588 Comments »

• elspeth says:

  February 22, 2010 at 8:36 pm

  MBG says: It’s easy. Full disclosure.

  So do I! Full disclosure. Simple. Win-win.

  Shouldn’t be a problem if no lies have been told.

  But then again, how can you tell if Obama is lying? Answer: his lips will be moving.
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  February 22, 2010 at 2:25 pm

  “Ergo, Statutory Dual-Citizen at birth.” slcraig

  1 Before the XIVth Amendment there was no federal definition of citizenship. It was accepted that the common law understanding of allegiance, as legally established in the British American Colonies, had meant that any person (except the child of an ambassador) born within the King’s dominions owed him undivided allegiance as a “natural born subject” i.e. allegiance began when such persons’ natural lives began in the King’s dominions. This common law definition was carried forward when the newly independent American Colonies incorporated by statute the common law into state law, with the intention of reassuring the people that no anarchic destruction of the established law had occurred. This confirmed the legal position that all British nationality statutes enacted by Parliament before 1776 which modified the common law (except the 1740 Naturalization Act) had been determined by British authorities to have no legal effect in the American Colonies and, indeed, the Revolution had been fought by Americans on the basis that the Colonists were subjects of the King but not subject to Parliament. Hence the need for a US Naturalization Act at a later date.

  “The [British Constitutional settlement of] of 1688 put an end to the feudal doctrine of allegiance to the king in his natural capacity. Such a king was no longer sovereign – loyalty of a sort still might be accorded to him, but it could not be political loyalty. No allegiance was now possible except to the King-in-Parliament. Alexander Hamilton suggested in December 1774 that the ‘absolute sovereignty of parliament’ meant ‘absolute slavery’ for Americans, all the while affirming his loyalty to the Crown. Samuel Seabury responded that ‘to talk of being liege subjects to King George, while we disavow the authority of Parliament is another piece of Whiggish nonsense’ … Calvin’s Case [upholding the common law] was still the accepted standard on the subject of allegiance and the patriots finally gave up the attempt to dissect the King-in-Parliament. But as in other areas of the revolutionary debate, the loyalists had paradoxically come to depend on a post-1688 view of the British constitution [Parliament], while the patriots drew their arguments from a pre-1688 interpretation [King].”

  Nemo Potest Exuere Patriam: Indelibility of Allegiance and the American Revolution, Thomas S. Martin, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr., 1991)

  2 There was no such status as “dual nationality” in British law before Independence or American law subsequently. Until the British enacted their 1870 naturalization legislation there was nothing an individual Britisher could do to change his exclusive natural born and perpetual allegiance. Similarly:

  “…the United States, like the British, endorsed the doctrine of indefeasible allegiance. In other words, we claimed the right to naturalize immigrants but denied Americans the right to give up their American nationality… In Shanks v. Dupont (1830), the [US] Supreme Court gave its conclusions on the subject; said Justice Story, ‘The general doctrine [governing American law] is that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens’. And Chancellor James Kent in his Commentaries concluded a discussion of expatriation by stating: ‘From this historical review . . . the better opinion would seem to be that a citizen cannot renounce his allegiance to the United States without permission of the government, to be declared by law; and that, as there is no existing legislative regulation on the case, the [perpetual allegiance] rule of the English common law remains unaltered’.” The Expatriation Decisions, John P. Roche, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Mar., 1964)

  What determines the meaning of a word or phrase in the US Constitution is what the Framers who wrote it understood it to mean. The phrase “natural born citizen” in Article 2(1)(5) excluded naturalized citizens because, as British (and later American) legal history demonstrated, the rights of a naturalized citizen could be restricted by the same process of legislation which first gave them: in the extreme, a hostile Congress could have enacted legislation which removed the ability of an opposing naturalized President to remain in office. The Framers had no concept of “dual nationality” (the naturalization oath still requires new citizens – in theory – to renounce former allegiances) and they allowed state law (incorporating the common law) to define natural born citizenship, so Article 2(1)(5) had three corollaries: it would exclude a naturalized citizen; it would exclude a “dual national”, but no person could be deemed a “dual national” who was born in a state of the Union i.e. born into the undivided allegiance presumed by the common law; and it would exclude the children of US citizen(s) born outside a state of the Union. (Until 1855 the foreign born children of post-1802-born Americans did not receive US citizenship. The law was changed following an 1853 paper by attorney and ex-Congressman Horace Binney, who wrote: “The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.” [emphasis applied] )

  3 Given Obama was deemed illegitimate under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902, and thereby ineligible to British citizenship by descent at birth under Section 32(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948, in 1961 (or following Kenyan independence in 1963) Obama could not have been a “dual national” of either Britain or Kenya. At independence in 1963 eligibility to the citizenship of Kenya, for a person born outside the country, depended on the legal transmission of British citizenship by a Kenyan father under BNA 1948. The Constitution of Kenya read(s):

  Article 87(2): Every person…born outside Kenya, [who] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies…shall [be], if his father becomes [on that date] a citizen of Kenya [by virtue of Kenyan birth], [a] citizen of Kenya [in his own right].

  Assuming (only hypothetically) that Obama was a US citizen before he went to Indonesia in the 60s, and expatriated while there, simply returning to the United States without a visa would have restored Obama’s (only hypothetical) US nationality. Currently there is no evidence that Obama, after his presumed return to Hawaii in 1971, committed acts which expatriated his (only hypothetical) US citizenship – but given his movements at that time and his general non-disclosure of records this may have occurred. Particularly suspicious here are the bizarre impossibilities of Obama’s 1981 Selective Service Registration (obtained through FOIA) and his route to Pakistan through Indonesia in that same year (his mother was in Hawaii), where the renewal of an Indonesian passportcitizenship would have necessitated Obama expatriating his (only hypothetical) US citizenship, if it existed.

  Since Obama was never a British national at birth by descent IF born in the US he could never have been a “dual national” at birth. Even assuming (only hypothetically) that Obama had (somehow) been eligible to “dual US-British nationality” at birth IF born in the US, the Constitution and its Framers, drawing upon established state law incorporating common law, could not have imagined this still fictitious legal concept ever attaching to any person born in a state of the Union. Under that same established state law, birth outside a state of the Union did not make a natural born citizen of the Union.

  “[Obama's parents] may have made the ‘birth trip’ [to Kenya]…in anticipation of Kenya’s independence… slcraig

  Obama Sr. was a completely dedicated Kenyan nationalist, who may have wanted to return home to Kenya to greet the charismatic leader of Kenyan nationalism, Jomo Kenyatta, who had been gradually emerging from British detention to a hero’s reception in the summer of 1961, after seven years out of circulation. This could have been sufficient motivation for Ann Dunham to follow her “husband” to Kenya. We certainly have no knowledge of where Obama Sr. and Dunham were located in that strange summer of 1961, but we should always remember that there are at least three other scenarios alternative to Kenya which envisage Obama’s birth outside the US.
• MGB says:

  February 21, 2010 at 12:28 pm

  Who Are You Kidding: Interestingly enough, I recently read, I believe in the Wall Street Journal, that it’s a standard ploy in “intelligence” circles, that when some unfortunate truth is coming out, operatives will “admit” to part of the “truth” while continuing to hide the MAIN truth–that which is the KEY truth, which will unravel all.

  What that key truth is, nobody but Obama and perhaps his inner circle know. Whatever it is, it’s big.

  Perhaps his parents’ “mistakes” involve a mother who played fast and loose with vital records, doing whatever suited at the time. Perhaps when it suited, BHO Sr. was his official, legal father, although she lived with her parents and not him and scant weeks after giving birth, she was in college in Washington State. Perhaps when it did not suit to have BHO Sr. as father, she amended the birth records to name her new husband as his father, facilitating his move to Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen. When that didn’t work out, it was back to Hawaii, where BHO Sr. mysteriously reappeared around the time that Obama enrolled in Punahou. Why did he come? To make another amendment (correction?) to vital records?

  All this is speculation, of course, but it’s invited speculation because this POTUS will not release the vital records (plural, all of them) to PROVE what he has claimed.

  It’s easy. Full disclosure.
• slcraig says:

  February 20, 2010 at 1:54 pm

  Who Are You Kidding says:
  February 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm
  “[Obama] already freely admits to being a British citizen at birth…“. Phil

  The fact that Obama so very freely “admits” to being a British citizen by decent at birth, considering other circumstances, is by itself enough to make such an “admission” highly suspicious. Given Obama was deemed illegitimate under British Kenyan law, and thereby ineligible to British citizenship by descent at birth, Obama’s “admission” is either deluded or deceptive. Proponents of Obama’s British citizenship by descent at birth must demonstrate that the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 did not apply to Obama Sr. and that Section 32(2) of the 1948 British Nationality Act did not apply to Obama Jr. So far nobody has even attempted to make that case: by default then, Obama Jr. was ineligible to British citizenship by descent at birth.

  (snip remainder)

  _____________________________________________________

  Reading through your entire post I see that you are meticulous in your analytical process which I noticed and borne out by your ‘acknowledgement of ‘facts’ in this paragraph.

  I applaud you, as I have been waiting for over a year for some one, 0′pologist or other wise, to present this research.

  So bear with me and offer your opinion of this retort.

  “All ‘Certificates of Birth’ authorized by the US Dept of Health and Vital Statistics, and/or the various predecessors and successors, include ‘data fields’ requiring the ‘birth place’ of each of the two parents.

  Both respective and Irrespective of the Nationality Laws of any of the two parents home countries, the ‘fact’ of one or more parents being born any where other than within the jurisdiction of the United States may require a ’statutory’ determination as to the citizenship of the person born, (child), as well as indicates that either one or both of the parents may have the ‘Parental Right’ under the Nationality Laws of that/those Parents home country to ‘elect’ the Nationality on behalf of the person born, (child).

  Ergo, Statutory Dual-Citizen at birth.

  (Of course those that insist that the little ‘0′ was born in Kenya may use this is fuel for proof, i.e., the Big ‘0′ and little Stanley AnnE being aware of “that fact”, children born to a subject from a ‘foreign national on foreign soil’, may have made the ‘birth trip’ in order to for the little ‘0′ to share in the glory of British/Colonial Subject-hood and in anticipation of Kenya’s independence.)
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  February 20, 2010 at 2:35 am

  “…misdirection within misdirection.” MGB (whom I salute)

  At his website Fight The Smears Obama publicly claims he possessed two(!) citizenships to which, in fact, he was never eligible: namely, British and later Kenyan citizenship.

  Was Obama’s legal counsel so incompetent that Obama was advised that he had been eligible to British citizenship by descent at birth, later extending to Kenyan citizenship, when British and Kenyan law did not support that advice? Did Obama act as his own legal counsel and succumb to the fantasy (similar to that confessed in Dreams From My Father) of being a genuine Kenyan citizen? Or was there method in this apparent “madness” e.g. some financial benefit? Accountability will surely expose any misdirection within the misdirection; until then speculation about its purpose would only spread the misdirection by distracting the Sovereign People from making Obama, Hawaii DoH, and others responsible to the law; but there remains the simple and compelling implication:

  If Obama can once (and indeed twice!) claim a citizenship to which in fact he was not eligible (assuming he was not born on British or Kenyan territory), then Obama can just as easily have another claim upon a citizenship to which he is not eligible (assuming he was not born on US territory).

  This seems the quickest way to the truth: http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/
• MGB says:

  February 18, 2010 at 8:42 pm

  Who Are You Kidding says:
  February 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm

  “Who”, that’s a masterpiece of a treatise. Bravo/brava, whatever the case may be. I stand in awe. Standing ovation!

  This is great: “Proponents of Obama’s British citizenship by descent at birth must demonstrate that the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 did not apply to Obama Sr. and that Section 32(2) of the 1948 British Nationality Act did not apply to Obama Jr.”

  So we may have misdirection within misdirection.
• Phil says:

  February 18, 2010 at 2:46 pm

  Sue,

  Phil,

  “I never doubted what you actually knew. I doubted the bias on your or others’ parts.”

  Bias? Do you consider adhering to the rules of law, federal rules of civil procedure, federal rules of evidence and professional and ethical codes of conduct as being biased?

  Do you believe the birther lawyers should NOT be required to adhere to these rules of law when all other lawyers are required to do so? Do you believe the birther lawyers are above the rules of law?

  At last count, my site currently sports more than 30,000 comments. Out of all of those comments, if you can find a singular comment wherein I even remotely suggest that anyone does anything even remotely unlawful, then I’ll answer your questions.

  In other words, “asked and answered,” and that, many times over.

  -Phil
• Sue says:

  February 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

  Phil,

  “I never doubted what you actually knew. I doubted the bias on your or others’ parts.”

  Bias? Do you consider adhering to the rules of law, federal rules of civil procedure, federal rules of evidence and professional and ethical codes of conduct as being biased?

  Do you believe the birther lawyers should NOT be required to adhere to these rules of law when all other lawyers are required to do so? Do you believe the birther lawyers are above the rules of law?
• Sue says:

  February 18, 2010 at 5:29 am

  MGB,

  “I believe that it would be a risky step for any lawyer to present something to a court of law, asking the court to take notice of the information, if the information is not what it purports to be and is not relevant to the case. So anyone can argue that the lawyers are incompetent or unethical (pretty serious charges to make without evidence) but on the other side one might argue that these lawyers are risking their very careers if they mislead the court. So, why would a lawyer submit these statutes if they were not in effect at the time of his birth?”

  Actually, you can go through all these birther briefs filed with the courts and find numerous examples of information asking the court to take notice of information that is not what it purports to be and is not relevant to the case. Shall I prepare a list for you?

  New Docket Entry:

  01/11/2010 Open Document RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION FILED [1224880] by Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and Barry Soetoro in 09-5080, 09-5161 to motion for judicial notice [1224526-2] [Service Date: 01/11/2010 by email] Pages: 1-10. [09-5080, 09-5161]

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/25070160/HOLLISTER-v-SOETORO-APPEAL-2010-01-11-Appellees-Opposition-Re-Motion-for-Judicial-Notice

  “On January 7, 2009, Appellants Hollister and Hemenway filed a second Motion to Take Judicial Notice (“Motion”), asking the Court yet again to take notice of materials irrelevant to the present appeal. The Court should deny this motion.

  As Appellees argued the last time that Appellants requested judicial notice, see Doc. No. 1213344 at 1; see also Doc. No. 1220734 at 2, the issues on appeal in this case are (1) whether Appellant Hollister stated a claim under the interpleader statute by alleging a cognizable stake and by meeting interpleader’s adversity requirement; and, relatedly, (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in reprimanding Appellant Hemenway for filing a frivolous suit. The district court did not reach the “merits” of Hollister’s claim, see Corrected Appellants’ Joint Appendix at 256, and the “merits” are not properly before this Court. The documents attached to Appellants’ Motion have absolutely no bearing on the issues before this Court and therefore judicial notice should not be taken. See Larson v. Dep’t of State, 565 F.3d 857, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“We deny the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice . . . because those articles are irrelevant to our inquiry; taking notice of them would not affect our opinion.”); see also, e.g., Trans-Sterling, Inc. v. Bible, 804 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that a court need not take judicial notice of irrelevant facts); United States v. Byrnes, 644 F.2d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 1981) (holding that a trial court properly refused to take judicial notice of regulations that were irrelevant).”

  There are only two issues before the appeals court:

  1. The interpleader statute and whether Hollister can make a valid claim under that statute.

  2. Rule 11 and whether Hemenway violated it.

  Therefore, the motion to take judicial notice filed by Hemenway is irrelevant to the appeal (except as they may relate to Rule 38 sanctions, of course).
• Who Are You Kidding says:

  February 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm

  “[Obama] already freely admits to being a British citizen at birth…“. Phil

  The fact that Obama so very freely “admits” to being a British citizen by decent at birth, considering other circumstances, is by itself enough to make such an “admission” highly suspicious. Given Obama was deemed illegitimate under British Kenyan law, and thereby ineligible to British citizenship by descent at birth, Obama’s “admission” is either deluded or deceptive. Proponents of Obama’s British citizenship by descent at birth must demonstrate that the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 did not apply to Obama Sr. and that Section 32(2) of the 1948 British Nationality Act did not apply to Obama Jr. So far nobody has even attempted to make that case: by default then, Obama Jr. was ineligible to British citizenship by descent at birth.

  “[DoH] has stated officially twice that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii…the statements from [DoH] answer [the demand for proof of place of birth] with no room for reasonable doubt….“. tancy

  1 If on every occasion before and after Fukino’s July 2009 statement she (through her spokesperson Okubo) has insisted (on the purported advice of the Hawaii AG) that statements concerning Obama’s vital records are illegal, then Fukino in July 2009 for reasons best known to herself committed an illegality. If Fukino’s July statement is not illegal, then Fukino (through Okubo) for some mysterious reason lied about such statements being illegal. Given Fukino has been either acting illegally or lying in relation to Obama’s vital records, then a reasonable doubt exists about the honesty and probity of any statement or action by Fukino and Okubo in relation to Obama’s vital records.

  2 On October 31, 2008 when Fukino stated that “…State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record…” she was deliberately and illegally withholding from the public (and did so until November 2009) the Hawaii DoH Vital Records Regulations which, in Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2), gave her the independent authority to issue without any need for permission from Obama himself a non-certified informational copy of Obama’s 1961 filing to any person or organization. Fukino’s illegal behavior and duplicity create a reasonable doubt that her statement was the truth and the whole truth, with nothing to hide, in relation to what she then called Obama’s “original birth certificate on record“.

  3 In response to a UIPA (Hawaii FOIA) request for disclosure of records not covered by UIPA privacy restrictions concerning amendments sought by Obama to his vital records, Fukino answered both privately and publicly with a statement on July 27, 2009. This statement now referenced Obama’s “original vital records maintained on file“. No explanation was given for Fukino’s change in official usage from “birth certificate [singular] on record” to “vital records [plural] maintained on file“. Given an internal departmental difference was later discovered in the DoH VR Regulations between a document being “on record” or being “on file“, and that the statutory designation of a current vital record was the “original” vital record, however many prior iterations, Fukino’s July statement created a reasonable doubt that her statement was the truth, and the whole truth, especially when the simple truth is that an unamended birth certificate would not generate “records” in the plural. With amendment(s) to Obama’s filing subsequently being confirmed by Fukino denying access to them, thus formally allowing the requester the option of a further appeal to the Hawaii UIPA watchdog (OIP) or the courts, the factual existence of these “records” in the plural was proved. DoH refusal to acknowledge the online images of Obama’s alleged COLB, and the concealment of its independent authority to issue an informational copy of Obama’s 1961 filing, in the context of amendment(s) having been sought by Obama to that filing, created the further reasonable doubt that Obama has no legal documentation from 1961 to sustain a claim to birth in the US.

  A reasonable person must conclude that four separate instances of reasonable doubt (and there are more) with regard to Hawaii DoH statements and behavior concerning Obama’s filing is more than sufficient to undermine its credibility and reliability in the matter. The statements and behavior of Hawaii DoH are inconsistent with what we would normally expect from public servants, but entirely consistent with Obama’s efforts to suppress his 1961 filing. This consistency and the reasonable doubt it creates are completely within the sole authority of DoH to resolve using powers devolved by the Hawaii DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2). DoH’s preference at almost every opportunity for duplicity, illegality or lying suggests only one explanation.

  “The “Michele” COLB (overlaid onto Obama’s): Also ‘Caucasian’; also “filed.’” Bob

  1 Bob is citing and linking to evidence brought forward by Dr Ron Polarik. It was in part by comparing Obama’s COLB with the “Michele COLB” that Dr Polarik proposed that the images of Obama’s alleged COLB posted online were forgeries. If Bob accepts Dr Polarik’s evidence he must accept Dr Polarik’s conclusions; if Bob rejects Dr Polarik’s conclusions, he must reject Dr Polarik’s evidence. Given Bob rejects Dr Polarik’s findings, there is no rational basis for Bob using Dr Polarik’s evidence.

  2 If Bob is willing to deploy the evidence of someone (Dr Ron Polarik) who Bob previously accused of having manufactured evidence and “lied…under oath…[and committed] perjury“, then Bob has demonstrated that he is willing to use manufactured and perjured evidence to support the case for Obama. Unfortunately, a case and its proponent (i.e Bob) resorting to (allegedly) manufactured and perjured evidence merit zero credibility and most definitely are not to be trusted.

  “over 99 percent of the births were attended, and you have no evidence that Obama’s wasn’t…” Bob

  As just mentioned, this is a perfect example of an argument which most definitely is not to be trusted. The evidence that Obama’s birth was unattended has come from Hawaii DoH itself. By denying access to the documents concerning an amendment to Obama’s filing, DoH thereby confirm such an amendment was sought and Obama was charged fees for same. According to the previously (and illegally) withheld DoH VR Regulations, if Obama’s birth was filed from Kapiolani Hospital then he or his family would not have been held responsible and charged for the Hospital’s errors: consequently Obama was not born in Kapiolani Hospital. Furthermore, by denying UIPA requesters access to Obama’s delayed (now called “late”) filing, Hawaii DoH have necessarily confirmed that Obama’s birth was not filed by a hospital or professional attendant, who were required by DoH VR Regulations to file within seven days of a birth.

  Indeed, Kapiolani Hospital doctors signed birth certificates in batches every Friday, which were filed with the in-house registrar, and sent that day to Vital Records for official acceptance. As images of Obama’s alleged COLB claim he was born on Friday, August 4, and Obama himself claims he was born at Kapiolani Hospital, then Obama’s Kapiolani birth Certificate should have been signed, filed, and accepted on August 11. Problem: images of Obama’s alleged COLB claim it was filed on Tuesday, August 8: therefore, if Obama’s alleged COLB is to be taken at face value, Obama’s birth could not have occurred at Kapiolani Hospital as he and his sister claim. If Obama had been born in Kapiolani Hospital, readers may consider what possible circumstance of his birth could Kapiolani Hospital have got wrong that Obama decades later would need or be in a postion to correct? The fact is either Obama or his alleged COLB is not telling the truth.

  Bob presents himself as badly informed about these facts and as only accidentally misinforming readers. However Bob cannot plead such ignorance, since he was informed in October 2009 of the implications of DoH (through UIPA) confirming that amendment(s) were sought for Obama’s filing (which are illegally missing from images of Obama’s alleged COLB posted online). Given Bob in the ensuing months has clearly not obtained from Hawaii DoH any dis-confirmation (through UIPA) of the amendments(s) Obama sought for his filing, Bob is knowingly deceiving readers about the fact of evidence being available from DoH that Obama sought to amend his filing, which means it was unattended. But then Bob also wants us to swallow evidence in support of Obama’s case which Bob believes is manufactured and perjured.

  “I also deny that FactCheck could have made up the COLB or made up the remarks by the officials in Hawaii that it quoted. If it did anything like that, the officials would have issued press releases denying the quotes.” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

  On another page at this blog smrstrauss and ann1 submitted identical lengthy and detailed comments. This error revealed that smrstrauss was deceiving readers (as I detailed on that page) by first masquerading as ann, and then as ann1. This means it is impossible to trust anything that smrstrauss\ann\ann1 writes and, given his suspected identity, the deception conforms to on-the -record statements by Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, who believes that “large numbers of people can be shifted to different views” if “government agents (and their allies)…enter chat rooms, online social networks,…and attempt to undermine” ways of thinking that are not worthy of Sunstein’s and government approval.

  smrstrauss\ann\ann1’s trademark is the habitual use of the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance: shown here with the notion that if Hawaii DoH officials do not deny the quotes ascribed to them by FactCheck this necessarily establishes that the quotes are genuine. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 through either wishful thinking or deceit is unable to conceive or articulate any other possibility. Readers sharing a reasonable doubt about DoH officials’ honesty and probity may not be so constrained.

  “Anyone want to comment further on the concept (which I think is likely) that Obama’s mother did not have a passport in 1961?” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

  smrstrauss\ann\ann1 wants to deceive readers through the logical fallacy of the false dilemma: if Ann Dunham did not have a passport in 1961 enabling a Kenyan trip then her son must have been born in the United States. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 was informed in an earlier discussion that at least three scenarios exist in which Obama was not born in the US even if his mother did not have a passport: none involve Obama Jr.’s birth in Kenya. That smrstrauss\ann\ann1 never bothered to inquire what those scenarios were amply demonstrates that smrstrauss\ann\ann1 has already decided where the “facts” lie: his subsequent arguments are wishful thinking, and the notion that it’s “Kenya or nothing” is simple deception.

  “…no matter what the COLB is evidence …the burden of proof is on the accuser…It is up to anyone making the accusation to provide proof that it did happen.” Black Lion

  Five ways in which the burden of proof is Obama’s and five ways in which his alleged COLB is deficient as evidence:

  1 Hawaii DoH illegally asserted statutory authority to deny UIPA access to records not covered by privacy restrictions detailing the charges paid by Obama to amend his filing with Hawaii DoH. No statute is required to protect a record that a doesn’t exist and denial of access confirms a records existence, thus allowing an appeal to OIP (UIPA watchdog) or the courts. Under HRS 338-17 the amendment of a vital record removes it status as prima facie evidence: consequently such a record must be investigated by the authority to which it has been submitted.

  2 A Hawaii COLB claims to be a certified copy of a vital record. As hearsay (an out-of-court statement purporting to be true) it only qualifies as evidence when admitted by the vital records exception of the Federal-Hawaii Rules of Evidence, FRE-HRE Rule 803(9). Another Rule must be satisfied to authenticate a COLB as a certified copy of a vital record: FRE-HRE Rule 902(4), the Rule for certified copies of public records. Rule 902(4) requires a non-routine comparison check between the COLB dataset in the DoH database and its printout, with specific notice to that effect attested by a handwritten signature. Given Obama has produced no evidence of a non-routine comparison check and an attesting handwritten signature as required by FRE-HRE Rule 902(4), his alleged COLB is not admissible. To get around this Black Lion has previously cited the Full Faith and Credit extended to non-judicial state records under Article IV of the US Constitution: the problem is that in Univ. of Tennessee v Elliott (1986) SCOTUS held that Congress never intended an implementing statute of Article IV to apply to entities and circumstances which postdate the statute (official vital records were introduced many decades after the implementing statute) and Obama has produced no evidence that the stipulated authentication procedure of the implementing statute of Article IV has been followed.

  3 Obama’s alleged COLB is hearsay which, to be admitted as evidence, needs to be exempted by FRE-HRE Rule 803(9). By referencing “CertificATE No. 151 1961 014641” in its first line Obama’s alleged COLB is citing a birth CertificATE and its serial number which are not in evidence: by definition hearsay within hearsay. Exemption under FRE-HRE 803(9) only covers the document itself: further internal hearsay requires exemption under hearsay Rule 803(6) (for business records) or 803(8) (for public records). The hearsay within hearsay of the alleged COLB’s first and most important line is not covered by FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8) because the original supplier of Obama’s filing information (a family member) was not employed by Hawaii DoH and was not constrained by a public service or business duty to be reliable and trustworthy, as the Rules demand. Furthermore, Rule 803(6) only admits hearsay statements made at or near the time the information was recorded and Rule 803(8) only admits hearsay statements made by someone who had firsthand knowledge of the events recorded. That forty-six years have elapsed between the filing of Obama’s birth in 1961and the hearsay within hearsay statements in 2007 of Obama’s COLB printout; that no offical currently employed at DoH has firsthand knowledge of the filing of Obama’s birth in 1961; and that an unreliable and untrustworthy source (family member) was the filing informant, this means that Obama’s alleged COLB is not and can never be admissible evidence under FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8).

  4 Under Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, any evidence (not proof, but any evidence) that allows alternative logical conclusions to those merely presumed hypothetically for the prima facie evidence rebuts the presumption (here, given to the COLB). Black Lion stated that “we all accept that there could have been fraud“: Hawaii DoH’s confirmation of the amendment(s) and delayed filing which expose Obama’s lie about being born in Kapiolani Hospital comprise only part of the evidentiary context for alternative logical conclusions to those only presumed hypothetically for Obama’s COLB (if it exists). Consequently the alleged COLB’s status as prima facie evidence is rebutted under FRE 301, and the burden of going forward shifts to Obama.

  5 Under the Hawaii and Federal Rules of Evidence Obama’s attorneys would have the burden of persuading a court that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is an exact duplicate of the original 1961 record (FRE 1001 and FRE 1003); is the complete 1961 record (FRE 106); and is the best evidence of Obama’s birth (FRE 1002); if this cannot be done (as it obviously cannot ) then Obama original 1961 birth record would be required in court.

  6 To establish US citizenship the burden of proof rests on the claimant, who must supply recognized documentary evidence. Where an established US citizenship is contested the burden of proof is on those who claim that a particular US citizenship does not exist. Since Obama has not supplied the recognized documentary evidence to establish US citizenship and presidential eligibility, the burden of proof falls on him.

  “…you want us to believe that the state would allow the grandmother to just show up with no supporting information or proof of a birth and be able to register for a birth certificate. Not likely. …a legal authorized person? We don’t know. There are no specifics” Black Lion

  Black Lion has contradicted himself and now is trying to shift the goalposts by sowing doubt as to the law which applied in 1961 and what it may “really” have meant.

  1 The law that applied in 1961 (and which Black Lion cites) stated unequivocally: “the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (§57-9(a) Hawaii Revised Laws 1957) The law allowed no discretion to the local registrar: according to the canons of statutory interpretation, “shall” connotes “must” and “any person” connotes “ANY person” whomsoever. In 1961 the local registrar MUST have secured the necessary information, MUST have prepared, and MUST have filed every birth of which he was notified, even if the informant “just show[ed] up.”

  2 In parallel with §57-9(b), Hawaii DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter Section 9 (which applied in 1961) stated that “supplementary information omitted on original certificates may be inserted within 30 days after time prescribed for filing without marking the certificate delayed or altered…“, meaning that a birth would be filed incomplete based on “any person['s]…knowledge of the birth“, with the supplementary information to follow. If the supplementary information followed more than 37 days after the birth the certificate would be marked “delayed”; if the original filing happened more than 30 days after the birth the certificate would automatically be marked “delayed”. It must be remembered that since the local registrar (hospital or midwife) only filed a birth, and the state registrar made the decision to accept the filing or not, a grandmother could “just show up with no supporting information” to attempt a bogus registration.

  3 Given Hawaii DoH have confirmed through UIPA that Obama’s filing was delayed, and that no supplementary information was provided, his registration was not legally completed. One must assume that had Obama’s mother or father been available then supplementary information would have been forthcoming; which implies that a grandparent, unable to furnish that information within 37 days, or an affidavit subsequently, was the original “person having knowledge.” If Black Lion disputes the delayed filing he need only obtain a DoH dis-confirmation through UIPA and tell us here.
• Phil says:

  February 17, 2010 at 8:29 pm

  Sue,

  Phil,

  “Maybe you ought to look at things from a different perspective from time to time instead of being spoon-fed what you think alleged lawyers at a web site are telling you.”

  http://www.saclaw.lib.ca.us/pages/civil-appeals.aspx
  Starting a Civil Appeal
  “An appeal is a proceeding in which a higher court reviews the actions taken by a trial court. “Appeals are generally limited to a review of the record from the lower court. Parties cannot introduce new evidence and are limited to what was said and introduced at the original proceeding. Issues not raised at trial cannot be raised in the appeal.” The appellate court reviews the lower court’s application of the law to the facts as presented at trial. Factual findings by the judge or jury at the trial level are not reversible by the appellate court. The appellate court may only decide if there were errors of law serious enough to prevent a party from having a fair trial, or if there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the lower court’s decision. If the trial judge properly applied the laws, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court will not overturn the judge’s decision.”

  I never doubted what you actually knew. I doubted the bias on your or others’ parts.

  -Phil
• Sue says:

  February 17, 2010 at 5:50 pm

  Phil,

  “Maybe you ought to look at things from a different perspective from time to time instead of being spoon-fed what you think alleged lawyers at a web site are telling you.”

  http://www.saclaw.lib.ca.us/pages/civil-appeals.aspx
  Starting a Civil Appeal
  “An appeal is a proceeding in which a higher court reviews the actions taken by a trial court. “Appeals are generally limited to a review of the record from the lower court. Parties cannot introduce new evidence and are limited to what was said and introduced at the original proceeding. Issues not raised at trial cannot be raised in the appeal.” The appellate court reviews the lower court’s application of the law to the facts as presented at trial. Factual findings by the judge or jury at the trial level are not reversible by the appellate court. The appellate court may only decide if there were errors of law serious enough to prevent a party from having a fair trial, or if there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the lower court’s decision. If the trial judge properly applied the laws, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court will not overturn the judge’s decision.”
• MGB says:

  February 17, 2010 at 1:31 pm

  BL said, “no one has been able to say for certain that the so called territorial laws were in effect or followed when HI became a state.”

  Mr. Hemenway said as much when he submitted them into evidence for the court’s consideration,
• MGB says:

  February 17, 2010 at 1:28 pm

  BL said, “no one has been able to tell us who exactly the state of HI would accept as a legally authorized person.”

  It’s in the statutes that you quoted. “Legally authorized person in attendance at the birth [doctor or midwife, etc.]; OR if not so attended, by one of the parents.” And then ANY person with KNOWLEDGE of (not necessarily a witness to) a birth, if “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate.”

  ANY person with KNOWLEDGE of a birth. Not only parents, or even grandparents. Implicit in this statute is the provision that either parent could simply “prepare a birth certificate” for an unattended birth. Prepare and FILE it. Pending supplementary proof?

  BL said, “you want us to believe that the state would allow the grandmother to just show up with no supporting information or proof of a birth and be able to register for a birth certificate. Not likely. . . .Again would she be considered a legal authorized person? We don’t know.”

  You must be acting deliberately obtuse, BL. The statute specifically states that, indeed, the grandmother, if she had knowledge of the birth and if neither parent could prepare the birth certificate, could “show up” to register the birth. However, it’s equally clear that she would have to supply “supplementary” information (i.e., proof) to COMPLETE the birth certificate, so long as it was provided within the specified timeframe. We do know that she was an acceptable person to the state, although not in the sense of a “legally authorized” attendant at a birth. Do you see the semicolon and the word “OR”?

  “Legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.”

  OR

  “If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

  BL said, “there was a requirement for supporting documentation.”

  Indeed there was, and if it was not forthcoming within the timeframe set out by statute, then what? You don’t know what. So it remains a possibility that an unattended birth was REGISTERED, based upon information from ANY person with knowledge of A birth, resulting in the FILING of A birth certificate, PENDING receipt of supplementary information to COMPLETE it. That filed birth certificate could have triggered the report to the newspapers, which announced only A birth to a set of named parents of A son. No birth place indicated. No name of child indicated. No indication whether or not that birth registration was filed, pending further data. IF that supplementary information was not forthcoming, then what? I suspect the “vital records” that existed to that point would remain filed away in DOH files, never having been completed, eventually to be transcribed into a database from which A COLB could be generated, but which would contain incomplete information and possibly a flag indicating that the underlying birth certificate was NEVER COMPLETED or “accepted by the State Registrar.”

  And guess what? In the above scenario, the DoH COULD state that they saw “vital records verifying” that he was born in Hawaii.

  Interesting word: Verify. Here’s a LEGAL definition:

  “To make certain, to substantiate, or to confirm by formal oath, affirmation, or Affidavit.”

  “The verification takes the form of a written certification that is generally attached to the document in question. The most common form of certification is an affidavit. An affidavit is a written statement sworn to or affirmed before an officer authorized to administer an oath or affirmation, usually a Notary Public. The affidavit names the place of execution and certifies that the person making the affidavit states particular facts and that he appeared before the officer on a certain date and swore to and signed the statement.” Both quotes from:
  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/verify

  Gee, could the DoH have consulted the Hawaiian AG about the LEGAL meaning of the word “verify”?

  If these records truly prove that he was born in Hawaii, then why not release them? End of story.
• MGB says:

  February 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm

  BL said, “MGB, you take a huge leap in logic in regards to your assumption.”

  BL you take many huge leaps with the truth. I have NEVER “claim”ed that Obama was born in Kenya. I have also never “claim”ed that the “grandparents could somehow show up with the information and not the newborn;” therefore, your entire retort is based upon false assumptions. You put words into my mouth, so to speak, and then you respond to things that I did not say. Like Phil, I say only that we don’t KNOW the circumstances of his birth, which brings us full circle and which is why we ask for full disclosure.

  You said that “we know that the President’s birth information was accepted 4 days after his birth.” No, we don’t know that.

  You “seriously doubt just the word of a grandparent would suffice.” You doubt, so you don’t KNOW.

  Looking at this statute, with emphasis added:
  § 57-9. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.

  (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from ANY PERSON HAVING KNOWLEDGE of the birth and prepare and FILE the certificate.

  (b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of COMPLETING the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [R.L. 1945, s 3100.10; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 10.]

  You said, “the statute is vague. . . . supporting documentation would be needed before the birth certificate would be issued.”

  No, before it would be completed. But it was already FILED.

  You said, “So again since the birth certificate was accepted by the DOH 4 days after birth . . .”

  You don’t know that. It may, according to the above statute, have been filed, pending supplementary information, not yet accepted.

  So you say you (meaning I) can “go into your filed v. accepted nonsense, but again unless you can show that this meant something different back in 1961, there is no way that this could have happened either.”

  How can you admit that the statute is vague (although it seems logical and straightforward to me), that it can be read either way, and that you don’t KNOW how it worked, but then you proclaim for a fact that “there is no way that this could have happened?”

  Re this statute:
  § 57-15. Evidentiary character of certificates.

  Certificates filed within thirty [sic. days?] after the time prescribed therefore shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child are prima facie evidence if the alleged father is the husband of the mother; if not, the data pertaining to the father of a child are not evidence in any proceeding adverse to interests of the alleged father, or of his heirs, next of kin, or other successors in interest, if the paternity controverted. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.16; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 16.]

  You claim, “that tells . . . that no matter what the COLB is evidence that the event occured.”

  No, it tells us this is so IF the certificate met the timeline and other criteria prescribed in the statutes. If not, then it’s NOT prima facie evidence of anything.

  You don’t know whether or not his certificate was properly filed and accepted. Could this be why he won’t release all vital records or even that actual document that Hawaii supposedly produced for his campaign? I mean, release it to the entire media for all to see and for any forensic expert to examine.

  You say that “NO evidence has ever been shown that someone ever received a birth certificate from the state of HI that was not born in HI.” I believe that Phil presented evidence of at least one person, on this very blog.

  You said, there’s no reason to suspect “that there were many foreign births that were registered in the state for people not born there.” We’re talking about ONE possible foreign birth, not many. IF one can be so registered, then more than one can be so registered. Again, I don’t know where he was born, but he could have been born anywhere in the world and still have a birth certificate from Hawaii that says he was born in Hawaii.

  You say, “We all accept that there could have been fraud. But without any evidence supporting a contention of fraud, then the evidence speaks for itself.”

  There’s no “evidence”, except a digital image on a partisan blog–an image that the state of Hawaii will not vouch for. However, there is circumstantial evidence which causes reasonable doubt. One key piece of circumstantial evidence is his choice to spend thousands, if not millions, to fight lawsuits when he could simply spend less than twenty bucks to have the state of Hawaii release and certify his vital records. Why hide them if there’s nothing to hide? Full disclosure. Do you have a problem with that?

  Finally, BL, you totally fail to address the statutes concerning adoption and foundlings, and how even if they were born elsewhere, they get a birth certificate that says Hawaii, if the new parents are residents of Hawaii. Also, the statutes concerning illegitimacy are interesting. You don’t address them, either.

  Again: I did not and do not claim that Obama was born in Kenya. I presented the evidence of the statutes that were in effect at the time of his birth. Evidence that shows possible reasons for why he will not release his original birth records.

  I believe that it would be a risky step for any lawyer to present something to a court of law, asking the court to take notice of the information, if the information is not what it purports to be and is not relevant to the case. So anyone can argue that the lawyers are incompetent or unethical (pretty serious charges to make without evidence) but on the other side one might argue that these lawyers are risking their very careers if they mislead the court. So, why would a lawyer submit these statutes if they were not in effect at the time of his birth?
• Phil says:

  February 17, 2010 at 9:17 am

  Sue,

  Phil,

  You missed my point completely.

  What is the purpose of an appeal? When a judge’s decision is appealed, what exactly is being appealed?

  It depends on the case. Typically, the petitioners have the right to an appeal if an appeal is actionable in a given situation.

  Maybe you ought to look at things from a different perspective from time to time instead of being spoon-fed what you think alleged lawyers at a web site are telling you.

  -Phil
• Black Lion says:

  February 17, 2010 at 8:14 am

  slcraig says:
  February 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm
  Black Lion says:
  February 16, 2010 at 8:57 am
  MGB says:
  February 15, 2010 at 10:24 am

  ____________________________________________________________

  The obfuscations emanating from Hi. not with standing, I take it from your retort that you agree that there is a ‘LONG FORM CERTIFICATE’ that was REQUIRED for the purpose of REGISTERING a birth in Hi. and that it was most PROBABLY of the type produced by the Federal Department of Health under whatever name they were operating in 1961, right?

  No I don’t. All I am agreeing to is that the process of registering a birth is HI back in 1961 was very opaque. The most likely scenario was a regular birth in a hospital on Friday and the birth information being sent by the hospital to the DOH and accepted by Tuesday of the following week. All of your “possible” scenarios take large leaps in logic and assume facts not in evidence…

  You Post as evidence of that acknowledgment.

  § 57-8. Compulsory registration of births.

  So, can you say with ABSOLUTE certainty that little Stanley did NOT call her mommy from Mombasa to pass on the delightful news that she now has a little Kenyan baby boy named B.O., but you can call him Barry mommy?

  Then Granny runs down to pick up a home birth certificate, fills it out between cashing checks as a teller at the bank and stops by the DHS on her way home a few days later to turn it in to the clerk that happens to be one of her customers at the bank as well as a fellow traveler out to screw the Guv every chance they get?

  No one can tell with any more certainty that we can tell that George Bush was born where he claims or Sarah Palin was born where she claims. However no one has been able to say for certain that the so called territorial laws were in effect or followed when HI became a state. Secondly no one has been able to tell us who exactly the state of HI would accept as a legally authorized person. Normally that would be the parent or medical professional. But you want us to believe that the state would allow the grandmother to just show up with no supporting information or proof of a birth and be able to register for a birth certificate. Not likely.

  Again would she be considered a legal authorized person? We don’t know. There are no specifics. And there was a requirement for supporting documentation. So I doubt her mother could show up on Monday with nothing other than information from a phone call and the state would just OK that and accept the information for Tuesday’s filing. Not in 1961.

  Rhetorical. Of course you can NOT know independent of the ‘0′ telling you personally what the TRUTH is, can you?

  No. But you can even support your allegation with any real evidence while he can. As I stated before the so called birth in Kenya is a loser. In 2 years no travel records have ever been unearthed, no proof of any Kenyan birth, nothing. So far we have never had any 100% certainty of proof of any Presidential birth. People were OK with that any the country got along fine. No matter what you believe the fact of the matter is that the President is legitimate and unless he resigns, he will be President to at least January of 2013.
• Sue says:

  February 17, 2010 at 1:20 am

  Phil,

  You missed my point completely.

  What is the purpose of an appeal? When a judge’s decision is appealed, what exactly is being appealed?
• slcraig says:

  February 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm

  Black Lion says:
  February 16, 2010 at 8:57 am
  MGB says:
  February 15, 2010 at 10:24 am
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

  A link to the Hawaiian statutes, as submitted recently (1/7/2010) to a court in an eligibility lawsuit. If they did not relate to this situation, then why would this lawyer, Hemenway, submit them to the court for consideration?

  I invite anyone to read section 57 of these statutes, beginning on page 23 of the scribd document. This section concerns vital statistics and presents how birth certificates might have been obtained without a birth in Hawaii, or without being witnessed by medical personnel, or upon only an affidavit of any person with “knowledge” of a birth, supplementary information to follow (but not necessarily subsequently received and accepted).

  A birth announcement could be generated based upon a birth certificate that had not yet been accepted by the state registrar, only a local filing. In other words, the case was pending supplemental information that perhaps never was submitted. The result might be a COLB that is incomplete or has that fact indicated somewhere on the document. It might also explain why “vital records” (plural) exist in Obama’s case.
  __________________________________________________________________
  MGB, you take a huge leap in logic in regards to your assumption. Lets look at the sections and see what they say exactly…

  § 57-8. Compulsory registration of births.

  Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other. Legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. [R.L. 1945, s. 3100.09; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 9.]

  OK, since we know that the President’s birth information was accepted 4 days after his birth, it would next to impossible for his birth to have occured in Kenya. If it was not a doctor or midwife or PARENT, then legally acceptable person. First of all you would have to know who the state of HI considered an “acceptable person” in 1961. I seriously doubt just the word of a grandparent would suffice. So if he happend to have been born at home, it doesn’t matter because it was in HI. But if it was Kenya like you claim, he mother would have had to have made it from Kenya to HI in less that 4 days to register his birth. With the way travel was in 1961, that would next to impossible.

  § 57-9. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.

  (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

  (b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considr3ed as “delayed” or “altered.” [R.L. 1945, s 3100.10; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 10.]

  Agan the statute is vague. Your claim that the grandparents could somehow show up with the information and not the newborn to the registar is a stretch. And then as you can see just someone’s word was not enough. Supporting documentation would be needed before the birth certificate would be issued. So again since the birth certificate was accepted by the DOH 4 days after birth, this would be impossible. Now you will go into your filed v. accepted nonsense, but again unless you can show that this meant something different back in 1961, there is no way that this could have happened either.

  § 57-15. Evidentiary character of certificates.

  Certificates filed within thirty after the time prescribed therefore shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child are prima facie evidence if the alleged father is the husband of the mother; if not, the data pertaining to the father of a child are not evidence in any proceeding adverse to interests of the alleged father, or of his heirs, next of kin, or other successors in interest, if the paternity controverted. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.16; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 16.]

  So what that tells us is that no matter what the COLB is evidence that the event occured. So Dr. Fukino stating that her records show that Barack Obama was born in HI is enough.

  So at the end of the day it is like I said before, things that are possible are not always probable. NO evidence has ever been shown that someone ever received a birth certificate from the state of HI that was not born in HI. So there is no reason to suspect that their procedure was not effective and that there were many foreign births that were registered in the state for people not born there.

  As a matter of fact there were an extremely small number of unattended births in 1961. So to think that he could have been one of them is highly unlikely. Secondly since his birth was registered 4 days after it happened, thankfully the newspaper announcements in the paper confirm that, the scenarios that somehow his was an unattended birth from Kenya is virtually impossible. We all accept that there could have been fraud. But without any evidence supporting a contention of fraud, then the evidence speaks for itself.

  On one hand there is no evidence to support a Kenyan birth. On the other hand there is evidence to support a birth in HI. Anythng is possible, but that is why the burden of proof is on the accuser. It is not a requirement to provide anything to anyone to prove that something that might have happened didn’t. It is up to anyone making the accusation to provide proof that it did happen. And territorial laws before HI was a state that might have allowed something is not proof.

  ____________________________________________________________

  The obfuscations emanating from Hi. not with standing, I take it from your retort that you agree that there is a ‘LONG FORM CERTIFICATE’ that was REQUIRED for the purpose of REGISTERING a birth in Hi. and that it was most PROBABLY of the type produced by the Federal Department of Health under whatever name they were operating in 1961, right?

  You Post as evidence of that acknowledgment.

  § 57-8. Compulsory registration of births.

  So, can you say with ABSOLUTE certainty that little Stanley did NOT call her mommy from Mombasa to pass on the delightful news that she now has a little Kenyan baby boy named B.O., but you can call him Barry mommy?

  Then Granny runs down to pick up a home birth certificate, fills it out between cashing checks as a teller at the bank and stops by the DHS on her way home a few days later to turn it in to the clerk that happens to be one of her customers at the bank as well as a fellow traveler out to screw the Guv every chance they get?

  Rhetorical. Of course you can NOT know independent of the ‘0′ telling you personally what the TRUTH is, can you?
• Phil says:

  February 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm

  Sue,

  MGB,

  “A link to the Hawaiian statutes, as submitted recently (1/7/2010) to a court in an eligibility lawsuit. If they did not relate to this situation, then why would this lawyer, Hemenway, submit them to the court for consideration?”

  Why have any of birther lawyers filed any of the BS they have filed to the court? You might want to take the time to understand the purpose of an appeal. My opinion, based upon comments by credible, practicing lawyers, is that the birther lawyers do not appear to be good lawyers and several also do not appear to be ethical lawyers. Credible lawyers would not have filed these birther lawsuits in the first place because they comprehend the standing doctrine and other rules of law. In my opinion, these birther lawyers have continued to file these birther lawsuits for publicity and harassment purposes.

  http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_5.html

  Your opinion notwithstanding, there must be quite the echo chamber of lawyers over at legitimate opposition forums such as Politijab.

  After all, how many of the lawyers (I know of only one with verified credentials) would admit that the Supreme Court, for instance, has never heard a case regarding the eligibility issue with respect to a direct question on Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5?

  The answer would be zero.

  Personally, I don’t really care how much the lawyers to which you refer may castigate the eligibility question. It continues to be a legitimate question.

  -Phil
• Black Lion says:

  February 16, 2010 at 8:57 am

  MGB says:
  February 15, 2010 at 10:24 am
  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

  A link to the Hawaiian statutes, as submitted recently (1/7/2010) to a court in an eligibility lawsuit. If they did not relate to this situation, then why would this lawyer, Hemenway, submit them to the court for consideration?

  I invite anyone to read section 57 of these statutes, beginning on page 23 of the scribd document. This section concerns vital statistics and presents how birth certificates might have been obtained without a birth in Hawaii, or without being witnessed by medical personnel, or upon only an affidavit of any person with “knowledge” of a birth, supplementary information to follow (but not necessarily subsequently received and accepted).

  A birth announcement could be generated based upon a birth certificate that had not yet been accepted by the state registrar, only a local filing. In other words, the case was pending supplemental information that perhaps never was submitted. The result might be a COLB that is incomplete or has that fact indicated somewhere on the document. It might also explain why “vital records” (plural) exist in Obama’s case.
  __________________________________________________________________
  MGB, you take a huge leap in logic in regards to your assumption. Lets look at the sections and see what they say exactly…

  § 57-8. Compulsory registration of births.

  Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other. Legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents. [R.L. 1945, s. 3100.09; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 9.]

  OK, since we know that the President’s birth information was accepted 4 days after his birth, it would next to impossible for his birth to have occured in Kenya. If it was not a doctor or midwife or PARENT, then legally acceptable person. First of all you would have to know who the state of HI considered an “acceptable person” in 1961. I seriously doubt just the word of a grandparent would suffice. So if he happend to have been born at home, it doesn’t matter because it was in HI. But if it was Kenya like you claim, he mother would have had to have made it from Kenya to HI in less that 4 days to register his birth. With the way travel was in 1961, that would next to impossible.

  § 57-9. Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.

  (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.

  (b) The board shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considr3ed as “delayed” or “altered.” [R.L. 1945, s 3100.10; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 10.]

  Agan the statute is vague. Your claim that the grandparents could somehow show up with the information and not the newborn to the registar is a stretch. And then as you can see just someone’s word was not enough. Supporting documentation would be needed before the birth certificate would be issued. So again since the birth certificate was accepted by the DOH 4 days after birth, this would be impossible. Now you will go into your filed v. accepted nonsense, but again unless you can show that this meant something different back in 1961, there is no way that this could have happened either.

  § 57-15. Evidentiary character of certificates.

  Certificates filed within thirty after the time prescribed therefore shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Data pertaining to the father of a child are prima facie evidence if the alleged father is the husband of the mother; if not, the data pertaining to the father of a child are not evidence in any proceeding adverse to interests of the alleged father, or of his heirs, next of kin, or other successors in interest, if the paternity controverted. [R. L. 1945, s. 3100.16; add. L. 1949, c. 327, s. 16.]

  So what that tells us is that no matter what the COLB is evidence that the event occured. So Dr. Fukino stating that her records show that Barack Obama was born in HI is enough.

  So at the end of the day it is like I said before, things that are possible are not always probable. NO evidence has ever been shown that someone ever received a birth certificate from the state of HI that was not born in HI. So there is no reason to suspect that their procedure was not effective and that there were many foreign births that were registered in the state for people not born there.

  As a matter of fact there were an extremely small number of unattended births in 1961. So to think that he could have been one of them is highly unlikely. Secondly since his birth was registered 4 days after it happened, thankfully the newspaper announcements in the paper confirm that, the scenarios that somehow his was an unattended birth from Kenya is virtually impossible. We all accept that there could have been fraud. But without any evidence supporting a contention of fraud, then the evidence speaks for itself.

  On one hand there is no evidence to support a Kenyan birth. On the other hand there is evidence to support a birth in HI. Anythng is possible, but that is why the burden of proof is on the accuser. It is not a requirement to provide anything to anyone to prove that something that might have happened didn’t. It is up to anyone making the accusation to provide proof that it did happen. And territorial laws before HI was a state that might have allowed something is not proof.
• Sue says:

  February 16, 2010 at 3:50 am

  MGB,

  “A link to the Hawaiian statutes, as submitted recently (1/7/2010) to a court in an eligibility lawsuit. If they did not relate to this situation, then why would this lawyer, Hemenway, submit them to the court for consideration?”

  Why have any of birther lawyers filed any of the BS they have filed to the court? You might want to take the time to understand the purpose of an appeal. My opinion, based upon comments by credible, practicing lawyers, is that the birther lawyers do not appear to be good lawyers and several also do not appear to be ethical lawyers. Credible lawyers would not have filed these birther lawsuits in the first place because they comprehend the standing doctrine and other rules of law. In my opinion, these birther lawyers have continued to file these birther lawsuits for publicity and harassment purposes.

  http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_6_5.html
• slcraig says:

  February 16, 2010 at 12:14 am

  Sue says:
  February 15, 2010 at 7:50 am
  slcraig,

  I am very doubtful if any of the PJ lawyers will debate you in a tightly moderated blog, for obvious reasons.

  However, you are more than welcome to PJ to debate Ballantine, GeorgetownJD and other PJ lawyers and scholars in an un-moderated environment as you are already registered at PJ.

  http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2861&p=111330#p111330

  Regards,

  It will be interesting to see if Phil allows my comment through moderation.

  You are beginning to sound like Don King, i.e., a contest promoter. (I started to say a ‘pimp’, that almost offended me.)

  There is NO debate going on here. You and your fellow travelers are reading a script and ignoring every valid intellectual inquiry presented to you.

  There is NO way the construction of ‘citizenship’ you present is consistent with the world the Founders lived in NOR envisioned.

  There has been NO Amendment to A2S1C5.

  TWO CITIZEN PARENTS ‘naturally’ produce a ‘natural born citizen’ without needing a STATUTE or AMENDMENT to make that a REALITY.

  At one time or another EVERY ONE ELSE has NEEDED a STATUTE or AMENDMENT to gain Citizenship.

  Why would you continue to argue against THOSE FACTS?
• slcraig says:

  February 16, 2010 at 12:03 am

  Sue says:
  February 15, 2010 at 7:42 am
  slcraig,

  Jeff Schreiber is a law student and is NOT an obot, clearly understands that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Perhaps, since you do not believe PJ lawyers, you might believe Mr. Schreiber. Here is his blog:

  http://americasright.com/

  Below is Mr. Schreiber’s comments from Donofrio’s blog.

  http://mccaininamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/donofrio-letters-cache-text-6
  excerpts
  “More from Mr. Schreiber:

  “Secondly, United States law clearly provides now—as it did in August of 1961—that an individual born in the United States is both a ‘natural born citizen’ and ’subject to U.S. jurisdiction.’ ”

  Mr. Schreiber continues:
  “If that child was born in the United States, the nationality of that child’s parents has no impact whatsoever on his status as a natural born citizen of the United States of America, dual citizenship be damned; this, of course, is at the heart of the debate over “anchor babies” and illegal immigration.”

  Mr Schreiber continues:

  “Nevertheless, Donofrio suggests that it doesn’t matter what Obama’s birth certificate says because his father was a Kenyan national, but in fact it does. If Obama was born in Honolulu as he maintains (I’d still like to see a long-form birth certificate, of course), he is a natural born citizen.””

  Jeff Schreiber paid attention in his constitutional law classes.

  Sue,Sue, Sue……..I see a lot of STATEMENTS from your legal bagel but I do not see ANY intellectual or legal analysis.

  Just party line.

  SHOW ME THE WORDS THAT AMENDS A2S1C5, or the words that require it.

  The SCOTUS Opinion by Gray was to answer the singular question, i.e., was little Wong a citizen at birth. Some doubts remain, but the Affirmation stands.

  NEVER THE LESS, the opinion did NOT, could NOT and has NOT Amended A2S1C5.

  The COURT can NEITHER enlarge nor abridge the Article. The ONLY power the court has is to DEFINE it and APPLY that definition as required by a specific case.

  Ask your buddy, he’ll tell you the same thing, if he’s honest.
• Phil says:

  February 15, 2010 at 9:22 pm

  jvn,

  I’m hearing that Fox News and Redstate.com have begun a campaign to push the right wing “birthers” and “truthers” to the gutter because they serve to delegitimize the Tea Party movement.

  Is this true?

  If so, what do the birthers here think of these efforts?

  I intend to be creating a post soon precisely on this issue.

  -Phil
• jvn says:

  February 15, 2010 at 7:13 pm

  I’m hearing that Fox News and Redstate.com have begun a campaign to push the right wing “birthers” and “truthers” to the gutter because they serve to delegitimize the Tea Party movement.

  Is this true?

  If so, what do the birthers here think of these efforts?
• MGB says:

  February 15, 2010 at 10:24 am

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/24948817/Joint-Motion-with-HI-Territorial-Law-57

  A link to the Hawaiian statutes, as submitted recently (1/7/2010) to a court in an eligibility lawsuit. If they did not relate to this situation, then why would this lawyer, Hemenway, submit them to the court for consideration?

  I invite anyone to read section 57 of these statutes, beginning on page 23 of the scribd document. This section concerns vital statistics and presents how birth certificates might have been obtained without a birth in Hawaii, or without being witnessed by medical personnel, or upon only an affidavit of any person with “knowledge” of a birth, supplementary information to follow (but not necessarily subsequently received and accepted).

  A birth announcement could be generated based upon a birth certificate that had not yet been accepted by the state registrar, only a local filing. In other words, the case was pending supplemental information that perhaps never was submitted. The result might be a COLB that is incomplete or has that fact indicated somewhere on the document. It might also explain why “vital records” (plural) exist in Obama’s case.
• Sue says:

  February 15, 2010 at 7:50 am

  slcraig,

  I am very doubtful if any of the PJ lawyers will debate you in a tightly moderated blog, for obvious reasons.

  However, you are more than welcome to PJ to debate Ballantine, GeorgetownJD and other PJ lawyers and scholars in an un-moderated environment as you are already registered at PJ.

  http://politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2861&p=111330#p111330

  Regards,

  It will be interesting to see if Phil allows my comment through moderation.
• Sue says:

  February 15, 2010 at 7:42 am

  slcraig,

  Jeff Schreiber is a law student and is NOT an obot, clearly understands that President Obama is a natural born citizen. Perhaps, since you do not believe PJ lawyers, you might believe Mr. Schreiber. Here is his blog:

  http://americasright.com/

  Below is Mr. Schreiber’s comments from Donofrio’s blog.

  http://mccaininamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/donofrio-letters-cache-text-6
  excerpts
  “More from Mr. Schreiber:

  “Secondly, United States law clearly provides now—as it did in August of 1961—that an individual born in the United States is both a ‘natural born citizen’ and ’subject to U.S. jurisdiction.’ ”

  Mr. Schreiber continues:
  “If that child was born in the United States, the nationality of that child’s parents has no impact whatsoever on his status as a natural born citizen of the United States of America, dual citizenship be damned; this, of course, is at the heart of the debate over “anchor babies” and illegal immigration.”

  Mr Schreiber continues:

  “Nevertheless, Donofrio suggests that it doesn’t matter what Obama’s birth certificate says because his father was a Kenyan national, but in fact it does. If Obama was born in Honolulu as he maintains (I’d still like to see a long-form birth certificate, of course), he is a natural born citizen.””

  Jeff Schreiber paid attention in his constitutional law classes.
• slcraig says:

  February 14, 2010 at 12:23 pm

  Ballantine says:
  February 14, 2010 at 8:56 am
  slcraig,

  Nice quotes. Of course, nothing in there talks about the native born. Proposals were made to Congress to include the foreign-born. Nobody questions the fact that anyone born in the US can be president, all they have to do is pick up Blacks’ Legal Dictionary or any constitutional textbook. Have you ever done that?

  Of course I’ve seen it, read it studied it and formed an opinion based on the conclusions that were implicit in the passage(S).

  I’m prepared to debate it if you acknowledge reading the FULLNESS of the entries.

  NATIVE. A natural-bom subject or citizen ; a denizen by birth ; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. See U. S. т. Wong Kim Ark, 109 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct. 45«, 42 b. Ed. 890; New Hartford v. Canaan, 54 Conn. 39, 5 AU. 360.

  NATIVUS. Lat. In old English law, a native; specifically, one born into a condition of servitude ; a born serf or villein.
  —Nativa. A niefe or female villein. So called because for the most part bond by nativity. Co. Litt. 1226.—Nativl conventionaril. Villeins or bondmen by contract or agreement.— Nativi de »tipite. Villeins or bondmen by birth or stock. Cowell.—Nativita». V’illenage ; that state in which men were born slaves. 2 Mon. Angl. 643.—Nativo habende. A writ which lay for a lord when his villein had run away from him. It was directed to the sheriff, and commanded him to apprehend the villein, and to restore him together with his goods to the lord. Brown.
  Natura appétit perfectum; ita et lex. Nature covets perfection ; so does law also. Hob. 144.
  NATURA BREVIUM. The name of an ancient collection of original writs, accompanied with brief comments and explanations, compiled in the time of Edward III. This is commonly called “Oíd Natura Brevium,” (or “O. N. B.,”) to distinguish it from Fitzherbert’s Natura Brevium, a later work, cited as “F. N. В.,” or “Fitzh. Nat Brev.”

  Natura fide jussionis lit eti-ictinsiiui juris et non durât vel extendatnr de re ad rem, de persona ad perionam, de tempere ad tempni. The nature of the contract of suretyship Is strictisaimi juris, and cannot endure nor be extended from thing to thing, from person to person, or from time to time. Bürge, Sur. 40.
  Natura non faoit cal tarn; ita neo lex.
  Nature makes no leap, [no sudden or irregular movement ;] so neither does law. Co. Litt 238. Applied in old practice to the regular observance of the degrees in Avrils of entry, which could not be passed over per ¿altuin.

  Natnra non facit vacuum, neo 1еж aupervaonnm. Nature makes no vacuum, the law nothing purposeless. Co. Litt 79.
  Na turre vi« maxima; natura bis maxima. The force of nature Is greatest; nature Is doubly great. 2 Inst. 604.

  NATURAL. The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vermicular, except lu the cases where it Is used in op
  position to the term ‘-legal ;” and then It means proceeding from or determined – by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.

  POSITIVE LAW. Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jurai society.
  “A ‘law,’ in the sense in which that term Is employed in jurisprudence, is enforced by a sovereign political authority. It is thus distinguished not only from all rules which, like the principles of morality and the so-called laws of honor and of fashion, are enforced by an indeterminate authority, but also from all rules enforced by a determinate authority which is either, on the one hand, superhuman, or, on the other hand, politically subordinate. In order to emphasize the fact that ‘laws,’ in the strict sense of the term, are thus authoritatively imposed, they are described as positive laws.” Holl. Jnr. 37.

  The point being that WKA does not say what you think it says and even with the most ‘LIBERAL /PROGRESSIVE’ reading it DOES NOT amend the POSITIVE LAW of the Constitution.

  You can not deny the fact that Gray cited Minor v Happersette which, without ambiguity , states there is NO DOUBT of a person born of two citizen parents being a natural born citizen, but of ALL others the DOUBTS remain.

  Proof of that is the attempts by the various Congress’s do introduce Bills meant to ENLARGE the definition by an act of POSITIVE LAW.

  Their attempts fail when it is realized that in order to do so would require an Amendment disseminated and approved by a super majority of the electorate, being 3/4ths.
• slcraig says:

  February 14, 2010 at 12:14 pm

  Sue says:
  February 14, 2010 at 9:21 am
  slcraig,

  Here is the link. The point was a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized or foreign-born citizens to be President. Example: Calif. Gov. Arnold S.

  http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm

  67–306
  (snip)
  ON
  H.J.Res. 88

  JULY 24, 2000

  That is just one of many……….

  “From 1973 – current, there have been 15 silent secret attempts to remove the words ‘natural born’ from the Constitution and replace them with just citizen. It is the ideology of the leftist-liberals that the words ‘natural born’ are discriminatory and therefore keep naturalized citizens and those born with dual citizenship from their imaginary right to be president.”

  http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/a-congressional-natural-born-citizen-parts-i-ii-iii/

  (snip)
  “However, the sponsor of the earliest 6 amendments from 1973-77 was Rep. Jonathan B. Bingham (NY). ”

  (snip)
  “From 1973 – current, there have been 15 silent secret attempts to remove the words ‘natural born’ from the Constitution and replace them with just citizen. It is the ideology of the leftist-liberals that the words ‘natural born’ are discriminatory and therefore keep naturalized citizens and those born with dual citizenship from their imaginary right to be president.”

  (snip)
  Immigration Reform legislation. (110th Congress) S. 1348
  (snip)
  (101st Congress) H.R. 1380, (99th Congress) H.R. 2535,
  (snip)
  S. 2678
  (snip)
  H.J. Res. 88, S. 2128, S. 1348 & S. 2678.

  The one I referenced was H.J. Res 88.

  I had occasion to debate an individual over the course of many days that continually introduced ‘memo’s’, ‘treatise’s and other forms of academic endeavor that all were proposing the ‘abolishment and amendment’ to A2S1C5 because, in their words, it was obsolete.

  The debate ended when I queried ‘why is an amendment needed if it does not say and mean what I say it say’s and means?’

  My question stands.
• Black Lion says:

  February 14, 2010 at 10:41 am

  MGB says:
  February 13, 2010 at 10:16 pm
  “Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate.” Courtesy of Linda. For the umpteenth time. For the obtuse. Read the entire section 57. It’s worth your while
  ___________________________________________________________________
  MGB, just as a FYI neither one of those statutes are relevant to the Obama birth situation. Linda got that information from a discredited report from the western center for journalism. If you recall earlier in this thread that report was discredited and the results were disproved. Obama’s BC, or BC3 under the report could not fall under that theory. So again no dice. That is why Orly is still pushing HI Statute 338.17.8 because Old HI statute 57 nor 73 is vailid in this case. If you disagree please show me information that says otherwise…
• Phil says:

  February 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

  All,

  I’ve been receiving many personal replies to my email Update regarding moderating comments vs. cutting comments altogether. There are great responses from both sides.

  At the present time, I am requiring all who wish to comment to first register as a user on my site (free, of course) and I will be moderating all discussions.

  I do not guarantee that all comments will get through to a posting. In fact, I’m taking the toughest stance yet on those who comment: if you bring the same old discussions up over and over, I am likely to delete those comments. If you whine and complain about what I do, that is a sure way of getting your comment deleted immediately.

  Also, this will slow down the discussions to a crawl, which is fine by me. Don’t post unless you have something worth reading, because it won’t be moderated for a while anyway.

  Might I still cut off commentary altogether? Absolutely. If it turns out that the commentary I receive is more repeated commentary from the past and individuals simply are not moving conversations along, I will have no qualms with stopping all commentary.

  In the interim, if you wish to pass along info to me, my email is and will be always open: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com.

  Thanks again for your readership.

  Best,

  -Phil
• Sue says:

  February 14, 2010 at 9:21 am

  slcraig,

  Here is the link. The point was a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized or foreign-born citizens to be President. Example: Calif. Gov. Arnold S.

  http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.htm

  67–306

  2000
  CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT

  HEARING

  BEFORE THE

  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

  OF THE
  COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

  SECOND SESSION

  ON
  H.J.Res. 88

  JULY 24, 2000
• slcraig says:

  February 14, 2010 at 9:13 am

  Ballantine says:
  February 14, 2010 at 8:56 am
  slcraig,

  Nice quotes. Of course, nothing in there talks about the native born. Proposals were made to Congress to include the foreign-born. Nobody questions the fact that anyone born in the US can be president, all they have to do is pick up Blacks’ Legal Dictionary or any constitutional textbook. Have you ever done that?

  Myopia appears to have infected all of you 0′pologists to the point you are unable to distinguish round pegs from square pegs.

  The POINT of the Bill was to eliminate the specific Exclusions of the disparate circumstances of birth by adding various other circumstances of Birth to be ‘AS IF’ being equivalent to natural born citizen.

  So, if 1 + 1 = 2 in your worldview you can logically, (and mathematically), EXCLUDE those persons addressed in the Bill from the consideration of currently being considered NBC’s.

  I have more to post as long as you continue to spread rewritten history and misinterpretations on the subject.
• Ballantine says:

  February 14, 2010 at 8:56 am

  slcraig,

  Nice quotes. Of course, nothing in there talks about the native born. Proposals were made to Congress to include the foreign-born. Nobody questions the fact that anyone born in the US can be president, all they have to do is pick up Blacks’ Legal Dictionary or any constitutional textbook. Have you ever done that?
• slcraig says:

  February 14, 2010 at 8:44 am

  Phil, I woke to find that the 0′pologists have taken over your Blog comments spreading lies and throwing invectives at all who have differing views and/or are in the arena trying to set the record straight.

  So, I ask your patience as I ask these MORONS to explain to me why, if they are right, has the CONGRESS been subjected to the ‘Progressives’ continually submitting Bills and or Resolutions that would CHANGE the NBC Clause to what these poster ‘Feel it is from what it ACTUALLY is.

  This is the 1st bill introduced where we have extensive testimony on the subject of ‘natural born citizen’ before the Subcommittee of the Constitution because Barney (Frank) does [n]ot favor putting obstacles on the ability of the people to choose who they wish] to elect.

  Mr. Candy who is chairing the subcommittee opens by stating:

  “The natural-born citizen qualification continues to provide to the political system of the United States a certain level of protection against the influence of foreign nations. In addition to this safeguard, the requirement also secures the ability of the President to make decisions involving domestic and foreign policy that are in the best interests of the United States without an inherent emotional or familial attachment to another nation.”

  We shall start with the testimony from an immigrant, Balint Vazsonyi, of the Center for American Founding who immigrated in 1959.

  “The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival…Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are…So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them…One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank’s resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency…I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.”

  Continuing on about foreign influences & national security, Vazsonyi states:

  “I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for…Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with…The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important…To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so…So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.”

  In the Vazsonyi’s written testimony turned over to the committee, Vazsonyi further address the importance of the ‘natural born’ qualification in regards to foreign influences and national security:

  “It is well known that the Founding Fathers were mindful in the extreme of foreign influences, and the dangers therefrom to the Republic. While experience has shown that a native-born Chief Executive is not necessarily immune to foreign influence, the odds are certainly more favorable if the president is an American plain and simple, who has never been, and is not at the time of taking office, anything else…Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the President to ”take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Chairman, it is an incontrovertible fact that the inhabitants of most countries are not only unfamiliar with what we call the Rule of Law, but find the concept virtually incomprehensible. Again, it is a miracle that so many immigrants are able to operate within the American system of laws, contracts, and agreements on a handshake…Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America…Those who favor the proposed amendment will no doubt point to exceptional persons of their acquaintance who, in their view, would fulfill any and all expectations with regard to the office of president, though being of foreign birth. Yet the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the Framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times.”
• Sue says:

  February 14, 2010 at 8:23 am

  Ballantine and bystander,

  “What is kind of sad is that someone who passed the bar exam could write something like that. She doesn’t even try to explain a legal theory that would give her a right to the relief she seeks.”

  What is really sad is that some people actually think that Orly is a “good lawyer” and that lawyers actually file crap like this. In my opinion, based upon her legal stylings and conduct, Orly is not professionally or ethically competent and gives the legal profession a bad name. ):