if you choose to reply, I think your documentation of that 2004 exchange between Obama and Keyes would be particularly interesting, as no one else has been able to find any. You said it is documented, so let’s see it.

    I say; When you find a Clip or Transcript of the 2004 Debate #2 (TWO) you may find the exchange of comments mentioned, however, it appears that the Clips and Transcripts of THAT Debate have been ‘scrubbed’ completely…..convenient…

    As to Black’s Law Dict., Published in 1991, would you kindly reconcile that definition with SCOTUS Orbita Dicta statements and the Repeal of the 1790 Naturalization Law concerning NBC’s born abroad by the 1795 Act…?

    According to ALL SCOTUS Orbita Dicta on the subject an NBC is a person born of TWO Citizen Parents, of that there is NO DOUBT, of ALL OTHERS DOUBTS remain……..

    That, Sir, is the Case and Controversy, the challenge is Jurisdiction & Standing in the face of Separation of Powers by a finding distinguishing Citizenship Questions from Political Questions…

    But find us the 2nd 2004 Illinois Senatorial Debate Transcript and will move on from there…….