#eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Arizona Responds

by Phil on 01/21/2010

Thursday, January 21, 2010 Update:

Commenter “slcraig” received the following response from sources in Arizona via email:

“To: SL Craig

Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.

In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.

I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441

—-

Back on Friday, January 8, Georgia GOP Representative and gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal had sent a letter to the President, presumably to ask him about his birth certificate (to date, the actual content of that letter is still unknown).

Today, at a University of Georgia gubernatorial debate, Mr. Deal downplayed both the letter and the entire eligibility question. From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

– The next shot came from state Rep. Austin Scott of Tifton, who said it was “childish” to question President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. That, of course, was aimed at U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal of Gainesville, who has written a letter to the White House on that very same topic.

Deal responded that he had no interest in Obama’s birth certificate, and that his letter was “not an issue in the governor’s race.” The congressman said his letter only asked Obama to “tell me where I can refer the people” who are asking him questions.

Obama had not answered, he noted.

The Athens Banner-Herald reported more specifics from the Congressman:

Deal, who represents North Georgia in Congress, sent Obama a letter in December asking him to address lingering concerns that he actually was born in Kenya and thus is constitutionally barred from being president.

“I think that is a reasonable proposition, and certainly something I think the president should respond to, although at this point, he has not,” Deal said.

Deal said he was responding to constituents’ questions, and the letter should not be an issue in a state-level campaign.

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

At the State level, Arizona Republican State Representative Judy Burges and 39 other State Legislators had filed a candidate eligibility bill for consideration of the 2010 Legislature. Now, as WorldNetDaily reports, several other States are also considering various eligibility initiatives:

The demand for documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office is surging, with lawmakers in several states now working on legislation that could be used to require future presidential candidates to reveal precisely how they are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural born citizen.”

WND already has reported on a bill co-sponsored by some three dozen lawmakers in Arizona who want to require candidates not only to submit the information, but state officials to independently verify the accuracy.

Bill sponsor Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, told WND she already has started getting questions from other states who want details about the proposal.

A separate proposal has been created by a freedom of information action group in New York state, and now the National Conference of State Legislatures, which monitors and tabulates the work of legislative bodies, confirms through its database that several other plans are in the works.

Some of the proposals are very clear even without the full text. In New Hampshire, for example, a pending plan would require “certified copies of birth certificates for nominees for president and vice president.”

Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill “relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements.”

There is no definitive word on what that would mean to presidential candidates.

An Indiana proposal is equally unclear, because it “authorizes a challenge to a candidate’s eligibility to seek an office to be filed by a registered voter of the jurisdiction conducting the election.” It could apply only to local elections.

In Virginia, a summary says the proposal “provides that candidates shall provide evidence of their qualifications for office to have their names printed on the ballot. The State Board of Elections shall provide a list of acceptable forms of evidence.”

And in the New York state plan proposed by a freedom of information organization to state lawmakers would provide that “an individual seeking placement on the New York State’s election ballot(s) for the office of president or vice president of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.”

WND followed up on legislator thoughts regarding the Arizona bill:

In Arizona, state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.

“It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she told the Arizona Capitol Times.

If states start adopting such election requirements, their laws possibly could have an impact similar to federal legislation, since the information submitted to meet the requirements presumably would be public.

As referenced, above, the Database of Election Reform Legislation is relatively simple to use in looking up bills. Go to the link and then select “Candidates-Qualifications for Office” in the “Subtopic” multi-select form.

The New York proposition reads as follows:

The Accountability Bill

A Bill To Be Entitled

New York State Presidential Candidate Qualification Verification
Accountability To NYS Citizens Act

1 Section 1: An individual seeking placement (ISP) on New York State’s election ballot(s) for the

2 office of President or Vice President of the United States must present proof of eligibility, as per

3 requirements that are stated in Article 2, section 1, paragraph 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

4 A) Hard-copy proof is to be submitted to the New York State (NYS) Board of Elections

5 Executive Director(s) office.

6 B) Determination of age, natural born citizenship and past fourteen years residency is by

7 information on or within an individual’s official birth certificate, school and work records, social

8 security information, documentation of international travel history that the ISP knows of to

9 the best of his/her ability and his/her past seven years of tax records.

10 (1) Written and signed permission by an ISP must be granted to the NYS Board of Elections

11 Executive Director(s) office to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office from various

12 sources listed within the documents.

13 C) The NYS Board of Elections Executive Director(s) office is to make its determination

14 within four weeks from the date of an individual’s full submission of documents, confirmation of

15 such full submission by the ISP and his/her signed statement, granting the office

16 permission to obtain proof of documents submitted to its office, as per Section 1 B (1).

17 D) With the exclusion of social security numbers, contained on documents, all pertinent

18 information obtained and pertinent findings that are obtained from such documents of

19 an ISP who is approved are to be made available to the public for viewing, in order for

20 the office’s approval to be enacted and the ISP to be placed on New York State’s ballot(s),

21 pending the fulfillment(s) of other current and future New York State requirement(s).

22 (1) An ISP must first view the information and findings of the NYS Board of Elections

23 Executive Director(s) office that it deems pertinent and approve such findings to be made

24 public, in order for such to be made available to the public for viewing.

25 E) Compliance with this act and the burden of proof of eligibility is fully on the ISP.

26 F) Disputes are to be handled through the New York State courts, with all legalities applicable.

27 Section 2: This act will be instituted in the State of New York.

28 Section 3: This act is to be instituted on or before November 1, 2010.

Written by Debra J.M. Smith – September 17, 2009
References: The U.S. Constitution

Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in Kerchner v. Obama, has announced that attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed an Opening Brief with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals:

Kerchner v Obama & Congress – U.S. 3rd Circuit Appeal – Appellant’s Opening Brief – Filed 19 Jan 2010

Attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed the Appellant’s Opening Brief in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al lawsuit appeal. The Brief was filed with the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia PA. See this link to download and read it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19

We look forward to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing this matter and ordering a trial on the merits as to the Article II Constitutional eligibility of Obama to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the military.

We say Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” of the USA and thus is not eligible to serve in the Oval Office. Obama is a Usurper and must be removed to preserve the integrity and fundamental law of our Constitution and our Republic.

“We the People” will be heard on this matter! As the People in Massachusetts have demonstrated, “We the People” are the Sovereigns in this country and the Constitution is the fundamental law of our nation, not Obama or Congress. We will not be silenced.  The chair Obama sits in in the Oval Office is not his throne. It is the People’s seat too.  And Obama despite all his obfuscations to date must prove to Constitutional standards that he is eligible to sit in that seat.

This is not going to go away until Obama stops hiding ALL his hidden and sealed early life documents and provides original copies of them to a controlling legal authority and reveals his true legal identity from the time he was born until the time he ran for President. Obama at birth was born British and a dual-citizen. He holds and has held multiple citizenship during his life-time. He’s a Citizenship chameleon as the moment and time in his life suited him and he is not a “natural born Citizen” with sole allegiance andUnity of Citizenship at Birth to the USA as is required per the Constitution per the intent of our founders and the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional standards.

Attorney Apuzzo will comment more on this Appellant’s Brief in the next few days.

Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Commander USNR (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

There are 261 comments in this article:

  1. 01/20/2010Loren says:

    As quoted from WorldNetDaily above:

    Others are a little more oblique. In Georgia, for example, lawmakers propose a bill “relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements.”

    WorldNetDaily’s reporting of Georgia’s bill is so misleading that it borders on lying. The bill in question is SB 33. Here’s what it actually says, outside the carefully-selected quotation:

    To amend Code Section 21-2-130 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, so as to require each candidate for public office to be in compliance with certain disclosure requirements; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

    SECTION 1.
    Code Section 21-2-130 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to procedures for qualification of candidates generally, is amended by designating the current Code section as subsection (a) and adding a new subsection to read as follows:

    “(b) A person who has not filed all of the campaign contribution disclosure reports required by Code Section 21-5-34 or financial disclosure reports required by Code Section 21-5-50 shall not be eligible to qualify as a candidate for any elective public office in this state until such reports are filed with and accepted by the appropriate filing officer for such reports.”

    The bill is explicitly about financial disclosure reports and only financial disclosure reports, and has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with requiring candidates to produce any other kind of eligibility documentation. This isn’t “oblique;” it’s as clear and explicit as possible. There is simply no legitimate reading of the bill that could even allow for WND’s interpretation, and it’s downright dishonest of them to suggest otherwise, particularly without a link to the bill or even the bill number.

  2. 01/20/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Loren:

    Yeah – as far the Georgia bill, we’ll see –

    Fact is, Burges’ initiative is regarded with much interest around, and it might put in motion a similar action in many other states –
    … which is a good thing, because in Washington no one would dare to make such a move – while in legislatures, such a request might very well become law…

    Also on the plus side, it is enough for ONE state to throw the monkey wrench in the machine and refuse to accept Obama’s DNC validation for second shot a presidency unless he allows his BC (if there is such a document) for examination – and Obama’s defence system will crash –

    Nice job – it might be Burges who cracks this mystery -

  3. 01/20/2010elspeth says:

    Full disclosure!

    Come on, people! It’s a win/win situation! Say it with me: FULL DISCLOSURE!

    Or, if you like: FOOL disclosure. hahahahaha – I crack me up!

  4. 01/20/2010sharon2 says:

    I am not an expert in election law, but maybe the legislation quoted by Loren has something to do with this allegation rather then the specifics of a candidate’s birthplace (I don’t know the current status of the issue):

    http://newsmax.com/Politics/Obama-fundraising-illegal/2008/09/29/id/325630

    Foreign money donated to a presidential candidate doesn’t automatically equate to money being funneled to an ineligible candidate, but probably has a lot to do with the transparency and disclosure desired by “questioners.”

  5. 01/21/2010Phil says:

    Loren,

    The bill is explicitly about financial disclosure reports and only financial disclosure reports, and has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with requiring candidates to produce any other kind of eligibility documentation. This isn’t “oblique;” it’s as clear and explicit as possible. There is simply no legitimate reading of the bill that could even allow for WND’s interpretation, and it’s downright dishonest of them to suggest otherwise, particularly without a link to the bill or even the bill number.

    If you perform a search per the database linked in the posting based on my recommendation, you’ll find approximately 17 initiatives. There are a number of those that speak directly to eligibility though, obviously, not every instance deals with presidential/vice-presidential requirements but candidate qualifications in general.

    I think it’s great that you’ve called out WND on this particular issue. It’s bad enough that there has been much ignorance regarding candidate qualifications (especially when some who oppose such action will characterize any such questions as being racist in nature).

    Having said that, I still think, in general, it’s great to have a discussion regarding enforcing eligibility at all levels of government.

    There’s a reason why eligibility requirements exist, and it’s up to everyone to hold candidates accountable.

    -Phil

  6. 01/21/2010slcraig says:

    I have been in touch with the office of Judy Burges in regards to the Arizona Bill HB2441. As reported there are a number of ‘co-sponsors and supporters’ involved with its introduction. Here is a snippit of a correspondence indicating that the ‘group’ are taking the ‘big picture’ seriously, and that is encouraging.


    “To: SL Craig

    Thank you so much for your great efforts to assist us in our understanding(s) as again evidenced by the detail of what you wrote below.

    In my prepared statement which will be delivered before the committee(s) of the Az. Legislature, I do cite Vattel and the four Supreme Court cases that both you and the Post & Email (which I have mostly read) have mentioned. However, your summaries of them below are so precise and succinct that understandings become even easier.

    I think the biggest matter you have raised for us is whether or not to go more than “halfway” as you put it and place the actual definition of natural born citizen directly into our proposed legislation HB2441

  7. 01/21/2010Tychicus says:

    slcraig,
    Would you be interested in sharing your e-mail?

    Maybe you could send it to Phil.

    I would like to read it.

    Courage and Godspeed

    “I come to you now at the turn of the tide.”

  8. 01/21/2010slcraig says:

    Tychicus says:
    January 21, 2010 at 9:21 am
    slcraig,
    Would you be interested in sharing your e-mail?

    __________________________________________________________________
    I stand on the shoulders of Patriots like Phil and the plethora of others out there that have done such great work in researching and disseminating the information with links and analysis.

    I am no more that a motivated consumer of the hard work of others and my motivation has lead me to action in a number of ways.

    What I am saying is that there is nothing in my correspondence that has not been published but for the perspective and passion that may be unique to me.

    I encourage you, and everyone, to contact your State Governments, Legislative and Executive, and insist on explicit Statutes for the qualifications of National Representatives wanting to campaign for VOTES in your State.

  9. 01/21/2010Black Lion says:

    I guess Chalice will have to try something else to get the a real jury to believe in some make believe charges against the President of the US. The judge was not having any of the birther nonsense…

    Local birther’s court request tossed

    WOODSTOCK – A McHenry County judge denied a Fox River Grove woman’s request to present to a grand jury her claims that President Barack Obama’s citizenship amounts to widespread voter fraud.

    Sharon Ann Meroni, founder of Patriot’s Heart Media Network, and 20 unnamed network members asked Judge Sharon Prather to appoint Meroni an investigator. As an investigator, Meroni wanted to compel testimony and present evidence before the grand jury about the alleged voter fraud.

    But Prather told her this morning that there was no legal basis to allow such an appointment. She also said Meroni had failed to include any facts in her court filings to support her request last month.

    “There is no legal basis for me to do what you are asking me to do,” Prather said, after Meroni questioned her decision.

    Prather said the State’s Attorney’s Office is vested with the authority to decide what cases to prosecute.

    http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2010/01/20/00102359/index.xml

  10. 01/21/2010slcraig says:

    Black Lion says:
    January 21, 2010 at 10:27 am
    I guess Chalice will have to try something else to get the a real jury to believe in some make believe charges against the President of the US. The judge was not having any of the birther nonsense…

    Local birther’s court request tossed


    We ‘Bithers’ are grateful to you Marxist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/LiberationTheology/Dem0Rats for supporting a Usurper in such a blatantly public manner.

    The light is NOW shinning into the corrupt inner recesses of your failed Marxist/Facist Utopian Theology.

    John Gault, Howard Roark, the Founding Fathers, Patriots and Birthers everywhere all thank you.

  11. 01/21/2010Benaiah 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 [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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; 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 (1874)

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …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.”

    Simply put, 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”.

  12. 01/21/2010Benaiah says:

    Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

  13. 01/21/2010Benaiah says:

    SEND O TO GITMO
    http://www.thepostemail.com/petition-hawaii-govt/

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

    Article III, Section 3
    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ”

  14. 01/21/2010Black Lion says:

    slcraig says:
    January 21, 2010 at 11:45 am
    Black Lion says:
    January 21, 2010 at 10:27 am
    I guess Chalice will have to try something else to get the a real jury to believe in some make believe charges against the President of the US. The judge was not having any of the birther nonsense…

    Local birther’s court request tossed

    We ‘Bithers’ are grateful to you Marxist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/LiberationTheology/Dem0Rats for supporting a Usurper in such a blatantly public manner.

    The light is NOW shinning into the corrupt inner recesses of your failed Marxist/Facist Utopian Theology.

    John Gault, Howard Roark, the Founding Fathers, Patriots and Birthers everywhere all thank you.

    ____________________________________________________________________
    Thanks Steve. I appreciate the support. Especially since I support my country, the Constitution, and the lawfully and constitutionally eligible President of the United States, Barack Obama. Just like I did GW Bush when he was President. I didn’t agree with his politics or his policies, but he was certified President as per the Constitution so I supported him in that aspect. I support the rule of law. And no matter what you want to wish and hope, until at least 2013 the President of the US is Mr. Obama. Deal with it.

  15. 01/21/2010Benaiah says:

    Is Obama devotee of monkey-god idol?
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68156

  16. 01/21/2010Benaiah says:

    Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

    Obama: “I am a natural born citizen…”
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/obama-not-eligible-obama-not-natural-born-citizen-obama-signature-on-arizona-candidate-nomination-paper-moniquemonicat-blog-did-obama-commit-fraud-did-obama-lie/

    Black Lion: “I support the Constitution…”

  17. 01/21/2010Tweets that mention The Right Side of Life » #eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Kerchner v. Obama Update -- Topsy.com says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by therightsideoflife, Netty Wisbaum. Netty Wisbaum said: #eligibility: No Deal Response; More States Create Bills; Kerchner v. Obama Update http://bit.ly/5AyHnP […]

  18. 01/21/2010Black Lion says:

    So is the new MA Senator in the birther camp?

    “Sen.-elect Scott Brown has endorsed a candidate for Congress who has asserted that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than the United States, and who drew complaints from his neighbors during the 2008 presidential campaign for putting up signs on his property depicting Obama as Osama bin Laden.”

    http://www.dankennedy.net/2010/01/21/brown-endorses-birther-for-congress/

    Or is he backing away from the birhters?

    “Neither Scott Brown or anyone connected with his campaign approved that press release before its release or the quote that was attributed to Scott,” said Felix Browne, a spokesman for Brown. “Bill Hudak is an energetic candidate who has been working hard as a candidate for Congress. Right now, Scott Brown is focused on the job that people elected him to do. That’s his number one priority.”

    And how is the supposed birther candidate taking this possible reversal?

    “Scott Brown gave his endorsement to Bill Hudak and it’s unforuante that the people Scott Brown surrounds himself with are backing dowm from a commitment that their boss already made,” said Tyler Harber, a spokesman for Hudak.

    Interesting. Now that Brown won, and has to run again in 2 years in 2012, will he ignore the huge support he received from the birthers in order to be moderate enough to win re-election? This will be interesting to watch…

  19. 01/21/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Black Lion:

    […] Just like I did GW Bush when he was President. I didn’t agree with his politics or his policies, but he was certified President as per the Constitution so I supported him in that aspect. […]

    BL, I’m very impressed by your commitment to the rules of this game –
    However, when enlarging upon this matter you said ” “he was certified” –

    This is actually the purpose of the Burges’ bill – to sharpen the focus of the presidential “certification” (or validation) process as to prevent the access of eventual charlatans or agents of foreign powers to the office of US president –

    So can you make me understand why you and other, ostensibly patriotic Americans, oppose so bitterly Burges’ initiative or other actions like hers which could only benefit the United States?

    Can you clarify?

    Regards -

  20. 01/21/2010elspeth says:

    BL:

    You say:

    Deal with it.

    This issue is not going away until it is addressed properly. Deal with it.

    elspeth

  21. 01/21/2010slcraig says:

    Black Lion says:
    January 21, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Thanks Steve. I appreciate the support. Especially since I support my country, the Constitution, and the lawfully and constitutionally eligible President of the United States, Barack Obama. Just like I did GW Bush when he was President. I didn’t agree with his politics or his policies, but he was certified President as per the Constitution so I supported him in that aspect. I support the rule of law. And no matter what you want to wish and hope, until at least 2013 the President of the US is Mr. Obama. Deal with it.

    ________________________________________________________________________

    To the best of my knowledge there is NO Statute of Limitations on Usurpation, and, being an Eye-Witness to the Crime, I am NOT obliged to give the PURP the benefit of the doubt or consider him innocent until proven guilty because he has already confessed to being a Dual-Citizen at birth.

    Deal with it.

  22. 01/21/2010Black Lion says:

    misanthropicus says:
    January 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm
    RE Black Lion:

    […] Just like I did GW Bush when he was President. I didn’t agree with his politics or his policies, but he was certified President as per the Constitution so I supported him in that aspect. […]

    BL, I’m very impressed by your commitment to the rules of this game –
    However, when enlarging upon this matter you said ” “he was certified” –

    This is actually the purpose of the Burges’ bill – to sharpen the focus of the presidential “certification” (or validation) process as to prevent the access of eventual charlatans or agents of foreign powers to the office of US president –

    So can you make me understand why you and other, ostensibly patriotic Americans, oppose so bitterly Burges’ initiative or other actions like hers which could only benefit the United States?

    Can you clarify?

    Regards –
    __________________________________________________________________
    Actually Misa, I am not opposed to the bill as long as the requirements are Constitutional. Under any of the bills current requirements, the President would have been eligible. So I don’t have any issues at all. My point has always been the Constitution. And the fact that the President has meet the requirements. And when Steve C can show us where in the Constitution it prohibits a dual citizen from being President, he can talk. Until then all of his bluster is meaningless.

  23. 01/21/2010Benaiah says:

    Is Barack Hussein Obama eligible to the office of President?

    Clinton: “It depends on what the meaning of the word [natural born citizen] is is…”

  24. 01/21/2010Benaiah says:

    Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia: “Is Barack Hussein Obama ‘eligible to the office of President'”?

    Bill Clinton: “No, Barack Hussein Obama is not ‘eligible to the office of President.’ But, the beauty of this is that this will allow you to blackmail him…”

    Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia: “But, how will he ever get elected if he isn’t ‘eligible to the office of President'”?

    Bill Clinton: “We instruct the media to ignore the issue, and then when the public becomes aware of the issue, we instruct the media to tell them ‘It depends on what the meaning of the word [natural born citizen] is is…'” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

  25. 01/21/2010slcraig says:

    Black Lion says:
    January 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Under any of the bills current requirements, the President would have been eligible. So I don’t have any issues at all. My point has always been the Constitution. And the fact that the President has meet the requirements. And when Steve C can show us where in the Constitution it prohibits a dual citizen from being President, he can talk. Until then all of his bluster is meaningless.

    ________________________________________________________________________

    Aside from reinforcing the purpose of my dialog with the ‘Arizona Group’ I find your ‘ ’round the mulberry bush’ quit amusing and telling.

    It implies that you are in agreement that the ‘0’ slipped into office through a ‘loop-hole’ of omission and that in spite of his ‘probable knowing’ of a ‘controversy’ surrounding the definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’, he chose to raise his hand and swear to ‘Faithfully’ adhere to the Constitution rather than appeal to the ‘electorate and/or Joint House Resolution’ for determination in the Political arena in advance of taking the Oath, concluding that there is no other ‘Controlling Legal Authority’ to turn to.

    How do you define ‘Usurpation’?

  26. 01/21/2010elspeth says:

    BL: Don’t take my word for it!

    http://www.sphere.com/opinion/article/opinion-voters-have-a-serious-case-of-buyers-remorse-with-president-obama/19323050

  27. 01/21/2010elspeth says:

    BL:

    When you say:

    where in the Constitution it prohibits a dual citizen from being President

    do you not realize what you’re saying?

  28. 01/21/2010Black Lion says:

    elspeth says:
    January 21, 2010 at 8:34 pm
    BL:

    When you say:

    where in the Constitution it prohibits a dual citizen from being President
    do you not realize what you’re saying?
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Yes. Nowhere does the Constitution nor any law on the books prevent a so called dual citizen from being President. That is because in the eyes of the US, the citizenship laws of the US trump all other countries’ laws. So because the President was BORN in the United States, he is a natural born citizen due to the last 100 years of established jurisprudence. And he meets the eligiblity requirements that the Constitution sets forth. So I see no problem or issue. Again, my question was simple. Can you cite a law or in the Constitution that prohibits or prevents Barack Obama from being President? You can’t.

  29. 01/21/2010Black Lion says:

    slcraig says:
    January 21, 2010 at 6:29 pm
    Black Lion says:
    January 21, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Under any of the bills current requirements, the President would have been eligible. So I don’t have any issues at all. My point has always been the Constitution. And the fact that the President has meet the requirements. And when Steve C can show us where in the Constitution it prohibits a dual citizen from being President, he can talk. Until then all of his bluster is meaningless.

    ________________________________________________________________________

    Aside from reinforcing the purpose of my dialog with the ‘Arizona Group’ I find your ‘ ’round the mulberry bush’ quit amusing and telling.

    It implies that you are in agreement that the ‘0′ slipped into office through a ‘loop-hole’ of omission and that in spite of his ‘probable knowing’ of a ‘controversy’ surrounding the definition of the Constitutional ‘idiom’, he chose to raise his hand and swear to ‘Faithfully’ adhere to the Constitution rather than appeal to the ‘electorate and/or Joint House Resolution’ for determination in the Political arena in advance of taking the Oath, concluding that there is no other ‘Controlling Legal Authority’ to turn to.

    How do you define ‘Usurpation’?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Steve, Barack Obama is the lawfully elected President of the United States. He was born in the US and is a Natural Born citizen. So he did not usurp anything. He has adhered to the qualifications as set forth in the Constitution. I don’t think he slipped through any kind of loophole because there has been no legally admissible evidence presented that he was not born in HI or is not eligible to be President. There has been no violation of law. He has met all qualifications as set forth. Even if the so called Arizona bill would pass, there is not one legal requirement that he would not be able to meet. So unless you can show me where he has violated the law, until 2013 Mr. Obama is the lawful and rightful President of the United States.

  30. 01/21/2010slcraig says:

    In ‘our’ efforts to be scrupulously honest I must correct the record.

    I did not say that the ‘snippet’ I posted was from Rep. Burges’ office.

    When I sent my original e-mail to her she in turn distributed it amongst her co-sponsors, supporters and advisors.

    I had not ask for or received release to identify the ‘person’ that sent that response and therefore only posted that it came from the ‘group’ involved.

    That said, it is a true ‘cut & paste’ duplicate of the senders own words.

  31. 01/21/2010Phil says:

    slcraig,

    In ‘our’ efforts to be scrupulously honest I must correct the record.

    I did not say that the ’snippet’ I posted was from Rep. Burges’ office.

    When I sent my original e-mail to her she in turn distributed it amongst her co-sponsors, supporters and advisors.

    I had not ask for or received release to identify the ‘person’ that sent that response and therefore only posted that it came from the ‘group’ involved.

    That said, it is a true ‘cut & paste’ duplicate of the senders own words.

    I have updated the posting.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  32. 01/21/2010Phil says:

    Black Lion,

    So is the new MA Senator in the birther camp?

    “Sen.-elect Scott Brown has endorsed a candidate for Congress who has asserted that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than the United States, and who drew complaints from his neighbors during the 2008 presidential campaign for putting up signs on his property depicting Obama as Osama bin Laden.”

    http://www.dankennedy.net/2010/01/21/brown-endorses-birther-for-congress/

    We’ll see if/when this becomes an issue.

    -Phil

  33. 01/21/2010qwertyman says:

    BL: Don’t take my word for it!

    http://www.sphere.com/opinion/article/opinion-voters-have-a-serious-case-of-buyers-remorse-with-president-obama/19323050

    There’s a huge gap between people feeling “buyer’s remorse,” (which frankly isn’t even reflected by that article) although Obama’s approval has indisputeably gone down since inauguration, and believing that Obama was not eligible for office in the first place.

  34. 01/21/2010Loren says:

    Phil,

    I have updated the posting.

    So you spotlighted slcraig’s alleged e-mail on the front page, and credited it to Rep. Burges, without first verifying that it was real?

    I mean, it’s one thing to not wait for confirmation from Burges’ office itself, but to unskeptically highlight it without even asking slcraig to send you a copy of the e-mail first?

  35. 01/21/2010Preston says:

    So maybe the Brit, Neil Sankey can succeed where the Russian immigrant (from the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) has failed, bring it on.

    Poor little Birthers (still in denial about their losses), Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed).

    Not even “Fake News” Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

    I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (prepare for more failures).

    A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, WOW I must say a JACK of all trades master of none

    I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). She wants to re-establish a family values party.

    I can only hope that Taitz will resist the state collectors that will be hounding her like the “ruff ruff” that she is to collect the $20K.

  36. 01/21/2010Loren says:

    Phil,

    If you perform a search per the database linked in the posting based on my recommendation, you’ll find approximately 17 initiatives. There are a number of those that speak directly to eligibility though, obviously, not every instance deals with presidential/vice-presidential requirements but candidate qualifications in general.

    Then why, with 17 or so actual initiatives floating around, did you elect the quote the entirety of only one, which is not actually a real initiative at all? That New York “proposition” is nothing more than the text of a hypothetical bill written by a stay-at-home mom blogger.

    And contrary to WND’s claim, there’s no evidence that “Americans for Freedom of Information” is an organization that’s any larger than Debra Smith herself.

  37. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    Loren says:
    January 21, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    Phil,

    I have updated the posting.

    So you spotlighted slcraig’s alleged e-mail on the front page, and credited it to Rep. Burges, without first verifying that it was real?

    I mean, it’s one thing to not wait for confirmation from Burges’ office itself, but to unskeptically highlight it without even asking slcraig to send you a copy of the e-mail first?


    ‘We’ do not deal in deceit and I do not fault Phil for a moment of enthusiastic zeal as I posted the correspondence out of the same zeal myself in the hope that the ‘group’ working on the Bill finds the courage to do as I suggest.

    What I find fascinating is that all you and your fellow travelers can do is nit pick without ever acknowledging that there is very strong and compelling evidence for ‘Doubt’ of your dear leaders ‘eligibility’ based on his own words.

    You can not cite any precedent but English Common Law and a bunch of psycho babble treatises by graduate students and socialist professors to support your positions and try to imply that the 14th Amendment somehow Amended, negated or somehow nullifies A2S1C5.

    Then when all else fails you denigrate, accuse and insult.

    Am I a bigot…?…Yea…when it comes to ‘stupid’, I discriminate.

  38. 01/22/2010Linda says:

    Am I a bigot…?…Yea…when it comes to ’stupid’, I discriminate.

    OUCH! :) Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

  39. 01/22/2010Randy says:

    They should demand higher standards and additional documentation for Hawaiian born candidates because of the known loophole for foreign born babies to receive Hawaiian papers.

  40. 01/22/2010elspeth says:

    BL:

    You can’t.

    Yes, I can!

    Until someone WITH AUTHORITY tells me that the term “natural born citizen” means something other than having NO (that means NONE, if you have trouble understnading) allegiance to another country (as a dual citizen would), then the wording of the constitution tells me Obama is not eligible.

  41. 01/22/2010elspeth says:

    BL:

    Barack Obama is the lawfully elected President

    If Cheney had asked for objections, as he was required by law, your statement would have more validity.

  42. 01/22/2010Phil says:

    Loren,

    Phil,

    I have updated the posting.

    So you spotlighted slcraig’s alleged e-mail on the front page, and credited it to Rep. Burges, without first verifying that it was real?

    I mean, it’s one thing to not wait for confirmation from Burges’ office itself, but to unskeptically highlight it without even asking slcraig to send you a copy of the e-mail first?

    Good on you for helping to hold folks accountable (hopefully it’s not just me with whom you hold to such a standard).

    Suffice it to say that I think I’ve made it pretty clear on my blog, for over a year, that when I make editorial mistakes, I do actually go back and correct them.

    Unlike what some opposition commenters have said about me in the past, I do not knowingly spread false information and have, in fact, been taken to task by “both sides” for either publishing what I believe is the truth or for not publishing what I think are falsehoods.

    -Phil

  43. 01/22/2010Phil says:

    Preston,

    …either put up or frankly shut-up.

    I seem to recall you posting this comment a while back, and with such choice, statist verbiage such as what I’ve just pulled from you, it’s clear that you don’t like individuals with whom you disagree to have an opinion. Else, you wouldn’t care what some of us say.

    In other words, I’m not shutting up, and since the 1st Amendment does not guarantee the right to not be offended, you’re simply going to have to deal.

    In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win.

    Two things:

    1. “…people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate…” Interesting. Wasn’t it you who just told folks like me to “shut-up?” Who’s trying to take whose rights? You don’t see me telling you to shut up;

    2. “…the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right…” Simply answered: Senator-Elect Scott Brown, Republican, Massachusetts. You walked into that one.

    -Phil

  44. 01/22/2010Phil says:

    Loren,

    Phil,

    If you perform a search per the database linked in the posting based on my recommendation, you’ll find approximately 17 initiatives. There are a number of those that speak directly to eligibility though, obviously, not every instance deals with presidential/vice-presidential requirements but candidate qualifications in general.

    Then why, with 17 or so actual initiatives floating around, did you elect the quote the entirety of only one, which is not actually a real initiative at all? That New York “proposition” is nothing more than the text of a hypothetical bill written by a stay-at-home mom blogger.

    Two things:

    1. I don’t have hours to devote to a single posting to be able to go through and extract every instance of every State’s initiative. What I do, instead, is gather the information in as efficient a way as possible, present it in a posting, to allow individuals such as yourself to do further research. In other words, I don’t always do everyone’s homework for them; I provide the tools necessary as a starting point.

    2. I prefer initiatives begun by “stay-at-home mom bloggers” and other such types over the political class any day. I seem to recall this recent State-based election in a northeastern State just a few days ago… it appeared to me that it was predominantly promulgated by the new media, Web 2.0, social networking.

    And contrary to WND’s claim, there’s no evidence that “Americans for Freedom of Information” is an organization that’s any larger than Debra Smith herself.

    Exactly what “claim” did WorldNetDaily make that explicitly stated otherwise? Looking back over the article’s actual verbiage, all they were saying is that this grassroots organization was pushing a ballot initiative.

    You may recall TRSoL reader and blogger Justin Riggs of YourFellowCitizen.com who helped to spearhead a push for pursuing candidate qualifications both in his home State of Colorado and in various other States. When I last emailed him not too long ago, he (and possibly a mere handful of other individuals) was working with his State’s legislature on crafting legislation; Colorado has an explicit process by which ordinary citizens can work with the government on doing such things.

    I wouldn’t discount the power of a minority of individuals who push forward on what they think are legitimate concerns who never ever give up.

    -Phil

  45. 01/22/2010Black Lion says:

    elspeth says:
    January 22, 2010 at 5:20 am
    BL:

    You can’t.
    Yes, I can!

    Until someone WITH AUTHORITY tells me that the term “natural born citizen” means something other than having NO (that means NONE, if you have trouble understnading) allegiance to another country (as a dual citizen would), then the wording of the constitution tells me Obama is not eligible.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Interesting….Someone with authority. I believe the Appeals Court of the State of Indiana is an legal judical authority…And here is what they said…

    “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 amazingly enough they also cite the Constitution. Wow! Three Appeals Court justices cite the Constitution and the SCOTUS ruling in Wong as authority, and what do you have? Your belief based on what? Hope and Change? Meaning you hope that no one can read Wong and that you can change the meaning of natural born citizen to exclude the President of the United States?

    Again I ask a simple question. Where in the Constitution does it state a requirement that makes President Obama ineligible? Or better yet where it defines alliegance? Simple question, show me a legal scholar or constitutional expert or court ruling in the last 100 years (since 1898) that agrees with your definiton of NBC or that the President is ineligible? Again you can’t.

  46. 01/22/2010Black Lion says:

    elspeth says:
    January 22, 2010 at 5:22 am
    BL:

    Barack Obama is the lawfully elected President
    If Cheney had asked for objections, as he was required by law, your statement would have more validity.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Or if Rep. Deal or any of the other 534 Senators and Congressmen has objected, then you would have more validity. They didn’t need Cheney to ask for objections. They could have objected and they knew it. Not one Senator or Congressman spoke up before the election nor before the certification of the vote to say that they felt that the President was ineligible. Even now not one has come out and officially stated that they believe that the President is ineligible. They play word semantics with the birthers for their votes, but are wary of getting associated with them for fear of being labeled as some sort of fanatic.

  47. 01/22/2010Black Lion says:

    slcraig says:
    January 22, 2010 at 12:12 am
    Loren says:

    You can not cite any precedent but English Common Law and a bunch of psycho babble treatises by graduate students and socialist professors to support your positions and try to imply that the 14th Amendment somehow Amended, negated or somehow nullifies A2S1C5.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Steve, socialist professors? So Ted Olson is some sort of socialist? A man that worked for GW Bush? He said:

    “The Constitution does not define the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress…. and to the common law at the time of the Founding….These sources all confirm that the phrase “natural born” includes both birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation’s territory and allegiance….”

    And Edwin Meese, AG under Reagan, as conservative as they come stated the following…

    “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. ”

    So what do you have? Do you have even one legal or constitutional law expert that agrees with you? As a matter of fact you don’t even have any graduate students or professors of any kind that agree with your crazy theory. Yet you think that you somehow know more that all of the legal scholars in America. Simply amazing. You don’t have the qualifications of any of those individuals yet you somehow think you know more about A2S1C5 than them. Very interesting.

  48. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    I think Preston watches too much Olby and Maddow. Educated idiots whose only method of dealing with the issues is launching juvenile personal attacks. (And it is working so well….. just look at those ratings. Oh and so long to Air America)

    I think most of America is tired of this crap, and the Mass vote this past Tuesday was just first shot across the bow. There are many more coming.

  49. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    Preston,

    And by the way, that fake news that you mentioned. It drew more viewers than ABC’s entire prime time lineup the other night. I suppose those are fake ratings as well? Can’t wait for your insipid reply.

  50. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    Welcome to big time politics Scott Brown and family.

    Scott Brown’s Wife Music VIDEO: Gail Huff’s RACY ‘Girl With The Curious Hand’ (PHOTOS)
    First Posted: 01-21-10 04:02 PM | Updated: 01-21-10 06:13 PM
    “On Tuesday night, Scott Brown’s wife pleaded with her husband to stop advertising his “available” daughters, but a video we’ve dug up reveals that Gail Huff wasn’t always so prim and proper.

    The Massachusetts senator-elect’s wife, who now works as a reporter for Boston station WCVB-TV, starred in singer Digney Fingus’ 1984 video for a song called “The Girl With The Curious Hand.”

    In the video (BELOW), Huff struts around and sunbathes in a black bikini, the top of which she removes at one point before diving into water. At the song’s climax, she suggestively squeezes a tube of sunscreen, perhaps explaining the curiosity of this girl’s hand.

    Of course, the Browns are no strangers to skin: Senator-elect Scott famously posed nude for Cosmopolitan in 1982, and more recently with his bikini-clad daughters.”

    more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/scott-browns-wife-music-v_n_431632.html

    For the record, in my opinion, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Scott Brown’s qualifications to be a U.S. Senator. Why Americans support this type of journalism is a mystery to me.

  51. 01/22/2010brygenon says:

    elspeth says:

    Until someone WITH AUTHORITY tells me that the term “natural born citizen” means something other than having NO (that means NONE, if you have trouble understnading) allegiance to another country (as a dual citizen would), then the wording of the constitution tells me Obama is not eligible.

    That just means you can convince yourself. In the world in your head, you get to decide. Here in the real one, “natural born citizen” simply means a citizen from birth. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the term is from the English, and quoted British jurist A.V. Dicey: “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

  52. 01/22/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Black Lion:

    1) […] Steve, Barack Obama is the lawfully elected President of the United States. […]
    Here, I completely agree, the election occurred according to the law – (the prior irregularities in the Iowa, Texas and Nevada preliminaries being a democrat problem) –

    2) […] He has adhered to the qualifications as set forth in the Constitution. I don’t think he slipped through any kind of loophole because there has been no legally admissible evidence presented that he was not born in HI or is not eligible to be President. There has been no violation of law. He has met all qualifications as set forth. Even if the so called Arizona bill would pass, there is not one legal requirement that he would not be able to meet. […]

    Here I completely disagree – mister Obama has (so far successfully) avoided to produce clear evidence that he was born in Hawaii, this by manipulating some archaic legal loopholes, the base partisanship of the MSM and the paralysis this nation has been thrown in by an “unprecedented” economic crisis –
    No secretary of state of the Union is in possession of an official document forwarded by DNC which proves that mister Obama was born in the USA – none of the 50 states secretary has such a document –

    Obama must prove that he was a legitimate candidate – Burges’ bill is excellent -

  53. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    Sue,

    Surely your not surprised. The liberal media will beat a path far and wide to take this guy down. They will throw anything and everything out there to see if it sticks. And make it up if necessary. In fact, I rather hope they do. As it will further expose them for what they are and their ratings slide will go even steeper.

    They are so hypocritical it’s an embarrassment to our society. They will spend every waking minute finding this stuff while totally ignoring Democratic candidates.

    Imagine if they had expended this type of energy on Edwards when it was actually relevant? They only report it now because he has admitted what was painfully obvious to anyone paying attention.

    I don’t have a problem at all with the press investigating political figures, if they apply the same standards to all. Which they clearly do not.

  54. 01/22/2010Phil says:

    Sue,

    Welcome to big time politics Scott Brown and family.

    Scott Brown’s Wife Music VIDEO: Gail Huff’s RACY ‘Girl With The Curious Hand’ (PHOTOS)
    First Posted: 01-21-10 04:02 PM | Updated: 01-21-10 06:13 PM
    “On Tuesday night, Scott Brown’s wife pleaded with her husband to stop advertising his “available” daughters, but a video we’ve dug up reveals that Gail Huff wasn’t always so prim and proper.

    The Massachusetts senator-elect’s wife, who now works as a reporter for Boston station WCVB-TV, starred in singer Digney Fingus’ 1984 video for a song called “The Girl With The Curious Hand.”

    In the video (BELOW), Huff struts around and sunbathes in a black bikini, the top of which she removes at one point before diving into water. At the song’s climax, she suggestively squeezes a tube of sunscreen, perhaps explaining the curiosity of this girl’s hand.

    Of course, the Browns are no strangers to skin: Senator-elect Scott famously posed nude for Cosmopolitan in 1982, and more recently with his bikini-clad daughters.”

    more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/scott-browns-wife-music-v_n_431632.html

    For the record, in my opinion, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Scott Brown’s qualifications to be a U.S. Senator. Why Americans support this type of journalism is a mystery to me.

    …and why some individuals such as yourself take the bandwidth to repost “this type of journalism” on my site is similarly intriguing.

    Perhaps it can be best explained this way: both the Browns (before they shared the same last name (I think)) showed lots of skin back when they were younger. It’s difficult to think that an independent/conservative/libertarian individual would dare do such a thing; after all, it’s only the left that is supposed to be so, shall we say, open with themselves.

    No, I don’t like that explanation.

    Here’s an even better one: jealousy ;)

    -Phil

  55. 01/22/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Preston […]

    1) […] where the Russian immigrant (from the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) has failed, bring it on. […]
    * normal for a democrat to dis immigrants, isn’t it? Further, Taiz is not Russian, but she is (technically) Moldavian (who are not related to Russians at all) then, she is actually Jewish who lived her childhood, upon leaving Moldova in Israel – I’m sure dba Obama would cherish your attack on this, quite strong segment of the Democrat Party electorate – congrats, I’ll let the DNC know –

    2) […] She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. […]
    * Orange county is a nice and tidy place, which is constantly attacked by liberals because it has a very low ratio white/ “diversity members”, because it is vastly more prosperous than LA county, because… because… etc. etc.
    At no point in my life ( I generally live in Los Angeles) I heard about Orange county rated as a San Francisco, stations which rates high on the liberals’ prestige scale (since you appear interested in loony towns) –

    3) […] You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. […]
    Nice job, Preston, thank you for reminding me – so can you tell us what kind of passport dba Obama used for traveling in Pakistan before –
    * Do it Preston, explain what kind of passport Obama used for traveling to Pakistan – do it, looking forward to hear about that –

    4) […] She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (prepare for more failures). […]
    * Preston, it seems that you are an octopode or something, since you keep coming with more feet to stick in your mouth –
    Buddy, this is exactly what birthers want in the court or media: “documented facts” – show the BC, price & 15, and the entire matter is settled –

    Amusing rant, your post, however –

    Regards -

  56. 01/22/2010Loren says:

    elspeth,

    Until someone WITH AUTHORITY tells me that the term “natural born citizen” means something other than having NO (that means NONE, if you have trouble understnading) allegiance to another country (as a dual citizen would), then the wording of the constitution tells me Obama is not eligible.

    The Indiana Court of Appeals, in Ankeny v. U.S.:

    “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. 01/22/2010sharon2 says:

    The Ankeny case doesn’t have to be followed by courts in any other state. Certainly it could be followed, but a court in Arizona for instance is not bound by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

  58. 01/22/2010kj says:

    Mr. Byrgenon:

    Subject, Subject, Subject ≠ Citizen, Citizen, Citizen

    We do have a President instead of a King. Washington was offered a crown (old ideas are hard to shake) but refused it.

  59. 01/22/2010sharon2 says:

    Additionally, the Court of Appeals strongly implied in two footnotes that being born on US soil is not the only way to obtain the status of a NBC. That issue was not before the court but clearly, the Appeals Court would expand the definition to include more than just persons of dual citizenship born on US soil. What if another state court agrees with the holding of the Indiana Court of Appeals concerning dual citizenship, but would not go as far as defining the term to mean those born abroad?

  60. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    “AnotherReader says:
    January 22, 2010 at 9:55 am
    Sue,

    Surely your not surprised. The liberal media will beat a path far and wide to take this guy down. They will throw anything and everything out there to see if it sticks. And make it up if necessary. In fact, I rather hope they do. As it will further expose them for what they are and their ratings slide will go even steeper.

    They are so hypocritical it’s an embarrassment to our society. They will spend every waking minute finding this stuff while totally ignoring Democratic candidates.”

    Hypocritical swings both ways in the media in my opinion. I can go to WND and find tons of articles regarding Democratic elected officials that are downright false or misleading.

    “Imagine if they had expended this type of energy on Edwards when it was actually relevant? They only report it now because he has admitted what was painfully obvious to anyone paying attention.

    I don’t have a problem at all with the press investigating political figures, if they apply the same standards to all. Which they clearly do not.”

    I don’t have a problem with the press investigating political candidates either, when what they are “investigating” is actually relevant to whether they are qualified for the office they seek.

    Again, I can provide you tons of articles from WND and Fox News regarding political candidates that are either totally false or misleading.

  61. 01/22/2010sharon2 says:

    I have seen lately a strange alliance that some of the opposition have forged with Glen Beck. Having listened to and watched his program on and off for the past few months, this is my take on Beck. He wants a third party to emerge (and wants to be the person credited with the establishment) that doesn’t just weaken either the R or D candidate to swing an election, but a party that can win and take over governing. The Brown surge hurt his cause. It showed that independents will continue to vote R or D, depending on the source of their anger. The only way to force the acceptance of a third party is for things to deteriorate so badly that the disgust of mainstream America with all of Washington will allow for this third party to take over.

    Beck doesn’t want any issue to overshadow this, eligibility questions and Scott Brown included. I think he was canvassing Palin as a possible leader of the new party. I’ll be curious to watch that angle.

  62. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    “…and why some individuals such as yourself take the bandwidth to repost “this type of journalism” on my site is similarly intriguing.”

    Phil,

    It should be rather obvious. This is the type of “journalism” that has been directed at President Obama and his family. I don’t like this type of “journalism” directed at candidates/elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation.

  63. 01/22/2010Loren says:

    sharon2,

    The Ankeny case doesn’t have to be followed by courts in any other state. Certainly it could be followed, but a court in Arizona for instance is not bound by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

    elspeth only asked for “someone WITH AUTHORITY.” Are you denying that the judges on the Indiana Court of Appeals are persons with legal and judicial authority?

  64. 01/22/2010sharon2 says:

    Well. Loren, I would guess it depends on whether El lives in Indiana.

  65. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    Sue,

    I would love to see the Fox news stories that you can prove to be false. (Don’t read this as my saying they can do no wrong)

  66. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    “AnotherReader says:
    January 22, 2010 at 11:40 am
    Sue,

    I would love to see the Fox news stories that you can prove to be false. (Don’t read this as my saying they can do no wrong)”

    No problem:

    Fox News: We Report — Even if We Know It’s False
    Paul BegalaCNN political commentator
    Posted: January 9, 2008 12:35 PM
    excerpts
    “I’ve been dealing with the media and politics for 25 years, but I’ve never had a more surrealistic day than January 8. Several times that day Fox News reported that I was joining Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was a big story – at least until the stunning election returns.

    The only problem was, it wasn’t true.”

    “After I told Fox it wasn’t true — and this is the surreal part — they kept reporting it anyway. In fact, Fox’s Garrett told me he’d “take it under advisement.” Take it under advisement? I realize I’m generally seen as just another liberal with an opinion, but this was not a matter of opinion, it was a matter of fact. Fox now knew their story was flatly, factually wrong, and they took it “under advisement.”

    “Apparently that meant repeating the falsehood with added detail: the “fact” that I had been on a conference call the previous day with the Hillary high command. Again, false. My worry is that if this is what one of Fox’s best and most respected reporters is doing, what are the hacks up to?””

    “I exchanged several civil emails with Garrett — and append them to this post. They are not nuanced. Read them for yourself. I report, you decide.”

    more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/fox-news-we-report-even-i_b_80698.html

    Would you like me to provide you with another one?

  67. 01/22/2010brygenon says:

    kj says:

    Mr. Byrgenon:

    Subject, Subject, Subject ≠ Citizen, Citizen, Citizen

    In the same decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the term is from the English and quoted British jurist A.V. Dicey:

    “’Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.”

    They also dealt with the citizen/subject distinction, quoting James Kent:

    “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark]

    We do have a President instead of a King. Washington was offered a crown (old ideas are hard to shake) but refused it.

    Now our President is Barack H. Obama, the legal sophistry of eligibility deniers notwithstanding.

  68. 01/22/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Sue:

    […] This is the type of “journalism” that has been directed at President Obama and his family. I don’t like this type of “journalism” directed at candidates/elected officials, regardless of their party affiliation. […]

    Sue, sometimes you are simply bizarre –
    Barrack Obama has been “subjected” to the most IRRESPONSIBLE, UNCRITICAL MSM coverage possible – nothing, nothing, nothing but paeans and praise for him and his dubious “past achievement”, and paeans complemented by furious attacks on those who wanted and want to know more about dba Obama, international man of mystery –

    And now, when it’s becoming evident even for the most partial liberals that they voted for an airbag (describing Obama in benign terms) his few left partisans like you are yelling that the media is unfair –
    After all, poor guy he himself when he was in Norway to get the Nobel Prize couldn’t provide a reason for having been awarded that thing – hehehehe –

    By the way, the latest Rasmussen is out – Obama’s is steadily descending, with only %25 approving his performance –

    I understand that you want to defend dba Obama, but try a more ingenious take than blaming the “unfair media” –

    Regards -

  69. 01/22/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Sue RE AnotherReader

    […] Paul Begala CNN political commentator […]

    “I’ve been dealing with the media and politics for 25 years, but I’ve never had a more surrealistic day than January 8. […]

    Sue, you as usually avoid addressing the real problem because that would hurt your beloved MSM –

    And the problem is, while Fox might get it wrong one or another time, MSM is UNIFORMLY slanting and distorting news –
    MSM has became an instrument of oppression, like the collaborationist media in the Nazi occupied territories – while FOX is the equivalent of Radio Free Europe or Voice Of America for those in the Soviet occupied conutries there –

    Begala might be correct in this matter, but his career as gross liberal liar and New Values perp make him a worthless wittness in this discussion –

    Remember Mary McCarthy regarding her pal Lillian Hellman? “Everything she says is a lie, even when she say ‘and’, “and” is a lie” –

    Well, it looks to me that McCarthy was talking about liberals and Begala, too –

    Regards -

  70. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    Sue says:
    January 22, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Would you like me to provide you with another one?

    _________________________________________________________________

    And you believe Paul Begala because?

    Politics ain’t hop-scotch, it’s a marathon at a hundred yard dash pace.

    Was Begala negotiating without his wife knowing?

    Did he have some one run up atrial balloon?

    Did Hillary or the ‘0s campaign run up a trial balloon or plant the story to take Paul out of the picture or bring him in?

    Who knows, but its odd that Begala would protest so much, what with the old media saying, ‘I don’t care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right.’

    Major may or may not know why the ‘Source’, aka ‘deep throat’, gave him the story, but you can bet it was ‘Politics’ that made it worth doing.

    So yea, show us how discerning you are, bring a really egregious example……….

  71. 01/22/2010misanthropicus says:

    … and more about liberal hypocrisy:

    “Where is Obama’s outrage over Conan’s taking home $45 millions?”

    When it comes to his Hollywood enablers’ “indiscretions”, Obama’s indignation kind of vanishes…

    More @:
    Jonah Goldberg @ http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?

  72. 01/22/2010elspeth says:

    Phil,

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your archives say the Ankeny case in Indiana was dismissed, and no decision was made about the eligibility issue.

    FOOL DISCLOSURE!

    elspeth

  73. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    brygenon says:
    January 22, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    …allegiance and subjection…

    This is what is sooooo very sad about your continual reliance on WKA and ‘Ol Judge Gray.

    In British Law the subject/citizen OWES allegiance to the Crown whether he cares to or not and REGARDLESS of the subject/citizens sentiments he his held under ‘subjection’.

    Are you saying that the revolution was NOT fought to establish a NEW form of government where the Citizens would be the Sovereign and the Government would be under subjection to the People/Citizens?

    You need to study the history of English citizenship and the CLASS structure that was written into Law and Codified into the English Common Law.

    I would also question as to where in WKA it states that it Amends a Clause of the Constitution that was NOT a subject of the case…?

  74. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    Sue,

    For the sake of argument, let’s take your example at face value. Are you implying that ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are not guilty of similar incidents? That they do not offer a biased view of the news?

    I’m curious, which sources do you trust for news?

  75. 01/22/2010Loren says:

    elspeth,

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your archives say the Ankeny case in Indiana was dismissed, and no decision was made about the eligibility issue.

    Ankeny was indeed dismissed, but it was dismissed on the grounds that the lawsuit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal.

    In the course of reviewing de novo the lower court’s holding, the Court of Appeals spent several pages analyzing the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen.” It was during this analysis that the court provided the succinct quote I previously posted. In the end, the court held that the eligibility arguments were wholly unsupported, and the dismissal was upheld as a result. Contrary to your assertion, the court’s entire decision centered around the eligibility issue.

    You can read the whole decision for yourself at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf .

  76. 01/22/2010kj says:

    Byrgenon said

    Now our President is Barack H. Obama, the legal sophistry of eligibility deniers notwithstanding.

    Some people thinks that he regards himself more as a King than as a President. I wonder if he would have refused a crown. The administration’s approach is more my way or the highway.

  77. 01/22/2010Phil says:

    elspeth,

    Phil,

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your archives say the Ankeny case in Indiana was dismissed, and no decision was made about the eligibility issue.

    FOOL DISCLOSURE!

    Yes, that is correct. The Indiana Court never considered any petitioned question regarding the constitutional eligibility of the President. They merely dismissed the Ankeny v. Daniels case and opined a bit regarding citizenship.

    And that’s where the opposition would like to think happened, that somehow this lower Court actually made a ruling of some sort regarding presidential eligibility. Yet, let’s be consistent: if no federal Court has jurisdiction to even question such matters (read: quo warranto in DC), then a State-based Court would have even less such room to make a call.

    But, again — and this point cannot be emphasized enough — they were merely dismissing a case because they couldn’t possibly grant relief, and could not grant any anecdotal relief with respect to their opinion either, which, even if they could, would only hold sway in the great State of Indiana.

    Having said all that, I’ve already promulgated the “teachable moment” back when Barnett v. Obama was originally dismissed by Judge Carter — and that was a federal Court. In that particular opinion, Judge Carter actually left wide open a door through which claims on eligibility could theoretically be brought before a Court of competent jurisdiction, but because — among other things — the petition he was hearing asked him to essentially remove a President from office (something blatantly unconstitutional), the case was thrown out.

    So, it’s quite obvious — and on the record — that while many in the opposition would like to go on ad nauseum about the Ankeny case, they conveniently forget the Barnett case, quite clearly because the latter case provides substantial grounds upon which relief could theoretically be granted in a future election.

    -Phil

  78. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    Loren says:
    January 22, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    elspeth,

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your archives say the Ankeny case in Indiana was dismissed, and no decision was made about the eligibility issue.

    Ankeny was indeed dismissed, but it was dismissed on the grounds that the lawsuit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the dismissal.

    In the course of reviewing de novo the lower court’s holding, the Court of Appeals spent several pages analyzing the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen.” It was during this analysis that the court provided the succinct quote I previously posted. In the end, the court held that the eligibility arguments were wholly unsupported, and the dismissal was upheld as a result. Contrary to your assertion, the court’s entire decision centered around the eligibility issue.

    You can read the whole decision for yourself at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf .

    But what YOU fail to grasp is that the entire ‘Orbita Dicta’ hullabaloo expressed so verbosely has no more value or force than an opinion piece by Air America.

    The case was dismissed on the grounds of Jurisdiction and Standing and the Sua Sponte Orbita Dicta by the court is MOOT by definition.

  79. 01/22/2010Linda says:

    I’m going to leave a bit more history for folks to ponder over the weekend while I finish the 1st part of my next series of essays.

    Remember that I said that we had to look to the original ‘common law’ adopted by England. The ‘commom law’ of English history that our founders were taught as youths. Here is a sneak peak into Part I:

    The Origin of the English, Germanic and Scandinavian Languages, and Nations, ice. by be Bev. Joseph Bosworth, DO

    LONDON :
    JOHN EUSSELL SMITH,
    4, OLD COMPTON STREET, SOHO SQUARE

    MDCCCXLVIII (1848)

    To:

    THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
    FRANCIS (GOWER) EGERTON,
    EARL OF ELLESMERE.

    With boasted liberty superficially on the lip, there is often licentiousness, and consequent oppression,—but we feel Freedom to be more deeply seated, even in the heart :—here Freedom is not only enjoyed, but cordially permitted, and extended to all. This is true, heartfelt Freedom, and we derived it from our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. Every Englishman who glories in the vigour of his Father land,—who would clearly understand, and feel the full force of his Mother tongue, ought to study AngloSaxon

    And this from:

    Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791

    As a citizen of a republican government owes obedience to the laws ; so he owes a decent, though a dignified respect to those who administer the laws. In monarchies, there is a political respect of person : in commonwealths, there should be a political respect to office. In monarchies, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities, all personal and hereditary. In commonwealths, too, there are ranks, preeminences, and dignities; but all official and successive. In monarchies, respect is paid without a prospect of return. In commonwealths, ‘ one may, next year, succeed, as an officer, to the respect, which, this year, he pays as a citizen. The dignities of office are open to all.

    You will be pleased to hear, that, with regard to this as well as to many other subjects, we have renewed, in our governments, the principles and the practice of the ancient Saxons.

    Yes, its going to get very interesting for the koolaide drinkers to try and deny our founding fathers their heritiage and our government based on a ‘commom law’ that included equity for all that held NO room for dual citizenship. The natural borns were those born to fathers who were citizens of the society, not mere inhabitiants passing through. And that was the law in Anglo-Saxon England before the monarchy took over.

  80. 01/22/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 22, 2010 at 3:03 pm
    I’m going to leave a bit more history for folks to ponder over the weekend while I finish the 1st part of my next series of essays.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Again Linda that is all nice and good but you miss one essential point. Which is can you show us one legal scholar, constitutional expert, or judical ruling that agrees with anything you are saying? Something that supports your claim that was issued or reviewed since 1898? Remember you can believe whatever you want. That is the right of every American. However the essential issue is you showing us the judicary that agrees with you.

    Your basic argument is that the court in WKA, and to a lesser degree Justice Gray were wrong when they wrote the following:

    “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.”

    You state the following:

    “Yes, its going to get very interesting for the koolaide drinkers to try and deny our founding fathers their heritiage and our government based on a ‘commom law’ that included equity for all that held NO room for dual citizenship. The natural borns were those born to fathers who were citizens of the society, not mere inhabitiants passing through. And that was the law in Anglo-Saxon England before the monarchy took over.”

    However you neglect to mention one essential point. In the eyes of the United States citizenship statutes, Obama is not a dual citizen. He was born in the US so he is first and foremost an American citizen, regardless of any claims another country may place on him. US citizenship laws superceede any other countries’ laws. Period.

    So your argument breaks down to a couple of points. No matter what you find to try and claim that English Common law was not what Justice Gray, Swayne, and other experts thought it was, you need to get past what was written. And then you need to find some SCOTUS or judical ruling since 1898 that supports your claim. Until you can do that all you have is your opinion of what something should be. Not what it is. And the challenge still is out there. Can you show us an expert that agrees with your new interpretation of English Common law or your old theory.

  81. 01/22/2010Black Lion says:

    Sue says:
    January 22, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    “AnotherReader says:
    January 22, 2010 at 11:40 am
    Sue,

    I would love to see the Fox news stories that you can prove to be false. (Don’t read this as my saying they can do no wrong)”

    No problem:
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sue, Media Matters did a good wrap up of the amount of times that FOX was caught pushing false stories…And that doesn’t even take into account when they were caught using the film from the Tea Party events earlier in the year over a story about Beck’s infamous 9/12 rally to make it look like more people showed up than really attended….

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047

  82. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    MediaMatters is just more of the same liberal bias crap. This is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. (No pun intended)

  83. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    “AnotherReader says:
    January 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    MediaMatters is just more of the same liberal bias crap. This is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. (No pun intended)”

    To answer another comment you made regarding the media, I don’t “trust” any of them completely. All of them publish false and misleading information; however, Fox news does this more often, in my opinion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Mis and slcraig,

    Regarding Paul Begala. Can you provide me any proof that he lied?

  84. 01/22/2010AnotherReader says:

    Sue,

    Regarding Paul Begala, I’m not sure that was a great example. While getting proof he lied would be next to impossible, the converse of that is true as well. And considering the extreme animosity that exists between CNN and Fox, it is not a stretch to believe that he might have lied just to make them look bad. Or in retaliation for exposing a possibility he wished to remain private.

    I would be more interested in seeing a more blatant example that is not mere opinion or perception of their actions.

    Bottom line I have gathered news from all of these sources for many years, and of the group, I can say that I trust Fox a lot more than than any MSM. And this is not due to any ideological stance or party affiliation. It is what I have observed and then verified over the years. I have been, and always will be one of those dreaded Independents.

  85. 01/22/2010Black Lion says:

    More on Nathan Deal….

    “Deal tries to pawn it off on his constituents. I don’t buy it. While some of them may believe the myth that Obama was born in Kenya and he may have been approached about it, Deal should know well enough to separate fact from fiction. I’m sure his constituents care much more about issues that actually matter. For him to continue questioning it, going as far to write the White House about the issue is ridiculous and it should make his constituents question his ability to serve in office.”

    “Deal says that this shouldn’t been “an issue in the governor’s race.” I disagree because it brings his capability to effectively serve into question. Given the challenges that the next Governor of Georgia will face, his attention should be on matters where he may actually make a difference, such as the state’s water crisis and budget problems. Chasing half-cocked conspiracies that really have no place in public discourse is a disservice to, not on his constituents, but to all the citizens of Georgia.”

    http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2010/01/nathan_deal_georgias_embarrass.html

  86. 01/22/2010brygenon says:

    Losing plaintiff slcraig wrote:

    brygenon says:
    …allegiance and subjection…

    This is what is sooooo very sad about your continual reliance on WKA and ‘Ol Judge Gray.

    I’m relying on is the U.S Supreme Court. Elspeth had written, “Until someone WITH AUTHORITY tells me that the term ‘natural born citizen’ means […]” (emphasis in original), so I’m citing the authority.

    In British Law the subject/citizen OWES allegiance to the Crown whether he cares to or not and REGARDLESS of the subject/citizens sentiments he his held under ’subjection’.

    Are you saying that the revolution was NOT fought to establish a NEW form of government where the Citizens would be the Sovereign and the Government would be under subjection to the People/Citizens?

    No, I’m saying the U.S. Supreme Court qualifies as “WITH AUTHORITY”, and they explained that “natural born citizen” means a citizen from birth. You may not like their decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but it is the precedent whether you like it or not.

    You need to study the history of English citizenship and the CLASS structure that was written into Law and Codified into the English Common Law.

    Mr. Craig, I prefer arguments that *win* — in other words, not yours.

    I would also question as to where in WKA it states that it Amends a Clause of the Constitution that was NOT a subject of the case…?

    Reminds me of something the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit wrote: “it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal”.

  87. 01/22/2010Loren says:

    elspeth and Phil,

    But what YOU fail to grasp is that the entire ‘Orbita Dicta’ hullabaloo expressed so verbosely has no more value or force than an opinion piece by Air America.

    If you would read the decision, you would see that it was NOT obiter dicta at all. The court’s holding as to the meaning of “natural born citizen” was, rather the rationes decidendi of the decision.

    Look, there are only two sections sections of the opinion, and the second is not only entitled “Natural Born Citizen,” but it goes on for just shy of nine pages. And the court’s analysis and conclusion as to the definition feeds directly into its holding. It’s not dicta.

    The case was dismissed on the grounds of Jurisdiction and Standing and the Sua Sponte Orbita Dicta by the court is MOOT by definition.

    Now I’m sure you haven’t read the court’s opinion. The lower court did NOT dismiss the case on the grounds of standing. At all. The defendant didn’t ask for the case to be dismissed on standing. “Standing” does not even APPEAR in the Court of Appeals decision. You simply just made that up out of thin air.

    Rather, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit on three separate grounds. First, on the grounds that it was moot under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1). Second, that the suit failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Third, on the grounds of laches. These are three separate and independent grounds for dismissal, and only the first ground is a jurisdictional ground.

    Moreover, the Court of Appeals only concerned itself with the second ground for dismissal, the failure to state a claim. See Footnote 2. Again, look at the decision: they uphold the dismissal, but NOT on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction. So again, you’re flat-out wrong.

    Yes, that is correct. The Indiana Court never considered any petitioned question regarding the constitutional eligibility of the President. They merely dismissed the Ankeny v. Daniels case and opined a bit regarding citizenship.

    No they didn’t. Like I said above, the Court of Appeals spends almost nine pages analyzing the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen.” It is not an aside; it is central to upholding the dismissal. That’s why they spend nine pages on it. That’s what page 18 is all about, explaining how the plaintiff’s definition of “natural born citizen” is meritless, and does not give rise to a legitimate complaint.

  88. 01/22/2010Manchurian Messiah says:

    MR. PHIL –

    “They’re out ta get me

    They won’t catch me

    I’m innocent

    They won’t break me”

    MM – Credit Guns N’ Roses Music BMI.

    P.S. NATURAL BORN JOE HAS “GOT MY BACK.” WE ARE PLANNING TO GO ON HOLIDAY TO FLORIDA NEXT WEEK! IF WE COME TO THE 13TH COLONY, I’LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO MEET ME!! I HAVE VERY LITTLE AFFILIATION WITH THE NEGRO SOUTH, BUT I CAN TALK THE TALK AS NEEDED.

    YOU SEE, I AM OF ROYAL BLOOD…AND THEY ARE BEGOTTEN OF SLAVES.

  89. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    brygenon says:
    January 22, 2010 at 5:25 pm

    No, I’m saying the U.S. Supreme Court qualifies as “WITH AUTHORITY”, and they explained that “natural born citizen” means a citizen from birth. You may not like their decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but it is the precedent whether you like it or not.


    Please SHOW me the words that states that the decision in WKA made WKA a NBC for A2S1C5 purposes.

    Never mind, you can NOT. The case was to determine if WKA was a ‘citizen’, which was affirmed.

    The judgement DID NOT SAY WKA was a natural born citizen in spite of your inability to understand that the court did not say they ‘affirmed’ more than WKA asked.

    The CONSTITUTION its-self makes the distinction between NBC and Citizen, and as much as ‘Ol Judge Gray tried, he did not Amend the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment did not Amend A2S1C5 and the FF’s wrote the Clause to keep 1st generation foreigners out of the office and the ‘0’ is a 1st generation Foreign Dual-Citizen.

    Deal with it.

  90. 01/22/2010brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    The Indiana Court never considered any petitioned question regarding the constitutional eligibility of the President. They merely dismissed the Ankeny v. Daniels case and opined a bit regarding citizenship.

    And that’s where the opposition would like to think happened, that somehow this lower Court actually made a ruling of some sort regarding presidential eligibility. Yet, let’s be consistent: if no federal Court has jurisdiction to even question such matters (read: quo warranto in DC), then a State-based Court would have even less such room to make a call.

    But, again — and this point cannot be emphasized enough — they were merely dismissing a case because they couldn’t possibly grant relief, and could not grant any anecdotal relief with respect to their opinion either, which, even if they could, would only hold sway in the great State of Indiana.

    That’s a great example of how these fringe theories persist in face of all the evidence. As a first glance one might think the eligibility deniers insist on the answers in the form of a court ruling despite the courts disclaiming jurisdiction, but really they do so *because* the courts lack jurisdiction. Their questions have been answered over and over, but they’ve adapted the rules in their heads to exclude answers available from the real world. Thus they can cling to a ludicrous theory forever. Individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design, but the pattern is familiar to those of us who study such things.

    Having said all that, I’ve already promulgated the “teachable moment” back when Barnett v. Obama was originally dismissed by Judge Carter — and that was a federal Court. In that particular opinion, Judge Carter actually left wide open a door through which claims on eligibility could theoretically be brought before a Court of competent jurisdiction, but because — among other things — the petition he was hearing asked him to essentially remove a President from office (something blatantly unconstitutional), the case was thrown out.

    So, it’s quite obvious — and on the record — that while many in the opposition would like to go on ad nauseum about the Ankeny case, they conveniently forget the Barnett case, quite clearly because the latter case provides substantial grounds upon which relief could theoretically be granted in a future election.

    What’s obvious and on the record is that *Phil* stopped covering Barnett v. Obama (formerly known as Keyes v. Obama). http://www.therightsideoflife.com/category/2008-election/ There have been a bunch more filings since October, and we obots have been all over them, but only a little of that appeared here. We’d love to hammer Barnett v. Obama some more if Phil wants to take it up again. Same for Rhodes v. Gates.

    Now that we’re discussing it, on the issue of who is a natural born citizen, judge Carter noted:

    [Quoting Barnett v. Obama:]

    Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).

    I haven’t made much of that because I don’t have access to a law library and have not read the cited article. Still, just given the context of the citation, this Court doesn’t seem any more sympathetic to the Donofrio/Apuzzo/Ankeny/Taitz theory than was the Court of Appeals of Indiana.

  91. 01/22/2010Linda says:

    What is obvious to me is that we have all these koolaide drinkers who claim to know the law, when in fact they have NO clue of it because they completely rely on statist professors, lawyers & judges (who either brushed off this learning as trivial nonsense as Blackstone did or skipped the subject entirely) as their sole source of information.

    God forbid they would ever open a book and actually learn the history of common law because if they ever did, their brains might explode.

    Jan 21, 2010: 1st amendment upheld, now onto A1S8C4, the 14th & A2S1C5.

    YES, the originalist are back in FULL armour! Let immigration reform commence so we may have the platform in which to bring all these usurpations to light.

  92. 01/22/2010Phil says:

    brygenon,

    That’s a great example of how these fringe theories persist in face of all the evidence. As a first glance one might think the eligibility deniers insist on the answers in the form of a court ruling despite the courts disclaiming jurisdiction, but really they do so *because* the courts lack jurisdiction. Their questions have been answered over and over, but they’ve adapted the rules in their heads to exclude answers available from the real world. Thus they can cling to a ludicrous theory forever. Individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design, but the pattern is familiar to those of us who study such things.

    I think you were the very one who said that I shouldn’t be the one attempting to craft a position for you, yet this entire paragraph does just that for myself under the guise of not being explicitly directed at me for the sake of plausible deniability.

    The bottom line here is that the only denying going on is that you consistently and persistently refuse to tolerate (notice I did not say, “accept”) what someone such as myself has to say. In the case of this issue, regardless of your obvious bias that you think the President absolutely is eligible for the office which he holds (I’ve consistently stated that I don’t know, which is not to say that I’m denying anything at all), you refuse to listen to legitimate arguments about Ankeny v. Daniels.

    I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that the Judges making the final denial were not addressing natural born citizenship with respect to presidential eligibility — they cannot do that, for reasons I’ve already explained. They can, however, opine as much as they wish about citizenship in general.

    As I’ve said many, many comments ago, individuals such as you and I will likely never come to terms on this issue. The difference between you and I is that I’m willing to agree to disagree.

    -Phil

  93. 01/22/2010sharon2 says:

    Phil,

    I have searched for a copy of the trial court’s decision in Ankeny v. Daniels and can’t find it. I don’t see it on your site but could be missing the obvious. Can you direct me? (or can anyone give a link?)

  94. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    Phil says:
    January 22, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    …They can, however, opine as much as they wish about citizenship in general.

    ___________________________________________________________________

    What I find fascinating with the ‘0’ supporters and the Judges is that they so cavalierly ignore the structure of citizenship that is implicit within the body of the Constitution inclusive of the 14th Amendment.

    The Constitution made the Founding generation that were citizens of the Colony States ‘citizens’ and with the words of the Grandfather Clause made themselves eligible for President. Beyond the Founding generation no 1st generation citizens, naturalized were to be eligible

    The 14th Amendment made citizenship possible to those born to parent(S) that were not already citizens, but not being of the Founding Generation are NOT ‘made’ NBC’s being a 1st generation citizen.

    Persons born of two citizen parents derive their citizenship ‘naturally’ from their parents without the need of the 14th Amendment or Statute and if born within the Jurisdiction of the US are NBC’s.

    It is true that Vattel helps put the structure in context, Birth of a Nation, National Security and the importance of the Family Unit to the health of a civil society.

    And I suppose it is the last item that so frustrates those opposed to the Constitutional structure of ‘citizenship’, being a coalition of the Homeless, Homosexuals, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Single Parenthood, Anti-God, Marxist-Communist Collectivists, Anti-Capitalist.

    Well, maybe not fascinating. Sad. Sad that I am put in a position of defending what I have taken for granted all my life, totally unaware that there was such a large conspiracy afoot from within.

    Reinstate the Smith Act!

  95. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    Former Marine With Ties To Right-Wing Movements Charged With Child Rape, Possessing Grenade Launcher
    Zachary Roth | January 22, 2010, 11:16AM
    “An ex-military man with ties to the Tea Party and militia movements has been charged in separate complaints with raping a minor and with possessing an unregistered grenade launcher.

    Charles Dyer, a former U.S. Marine who served in Iraq, was arrested January 12 in Oklahoma on the rape charge. A child had told sexual-abuse experts about a January 2nd incident at Dyer’s home.

    But while sheriff’s deputies were at Dyer’s home making the arrest, according to court documents, they found several firearms and what they believed to be a Colt M-203, 40-millimeter grenade launcher.”

    more here: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/former_marine_with_ties_to_right-wing_movements_ch.php?ref=mblt

  96. 01/22/2010Sue says:

    Sharon2,

    http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/8640993/folder/136233

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

    Jack Ryan has most of the birther lawsuits on scribd.

  97. 01/22/2010brygenon says:

    Phil wrote:

    brygenon [wrote:],

    That’s a great example of how these fringe theories persist in face of all the evidence. As a first glance one might think the eligibility deniers insist on the answers in the form of a court ruling despite the courts disclaiming jurisdiction, but really they do so *because* the courts lack jurisdiction. Their questions have been answered over and over, but they’ve adapted the rules in their heads to exclude answers available from the real world. Thus they can cling to a ludicrous theory forever. Individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design, but the pattern is familiar to those of us who study such things.

    I think you were the very one who said that I shouldn’t be the one attempting to craft a position for you, yet this entire paragraph does just that for myself under the guise of not being explicitly directed at me for the sake of plausible deniability.

    I don’t think you understood what I wrote there. The position I put you on was that of insisting on an answer in form of a court ruling, and I think you took that position in the comment I was following: You discounted the clear answer from the Court of Appeals of Indiana arguing that while it in their opinion it was not part of their actual ruling.

    I also say that you insist on a certain form of evidence *because* that form of evidence can not exist, but I do not attribute that position to you. In fact I wrote, “individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design”.

    The bottom line here is that the only denying going on is that you consistently and persistently refuse to tolerate (notice I did not say, “accept”) what someone such as myself has to say. In the case of this issue, regardless of your obvious bias that you think the President absolutely is eligible for the office which he holds (I’ve consistently stated that I don’t know, which is not to say that I’m denying anything at all), you refuse to listen to legitimate arguments about Ankeny v. Daniels.

    I’ve shown no respect for your stance, that’s true. I’ve been clear about that all along. I study fringe-thinking; if I thought there were anything real to this eligibility issue then the matter would fall outside that interest.

    That you claim not to know if President Obama is eligible is no refutation of my analysis. Lots of 9/11 kooks claim to be open-mindedly investigating whether the attack was an “inside job”. Many Holocaust deniers claim we simply don’t know if it really happened, and they’re doing historical research into this open question.

  98. 01/22/2010theOriginalist says:

    Sue says:
    January 22, 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Former Marine With Ties To Right-Wing Movements Charged With Child Rape, Possessing Grenade Launcher

    What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

  99. 01/22/2010slcraig says:

    brygenon says:
    January 22, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    Well, since you like your history rewritten, try this.

    Follow along and think of the ‘0s’ Grandparents, the Dunhams, not as the Communist Socialist Activist/sympathizers we’ve heard about, but White Separatist members of the KKK and little Stanley Ann was a budding Skin-Head when she meet the Nephew of the South African President, Charles Roberts Swart, while he was matriculating at the National War College. Push came to shove and nine months later out pops the little ‘0-skinhead’ but the actual place of his birth and the documentation is a bit suspect and by no means or money is it made public.. But the Swart had to go back home to South Africa to help put down an uprising and left little Stanley Ann and the oh so much like his daddy little’0’ to fend for themselves. The Swart happened to die the same year as his Uncle in 1982.

    A few years go by and little Annie marries an Israeli National Christian Jew evangelist that had come to the US on a student visa to study Religious Anthropology and soon they go hop-scotching around the religious ruins of the middle east, Greece and Rome with the little ‘0’ in tow. While in Israel the little ‘0’ goes to a school for Israeli citizens only.

    Back in the States at the College and University the little ‘0’ attends he studies Religious Law, Real Estate and Stock Brokerage and Colonial and Revolutionary War Era American history.

    Now, is this White separatist skin head Capitalist religious zealot a NBC?

  100. 01/23/2010misanthropicus says:

    “Yet another sign of a restless left.”

    A total, total MUST SEE, hysterically funny this video made by, of all! TPM with Obama pushing his reform – his sales (failing) technique made public:

    @ TPM via POLITICO –
    http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/TPM_mocks_Obama.html

  101. 01/23/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Sue:

    […] Former Marine With Ties To Right-Wing Movements Charged With Child Rape, Possessing Grenade Launcher […]

    Sue, you again have a bout of, alas! misfiring ingenuity – dear, you better get a grip of this, ’cause one day you may hurt y/self –

    As far as your rabid white heterosupremacist expose, I’m afraid that mine (& AP) will trump yours (in case Phil will allow its display) –

    Blaring headline:

    “Super-fister With Strong, Passionate Connections With NAMBLA And The Anti-heterosexual Movement Keeps Nice Job In Obama’s White House As USA School Safety Czar” –

    “Kevin Jennings, an anti-heterosexual activist with strong connections with he NAMBLA and other rectal movements in this country has received again from president Obama a vote of confidence. President Obama found nothing wrong in mister Jennings advocating FISTING among grade schoolers and encouraging open-minded presentations and workshops in schools regarding this one-foot-deep rectal exploration technique which he (mister Jennings) describes as innocent, pleasurable and benefitting the country.

    “As long as rubber gloves and lubricant are involved in this,” mister Jennings, a close friend of congressman Barney Frank and of White House chief of staff Rahm “ballerina” Emmanuel, “kids are safe and grow with a better understanding of their sexuality and of the oppression the Democrat Party is fighting.”

    While some parents might find mister Jennings rectal recommendations, the White House appears to be completly behind this self-discovery enterprise, and president Obama himself has several times shielded mister Jennings from the criticism that, not surprisingly, came only form rabid conservatives and enemies of progress. […]

    Want more?

    Regards -

  102. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    slcraig says:
    January 22, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Now, is this White separatist skin head Capitalist religious zealot a NBC?

    What a bizarre question, of course he is – born in the US = NBC. Being a nasty right wing extremist doesn’t interfere with NBC status. But your question seems to betray your entire agenda – don’t like Obama’s politics, surely he can’t be one of us?

  103. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    BRY said: That’s a great example of how these fringe theories persist in face of all the evidence. As a first glance one might think the eligibility deniers insist on the answers in the form of a court ruling despite the courts disclaiming jurisdiction, but really they do so *because* the courts lack jurisdiction. Their questions have been answered over and over, but they’ve adapted the rules in their heads to exclude answers available from the real world. Thus they can cling to a ludicrous theory forever. Individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design, but the pattern is familiar to those of us who study such things.

    Bry that is a perfect description of the goalpost shifting that is Phil’s stock in trade. On the birth certificate issue, he has settled on one piece of information that is not available, and claims that until he sees it, he cannot know whether the BC is genuine. That is, until he sees the correspondence from Obama requesting a certified BC, he allows himself to imagine the document we have all seen photographed is not the one issued by the Hawaiian authorities, and that the statements issued confirming Obama’s status could somehow refer to another document. Of course, I don’t consider for a second he actually believes that – but he needs some wriggle room to keep this blog alive. His claim to be an open minded agnostic – “I just don’t know” – has the same authority as a WND press release.

    Similarly with every court decision that goes against the birthers (63 and counting), because the precise words Phil would like to see aren’t used, he claims the issues have not been settled. It’s not hard to imagine if the precise words eventually are used, another set of hurdles would soon be placed in the way.

  104. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    Well what a surprise. Seems Deal doesn’t have any problems with the birth certificate, and is just pandering to birthers.

    http://washingtonindependent.com/74494/rep-nathan-deal-asked-about-birtherism-in-gubernatorial-debate

  105. 01/23/2010Sue says:

    Mis,

    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/unraveling-the-rights-false-attacks-on-kevin-jennings/blog-214873/
    Unraveling the Right’s false attacks on Kevin Jennings

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912150017

    Ronald Reagan was ahead of his time.

    http://online.logcabin.org/about/history.html
    “Many prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties were hesitant about standing up to the bigotry of Briggs and his allies. That’s when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Reagan declared that the initiative “is not needed to protect our children – we have the legal protection now.””

    Reagan went further, detailing the dangers of passing such a measure. “It has the potential for real mischief,” the former governor explained. “What if an overwrought youngster, disappointed by bad grades, imagined it was the teacher’s fault and struck out by accusing the teacher of advocating homosexuality? Innocent lives could be ruined.””

    “Reagan’s forceful opposition helped defeat the Briggs Initiative. In November 1978, voters rejected the Briggs Initiative by more than a million votes. Even in conservative Orange County, Briggs’ home base, the initiative lost. Long-time Democratic gay activist David Mixner met with Reagan in 1978 to personally lobby him on the Briggs initiative, recalling, “Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being. He turned opinion around and saved that election for us,” Mixner said. “We would have been in deep trouble. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it.””

  106. 01/23/2010Sue says:

    “What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?”

    News.

  107. 01/23/2010theOriginalist says:

    Sue says:
    January 23, 2010 at 3:58 am

    News.

    ——

    Frosty Florida sets record low temperatures

    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/extremes/2010-01-11-florida-cold_N.htm

    Weather.

  108. 01/23/2010elspeth says:

    Phil,

    I owe you an apology. When I told Loren that this blog would have died if he were right about the claim regarding Ankeny, I should have said this topic would have died.

    You keep us informed on so many important topics, I should not have said the eligibility issue getting cleared up would have killed your blog.

    I truly appreciate all you do in maintaining this blog, and I am sorry to infer that the other topics are not worthy of this blog’s existence.

    I’m sorry. I can only attribute to the “misspeak” to the frustration that comes from being told I’m wrong when every fiber in my being tells me something is wrong with the picture regarding Obama’s concealment of records. It’s like someone telling me I shouldn’t feel a certain way because they don’t think I should.

    Thanks for all you do!

    elspeth

    ————

    To Loren, BL, and the others who feel the eligibility issue has been settled:

    I will apoligize to you, too, if a federal authority states that the meaning of “natural born citizen” includes citizens with a non-American parent or that Stanley Ann Dunham was old enough at the time of Obama’s birth to provide Obama with NBC status.

    From all that I have read and understand, these are the main issue regarding the eligibility issue. The rest appears to be a smoke screen.

    elspeth

  109. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    elsbeth, do you understand the difference between concealing records and not having access to records due to privacy laws? Can you pinpoint which records you believe have been made available by previous presidents when in office, that Obama had not made public.

  110. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 22, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    What is obvious to me is that we have all these koolaide drinkers who claim to know the law, when in fact they have NO clue of it because they completely rely on statist professors, lawyers & judges (who either brushed off this learning as trivial nonsense as Blackstone did or skipped the subject entirely) as their sole source of information.

    Linda the fact that you view judges so dismissively does not change the fact that they make the law. You cannot pick and choose which laws to believe in because those making them are not sufficiently ideologically pure in your view. I guess you think abortions are illegal, with those statist jurists deciding R vs W. What you are suggesting is actually quite stunning. You seem to actually believe that your amateur hour research over the last year trumps the life’s work of hundreds of constitutional scholars that have actually been TRAINED in the law. Your arrogance is astounding – your delusions are troubling.

  111. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    No, Sue, I mean the trial court opinion. I have seen and read the decision of the appeal’s court. I want to see the first decision.

  112. 01/23/2010AnotherReader says:

    Ahh the arguments of the left. Classic. They seek out bad actors who associate themselves in any way shape or form with your current position or ideology and then attempt to make the claim that you are just like them. Guilt by association. Do you suppose they would support that argument if we used that in a court of law? What a lazy argument. With a little research, everyone would be guilty of most heinous atrocities.

  113. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    “I guess you think abortions are illegal…” (bystander)

    They were at one time. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision changed that. We all know that with a different mix of Justices, Roe could be overturned. Are you calling the 4 dissenters on the Court loony right wing racist tea baggers?

    As I have said before, there have been dissenters in major cases who are well educated in the law. I think very strong arguments can be made that the framers never intended the definition of NBC as regards the presidency to be expanded the way the Brown opinion desires. (the appeals court would clearly extend the definition even further than the facts presented in Ankeny) Just as Brygenon seems to think the legislation being proposed in Arizona, should it pass, will cease to exist after 2012, the issue of the definition of presidential eligibility won’t die after Obama. We have terror cells infiltrating our country, and the members are patient. They will wait years and years for just the right time and place to strike. Even a generation. We are making it easy for their children to be deemed NBC and eligible for the presidency. Of course we have traitors like Adam Gadahn who is a NBC under the strictest construction. But his traitorous acts are out in the open. This is not to say that anyone not born on US soil of two American parents in inherently not trustworthy. There are lots of trustworthy people who even in the analysis of the opposition (although I could be wrong- maybe you think any naturalized citizen is eligible) who simply aren’t eligible for the presidency.

    The arguments can be made that either the Court has been wrong in its trend for expansion of the definition, or that there is another class of NBC pertaining to the presidency. The opposition would deny that anyone has the right to even attempt to make the case. The shameful part of that is the smear campaign that has been waged. If you say what about Obama and how he has been smeared? The president needs to be tough enough to handle whatever comes his way, including showing some papers that people he doesn’t like want to see.

  114. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    sharon2 says:
    January 23, 2010 at 10:19 am

    “I guess you think abortions are illegal…” (bystander)

    They were at one time. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision changed that. We all know that with a different mix of Justices, Roe could be overturned. Are you calling the 4 dissenters on the Court loony right wing racist tea baggers?

    Try and keep up – my point was precisely the opposite. No matter the make-up of the court – the law is the law. Linda doesn’t understand that.

  115. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    “Try and keep up – my point was precisely the opposite. No matter the make-up of the court – the law is the law.”

    And you are missing the point. The law can be changed through advocacy or reinterpreted.

  116. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    Of course it can, who claimed it can’t? But until it is changed it is the law. Linda is unable to accept that.

  117. 01/23/2010Black Lion says:

    Interesting article regarding the lawsuit against Chrysler and GM. It is kind of interesting that there is no mention of the President nor of Leo’s so called lawsuit. And also interesting is that most dealers seem to be going for arbitration….

    “United States fighting to get back their businesses — and in many cases their good names, tarnished by implications of poor performance — through an arbitration process that will begin next week.

    Chrysler and General Motors cut loose more than 2,000 dealers last year as part of their bankruptcy reorganization, but Congress is now forcing them to justify the closures after hearing so many stories of devastated families and communities.”

    “As of Friday afternoon, 915 dealers had filed to contest their termination, according to an executive with the American Arbitration Association, which is overseeing the review process. More than 400 were filed since Thursday and more were expected before the deadline of midnight Monday.”

    “Leonard Bellavia, a lawyer in Mineola, N.Y., who represents about 40 dealers who have filed for arbitration, said each dealer could expect to spend at least $30,000 challenging the companies’ decisions unless a settlement was reached before arbitration. The process must finish by mid-June.

    Those who lose will be out even more money and will have no further chance to appeal; winners can rejoin a company that didn’t want them any longer.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23dealer.html

  118. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    But until it is changed it is the law.

    – I said or reinterpreted. That is done through advocacy, which the opposition wants to stymie. Although Linda is not a lawyer, she has the mindset of one.

  119. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    I gave a reason as to why the mindset of the Indiana Court of Appeals is too extreme. Terror cells and the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism. Time is nothing to that philosophy. The extremists will take years to hatch an execute a plot. Infiltrating our government is a generational scheme. Have you seen what is going on in Britain?

    The NBC clause is by nature discriminatory, and it applies only to our president and vice-president for a reason. The opposition has become so politically correct that they want to deny the discriminatory essence.

  120. 01/23/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE bystander – returning to the core matter of this thread:

    […] No matter the make-up of the court – the law is the law. […]

    Yet laws can be changed, deleted, or new laws can be created to deal with existing loopholes in the larger legal canvas that regulates this nation’s activities…

    … like Burges’ bill, which will correct an existing loophole which allows unqualified and possibly dangerous presidential candidates to bypass the system and arrive at the helm of this country –

    By having in one, or more states laws like the one advanced by Burges, this danger will be eliminated –

    This is the substance of the discussion and you, as a card-carrying Obamaton deeply dislike this possibility because it may affect Obama, and so you make any effort to railroad the debate to legalistic paralysis –

    Burges’ bill will make for a very good law – and you and the left act when hearing about this like Dracula hearing the cathedral bells’ toll –

    Bystander, you wouldn’t spend time ratiocinating in this site if you weren’t concerned about Obama’s vulnerability in this matter – would you?

    So, doesn’t this mean that you put you emotional investment in Obama above the true interests and necessities of the country?
    Methinks so – and this doesn’t look very nice, buddy –
    But hey, what can we expect from someone whose Volvo 1973 is plastered by “What’s personal is political!”, “We want to change the world” and similar bumper stickers –

    Burges’ bill is excellent and it will became law – so you will have the opportunity to add on you Volvo the dictum you invoke: “The law is the law.” –

    Regards -

  121. 01/23/2010Sharon2 says:

    I wanted to add that of course the children of the terrorists’ children will be natural born, but I would hope that we will soon once again be a strong nation.

    Good points about the loophole being fixed Mis. The opposition seems to forget that the “constitutional scholars” agree that there is a problem with verification.

    Bye now.

  122. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    Sharon – I live in Britain, so yes, I have a pretty good handle on what is going on here, thank you.

    Mis – wrong on so many counts, not your buddy, 2003 Mercedez and 2005 BMW, have never had a car sticker in my life, and am an independent – have most often voted for UK conservatives. I am not remotely, not even slightly concerned that Obama is vulnerable on this issue – I post here for the pure pleasure of witnessing the daily birther epic fail.

    And Linda does not have the mindest of a lawyer – she fails the most basic test. She looks only for information that supports her already confirmed view – she ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts her.

  123. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    Of course it was so obvious that you live in Britain. Anyone could have figured that out. If you mentioned it before, then so sorry I missed it.

    “She looks only for information that supports her already confirmed view”

    Duh- I think most lawyers focus on the information that supports their case and distinguish the facts that do not. It’s called advocacy.

    “I post here for the pure pleasure of witnessing the daily birther epic fail.”

    Whatever floats your boat …

  124. 01/23/2010Linda says:

    qwerty said: Linda the fact that you view judges so dismissively does not change the fact that they make the law.

    That one statement shows just how ignorant you really are.

  125. 01/23/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE bystander:

    […] I am not remotely, not even slightly concerned that Obama is vulnerable on this issue – I post here for the pure pleasure of witnessing the daily birther epic fail. […]

    Bysta – Britain or Verhoiansk, Laputa or Ushuhaia, West Hollywood or Mombasa, you crashed again, buddy –

    You post here BECAUSE YOU ARE CONCERNED about dba Obama’s vulnerability under Burges’ incoming law – otherwise you would be doing something else, I tell you –

    On assignement or by personal initiative, you are a type who’s trying to deflect anything that might affect dba Obama – but no one’s buying your “platonic interest in birthers’ fail” theory –

    Burges’ bill is excellent, will became law, so you better save your energies for the days when dba Obama will face the law –

    Regards –

    PS: Oh, since you claim that you are a dispasionate observer in this matters – aren’t you the Obamaton who tried a few months ago to frisbee on this side the news that Obama’s TRUE KENYAN BC was eventually identified, and that Obama File posted it and is 100% behind it?

    Hehhehe – it didn’t work, buddy, no one bought your attempt at highjacking an old hoax and announce it here as breaking news), and Obama File didn’t fall for that hoax either –

    Hehehehe – with so impressive credential as slyness goes, why don’t you invite people to Politijab or Bad Fiction? Wow! That dude Bystander, he can be really devious – Hehehehe –

    Regards -

  126. 01/23/2010Linda says:

    bystander: And Linda does not have the mindest of a lawyer – she fails the most basic test. She looks only for information that supports her already confirmed view – she ignores the overwhelming evidence that contradicts her.

    Where you fail your most basic test is the fact that I do not use bias sources for my information. I use historical archives not trolling liberal blogs. I have repeastedly asked the ‘O’ supporters to bring me information not taken from a a liberal site. Bring me new sources not yet cited and taken out of context. They have all failed miserably and only come back with bloviating nonsense as you just have.

    Last evening I finished reading another lovely 1819 commentary from the UK archives on the history of England & the Saxon & Roman influences that formed your laws. The Saxons were the original English citizens (free men) until the Norman conquest in 1068 after which they were forced into subjectship of the king, losing their individual free status.

    What do you know of this Saxon period of Englands history? What do you know of Englands rich history where men were free citizens, not subjects to the crown?

  127. 01/23/2010kj says:

    bystander said

    Obama is dealing with it right now by completely ignoring the mildly irritating flea that is the birthers, whilst getting on with his job of being the duly elected President.

    Let us play “change a word” in your statement:

    Obama is dealing with it right now by completely ignoring the mildly irritating flea that is the tea partiers, whilst getting on with his job of being the duly elected President.

    or

    Obama is dealing with it right now by completely ignoring the mildly irritating flea that is the Scott Brown election, whilst getting on with his job of being the duly elected President.

    or

    Obama is dealing with it right now by completely ignoring the mildly irritating flea that is the opposition to Obamacare, whilst getting on with his job of being the duly elected President.

    Why don’t you chose a word to insert.

    If he can ignore the phenomena of tea partiers and Scott Brown’s election and opposition to Obamacare, etc. that are so obviously parts of the real political world, what other parts of reality is he also ignoring? Is he delusional? Does he care about the United States? about ordinary citizens beyond his union base?

    Trust and credibility in the public’s eye are the lifeblood of any politician (“consent of the governed,” over here). As he continues to lose public trust and makes incredible statements, more people may begin to question his eligibility.

    You said that you lived Britain. Did you say that you were a British citizen? Or do you work in the U. S. Foreign Service there? If a British citizen, what do you think of your national health service?

  128. 01/23/2010brygenon says:

    slcraig says:

    brygenon says:
    January 22, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    […]

    No, I didn’t say any bit of what Mr. Craig had there.

  129. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    PS: Oh, since you claim that you are a dispasionate observer in this matters – aren’t you the Obamaton who tried a few months ago to frisbee on this side the news that Obama’s TRUE KENYAN BC was eventually identified, and that Obama File posted it and is 100% behind it?

    No. I haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about, and have never visited Obama File. And I didn’t say I was a dispassionate observer. Another fact free post from mis.

  130. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    I love the national health service – it is currently saving my life.

  131. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    Linda you fail the test in the same way Orly does – which is why she gets humiliated every time she goes to court – because she ignores established precedent. Even Leo admits it’s an “exotic legal theory” with no support amongst jurists.

    Are you going to somehow argue that Saxon history is going to prove Obama ineligible? Just when I think you can’t get any more ridiculous,you outdo yourself.

  132. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    You said that you lived Britain. Did you say that you were a British citizen? Or do you work in the U. S. Foreign Service there? If a British citizen, what do you think of your national health service?

    What an odd question. You do know that there are Americans that live in Britain that do not work for the US Foreign Service don’t you? Like my children for instance. Natural Born US citizens with British parents. Watch Linda’s head explode.

  133. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    Plus Linda – the Norman Conquest was in 1066 not 1068, and the Saxons were invaders, not original English citizens, whatever you mean by that. I think if you want to debate British history, you’re going to have to do a little better. After all, we’ve got quite a lot of it.

  134. 01/23/2010Phil says:

    sharon2,

    Phil,

    I have searched for a copy of the trial court’s decision in Ankeny v. Daniels and can’t find it. I don’t see it on your site but could be missing the obvious. Can you direct me? (or can anyone give a link?)

    Sure thing:

    Category: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/category/2008-election/ankeny-v-daniels/

    Posting (well worth a re-read): http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/11/16/eligibility-update-ankeny-v-daniels-and-citizenship-sen-frist-on-birthers-kerchner-ad/

    Decision: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.in.gov%2Fjudiciary%2Fopinions%2Fpdf%2F11120903.ebb.pdf

    -Phil

  135. 01/23/2010bystander says:

    KJ you can change as many words as you like. Doesn’t alter what I said.

  136. 01/23/2010Phil says:

    brygenon,

    I don’t think you understood what I wrote there. The position I put you on was that of insisting on an answer in form of a court ruling, and I think you took that position in the comment I was following: You discounted the clear answer from the Court of Appeals of Indiana arguing that while it in their opinion it was not part of their actual ruling.

    I also say that you insist on a certain form of evidence *because* that form of evidence can not exist, but I do not attribute that position to you. In fact I wrote, “individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design”.

    If you want me to understand what you were trying to say with the above, quickly become more succinct and synopsize once more — unless you think I’m so fringe that I just simply wouldn’t get it. Your choice.

    I’ve shown no respect for your stance, that’s true. I’ve been clear about that all along. I study fringe-thinking; if I thought there were anything real to this eligibility issue then the matter would fall outside that interest.

    Wow. Incredible double-speak (Saul Alinsky would be proud). “I don’t think there’s ‘anything real’ to this eligibility issue, else I’d spend time doing something else.” Nice. I guess I just don’t understand your views on a non-issue that is so not important that you continue to spend so much time investigating.

    No, actually, I do. You have to treat this as an academic exercise, else you’d treat much of this seriously. And you dare not do that, else you’d have to rethink your inability to question authority.

    That you claim not to know if President Obama is eligible is no refutation of my analysis.

    I never claimed that my claim in any way made your opinion better or worse than mine; merely different.

    Lots of 9/11 kooks claim to be open-mindedly investigating whether the attack was an “inside job”. Many Holocaust deniers claim we simply don’t know if it really happened, and they’re doing historical research into this open question.

    This one will really set you off (and it should be fun watching your head explode, too). I’m not going to claim that I know what happened with the 9/11 attacks either. However, based on Occam’s razor, I would say that, at the very least, whoever inspected the World Trade Center for occupancy back in the 1970s (I suppose it was) didn’t do a very good job.

    -Phil

  137. 01/23/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    While I cannot control what individuals say about me or my site on other forums or sites, I can at least correct the record on my own site, as opposed to letting such twisted comments define my opinion for me:

    Bry that is a perfect description of the goalpost shifting that is Phil’s stock in trade. On the birth certificate issue, he has settled on one piece of information that is not available, and claims that until he sees it, he cannot know whether the BC is genuine.

    For a lying President, I now have anecdotal reason, for me, to question the legitimacy of an online image (of which there have been several making various claims) that claims to be Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth (not a birth certificate). I have requested to see either the receipt of the transaction that procured the document, and/or testimony from the person who actually made the request.

    That’s not “moving goalposts;” that’s validating that what’s posted on the Internet by a third-party web site is legitimate.

    That is, until he sees the correspondence from Obama requesting a certified BC, he allows himself to imagine the document we have all seen photographed is not the one issued by the Hawaiian authorities, and that the statements issued confirming Obama’s status could somehow refer to another document.

    First of all, I have seen where someone has claimed to have photographed the alleged physical document (though straight-on pictures and/or scans would have been much better to have been done. Yet, the individuals who performed the photography weren’t credentialed in document examination, so I don’t blame them).

    Secondly, there is zero evidence that any Hawaiian authority has ever explicitly stated that the alleged online image of the COLB is, in fact, from their archives. They have merely stated that it looks “similar” to what they produce. Even links to which Dr. Krawetz has on his “Part 2″ web page will show this to be true.

    Of course, I don’t consider for a second he actually believes that – but he needs some wriggle room to keep this blog alive. His claim to be an open minded agnostic – “I just don’t know” – has the same authority as a WND press release.

    Sorry, I don’t get into mind-reading of what other individuals think; why some individuals try to embark on such an endeavor with me apparently shows that they refuse to allow any room that anyone could have legitimate questions about things. That is truly a sad state of affairs.

    And as far as keeping my blog alive, I still get thousands of hits, thankyouverylittle.

    Similarly with every court decision that goes against the birthers (63 and counting), because the precise words Phil would like to see aren’t used, he claims the issues have not been settled. It’s not hard to imagine if the precise words eventually are used, another set of hurdles would soon be placed in the way.

    The second sentence is another misguided endeavor into psychoanalysis of an anonymous web blogger, namely, me. Since nobody actually knows me beyond what I post or comment, one cannot possibly know what I’m otherwise thinking.

    Secondly, the eligibility issue has not been settled, nor has it ever actually been heard. Therefore, to suggest that the fact that Courts have dismissed cases based on legitimate technicalities prior to actually hearing the cases means that the Courts disagree with the subject matter at hand is not just wrong, it’s a gross misstatement of the facts and is really intellectually disingenuous.

    But, I never said anyone couldn’t hold a wrong opinion. Unlike most opposition commenters, I agree to disagree.

    -Phil

  138. 01/23/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    elsbeth, do you understand the difference between concealing records and not having access to records due to privacy laws? Can you pinpoint which records you believe have been made available by previous presidents when in office, that Obama had not made public.

    There is also no federal — or State law, for that matter — that says that we, the People cannot demand legitimate substantiation regarding the President.

    -Phil

  139. 01/23/2010Linda says:

    bystander,

    You come back nitpicking a typo error in years, if that’s all you have, I am most amused.

    Also, if you think you can understand & interpret early AMERICIAN common law aka the Constitution without learning the history of the English Saxons, you are more ignorant than I thought.

    Every reputable law school teaches Saxon history & Saxon law. It is the base of ALL British law, even after William & Norman. It was williams bringing Roman law that put the Brits under subjectship stripping the English of their freeman status.

    The three tribes, the Jutes, the English, and the
    Saxons, had not yet, apparently, advanced far enough
    in the idea of national unity to possess a separate
    general name, distinguishing them altogether from the
    other tribes of the Germanic stock. Most probably
    they did not regard themselves at this period as a
    single nation at all, or even as more closely bound to
    one another than to the surrounding and kindred
    tribes. They may have united at times for purposes
    of a special war ; but their union was merely analogous
    to that of two North American peoples, or two
    modern European nations, pursuing a common policy
    for awhile. At a later date, in Britain, the three
    tribes learned to call themselves collectively by the
    name of that one among them which earliest rose to
    supremacy the English; and the whole southern
    half of the island came to be known by their name
    as England.

    It was the Saxon law that the new English used, thereafter known as Anglo-Saxon law aka English common law.

    Enjoy your socialized utopia of ignorant bliss!

  140. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    “Even Leo admits it’s an “exotic legal theory” with no support amongst jurists.”

    So you are one of the ones using the twisted interpretation of his words? That is not what he meant at all. This was discussed already in a different thread.

  141. 01/23/2010sharon2 says:

    Leo’s words:

    “By now it should be clear that federal standing and political question doctrine issues will not yield to exotic conceptual legal theories. As predicted, the courts will not bend to anyone that precedent does not bestow judicial invitation upon. 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.”

    My response from way back on the issue:

    No, you are wrong. He was referring to the other cases that could not get over the legal hurdles as exotic theories. He has even said that if one of the other cases were to win, it would be a detriment to our Constitution. You are simply wrong. Don’t you know enough about Leo to realize that even in quitting, he would never call his own theory anything but completely clear and convincing? You are taking that line out of context.

    ********

    It is so obvious that he is referring to as exotic are eligibility cases filed after the election. Leo clearly thinks that only a quo warranto brought action brought under the DC statute would work after the election. He explained in detail why: Phil has the posts here in the archives.

    Rethink your posting.

  142. 01/23/2010KJ says:

    bystander says:
    January 23, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    KJ you can change as many words as you like. Doesn’t alter what I said.

    Did you mean by your reply that you personally view the US citizens that oppose Obamacare, the birthers, the successful election by Massachusetts voters of Scott Brown, the rising tea party movement, etc, as mildly irritating fleas not worthy of Mr. O’s acknowledgment?

    Scott Brown’s election has been called a political earthquake, and it will shake the White House either in 2010 or 2012. Mr. Brown is the first Massachusetts non-democrat to go to the Senate in over 30 years, and the Senator who can be the cloture key to lock up the Senate. The tea partiers had a big hand in helping him to win the election replacing one of the most liberal Senators ever.

    Mr. Brown was elected on his promise to oppose Obamacare as well as to keep America safe. People are fed up with Congress’ secret negotiations, middle of the night votes, bribes with taxpayer money and unwise out of control spending. Ditto the czars in the White House, the attempts to manipulate the Census, the Chicago way of politics, Acorn’s role in the government, Holder’s approach in the Justice Department, O’s dithering and blaming.

    Many folks here are aware of the eligibility question and it is not just the birth certificate. As voters choke on a growing volume of lies told about and by the One, the eligibility question grows more legitimate. The eligibility question will not fade but will be asked more loudly if the administration continues on its current path labeled self destruct. If Mr. O is not eligible, he can be blackmailed; a President susceptible to blackmail is a major security risk for the country.

    Just a suggestion: Be cautious viewing news and op-eds from the States. Like the Massachusetts voters, many US citizens have learned that the Main Stream Media (NYT, major TV networks, etc.) has not been giving the public the full story, not even all of the facts. Are the papers and telly over there repeating what is said in the US MSMedia?

    bystander, you claim to be in Britain. Forgive my curiosity and pray answer my question if it is not too personal. Are you a Brit? a resident? from the commonwealth? or a US expat?

  143. 01/24/2010brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    I don’t think you understood what I wrote there. The position I put you on was that of insisting on an answer in form of a court ruling, and I think you took that position in the comment I was following: You discounted the clear answer from the Court of Appeals of Indiana arguing that while it in their opinion it was not part of their actual ruling.

    I also say that you insist on a certain form of evidence *because* that form of evidence can not exist, but I do not attribute that position to you. In fact I wrote, “individual fringe-theorists rarely if ever understand the design”.

    If you want me to understand what you were trying to say with the above, quickly become more succinct and synopsize once more — unless you think I’m so fringe that I just simply wouldn’t get it. Your choice.

    O.K., but I doubt you’ll like it any better if you think of it as being about you. Succinctly: the deluded are not experts on the delusion. One might learn a lot about the delusion listening to the deluded, but they are specimens not instructors.

    I’ve shown no respect for your stance, that’s true. I’ve been clear about that all along. I study fringe-thinking; if I thought there were anything real to this eligibility issue then the matter would fall outside that interest.

    Wow. Incredible double-speak (Saul Alinsky would be proud). “I don’t think there’s ‘anything real’ to this eligibility issue, else I’d spend time doing something else.” Nice. I guess I just don’t understand your views on a non-issue that is so not important that you continue to spend so much time investigating.

    No, actually, I do. You have to treat this as an academic exercise, else you’d treat much of this seriously. And you dare not do that, else you’d have to rethink your inability to question authority.

    I get that a lot. Fringe theorists of all types think I must be scared that they’re right, and don’t want them to upset my little world. Phil, how worried are you that the Apollo moon-walks might have been faked? Is that because you unquestioningly trust authority?

    Lots of 9/11 kooks claim to be open-mindedly investigating whether the attack was an “inside job”. Many Holocaust deniers claim we simply don’t know if it really happened, and they’re doing historical research into this open question.

    This one will really set you off (and it should be fun watching your head explode, too). I’m not going to claim that I know what happened with the 9/11 attacks either. However, based on Occam’s razor, I would say that, at the very least, whoever inspected the World Trade Center for occupancy back in the 1970s (I suppose it was) didn’t do a very good job.

    That has what to do with the kook theory that the 9/11 attack was an “inside job”?

    If you’re interested, one thing I learned from my time on the 9/11 kooks is that there is broad expert agreement (outside the kook community of course) on what was the fundamental problem with Twin Towers.

  144. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Phil says:
    January 23, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    bystander,

    elsbeth, do you understand the difference between concealing records and not having access to records due to privacy laws? Can you pinpoint which records you believe have been made available by previous presidents when in office, that Obama had not made public.

    There is also no federal — or State law, for that matter — that says that we, the People cannot demand legitimate substantiation regarding the President.

    -P

    There is no law defining legitimate substantiation either, or giving you the right to see anyone’s private documents. What elspeth fails to acknowledge is that most documents birthers demand have zero irrelevance to eligibility issues and are not even held by Obama. The standard birther claim that all of his past has been sealed is absolute nonsense, his records are protected by the same privacy laws that protect you and elspeth. And if you really want to say that as president he has no rights to privacey, well why stop there? Let’s see all your Republican Senator’s private documents too – let’s have GOP another summer of love. And as Sarah Palin seems to want to be President, let’s see her medical records to prove that baby is really hers. Come on – what has she got to hide?

  145. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Did you mean by your reply that you personally view the US citizens that oppose Obamacare, the birthers, the successful election by Massachusetts voters of Scott Brown, the rising tea party movement, etc, as mildly irritating fleas not worthy of Mr. O’s acknowledgment?

    Sigh …. no I mean what I said, birthers are the irritating fleas, and I doubt Obama is even aware of most of the lawsuits.

  146. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 23, 2010 at 6:48 pm

    bystander,

    You come back nitpicking a typo error in years, if that’s all you have, I am most amused.

    Also, if you think you can understand & interpret early AMERICIAN common law aka the Constitution without learning the history of the English Saxons, you are more ignorant than I thought.

    Every reputable law school teaches Saxon history & Saxon law. It is the base of ALL British law, even after William & Norman. It was williams bringing Roman law that put the Brits under subjectship stripping the English of their freeman status.

    No Linda it’s not all I have – it’s what I started with. You like to call everyone ignorant don’t you? Bit touchy about your own educational background perhaps?

    Here’ an idea – why don’t you initiate a lawsuit using saxon law to unseat President Obama? Or if you’re too busy trucking – instruct a lawyer to do it for you. I’ll even pay your initial fee to consult with a reputable lawyer. Go on – do it.

  147. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    For a lying President, I now have anecdotal reason, for me, to question the legitimacy of an online image (of which there have been several making various claims) that claims to be Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth (not a birth certificate). I have requested to see either the receipt of the transaction that procured the document, and/or testimony from the person who actually made the request.

    The COLB is a self authenticating birth certificate and is the standard document issued by Hawaii when one requests a birth certificate.

  148. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    First of all, I have seen where someone has claimed to have photographed the alleged physical document (though straight-on pictures and/or scans would have been much better to have been done. Yet, the individuals who performed the photography weren’t credentialed in document examination, so I don’t blame them).

    Straight on scans were done – birthers claimed they couldn’t see the seal, so angled photos were then taken. That was the whole point of the exercise.

  149. 01/24/2010sharon2 says:

    Phil,

    When I asked for the Ankeny link, I don’t want the Court of Appeals decision penned by Brown. I want the decision from the trial court penned by Dreyer, the decision that was appealed.

  150. 01/24/2010sharon2 says:

    Bystander is on standby for this site.

  151. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    sharon2 says:
    January 24, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Bystander is on standby for this site.

    Meaning what? I posted for half an hour earlier today – I’m in a different time zone so I catch up in one batch. Or are you trying to suggest that the DoJ is not employing British housewives to blog for them? You’re funny.

  152. 01/24/2010KJ says:

    bystander,

    You claim to be in Britain. You could be living in Britain and still not be a UK citizen.

    Please forgive my curiosity and answer my question. Are you a Brit? a resident? from the commonwealth? or a US expat? What exactly is your citizenship?

    Thank you,

    KJ

  153. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    bystander: No Linda it’s not all I have – it’s what I started with. You like to call everyone ignorant don’t you? Bit touchy about your own educational background perhaps?

    Here’ an idea – why don’t you initiate a lawsuit using saxon law to unseat President Obama?

    Again, stymies the mind. A troll(yes, there I said it, FINALLY) comes in and does not add any substantiated evidence, just regurgitates insults and Alinsky rhetoric.

    I make note of the fact that you didn’t address the bit of the history of England I posted & how England got its name & came to be a country. Instead you use insults and totally misconstrue my words & intent.

    As I said, just shows your true ignorance. If you had anything to add to the debate, you would have brought it forward, but you didn’t. Kind of like the DOJ lawyers in the Chrysler case that are now trying to misdirect the court away from the real topic because in REALITY they have nothing else to bring to the plate.

    For the record, I do not drive the trucks, well not for 13 years now, though I do keep my CDL up to date just in case. I am the top person in charge of all the other aspects, you know all those tedious administrative duties that require one to be knowledgeable in many fields, including laws pertaining to the business. I also know that the drivers would take note of your insults. Many of them are college educated, but due to the economy and lack of jobs, many have chosen this career to feed their families instead of relying on the government for a handout as you obviously think people should do. Therefore, your insults against my profession that insinuate we are not learned because we are in the trucking business is just plain rude & again, IGNORANT.

    Yep, keep believing that Obama isn’t following this. Please do stay in your socialist utopia of ignorant bliss.

  154. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    KJ

    I am a Brit, with a US citizen brother and US citizen children. I have lived for extensive periods in the US. I am currently living in London.

  155. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    bystander: I am a Brit, with a US citizen brother and US citizen children.

    Please elaborate. You were born in the US? You have a citizen parent? What passport do you travel on?

  156. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    I make note of the fact that you didn’t address the bit of the history of England I posted & how England got its name & came to be a country. Instead you use insults and totally misconstrue my words ..

    Why would I waste a single second debating it with you? It is totally irrelevant to the eligibility issue. Now when you decide to unleash it in a court room – then I’ll be there to debate it, when I can stop myself laughing. If you want to disappear down those rabbit holes – knock yourself out, but don’t expect anyone living in the real world to take it seriously.

  157. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    bystander: I am a Brit, with a US citizen brother and US citizen children.

    Please elaborate. You were born in the US? You have a citizen parent? What passport do you travel on?

    I travel on a UK passport – my kids travel on their UK passports to everywhere except the US, when they are obliged to use their US passports. What’s so difficult to understand? They were born in the US to UK citizen parents, and are therefore nbc’s. My brother is a naturalised US citizen.

  158. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    They were born in the US to UK citizen parents, and are therefore nbc’s. My brother is a naturalised US citizen.

    Stymies the mind how there is so much ignorance in the world. 2 Brits think that just because of chance, their children were born on US soil, that their children are natural born US citizens.

    Thanks for the daily chuckle. I’d like to see you get the current SCOTUS to overrule themselves on this one. Just what defense would you use since as UK parents, you were & are NOT PERMANENT residents in the US as WKA’s parents were.

    Please elaborate how you came to your conclusion?

  159. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda you’ve had it explained to you so many times, but choose not to believe it. No point in my banging my head against your brick wall. But rest assured, WKA found that a child born on US soil is a natural born citizen, just like my children. Find me a single legal scholar that disagrees.

  160. 01/24/2010sharon2 says:

    “Or are you trying to suggest that the DoJ is not employing British housewives to blog for them?”

    Oh, I take your word that you must come here for your pleasure.

    hehehe

  161. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    WKA found that a child born on US soil is a natural born citizen

    Show us the direct citation from the WKA decision wherein WKA is declared a ‘natural born citizen’.

    You all have been avoiding this one simple question. Why? Show us the money quote from WKA wherein WKA is declared a NBC.

    Grey citing the original case:

    That ever since the birth of said Wong Kim Ark, at the time and place hereinbefore stated and stipulated, he has had but one residence, to wit, a residence in said state of California, in the United States of America, and that he has never changed or lost said residence or gained or acquired another residence, and there resided claiming to be a citizen of the United States… ‘That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.’

    The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States.

    from the decision:

    Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to wit, in California, within the United States and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence; n d neither he, nor his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [169 U.S. 649, 653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about 17 years of age) he departed for China, on a temporary visit, and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year…

    Then Grey quotes from the Calvin case:

    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…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 Coke, 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’… For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    So please tell me how your children who were born here during a temporary stay and whom you acquired British passports and British residence for can be declared US citizens. The US was merely by chance the soil of their birth, not the country of their allegiance & protection without interrpution from birth.

    Please elaborate more, because we are confused as to how you came up with your conclusion?

  162. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    bystander: Find me a single legal scholar that disagrees.

    Cheif Justice Fuller who wrote the scathing dissent in WKA. Interestingly, Grey had to go to the dissent of other justices in the Elk, Slaughterhouse & Minor cases to form his opinion in WKA. But what is really interesting is he overturned his OWN ruling in Elk. What changed his mind? Maybe the fact that the usurper president who nominated him to the court was born to foreign parents who were not naturalized at the time of his birth and by the time that the WKA decision was released, the status if chiuldren born to foreigner on US soil, whether dignitaries or not, had been ruled to be aliens themselves by the US State Dept.

    In 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard, decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ Thomas Bayard was the fourth generation of his family to serve in the U.S. Senate and was considered a prominent Bourbon Democrat.

  163. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda:

    Cheif Justice Fuller who wrote the scathing dissent in WKA.

    Yes, the dissent. That’s your clue. He disagrees with the way the case was decided – he does not dispute that the case was decided against him. See the difference?

    Linda:

    So please tell me how your children who were born here during a temporary stay and whom you acquired British passports and British residence for can be declared US citizens.

    Are you actually denying they are even citizens? Are you that stupid? So what does having a US passport mean – or do you think I have imagined that? They are natural born us citizens because they were born in the usa.

  164. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda said:

    Please elaborate more, because we are confused as to how you came up with your conclusion?

    It’s really, really simple. They are US citizens from birth, because they were born on us soil. They have US birth certificates. They left the US on US passports. How could this possibly have happened if they are not US citizens – perhaps you could explain that to me.

  165. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda – it occurs to me that you are denying that dual citizens actually exist. Is this your position? Do you also deny the existence of anchor babies?

  166. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    bystander: Linda – it occurs to me that you are denying that dual citizens actually exist. Is this your position? Do you also deny the existence of anchor babies?

    Yes, I am denying that dual citizenship was ever passed by a law of Congress. It never has. Anchor babies are merely ficticious citizens created by blatant disregard of the existing laws. What British forms did you have to fill out to gain British citizenship & passports for your children? Are your children registered with the schools as British or US citizens?

    It is also interesting that you refute the dissent of Justice Fuller, but excuse Grey for using dissent opinions to gain his decision wherein he overturns his own deciding opinion which statied that birth on soil did not automatically grant US citizenship.

    Show me ONE SCOTUS case precedent wherein a child born to foreigners is DIRECTLY DECLARED to be a ‘natural born’ citizen, then and only then do you have a leg/case to stand on.

    From the mid 90’s to current, there have been several bills introduced in committee of the US Congress in which they wish to declare anchor babies citizens and some go as far as to grant them ‘natural born’ citiznship status. So, if the law is as you say it is, why the need to introduce legislation to change the law? This is a subject many, including I have studied and written essays/articles on, yet not one troll has ever been able to return to the debate with prima facie evidence to the otherwise.

  167. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda: Yes, I am denying that dual citizenship was ever passed by a law of Congress. It never has. Anchor babies are merely ficticious citizens created by blatant disregard of the existing laws. What British forms did you have to fill out to gain British citizenship & passports for your children? Are your children registered with the schools as British or US citizens?

    There are millions of dual US citizens – you can deny it all you like, while they will continue to hold passports for two or even more countries.

    I filled out a standard passport application form to which I appended their US birth certificates. Have you never applied for a passport – it’s really simple stuff? I’m guessing you may not have travelled much. You prove parents citizenship by providing passports, and the child’s by providing a birth certificate. Look up a passport form on the internet – you’ll find it is very straightforward.

  168. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda: Are your children registered with the schools as British or US citizens?

    Both, or course. Do you think dual citizens are denied an education is our socialist utopia?

  169. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    Both, or course. Do you think dual citizens are denied an education is our socialist utopia?

    Now, why don’t you and your friends at politijab answer the questions pertaining to WKA.

    Why don’t you show us the direct legislation/law passed by the US Congress & signed by the President that dropped allegiance as a neccesary factor in US citizenship?

    Why are all naturalized aliens, to this day, required to renounce and swear a complete allegiance to the US as a requirement for gaining US citizenship?

    why if as you say, born = natural born, was there a need for the distintion from A1 to A2 & why then was there a need for a grandfather clause in A2?

    Currently posted as the US State Dept: U.S. law does not mention dual nationality…”The United States does not recognize dual citizenship; however, it does not forbid it.

    Just because something is accepted, does not make it law and that is where you case fails at its core.

  170. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    My case fails? Let’s go over the facts. Obama is President. My children hold both US and UK passports, and travel freely between both countries, and have lived in both. Neither citizenship affects the other. Both were citizens at birth of both countries.

    Nope – can’t see anything illegal there.

  171. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda: Why are all naturalized aliens, to this day, required to renounce and swear a complete allegiance to the US as a requirement for gaining US citizenship?

    Easy – because they are naturalised, not citizens at birth.

  172. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    Linda; Currently posted as the US State Dept: U.S. law does not mention dual nationality…”The United States does not recognize dual citizenship; however, it does not forbid it. Just because something is accepted, does not make it law and that is where you case fails at its core.

    It does not forbid it. There you have it. They don’t have to recognise it. They don’t forbid it.

  173. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    So let me paraphrase this for you.

    Because Obama is currently the resident if chief, that qualifies your children for US citizen status?

    Currently posted as the US State Dept: U.S. law does not mention dual nationality…”The United States does not recognize dual citizenship; however, it does not forbid it.

    I filled out a standard passport application form to which I appended their US birth certificates.

    And what birth certificate did you use to gain a British passport for them? An amended British one?

    There is and never was a NO law that allows for dual citizenship. Especially for President!

    US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard, decided that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’

    Like I said, just because something “is”, doesn’t make it “so” under the law.

  174. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    It does not forbid it. There you have it. They don’t have to recognise it. They don’t forbid it.

    HA HA HA, there you go, breaking the LAW! US State Dept: U.S. law does not mention dual nationality…”The United States does not recognize dual citizenship

    and THAT is the LAW. Just because some refuse to adhere to it, does NOT make it law.

    Your children are not and never have been lawful US citizens under current US law no matter how much you wish for them to be and matter how many times the State Dept refuses to uphold the law.

    The LAW if the LAW. Don’t like it, change it. Oh yeah, I forgot, they have tried to change it. It would take a constitutional amendment and thus far they have all died behind the closed doors of the US Congress.

  175. 01/24/2010bystander says:

    LInda:

    I filled out a standard passport application form to which I appended their US birth certificates.

    And what birth certificate did you use to gain a British passport for them? An amended British one?

    Now you really are proving your ignorance. Their UK (not British) citizenship is proved by providing MY UK passport. They are UK citizens at birth because they are the children of UK citizens, irrespective of where they were born. Their relationship to me is proved by their US birth certificate listing me as their mother. Now do you get it?

  176. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    Now you really are proving your ignorance. Their UK (not British) citizenship is proved by providing MY UK passport. They are UK citizens at birth because they are the children of UK citizens, irrespective of where they were born.

    So I am ignorant because I ask a pertinent question without specifically stating why I asked the question in the 1st place?

    I asked the question for a reason and now I thank you for confirming to me that US law is not British law. I was merely wanting you to put it down in writing for posterity.

    You said you merely had to show the US birth cert to gain British passport, so you didn’t have to fill out any other forms and there was no amended British birth cert issued, they are merely British, because the parents are British.

    Thank you for confirming our articles and research which is what my intentions were. To get you to state the obvious in writing!

    Per US State dept & foreign affairs manual, children born to US citizens abroad do not automatiucaly gain US citizenship. The parents are required to appear before the US embassy or consulate within a certain time period and fill out forms so that their child can become a US citizen. The children are then issued amended birth certs from the state in which the parents are permanent residents that shows specifically that the child was born overseas. They are citizens by statute and are not considered NBC’s for constitutional purposes aka A2S1C5.

  177. 01/24/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 23, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    bystander,

    You come back nitpicking a typo error in years, if that’s all you have, I am most amused.

    Also, if you think you can understand & interpret early AMERICIAN common law aka the Constitution without learning the history of the English Saxons, you are more ignorant than I thought.

    Every reputable law school teaches Saxon history & Saxon law. It is the base of ALL British law, even after William & Norman. It was williams bringing Roman law that put the Brits under subjectship stripping the English of their freeman status.

    The three tribes, the Jutes, the English, and the
    Saxons, had not yet, apparently, advanced far enough
    in the idea of national unity to possess a separate
    general name, distinguishing them altogether from the
    other tribes of the Germanic stock. Most probably
    they did not regard themselves at this period as a
    single nation at all, or even as more closely bound to
    one another than to the surrounding and kindred
    tribes. They may have united at times for purposes
    of a special war ; but their union was merely analogous
    to that of two North American peoples, or two
    modern European nations, pursuing a common policy
    for awhile. At a later date, in Britain, the three
    tribes learned to call themselves collectively by the
    name of that one among them which earliest rose to
    supremacy the English; and the whole southern
    half of the island came to be known by their name
    as England.

    It was the Saxon law that the new English used, thereafter known as Anglo-Saxon law aka English common law.

    Enjoy your socialized utopia of ignorant bliss!
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    Linda, a legal expert, commenter “Ballantine” had the following response to your so called legal find…as usual you are off base in your so called interpretation of what was written and what the actual English Common law was…Below is his response…he states it much better than I would…

    All that matter is what the founders conception of english law was. Can she point to any English or american authority from the period defining natural born subject other than in accordance with Blackstone. There were many early american authorities who wrote about english law and I have seen none that question Blackstone’s definition. The same is true with the major english authorities of the time. It goes without saying that Blackstone was the most influential authority on the common law in the founding period. It is simply a fact that in the federal convention and the virginia ratifying converntion, when a question was raised on the common law, it was Blackstone they looked to.

    “Or as described by Blackstone, whose Commentaries were widely read and “accepted [by the framing generation] as the most satisfactory exposition of the common law of England,” see Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 69 (1904), …” Justice Scalia, ROGERS V. TENNESSEE 532 U.S. 451, 472 (2001) (Scalia, dissenting).

    “I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.” James Madison, Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention18–19 June 1788, Elliot 3:499–515

    “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws, introduced in 1766, became the law book of the Founding Fathers. [ref – footnote 8] (In fact, so strong was its influence in America that Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone’s with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran. [ref – footnote 9 – Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, A E Bergh, ed, 1904, Vol XII, p. 392, to Governor John Tyler on May 26, 1810.]

    JUSTICE SCALIA: I use British law for those elements of the Constitution that were taken from Britain. The phrase “the right to be confronted with witnesses against him” — what did confrontation consist of in England? It had a meaning to the American colonists, all of whom were intimately familiar with my friend Blackstone. And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time. And that isn’t so for every provision of the Constitution. The one you mentioned — what does sovereignty consist of? — that is probably one on which I would consult English law, because it was understood when the Constitution was framed that the states remained, at that time in 1789, separate sovereigns. Well, what were the prerogatives of a sovereign, as understood by the framers of the Constitution? The same as was understood by their English forebears. So that’s why I would use English law — not at all because I think we are still very much aligned legally, socially, philosophically with England. That’s not the reason. Cass Sunstein, A Constitution of many minds: why the founding document doesn’t mean what it meant before, pg. 200-01 (2009)

    “It is apparent from all this that the traditional English understanding of executive power, or, to be more precise, royal prerogatives, was fairly well known to the founding generation, since they appear repeatedly in the text of the Constitution in formulations very similar to those found in Blackstone.” Justice Antonin Scalia, Originalism, the Lessor Evil, 57 U. Cin. L. Rev. 849, __ (1989).

    http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/lesserevil.asp

    Somebody better tell Scalia to stop quoting Blackstone.

    Upon further thought, the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700) was adopted in most of the original states. In fact there was a multitude of litigation on application of this statute in the early republic. See, e.g., Palmer v. Downer, 2 Mass. 179 (1806), Jacksons v. Sanders, 2 Leigh 109 (1830), McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354 (1824), Lessee of Levy v. McCartee, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 102 (1832).

    The statute read:

    “That all and every person or persons, being the King’s natural born subject or subjects within any of the King’s realms or dominions, should and might, thereafter, inherit and be inheritable, as heir or heirs, to any honors, &c., lands, &c., and make their pedigrees and titles, by descent, from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree were or was or should be born out of the King’s allegiance and out of his Majesty’s realms and dominions as freely, fully, and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as if such father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor or ancestors, by, from, through, or under whom he, she, or they should or might make or derive their title or pedigree, had been naturalized, or natural born subjects.” McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. 354, 356-57 (1824).

    This statute thus says that a natural born subject can inherit from parents even if they are aliens. I guess Parliament and all the states who adopted this statute did not get the Birther memo that one cannot be a natural born subject if one’s parents are aliens.

  178. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    More cut & paste, taken out of context diatribe from BL.

    Gee, I am so impressed. If someone wants to debate me, then they know where to find me, I don’t do 3rd party requests. They also better make sure their info is not mined & restructured taking its original intent out of context.

  179. 01/24/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 24, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    More cut & paste, taken out of context diatribe from BL.

    Gee, I am so impressed. If someone wants to debate me, then they know where to find me, I don’t do 3rd party requests. They also better make sure their info is not mined & restructured taking its original intent out of context.
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    Patriot Linda, no one needs to debate you because you are wrong. You make some ridiculous claims that you cannot support, so you say that everyone is wrong and you know better than real constitutional scholars. The response to you was more about pointing out how wrong your research and conclusions are…No need to debate….And as far as cut and paste, you confuse me with Beneiah…I just wanted to point out to other readers that a real legal expert who read your rants easily eviserated your so called analysis…You can choose to believe what you wish….You are just as amusing as when you called out Dr. C and made some claims that you could refute his research…And we are all still waiting…I notice that you could not refute his research or conclusions…Especially with his comments regarding Justice Scalia positive citing of Blackstone as a legal reference…

  180. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    Justice Scalia positive citing of Blackstone as a legal reference

    Again, nice mine quotes those so called legal minds are sharing with you all. As far as refuting the conspiracy theorists, I will, in my next series. I decided it was too politically explosive not to save it for the big bang. And since you brought it up when I wasn’t even debating with you, it must be killing you all as you want everything right now on your terms.

    All you have brought is Scalia referring to Blackstone in cases of judicial conduct/laws & legislative conduct/laws. DUH, there has never been any claim that english judicial common law was in some form adopted. And why was that? Where did the current conquering reigning monarch get the laws from? They were not invented at that moment in time and the existing ones in place were not completely cast aside, so where did they go to for that?

    But I digress, you use the definition of our judicial system as your basis for the definition of citizen…

    Utterly dillusional at best.

  181. 01/24/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 24, 2010 at 9:48 pm
    Justice Scalia positive citing of Blackstone as a legal reference

    Again, nice mine quotes those so called legal minds are sharing with you all. As far as refuting the conspiracy theorists, I will, in my next series. I decided it was too politically explosive not to save it for the big bang. And since you brought it up when I wasn’t even debating with you, it must be killing you all as you want everything right now on your terms.
    __________________________________________________________________
    Linda, whatever. You are a legend in your own mind. You delusionally think that you are some sort of legal constitutional expert, on par with Reed and Olsen, that you can parse Blackstone and speak upon what a Supreme Court Justice meant regarding citizenship. You are so desperate that you go back to the Norman conquest in order to hope to find something to support your so called position. Which makes sense since you can’t find anyone in the last 100 years that even comes close to supporting your ridiculous theory.

    I bring up your so called rebuttal because I need some humorous reading soon. You made such a bold statement I was curious if you could “back it up”….Otherwise I could care less. Obama is the President and the so called birthers still haven’t won a case. Why would I be worried? Politically explosive? Is that anything like the so called documentation you claimed that you received from the Kenyan government that would prove that Obama and Odinga were in cahoots? Or is it more like the infamous “whitey tape” that AIP was pushing…Give me a break…

  182. 01/24/2010Linda says:

    BL said: Linda, whatever.

    You should have stopped while you were ahead instead of making a complete fool of yourself regarding the history of US law that I quote.

    You say I make this stuff up myself when even I have stated that I do not consider myself a scholar, that is why I quote those who are. Those who established the 1st US law schools and material that is still taught to law students today.

    The last long cut & paste you did that I commented on, I went & read the link before I commented. Therfore my comment was factual and did not take Scalia out of context one bit, as you did and you could not correct what was the actual truth posted by me not you.

    All you have is opinions from so called online legal psydos who hide behind fake names and what they bring is chopped and taken out of context as I pointed out before where they took 2 parts of Kents commentaries and made it look like it came from the same section.

    You have all been exposed as frauds and you run from debating actual facts that expose your lies like a chicken running from the chopping block. Everytime you refuse to debate the facts and instead come back with nothing more than regugitated lies, you show your true colors.

  183. 01/24/2010kj says:

    Bystander,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I wondered because your English seemed more American than the King’s.

    KJ

  184. 01/25/2010Linda says:

    BL,

    While you are going back and forth from here, politijab & the original consiracy theorist sites, maybe you could bring back that money quote from WKA they claim is the basis for their conclusion.

    The money quote from the WKA decision wherein in Justice Grey DECLARES WKA to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.

    If they are all so smart, why is this one request do hard to fill?

  185. 01/25/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 24, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    Now you really are proving your ignorance. Their UK (not British) citizenship is proved by providing MY UK passport. They are UK citizens at birth because they are the children of UK citizens, irrespective of where they were born.

    So I am ignorant because I ask a pertinent question without specifically stating why I asked the question in the 1st place?

    I asked the question for a reason and now I thank you for confirming to me that US law is not British law. I was merely wanting you to put it down in writing for posterity.

    You said you merely had to show the US birth cert to gain British passport, so you didn’t have to fill out any other forms and there was no amended British birth cert issued, they are merely British, because the parents are British.

    Thank you for confirming our articles and research which is what my intentions were. To get you to state the obvious in writing!

    Per US State dept & foreign affairs manual, children born to US citizens abroad do not automatiucaly gain US citizenship. The parents are required to appear before the US embassy or consulate within a certain time period and fill out forms so that their child can become a US citizen. The children are then issued amended birth certs from the state in which the parents are permanent residents that shows specifically that the child was born overseas. They are citizens by statute and are not considered NBC’s for constitutional purposes aka A2S1C5.

    Linda, you seem to think you have scored a point. Enlighten me – what does the US state departments’ manual on children born to US citizens abroad have to do with Obama, who was born to a citizen parent in Hawaii. And if you think it is relevant – why not quote it instead of providing your own skewed summation – poor work for a researcher of your calibre.

    But as you are so pleased with yourself, please show me the text that says they have to fill out forms so that their child can become a citizen. They fill out forms to acquire a birth certificate – since you are so fond of demanding this of others, please cite the statute that equates receiving a birth certificate with becoming a citizen.

    In the UK my children are citizens from birth – I have never had and never will need a UK birth certificate to prove that. If on returning to the UK after their birth in the US, we chose never to leave the country again, I would not need a UK passport for them either. In fact I don’t now – they could travel on their US passport without any hindrance. You don’t seem to understand that there are no “citizenship papers” – and if none are required, the absence of them cannot make you a non-citizen.

    I called you ignorant because you have been calling others ignorant for months. It is irritating isn’t it? Especially from you – on the wrong end of the argument in 64 court cases so far. Why don’t you knock it off and then maybe your detractors will follow suit.

    Incidentally – I think I have hit on why you are finding all this so hard to follow – you don’t have a passport do you?

    Please fell free to continue researching Saxon law in the hope of finding the magic bullet that will unseat Obama. If you can’t see how funny that scenario is, nobody can help you.

    Good luck also with the quest to prove that millions of US citizens that hold dual citizenship are phony citizens, because in your xenophobic mind you have translated “We do not recognize dual citizenship but we do not forbid it” into “it is breaking the law to be a dual citizen”. That really hurts you doesn’t it – because it gets to the nub of the whole issue. The US state department doesn’t recognize Obama’s dual citizenship at birth, it is concerned only that he is a US citizen.

  186. 01/25/2010Linda says:

    Linda, you seem to think you have scored a point. Enlighten me – what does the US state departments’ manual on children born to US citizens abroad have to do with Obama

    At that present time, we were not debating ‘0’, we were debating your children’s citizenship and anchor babies.

    But as you are so pleased with yourself, please show me the text that says they have to fill out forms so that their child can become a citizen. They fill out forms to acquire a birth certificate – since you are so fond of demanding this of others, please cite the statute that equates receiving a birth certificate with becoming a citizen.

    I specifically cite & link to the information at my website. You are welcome to it anytime. It’s been up there nearly a year now. The laws are called US statutes and children born under those guidelines are neither naturalized or considered born on soil, they are citizens by statute.

    In the UK my children are citizens from birth – I have never had and never will need a UK birth certificate to prove that. If on returning to the UK after their birth in the US, we chose never to leave the country again, I would not need a UK passport for them either. In fact I don’t now – they could travel on their US passport without any hindrance. You don’t seem to understand that there are no “citizenship papers” – and if none are required, the absence of them cannot make you a non-citizen.

    The founders didn’t fight a bloody war just to adopt the exact same laws that kept them under oppression. We have a representative Republic based on the law of nations which was formed from the laws of nature, the UK still has many of its laws based on the feudal form of government based on laws by man, but the specific one pertinent to this debate is citizenship/subjectship and how it was acquired. In the case of ‘0’s’ eligibilty, it would be the laws at the time of the adoption of the constitution because A2 of our constitutiona has never been amended, not that they haven’t tried as recently as 2008 & as to your children, the laws in place when those anchor babies saw their 1st daylight on our soil, not UK soil.

    I called you ignorant because you have been calling others ignorant for months. It is irritating isn’t it? Especially from you – on the wrong end of the argument in 64 court cases so far.

    No, in fact this is the libs way of pandering for sympathy and it doesn’t work on us, it fuels us. :)

    Since there has not been 1 case even heard on its merits, there has not been any ruling on the merits, merely dismissals on technicalities.

    Why don’t you knock it off and then maybe your detractors will follow suit.

    Why would I want to that when I so enjoy the debate.:)

    Incidentally – I think I have hit on why you are finding all this so hard to follow – you don’t have a passport do you?

    Personally I didn’t realize it was a prerequisite for actually knowing passport guidelines. Common sense tells one it should be the opposite.

    US laws are not that of UK laws, we dumped yours in 1776.

    Isn’t it about time you all get over it?

  187. 01/25/2010bystander says:

    Linda yet again you deliberately miss the point. I explained the UK procedure to you because you seemed surprised that they were able to obtain their UK passports without UK birth certificates. I’m perfectly well aware that US procedures are different – having gone through both. I think your confusion arises because you don’t seem to own a passport, this is all unfamiliar to you – and a as you have totally misrepresented the US Governments’ position on dual citizens, it will no doubt remain a mystery to you.

    Linda:I specifically cite & link to the information at my website. You are welcome to it anytime. It’s been up there nearly a year now. The laws are called US statutes and children born under those guidelines are neither naturalized or considered born on soil, they are citizens by statute.

    So you say – nobody in the legal field whether lawyer, jurist or State Dept Official agrees with you. My children are not in a special category “considered born on soil”, they WERE born on US soil and have the exact same birth certificate as any other children born in NY or CT.

  188. 01/25/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 25, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Bystander said: Linda, you seem to think you have scored a point. Enlighten me – what does the US state departments’ manual on children born to US citizens abroad have to do with Obama?

    At that present time, we were not debating ‘0′, we were debating your children’s citizenship and anchor babies.

    ……

    OK, then what does the manual have to do with MY children – they were not US citizens born abroad either? They are US citizens born in the US. What did your posting of the State Department guidelines have to do with anything? Again, you seem confused.

  189. 01/25/2010bystander says:

    Linda;

    Since there has not been 1 case even heard on its merits, there has not been any ruling on the merits, merely dismissals on technicalities.

    Again you misunderstand the law. Standing and many of the other issues on which these frivolous cases have been denied or dismissed is not a technicality, it is the merits of the case. I am not a lawyer, but real lawyers have explained this to the birthers many times. I will take their word for it, not yours.

  190. 01/25/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    Again you misunderstand the law. Standing and many of the other issues on which these frivolous cases have been denied or dismissed is not a technicality, it is the merits of the case. I am not a lawyer, but real lawyers have explained this to the birthers many times. I will take their word for it, not yours.

    I wonder about these “real lawyers” about whom you speak. How do you know that they’re real lawyers? Have you been able to verify their credentials without having to rely upon Internet-based forums? Have you ever physically visited any of these folks?

    I do not disagree that there are potentially individuals who are lawyers that frequent some of these forums, including places such as Politijab. However, I also know that such forums tend to be rather biased against questions on eligibility, so this must also be taken into context.

    Furthermore, I seriously beg to differ with you RE: “standing and many of the other issues” constitute the merits of a case. Here in the United States (since I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know the specifics of what I’m about to say, and I don’t think you’re a lawyer, either), these are technicalities that must be overcome before the actual case can be heard. I find it rather interesting that you’re only just now bringing this up when, in fact, I’ve been going on about these legitimate technicalities for over a year now and not one opposition commenter (dare I say, lawyer?) has ever corrected me when I’ve characterized the dismissals as such.

    So again, I’d like for you to specifically cite an individual who claims to have attorney credentials who says that the doctrines of standing, subject matter jurisdiction, doctrine of laches, and various other technicalities are first of all not legitimate technicalities which any case in the American Judiciary must overcome to actually be heard but that these same technicalities are, in fact, the actual merit of a case.

    In other words, my understanding is that these legitimate technicalities test the merits of the petitioner(s) bringing the case, not the case, per se.

    -Phil

  191. 01/25/2010bystander says:

    Phil, I believe Judge Carter explained that standing is not a technicality in the transcript of Orly’s case in front of him. I’ll check and get back to you. And I believe the lawyers at Politijab because they have been 100% correct 100% of the time. Meanwhile birthers are 0 for 64. Who would you choose to believe? Actually we know the answer to that, and it hasn’t served you terribly well.

  192. 01/25/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 24, 2010 at 11:54 pm
    BL said: Linda, whatever.

    You should have stopped while you were ahead instead of making a complete fool of yourself regarding the history of US law that I quote.

    Really? I think you are the fool because you can’t find any legal scholar that agrees with your ridiculous theories and interpretations of the history of English Common law…

    You say I make this stuff up myself when even I have stated that I do not consider myself a scholar, that is why I quote those who are. Those who established the 1st US law schools and material that is still taught to law students today.

    If you don’t source your quote then who knows if you made it up or not…However no matter what you quote I can tell you that you misread what you are quoting. Unless you can show us people that agree with what you say, then your opinion is meaningless…

    The last long cut & paste you did that I commented on, I went & read the link before I commented. Therfore my comment was factual and did not take Scalia out of context one bit, as you did and you could not correct what was the actual truth posted by me not you.

    OK. However you were wrong with what Scalia meant. No current SCOTUS justice will ever believe that a NBC has to have 2 citizen parents. Especially Scalia, who was the son of immigrants. That is where you fail. Again 100 years of jurisprudence since Wong and not one scholar or constitutional law expert agrees with you. You are still fighting the Plessey v. Ferguson fight in the Brown v. Board of Ed world….In other words you argument is a loser because it has already been established that a NBC is someone that is born in the US regardless of the citizenship status of their parents. Period. You can’t find any citizenship case since 1898 that says different. So put your money where your mouth is. Find a ruling since 1898 which supports your claim. And it can’t be Elg because she was declared a citizen in the ruling…Unless you now want to argue that a citizen and NBC are now the same thing…

    All you have is opinions from so called online legal psydos who hide behind fake names and what they bring is chopped and taken out of context as I pointed out before where they took 2 parts of Kents commentaries and made it look like it came from the same section.

    But it didn’t change the intent of what Kent meant. You like to attack the messenger to hide the message. The point is that even Kent believe that native born was the same as natural born. Period. Find me something where he says otherwise….

    You have all been exposed as frauds and you run from debating actual facts that expose your lies like a chicken running from the chopping block. Everytime you refuse to debate the facts and instead come back with nothing more than regugitated lies, you show your true colors.

    OK, frauds. You cannot find any legal scholar, judical ruling after Wong, constitutional law expert, or judical review that even comes close to your NBC must have 2 citizen theory and we are the frauds? That is rich. You have no case law, no expert witness, and judical rulings against your so called position and I am lying? You are becoming a tad bit delusional now. You can’t win this one.

  193. 01/25/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 25, 2010 at 12:08 am
    BL,

    While you are going back and forth from here, politijab & the original consiracy theorist sites, maybe you could bring back that money quote from WKA they claim is the basis for their conclusion.

    The money quote from the WKA decision wherein in Justice Grey DECLARES WKA to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.

    If they are all so smart, why is this one request do hard to fill?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    No problem…

    “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.”

    Again “all persons born int he allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens”. Pretty simple to anyone with reading comprehension skills. The ruling stated that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen, with a couple of exceptions. That is what every court since 1898 has used to determine that all people born in the US are natural born citizens. Of course now Linda will attempt to parse the quote from Gray and probably imply that somehow he changed his mind or was appointed by another usurper, the usual birhter playbook. But the ruling is the law. And unless you can find another SCOTUS ruling made after Wong that contradicts it, you have nothing.

    I’ve go the following case that use the ruling in Wong to define NBC status…What do you have?

    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.

  194. 01/25/2010bystander says:

    So Linda you’ve had a while to think about it. Are ready to admit you were wrong about parents nationality featuring on all US birth certificates?

  195. 01/25/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    Phil, I believe Judge Carter explained that standing is not a technicality in the transcript of Orly’s case in front of him. I’ll check and get back to you. And I believe the lawyers at Politijab because they have been 100% correct 100% of the time. Meanwhile birthers are 0 for 64. Who would you choose to believe? Actually we know the answer to that, and it hasn’t served you terribly well.

    That’s rather interesting, considering that the Plaintiff’s standing (or lack thereof, according to the dismissal) was precisely one of the grounds (may have been more, I don’t recall off the top) for why his Court could not hear the case.

    Further, having been involved with cataloging the eligibility saga since October 24, 2008, I know for a fact that all eligibility cases that have made it to public view had all been dismissed on similar grounds. Yet, such dismissals have been construed (illegitimately, in my view) as the Courts deciding that the actual merits of the cases weren’t worth the time to hear.

    So, I once again lay the question on the table for you. Find me attorneys who are willing to explicitly admit that legitimate technicalities, to include (but not limited to) standing, subject matter jurisdiction, doctrine of laches, etc. are the actual contents of a case versus the threshold(s) that must be surmounted prior to a case being heard in Court.

    While I’d love for you to prove me wrong, I don’t think you will, and taking dismissals based on legitimate technicalities as “winning” cases is, frankly, stretching things a bit. The only thing “won” in such cases would be disallowing the petitioner(s) from even asking the Court to hear a case.

    -Phil

  196. 01/25/2010sharon2 says:

    Phil,

    This is why I want to see the decision at the trial court level in the Ankeny case. The Appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, and I don’t think the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the definition of a NBC for the presidency includes dual citizens. If we could get a copy of that initial decision, it would be more clear why the case was dismissed. All the Appeals court decision does is affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss.

  197. 01/25/2010Loren says:

    sharon2,

    This is why I want to see the decision at the trial court level in the Ankeny case. The Appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, and I don’t think the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the definition of a NBC for the presidency includes dual citizens. If we could get a copy of that initial decision, it would be more clear why the case was dismissed. All the Appeals court decision does is affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss.

    The Court of Appeals’ review of the trial court’s ruling was de novo. As the Court of Appeals wrote:

    “Thus, our review of a trial court‟s grant or denial of a motion based on Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is de novo. Id. at 58. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, we view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor.”

    This means that the Court of Appeals did not simply sign off on the trial court’s ruling. It conducted its own, fresh analysis of the issues, giving all favorable inferences to Ankeny, and produced its own opinion that the trial court was right to dismiss Ankeny’s case on the grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The appeals court did not consider the trial court’s holdings that dismissal was merited on the grounds of mootness and laches.

    This is first-year civil procedure stuff. Seeing the trial court’s opinion may be helpful background information (though it may just be a simple, one-page Order granting the Motion to Dismiss), but it’s the Court of Appeals decision that’s the most relevant one.

  198. 01/25/2010Loren says:

    Phil,

    Further, having been involved with cataloging the eligibility saga since October 24, 2008, I know for a fact that all eligibility cases that have made it to public view had all been dismissed on similar grounds. Yet, such dismissals have been construed (illegitimately, in my view) as the Courts deciding that the actual merits of the cases weren’t worth the time to hear.

    As I’ve previously stated, Ankeny’s dismissal was upheld on 12(b)(6) grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That is not “similar grounds” to standing, or subject matter jurisdiction, or laches.

  199. 01/25/2010qwertyman says:

    So, I once again lay the question on the table for you. Find me attorneys who are willing to explicitly admit that legitimate technicalities, to include (but not limited to) standing, subject matter jurisdiction, doctrine of laches, etc. are the actual contents of a case versus the threshold(s) that must be surmounted prior to a case being heard in Court.

    I think the issue here is uncertainty as to the meanings of the words “merits” and “technicality.” Technicalities are issues like service of process, keeping the complaint to a certain number of pages, filing your response to a motion to dismiss within a certain amount of time.

    When you’re talking about merits, you’re meaning that in the sense of having a trial with a judge or jury who reaches a verdict.

    But most cases never reach a trial, much less a verdict. They fail for various reasons, including the ones you’ve mentioned. A granted motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim do go to the heart of what a case is about. If there is a case dismissed under 12(b)(6), that means that even if everything the plaintiff claims is absolutely true, there is no law that could grant them relief. 12(b)(6) dismissals are entirely based on content of law, and I would say that the Ankeny decision went straight to the heart of the accusation and considered the merits of the case and said that even if all the facts were true, the law states that all those born on US soil are natural born citizens. Because of this finding of law, there was no law that could give Ankeny the relief he sought, and thus the case was dismissed prior to any trial.

  200. 01/25/2010Linda says:

    BL,

    Thank you agreeing with us on WKA. That there is absolutely no money ‘quote’ wherein Grey declares WKA to be a natural born citizen as the court did for Elg in Perkins v. Elg in 1939.

    bystander, I am completely dumbfounded that you can not grasp such a simple concept. US citizenship laws were not derived from British definitions of subjects and your children that were accidentally born here by mere chance of time are, under the original intent of the constitution & current laws, natural born british subjects or what we like to call, anchor babies with fraudulant passports.

    This abuse of our citizenship laws by the State Dept will be addressed and rectified during immigration reform. We tea party patriiots finally have the platform and our voices ARE beign heard.

  201. 01/25/2010sharon2 says:

    Loren,

    The outcome is still binding only in Indiana state courts.

  202. 01/25/2010Linda says:

    Linda – yes, you are dumbfounded. And dumb. Your delusions are extraordinary.

    Yes, stymies the mind how someone who says she knows so much about US law refuses to site the one LAW, not court case which states that by US law, her children are citizens.

    As I said, turning a blind eye to that law to allow foreigners to usurp our laws, does not make it law.

    Do you notice no birthers have come to your defence?

    Ummm, lol, thanks for the concern, however I can stand on my own 2 feet. That was a pretty low blow, even for you which means only one thing…you have not a law to stand on.

  203. 01/25/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 25, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    BL,

    Thank you agreeing with us on WKA. That there is absolutely no money ‘quote’ wherein Grey declares WKA to be a natural born citizen as the court did for Elg in Perkins v. Elg in 1939.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    I haven’t agreed with you. Gray in Wong declares anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen. Wong was born in the US so he is a natural born citizen. Any 6 year old can see that. And that is why 100 years of jurisprudence since the Wong ruling have upheld that concept. Now you can pretend that didn’t happen. Which is up to you. But in the real world and in real courts they all know the truth. That anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen. Just because you don’t like it doesn;t make it true.

    And your delusion regarding Elg is hilarious. So now a citizen is the same as a natural born citizen. That makes things easier. Because the SCOTUS ruled in Elg that she was a CITIZEN of the United States by virtue of her birth. In other parts of the ruling they also point out that she is also a natural born citizen but they specifically point out that she is a citizen, similar to the ruling in Wong. So in one hand when you want Elg to support your ridiculous decision you ignore the part of the ruling where she is declared a “Citizen” but in Wong you attempt to parse the ruling and state that Wong was merely a citizen and not a natural born citizen.

    However as usual you have to twist and parse rulings and writings to find marginal support for your exotic and unique theory. Which is fine. But anyone that understands the law and can read past a 1st grade reading level can see that Elg does not help you case. But Wong supports the contention that anyone born in the US is an natural born citizen.

  204. 01/25/2010Phil says:

    sharon2,

    Phil,

    This is why I want to see the decision at the trial court level in the Ankeny case. The Appeals court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, and I don’t think the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that the definition of a NBC for the presidency includes dual citizens. If we could get a copy of that initial decision, it would be more clear why the case was dismissed. All the Appeals court decision does is affirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss.

    OK, good point. Check out my Eligibility Lawsuits – Eligibility Case Archive page (from the top menu bar) and you should see the “Ankeny v. Daniels” down the page a number of paragraphs. That’s all I’ve got.

    -Phil

  205. 01/25/2010Phil says:

    Loren,

    As I’ve previously stated, Ankeny’s dismissal was upheld on 12(b)(6) grounds that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. That is not “similar grounds” to standing, or subject matter jurisdiction, or laches.

    Then you get a nice, shiny rhetorical star for correcting me.

    Like I said, I’m not an attorney, so I probably did miss some details, despite my absolutist language.

    That’ll teach me, huh? :)

    -Phil

  206. 01/25/2010Linda says:

    BL: I haven’t agreed with you. Gray in Wong declares anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

    Cite his direct quote wherein he decalres exactly that. Cite his quote, not mere dicta wherein he is regurgitating some British caselaw.

  207. 01/25/2010Linda says:

    And your delusion regarding Elg is hilarious. So now a citizen is the same as a natural born citizen. That makes things easier. Because the SCOTUS ruled in Elg that she was a CITIZEN of the United States by virtue of her birth.

    Nice try but we know the truth of the case and it is why not one ‘0’ supporter uses it as a reference for your plight to strip us of our freeman status and return us to subjectship.

    We shall soon see who the truth twister is. I have already exposed one of your lies, more to come soon.

  208. 01/26/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 25, 2010 at 7:51 pm

    Linda – yes, you are dumbfounded. And dumb. Your delusions are extraordinary.

    Yes, stymies the mind how someone who says she knows so much about US law refuses to site the one LAW, not court case which states that by US law, her children are citizens.
    …………………….

    You see – here you go lying again. When have I ever said I know so much about US law? I don’t need to – the passports are sitting on the desk in front of me. It says: “The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen named herein ….” So you see I don’t need a law because I have got the facts on my sides. You need a law to disprove it – but you haven’t got one.

    So you can carry on with your delusion that there has been some horrible mistake that THE ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM has failed to notice, even when it has been argued in court and rejected, and one day they will read your research and see the error of their ways, and suddenly declare millions of US citizens stateless. Feel free to carry on believing that and belittling anyone who disagrees with you. Meanwhile, back here in the real world, the only people who believe in your theory and have taken it to court are a 9/11 truther, a drug addicted bi-polar poker player with an alter ego called Jet Schizo who has never, as far as I know, won a single court case, Orly Taitz (no further insults necessary – the epic fail is self-evident), Steven Pidgeon who stole $10,000 dollars from his supporters and has produced none of the research he was contracted for, and Apuzzo and Kreep. What a stellar line-up of constitutional scholars.

    So to sum up – on one hand is Linda and a line-up of freaks, on the other hand the entire legal establishment including every single conservative legal expert. Mr Obama is The President, and my children are natural born US citizens. You don’t like it Linda – but those are the facts.

  209. 01/26/2010bystander says:

    Linda: Ummm, lol, thanks for the concern, however I can stand on my own 2 feet. That was a pretty low blow, even for you which means only one thing…you have not a law to stand on.

    No Linda, it means that no birthers have come to your defence. Why is that?

  210. 01/26/2010bystander says:

    Linda – a real lawyer at PJ has provided the statistics to back up my previous post (thanks SF): of the 796,523 practising lawyers in the USA, 6 agree with your theory on citizenship. That is less than 0.000001%. One of those is likely to be disbarred shortly and only got an on-line law degree so she could defend herself in her numerous malpractice suits, one has been sanctioned so many times he is on the edge of bankruptcy, and one is yet to win his first case. Great company you keep.

    I think I will trust the 4 conservatives on the SCOTUS with a lifetime of experience who have declined to hear a single eligibility case, rather than an uneducated and deluded amateur. But hey, that’s just me.

  211. 01/26/2010bystander says:

    Linda – ready to admit you lied about birth certificates yet? A simple admission will do.

  212. 01/26/2010Black Lion says:

    Linda says:
    January 25, 2010 at 11:10 pm
    And your delusion regarding Elg is hilarious. So now a citizen is the same as a natural born citizen. That makes things easier. Because the SCOTUS ruled in Elg that she was a CITIZEN of the United States by virtue of her birth.

    Nice try but we know the truth of the case and it is why not one ‘0′ supporter uses it as a reference for your plight to strip us of our freeman status and return us to subjectship.

    We shall soon see who the truth twister is. I have already exposed one of your lies, more to come soon.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Linda, you haven’t exposed anything other than how delusional you are. You can’t cite one case since 1898 to support your ridiculous claims. You can’t find one constitutional scholar that agrees wtih you. The so called eligibility challengers are 0 for 67 and the losses are mounting. So what do you have? Nothing other than the ability to parse and make up conclusions from rulings and writings to try and make it seem like there is actually legal precedent and support for your theory. And in this case you have provided us with an “epic fail”.

    And your ridiculous argument regarding Elg, you had better go back to con law class or get a refund from wherever you learned about the law. The ruling is quite specific…It states regarding Elg the following”

    “First. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, § 1; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case — that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States — the Court adverted to the “inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, p. 169 U. S. 668. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, that citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

    Second. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

    So the court ruled that Ms. Elg as birth became a citizen of the United States. Not a natural born citizen. However her NBC status was recognized by her birth in the US. Secondly what case is referenced regarding the ruling? Why it is the ruling in Wong Kim Ark. That ruling that you attempt to disparage is the basis for the decision in Elg. So again Linda, using Elg does not help your case because the SCOTUS used Wong to base its decision and declared that Ms. Elg was a citizen of the US at her birth. No amount of parsing will get you past those facts….

    And regarding Wong I will continue to use Justice Gray’s own words. You know where he states that anyone born in the allegiance of the US is a natural born citizen. What is hard to fathom is why everyone but a extremly small minority can understand the ruling and realizes that means that anyone born in the US is a natural born citizen.

    “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.”

  213. 01/26/2010Linda says:

    BL,

    In all that bloviating long comment you sure said a lot of nothing. Nice try stwisiting the words of the court in the Elg case. If it was as you say, then you would be using it since it is the most current, but you don’t. Why is that?

    It is because it does not support your conspiracy theory, it supports the facts of our case, the 1866 Act, the 14th & the 1868 Expatriation Act. Not one of these has never been repealed or replaced. :)

  214. 01/26/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    Linda – ready to admit you lied about parents’ nationality featuring on birth certificates yet?

    As the moderator of this site (e.g. the benevolent dictator), I would suggest you tone down the tone just a wee bit.

    Thank you.

    -Phil

  215. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    byst,

    I admit, the forms no longer ask nationality, however, they do ask country of parents birth.

    The forms also ask for the parents social security numbers. What did you put down there?

    How can a non citizen claim US citizneship for thier child, when the current law states atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen unless the child is found and no parents are able to be located aka abandoned baby.

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.

    How, so you get aaround that? My state is one of the most conservative in the country & thery adhere strictly to federal laws.

  216. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    byst,

    Another question.

    Do your children hold US social security numbers and if so, do you as parents pay into the system for them?

  217. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 2:33 am

    byst,

    I admit, the forms no longer ask nationality, however, they do ask country of parents birth.

    The forms also ask for the parents social security numbers. What did you put down there?

    How can a non citizen claim US citizneship for thier child, when the current law states atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen unless the child is found and no parents are able to be located aka abandoned baby.

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.

    How, so you get aaround that? My state is one of the most conservative in the country & thery adhere strictly to federal laws.

    ………….

    Thank you for admitting you were wrong. I already told you they asked for country of birth – but thanks for confirming that too.
    When it asked for my SS number I put down my SS number. Do you not know that non-citizens have SS numbers? For an expert on these areas you don’t seem to know very much – again probably because you have never had a passport and lived abroad and don’t understand the processes.

    Now can you back up the claims in your last three paragraphs with some evidence, because I don’t believe you.

  218. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 2:40 am

    byst,

    Another question.

    Do your children hold US social security numbers and if so, do you as parents pay into the system for them?

    Of course they do. When living in the US we paid US taxes. I see you really don’t understand this at all do you? Perhaps living in the reddest state in the US you have never even met a foreigner! You should try and travel more – it broadens the mind.

  219. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    Furnishing parent(s) Social Security Number(s) (SSNs) is required by Federal Law, 42 USC 405(c)(section 205(c) of the Social Security Act).

  220. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    byst,

    So you are saying that you are also a US citizen and you file annual income tax forms with the US.

  221. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda this is just for you – hold both sides of your head to prevent explosion.

    I first immigrated to the US as a three week old baby – still have my green card that allowed me to do so. Ironically, my parents held off moving until after I was born in order for me NOT to become a US citizen – so the process was well understood back in 1958.

    I went back for the third time when I was 7 months pregnant. This is the bit that might cause an explosion. Not only was I not prevented from doing so in order to avoid what you like to call an anchor baby – we were actually met on the tarmac and didn’t even have to wait in line at immigration! We were whisked to a side office, 5 minutes later we were collecting our luggage and off to our limo. Mind you having Edmund Saffra personally arrange your immigration does help – I recommend it to anyone!

  222. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 2:57 am

    byst,

    So you are saying that you are also a US citizen and you file annual income tax forms with the US.

    No Linda – I am a UK citizen as is my husband. If you earn money in the US you file US tax returns. So when my husband was working in the US, we paid US income taxes. We also had to pay UK taxes, but the US employer in these situations usually equalises the tab. If we rented out our US property we would pay US tax on the income even though we live in the UK – even so we obviously pay property taxes in the US. We still filled out a US tax return for many years after returning to the UK, because once you are in the system they never let go of you!

  223. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Furnishing parent(s) Social Security Number(s) (SSNs) is required by Federal Law, 42 USC 405(c)(section 205(c) of the Social Security Act).

    Linda : Will you stop repeating back to me things I have already explained to you as if it is some kind of victory? I told you that was on the birth certificate two days ago. We did supply our SS numbers. I referred to the LAST 3 paragraphs and asked for evidence – can you do that?

  224. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    Having a SSI# does NOT make one a citizen, therefore without knowing the specifics as to how & why bystander got her SSI#, I can not further weigh in on this topic except to say that according to US law, it is not the NORM to issue SSI3’s to non-citizens.

    So bystander, if you want to keep holding to your claims, you might want to fess up as to just how you obtained a legitimate US social security number because according to what I am reading, what I have been saying all along still stands.

    Did you apply stating you had intentions to emmigrate to usurp our system?

    http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html

  225. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    You were not required by law to provide SSI# if you were an alien resident with no intentions to remain & naturalize.

    The SSI gov page is very clear on that

  226. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    read it wrong, my mistake.

    but again, acquiring a US SSI# does not make one a citizen and therefore eligible to pass US citizenship onto the child.

  227. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda – from the first page of your link:

    How do I apply for a Social Security number and card?

    Unless you are a noncitizen who wants to work in the United States, you probably do not need a Social Security number.

    Generally, only noncitizens authorized to work in the United States by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can get a Social Security number.

    ………..

    Linda let me explain this for you really simply. When you go to the US for work you get a working visa and a green card sponsored by your employer (Edmund Saffra – google him). You don’t just turn up on a flight and expect to be admitted. The paperwork is all in order before you travel, issued by the US embassy in London, and when you arrive you trot along to the local SS office and present it. They then issue you with a SS card. Oddly enough there is no box asking if you are usurping the system,, because you aren’t. The US needs the expertise of foreign workers, especially in banking. There are many thousand of British bankers working in the States – it is so ordinary I can’t imagine why you think it is against the law.

  228. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    So you checked the box, “legal alien allowed to work”. Still doesn’t make your children eligible to be president, let alone US citizens. Your SSI records are proof that you were not here with intentions to naturalize as full fledge US citizens.

  229. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:24 am

    read it wrong, my mistake.

    but again, acquiring a US SSI# does not make one a citizen and therefore eligible to pass US citizenship onto the child.

    …………………………………………….

    Linda I’m embarrassed for you. Of course having a SS card doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with citizenship. My children are nb citizens because they were born on US soil. Now please back up the following claims:

    Linda: How can a non citizen claim US citizneship for thier child, when the current law states atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen unless the child is found and no parents are able to be located aka abandoned baby.

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.

  230. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    Original Social Security Card
    To apply for an original card, you must provide at least two documents to prove age, identity, and U.S.
    citizenship or current lawful, work-authorized immigration status. If you are not a U.S. citizen and do not
    have DHS work authorization, you must prove that you have a valid non-work reason for requesting a
    card. See page 2 for an explanation of acceptable documents.

    ________________________________________________________

    So you also worked while here in the US.

  231. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    If you didn’t, what was your valid reason in needing to obtain a US SSI#?

  232. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    My children are nb citizens because they were born on US soil. Now please back up the following claims:

    US law states 1 parent has to be a US citizen, go read the statutes

  233. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:29 am

    So you checked the box, “legal alien allowed to work”. Still doesn’t make your children eligible to be president, let alone US citizens. Your SSI records are proof that you were not here with intentions to naturalize as full fledge US citizens.

    …………………………………………

    You don’t have to intend to naturalise Linda. In fact work visas are for a specified time precisely to prevent it. If you want to naturalise you have to go through various pother processes. Can you explain why my children hold US passport if they are not citizens?

  234. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    I could care less how this Ed dude is. Does that make you some sort of special person that is better than everyone else? In our country, status does not make the person, character does.

  235. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:33 am

    Original Social Security Card
    To apply for an original card, you must provide at least two documents to prove age, identity, and U.S.
    citizenship or current lawful, work-authorized immigration status. If you are not a U.S. citizen and do not
    have DHS work authorization, you must prove that you have a valid non-work reason for requesting a
    card. See page 2 for an explanation of acceptable documents.

    ________________________________________________________

    So you also worked while here in the US.

    No, I had a valid reason. I had a valid visa. It was quite a long time ago, but I think the reason I needed it was to open a US bank account and get US credit cards. If you don’t believe I have one I can email it to you.

    By the way, this exchange isn’t doing much to burnish you reputation as a researcher.

  236. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:35 am

    My children are nb citizens because they were born on US soil. Now please back up the following claims:

    US law states 1 parent has to be a US citizen, go read the statutes

    ……………………………

    No the burden is on you – you prove your case by showing me the statutes. I already know I’m right – the passport is sitting on my desk as I type.

  237. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    Can you explain why my children hold US passport if they are not citizens?

    Because the parents provided thier working SSI#’s on the form. Did you tell the state officials when you filled out the forms that you were not US citizens, but merely UK residents on work visas?

    As I have said: Just because a govt agency turns a blind eye to the law, doesn’t make it law.

  238. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:43 am

    Can you explain why my children hold US passport if they are not citizens?

    Because the parents provided thier working SSI#’s on the form. Did you tell the state officials when you filled out the forms that you were not US citizens, but merely UK residents on work visas?

    I already have. Just because a govt agency turns a blind eye to the law, doesn’t make it law.

    ……………..

    Which state officials are you talking about? The reason birth certificate don’t ask for nationality of the parents is because it is irrelevant. This is the whole purpose of this exchange. Do you think it is an over sigth that throughout the USA no birth certificate asks this if as you say, it is a prerequisite for citizenship – and that nobody other than you has ever pointed it out and tried to rectify it?

    Is it finlaly dawning on you that you are wrong. Now show me that statute.

  239. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:37 am

    I could care less how this Ed dude is. Does that make you some sort of special person that is better than everyone else? In our country, status does not make the person, character does.

    ……………………………
    Then you are losing. You continually lie – poor character trait.

  240. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda: I already have. Just because a govt agency turns a blind eye to the law, doesn’t make it law.

    …………….

    Oh really, this is just fantasy now. Immigration is ahuge issue in the uS, agreed? It is one of the main policy planks of the GOP, agreed?

    So where are the conservative and republican politicians and lawyers on this issue. They want to change thehlaw – they are not claiming it is simply being over looked. I can’t believe you are continuing with this ridiculous charade. Now show me the statute.

  241. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda – I’m off to walk my dogs now – I look forward to reading the mythical statue on my return.

  242. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    bystander,

    Do you not know what ‘subject to the jurisdition’ means. US law does not automatically confer citizenship.

    If US laws were the same as Englands as statist such as yourself claim, then why are US children born overseas not automatically granted US citizenship unless meeting sertain criteria and even then, the parents must fill out legal forms to gain that status legally.

    Title 8

    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;this is verbatum of the 14th Amendment. You must also know that according to our constitution, Congress only held the power to natualize emmigrant

    Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland (the lone Democrat among the Senators quoted; all the others were Republicans in this Reconstruction Senate) was less certain than his colleagues that the proposed amendment clearly excluded Indians not taxed, but wished to clarify how American citizenship was created. He accepted that birthright citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens was natural and the appropriate norm, but worried that the proposed amendment might be read too broadly:

    Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power – for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us – shall be considered as citizens of the United States. … I am, however, by no means prepared to say, as I think I have intimated before, that being born within the United States, independent of any new constitutional provision on the subject, creates the relation of citizen to the United States.

    Johnson went on to quote from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had just passed. He considered that its wording better expressed what the Citizenship Clause was meant to achieve: “That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens.” None of his colleagues, not least Senator Howard, the Citizenship Clause’s proponent, disagreed.

    more from title 8:

    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
    (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
    (d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
    (e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
    (f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

    § 1433. Children born and residing outside the United States; conditions for acquiring certificate of citizenship
    How Current is This? (a) Application by citizen parents; requirements
    A parent who is a citizen of the United States (or, if the citizen parent has died during the preceding 5 years, a citizen grandparent or citizen legal guardian) may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under section 1431 of this title. The Attorney General shall issue a certificate of citizenship to such applicant upon proof, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the following conditions have been fulfilled:
    (1) At least one parent (or, at the time of his or her death, was) is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
    (2) The United States citizen parent—
    (A) has (or, at the time of his or her death, had) been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years; or
    (B) has (or, at the time of his or her death, had) a citizen parent who has been physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
    (3) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
    (4) The child is residing outside of the United States in the legal and physical custody of the applicant (or, if the citizen parent is deceased, an individual who does not object to the application).
    (5) The child is temporarily present in the United States pursuant to a lawful admission, and is maintaining such lawful status.
    (b) Attainment of citizenship status; receipt of certificate
    Upon approval of the application (which may be filed from abroad) and, except as provided in the last sentence of section 1448 (a) of this title, upon taking and subscribing before an officer of the Service within the United States to the oath of allegiance required by this chapter of an applicant for naturalization, the child shall become a citizen of the United States and shall be furnished by the Attorney General with a certificate of citizenship.

    § 1431. Children born outside the United States and residing permanently in the United States; conditions under which citizenship automatically acquired
    How Current is This? (a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
    (1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
    (2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
    (3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.
    (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 1101 (b)(1) of this title.

    In every instance, atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen, so where do you fit in? If a US citizen abroad does not automatically gain US citizenship, then why would anyone think give precedent to tamporary visitors whos babies are by chance born on our soil.

    Now, if subject to the jurisdiction meant merely born on soil, then there would have never been any exclusion for Indians that were also born on the soil now would there have been. They held allegiance to a foreign sovereignty aka Indian nation.

    “Subject to the Jurisdiction = complete allegiance, both locally & politically. There has been no amendment to our constitution(though there have been several attempts in the past 4 decades) therefore, until there is, your children are NOT lawful US citizens and should they be brought into a US court of law, a very good case could be made to strip them of that staus you think they hold. There are current cases pending all over the US. it is only a matter of time before we restore order under the rule of US LAW.

  243. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    Linda says: I could care less how this Ed dude is. Does that make you some sort of special person that is better than everyone else? In our country, status does not make the person, character does.

    ……………………………
    byst: Then you are losing. You continually lie – poor character trait.

    No, I was merely stating a fact.

    You thought by citing some dudes name and the fact you bypassed immigration and was whisked off in a limo gave more weight to your argument.

    it only shows your arrogance towards Americans & American law, especially conservative Americans.

  244. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    No Linda – I wanted to annoy you. I did. I am pleased.

    I am not interested in your misinterpretation of the constitution. Living in the US means you are “under the jurisdiction of”. Now where is that statute you claimed to have? Why is it taking you so long to produce it? Surely you had it in front of you when you claimed:
    ……….
    How can a non citizen claim US citizneship for thier child, when the current law states atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen unless the child is found and no parents are able to be located aka abandoned baby.

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.
    ………..

    You said you checked the latest information – where is it?

  245. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 27, 2010 at 3:35 am

    My children are nb citizens because they were born on US soil. Now please back up the following claims:

    US law states 1 parent has to be a US citizen, go read the statutes

    …………………………

    Can’t wait to read the statute Linda – where did you find it? A simple link will do. Still waiting ………..

  246. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    byst: Then you are losing. You continually lie – poor character trait.

    No, I was merely stating a fact.

    No Linda you haven’t stated any facts. This whole thread has been one long epic fail for you as all your claims have whither under scrutiny. You lied about the birth certificates, you lied about SS numbers, and now you appear to be lying about those statutes and laws in your deep red state. Because you have yet to produce them, despite appearing to refer to them just a few hours ago. Are they with the super secret kenyan Government document you lost the other day?

    Really Linda this must be humiliating for you – why don’t you just come clean and admit you thought it was the law, but you never checked, and now you know you are wrong? I might respect that.

    Plus I have to say, for someone who prides themselves on their researching skills, your responses on the SS stuff were pathetic.

  247. 01/27/2010qwertyman says:

    Can’t wait to read the statute Linda – where did you find it? A simple link will do.

    Linda attempted to cite 8 USC 1401(a), using her completely incorrect interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Apparently she doesn’t realize that if that’s how the government interpreted that statute, citizenship would be retroactively removed from millions of US citizens. Linda is apparently also unaware that it is in no way unusual for green card holders or immigrants in the US on work visas to have a social security number.

    Linda is unable to cite a single judge, member of Congress, current law professor or constitutional scholar who agrees with her viewpoint that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen.

  248. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Q – I have a suspicion Linda might have had the sense to gracefully withdraw from this thread before she makes any more unsupportable claims. It is quite funny that she seems to have no idea at all how us furriners function in the US, and jumps to bizarre conclusions.

  249. 01/27/2010Linda says:

    byst: A simple link will do. Still waiting

    As I stated, its Title 8 of US code. Since you say you are so familiar and learned in our laws, I expect you know where to find them.

    byst: Q – I have a suspicion Linda might have had the sense to gracefully withdraw from this thread before she makes any more unsupportable claims.

    ROFL, you wish. Some people actually have to work for a living and just because we own the business doesn’t mean we can always play whenever it is convenient for you.

    qwerty: Linda attempted to cite 8 USC 1401(a), using her completely incorrect interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    Congress was only vested with immigration & naturalization, hence Title 8 of the US code, so…

    Yes, I cited from US code which is code for those not born to 2 US citizens on US soil. They are laws made by Congress and a ‘NBC’ needs no law. That is the definition per Congress who wrote & adopted the 14th, not some fisticious one I made up. I’m not into fiction, have always been a real life, no holds barred, tell the truth no matter how much you hate it, gal.

    You should try it more often, especially when you try to explain WKA and state the SCOTUS delared WKA to be a NBC, when in fact they did not.

  250. 01/27/2010bystander says:

    Linda you said this:

    How can a non citizen claim US citizneship for thier child, when the current law states atleast 1 parent must be a US citizen unless the child is found and no parents are able to be located aka abandoned baby.

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.

    ……….

    You can’t back it up – don’t tell me I know where to look for it – you made the claim, you back it up. And it certainly isn’t where you said it is. Plus stop repeating the outright lie that I have ever claimed any expertise of detailed knowledge whatsoever of US law. Show me the statute Linda or have the good grace to admit you made it up.

  251. 01/27/2010qwertyman says:

    Now, when I check the latest information required by my state, one requirement is parents who were born out of country must provide a copy of their naturalization papers.

    Linda, I remember you saying you were from South Dakota. I’ve spent about 5 minutes searching through the SD statutes on birth certificates, and there is absolutely nothing about requiring naturalization papers. Are you seriously suggesting that a hospital will refuse to issue a birth certificate to a newborn in your state unless both the parents are US citizens?

    Yes, I cited from US code which is code for those not born to 2 US citizens on US soil. They are laws made by Congress and a ‘NBC’ needs no law. That is the definition per Congress who wrote & adopted the 14th, not some fisticious one I made up. I’m not into fiction, have always been a real life, no holds barred, tell the truth no matter how much you hate it, gal.

    If this wasn’t completely incoherent I’d attempt a response. This paragraph doesn’t even make sense.

  252. 01/28/2010Linda says:

    ROFL, qwerty spent a whole 5 min searching the Sd state site. This just proves how little these drones put into their efforts to learn the law, but they comment as if they are experts in it.

    As far as my reply, it was completely coherent, but since you only spent 5 min on my state site, I am not surprised you have such difficulty understnding US laws.

    Thanks for the bedtime chuckle. I can now go to sleep with a smile.

  253. 01/28/2010bystander says:

    I think it is safe to assume that Linda has retreated to lick her wounds, and it is now finally dawning on her that her 2 citizen parents theory is nothing more than a fantasy. I am expecting a deluge of new 18th century gibberish in 4..3….2….

    Just imagine – the law requires two citizen parents but has no way of establishing that because every single state forgot to ask for the parents nationality on their birth certificates! You couldn’t make it up …. except that the birthers did. And they wonder why we laugh at them.

  254. 01/28/2010bystander says:

    Linda says:
    January 28, 2010 at 2:01 am

    ROFL, qwerty spent a whole 5 min searching the Sd state site. This just proves how little these drones put into their efforts to learn the law, but they comment as if they are experts in it.

    As far as my reply, it was completely coherent, but since you only spent 5 min on my state site, I am not surprised you have such difficulty understnding US laws.

    Thanks for the bedtime chuckle. I can now go to sleep with a smile.
    ……..

    Spoke to soon – here she is again not backing up her claims.

    Linda do you think we are 5 years old and don’t understand what you are doing? If you had the statutes you would be waving them from the rooftops because they would prove your theory. But since spending 5 minutes on research isn’t sufficient to get you to respond – tell me how long is. I will volunteer to spend up to 10 hours searching the South Dakota legislation – if I don’t find it will you then admit you made the whole thing up?

  255. 01/28/2010bystander says:

    OK Linda.

    I have now spent two hours trawling the South Dakota statutes. I have read every statute that shows up on a “birth certificate” word search. For completeness I also searched “birth”, “parent nationality”, “non-citizen parent”, “citizen” and many more. There is nothing in these statutes that supports your claim that one parent must be a citizen. Nothing Linda. For an example here is the statute dealing with the documentation required to register the birth of a child born outside of an institution. This is the category of birth that requires the highest burden off proof:

    http://legis.state.sd.us/rules/DisplayRule.aspx?Rule=44:09:02:13

    Please read it Linda and show me where it says parents have to provide anything relating to their citizenship status. The father isn’t even mentioned in the statute – the mother only has to prove she was a state resident at the time of birth.

    Now are you going to laugh this off – or will you finally admit you lied?

  256. 01/28/2010qwertyman says:

    ROFL, qwerty spent a whole 5 min searching the Sd state site. This just proves how little these drones put into their efforts to learn the law, but they comment as if they are experts in it.

    No, I spent 5 minutes searching Lexis and Westlaw for SD statutes. The SD site was much more difficult to navigate, and Lexis contains just the text of statutes.

    I don’t consider myself an expert in SD vital records statutes, but I did skim through the entire section regarding birth certificates, and nothing came close.

    But please, feel free to educate me. Tell me what SD statute requires that newborns in SD will not receive birth certificates unless both parents produce naturalization records.

  257. 01/28/2010bystander says:

    Bry – I predict Linda is going to have very heavy work commitments until Phil saves her by removing this thread.

  258. 01/28/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    …And they wonder why we laugh at them.

    I already know why the opposition to questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility as President laugh of folks such as myself. Rudeness, meanness and ugliness, simply put.

    There have been so many “armchair attorneys” — and a few real ones — who have given so many interpretations of the law that it’s almost an issue that one person’s facts are another person’s opinion.

    Here’s the bottom line. SCOTUS has never made a ruling on American citizenship of any sort with respect to presidential eligibility. Most discussions on this blog and other sites have commenters regurgitating, ad nauseum, their opinion that the high Court has done so when, in fact, it has not.

    So, as I have just said, the only other thing that many opposition commenters fall back on is pejoratives.

    -Phil

  259. 01/28/2010Phil says:

    bystander,

    Bry – I predict Linda is going to have very heavy work commitments until Phil saves her by removing this thread.

    I don’t remove threads; I kick rude commenters who are too uncivil off my site :)

    -Phil

  260. 01/29/2010bystander says:

    Linda – in case you missed my comment on the other thread, I will repeat it here for you. I think this closes the case and I think you owe me an apology:

    I have now received a response from the South Dakota Dept of Health (impressively quick response), confirming you made up the birth certificate statutes you talked about.

    Here is my email:

    Dear Sir/Madam

    I would very much appreciate it if you could clarify the situation regarding the birth of a child in South Dakota to non-US citizens.

    1 When applying for a birth certificate for a child born in SD, it is necessary for one or both parents to be a US citizen?

    2 Does a child born to non US citizens have exactly the same citizenship status as a child born to one or more US citizens?

    3 Do you differentiate in any way in the documentation required or the birth certificate issued, when the child has one, two or no citizen parents.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify this issue for me.

    ………………………………….

    Here is the response:

    Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:54:40 -0600 [08:54:40 EST]
    From: Susan.Wayrynen@state.sd.us
    To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (redacted)
    Subject: birth certificate

    Your questions regarding children born in the US to non US citizens:

    1) no
    2) yes
    3) no

    The status of parent’s citizenship is not addressed in our laws;
    therefore, a child born to anyone in SD is considered a US citizen.
    Also, our laws are very specific regarding what is required for ordering a birth record and, again, citizenship is not addressed. I hope this answers your questions. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

    Susan
    SD Vital Records

    ………..

    Linda that is pretty conclusive refutation isn’t it? Are you now ready to apologise and admit you made it all up?

  261. 12/16/2010Lt. Lakin’s Persecution is Just the Beginning – Time to Redouble Efforts – Will State Legislators Allow the Life Support Plug on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution to be Pulled? – The BOPAC Report « The BOPAC Report &a says:

    […] lose faith, miracles do happen. Several legislators in different parts of the country are answering the call for specialized […]