#eligibility: WH Confirms Rep. Deal’s Letter; Some Obama Questions “Off-Limits?”

by Phil on 01/10/2010

I had been previously reporting that Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), currently a 2010 gubernatorial candidate, was in the process of sending a letter to Mr. Obama allegedly to request his birth certificate. On Friday, January 8, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the White House had, in fact, received the letter (coverage also at RadioPatriot, Anti-Mullah, and the News-Independent):

The White House on Thursday confirmed receipt of a letter from U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal that formally asks Barack Obama to address questions about his place of birth – and thus, whether he is qualified to be president.

The letter arrived Dec. 10. Beyond that, no one is willing to say much.

According to my AJC colleague Bob Keefe in Washington, Todd Smith, Deal’s chief of staff, likewise confirmed that the letter had been sent. But neither Smith nor his boss would comment on its content.

“[Deal] just did what he said he was going to do,” Smith said. “It’s not news.”

Likewise, White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai – while acknowledging receipt of Deal’s letter, declined to release a copy or discuss its content, saying that the issue of Obama’s birth has been addressed repeatedly. …

Deal said he has “no reason to think” that Obama is not a legal citizen – but added that questions raised by so-called “birthers” about Obama’s nationality warrant more proof.

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in November.

After declining to respond to numerous phone calls and e-mails seeking comment, Smith finally addressed the letter during a brief interview at Deal’s Washington office on Thursday.

He declined to provide a copy, saying it was out of deference to the president.

PeachPundit, Georgia’s most influential political blog, began taking issue with the sentiment expressed in the last sentence of the AJC quote, above:

With all due respect Mr. Smith and Representative Deal, this is news. You made it news. You have decided to go all in with “crazy” by deciding to question the legitimacy – in every way that word has meaning – of a sitting President.

You don’t want it to be news because you just want the World Net Daily readers to know that you’re really one of them. But you want the more mainstream voters to know you’re a normal mainstream establishment Republican.

Yet, commenter “Mozart” took issue with the posting by “Icarus:”

So, let me see if I can gather from Icarus’s view of the world:

Once a question has ever been answered (whether the answer is the truth or not), it can never be asked again without someone laying a title on the asker of “birther, weirdo, crackpot, nutball”, etc.?

And commenter “Harry” brought up an excellent point, very similar to where I personally go with the eligibility issue (except for a brief foray into ignorance, mistaking “native-born” with the constitutional phrase, “natural born”):

The idea of a constitution is to help us all argue from the same starting point. There are basic constitutional differences that can’t have to be resolved in order to format national policies, differences involving decentralized free market vs. centralized collectivism among other things, some questions more difficult than others. If we give in on the easy questions, where does that lead us? One of the easy questions should be, does Obama meet the constitutional test for the presidency? He managed to avoid addressing this issue in 2008, but there’s still 2012. Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, can become president according to the constitution. Whether Obama meets this requirement can be very easily put to rest, by him providing his full, original certificate of live birth. He hasn’t done this. The abbreviated, ex-post-facto computer version he put on the internet proves nothing. Let’s see the real one.

Regardless of the overall negative tone, I do agree with “Icarus” in that this is news, and I don’t quite understand what hiding the letter from public view being “out of deference to the President” is about. Rep. Deal claims to have executed this activity out of requests from his constituents (under the auspices that the President should be transparent with his background), but yet Rep. Deal becomes suddenly opaque when anyone questions the content of the actual letter. Why even say that you’re going to send a letter if you don’t want to actually show the letter to the public?

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

Thanks to commenter “Black Lion” here at The Right Side of Life, we became aware of the following exchange between an unnamed individual and Rep. Deal’s office, via OhForGoodnessSake. I’m going to add my own analysis between the paragraphs:

Yesterday, a Friend of Politijab called Rep. Deal’s office and spoke with his Chief of Staff, Todd Smith, about Deal’s letter to the President of the United States, apparently asking to see his birth certificate:

—-

1. I asked Mr. Smith if Congressman Deal was going to release the letter he had sent to President Obama and he stated, “not at this time.” I asked Mr. Smith what the letter had requested from President Obama and he stated, “proof of President Obama’s citizenship and natural born citizen status so they could put this issue to rest.” I asked Mr. Smith if he was aware that President Obama had released his birth certificate online to factcheck and that the State of Hawaii had confirmed that President Obama was born in Hawaii. Mr. Smith said, “yes, but someone had told him that something on the back of the birth certificate was not right.” I asked Mr. Smith where he obtained this info and he would not tell me. Basically, Mr. Smith stated that they are waiting for the President to respond to their letter. Mr. Smith claims Congressman Deal has not done a press release on this and are not after publicity but are doing this because of his constituents concerns. Then I asked him if Mr. Smith was aware that release of the birth certificate (again) would not put this matter to rest as he claims Congressman Deal wants because of the nbc = 2 citizen parents BS. Mr. Smith states there are no other congressmen involved at the present time; however, they have discussed this issue with some other congressmen but would not say who. I asked if I could send Mr. Smith some information regarding this issue and he stated, “no, that he had all the information he needed.”

Regarding the COLB, Mr. Smith was correct to question it, considering the FactCheck.org blog is the only organization that has ever actually inspected the alleged original document, and even that inspection is not professional.

Regarding additional information, again, that apparently was the whole point of the letter — though, again, to be fair, we really don’t know exactly what Rep. Deal has asked of the President.

2. I asked Mr. Smith if Congressman Deal believed that to be a nbc = 2 citizen parents and he stated that he wasn’t sure what Congressman Deal believed but their constituents felt their was some questions regarding this issue (natural born citizen) that had merit. My response was of course, that in my opinion, this was well settled law. I asked to send him some info regarding this and he refused to accept any info.

Let’s not put the cart before the horse. The 2-citizen parent issue is certainly a sub-issue of the eligibility question, but apparently the content of the letter is intended to solicit a response from the President that might supersede even this issue. Nobody at this time knows. Further, while I appreciate the tenaciousness of the caller, Mr. Smith isn’t there to be lectured to, but to answer questions.

3. I asked Mr. Smith if Congressman Deal supported the CGJ/AGJ and he did not answer my question one way or the other. So, not sure. I pointed out to Mr. Smith that these groups had already tried, convicted and sentenced President Obama in their online grand juries.

Again, based on the currently unknown contents of the letter, the common law grand jury concept may be irrelevant regarding this letter.

4. I asked Mr. Smith if Congressman Deal was aware that President Obama had been threatened. Mr. Smith was aware of those threats. I asked Mr. Smith if Congressman Deal was aware that judges who had rendered decisions in the eligibility lawsuits had been threatened, accused of treason, etc., etc. Mr. Smith stated, “that he was not aware of this.” I asked Mr. Smith if he wanted some information regarding this and he stated, “no”.

The whole point of having a Representative ask the President for his bona fides is so that the question doesn’t have to be answered in Court. And, Rep. Deal has standing to ask these questions.

After all, isn’t that what the opposition has allegedly “wanted” all along? Some federal officer in the Legislative branch to do the questioning? Well, here it is!

5. Mr. Smith asked me if I had contacted my representatives regarding this issue.(Deal letter) My reply was, “no, because none of my representatives had signed the letter to President Obama.” However, that I had spoken to some Congressmen’s (staffers) regarding this issue in the past. Mr. Smith asked who my reps were and I told him.

6. I was about to ask Mr. Smith if Congressman Deal had read the judges decisions in these eligibility lawsuits but Mr. Smith asked what my stance was regarding this issue. I told him that President Obama was eligible to be POTUS (had released his BC and Hawaii confirmed) and that if you were born in America, you were a natural born citizen–end of story. Mr. Smith stated, “this conversation is over” and would not answer any more of my questions, but asked for my name, which I gave him, again. (I identified myself and my State at the beginning of our conversation.) I stated, “fine, thank you”, and hung up the phone.

What the caller may not be aware of is that no judge has ever rendered a decision regarding a specific question of presidential eligibility. If they had, then the Courts would have already defined “natural born citizen” with respect to presidential eligibility (and that is a very fine distinction), and we wouldn’t be having this debate. What many judges have done, however, is offered their opinions on actual questions posed to them, such as whether or not the Court should be tasked with actually removing the President (which it constitutionally cannot do).

One such excellent opinion regarding the Court’s relationship with presidential eligibility can be found via the Barnett v. Obama decision by Judge Carter, providing what I called “A Teachable Moment.

Also, there’s a very good reason why Mr. Smith asked for the caller’s stance on the eligibility question: Rep. Deal has already received plenty of negativity simply for asking the question, so there really was no point in Mr. Smith potentially having to hear another earful once more. The request has been made, and while I certainly would love to see the letter itself, this may not be the end of the story either.

OhForGoodnessSake ends their posting thusly:

Congressman Deal’s Chief of Staff sounds like he may be a Birther, himself, at least from this report. “This conversation is over,” he says. Oh, yeah, tough guy? It will be over when Congressman Deal is censured from the floor of the House.

I see. So we should start censuring House Members when they ask inconvenient questions of the President? The last time I checked, we still live under a constitutional republic, not a tyrannical dictatorship.

What’s even more striking about castigating those of us who question is that, of all individuals, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) mentioned the following back during the 2008 presidential campaign, in response to Sen. McCain’s medical records release: “everything should be public:

Update: Concerned citizens are great: apparently the Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), had similar remarks as well:

So, how about the President’s recent trip to Hawaii? Any chance he visited the hospital in which he was born? Which one was that again? According to WorldNetDaily, we still don’t know for sure:

President Obama’s official spokesman deflected a question today about the president’s alleged place of birth.

At the White House press briefing, Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent there, asked, “While he was in Hawaii, did the president visit the hospital where he was reportedly born, which is which one?”

Spokesman Robert Gibb deflected.

“I don’t believe I saw any pool reports of hospital visits,” he said.

Concerning some allegations of Mr. Obama and the CIA, according to a posting by Rev. Dr. James Manning, he is accusing Columbia University of treason by suggesting that the university fraudulently covered for Mr. Obama while he was in an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan sometime during the years of 1981 to 1983 (video is at the link).

Regarding this allegation, there is a slight problem with the claim. While there was informal fighting by Osama bin Laden against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan as early as 1979, Al Qaeda did not exist until 1988, according to the Anti-Defamation League and GlobalSecurity.org. Furthermore, at this time, Dr. Manning does not seem to have produced any evidence for his allegations.

However, Dr. Manning is not the only individual who is bringing up such an admittedly controversial concept.

Washington, D.C.-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen reported last Tuesday that “a veteran member of the White House Press Corps” said that certain questions regarding the President’s background — specifically, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Mr. Obama’s first employer, Business International Corporation — “are definitely off-limits” (h/t ResistNet):

WMR has learned from a veteran member of the White House Press Corps that the Obama administration has made it known through White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and other White House Communications officials that certain questions posed by the reporters who cover the White House are definitely off-limits.

On the banned list are any questions about Obama’s post-Columbia University employment with Business International Corporation (BIC), a global financial and political information company that WMR previously reported was a front for the CIA.

White House Press Corps members have been quietly told that any questions related to BIC, Obama’s withheld records while he was a student at Occidental College in Los Angeles from 1979 to 1981, or his records at Columbia, are forbidden. At the same time he was attending Occidental, Obama, using the name Barry Soetoro and an Indonesian passport issued under the same name, traveled to Pakistan during the U.S. buildup to assist the Afghan mujaheddin.

The word from the White House Press Corps is that if anyone were to ask Obama about BIC or possible past CIA work, domestically or abroad, the offending reporter would see a quick pulling of the White House press credential.

The White House website states the following about openness and transparency by the Obama administration:

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Such allegations of off-limit questions regarding Mr. Obama’s past are not new, as I’ve previously reported. Yet, if true, don’t we, as Americans, have a right to know the background of the President? Could there be a “there” there? Potentially; we don’t know, and that’s the point. However, when a well-credentialed reporter is being explicitly told that specific questions are forbidden from being asked, it would appear that there’s a heck of a lot of smoke coming from a fire not too far away.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows, for sure, who Mr. Obama is, based on the substantially lacking amount of original documentation concerning his bona fides. And regarding eligibility, I’ve always maintained that I don’t know if he’s eligible to be President. Yet, as Mr. Madsen points out once again, the President claims to be committed to “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

Perhaps the President is correct — being as willingly closed as he is regarding his background really could be “an unprecedented level!”

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

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

There are 40 comments in this article:

  1. 01/10/2010slcraig says:

    Natural and native are NOT synonymous, jurisdiction is of more than territorial boundaries, allegiance and consent are not an ex post facto concepts, insofar as citizenship is concerned.

  2. 01/10/2010poptoy says:

    You don’t hide something unless you have something to hide. He is a Kenyan and one day it will come out. There is an Old Negro saying down south; “What goes on in the dark will one day come out in the light”.

  3. 01/10/2010Benaiah 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”.

    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 the dissenting opinion of 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…

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    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 [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

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

    …The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Finally, 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’… 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. Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.

  4. 01/10/2010qwertyman says:

    Once again Phil includes stories from racist websites as part of his article – this time citing to Resistnet.

    Also, MGB, I tried reregistering on FreeRepublic and made a post critical of Nathan Deal’s birther letter to President Obama two hours ago.

    Guess what popped up already?

    Your posting privilege has been revoked.

    Zotted within two hours. How long’s it going to take to get racist posters dealt with in the same way?

  5. 01/10/2010Benaiah says:

    Obama’s a Racist
    By Kelly Anderson Wright
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_a_racist.html

    Yes, I said it: Obama is a racist. As the white, conservative mother of black/Mexican/white children, I know a racist when I hear one. So is his buddy, Henry Louis Gates. Don’t let these two Ivy League-educated, erudite, distinguished black men convince you that only whites can be racists. Believe me, these two men are the worst kind of racists: black and elitist.

    According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a racist is someone who believes “all members of each racial group possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another racial group or racial groups.” When Sgt. Crowley investigated a possible burglary at Prof. Gates’ Cambridge home this week, Gates met a white cop at his door and evidently assumed Crowley was a bad cop, a rogue, a racist cop who would treat him differently than any other suspected perp, just because he was black. That’s racism, folks! What did Gates do when faced with a police officer investigating a burglary in his home? Was Gates polite and courteous to the cop? Did he cooperate and step onto the porch out of the darkened home so Crowley could see his face and ID? Did he calmly explain why a passerby saw him breaking in, if, in fact, it was his own house? Did he speak or act like the esteemed scholar and professor his ID claimed him to be?

    Nope. He was belligerent, accusatory, uncooperative, irrational and defamatory, throwing racial slurs at the white officer, even insulting the cop’s mother (as in, “Yo momma is so…”). If ever a man did NOT act with Harvard professorial dignity and decorum, if ever a black man acted like a thug from the ‘hood, Gates did. Is it any wonder Officer Crowley asked for more ID, one that actually listed that house as his address, or asked for another person to corroborate Gates’ identity? I would, wouldn’t you?

    And when Gates refused, and became so incensed and insulting to the Sergeant who was there to protect his property that a crowd grew around his house, was Crowley supposed to allow this kind of behavior, just because Gates was black? No. He arrested Gates for disorderly conduct, as he was trained to do. Last time I checked, police arrest people regardless of race when they act like crazy people in the presence of peace officers.

    So why is President Obama a racist? Because he, like his friend Gates, automatically assumed the white police officer “acted stupidly.” BO assumed it was the white officer’s fault, because, of course, we all know white cops are racist, right? And later, when he slightly retracted his statement, he still felt the need to say, “It would have been better if cooler heads had prevailed.” By now he knew the facts, that his friend Gates had lost his mind and acted like a fool, but he assumed that Sgt. Crowley similarly lost it and “got all up” in Gates’ face, because, of course, that’s what all white cops do.

    But this white cop didn’t, because he’s not just any cop, he is an expert at managing racial incidents just like this one became, because of Gates’ racism. Friends and fellow officers of all races say Sgt. James Crowley is calm and reliable in situations racially hostile situs, because he was hand-picked by a black police commissioner to teach recruits how to avoid racial profiling, and Crowley has apparently been doing a stellar job at it for 5 years.

    But Gates and our esteemed president didn’t know that, did they?

    So, who are the racists in this story? Gates accused a decent, decorated, above-reproach police officer of being a racist rogue cop, just because he was white. What did our esteemed “black” president do? He immediately took Gates’ side, because he’s a friend and black! Um, Mr. President, I thought you were going to help erase the racial lines that divide us? Shame on you for taking sides on something you admitted you knew nothing about, for commenting nationally on a small, local issue well beneath your pay grade, and for showing us all that you are not that different that the racist Gates who believes all white cops are bad cops, just because of their skin color.

    Mr. President, you are a racist. Shame on you.

  6. 01/10/2010TexomaEd says:

    Benaiah,

    Excellent post and explanation of the full definition of “natural born citizen”. To the list of Supreme Court cases that you mentioned, I would add the one of Perkins v. Elg from 1939. In that case, the court affirmed a declaration that Miss Elg was a natural born citizen. Elg was born in New York to parents who had both become naturalized citizens before her birth.

  7. 01/10/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Once again Phil includes stories from racist websites as part of his article – this time citing to Resistnet.

    I would highly recommend that you drop the whole “if there’s a site with which I disagree posting something that is even remotely positive towards those who question the President’s eligibility, I’m going to call them racist” attitude, else I will be forced to force you to drop it. As in, get banned.

    I could care less whether or not you disagree with my or any other site. However, you need to move on and quit browbeating other sites on my site.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  8. 01/10/2010qwertyman says:

    I would highly recommend that you drop the whole “if there’s a site with which I disagree posting something that is even remotely positive towards those who question the President’s eligibility, I’m going to call them racist” attitude, else I will be forced to force you to drop it. As in, get banned.

    Those aren’t charges that I make lightly about sites like FreeRepublic or Resistnet.

    For Resistnet, wasn’t it Dale Robertson who had the racist sign at a tea party that he sent on the Resistnet listserve?

    You can also check out the Wingnut Web series on Tars Tarkas’ website.

    I don’t call all sites I disagree with racist, only the ones that have repeatedly shown a tolerance towards bigotry. Again, I do not think that this site is in any way racist, it’s just unfortunate that you repeatedly cite to them as some sort of worthy source.

  9. 01/11/2010Sue says:

    Phil,

    Regarding this in your above article:

    “Congressman Deal’s Chief of Staff sounds like he may be a Birther, himself, at least from this report. “This conversation is over,” he says. Oh, yeah, tough guy? It will be over when Congressman Deal is censured from the floor of the House.”

    Are you representing that this is a quote from the individual’s report of an alleged phone conversation with Rep. Deal’s Chief of Staff Todd Smith?

    If so, the quote is not correct.

  10. 01/11/2010earl says:

    poptoy says:
    January 10, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    ” There is an Old Negro saying down south…”

    Actually that comes from the teachings of Jesus. Of course there are many who say Jesus was “negro”….

    Luke 12:3
    Matthew 10:27

  11. 01/11/2010earl says:

    “Oh, yeah, tough guy? It will be over when Congressman Deal is censured from the floor of the House.”

    Where did this phrase come from? This is not in the report of bogus info’s conversation with Todd Smith at politijab, nor does it appear anywhere in any comments in the politijab thread about the Deal letter. Why was the phrase added and made to appear like part of the phone call to Deal’s office?

  12. 01/11/2010Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    Regarding this in your above article:

    “Congressman Deal’s Chief of Staff sounds like he may be a Birther, himself, at least from this report. “This conversation is over,” he says. Oh, yeah, tough guy? It will be over when Congressman Deal is censured from the floor of the House.”

    Are you representing that this is a quote from the individual’s report of an alleged phone conversation with Rep. Deal’s Chief of Staff Todd Smith?

    If so, the quote is not correct.

    While I have gone ahead and made explicit that this was a comment at the end of the OhForGoodnessSake posting, per se, am I really the only one who goes through and clicks on specifically-referenced links to verify that what I say is being reported correctly?

    I sincerely hope not, else those of you in the opposition are really falling down on the job.

    -Phil

  13. 01/11/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    I would highly recommend that you drop the whole “if there’s a site with which I disagree posting something that is even remotely positive towards those who question the President’s eligibility, I’m going to call them racist” attitude, else I will be forced to force you to drop it. As in, get banned.

    Those aren’t charges that I make lightly about sites like FreeRepublic or Resistnet.

    For Resistnet, wasn’t it Dale Robertson who had the racist sign at a tea party that he sent on the Resistnet listserve?

    You can also check out the Wingnut Web series on Tars Tarkas’ website.

    I don’t call all sites I disagree with racist, only the ones that have repeatedly shown a tolerance towards bigotry. Again, I do not think that this site is in any way racist, it’s just unfortunate that you repeatedly cite to them as some sort of worthy source.

    And I don’t make promises without actually following through on them.

    You have a recorded history on my site making big deals about other sites being, in your view, racist. Making such commentary once in any given posting is one thing; to go on and on about it is quite another, especially when the benevolent dictator and moderator of this site, me, has just warned you to chill out about it.

    So, if you push back once more on this issue, I may either ban you or simply delete the relevant commentary; I haven’t decided which yet.

    Again — I’ve already mentioned to you on at least one occasion that I don’t care if you think any site — including mine, for that matter — is racist or what not; that is your opinion. I will not, however, continue to allow you to make my commentary threads a forum regarding the expounding of this opinion of yours.

    I think I’ve more than made myself clear. Move on or you’re gone.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  14. 01/11/2010Black Lion says:

    slcraig says:
    January 10, 2010 at 5:38 pm
    Natural and native are NOT synonymous, jurisdiction is of more than territorial boundaries, allegiance and consent are not an ex post facto concepts, insofar as citizenship is concerned.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Native and natural born have been used interchangebly since the time of the founding of this country. If you recall the debates from the constitutional convention make clear 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 person 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.

    Examples….

    “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)

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,… “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)

    “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).

    “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)

    “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)

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
    Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

  15. 01/11/2010Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    January 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    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”.

    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 the dissenting opinion of 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…

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    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 [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

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

    …The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Finally, 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’… 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. Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Of course when Benaiah quotes WKA he neglects the parts of the ruling that do not support his claim. And then he likes to cite SCOTUS rulings that occured BEFORE Wong as if they are relevant. Unfortunately he is unable to cite any case after the Wong ruling in 1898 that cites any case other than Wong in regards to citizenship. So as far as President Obama being eligible as per the US Constutution, it is obviously he is. The 2009 ruling in Indiana sums it up best for all of us…

    “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 also sum up the birther fascination with the obscure Swiss philospher…

    “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.”

    More relevant quotes from the Wong ruling are..

    “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.“

    “The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

    And regarding allegiance…

    “Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto. There are some exceptions which are founded upon peculiar reasons, and which, indeed, illustrate and confirm the general doctrine. Thus, a person who is born on the ocean is a subject of the prince to whom his parents then owe allegiance; for he is still deemed under the protection of his sovereign, and born in a place where he has dominion in common with all other sovereigns. So the children of an ambassador are held to be subjects of the prince whom he represents, although born under the actual protection and in the dominions of a foreign prince.”

    The Wong Kim Ark ruling references other cases and commentaries to show how the founders used English Common law to define who would be eligible to be President. WKA is divided into 7 sections. Each section is headed with a Roman numeral. Roman numeral III discusses how American common law was, on the definition of natural born – EXACTLY THE SAME!

    It cites:
    The Charming Betsy
    Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor
    Blackstone’s Commentary
    Doe v. Jones
    Shanks v. Dupont
    Story’s Conflict of Laws
    McCreery v. Somerville
    Levy v. McCartee
    Dred Scott
    United States v. Rhodes
    Garder v. Ward (1805)
    Kilham v. Ward (1806)
    State v. Manuel (1838)
    Lynch v. Clark, (1844)
    Kent’s Commentaries
    Binney – Alienigenae of the United States

    Also relevant was the New York ruling in the Lynch v. Clarke…If you read the ruling you will see that Lynch did not rely on the “old” English common law, it explicitly found that the old English common law was the common law of this nation. It had been adopted by each and every of the 13 colonies. Because of this there was no need for the Supreme Court to explicitly expound on the definition of natural born citizen, it had, since the 1300s been clear what it meant. Natural born was a standard phrase. In other words natural born means born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship.

    There is not one United States Supreme Court case or Congressional Act which suggests there can be another type of citizen – born here but not natural born.

  16. 01/11/2010njre says:

    Everyone should write/call to show support of Rep Deal’s conscientious act. When you write please request that he confers with the Republican senators of the ‘Constitution Subcommittee’ regarding the ‘Petition for redress of Grievances ref Obama’s eligibility to be President’ that many of us have sent them.
    Here is more detail on the above mentioned petititon (OBOGO petititon):-

    Operation BO has to Go (OBOGO) is on!
    OBOGO Petition – The Petition to your Senator that gets to the ROOT OF THE OBAMA “plant”

    This is what every single American can do that will put the House and the Senate on Notice for a “specific” remedy, without further delay. A Senate Trial takes 30 days..the courts can take years. So.. this is given to empower the People with a specific set and very specialized focus relating facts that are not ” alleged” but already proven.
    Anyone can copy paste and print this out..and Take A Stand for the Constitution with some authority as an American!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24591408/OBOGO-Petition

    or

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/1215-senate-emergency-rally

  17. 01/11/2010Eve says:

    Blacklion

    you’ve lost all credibility with me due to your insistence that WKA says what it does not. Too bad, you really had a good thing going for a while too. Keep harping on it though, you just continue to prove the point other than the one you’re hoping to make.

  18. 01/11/2010Black Lion says:

    Eve says:
    January 11, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Blacklion

    you’ve lost all credibility with me due to your insistence that WKA says what it does not. Too bad, you really had a good thing going for a while too. Keep harping on it though, you just continue to prove the point other than the one you’re hoping to make.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Eve, then you must have no credibility in the following courts or legal scholars…You may want to read the following cases and take a look at what SCOTUS ruling the courts cite in making their decision…And I can give you a hint, it is not Minor, the Venus, or Elk. So I doubt I am the one that loses credibility….

    “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.”

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

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.

    DeTomaso v. McGinnis, 970 F2d 211 (7th Cir. 1992) (equating “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” for purposes of presidential eligibility):
    DeTomaso is “eligible” to be President of the United States if he is “a natural born Citizen … [who has] attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” Art. II § 1 cl. 5. A 35-year-old native does not have a property interest in the presidency.

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
    Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
    The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Liacakos v. Kennedy, 195 F. Supp. 630 (D.D.C. 1961) (holding that where evidence supported contention that person was born in US (to two citizens of Greece), he was a “natural born citizen” of the US):
    The plaintiff claims that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, having been born in Wheeling, West Virginia, on July 14, 1900. He claims that when he was two or three years of age his parents returned to their native Greece… ***
    The Court is of the opinion that, weighing the evidence on both sides, the plaintiff has established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States, and the Court so finds.

    Nyman v. Erickson, 170 P. 546 (Wash. 1918) (child born in the US to Russian citizen was “natural born citizen” of US):
    Appellant was therefore, as correctly decided by the General Land Office and the Department of the Interior, not an heir of the deceased countryman, while at the time of the final proof at least the grandchild Esther Gustafson undoubtedly was. She was born in a state of the United States, and whether her parents were naturalized or not, under the Constitution she is a natural-born citizen of the United States entitled to the benefits of all the laws of the United States and of the state. U. S. Const. Amend. 14, § 1.

    State ex rel. Carroll v. Sup. Ct. of Washington, 193 P. 226 (Wash. 1920) (holding that there are two (and only two) paths to citizenship and that natural born citizenship depends upon location of birth):
    According to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States there are two methods by which a person may become a citizen: (a) By birth in the United States; and (b) by naturalization therein . A natural-born citizen’s right to vote depends upon his place of birth, and this is the fact to be established. A naturalized citizen’s right to vote depends, not upon his place of birth, but on a judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, declaring either him or his ancestor a naturalized citizen.

    Yale Review Article by Jill A. Pryor…

    “Despite its apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution” has never been, completely understood. It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization,” do not.” But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent,” qualifies/as natural born has never been resolved.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of “citizen” in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born-citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship through jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. ” Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)

  19. 01/11/2010Sue says:

    “Eve says:
    January 11, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Blacklion

    you’ve lost all credibility with me due to your insistence that WKA says what it does not. Too bad, you really had a good thing going for a while too. Keep harping on it though, you just continue to prove the point other than the one you’re hoping to make.”

    Actually, Blacklion’s point is very accurate. In fact, way back there, Jeff Schreiber, legal writer, law student, pointed this out to Donofrio. If I recall correctly, Donofrio was not very nice to Jeff in his response. Also, if I recall correctly, shortly after this, Donofrio attempted to discredit Justice Gray with his “historical findings” filed to SCOTUS.

  20. 01/11/2010speedy says:

    “Likewise, White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai – while acknowledging receipt of Deal’s letter, declined to release a copy or discuss its content, saying that the issue of Obama’s birth has been addressed repeatedly. …” (filling in the blank) With a forged, fake, photoshopped computer generated COLB, no long form real birth certificate from 1961, fake selective service paper, fake everything, 39 stolen social security numbers, fight the smears stating that bo’s birth was governed by Britain, therefore he is a British subject no matter where he was born, etc.

    Nothing has ever been really addressed on this subject and it’s about time it really does get addressed so that the issue gets put to rest once and for all. None of the courts even listened to the merits of the cases, only dismissed them.

  21. 01/11/2010Eve says:

    Blacklion/sue

    oh i see. so someone couldn’t have POSSIBLY read all the material you’ve read and come to different conclusions. is that it? anyone who’s gone through the effort of studying this, researching it ad nausium until they’re practically dreaming about it must absolutely 100% come to the same conclusions you have come to otherwise they’re dead wrong is that it?

    So done even reading what you two have to say anymore. I’ve watched you bandy back and forth on this site for months now and have even come close to being swayed to your thinking on a number of occasions. However i don’t just rely on you and what you say, have a mind of my own and frequently revisit items discussed here. Let’s just say my local college legal library is well acquainted with me.

    The way I see it both interpretations are quite valid, both have merit, and BOTH need to be heard instead of this burying our heads in the sand pretending/hoping it will go away.

    Go ahead and mock if you must. No real skin off my nose.

  22. 01/11/2010Benaiah says:

    WKA was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the 14th Amendement, NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    WKA was not “eligible to the office of President”.

    A “citizen of the United States” is not synonymous with a “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 ["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.

    [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.

  23. 01/11/2010Black Lion says:

    Eve says:
    January 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Blacklion/sue

    oh i see. so someone couldn’t have POSSIBLY read all the material you’ve read and come to different conclusions. is that it? anyone who’s gone through the effort of studying this, researching it ad nausium until they’re practically dreaming about it must absolutely 100% come to the same conclusions you have come to otherwise they’re dead wrong is that it?

    So done even reading what you two have to say anymore. I’ve watched you bandy back and forth on this site for months now and have even come close to being swayed to your thinking on a number of occasions. However i don’t just rely on you and what you say, have a mind of my own and frequently revisit items discussed here. Let’s just say my local college legal library is well acquainted with me.

    The way I see it both interpretations are quite valid, both have merit, and BOTH need to be heard instead of this burying our heads in the sand pretending/hoping it will go away.

    Go ahead and mock if you must. No real skin off my nose.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Eve, simple. Find some legal scholar such on the level of Akil Reed, Edwin Meese, or Ted Olsen that has read all of the material and come up with a different conclusion. Or easier, find a court ruling or judical expert since Wong in 1898 that disagrees with what I wrote. These are not my conclusions. These are the conclusions of the courts and judical experts.

    I could care less if you are swayed or not or read what I post. It is obvious that you don’t have an open mind and what to belive in the exotic Leo inspired 2 parents theory. Think about it, of the thousands of true legal experts in America, not one comes close to supporting Leo and his exotic 2 parents must be citizens theory. Either there is a large coverup or the 2 parents theory is crap. However we know which you will choose to believe.

    I am glad you don’t take what I write as the gospel truth. I am not like the birthers so I encourage research. I want you to research the law and legal rulings at your college library. Also go to Westlaw and Lexis Nexus. That is why I cite the law I reference or where I get my source materials. I have nothing to hide. If you find something that supports your claim, go ahead and post it here so that we can all read it. I have no problems with reading dissenting opinions.

  24. 01/11/2010Benaiah says:

    John 10:1-2,10 NIV
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:1-2,%2010&version=NIV

    I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy…

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

    The Constitution is the gate by which the good shepherd enters the office of President… A usurper climbs in some other way. The usurper is a thief who comes only to steal and kill and destroy…

    Barack Hussein Obama, Usurper in Chief
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24002947/Allahu-Akhbar

  25. 01/11/2010Black Lion says:

    Benaiah says:
    January 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm
    WKA was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the 14th Amendement, NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    WKA was not “eligible to the office of President”.

    A “citizen of the United States” is not synonymous with a “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)
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Also from the Wong ruling….Of course Benaiah leaves these sections out…

    “The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty, „obedience, „faith, or „power-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”

    And the money quote….

    “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.”

    If you cannot see the connection then that is up to you. Fortunately for us legal scholars and experts understand what the court was saying in Wong. In England a person was a natural born subject even if he was born to aliens. Here in American we change citizen for subject but the result is still the same. A person is a natural born citizen even if he is born to alien parents. Even better for President Obama was that one of his parents was a US citizen.

  26. 01/11/2010qwertyman says:

    Also from the Wong ruling….Of course Benaiah leaves these sections out…

    Benaiah, the guy who constantly quotes the Dred Scott case as a source for his interpretation of natural born citizen, the guy who constantly posts a race-baiting, xenophobic picture of Obama at a mosque in Istanbul in an attempt to rile anti-Islamic passions, leaving something out?

    Frankly, the guy hasn’t said actually ever responded to anybody’s post and just copypastas the same blog posts from WND or Donofrio’s site over and over again. He’s not worth the effort, Black Lion.

  27. 01/11/2010Benaiah says:

    The Wong Court determined that WKA was a citizen of the United States at birth under the 14th Amendment.

    The Wong Court did not hold that WKA was 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.”

    [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.

  28. 01/11/2010Benaiah says:

    How Taqiyya Alters Islam’s Rules of War
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/201001058051/global-terrorism/how-taqiyya-alters-islams-rules-of-war.html

    Barack Hussein Obama, Taqiyya in Chief
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24002947/Allahu-Akhbar

  29. 01/11/2010Benaiah says:

    Is the Qur’an Hate [Speech] Propaganda?
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

  30. 01/11/2010slcraig says:

    Black Lion says:
    January 11, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    And the money quote….

    “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.”

    If you cannot see the connection then that is up to you. Fortunately for us legal scholars and experts understand what the court was saying in Wong. In England a person was a natural born subject even if he was born to aliens. Here in American we change citizen for subject but the result is still the same. A person is a natural born citizen even if he is born to alien parents. Even better for President Obama was that one of his parents was a US citizen.

    It is interesting, that even with all that bluster from Justice Gray he still did NO MORE than Affirm the original question, that being a child of LEGALLY ADMITTED aliens born on US soil is a ‘citizen of the 14th Amendment’.

    I will admit that the tolerance of the US Citizens at large have been led down a path that is far removed from the ROAD they thought they were on in regards to citizenship, but that, along with the death knell of Socialism is at hand.

  31. 01/12/2010Manchurian Messiah says:

    PHIL!

    I’M PROUD TO BE A NEGRO. YOU GEORGIA CRACKERS ARE NUTS!!

    MM

    P.S. “Watch each card you play, and play it SLOW.” Big Brother is watchin’ you, Phil.

  32. 01/12/2010earl says:

    Eve says:
    January 11, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    “you’ve lost all credibility with me due to your insistence that WKA says what it does not. ”

    Insisting the Wong Kim Ark decision doesn’t say what it really does say, makes your side appear foolish. In Wong Kim Ark, the majority agreed with the lower court that a person born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. If that weren’t absolutely true, you would have seen constitutional lawyers come out of the woodwork before even the 2008 primaries to make the case that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. But Wong Kim Ark does indeed say that a person born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. And that is why Barack Obama IS eligible to be President: he was born in Hawaii. It’s not important that his father wasn’t a US citizen. Why has your side been unable to find a single constitutional law expert who disagrees? Because the meaning of WKA is crystal clear.

  33. 01/12/2010slcraig says:

    I can not help but marvel at the myopia of the ‘0pologists’ in their insistences at asserting WKA as definitive proof of the ‘0’s’ citizenship status.

    The ‘0’ being the child of an Alien Foreign National British Colonial Kenyan Subject Citizen is being defended by US citizens by the use of British Citizenship Laws which confirm that he was a British Citizen at birth.

    And still they persist.

  34. 01/12/2010slcraig says:

    Parsing the Idiom of Natural Born Citizen

    It is sorely observed in the instances of misuse that the ‘idiom’ of ‘natural born citizen’ has come to mean ‘whatever’ is convenient to the needs of the moment as if the Framers of the Constitution were ignorant of history and unconcerned with their own stations, the needs of the contemplated new Nation and that of their prodigy.

    So let us start the parsing with the MOST obvious question, ‘Did the Framers’ conceive of a ‘Natural Citizen’ that was NOT born as such?’

    It will be forever doubtful that was the case as long as the words of the Original text of Article II Section I Clause V are considered.

    “…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.”

    Except to express their intent and meaning there was NO bar upon their language or authority to declare them-selves, in the British manner, Natural Citizens, made so by the ‘birth’, i.e., ratification, of the Constitution. In NOT doing so, therefore, speaks to the intent and meaning of the ‘idiom’ used.

    So it goes that one must be ‘born’ in specific circumstances to be so named, natural born citizen, leaving ‘native born citizen’ something other than the meaning and intent of the subject idiom.

    So what of ‘citizens’ in the minds of the Framers.

    Each Colonial State reserved to the State the right to determine who may or may not be a Citizen of their State. The State Laws operated on a ‘bilateral consent’ system in the naming of those who would be citizens, application made and received, oaths taken and accepted, in various forms of process.

    Upon attaining to Citizenship of the various States the Citizens prodigy subsequently issued were then ‘natural citizens’ of the State, born so, jus soli et jus sanguinis, their citizenship unquestioned as a natural consequence of circumstance, being it desirable to both citizen and state.

    Yet, the wording of the Constitution establishes the circumstance that any and all citizens of every State of the new union are made ‘citizen’, leaving to the passing of time the issue of the ‘natural born citizen’ of the new United States of America.

    (Excerpts;)

  35. 01/12/2010earl says:

    slcraig says:
    January 12, 2010 at 9:55 am
    British Laws

    You’re saying you think the laws of other countries take precedent over US law in determining who is eligible to be President of our country. Fascinating. If you like British law so much, why don’t you go live there.

  36. 01/12/2010slcraig says:

    earl says:
    January 12, 2010 at 12:29 pm
    slcraig says:
    January 12, 2010 at 9:55 am
    British Laws

    You’re saying you think the laws of other countries take precedent over US law in determining who is eligible to be President of our country. Fascinating. If you like British law so much, why don’t you go live there.


    Your ability at reason is very suspect, in that it is YOU that are saying British Law dictates who may be a NBC.

    That’s on the one hand, then on the other you say that the same British law has NO EFFECT on the child of a British subject/citizen.

    Selective reasoning…? Conditional deference…? Talking points parroted by a useful idiot…?

    ‘Common Law’ existed long before its codification by Ploward of England upon whose shoulders Blackstone rose, both of who gives great deference to puefendorf and Groutis as well as the more ancient Tactitus, Cicero and Aristotle, which implies that each of the ‘Enlightened’ writers on the subject of ‘natural law’ were to be considered and consulted on the various subjects at hand.

    You can go where you wish and/or have earned and/or deserve, I have my place and road to travel.

  37. 01/12/2010earl says:

    slcraig says:
    January 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    “Your ability at reason is very suspect, in that it is YOU that are saying British Law dictates who may be a NBC. ”

    My ability to reason is sharp as glass. Why haven’t you been able to find a single constitutional expert who supports your view of who is eligible to be President?

  38. 01/12/2010slcraig says:

    earl says:
    January 12, 2010 at 3:29 pm
    slcraig says:
    January 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    “Your ability at reason is very suspect, in that it is YOU that are saying British Law dictates who may be a NBC. ”

    My ability to reason is sharp as glass. Why haven’t you been able to find a single constitutional expert who supports your view of who is eligible to be President?

    I am an AMERICAN CITIZEN, the Sovereign of the government and do not depend or rely on the representatives sent to govern to inform me, it is rather my obligation and duty to inform them, which I am endeavoring to do.

    I understand your confusion and realize how easy it is for you and those who defend the usurper the ‘0’ to fall into the socialist party line talking points. It has been in the works long before the ‘0’ arrived on the scene.

    What is sad and what you fail to see is that in order for them to ‘win’ they must destroy America in such a manner that soon they will be coming for you as well, assuming that you are not of their most favored group of the day, a third world illegal alien homosexual pedophile trans-gender euthanasia / abortion provider.

  39. 01/13/2010elspeth says:

    Hey, Obama: Releasing records would be a good start.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_unity

  40. 09/5/2010| NwoDaily.com says:

    [...] Representative Nathan Deal has made the boldest direct display of courage to date by sending Obama a letter asking that he provide proof that he is a natural born citizen. Congressman Deal was of course immediately, repeatedly and viciously attacked for doing this one small act to protect the integrity of the Constitution. However, Rep. Deal’s act is very important because it provides a proof that a Member of Congress had specific concerns over Obama’s eligibility to serve. It is the first time that a sitting President has been confronted in this way. Well done! History must not be scrubbed to hide Obama’s probable criminal deception to obtain the Office of the Presidency. [...]