Eligibility Update: Rush on Marco; Official Congressional Memo

by Phil on 11/6/2010
FL GOP Senator-elect Marco Rubio (NationalReviewOnline.com)

FL GOP Senator-elect Marco Rubio (NationalReviewOnline.com)

Eligibility is officially everyone’s responsibility.

This is now a truism.

Rush sparked a bit of “controversy” (not controversy around here, but that’s another story) by bringing up Senator-elect Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) potential eligibility as President by saying the following:

“I was told yesterday that I dashed the hopes of millions of people when I said that Marco Rubio was not born in America, and the reason I dashed the hopes of millions of people was because Marco Rubio, if not born in America, couldn’t run for president. I wasn’t aware that I said Marco Rubio was not born in America.”

…”We know more about where Rubio was born than Obama…”

…”He was born in Miami. So if you are among the millions whose hopes were dashed, and if you left yesterday’s program depressed and despondent and near suicidal, please come back from the brink. Marco Rubio can run for president. It was his parents that were born in Cuba. His whole family is exiles but he was born in Miami. There. See? I have revived the hopes of millions and have walked them back from the proverbial ledge.”…

…”I’m being told to be careful here…”

…”Liberal birthers may demand Marco Rubio’s birth certificate. If he did, he’ll produce it, I’m sure, but I’m not worried about it. If Obama’s taught us anything, it’s that the news media doesn’t care where our presidents are born. They don’t. Well, let’s see if it does. Let’s see if all of a sudden the media starts caring where Republicans are born. Up to now they haven’t cared where presidents are born. Let’s see if they now start caring.”

Of course, one could say that Rush doesn’t know for sure what he’s talking about, because nobody’s focus has yet been on Mr. Rubio’s eligibility for the presidency, because he’s been elected to the Senate, which doesn’t require a candidate to be a natural born citizen in this country.

Yet, will the demand be there by the liberals/progressives/statists to demand whomever the GOP nominee is to prove their eligibility (like they did with Senator John McCain (R-AZ)), or, worse, will they even care at all?

Referring back to the beginning of this post, eligibility has been confirmed to be everyone’s responsibility via an internal memo that circulated Congress back in April, 2009:

CRS- Members of Congress Internal Memo – What to Tell Your Constituents in Answer to Obama Eligibility Que…

The entire memo is worth a read; it’s written in reasonably layman’s terms so it’s not difficult to understand. It’s even reasonably sourced for the opinion that it purports.

In my opinion, here are the key, take-away points that can be generally gleaned from the document:

  1. We finally have something official from the government that touches on presidential eligibility. For me, this has been something I’ve been waiting for — anything officially coming from the government to which one can objectively point in order to confirm/deny arguments;
  2. The memo completely substantiates the fact that there is no law that requires presidential eligibility to be determined, nor to what extent such determination would exist. This is a point that some of us — including yours truly — have been making since I’ve realized nobody could point to any such law. Therefore, since the memo wholeheartedly agrees with this fact, it renders the balance of the memo nothing but unsubstantiated (in a Court of law) opinion;
  3. The memo refers to the non-existence of evidence as evidence that Mr. Obama is qualified to be President. You will notice this when the memo begins talking about the alleged existence of documents on third-party Internet-based web sites that allegedly do not appear to be contradicted with respect to the alleged document’s claim of Mr. Obama’s birthplace. The memo relies on the current fact that since nothing appears to contract the alleged document, that must mean that the alleged document is true and can be sufficiently relied upon to substantiate Mr. Obama’s eligibility (once again, despite the fact that there is no such “controlling legal authority” (i.e.: law, nor law enforcement personnel) to make such a determination). From a court of public opinion standpoint, this is rather ironic due to the fact that many who oppose questioning this President’s eligibility would use this very same argument as the basis upon which to discredit such questioning. Such irony is due to the fact that the argument continues to rely upon facts not in evidence, or, at the very least, on allegations of unsubstantiated documentation that is not specifically filed with any government agency (because no law requires such filing to occur — the memo even admits that States only require a statement or “promise” that a candidate is legitimate to be filed for that candidate).
  4. The memo is nothing more than a researched opinion that carries no specific weight in a Court of law, merely the court of public opinion. Once again, it’s worth noting that due to point 2, above, one must invalidate any ability to judicially rectify the eligibility question for the fact that no eligibility laws exist to prove or disprove a candidate’s eligibility. Therefore (and perhaps conveniently), there can be no judicial remedy to the question; the issue must be resolved in the court of public opinion — e.g.: during a campaign season.

The bottom line is that we now have evidence, in hand, that the only way anyone can currently determine presidential eligibility is to effectively do it themselves. That is, it must be garnered during the quote-unquote “vetting” process that we typically call a presidential campaign.

Further, this is a “legal analysis,” which is a formal way of saying that this is “some lawyers’ opinions as to what they think currently-existing law means with respect to presidential eligibility,” really meaning that it’s yet another opinion in the court of public opinion. Remember: no laws currently exist to enforce presidential eligibility, and legal analyses will never change that fact.

Not only this, but it’s also obviously true that everyone has been thinking about it, else there’d be no need for a memo.

-Phil

phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

There are 231 comments in this article:

  1. 11/7/2010juriggs says:

    You can kind of feel the tide turning, can’t you? People are thinking and talking about this, and although we may never know about Pres. Obama’s eligibility status, you can bet that every candidate that’s questionable from this point forward is going to have to answer some questions. Maybe *that’s* Providence in action.

  2. 11/7/2010misanthropicus says:

    Very interesting document – and while Phil’s observations are excellent, I’ll take the liberty to add a few comments in top of them:

    * Phil point #2: […] The memo completely substantiates the fact that there is no law that requires presidential eligibility to be determined, nor to what extent such determination would exist. […]
    Bingo! and that’s why the WH and the DNC are spooked by the Burgess bill in Arizona, bill which would have (and hopefully will) require(d) from any presidential candidate to positively prove to the AZ state secretary his/ her constitutional eligibility for the job he/ she intends to electioneer in Arizona – one bill like this becoming law in the union would overturn the Dems’ Potemkiniade –

    * Phil point #3: […] The memo relies on the current fact that since nothing appears to contract the alleged document, that must mean that the alleged document is true and can be sufficiently relied upon to substantiate Mr. Obama’s eligibility (once again, despite the fact that there is no such “controlling legal authority”) […] –
    There we go – aside of Algore’s “no controlling authority”, I’ll also remind here the liberals’ frenzy over Donald Rumsfeld’s “Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence […]” –
    At that time (nuclear weapons in Iraq issue), the liberals were incensed by this notion – now, in this Obama matter, it looks like mister Rumsfeld’s wisdom is even more unnerving for them –

    And now some encouraging news coming from Los Angeles:
    1) Down on a Long Beach freeway billboard, has appeared the known poster: “Where Is The Birth Certificate?” countless motorists slowing down and taking pictures of it (of course, LA Times hasn’t learned yet anything about the event) –
    2) The electoral recount in the Calif. AG election, which was declared by the powers to be (liberal) lost by the LA DA Steve Cooley (R) and won by Kamala Harris, the San Francisco turbo liberal DA, victory quite unexplainable for those who know the state –
    Well, as of this afternoon, when it came to the recount, LA Times admitted that Cooley has moved ahead of Harris, and this with 1 million ballots still to be reviewed!

    My view is that, if Monday the recount confirms that Cooley’s numbers have consistently grew, then the Republicans have solid grounds to request a similar recount for the gobernatorial and US senate ballots – respectively Meg Whitman vs. Jerry Moonbeam, and Carly Fiorina vs. Barbara Boxer –

    If I were in Minnesota, I’d have a few questions to ask –
    If I were in Nevada, I’d have a few questions to ask –
    If I were a PUMA, I’d also have a few matters to revisit -

  3. 11/7/2010elspeth says:

    Phil,

    What a great document to have added to the mess of eligiblity for POTUS!!

    However, the Court of Public Opinion does not “get it on the books”. The matter will never be truly settled until point number two is addressed.

    Until then, hiding nothing earns the trust of the people. Hiding anything should leave a mark.

    Full disclosure!

  4. 11/7/2010Granite1 says:

    Obama really was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and as the verifications of the Republican officials and Republican governor of Hawaii confirm.

  5. 11/7/2010Pete says:

    The memo is garbage. Let me prove it very, very, very quickly. This will be placed here so that there can be no misunderstanding for those whom seek to re-define, through case law, the Constitution.

    Here is the proof that this memo is legal garbage. NO WHERE, NOT A SINGLE TIME, DOES THIS MEMO MENTION VATTEL OR REFERENCE THE LAW OF NATIONS. This alone, is absolute proof it is a legal garbage. Since the law of Nations is mentioned in the body of the Constitution, is well known and understood by the founding fathers, is one of only two books NOT returned to the NYC public library by George Washington, there CAN BE NO DOUBT that is was read and understood at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. You just can’t have a real discussion about the Constitution and NBC without Vattel.

    That memo is nothing more that a political document to be passed out to ‘cover’ for the abuse of the Constitution by our government and Congress. Only idiots could be convinced that a King of any country (including England) could now be POTUS!!!! I wonder how much ‘stimulus’ money went to paying for such legal garbage?

  6. 11/7/2010bob says:

    Marco Rubio can run for president. It was his parents that were born in Cuba.

    Rush says birth in the United States is sufficient for natural born citizen. Take that, de Vattel!

    You will notice this when the memo begins talking about the alleged existence of documents on third-party Internet-based web sites that allegedly do not appear to be contradicted with respect to the alleged document’s claim of Mr. Obama’s birthplace.

    This is how rational people think: When there’s uncontradicted evidence of a fact, people think it is true. Speculation is not evidence of anything (other than the speculator’s creativity and ability to deny reality).

    And this memo was written before Donofrio “discovered” Hawaii’s index data, which is affirmative, official proof that President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The memo is nothing more than a researched opinion that carries no specific weight in a Court of law, merely the court of public opinion.

    But it is a very well respected opinion; the author is an experienced attorney with an extensive history of service for an independent, nonpartisan organization. It also consistent with what all the law professors and other experts who have said. Rational people accept these opinions over anonymous nonexperts.

    And the CRS, law professors, are completely consistent with the real judges who on a real case made a real ruling that actually addressed this issue.

    Here is the proof that this memo is legal garbage. NO WHERE, NOT A SINGLE TIME, DOES THIS MEMO MENTION VATTEL OR REFERENCE THE LAW OF NATIONS.

    Hahahaha! Perfect denial mentality: When all the experts disagree with me, all the experts must be wrong!

  7. 11/8/2010robert strauss says:

    Congressional Research Memo says Obama is NBC based on naturalization act of 1790.

    This link provided by jbjd shows the repeal and replacement of the 1790 act with the naturalization act of 1795. Obama is not a NBC.

    http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=537

  8. 11/8/2010bob says:

    Congressional Research Memo says Obama is NBC based on naturalization act of 1790.

    CRS says Obama is a natural born citizen based on Wong Kim Ark.

    Seriously: Take a reading course.

  9. 11/8/2010bob strauss says:

    This is from Jill Pryor paper, bob read this.

    The state does not determine nationality and allegiance, but the free choice of the citizen father. The ‘ties of nature’ are natural, not pre-determined by the state. The allegiance of a child born to either a citizen or alien is that of the father, period.

  10. 11/8/2010Granite1 says:

    Re: “Congressional Research Memo says Obama is NBC based on naturalization act of 1790.’

    Answer: You have not read the memo at all. It says that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen based on the original meaning of Natural Born, which referred to the place of birth. Neither the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, nor any writing of the American leaders at the time ever used Natural Born as based on the citizenship of the parents. It only referred to the place of birth.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  11. 11/8/2010Granite1 says:

    Re: “Arizona bill which would have (and hopefully will) require(d) from any presidential candidate to positively prove to the AZ state secretary his/ her constitutional eligibility for the job….”

    Answer: Since that bill, and other similar bills, calls for the OFFICIAL birth certificate, Obama can provide that easily. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate. That is the one that he has shown, and it says on it “born in Hawaii,” and that fact was confirmed by the Republican officials of the department of health and department of vital records of Hawaii, and by the governor of Hawaii, who is also a Republican.

  12. 11/8/2010qwertyman says:

    This is from Jill Pryor paper, bob read this.

    The state does not determine nationality and allegiance, but the free choice of the citizen father. The ‘ties of nature’ are natural, not pre-determined by the state. The allegiance of a child born to either a citizen or alien is that of the father, period.

    Please stop lying and showing us that you did not read Pryor’s Note. What you’ve quoted here is a direct quote from Palaegalnm’s blog. http://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/

    You may have thought that it was from Pryor’s Note because it is brought up about a paragraph after the note is linked to. Rest assured, however, that that quote appears NOWHERE in Pryor’s Note. Damn you’re stupid!

  13. 11/8/2010qwertyman says:

    Since the law of Nations is mentioned in the body of the Constitution

    Bull. Giving Congress the power the punish violations of the laws of nations is not a reference to Vattel, it’s giving Congress the power to punish violations of international law.

    Saying that that clause is a direct citation of Vattel is like saying that your pastor is referring to a Dan Brown book EVERY TIME he mentions angels and demons in a sermon.

    You just can’t have a real discussion about the Constitution and NBC without Vattel.

    Sure you can. Prominent constitutional scholars such as Professor Rotunda, a well known conservative, have said that Vattel had no bearing on the natural born citizen clause. There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation.

  14. 11/8/2010elspeth says:

    I hear the Obots saying: “Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen.”

  15. 11/8/2010misanthropicus says:

    Misanthropicus: […] “Arizona bill which would have (and hopefully will) require(d) from any presidential candidate to positively prove to the AZ state secretary his/ her constitutional eligibility for the job….” […]

    Granite: […] Since that bill, and other similar bills, calls for the OFFICIAL birth certificate, Obama can provide that easily. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate. That is the one that he has shown, and it says on it “born in Hawaii,” and that fact was confirmed by the Republican officials of the department of health and department of vital records of Hawaii, and by the governor of Hawaii, who is also a Republican. […]

    … perseverare diabolicum: Granny, listen – “The certification of Live Birth ist the Birth Certificate” –

    No, man, no – the crertification is an internediary document which might well be drawn from some trestimonials, and not from a HOSPITAL DOCUMENT, with serial number, doctor’s and nurse names and signiture –
    1) The only certain thing that unsigned and undated paper attests is that there is such a thing like Obama – as far as where he was born that could be anywhere in the world –
    2) and thanks for using the old trick of substituting in the discussion the term of “birth certificate” with “vital records” – hehehe – how astute –

    Still, here’s a sardine as bonus for your efforts , from the Australian:
    “Barack Obama joined Muslim prayers at school, teacher says” –

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/barack-obama-joined-muslim-prayers-at-school-teacher-says/story-e6frg6so-1225949239614

  16. 11/8/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ bob strauss

    This is from Jill Pryor paper, bob read this.

    The state does not determine nationality and allegiance, but the free choice of the citizen father. The ‘ties of nature’ are natural, not pre-determined by the state. The allegiance of a child born to either a citizen or alien is that of the father, period.

    No. It’s not. This is found nowhere in the Jill Pryor paper.

  17. 11/8/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ misanthropicus

    No, man, no – the crertification is an internediary document which might well be drawn from some trestimonials, and not from a HOSPITAL DOCUMENT, with serial number, doctor’s and nurse names and signiture -

    Nothing in that comment is true.

    1) A Hawaiian COLB (certificate or certification) is the official birth certificate of the State of Hawaii by both law and definition. It is “intermediary” to nothing, but is “derivative” of the original state record.

    2) A “long form” is not a “HOSPITAL DOCUMENT” either. Duh. Hawaiian “long forms” never carried nurse names and signatures either. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.

    1) The only certain thing that unsigned and undated paper attests is that there is such a thing like Obama – as far as where he was born that could be anywhere in the world -

    Wrong in at least 11 different ways. It attests to 1) his full name, 2) his date and time of birth, 3) his gender, 4)the town of birth, 5) the island of birth, 6) the county of birth, 7) his mother’s name, 8 ) his mother’s race, 9) his father’s name, 10) his father’s race and 11) the date of the document’s filing.

    The certification by Dr. Onaka puts the full weight of the State behind the accuracy of all 11 pieces of information it contains.

    2) and thanks for using the old trick of substituting in the discussion the term of “birth certificate” with “vital records” – hehehe – how astute -

    Great language, English. We actually have more than one name for the same thing.

  18. 11/8/2010Granite1 says:

    Misanthropicus: The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it to prove birth in the USA every year.

    The issue of Obama’s religion has nothing to do with his eligibility. If you feel that he is a Moslem, you have every right to vote against him in the next presidential election.

    However, Obama has shown his OFFICIAL birth certificate, the same one that the Arizona bill, and all the other bills call for. That is because most states have adopted short-form birth certificates and no longer send out the original birth certificates.

    Since most states have adopted the short form, there will be a time–inevitably–when a president of the United States only has a short-form, meaning that the document will not have a signature from a doctor or even show the doctor’s name, and that is why the proposed federal birther bill and the state birther bills call for the official, not the original.

    The Wall Street Journal said:

    “The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues.

    FactCheck.org has a close-up photo of the certificate, which states clearly at the bottom: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” If a court were somehow to take up the question of Obama’s eligibility, then, the birth certificate would almost certainly be sufficient to resolve the question in his favor. The opposing side would have to provide serious evidence calling into question the veracity of Hawaii’s official state records. Innuendo and hearsay would not be admissible.

    Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

  19. 11/8/2010elspeth says:

    Phil,

    You always explain it better than I do: please tell this “newcomer” the difference between a federal “authority” and a web blog with no creditials.

    Granite1 says:

    Obama has shown his OFFICIAL birth certificate

  20. 11/8/2010qwertyman says:

    You always explain it better than I do: please tell this “newcomer” the difference between a federal “authority” and a web blog with no creditials.[sic]

    You hold it against President Obama that there is currently no requirement that candidates for the presidency show some federal authority their birth certificates? By any credible definition, Obama has publicly disclosed his birth certificate, something that no other President in US history has done. There is absolutely no credible reason to believe he was born anywhere other than Kapi’olani hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. Every birther theory to the contrary depends entirely upon hypothetical situations and conjectures.

  21. 11/8/2010robert strauss says:

    Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 8 Nov 2010
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

  22. 11/9/2010bob says:

    I hear the Obots saying: “Marco Rubio is a natural born citizen.”

    Rush Limbaugh is an Obot? Who knew!

    please tell this “newcomer” the difference between a federal “authority” and a web blog with no creditials.

    What “federal ‘authority'” issues/authenticates birth certificates?

    For the price of a stamp, however, the State of Hawaii will send you documentary proof that President Obama was born there.

    Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 8 Nov 2010

    Cert. denial for Thanksgiving. Delish!

  23. 11/9/2010Dan says:

    Phil: You might have read this. Your readers might get some insight.
    I did not see Vattel listed in the memo.

    What about Emmirich de Vattel. Law of Nations in 1758

    common law vs law of nations

    must read: George D. Collins
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

    In conclusion, to use the language of the Supreme Court of the United States
    in the Slaughter House Cases, in reference to the meaning of the first section of the
    Fourteenth Amendment before referred to, and which is decisive of this question

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,
    excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States”……

    “the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude from
    its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”

    note: (Obama’s Mother was not old enough to convey u.s. citizenship onto him)
    you must be ten years a resident, 5 years over the age of 14. (19)
    Stanley Ann Dunham (mother) was only 18 years old (shy by 3 months)
    Dan Smith, NY

  24. 11/9/2010Dan says:

    A “COLB” copy on a website is NOT PROOF of Legal Document.
    How gullable does one have to be to simply believe that a “picture” on
    the internet is forensic proof or Legal Authority….

    Not one person has sworn an affidavit as to validity. The Hawaii DoH has
    only stated that they have records on file, which could be anything.

    The only person who has filed a sworn affidavit under penalty of Law is
    Lucas Daniel Smith in reference to a Kenyan Birth Certificate. Smith has
    forwarded it by registered mail to every Congress member.

    Obama’s mother did not meet the one year resident requirement to “file” for
    a COLB under Hawaii Statute 338-17.8
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

    If Ann Dunham was in high school in Washington till June 1960 and did not leave Washington until Nov. 1960 she could not have met the “one year” requirement if
    Obama was born on August 04, 1961.
    Also, if a marriage took place in Feb. 1961 it would have nullified the residency.

    Let’s not forget about the several Social Security #’s that Obama has used that
    were assigned to other persons……..
    Dan Smith, NY

  25. 11/9/2010Dan says:

    HERE IS A LINK TO “SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES
    “the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude from
    its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”

    (Obama was born a British subject inherited from his father who was never a u.s. citizen.

    Fourteenth Amendment http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    You don’t believe me…..then check this out!

    Slaughter House Cases (appears just past half way down the page)

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

    That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    (Obama admits he was born a British subject, so therefore he is not entitled jurisdiction of section 1 of the 14 th Amendment)

    It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

    note: (Obama’s Mother was not old enough to convey u.s. citizenship onto him)
    you must be ten years a resident, 5 of which shall be over the age of 14. (19)
    Stanley Ann Dunham (mother) was only 18 years old (shy by 3 months)

    a. section 301 Dec 24, 1954 (see page 17 of 101)

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    I’m not making this stuff up, read it yourselves……Dan Smith, NY

  26. 11/9/2010slcraig says:

    I’ve been looking for the status of Marco’s parents. Surely they were covered under the Cuban Refugee Act of 1961, (JFK), and were ‘legal permanent residents’ with an expedited ‘path to citizenship’ eventually added.

    Many of the Cuban exiles were convinced that the US would assist in reclaiming their country and were looking to return, but with the ’61 Act’s resettlement policies of attempting to disperse the exiles away from FL. and spread across the country, citizenship must have been considered as an option for them.

    Perhaps it was enough for Mario to know that 2 of his children were ‘citizens’, but from what I’ve read of his character I can not help but think he pursued citizenship for his-self and his wife……….anyone know for sure…?

  27. 11/9/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ robert strauss

    Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 8 Nov 2010
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

    The denial (without comment) will be published Monday, Nov 29.

    As Steve Craig how that works.

  28. 11/9/2010qwertyman says:

    note: (Obama’s Mother was not old enough to convey u.s. citizenship onto him)
    you must be ten years a resident, 5 of which shall be over the age of 14. (19)
    Stanley Ann Dunham (mother) was only 18 years old (shy by 3 months)

    a. section 301 Dec 24, 1954 (see page 17 of 101)

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf

    That is assuming that Obama was not born in the United States, a proposition for which there has been absolutely no credible or admissible evidence presented to support to date. That section only applies to those not born in the United States. Seriously, look!

    The
    following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7)
    a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its
    outlying possessions
    of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a
    citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was
    physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a
    period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which
    were after attaining the age of fourteen years

    Those born in the United States at that time faced no such requirement, and it is intellectually dishonest of you to suggest otherwise as you have here.

    Slaughter House Cases (appears just past half way down the page)

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

    That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, “subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    The Slaughterhouse Cases were decided well before Wong Kim Ark, which explicitly stated that all those born in the US except for the children of foreign diplomats or invading armies are natural born citizens. There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    Further, I would suggest that you not rely on the Slaughterhouse Cases, which are widely considered to be one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court ever made.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n5/cpr31n5-2.html

    Justice Clarence Thomas, for one, has declared that he would be open to reevaluating the meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause “in an appropriate case.” McDonald v. Chicago may be that case. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, a liberal icon, writes that “the Slaughter-House Cases incorrectly gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause.” Yale law professor Akhil Amar agrees: “Virtually no serious modern scholar—left, right, and center— thinks that [Slaughter-House] is a plausible reading of the [Fourteenth] Amendment.

    must read: George D. Collins

    George Collins was an attorney for the losing side in the Wong Kim Ark case – his view of citizenship expressed in that link was explicitly rejected by a majority of the Supreme Court. Further, Collins uses a shocking display of racism and misogyny to reach his conclusion. Are you really sure you want to be relying on explicitly racist and misogynist arguments to back up your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause?

    A “COLB” copy on a website is NOT PROOF of Legal Document.
    How gullable[sic] does one have to be to simply believe that a “picture” on
    the internet is forensic proof or Legal Authority…

    True – there is no current legal authority that confirms that candidates for the presidency or vice presidency are natural born citizens. At this point the best one can hope for is that one publicly discloses a birth certificate to show where they were born, as Obama has done.

    Not one person has sworn an affidavit as to validity.

    False, the director of the HI Dept of Health, a Republican has testified that Obama’s COLB is legit. Her, along with the DoH spokesperson and the Republican governor have all vouched for its legitimacy in multiple public statements.

    The only person who has filed a sworn affidavit under penalty of Law is
    Lucas Daniel Smith in reference to a Kenyan Birth Certificate. Smith has
    forwarded it by registered mail to every Congress member.

    Lucas Smith has been convicted of forgery in the past, and the document that he displayed on YouTube is a forgery as well. For example, it misspells the name of the hospital’s administrator. It has somebody in 1961 with the ridiculous name of “John Kwame Odongo.”

    Kwame = Ghanaian
    Odongo = Kenyan

    Ghana and Kenya are literally a continent apart. It would be as silly as seeing somebody in 1960 with the name of Jacques Vladimir Mitterand.

  29. 11/9/2010qwertyman says:

    Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari Distributed for Conference by the Justices on 8 Nov 2010
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-446.htm

    What, no apology or admission of laziness for “quoting” from Pryor when in actuality you were simply posting some copypasta that you got from another birther blog? Aren’t you the least bit embarrassed for being exposed as completely intellectually dishonest and utterly lazy, one of the stupidest birthers to date?

  30. 11/9/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Dan

    You do know (I hope) that George D. Collins would eventually get the chance to try out that little law student’s essay in front of the Supreme Court itself, right? He argued the same thing thing, often using the identical language as the losing attorney in the case Wong Kim Ark. You know the one; The one where SCOTUS defined natural born citizen as being born on US soil, not the child of a foreign diplomat or foreign army in hostile occupation.

    In other words, the essay you suggest we all read should be read for one reason only; to learn what the Supreme Court has determined is not true.

    George was a fascinating character. Not only a lawyer, but also so notorious a criminal that he even got his own chapter in a book published about spectacular California crimes. A bigamist, embezzler and international fugitive from justice, he ended up running the jute mill in San Quentin prison.

    Birther lawyers… somebody should create a set of trading cards.

  31. 11/9/2010Granite1 says:

    Re: ‘A “COLB” copy on a website is NOT PROOF of Legal Document.
    How gullable does one have to be to simply believe that a “picture” on
    the internet is forensic proof or Legal Authority….’

    Answer: Of course not. However, he has the physical copy of the legal document you refer to. He showed the physical copy to both FactCheck and Politifact.

    And, it is the facts on the document that are key, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. That means the original clerk who looked into the file saw that it said ‘born in Hawaii’ and repeated it on the document sent to Obama, and the two top officials of the department of health and department of vital records who confirmed also saw the same document and determined that the clerk was right, that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and the Republican governor of Hawaii has also confirmed.

    Re: “The Hawaii DoH has only stated that they have records on file, which could be anything.”

    Answer: There were two confirmations by the department heads and one by the governor. The governor’s confirmation actually said that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital, confirming the statement of the witness. In the first of the confirmations, the officials said that there is an original birth certificate in the files, and at the time Obama was born birth certificates from outside Hawaii were not allowed to be filed in Hawaii. In the second of the confirmations, the officials said that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable. As they stated, and as you can see, it is an image of a physical copy of the document.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the DOH to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital;

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    And here is the statement of the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    And here is a transcript of the taped interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother after she is asked where was Obama born. (
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf

    Quotes begin:

    MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

    OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

    MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

    OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

    MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

    OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

    MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

    OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

    END QUOTE

    A second interview in which Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that the first that she had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii is reported by the Tribune News Service in the Hartfort Courant, which describes how the Kenyan family received a letter announcing the Aug. 4, 1961, birth. The Tribune reporter noted an interview with Sarah Obama in which she said she was “so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S.”

    The actual quotation is:

    “Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband’s continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she “was so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S.” (
    http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/world/chi-0703270151mar27-archive,0,2145571.story?page=4

    This shows that the birth did not take place in Kenya, but that it took place in Hawaii because the family in Kenya had heard of the birth in a letter from Hawaii.

  32. 11/9/2010bob says:

    Let’s not forget about the several Social Security #’s that Obama has used that
    were assigned to other persons……..

    Where’s the evidence that President Obama has used more than one social security number?

  33. 11/9/2010TEDSTEVENS says:

    You said; A “COLB” copy on a website is NOT PROOF of Legal Document.
    How gullable does one have to be to simply believe that a “picture” on
    the internet is forensic proof or Legal Authority….’

    Answer: Of course the image is not proof (but such presidents as Bush and celinton did not even bother to show an image of their birth certificates; they did not show them at all). BUT Obama does have the physical copy of the legal document you refer to. He showed the physical copy to both FactCheck and Politifact.

    Also, it is the facts on the document that are key, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. That means the original clerk who looked into the file saw that the document in the file said ‘born in Hawaii’ and repeated that fact on the Certification that was sent to Obama, and the two top officials of the department of health and department of vital records who confirmed also saw the same document and determined that the clerk was right, that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and the Republican governor of Hawaii has also confirmed.

    Re: “The Hawaii DoH has only stated that they have records on file, which could be anything.”

    Answer: There were two confirmations by the department heads and one by the governor. The governor’s confirmation actually said that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital, confirming the statement of the witness. In the first of the confirmations, the officials said that there is an original birth certificate in the files, and at the time Obama was born birth certificates from outside Hawaii were not allowed to be filed in Hawaii. In the second of the confirmations, the officials said that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  34. 11/9/2010Granite says:

    You said; A “COLB” copy on a website is NOT PROOF of Legal Document.
    How gullable does one have to be to simply believe that a “picture” on
    the internet is forensic proof or Legal Authority….’

    Answer: Of course the image is not proof (but such presidents as Bush and Clinton did not even bother to show an image of their birth certificates; they did not show their birth certificates at all). BUT Obama does have the physical copy of the legal document you refer to. He showed the physical copy to both FactCheck and Politifact.

    Also, it is the facts on the document that are key, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. That means the original clerk who looked into the file saw that the document in the file said ‘born in Hawaii’ and repeated that fact on the Certification that was sent to Obama, and the two top officials of the department of health and department of vital records who confirmed also saw the same document and determined that the clerk was right, that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and the Republican governor of Hawaii has also confirmed.

    Re: “The Hawaii DoH has only stated that they have records on file, which could be anything.”

    Answer: There were two confirmations by the department heads and one by the governor. The governor’s confirmation actually said that Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital, confirming the statement of the witness. In the first of the confirmations, the officials said that there is an original birth certificate in the files, and at the time Obama was born birth certificates from outside Hawaii were not allowed to be filed in Hawaii. In the second of the confirmations, the officials said that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  35. 11/9/2010Congress report concedes Obama eligibility unvetted! « A Nation ADrift-Why? says:

    […] http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2010/11/06/eligibility-update-rush-on-marco-official-congressional… […]

  36. 11/9/2010Ladysforest says:

    SOME of you know that a Hawaiian born individual can indeed still order, and obtain their long form birth certificate. Video proof:

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth

  37. 11/9/2010robert strauss says:

    Where’s the evidence that President Obama has used more than one social security number?

    bob, look up a guy by the name: Neil Sankey and you will find the evidence you are looking for about Obama and his 30 plus SS numbers.

  38. 11/9/2010brygenon says:

    Phil, seem to have missed the major points of this memo. First, evaluating the qualifications of elected federal officers is first up to the political process, and finally up to Congress, as we obots have been explaining for quite some time. See the top of page 4. Courts have agreed that the certification of the electoral vote in Congress is the final decision. From Keyes v. Bowen:

    the appropriate remedy for an issue concerning the qualifications of a President is an action before the United States Congress pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 3 U.S.C. section 15.

    And from Kerchner v. Obama:

    it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the “political question doctrine” as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.

    The non-existence of evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii is simply that: no evidence to the contrary. This contrasts with the positive evidence that he was in fact born in Hawaii. The memo was written a few months before the official Hawaii Department of Health news release of July 27, 2009, confirming Obama was born in Hawaii, so now the evidence is even better. See: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    Weight of the memo in a Court of law is not at issue. The memo was not intended for a court of law, nor for “the court of public opinion”. Congress, not the judiciary, has final judgment on the qualifications of elected officials, and the Congressional Research Service is the appropriate body to advise Congress.

    Phil, over an over you’ve claimed to simply be asking questions. Over and over you’ve gotten answers, but when you do, you go into these contortions to avoid facing them.

  39. 11/9/2010robert strauss says:

    From Indonesian Matters.

    Barry Soetoro
    Nov 6th, 2008, in IM Posts, Opinion, by Guest Writer

    Purba on Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama’s Indonesian connection.

    Former Menteng student now US President

    Obama Barack has been democratically elected President of the US.

    Quite an about face for the best democracy money can buy, in view of the Bush presidential se-lection.

    But of course, corruption, collusion and nepotism is the sole monopoly of the Third World – or so the deluded denizens of the West repeat to themselves as they hug their knees, rocking back and forth – reminding themselves of how they uphold human rights equally across the board, entirely devoid of double-standards and totally oblivious to race, creed or religion.

    Barrak Hussein Obama II was born to a white American Ann Dunham and Kenyan Barrak Hussein Obama Snr, in Nyang’oma Kogelo now in Kenya.

    http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2952/barry-soetoro/

  40. 11/9/2010robert strauss says:

    British Nationality Act of 1948.

    http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

  41. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    Where’s the evidence that President Obama has used more than one social security number?

    bob, look up a guy by the name: Neil Sankey and you will find the evidence you are looking for about Obama and his 30 plus SS numbers.

    Last time you made factual allegations you were claiming that your copypasta from a birther blog was actually quotes from a Yale Law Journal article written by Jill Pryor. Again, do you have absolutely no shame? Would you at least like to admit that you were being completely intellectually dishonest and/or lazy in spreading that false statement all over this blog?

  42. 11/10/2010bob says:

    Barrak Hussein Obama II was born to a white American Ann Dunham and Kenyan Barrak Hussein Obama Snr, in Nyang’oma Kogelo now in Kenya.

    http://www.indonesiamatters.com/2952/barry-soetoro/

    …in IM Posts, Opinion, by Guest Writer.

    A “guest writer” has the “opinion” that President Obama was born in Kenya.

    Who can argue with “evidence” like that? Game; set; match — Air Force One is a on one-way trip to Rio.

  43. 11/10/2010bob says:

    bob, look up a guy by the name: Neil Sankey and you will find the evidence you are looking for about Obama and his 30 plus SS numbers.

    You seriously need to take a reading course: Where in anything that Sankey wrote indicates Obama used 30+ social security numbers?

    And what does Sankey think about his own research?: “[Sankey] admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president….”

  44. 11/10/2010misanthropicus says:

    Re Granite1: […] and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. That means the original clerk who looked into the file saw that it said ‘born in Hawaii’ and repeated it on the document sent to Obama, and the two top officials of the department of health and department of vital records who confirmed also saw the same document and determined that the clerk was right, that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, and the Republican governor of Hawaii has also confirmed. […]

    False and fraudulent – Granite, not surprising that that you credited you swindleries on the English languge’s flexibility –

    Your description of the Hawaii review of dba Obama’s birth certificate is fraudulent, since it’s the Hawaii officials who went at great lenghts in the first place to SEPARATE in their statements the notion of BIRTH CERTIFICATE of the whatever record they have and saw at the time, be it index data, or other “VITAL RECORDS” –

    * Fukino’s declarations DO NOT USE THE TERM BIRTH CERTIFICATE but the ambiguous term of VITAL RECORDS – VR-s that can be anything, including the Dunhams’ testimony that Ann Stanley had a baby, but due to some complications will show the kid only in a few days (which actually is when the Kenyan authorities would have allowed her to fly again, this situation explainig also the sequential discrepancy of registration dates with the Nordyke twins papers) – (NB: “show the kind” – vaccine records, anyone?)

    * As far as the governor’s declaration, that has exactly Bollinger’s (Columbia president) declaration value regarding Barry’s attendance there – that is none whatsoever –
    All what the Hawaii governor did is, she deflected the situation on Fukino, who quickly grabbed a Webster, and found that “vital records” will do it nicely –

    ’till she, and all others caught in this misery will have to come, when facing the long overdue inquiry, with straight facts –

    Soon, over the freeway near you: “WHERE IS THE BITH CERTIFICATE?”

    Regards -

  45. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    that has exactly Bollinger’s (Columbia president) declaration value regarding Barry’s attendance there – that is none whatsoever

    Oh God, you’re still going on about that paranoid crap? That’s hilarious. Even Phil abandoned that one after people spent 30 seconds on a google search and found at least three people who specifically remember attending Columbia with Obama.

    Did you see how quickly it was found out that O’Donnell had not actually attended the schools she claimed she did? How paranoid do you have to be to say that the President of the University is lying when he proudly proclaims the President to be an alum?

    VR-s that can be anything, including the Dunhams’ testimony that Ann Stanley had a baby, but due to some complications will show the kid only in a few days (which actually is when the Kenyan authorities would have allowed her to fly again, this situation explainig also the sequential discrepancy of registration dates with the Nordyke twins papers)

    There is absolutely nothing to back any of that up except for your own paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories, none of which are backed by a single fact.

  46. 11/10/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ misanthropicus

    * Fukino’s declarations DO NOT USE THE TERM BIRTH CERTIFICATE but the ambiguous term of VITAL RECORDS…

    Wrong again. Here, go read it this time.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

  47. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    OK, so Dr. Fukino claims to have a birth certificate and is maintaining it “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    That and a few bucks will get you some coffee at Starbucks.

    -Phil

  48. 11/10/2010bob says:

    Dr. Fukino claims to have a birth certificate and is maintaining it “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    Dr. Fukino is state official charged to do exactly that — there is no better authority on this issue!

    For the price of a stamp, the State of Hawaii will send you documentary proof that President Obama was born there.

  49. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    That and a few bucks will get you some coffee at Starbucks.

    It’s worth much more than any single fact that any birther has come up with in the past couple of years. There is not a single credible fact that suggests that President Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii.

  50. 11/10/2010Phil says:
    Dr. Fukino claims to have a birth certificate and is maintaining it “in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    Dr. Fukino is state official charged to do exactly that — there is no better authority on this issue!

    For the price of a stamp, the State of Hawaii will send you documentary proof that President Obama was born there.

    Now, bob, I think it’s time to back things up a little bit. Let’s consider at least two things in light of what you’ve just spouted:

    1. Nobody without “tangible interest” can receive anything substantive from Mr. Obama’s vital records (so, no, I can’t just — “for the price of a stamp,” as you put it — confirm that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is what the COLB claims it to be, though I’ve seen where someone has recently claimed to procure their own long-form birth certificate from around the same time frame of Mr. Obama’s birth from HI);

    2. Dr. Fukino is the current HI DoH Director. Since there is currently no law regarding presidential eligibility enforcement nor the degree to which it is to be enforced, I fail to see how she is otherwise an authority on anything even remotely constitutional except vital record maintenance.

    -Phil

  51. 11/10/2010Granite says:

    Re: “SOME of you know that a Hawaiian born individual can indeed still order, and obtain their long form birth certificate. Video proof:

    http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/some-tropical-truth

    Answer: The above is complete garbage. The operator of this site claims that the woman is asking for the original birth certificate, but we do not hear what she asks for. It says that the clerk says that they will send her the original, but we do not hear any such thing. It seems that the woman is asking for a birth certificate, and what we hear her say is ‘all that I have is the CERTIFICATE.’ Well, the certificate is the original, so it is by no means clear that she was asking for a copy of the original. We certainly do not hear it.

    Proof would be to see the original that the woman had gotten, if she did, but there is no such document attached to the site. (And it is not likely that she got the original or even that that the clerk said that they would send it.)

    Hawaii has stated that it no longer sends out the original, and this video certainly does not prove that this statement is wrong. What it shows is that some birthers are so crazy that they are willing to accept even this junk as “evidence” of something.

  52. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    That and a few bucks will get you some coffee at Starbucks.

    It’s worth much more than any single fact that any birther has come up with in the past couple of years. There is not a single credible fact that suggests that President Obama was born anywhere other than Honolulu, Hawaii.

    This in spite of the fact that the only thing that individuals such as yourself have in evidence is an alleged image of an alleged document posted by some third-party on a non-governmental web site.

    And that’s all that you have to go on.

    Remember:

    I can’t disprove that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. And you can’t prove that he is.

    The absence of evidence is only evidence that something is absent.

    Even better: you can’t even say that a COLB is enough to potentially declare Mr. Obama eligible, because there is no law that governs such a claim, nor is there anyone officially available to make such a pronouncement, because there is no law that vests that authority in such a person (except maybe the 10th Amendment).

    -Phil

  53. 11/10/2010slcraig says:

    I’m dismayed that the same usual and suspect 0’poligists are STILL spouting the same ‘tried and failed’ talking points even when the ‘original’ talking points document is now released disputing EVERY instance of EVERY reference that ANY legal evidence has been submitted or made available to ANY ‘controlling legal authority’.

    The document makes it plain and clear, that insofar as the Communist/Marxist controlled DNC is concerned the is NO ‘legal controlling authority’ designated by statute, regulation or rule to which anything need be presented to prove the eligibility of their candidates.

    But then, the cut and paste nature of the ‘talking points’ used by these 0’poligists make it plain and clear that they have no shame and a high tolerance to embarrassment.

    The interesting thing is that the release of this ‘memo’ may well be the straw that bows the SCOTUS to take up the Apuzzo Cdr Kerchner Petition in that the very point the memo makes is vigorously presented within the Petition, i.e.,

    a. Congress cannot define a “natural
    born Citizen”

    Congress cannot define a “natural born Citizen,” for
    under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 it only has power to
    make uniform the laws of naturalization which does not
    include defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If
    the clause is not already defined by the Constitution or
    by the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution
    does not give Congress the authority to define the
    meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” While Congress
    can surely apply the “natural born Citizen” clause in a
    way that is consistent with its historical meaning,
    Congress cannot define anew the “natural born Citizen”
    clause for the purpose of declaring a president-elect or
    sitting putative president either eligible or ineligible for
    that office. Only the Court can define the “natural born
    Citizen” clause and give that definition to Congress for
    it to apply when exercising its constitutional duty under
    the Twentieth Amendment to confirm a president-elect’s
    qualifications to hold that office. The Court therefore
    has the right and authority to declare that Obama failed
    to qualify by January 20th under the Twentieth
    Amendment and that Congress should fill the office
    pursuant to the Constitution and laws passed pursuant
    thereto. Once the Court declares what the petitioners’
    and respondents’ rights are, Congress can take
    appropriate action to effectuate what the Court
    declares.

    b. The executive cannot define a
    “natural born Citizen”

    The Executive cannot resolve the question, for it
    involves the chief executive himself, the President of the
    United States. This is not a case like Lujan where the
    wrong alleged by petitioner is best handled by the
    Executive Branch of government. Petitioners are not
    challenging any government agency action or requesting
    anything which can be perceived as the court’s
    interference with the executive’s constitutional
    authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully
    executed” (Article II, Section 3) but rather the failure
    of Obama as the President-Elect (but still a private
    person) to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” clause and
    then as the Executive to satisfy the clause and protect
    the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment rights to life, liberty,
    safety, security, tranquility, and property by refusing to
    be bound by the meaning and intent of the clause. This
    case does not involve any Congressional citizen-suit
    statute which unduly interferes with executive power
    and thereby violates Article III by unlawfully granting
    standing to citizens who are not able to sufficiently allege
    facts which show they have standing.

    c. The political parties and the popular
    vote cannot define a “natural born
    Citizen”

    The constitutional issue also cannot be decided by
    the political parties and a voting majority. Our nation is
    ultimately guided by the Constitution and the rule of
    law, not by majority rule. Allowing the political parties
    and the voting majorities to decide constitutional issues
    would be tantamount to amending the Constitution
    without going through the amendment process
    prescribed by Article V of the Constitution and
    abandoning the basic principles of republican
    government.

    d. Only the judiciary can define a
    “natural born Citizen”

    Only the judiciary can resolve this constitutional
    crisis. Petitioners sued Obama when he was still the
    President-Elect and after he was sworn in and became
    President. Hence they sued him before he acquired the
    immunities of the Office of President and after executive
    power putatively vested in him. As a private person,
    Obama cannot claim that he may be removed from office
    only through impeachment by Congress under Article
    I, Section 2 and 3, for the executive powers of the
    president along with removal only by impeachment that
    come with it had yet to legitimately vest in him at that
    moment in time.5 The same is true for the time after
    Obama took the oath of office, for Obama’s title to the
    Presidency is void ab initio and should therefore never
    have vested in him from the beginning. Rather, Congress
    can resort to its powers under the Twenty-Fifth
    Amendment to remove the putative sitting President
    from office when he is unable to constitutionally exercise
    his executive powers. Obama’s inability to hold the Office
    of President because he is not an Article II “natural
    born Citizen” is his lack of constitutional authority to
    do so.

    If neither Congress nor the Executive branches of
    government will give the petitioners that protection to
    which the Constitution entitles them, they should have
    access to the courts to be able to protect and vindicate
    their own rights to that protection. This right to access
    to the courts is more critical when both the executive
    and legislature are acting in concert to deprive the
    petitioners of their right to this protection. Since Obama
    has already been sworn in, it could be argued that only
    Congress has jurisdiction over the question of whether
    he is a “natural born Citizen.” But what happens when
    Congress also refuses to perform its constitutional duty
    under the Twentieth Amendment to make sure that
    only a “natural born Citizen” is given the great and
    singular powers of the Office of President and
    Commander in Chief of the Military? Surely the
    Constitution would not leave someone like the
    petitioners without any remedy to protect the same
    rights which the Declaration of Independence and the
    Constitution recognize as their unalienable rights to life,
    liberty, and property. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
    (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) (where there is a right there is a
    remedy). Only the Supreme Court can therefore decide
    the issue of standing, define a “natural born Citizen,”
    and determine whether the current sitting putative
    President is legitimate.

  54. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    This in spite of the fact that the only thing that individuals such as yourself have in evidence is an alleged image of an alleged document posted by some third-party on a non-governmental web site.

    And that itself is more than any other president in American history has done to prove their eligibility.

    I can’t disprove that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. And you can’t prove that he is.

    Sure I can, Obama was confirmed by the electoral college, and sworn in by the Chief Justice on inauguration day. Obama is currently the President. You’re the one making the allegations that everything about Obama’s past is a lie, the burden of proof is on you, my birther friend.

    the release of this ‘memo’ may well be the straw that bows the SCOTUS to take up the Apuzzo Cdr Kerchner Petition

    Wasn’t this case dismissed because of standing? An appeal brief does not give you the ability to pretend that the dismissal for standing didn’t happen. How completely incompetent to spend so much of their petition not talking about the reason the case had to be appealed!

  55. 11/10/2010slcraig says:

    qwertyboy……….wake up long enough to go look at the SCOTUS Docket and you will see that the Petition, from which I posted an excerpt, is scheduled for Conference on 11/23 and the excerpt I posted is from the Petition for a Writ which HAS NOT been presented to the lower courts because it was written for SCOTUS as a Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Petition, Petition, Petition, Petition, Petition, should be a clue.

    You need to change shoes, those tap-dance shoe’s you use are growing thin………

    Remember, we only need to win ONE to end the contest while you need to parrot the same obfuscations day after day that every reasonable person now knows, by virtue of the released memo, are discredited.

  56. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    Petition for a Writ which HAS NOT been presented to the lower courts because it was written for SCOTUS

    And that petition is improper because the reason the case is being appealed to the Supreme Court is that it was dismissed for lack of standing. The petition, for all its bluster, will have no relevance to the appeal of the dismissal.

    Remember, we only need to win ONE to end the contest while you need to parrot the same obfuscations day after day

    I’m sure Obama’s sweating bullets that the guy who escaped monetary sanctions at the circuit court by the skin of his teeth (but was still admonished, an embarrassment to any competent lawyer) will have better luck before the Supreme Court.

    you will see that the Petition, from which I posted an excerpt, is scheduled for Conference on 11/23

    Bet you $100 that at conference, SCOTUS does not grant cert. Just because a petition for cert is scheduled for conference does not mean that it has any merit whatsoever. See Orly’s cases. And Donofrio’s.

  57. 11/10/2010bob says:

    Just because a petition for cert is scheduled for conference does not mean that it has any merit whatsoever. See Orly’s cases. And Donofrio’s.

    And Steven Lee Craig’s.

  58. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    This in spite of the fact that the only thing that individuals such as yourself have in evidence is an alleged image of an alleged document posted by some third-party on a non-governmental web site.

    And that itself is more than any other president in American history has done to prove their eligibility.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Mr. Obama hasn’t been shown to have personally posted anything on the Internet, a point you haven’t denied.

    I can’t disprove that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. And you can’t prove that he is.

    Sure I can, Obama was confirmed by the electoral college, and sworn in by the Chief Justice on inauguration day. Obama is currently the President. You’re the one making the allegations that everything about Obama’s past is a lie, the burden of proof is on you, my birther friend.

    I think I’ve become rather breathless debunking the “Electoral-College-and-congressional-Joint-Session-are-what-makes-a-presidential-candidate-eligible” myth.

    Once again: The congressional Joint Session did nothing with the Electoral College vote except confirm it; no federal law requires the Joint Session to vet a candidate’s eligibility.

    Further, I also never claimed that “everything about Obama’s past is a lie;” he was confirmed to be President — I affirm that, for starters.

    -Phil

  59. 11/10/2010bob says:

    This in spite of the fact that the only thing that individuals such as yourself have in evidence is an alleged image of an alleged document posted by some third-party on a non-governmental web site.

    And that’s all that you have to go on.

    FOR THE PRICE OF A STAMP, THE STATE OF HAWAII WILL SEND YOU DOCUMENTARY PROOF THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN THERE.

    Or am I being unclear?

    Even better: you can’t even say that a COLB is enough to potentially declare Mr. Obama eligible, because there is no law that governs such a claim

    The rules of evidence: In any court in this land, a paper copy of the COLB would be admissible evidence.

  60. 11/10/2010bob says:

    1. Nobody without “tangible interest” can receive anything substantive from Mr. Obama’s vital records

    Wrong. Again. For the price of a stamp, Hawaii will send you documentary proof that President Obama was born there. I have such a document on my desk.

    2. Dr. Fukino is the current HI DoH Director. Since there is currently no law regarding presidential eligibility enforcement nor the degree to which it is to be enforced, I fail to see how she is otherwise an authority on anything even remotely constitutional except vital record maintenance.

    1. Dr. Fukino can say, with full authority of her office, that President Obama was born in Hawaii (and thus born in the United States).

    2. Judges, law professors, and the CRS all agree in birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship purposes.

    That Dr. Fukino can connect these two dots, but you can’t — well, that’s your problem.

  61. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    FOR THE PRICE OF A STAMP, THE STATE OF HAWAII WILL SEND YOU DOCUMENTARY PROOF THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN THERE.

    Or am I being unclear?

    Oh, no — not at all. In fact, I went even one step further some time ago. I merely asked for a record directly from the HI DoH of the transaction that produce the alleged COLB. They said that wasn’t public record.

    After all, if I could at least know who produced the alleged COLB, that would go a long way in proving what’s already allegedly public.

    The rules of evidence: In any court in this land, a paper copy of the COLB would be admissible evidence.

    Then let’s get the thing in Court! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore there cannot be a judicial remedy for the question in Court!

    Then let’s get the thing filed with candidate paperwork at the State level! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore, only a candidate’s self-proclamation of eligibility is all that’s required to get on the ballot!

    Or am I being unclear?

    -Phil

  62. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    2. Dr. Fukino is the current HI DoH Director. Since there is currently no law regarding presidential eligibility enforcement nor the degree to which it is to be enforced, I fail to see how she is otherwise an authority on anything even remotely constitutional except vital record maintenance.

    1. Dr. Fukino can say, with full authority of her office, that President Obama was born in Hawaii (and thus born in the United States).

    That Dr. Fukino can connect these two dots, but you can’t — well, that’s your problem.

    Once again, you’ve failed to address the main issue here.

    That I can connect the dots that there is no federal law governing substantiating presidential eligibility, but you can’t — well…

    -Phil

  63. 11/10/2010bob says:

    That I can connect the dots that there is no federal law governing substantiating presidential eligibility, but you can’t

    Yes; and?

    Is anyone suggesting there’s a federal law? Or just tilting at another strawman?

  64. 11/10/2010bob says:

    After all, if I could at least know who produced the alleged COLB, that would go a long way in proving what’s already allegedly public.

    The State of Hawaii produced it. Duh.

    Then let’s get the thing in Court! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore there cannot be a judicial remedy for the question in Court!

    Candidate contests are resolved all the time in court. You’ll see the COLB in a court in 2012.

    Then let’s get the thing filed with candidate paperwork at the State level! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore, only a candidate’s self-proclamation of eligibility is all that’s required to get on the ballot!

    Which is how every other president has been elected, and the vast, vast majority of elections in this country are conducted. And world hasn’t stopped revolving.

    Or am I being unclear?

    Just willfully ignorant.

  65. 11/10/2010Granite says:

    Re: “I’ve seen where someone has recently claimed to procure their own long-form birth certificate from around the same time frame of Mr. Obama’s birth from HI);”

    Answer: That allegation is completely unsubstantiated. If anyone did, they would have shown it–and they didn’t.

    Hawaii has stated that it does not send out the long-form birth certificate anymore. Not even to people born before it became the official birth certificate. Obama has shown the birth certificate that Hawaii sent him in 2007, the Certification of Live Birth, which is what it sends to everyone. In Obama’s case the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the fact that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “I fail to see how she is otherwise an authority on anything even remotely constitutional except vital record maintenance.”

    If you are referring to her statement that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, I agree. She is not an expert on that. She is an expert on where people are born, and she said that the file shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. If, however, you think that she was giving a legal opinion by saying that he is Natural Born, that is not necessarily the case. The COMMON LANGUAGE meaning of Natural Born as “born in the country” existed until fairly recently.

    And example is the draft registration in WWI in which men were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were, whether they were naturalized or natural born.

    In any case, the officials and the governor have all repeatedly confirmed the fact on the official birth certificate that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  66. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Mr. Obama hasn’t been shown to have personally posted anything on the Internet, a point you haven’t denied.

    His spokesman, Robert Gibbs, has said multiple times that he was the one who ultimately made the decision to put Obama’s birth certificate on his website. Are you saying that if Obama doesn’t actually put the birth certificate on the scanner himself, push the scan button, and create the web page to post the scanned image on personally, it doesn’t count?

    I also never claimed that “everything about Obama’s past is a lie;”

    Fair enough, you only falsely claimed that nobody at Columbia remembered attending college with him, among other allegations about Obama lying about his past.

  67. 11/10/2010Granite says:

    Re: “The congressional Joint Session did nothing with the Electoral College vote except confirm it; no federal law requires the Joint Session to vet a candidate’s eligibility.’

    Both statements are true. And yet, if a single member of the 535 members of Congress (100 Senators and 435 Representatives) had believed that either (1) Obama was not born in Hawaii, or (2) that the citizenship of Obama’s father affects Obama’s eligiblity, she or he would have voted against Obama’s confirmation, and the vote would not have been unanimous. But it was unanimous.

    This was despite a letter-writing campaign to the members of Congress by birthers and two-fers. The same applies to the Electoral College. There was a similar letter-writing campaign to the electors, asking that they not vote the way that their districts went in the the general election. In several elections one or two electors did not vote the way that the general election in their state went, but not in this case. Every single vote that Obama won in the general election was given to him by the Electoral College. Neither in Congress nor in the Electoral College did even ONE person believe that there was reason to believe that Obama was not eligible.

  68. 11/10/2010misanthropicus says:

    RE Qwerty:
    Misanthropicus: […] that has exactly Bollinger’s (Columbia president) declaration value regarding Barry’s attendance there – that is none whatsoever […]
    Qwerty: “Oh God, you’re still going on about that paranoid crap? That’s hilarious. Even Phil abandoned that one after people spent 30 seconds on a google search and found at least three people who specifically remember attending Columbia with Obama.”

    Qwerty, you just don’t want to get out from that fog:
    1) Only THREE people can remember this guy at Columbia?
    Gosh – that’s curious, particularly when considering (a) that political science/ foreign affairs classess are pretty lively affairs, full of debate and contention (and we’re are talking Columbia at the peak of the cold war), and (b) Barry’s compulsion to jump in the limelight and come with opinions about anything, oe prophesizing ar taking credit about anything, also –
    And we have ONLY THREE PEOPLE remembering him for that two years long period? Only there? Strange, very strang –

    2) your often use of ‘paranoid” term – methinks that gentleman doth use the paranoid word too much – Qwerty, when you type do you have a mirror by the screen?
    Legitimate question considering the abysmal trajectory of your object of adoration –

    Regards -

  69. 11/10/2010bob says:

    1) Only THREE people can remember this guy at Columbia?

    Columbia University says President Obama graduated from Columbia.

    Where does the conspiracy stop??!?

  70. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    1) Only THREE people can remember this guy at Columbia?

    First of all, note that I said “at least.”

    Secondly, why do you assume that every single person who remembers Obama as a classmate at Columbia has discussed it on the internet? Three people who remembered Obama at Columbia could be found after a cursory Google search.

    Do you persist in claiming that the president of the university was lying when he stated that Obama was an alum?

  71. 11/10/2010slcraig says:

    Let’s see if the resident 0’poligists have the ability and / or willingness to debate the substantive issues one at a time because the points they keep regurgitating stink as thoroughly as they have been discredited………

    …….check your talking points and take a deep breath…

    “a. Congress cannot define a “natural born Citizen”

    Congress cannot define a “natural born Citizen,” for
    under Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 it only has power to
    make uniform the laws of naturalization which does not
    include defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If
    the clause is not already defined by the Constitution or
    by the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution
    does not give Congress the authority to define the
    meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” While Congress
    can surely apply the “natural born Citizen” clause in a
    way that is consistent with its historical meaning,
    Congress cannot define anew the “natural born Citizen”
    clause for the purpose of declaring a president-elect or
    sitting putative president either eligible or ineligible for
    that office. Only the Court can define the “natural born
    Citizen” clause and give that definition to Congress for
    it to apply when exercising its constitutional duty under
    the Twentieth Amendment to confirm a president-elect’s
    qualifications to hold that office. The Court therefore
    has the right and authority to declare that Obama failed
    to qualify by January 20th under the Twentieth
    Amendment and that Congress should fill the office
    pursuant to the Constitution and laws passed pursuant
    thereto. Once the Court declares what the petitioners’
    and respondents’ rights are, Congress can take
    appropriate action to effectuate what the Court
    declares.”

  72. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    …….check your talking points and take a deep breath…

    That is really not going to help convince the Supreme Court that the dismissal for lack of standing was incorrect.

    It’s a shame that birthers like Apuzzo and yourself have no actual idea of how our judiciary works, but all that political ranting is going to have absolutely no impact on an appeal of a case dismissed for lack of standing.

  73. 11/10/2010Granite says:

    Re: “an alleged image of an alleged document posted by some third-party on a non-governmental web site.’

    He has the physical copy of the document too, and it was shown to both FactCheck and Politifact. In addition to the document itself, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on the birth certificate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, and so has the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican.

    This is vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.

  74. 11/10/2010Granite says:

    Re: “The absence of evidence is only evidence that something is absent.”

    And yet the absence of any evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere else besides the USA, in addition to the official document and confirmations of the Republican officials that he was born in Hawaii is surely significant.

    For us to disbelieve the document and the officials requires some reasonable evidence that Obama was born outside of the USA.

    Moreover, there is not even proof that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961, and she probably didn’t (not many people did in those days), and if she had, for her to have traveled during pregnancy is extremely unlikely due to the high rates of miscarriage in those days.

  75. 11/10/2010brygenon says:

    Phil wrote: “I can’t disprove that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. And you can’t prove that he is.”

    Well of course we cannot prove it to *you*. One cannot prove the holocaust happened to holocaust deniers. One cannot prove that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon to the lunatics that think the Apollo missions were a hoax. One cannot prove that foreign terrorists attacked us to the 9-11-inside-jobbers.

  76. 11/10/2010misanthropicus says:

    Re Bob & qwerty:
    Qwerty: […] Only THREE people can remember this guy at Columbia?
    First of all, note that I said “at least.”
    Secondly, why do you assume that every single person who remembers Obama as a classmate at Columbia has discussed it on the internet? Three people who remembered Obama at Columbia could be found after a cursory Google search.
    Do you persist in claiming that the president of the university was lying when he stated that Obama was an alum? […]

    * Well, I gave you the chance – then, come with twelve people, and also the Columbia Yearbook for Obama’s graduation year – Would a pathological mu-shot addict like Shovel-head missed the opportunity to grin for the yearbook? Nah – then, show me –

    Then, for your: “do you … the president… lying… Obama was an alumn?” – check the answer to Bob, who’s caught in the same contortion:

    Re bob: [… Columbia University says President Obama graduated from Columbia. […]
    Bob, appreciate your astuteness, yet Bollinger’s words and the circumstances he said them (a graduation thing) do not have probatory value – he said them, and can take them anytime back – “heck, we don’t go through records for speeches, people say so, and that’s it” –

    regards -

  77. 11/10/2010slcraig says:

    Well, Qboy………. since you do no care to grace us with any substantiative thoughts on the points I posted why don’t you explain your understanding of ‘standing’ upon which a court may take jurisdiction over a case and let us know what you think of this portion of the Petitions arguments;

    “…The courts should apply standing to refuse taking
    jurisdiction of a case only in the most clearest of cases
    so as not to unreasonably deny a litigant’s due process
    right to vindicate his or her constitutional rights in a
    court of law. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821). If
    plaintiffs do not present a legitimate case or controversy
    under Article III, then the presidential eligibility clause
    has effectively been nullified, not by a constitutional
    amendment but rather by the court-created rule of
    standing which plaintiffs have in any event shown they
    adequately satisfy. Indeed, the courts should and must
    take jurisdiction of this case. See Flast v. Cohen, 392
    U.S. 83 (1968) (standing found); Sierra Club v. Morton,
    405 U.S. 727 (1972) (same); United States v. SCRAP, 412
    U.S. 669 (1973) (same); Linda R.S. v. Richard D, 410
    U.S. 614 (1973) (same); Japan Whaling Ass’n v.
    American Cetacean Soc., 478 U.S. 221, 230-231 (1986)
    (same); Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524
    U.S. 11, 25 (1998) (same); and Massachusetts v. EPA,
    549 U.S. 497 (2007) (same)

    I. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided
    an important question of federal law concerning
    Article III standing that has not been but should
    be settled by this Court

    The court has held that the citizen petitioners do
    not have Article III standing to enforce the Article II,
    Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause against
    all respondents under the Fifth Amendment due process
    right to life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and
    property, and against Congress1 also under the Fifth
    Amendment procedural due process and equal
    protection clause, and the Twentieth Amendment.

    A. Standing and subject matter jurisdiction are
    important questions of federal law

    One important question that this Court should
    address is whether United States citizens such as the
    petitioners have standing to enforce these types of
    claims. There is little doubt that this Court attaches
    great national importance to the issues of standing and
    jurisdiction. See Valley Forge Christian College v.
    Americans United for Separation of Church & State,
    Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 470 (1982) (granting certiorari
    because of the “unusually broad and novel view of
    standing to litigate a substantive [constitutional]
    question in the federal courts adopted by the Court of
    Appeals.); Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct.
    1438 1447 (2007) (“Notwithstanding the serious
    character of [the respondent’s] jurisdictional argument
    and the absence of any conflicting decisions construing
    [the Clean Air Act], the unusual importance of the
    underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ”).”

  78. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    * Well, I gave you the chance – then, come with twelve people

    As soon as you tell me why you believe the first three people are completely wrong.

    Bollinger’s words and the circumstances he said them (a graduation thing) do not have probatory value

    Probatory: 1. Furnishing evidence or proof.

    A statement from the head of the university that Obama graduated from the undergraduate college is evidence of proof, absolutely any way you slice it. Sorry that that’s inconvenient to you, and you would prefer to just wish it away with your paranoid flights of fancy…

    The truth is that you have provided absolutely nothing to back up your insane view that there’s a massive conspiracy going on to pretend that Obama is an alum of Columbia College.

  79. 11/10/2010Bill Cutting says:

    bob
    [2. Judges, law professors, and the CRS all agree in birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship purposes.]

    They do? I think not.

  80. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    why don’t you explain your understanding of ‘standing’ upon which a court may take jurisdiction over a case and let us know what you think of this portion of the Petitions arguments;

    Sure thing. Finally something that might be relevant to the Supreme Court in considering Kerchner’s petition.

    The major problem with the portion of this brief you quote is that it fails to distinguish why this case complies with the requirements of Lujan, or alternatively, why Lujan should be overturned. Lujan requires that “to meet the minimal constitutional mandate for Article III standing Plaintiffs must show (1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of,” and (3) that the injury will “likely” be “redressed by a favorable decision.””

    An “injury in fact” is defined as “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized … and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. The Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” to preclude harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Id.

    The goal behind this requirement of injury in fact is to prevent people filing suits against the government in order to broadly affect national policy on their own. Imagine President Bush being prevented from taking action against Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 because a group of pacifists filed a lawsuit seeking an emergency temporary injunction against the military which the government would have to litigate before it could go to war!

    Further, Apuzzo makes a string cite of cases in which standing is found. As an example, I’ll break down Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998). In this case, a group of voters sought review of the FEC’s decision to dismiss their administrative complaint. The voters here had prudential standing because a particular act of Congress (the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971) granted the voters a remedy. They also had constitutional standing because the denial of the right was directly related to an act of an administrative body (the FEC) that could be remedied in a suit. The act also embodied legislative intent to allow judicial review of administrative agency decisions.

    Interestingly, Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor dissented on the ground that this case granted too broad a degree of standing upon voters at large.

    Note that none of the three things I mentioned here (prudential standing, constitutional standing or legislative intent for judicial review) are present in this case. Akins has virtually no applicability to the argument of Apuzzo’s case. In fact, at a glance, it seems like he did nothing more than find Supreme Court cases in which standing was discussed and granted and cited them in a row, apparently hoping that nobody would actually check to make sure they were applicable to this case.

    Now if that’s how easily I could break down this portion of the brief in about 10 minutes, imagine how much a Supreme Court clerk, much less a Justice, would break it down. Frankly, I think Apuzzo is not trying to gain cert but to have something to show his supporters so that the Paypal donations continue for as long as possible!

  81. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    They do? I think not.

    Please name a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

  82. 11/10/2010bob strauss says:

    qwertyman says:
    November 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Please name a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olsen

  83. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olsen

    Aren’t you going to apologize for plagiarizing a birther blog and pretending that you were quoting a Yale Law Journal article? Aren’t you going to apologize for a blatant act of intellectual dishonesty or laziness? Don’t you feel at least slightly embarrassed or ashamed for being exposed as a complete and utter idiot?

  84. 11/10/2010slcraig says:

    But you fail to acknowledge, as was noted in the original complint and reiterated in appeal and in the Petition, that it is the very LACK of a statutory provision that makes it necessary for the SCOTUS to acknowledge standing invoking the supervisory powers as in Marbury v Madison………but lets make sure we’re on the same page………

    A. The standing standard

    The Supreme Court in Lujan, supra, provided the
    necessary requirements a plaintiff must show to
    establish standing: (1) an “injury in fact” which is an
    invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a)
    concrete and particularized and (b) “actual or imminent,
    not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical;’” (2) a causal
    connection between the injury and the conduct
    complained of, i.e, the injury has to be “fairly . . .
    trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant,
    and not . . . the result [of] the independent action of
    some third party not before the court;” and (3) it must
    be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the
    injury will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id.
    at 560-561. By particularized, the Court meant that the
    injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and
    individual way. Id. at 561. Petitioners did adequately
    show that they do present an Article III “case” or
    “controversy” in that they satisfy each of the
    constitutional requirements to establish standing.

    B. Application of the standard

    1. Petitioners have suffered an injury in fact

    a. The injury is concrete

    The Circuit Court agreed that the factual allegations
    of the complaint/petition are to be accepted as true and
    are to be interpreted in a light most favorable to the
    plaintiffs. App. A, 3a-4a. Hence, the Court would have
    accepted as true plaintiffs’ well-plead allegations that
    Obama has not yet conclusively proven that he was born
    in Hawaii and that he is not an Article II “natural born
    Citizen.” The Court would also have to accept plaintiffs’
    well-plead allegations that Congress failed to properly
    vet and investigate Obama under its Twentieth
    Amendment powers, and that former Vice President and
    Senate President, Dick Cheney, and current Speaker
    of the House, Nancy Pelosi, were complicit in that
    failure. The respondents neither in the District Court
    nor on appeal have yet to dispute plaintiffs’ allegations
    that Obama does not meet the definition of an Article II
    “natural born Citizen” and that he has not yet
    conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii. No
    court in the United States that has rendered any
    decision on the Obama eligibility issue has granted to
    any plaintiff any discovery which would show that these
    allegations are not true. Accepting these allegations as
    true is important because these accepted facts go to the
    plaintiffs’ establishing an injury in fact and therefore
    standing.

    The threat to petitioners’ life, liberty, safety, security,
    tranquility, and property is actual and concrete rather
    than merely conjectural or hypothetical. The Declaration
    of Independence recognizes these rights as
    “unalienable” and as having been endowed upon an
    individual by his or her “Creator.” The Constitution
    recognizes these rights not as being abstract or
    theoretical rights but rather as concrete and real and
    needing protection from government abuses. It
    recognizes these rights as the essence of a person’s
    being. Petitioners sued Obama after he assumed the
    great and singular powers of the Executive. Obama was
    not a mere candidate with no power. Obama has had and
    continues to have executive and military power to harm
    the petitioners. He actually exercises those powers on
    a daily basis. Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was
    born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect
    them as a “natural born Citizen” would. The United
    States Supreme Court has recognized the problems
    presented by dual nationality and has stated that dual
    nationality is a “status long recognized in the law” and
    that a person with such dual nationality “may have and
    exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be
    subject to the responsibilities of both.” Kawakita v.
    United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952). But because Obama
    has yet to and because he cannot conclusively prove that
    he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” because of his
    conflicting natural allegiance and loyalty, plaintiffs are
    not constitutionally expected to nor do they trust him
    to protect their life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility,
    and property as would a President and Commander in
    Chief of the Military who is a “natural born Citizen.”
    Petitioners must therefore be allowed to challenge
    Obama in order to protect these concrete rights.
    b. The injury is particularized
    The Constitution expressly and strictly limits the
    power of the federal government. It also recognizes and
    protects on an individual basis a person’s unalienable
    individual rights to life, liberty, and property, which
    included safety, security, and tranquility. Petitioners, as
    citizens of the United States, have a vested legal right
    under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to life,
    liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property. The
    Ninth Amendment further enforces those rights and
    others against respondents. Petitioners are therefore
    the objects of this constitutional protection and
    personally and particularly entitled to these rights and
    protection that they offer.

    The requirement that a person be a “natural born
    Citizen” to lead a constitutional republic both in its civil
    and military capacity is based on a policy decision made
    by the Founders and Framers that itself was based on
    what they perceived to be the consequences to the
    survival, preservation, and protection of not only that
    republic but every one of its citizens should that person
    not have love, fidelity, and allegiance only to the nation
    and to every one of its citizens from the moment of his
    or her natural birth. It is this decision by the Founders
    and Framers which gives the individual petitioners the
    constitutional right to bring a legal action in which they
    ask, in default of the executive and legislative branches
    of government and the political majorities doing so, the
    judiciary to protect their individual right to protect their
    unalienable rights to life, liberty, safety, security,
    tranquility, and property as guaranteed to them by the
    Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
    The petitioners each have an unalienable right to
    life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property.
    The government has a constitutional obligation to
    protect those rights pursuant to the very reason why
    the People constituted their government during the
    Founding and under the Fifth Amendment due process
    clause. This is the constitutional protection which the
    government owes to each of the petitioners. Given the
    Founders’ and Framers’ policy decision to require the
    President to be a “natural born Citizen,” petitioners are
    not expected to and have not and will not receive that
    protection from a person who, not being an Article II
    “natural born Citizen,” is an illegal and illegitimate
    President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
    Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals
    addressed this argument in their decisions that plaintiffs
    do not have standing. But this is the central standing
    argument that we made in these two courts. The injury
    that is alleged in this argument is critical to plaintiffs’
    standing to bring their claims against the respondents,
    for lack of protection from their President and
    Commander in Chief to which each particular citizen
    petitioner is entitled under our constitutional covenant
    between the petitioners and the Government as
    conceived by the Founders and Framers is more than
    sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of
    standing in that it shows that the citizen petitioners have
    each suffered an injury in fact which is both concrete
    and particularized and which gives them standing and
    under the Fifth Amendment due process clause a right
    to seek redress for that injury in the courts.
    Courts have also created the doctrine of prudential
    standing which is not an Article III “Case or
    Controversy” requirements but rather a judicial policy
    consideration. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 92 (1968)
    (“confusion has developed as commentators have tried
    to determine whether Frothingham establishes a
    constitutional bar to taxpayers suits or whether the
    Court was simply imposing a rule of self-restraint which
    was not constitutionally compelled”). Under prudential
    standing, the judiciary seeks to avoid deciding question
    of broad social impact where no individual rights would
    be vindicated and to limit access to the courts to persons
    best suited to assert particular claims. Gladstone
    Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99-100
    (1979). Not addressing the District Court’s finding that
    petitioners also lack prudential standing, the Circuit
    Court concluded that petitioners do not have Article III
    standing. App. A, 4a. But the court’s conclusion that
    petitioners fail to establish Article III standing because
    they present “generalized grievances” “that are
    suffered by many or all of the American people” and
    which are “most appropriately handled by the legislative
    branch” (App. A, 7a) is an application of prudential
    standing rather than Article III constitutional standing.
    See United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 173-76
    (1974) (the individual may not litigate generalized
    grievances shared by a large group of individuals).
    Prudential standing is grounded to a great degree on
    political considerations. It is very amorphous since it is
    based on the court’s case-by-case view of what it
    perceives to be its role in our tripartite federalist
    system, its self-restraint within that vision, and what it
    perceives to be sound public judicial policy. In Federal
    Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998),
    the Court held that the injury “is sufficiently concrete
    and specific such that the fact that it is widely shared
    does not deprive Congress of constitutional power to
    authorize its vindication in the federal courts.” In this
    case, we do not have any Congressional statute granting
    petitioners standing. But nevertheless, petitioners’
    injuries are sufficiently concrete and specific to them
    that it does not matter that other Americans may also
    be damaged. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 555, 563 (it does
    not matter that others are also injured provided that
    plaintiffs are “among the injured”) (accord, Kennedy, J.
    and Stevens, J., concurring, at 581).

    There is more………

  85. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    That I can connect the dots that there is no federal law governing substantiating presidential eligibility, but you can’t

    Yes; and?

    Is anyone suggesting there’s a federal law? Or just tilting at another strawman?

    Yes, I am suggesting that there is a lack of a federal law, and since no such law exists, it has been exceedingly difficult to compel presidential candidates to substantiate their eligibility for the top job.

    That has been the main point all along (as I’ve been saying).

    -Phil

  86. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    After all, if I could at least know who produced the alleged COLB, that would go a long way in proving what’s already allegedly public.

    The State of Hawaii produced it. Duh.

    Shah! Show me any direct connection between any publicly accessible COLB or birth certificate for Mr. Obama and the HI DoH. Perhaps something as simple as, say, a receipt. That would do it for me.

    Perhaps you could show me any documentation wherein any HI DoH official specifically declares any publicly-available COLB or birth certificate actually came from their office.

    Then let’s get the thing in Court! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore there cannot be a judicial remedy for the question in Court!

    Candidate contests are resolved all the time in court. You’ll see the COLB in a court in 2012.

    Wow. I didn’t know that you knew of a case regarding eligibility that is either about to get into Court or is already there that has made it past the initial stages of standing, jurisdiction, discovery, etc. Do share.

    Then let’s get the thing filed with candidate paperwork at the State level! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore, only a candidate’s self-proclamation of eligibility is all that’s required to get on the ballot!

    Which is how every other president has been elected, and the vast, vast majority of elections in this country are conducted. And world hasn’t stopped revolving.

    Nor did I suggest that (as you put it) the “world hasn’t stopped revolving” on account of the previous disinterest in eligibility.

    -Phil

  87. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    You appear new to my site, so you’ll have to forgive me for not taking more time to bring you up to speed on two years’ worth of opposing viewpoint.

    But I did want to address a couple of issues:

    Re: “an alleged image of an alleged document posted by some third-party on a non-governmental web site.’

    He has the physical copy of the document too, and it was shown to both FactCheck and Politifact.

    Are you equating “he” with Mr. Obama? If so, do you have publicly-available evidence that specifically ties Mr. Obama to a given image online? To date, there has been no direct connection that any COLB or birth certificate has been specifically tied to Mr. Obama (e.g.: a receipt, a confirmation from the HI DoH (Department of Health), etc.).

    In addition to the document itself, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on the birth certificate, that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, and so has the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican.

    Officials believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, and an alleged image of a document appears to show what they are confirming, even though there has never been established a direct link between said document and the HI DoH.

    Further, party affiliation of State officials is irrelevant with respect to determining presidential eligibility, at least as far as Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is concerned.

    This is vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.

    Interesting. An alleged image of an alleged document is considered by you to be “vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.” OK. If that works for you, good for you.

    -Phil

  88. 11/10/2010Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil wrote: “I can’t disprove that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. And you can’t prove that he is.”

    Well of course we cannot prove it to *you*. One cannot prove the holocaust happened to holocaust deniers. One cannot prove that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon to the lunatics that think the Apollo missions were a hoax. One cannot prove that foreign terrorists attacked us to the 9-11-inside-jobbers.

    Ooooo, nice try! However, I never claimed that Mr. Obama isn’t eligible, either :)

    -Phil

  89. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    Interesting. An alleged image of an alleged document is considered by you to be “vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.” OK. If that works for you, good for you.

    If you know of a President who has done more, please let me know.

    Your use of the word “alleged” implies that you think either the jpeg on Obama’s website or the COLB itself may be fake. Are you still hewing to the discredited Ron Polland? Or to Steve the genealogist with no forensics certification to base your doubt upon?

  90. 11/10/2010qwertyman says:

    it is the very LACK of a statutory provision that makes it necessary for the SCOTUS to acknowledge standing invoking the supervisory powers as in Marbury v Madison

    You ignore the clear interpretation of the Supreme Court; the requirement that an injury be “concrete and particularized” precludes harms that are suffered by many or all of the American people. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74; United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 176-77 (1974); Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-22 (1974); Ex Parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 633, (1937). This in and of itself is fatal to Kerchner’s petition.

    But what the hey, let’s take a look to see what else is going on with this brief.

    The Circuit Court agreed that the factual allegations
    of the complaint/petition are to be accepted as true and
    are to be interpreted in a light most favorable to the
    plaintiffs.

    There’s a huge difference between interpreting facts in a light favorable to plaintiffs for the purpose of determining a motion to dismiss and finding that the factual allegations are factually accurate.

    The respondents neither in the District Court
    nor on appeal have yet to dispute plaintiffs’ allegations
    that Obama does not meet the definition of an Article II
    “natural born Citizen” and that he has not yet
    conclusively proven that he was born in Hawaii.

    Respondents never had to raise the point. The lack of standing on its own is fatal to Kerchner’s complaint.

    Obama has had and
    continues to have executive and military power to harm
    the petitioners. He actually exercises those powers on
    a daily basis. Petitioners cannot rely on Obama, who was
    born with dual and conflicting allegiances to protect
    them as a “natural born Citizen” would.

    None of this shows any injury in fact. Actually, all of these allegations are conjectural or hypothetical. Apuzzo apparently does not know what “injury in fact” actually means.

    The remainder of the portion of the brief you’ve quoted is a continued political rant that has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of particularized injury. Again, I honestly believe that Apuzzo is at least clever enough to realize his petition has no hope of being granted cert, so in the meantime he wants something to show to his supporters so that the donations will continue.

  91. 11/11/2010bob says:

    Show me any direct connection between any publicly accessible COLB or birth certificate for Mr. Obama and the HI DoH.

    Hawaii’s publicly accessible records show President Obama was born in Hawaii; William of Ockham spins in his grave wondering why President Obama would forge a COLB when a genuine one is so readily available to him.

    Officials believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii

    This is exactly why birth certificates were invented: If you need to demonstrate place (or date) of birth to, say, obtain a passport, you just show the birth certificate instead of hauling in the attending OB/GYN.

    I am suggesting that there is a lack of a federal law, and since no such law exists, it has been exceedingly difficult to compel presidential candidates to substantiate their eligibility for the top job.

    During every election cycle in the United States, thousands upon thousands of candidates for various elected offices substantiate their eligibility simply through self-attestation. Nary a peep of protest is heard. “Hmmm.”

    Yet one candidate for one office during one election cycle is held to a standard that is far beyond that which all other candidates are held. “Hmmm.”

    Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Gail Lightfoot, Glen Casada, Timothy Comerford, Cynthia Davis, Tim Jones, Frank Niceley, Eric Swafford, and — yes! — Orly Taitz all sued over Obama’s eligibility, but had no problem self-attesting themselves. “Hmmm.” Nor is anyone asking to see their birth certificates, or the receipts for their birth certificates, or the receipts for their receipts. “Hmmm.”

    I didn’t know that you knew of a case regarding eligibility that is either about to get into Court or is already there that has made it past the initial stages of standing, jurisdiction, discovery, etc. Do share.

    I’m not going to do your homework for you, but I am confident in predicting that, in 2012, there will at least one court challenge over President Obama’s re-election campaign: Someone will figure out how to establish standing and jurisdiction for a candidacy challenge (hint: see names above). At that point, President Obama will release his COLB as part of the discovery process; and the court(s) will have no problem accepting the COLB and ruling President Obama is eligible to serve.

    * * *

    Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olsen

    Let’s start of with the easy one: Olson. O – L – S – O – N.

    Now let’s move onto Groundhog Day: Tribe and Olson were specifically discussing McCain, who was not born in the United States. At no point did they say that the rules applied to McCain also applied to Obama, who was born in the United States.

    Since writing their memo about McCain, neither Tribe nor Olson have ever said President Obama is ineligible to serve. No court, law professor, or other expert has said that is what Tribe and Olson said.

    The only people who think that’s what Tribe and Olson said are anonymous nonexperts who can’t even spell Olson’s name correctly. And also can’t distinguish between a comment about Pryor’s law review article, and the actual law review article itself. (And if you actually read Pryor’s article — and it is obvious you have not — she plainly says birth in United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship purposes.)

    But here’s the compromise: You can think Tribe and Olson said whatever you want; in exchange, the rest of world acknowledges President Obama is, in fact, the president.

  92. 11/11/2010slcraig says:

    Bob says;

    “Then let’s get the thing in Court! Oh, wait! There is no federal law governing presidential eligibility! Therefore there cannot be a judicial remedy for the question in Court!”

    And this is where the 0’pologists fail will will eventually be made clear to them….THE CONSTITUTION is the Supreme Law of the Land and REQUIRES that the POTUS SHALL BE a natural born citizen.

    NO OTHER STATUTORY mechanism need be made and NO STATUTORY mechanism can ‘enlarge, abridge and or modify’ the CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.

    Only by Amendment can the ‘eligibility Clause’ be ”enlarged, abridged and or modified’ of which there are none.

    The lack of ‘Statutory’ provisions puts the issue squarely within the Jurisdiction of SCOTUS, the arbiter of Constitutional interpretations, NOT the Congress, Executive, Political Parties or even the People, except by the Amendment process.

    “…
    b. The injury is particularized

    The Constitution expressly and strictly limits the
    power of the federal government. It also recognizes and
    protects on an individual basis a person’s unalienable
    individual rights to life, liberty, and property, which
    included safety, security, and tranquility. Petitioners, as
    citizens of the United States, have a vested legal right
    under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution to life,
    liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property. The
    Ninth Amendment further enforces those rights and
    others against respondents. Petitioners are therefore
    the objects of this constitutional protection and
    personally and particularly entitled to these rights and
    protection that they offer.

    The requirement that a person be a “natural born
    Citizen” to lead a constitutional republic both in its civil
    and military capacity is based on a policy decision made
    by the Founders and Framers that itself was based on
    what they perceived to be the consequences to the
    survival, preservation, and protection of not only that
    republic but every one of its citizens should that person
    not have love, fidelity, and allegiance only to the nation
    and to every one of its citizens from the moment of his
    or her natural birth. It is this decision by the Founders
    and Framers which gives the individual petitioners the
    constitutional right to bring a legal action in which they
    ask, in default of the executive and legislative branches
    of government and the political majorities doing so, the
    judiciary to protect their individual right to protect their
    unalienable rights to life, liberty, safety, security,
    tranquility, and property as guaranteed to them by the
    Declaration of Independence and the Constitution….”

  93. 11/11/2010slcraig says:

    Excerpts and extrapolations from Marbury V Madison;

    The Constitution IS (was found to be) “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation” and that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” In other words, when the Constitution–the nation’s highest law–conflicts with an act of the legislature, that act is invalid. This case establishes the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.

    (The Act of the Congress certifying the Electoral Votes of an individual not ‘eligible’ for the office is consistent with an ‘Act repugnant to the Constitution and is therefor VOIDABLE.)

    It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

    (Lacking a ‘statutory’ standard the ‘original standard’, i.e., the Constitution’s own words, MUST be applied.)

    If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

    To render a mandamus a proper remedy, the officer to whom it is directed must be one to whom, on legal principles, such writ must be directed, and the person applying for it must be without any other specific remedy.

    If it should be supposed that the solemnity of affixing the seal is necessary not only to the validity of the commission, but even to the completion of an appointment, still, when the seal is affixed, the appointment is made, and [p159] the commission is valid. No other solemnity is required by law; no other act is to be performed on the part of government. All that the Executive can do to invest the person with his office is done, and unless the appointment be then made, the Executive cannot make one without the cooperation of others.

    (Re: The Congressional act of Certifying the Electoral Votes and the Inagural Oath administered by the Chief Justice does NOT nullify the underlying Constitutional imperitive of the one so ‘Certified and Sworn’ ‘shall be’ an natural born citizen, for it the former was so then the later is un Constitutionally ‘enlarged, abridged and or modified’ as an Act of Deeming one ‘as if’ in circumstances that the Constitution requires ‘to be from birth’.)

    After searching anxiously for the principles on which a contrary opinion may be supported, none has been found which appear of sufficient force to maintain the opposite doctrine.

    The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.

    If this obloquy is to be cast on the jurisprudence of our country, it must arise from the peculiar character of the case.

    It behooves us, then, to inquire whether there be in its composition any ingredient which shall exempt from legal investigation or exclude the injured party from legal redress. In pursuing this inquiry, the first question which presents itself is whether this can be arranged [p164] with that class of cases which come under the description of damnum absque injuria — a loss without an injury.

    Whatever the practice on particular occasions may be, the theory of this principle will certainly never be maintained. [p165] No act of the Legislature confers so extraordinary a privilege, nor can it derive countenance from the doctrines of the common law. After stating that personal injury from the King to a subject is presumed to be impossible, Blackstone, Vol. III. p. 255, says,

    but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the Crown[Read CONSTITUTION] without the intervention of its officers, for whom, the law, in matters of right, entertains no respect or delicacy, but furnishes various methods of detecting the errors and misconduct of those agents by whom the King[Read CONSTITUTION] has been deceived and induced to do a temporary injustice.

  94. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Interesting. An alleged image of an alleged document is considered by you to be “vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.” OK. If that works for you, good for you.

    If you know of a President who has done more, please let me know.

    I’m not sure how this statement is relevant with respect to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

    Your use of the word “alleged” implies that you think either the jpeg on Obama’s website or the COLB itself may be fake. Are you still hewing to the discredited Ron Polland? Or to Steve the genealogist with no forensics certification to base your doubt upon?

    Anything posted on the Internet should always be treated with an exceptionally large grain of salt, in my opinion, because it is very easy for anyone to potentially defraud anyone over anything.

    As an example, have you seen recent Windows Live commercials on TV? It is where an actor plays a family’s mother who is trying to take a picture of her sons and husband, and instead of waiting for the right moment, she simply superimposes “happy” heads on her misbehaving kids. It really caught my attention when I saw the ease to which a photograph can now be manipulated by “Joe Q. Public.”

    Am I saying that the Internet-posted COLB is a fraud? I am saying that I don’t know, and I’m also saying that it would be far better if the same image would be posted on a governmental web site, because government-based web sites typically have very stringent protocols that must be followed for their postings. Posting an image on a third-party web site — no matter if it’s an “independent” political organization or not — is simply heresay, for all intents and purposes.

    Regarding what some individuals who claim to have forensic backgrounds or what not, that’s in their court, not mine. I’ve been happy to post on what they’ve found in the past, as virtually anything revolving around Mr. Obama’s alleged COLB is, to date, heresay.

    Furthermore, you do realize, yes, that no reporters have actually been said to have physically inspected the document upon which the alleged COLB is based, right? In fact, over a year ago (if I remember correctly), I actually emailed FactCheck over their claims and received zero response from them. I speculate it’s because they think anyone who would question the birth certificate is a “birther,” but who knows. In contrast, I similarly emailed the HI DoH about any record for the transaction that would have produced the alleged COLB and they responded in 48 hours stating that such a request was not publicly available either way.

    -Phil

  95. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    After more than two years’ worth of research (of which you’ve been a part), it’s come down to this:

    Show me any direct connection between any publicly accessible COLB or birth certificate for Mr. Obama and the HI DoH.

    Hawaii’s publicly accessible records show President Obama was born in Hawaii; William of Ockham spins in his grave wondering why President Obama would forge a COLB when a genuine one is so readily available to him.

    We already know that Mr. Obama’s vital records are clearly available to Mr. Obama. That is not the question.

    Further, you assume that the alleged online image of the alleged COLB comes from the HI DoH. Have you seen any documentation that establishes a direct connection between said image and the DoH?

    Officials believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii

    This is exactly why birth certificates were invented: If you need to demonstrate place (or date) of birth to, say, obtain a passport, you just show the birth certificate instead of hauling in the attending OB/GYN.

    Once again, you’re answering the wrong question. This has nothing to do with passports and the like. This has to do with presidential eligibility, something specifically mentioned in the Constitution (as you are well aware).

    Dare I say that a birth certificate might not even be enough to establish Mr. Obama’s natural-born citizenship.

    I didn’t know that you knew of a case regarding eligibility that is either about to get into Court or is already there that has made it past the initial stages of standing, jurisdiction, discovery, etc. Do share.

    I’m not going to do your homework for you…

    Oh, please. I think I’ve long since established that we’re beyond this point. That’s the nice thing about having a blog; everything is recorded for all to see since October 19, 2008.

    …but I am confident in predicting that, in 2012, there will at least one court challenge over President Obama’s re-election campaign: Someone will figure out how to establish standing and jurisdiction for a candidacy challenge (hint: see names above). At that point, President Obama will release his COLB as part of the discovery process; and the court(s) will have no problem accepting the COLB and ruling President Obama is eligible to serve.

    Wow. Nice. You give the Judiciary more confidence than I do on this subject.

    Really. I’m surprised you’d speculate to this degree. After all, how can a Court produce a ruling on a question based on zero law? Mr. Obama’s vital records are sealed. I’m sure you’ll even admit that a Court cannot compel a citizen to produce such documentation when there is no law or statute that requires such documentation to be produced. I’d speculate that you couldn’t even compel based on fraud, because one would have to prove conspiracy to the point of making such an argument, and since there’s no law that says that it’s illegal to not produce substantiating documentation, where do you go from there?

    Legally speaking (and I don’t know that you know how much we really agree on this point), the Judiciary cannot enforce eligibility requirements because there is no currently-existing law that requires anyone to legally enforce presidential eligibility.

    I’m no attorney, but even I can see that this seems like a very unreasonable expectation.

    Well, unless it were another presidential candidate with standing. But then there’s that subject matter jurisdiction thing. I still don’t see how that’s surmounted.

    -Phil

  96. 11/11/2010Granite says:

    Re: “An alleged image of an alleged document is considered by you to be “vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.”

    Answer. Since no president has shown his birth certificate before, simply showing Obama’s is more than they did. Of course, if it were forged, that would not be true. But it is not forged. The McCain campaign looked into all the allegations of forgery, as they looked into the allegations of birth in Kenya, and found them both false.

    I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have subpoenaed the original and taken action. But he didn’t.

    Moreover, you fail to mention that the officials of the departments of health and of vital records have both confirmed the FACTS on the birth certificate, and they are members of a Republican governor’s administration. And recently the governor of Hawaii (also a Republican) also confirmed.

    So there is plenty of proof. Certainly far more than Bush or Clinton showed.

    But some say “but there were no questions about their place of birth, so they didn’t have to show anything.” This statement would be true if there were any substance to the allegations that Obama was born outside of the USA. Instead they are manufactured by specific professional birther sites that have an agenda. Some of these sites have, for example, claimed that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya–when she really said, in two separate interviews, that he was born in HAWAII. Others claim that Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia (both untrue and impossible). Still others repeat the “he-had-to-use-a-foreign-passport-to-visit-Pakistan” lie.

    IF there were real evidence, or even a rational story, that Obama was born outside of the USA, it would be reasonable to call a Congressional investigation in which the original birth certificate is subpoenaed and the officials who said that the original birth certificate in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii are called as witnesses. But there is neither the evidence nor the reasonable story.

    Even without either proof of birth overseas or a reasonable story that he was some crazy sub-committee in Congress might just launch an investigation and subpoena the witnesses. And if it does, I will give eight to one odds that the original and the witnesses will show that Obama was born in Hawaii, just as they have said. BUT such an investigation is highly unlikely (largely because the odds of the guys who call it looking stupid are so high), and if it were to happen, then you can bet that when Democrats are in charge of one house of Congress and a Republican president is in office, they would do something similar.

  97. 11/11/2010Granite says:

    There are two ways that I know to see Obama’s original birth certificate. One is to get a congressional committee or subcommittee to subpoena it (which as I have said is highly unlikely because of the high risk of the guys who called the investigation looking stupid when the original also says “born in Hawaii.”

    The other is to go to Hawaii and libel one of the officials (who are likely soon to be former officials since a Democrat has been elected governor) who said that the original in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. In your libel statement you would of course say that the official has lied about that verification and that the original says no such thing. Then, when you get sued, you would have the right to subpoena the original birth certificate in your defense.

    This would work well, if you are willing to take the risk of losing the case when the original also says “born in Hawaii.”

    Or, you could convince the governor-elect of Hawaii and the legislature of Hawaii to change the rules to allow the original birth certificate to be sent out again (It hasn’t been since 2001). So, I guess there are three ways. Under any one of them I’d still give eight to one odds that the original will say exactly what COLB and the officials have said, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  98. 11/11/2010bob says:

    Further, you assume that the alleged online image of the alleged COLB comes from the HI DoH. Have you seen any documentation that establishes a direct connection between said image and the DoH?

    Maybe I’m being unclear: HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    You dodged, and failed to offer any reason — rational or otherwise — why President Obama would fake his own COLB when a genuine one is available to him.

    Dare I say that a birth certificate might not even be enough to establish Mr. Obama’s natural-born citizenship.

    You could dare to say it, but you would be wrong.

    After all, how can a Court produce a ruling on a question based on zero law?

    Setting aside that courts rule on issue of first impression all the time, it isn’t a zero-law situation: candidate challenges happen all the time.

    I’m sure you’ll even admit that a Court cannot compel a citizen to produce such documentation when there is no law or statute that requires such documentation to be produced.

    Courts order the production of records all the time; part of what courts do. (HIPAA, for example, allows for the disclosure of otherwise private records if required by a court order.)

    Read again: President Obama, once hauled into court, will produce his COLB to defeat the lawsuit against him. No court order necessary for his production; he’ll do it to quickly kill the suit.

    Legally speaking (and I don’t know that you know how much we really agree on this point), the Judiciary cannot enforce eligibility requirements because there is no currently-existing law that requires anyone to legally enforce presidential eligibility.

    Again, candidate challenges happen all the time. Courts can — and do — order ineligible candidates off the ballot (and order erroneously removed candidates on the ballot).

    I’m no attorney

    You repeatedly demonstrate that.

    Well, unless it were another presidential candidate with standing.

    You mean like perennial candidates such as Alan Keyes or Gail Lightfoot? That’s definitely one route….

    But then there’s that subject matter jurisdiction thing. I still don’t see how that’s surmounted.

    In case I haven’t been clear: CANDIDATE CHALLENGE.

  99. 11/11/2010qwertyman says:

    b. The injury is particularized

    Apuzzo should be admonished for titling an entire section on how his injury is particularized, and then have long paragraphs that are nothing more than political rants and do absolutely nothing to show a particular injury. It’s a staggering display of ignorance about how constitutional standing works.

    If he at least had argued that Lujan was wrongly decided and that the doctrine of standing should be expanded, we might have something! Instead he’s trying to show standing in conformity with the guidelines of Lujan, but presenting the very sort of standing argument that Lujan sought to curtail!

    Additionally, for all your discussion and “extrapolation” of Marbury v. Madison, you forgot the fact that William Marbury had standing in the first place since he was the person being denied his commission! He had suffered an injury in fact which the court was able to remedy through a ruling. Even in Apuzzo’s petition before the Supreme Court, his argument for injury in fact is little more than a political rant and string cites of inapplicable cases.

  100. 11/11/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    Phil asks:

    Show me any direct connection between any publicly accessible COLB or birth certificate for Mr. Obama and the HI DoH.

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg

  101. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    Re: “An alleged image of an alleged document is considered by you to be “vastly more evidence of birth in the USA than any president or presidential candidate has ever given before.”

    Answer. Since no president has shown his birth certificate before, simply showing Obama’s is more than they did. Of course, if it were forged, that would not be true. But it is not forged. The McCain campaign looked into all the allegations of forgery, as they looked into the allegations of birth in Kenya, and found them both false.

    Cite where the McCain campaign did what you claim.

    I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have subpoenaed the original and taken action. But he didn’t.

    I don’t think anyone is making any claim that there is anything wrong with Mr. Obama’s actual vital records, be they a birth certificate or otherwise.

    Moreover, you fail to mention that the officials of the departments of health and of vital records have both confirmed the FACTS on the birth certificate, and they are members of a Republican governor’s administration. And recently the governor of Hawaii (also a Republican) also confirmed.

    And again, party affiliation is irrelevant with respect to processes and procedures in the office of vital records; I’m not sure why you keep going back to that.

    What they are confirming is that they have reason to believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. You are basing your reason to believe on an alleged online image that might happen to correspond with what the HI DoH claims to have on file. The point is that nobody can independently verify these claims, because nobody — not even HI officials — have a “tangible interest” in observing Mr. Obama’s vital records without due process of law. Anything less would be illegal.

    But some say “but there were no questions about their place of birth, so they didn’t have to show anything.” This statement would be true if there were any substance to the allegations that Obama was born outside of the USA. Instead they are manufactured by specific professional birther sites that have an agenda.

    Unfortunately, I think it’s an even more fundamental flaw in the system than that: there had been no interest in the subject until now. And that is a shame, because it’s a constitutional issue, where nobody is above the law.

    IF there were real evidence, or even a rational story, that Obama was born outside of the USA, it would be reasonable to call a Congressional investigation in which the original birth certificate is subpoenaed and the officials who said that the original birth certificate in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii are called as witnesses. But there is neither the evidence nor the reasonable story.

    There is also no publicly-available confirmed evidence that what is publicly available — an alleged image of an alleged document that claims to be a COLB — is legitimate.

    Personally, I’m all for an objective investigation even into the COLB. At the very least, there should be a receipt documenting the procurement of the physical document. That piece of paper would go a long way, in my view, in verifying the alleged document’s authenticity; but even that isn’t forthcoming at this time.

    Let me say that again: If even a receipt that showed a connection between the alleged COLB and the HI DoH were produced, that would go a very long way in authenticating that the alleged COLB is legitimate.

    Since all that folks such as yourself base Mr. Obama’s eligibility on is the alleged COLB, let’s take it all the way to its logical extent, shall we?

    Let’s start with a simple proof of purchase.

    …BUT such an investigation is highly unlikely (largely because the odds of the guys who call it looking stupid are so high)…

    You know what’s even sadder about all of this? The fact that individuals get impugned because they ask constitutional questions of individuals.

    Hopefully we’ll never see the day when individuals are impugned because they ask 1st Amendment questions of other individuals. We already see it with the 2nd Amendment and the 10th Amendment.

    Ever hear of gun control laws and “Tenthers?”

    That was a sidebar, but a cogent example of how some individuals hate questions.

    -Phil

  102. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    I’ll go ahead and save you lots of time (again, I’ve been debating this with folks such as yourself since October 18, 2008, I think it was — just over two years) and say the following:

    1. Since there are no federal laws governing presidential eligibility enforcement, the degree to which such enforcement must go, nor to whom is given the authority to oversee such substantiation, and since dozens of past eligibility lawsuits have all pointed to the Legislative branch to handle such questions, it is highly unlikely that any Court would be able to fully answer the presidential eligibility question;

    2. Based on point 1, since presidential eligibility is highly likely to be a Legislative issue, and since the Constitution appears to task States with coming up with their own constitutionally-sanctioned methods and procedures to govern federal elections in their respective jurisdictions, it could be incumbent upon the States to create legislation that verifies presidential eligibility.

    The State level is certainly an option to verify in that they would be enforcing federal law, not adding to it (considering that the Supreme Court has already ruled, for example, that States cannot impose term limits on federal officeholders, as that would be adding stipulations beyond their constitutional purview).

    You see, I would have no problems in admitting — if it could be objectively proven — that Mr. Obama were eligible for the presidency. I would still think he’s a closet Muslim hell-bent on destroying America, but that wouldn’t make him ineligible for the presidency, constitutionally-speaking.

    In the meantime, I will continue to question, and you’re certainly free to disagree.

    -Phil

  103. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    Further, you assume that the alleged online image of the alleged COLB comes from the HI DoH. Have you seen any documentation that establishes a direct connection between said image and the DoH?

    Maybe I’m being unclear: HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    A direct, specific link, bob, between the COLB and the HI DoH. At this time, that’s all I’m asking. Even a receipt would suffice for this particular question.

    You dodged, and failed to offer any reason — rational or otherwise — why President Obama would fake his own COLB when a genuine one is available to him.

    Well, first of all, I never claimed that Mr. Obama, per se, faked anything. He can make any vital records call to the HI DoH he’d like, at any time he’d like.

    Secondly, as I’ve been repeatedly saying, some folks appear to assume that Mr. Obama was the one who posted the alleged COLB online when there’s no verifiable evidence that he, himself, did that.

    Dare I say that a birth certificate might not even be enough to establish Mr. Obama’s natural-born citizenship.

    You could dare to say it, but you would be wrong.

    According to whom, and on what basis?

    -Phil

  104. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    Nice image. I’ve seen it many times before. And I’m sure nobody would want to fabricate anything for Mr. Obama. I’m sure that most people are just plain, good people who would never do anything even remotely suspicious regarding the President.

    But, to be on the safe side, it would be nice to see a teensy-weensy piece of paper called a receipt that would, well, you know, objectively verify that the alleged image actually came from the HI DoH.

    After all, these certifications don’t get produced for free.

    -Phil

  105. 11/11/2010qwertyman says:

    it would be nice to see a teensy-weensy piece of paper called a receipt that would, well, you know, objectively verify that the alleged image actually came from the HI DoH.

    Why would “an alleged” receipt posted on some website mean anything more to you than the birth certificate already posted? You’ve already said that you take anything posted on the internet with a heavy grain of salt, “Phil,” so what is one more “teensy-weensy piece of paper” going to do to sway your beliefs?

    But all of that is immaterial. We have something better than a receipt. We have sworn testimony from the Department of Health itself that the COLB posted is legitimate!

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdf

    For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.

    Think about this for just a second. If the COLB on Obama’s website was a forgery, would the director of the HI Department of Health be testifying that Obama posted a copy of his birth certificate on his own campaign website?

  106. 11/11/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Phil

    Nice image. I’ve seen it many times before. And I’m sure nobody would want to fabricate anything for Mr. Obama. I’m sure that most people are just plain, good people who would never do anything even remotely suspicious regarding the President.

    Let’s pause a moment to put as fine a point as possible on what you have done here (again).

    You moved the goal posts after your original challenge was met. You have demonstrated yet again the foundational dishonesty of your self portrayal. You are not (as you claim) asking questions at all… since you clearly demonstrate no genuine interest in the answers.

    You are instead a pure, unrefined propagandist.

    That certification is a direct link between the COLB and the Hawaii Department of Health… so direct a link that it is one of two specifically demanded by the US Department of State regulation for “proof of citizenship at birth.” So direct that it qualifies the document as self authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is what turns the COLB (or any other birth certificate) from a mere piece of paper into an authoritative document… the equivalent of eyewitness testimony in a court of law.

    Note also that its mere existence creates a legal obligation for the Hawaii Department of Health. They are aware (as they have publicly admitted several times) of a document circulating on the Internet that purports to bear their seal and certification. While they are constrained by law from declaring a genuine document genuine, they are at the same time compelled by law to declare a fake a fake. To knowingly do otherwise is to be accessory to fraud.

    If there actually existed the tiniest shred of evidence to support your facile rejection of the COLB as a forgery, we would not be at the impasse where 71 Birther civil cases have been dismissed for standing. There is no standing requirement in a criminal prosecution.

    Either the herd of Birther lawyers are incompetent at law, or they are themselves convinced that the COLB is genuine. Actually, those are not mutually exclusive likelihoods.

    But let’s not leave it there. Let’s pursue further the intellectual vacuity of your goal-post shifting. You write…

    But, to be on the safe side, it would be nice to see a teensy-weensy piece of paper called a receipt that would, well, you know, objectively verify that the alleged image actually came from the HI DoH.

    Let’s lovingly ponder this suggestion. You reject the direct link between the COLB and the Hawaii DoH established by their formal certification, and instead request access to an indirect link in the form of a receipt for its purchase. Your problems are these:

    First, a receipt would show only that a transaction took place, it would not be able to show that the transaction was for this particular COLB. Unlike the certification I shared with you, it would not be “a direct, specific link, bob, between the COLB and the HI DoH.” Would such a receipt corroborate the COLB? Of course. But since the COLB is already prima facie evidence of the information it contains, no court of law would bother to request corroboration.

    Second, what is to prevent you from declaring such a receipt fraudulent just as you have already declared the COLB? After all, just as in the COLB you are never going to hold such a receipt in your own hands… you are relegated again to an Internet image at best. And as we all know, Birthers also preemptively declared even a “long form” forged more than a year ago, sight unseen.

    In short… you already have in your possession (and have had it for more than two years) evidence that explicitly meets your demand for a “direct, specific link, bob, between the COLB and the HI DoH.” But not only do you pretend otherwise, you prove the insincerity of your pretense by suggesting an alternative that doesn’t even meet your own challenge.

  107. 11/11/2010bob says:

    A direct, specific link, bob, between the COLB and the HI DoH. At this time, that’s all I’m asking. Even a receipt would suffice for this particular question.

    Maybe I’m being unclear: HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    The COLB is just a derivative of those records; if you don’t like the COLB (for whatever reason), you can always go to HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS and see that, in fact, President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    That you would like a receipt, a forensic analysis, a pony — that’s your problem. But that doesn’t address the ultimate issue, i.e., President Obama was born in Hawaii.

    According to whom, and on what basis?

    The rules of evidence. In whatever arena you posit has the legitimate authority to removing a sitting president, it will use prescribed rules of evidence. And under those rules of evidence, a properly authenticated birth certificate is probative evidence of a relevant fact, i.e., President Obama’s birthplace, and thus admissible.

  108. 11/11/2010Granite says:

    Responding to Phil’s

    “Cite where the McCain campaign did what you claim.”

    Okay:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

  109. 11/11/2010Granite says:

    Responding to Phil’s

    “I don’t think anyone is making any claim that there is anything wrong with Mr. Obama’s actual vital records, be they a birth certificate or otherwise.”

    Please explain in more detail what you mean. IF you are saying that the COLB does no show that Obama was born in Hawaii, then it is a forgery, and the atty general of Hawaii should have taken action. My point is that his way of taking action would be to subpoena the original and compare it with the COLB.

    If you are saying that the heads of the departments of health and vital records lied when they said that the original birth certificate in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii, then they would be committing a fraud or at the very least doing something that they should not do (lying about a Democrat’s eligibility), so if the atty general thought that was the case, he would take action against those officials. Again, his method would be to subpoena the original and compare it with the statement of the officials that the original VERIFIES.

    By the way, if you do not believe that the officials said that the document in the files verifies, there were two confirmation statements. The first only said that there was an original in the files (at the time Hawaii could not file birth certificates from outside of Hawaii, so it must be a Hawaii original BC). The second confirmation said that the document VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the DOH to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital;

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  110. 11/11/2010slcraig says:

    Children, children, children.

    Obama Sr was an alien foreign national British Colonial Kenyan Subject.

    Jr. is not, was not and could not be a Constitutional natural born citizen.

    To chase Red Herrings may feed your need to do something Pro or Con, but does NOT advance the real issue at hand and, in fact, only feeds the confusion of what the real issue is.

    And that is; …’can it be said that any Clause of the Constitution is without effect…?

    Notwithstanding what you may have been told, there is no ‘legally acknowledged Constitutional definition of natural born citizen’.

    The ‘public policy’ attempts to redefine the Constitutional meaning of NBC is of its-self compelling evidence to suspect the Bone-Fide’s of the ‘0’, but the only Constitutional means to settle the question is to present the SCOTUS with a Bone-Fide Petition asking the question of ‘definition, meaning and intent’.

    As for Hawaii, I would not expect ANY creditable information to emanate from the Communist/Socialist welfare enclave.

  111. 11/11/2010robert strauss says:

    Didn’t Barack Obama Sr marry another American woman after Stanley Ann, and have a child with her, who is now Obama Jr’s half brother?

    This half brother, born of the same father, and an American mother is a British citizen, just like Obama II.

  112. 11/11/2010bob says:

    Didn’t Barack Obama Sr marry another American woman after Stanley Ann, and have a child with her, who is now Obama Jr’s half brother?

    This half brother, born of the same father, and an American mother is a British citizen, just like Obama II.

    Was this half-brother born in the United States?

  113. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    it would be nice to see a teensy-weensy piece of paper called a receipt that would, well, you know, objectively verify that the alleged image actually came from the HI DoH.

    Why would “an alleged” receipt posted on some website mean anything more to you than the birth certificate already posted?

    Haven’t I already explained the scenario quite thoroughly?

    Let’s try again.

    Having a receipt that specifically records the transaction that procured the alleged COLB would help to substantiate the efficacy of the alleged document.

    If there was such a simple way to verify a document and go a long way to shutting folks like me up, wouldn’t you want to go after that opportunity ASAP?

    I know I would, but that’s just me.

    You’ve already said that you take anything posted on the internet with a heavy grain of salt, “Phil,” so what is one more “teensy-weensy piece of paper” going to do to sway your beliefs?

    Perhaps you’ve never heard of the saying, “to take something with a grain of salt.” It doesn’t mean that you dismiss things for the sake of dismissing them; rather, it’s the beginning of questioning the validity of what’s being posted.

    But all of that is immaterial. We have something better than a receipt. We have sworn testimony from the Department of Health itself that the COLB posted is legitimate!

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB2937_TESTIMONY_JGO_02-23-10_LATE.pdf

    For more than a year, the Department of Health has continued to receive approximately 50 e-mail inquiries a month seeking access to President Barack Obama’s birth certificate in spite of the fact that President Obama has posted a copy of the certificate on his former campaign website.

    Think about this for just a second. If the COLB on Obama’s website was a forgery, would the director of the HI Department of Health be testifying that Obama posted a copy of his birth certificate on his own campaign website?

    It’s all about liability. Dr. Fukino has nothing to lose by mentioning the alleged online image in the way that she did.

    Why didn’t she instead simply state that the alleged online image is the image, and if individuals wished to see exactly what the DoH had on hand, all they have to do is go to that specific web site? Why not declare that the alleged image legitimately represents Mr. Obama’s bona fides?

    Because then there’d be liability.

    -Phil

  114. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam (a.k.a. “HistorianDude”):

    @ Phil

    Nice image. I’ve seen it many times before. And I’m sure nobody would want to fabricate anything for Mr. Obama. I’m sure that most people are just plain, good people who would never do anything even remotely suspicious regarding the President.

    Let’s pause a moment to put as fine a point as possible on what you have done here (again).

    You moved the goal posts after your original challenge was met. You have demonstrated yet again the foundational dishonesty of your self portrayal. You are not (as you claim) asking questions at all… since you clearly demonstrate no genuine interest in the answers.

    You are instead a pure, unrefined propagandist.

    Dude. This is a court of public opinion. We’re both rather good at wielding the English language.

    That certification is a direct link between the COLB and the Hawaii Department of Health…

    So the image claims.

    The receipt, sir.

    …so direct a link that it is one of two specifically demanded by the US Department of State regulation for “proof of citizenship at birth.”

    And, as you know, that same State Department has no specific regulation regarding presidential eligibility. Therefore, you’re pursuing the wrong question.
    So direct that it qualifies the document as self authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is what turns the COLB (or any other birth certificate) from a mere piece of paper into an authoritative document… the equivalent of eyewitness testimony in a court of law.
    Excellent. This is why I would love to see that thing in Court (of law, not public opinion).

    Note also that its mere existence creates a legal obligation for the Hawaii Department of Health. They are aware (as they have publicly admitted several times) of a document circulating on the Internet that purports to bear their seal and certification. While they are constrained by law from declaring a genuine document genuine, they are at the same time compelled by law to declare a fake a fake. To knowingly do otherwise is to be accessory to fraud.

    While it would be really nice to see the actual law that “compel[s them] to declare a fake a fake,” that would also miss the point, too.

    After all, by not directly referring individuals to anything online and instead legitimately retreating back to the position of merely answering direct queries, they have perfect plausible deniability in the event that a cause for fraud ever surfaced.

    And why would fraud ever surface? Since there’s currently no publicly-known evidence that contradicts what the alleged online image purports, where’s the harm?

    In this case, proving fraud would require there to be something that denies what’s already publicly available, regardless of whether or not such publicly-available documentation is legitimate or not.

    I bet you never thought I’d say what I’ve just said, now, did you? :)

    If there actually existed the tiniest shred of evidence to support your facile rejection of the COLB as a forgery, we would not be at the impasse where 71 Birther civil cases have been dismissed for standing. There is no standing requirement in a criminal prosecution.

    Back up. I never declared that the alleged COLB is a forgery. But I leapfrog that issue by simply asking for another piece of documentation — a receipt — that could legitimately substantiate not just the alleged document but also, potentially, Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    But, to be on the safe side, it would be nice to see a teensy-weensy piece of paper called a receipt that would, well, you know, objectively verify that the alleged image actually came from the HI DoH.

    Let’s lovingly ponder this suggestion. You reject the direct link between the COLB and the Hawaii DoH established by their formal certification, and instead request access to an indirect link in the form of a receipt for its purchase. Your problems are these:

    First, a receipt would show only that a transaction took place, it would not be able to show that the transaction was for this particular COLB. Unlike the certification I shared with you, it would not be “a direct, specific link, bob, between the COLB and the HI DoH.” Would such a receipt corroborate the COLB? Of course. But since the COLB is already prima facie evidence of the information it contains, no court of law would bother to request corroboration.

    Second, what is to prevent you from declaring such a receipt fraudulent just as you have already declared the COLB? After all, just as in the COLB you are never going to hold such a receipt in your own hands… you are relegated again to an Internet image at best. And as we all know, Birthers also preemptively declared even a “long form” forged more than a year ago, sight unseen.

    In short… you already have in your possession (and have had it for more than two years) evidence that explicitly meets your demand for a “direct, specific link, bob, between the COLB and the HI DoH.” But not only do you pretend otherwise, you prove the insincerity of your pretense by suggesting an alternative that doesn’t even meet your own challenge.

    Once again, I never declared that the alleged COLB is fraudulent.

    And, once again, when I ask for a receipt that would substantiate a transaction that procured this alleged COLB, I am now being told that I don’t really want that receipt, and, even if I did, it would really prove nothing, and that I should just accept the alleged COLB for what it is.

    So many presumptions…

    -Phil

  115. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    Responding to Phil’s

    “Cite where the McCain campaign did what you claim.”

    Okay:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/52474/mccain-campaign-investigated-dismissed-obama-citizenship-rumors

    Actually, the only thing that the McCain campaign did was essentially agree that the cases were going to get nowhere due primarily to the lack of standing. That, per se, doesn’t prove much.

    Thanks, though, for the cite.

    -Phil

  116. 11/11/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    Responding to Phil’s

    “I don’t think anyone is making any claim that there is anything wrong with Mr. Obama’s actual vital records, be they a birth certificate or otherwise.”

    Please explain in more detail what you mean. IF you are saying that the COLB does no show that Obama was born in Hawaii, then it is a forgery, and the atty general of Hawaii should have taken action. My point is that his way of taking action would be to subpoena the original and compare it with the COLB.

    The original question was whether or not the HI DoH has legitimate vital records for Mr. Obama. I never denied that they did, because I don’t know any differently.

    If you are saying that the heads of the departments of health and vital records lied when they said that the original birth certificate in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii, then they would be committing a fraud or at the very least doing something that they should not do (lying about a Democrat’s eligibility), so if the atty general thought that was the case, he would take action against those officials. Again, his method would be to subpoena the original and compare it with the statement of the officials that the original VERIFIES.

    Presidential eligibility has nothing to do with what the HI DoH can ascertain. But, believe it or not, it’s possible for Mr. Obama to have a COLB on file with the DoH and still either not have been born in America or have been a non-natural-born citizen.

    Ultimately, I’m saying that I don’t know for sure.

    By the way, if you do not believe that the officials said that the document in the files verifies, there were two confirmation statements. The first only said that there was an original in the files (at the time Hawaii could not file birth certificates from outside of Hawaii, so it must be a Hawaii original BC). The second confirmation said that the document VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the DOH to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    However, neither one of the above articles proves a link between the alleged online COLB and what the HI DoH has on file.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital;

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    What’s really interesting about this link is that it appears that Gov. Lingle directed perhaps Dr. Fukino (health director) to actually look at Mr. Obama’s vital records.

    If that is the case, I didn’t know that health officials could legally arbitrarily decide to look at vital records of anyone they wished to.

    -Phil

  117. 11/11/2010Bry says:

    Phil wrote:

    Having a receipt that specifically records the transaction that procured the alleged COLB would help to substantiate the efficacy of the alleged document.

    Congress prescribes how nonjudicial state records shall be proved in 28 U.S.C. 1739. The features Congress specified are the embossed seal and attestation of the record keeper, both of which are on Obama’s COLB.

    It comes down to whether we respect the Constitution. If we do, then President Obama’s COLB is the right proof. It is a state record proven as Congress prescribed under their Article IV, Section 1 authority, and thus entitled to full faith and credit.

    On the other hand, if we *don’t* respect the Constitution, we might make up criteria for proving a state record — doctor’s signature, receipt, etc — rather than looking to the features Congress prescribed. Plus, if we’re willing to ignore the Constitution, we might not grant full faith and credit to Hawaii’s records.

    If there was such a simple way to verify a document and go a long way to shutting folks like me up, wouldn’t you want to go after that opportunity ASAP?

    That’s just not how it works. Nothing shuts up people so bent on smearing the object of their seething hatred. Heck, we got an official News Release from the controlling legal authority, under the seal of the state and the name of the Governor, stating that Hawaii’s records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. It’s available directly from hawaii.gov, so no chance for any obots to forge anything.
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    Why didn’t she instead simply state that the alleged online image is the image, and if individuals wished to see exactly what the DoH had on hand, all they have to do is go to that specific web site?

    Or better yet, why didn’t she simply state that Hawaii’s state records verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii — oh wait — that she actually did state. Of course to go on smearing Obama you cannot let the real evidence count. You have to imaging something else and pretend it’s a big deal that the world does not conform to your imagination.

  118. 11/12/2010bob says:

    If there was such a simple way to verify a document and go a long way to shutting folks like me up, wouldn’t you want to go after that opportunity ASAP?

    No; the “eligibility questioners” have shown a rather amazing propensity to switch arguments, or shift the goalposts, when a specific argument is disproved.

    Back up. I never declared that the alleged COLB is a forgery. But I leapfrog that issue by simply asking for another piece of documentation — a receipt — that could legitimately substantiate not just the alleged document but also, potentially, Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    Maybe I’ve been unclear: HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    Phil wants to semantically quibble over whether an uncontested digital image of a COLB really is sufficient proof of birth within in the United States while ignoring that HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    By the way: HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    This is why I would love to see that thing in Court (of law, not public opinion).

    And you will. In 2012.

    But, believe it or not, it’s possible for Mr. Obama to have a COLB on file with the DoH and still either not have been born in America or have been a non-natural-born citizen.

    Believe not. Phil, again, flirts with outright lying: It is not possible for President Obama to have a COLB that says he was born in Hawaii if he was not born in Hawaii. And HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS show President Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. (Have I mentioned that recently?)

    For President Obama to have been born in Hawaii yet not be a natural born citizen would require that a parent be either foreign diplomat or part of an invading army. Surely Phil isn’t suggesting either of these scenarios are true.

    Actually, the only thing that the McCain campaign did was essentially agree that the cases were going to get nowhere due primarily to the lack of standing.

    Try again: As a presidential candidate, McCain was one of the few people who did have standing. The McCain campaign didn’t pursue this option because there was no “there” there.

    We’re both rather good at wielding the English language.

    Flattering yourself is tres declasse.

  119. 11/12/2010slcraig says:

    Phil;

    It appears that the 0’poligists elementary class has been assigned to your site.

    There is no logic, reason, facts or honesty in ANY of their assertions and are DESPERATE to keep the COLB issue alive and obfuscate the nature of the American natural born citizen by insinuating that at the time of the founding the 14th Amendment Jus Soli feature was already in existence.

    There is NO there there in their 0’pologist diatribes and should be FLUNKED out.

  120. 11/12/2010Phil says:

    Bry,

    Phil wrote:

    Having a receipt that specifically records the transaction that procured the alleged COLB would help to substantiate the efficacy of the alleged document.

    Congress prescribes how nonjudicial state records shall be proved in 28 U.S.C. 1739. The features Congress specified are the embossed seal and attestation of the record keeper, both of which are on Obama’s COLB.

    It comes down to whether we respect the Constitution. If we do, then President Obama’s COLB is the right proof. It is a state record proven as Congress prescribed under their Article IV, Section 1 authority, and thus entitled to full faith and credit.

    On the other hand, if we *don’t* respect the Constitution, we might make up criteria for proving a state record — doctor’s signature, receipt, etc — rather than looking to the features Congress prescribed. Plus, if we’re willing to ignore the Constitution, we might not grant full faith and credit to Hawaii’s records.

    Unfortunately, your response to my receipt both (1) didn’t answer my posit and (2) is completely irrelevant due to federal law.

    For number 2, why? Because of what I’ve stated repeatedly, and most with your perspective will affirm: Since there is no federal law that specifically enforces presidential eligibility, nor to the degree such enforcement is to be substantiated, nor to whom such vetting is vested, then going on and on about what is constitutional about non-existence law enforcement means precisely jack. Nothing.

    And all I want to see is a receipt.

    If there was such a simple way to verify a document and go a long way to shutting folks like me up, wouldn’t you want to go after that opportunity ASAP?

    That’s just not how it works. Nothing shuts up people so bent on smearing the object of their seething hatred. Heck, we got an official News Release from the controlling legal authority, under the seal of the state and the name of the Governor, stating that Hawaii’s records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. It’s available directly from hawaii.gov, so no chance for any obots to forge anything.
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    Yeah, I know — you want to shut people up, and that’s what this is all about.

    You want people to stop questioning Mr. Obama.

    I cannot have “seething hatred,” as you’ve put it, against Mr. Obama, because I don’t even know the guy! Sorry, but I don’t waste my time hating things I don’t know. Besides, I’d be hating you first before I hated the President, and I don’t hate you.

    But, again, it is telling that you want to shut people up. You’re more than welcome to hold that opinion, but at least we know, without a doubt, that that’s really what you’re about.

    Why didn’t she instead simply state that the alleged online image is the image, and if individuals wished to see exactly what the DoH had on hand, all they have to do is go to that specific web site?

    Or better yet, why didn’t she simply state that Hawaii’s state records verify that President Obama was born in Hawaii — oh wait — that she actually did state. Of course to go on smearing Obama you cannot let the real evidence count. You have to imaging something else and pretend it’s a big deal that the world does not conform to your imagination.

    Or, like you, just wish that people like me would shut about the whole thing, right?

    The cat’s out of the bag in full sight. You think that if some official who is not specifically tasked with determining anything except the efficacy of vital records management says things in a carefully-worded statement about Mr. Obama, then that’s that. We need to shut up about it. Quit asking questions.

    As you’ve just said, “[t]hat’s just not how it works” for individuals like me.

    That’s not how I roll.

    The receipt, please.

    -Phil

  121. 11/12/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    Actually, the only thing that the McCain campaign did was essentially agree that the cases were going to get nowhere due primarily to the lack of standing.

    Try again: As a presidential candidate, McCain was one of the few people who did have standing. The McCain campaign didn’t pursue this option because there was no “there” there.

    That’s not what the article that Granite previous cited claimed.

    -Phil

  122. 11/12/2010Phil says:

    slcraig,

    elspeth says, “Full disclosure!”

    I say, “Show me the COLB receipt!”

    -Phil

  123. 11/12/2010slcraig says:

    You said;
    slcraig,

    elspeth says, “Full disclosure!”

    I say, “Show me the COLB receipt!”

    -Phil

    I went through the ENTIRE process attempting to obtain the ‘data entries’, in whatever form or codes they may have been entered under the rules, regulations, policies and procedures from the DoH including an appeal to which I was notified that the only other recourse, should I remain dissatisfied with the responsiveness to my requests, was to ‘go to the State Court’, which is Hawaiian for ‘go to H***’.

    Even though I lean toward accepting the extensive forensic analysis which concludes the COLB ‘posted on-line’ is a ‘Fake, Fraud, Forgery’ therefore, for those two reasons I do not believe there is a receipt in that it was NOT issued by the DoH in the 1st instance.

    Still dismiss its relevance to the REAL issue.

    There REMAINS a Constitutional REQUIREMENT that the POTUS ‘SHALL BE’ a natural born citizen and that the aforementioned idiom REMAINS ‘legally undefined for Constitutional purposes’.

    Insofar as ‘eligibility’ is concerned, any and all other issues are as irrelevant as a tempest in a teapot.

    The effort MUST be to trust in the SCOTUS to correctly and properly define the idiom in light of the laws, customs, conditions and traditions as they were when it was written and find a way to get the question to SCOTUS in a Bone-Fide Petition.

  124. 11/12/2010bob says:

    That’s not what the article that Granite previous cited claimed.

    Try re-reading (or taking a reading course):

    “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

  125. 11/12/2010qwertyman says:

    If there was such a simple way to verify a document and go a long way to shutting folks like me up, wouldn’t you want to go after that opportunity ASAP?

    I know I would, but that’s just me.

    I would too, but there is no “simple way” to help “shut folks like you up.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNjRthxvSFg

    You’ve hinted many, many times on this website that you think that a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens. Under such a scenario, of course, Obama would never be eligible for President. You don’t just want to see a receipt. It’s a smokescreen. You hate him (yes, you do – how could you not hate “a closet Muslim hell-bent on destroying America?”) so much that you’re willing to spread lies such as the time you claimed that nobody at Columbia College remembered going to school with him.

    Your receipt gambit pointless anyway. Birth certificates are self-authenticating. You don’t need a receipt to prove their veracity.

    It’s all about liability. Dr. Fukino has nothing to lose by mentioning the alleged online image in the way that she did.

    Bull. That’s testimony given under oath before the state. Dr. Fukino is liable for perjury if what Obama put on his website is not a copy of his birth certificate.

    You’re so busy splitting your split hairs in order to squint at the statement sideways to make it say what you want that you’re missing the point. The Department of Health has never said it wasn’t a document they produced.

    At this point if you’re saying that you’re not sure whether the COLB posted on Obama’s website is legit, you are by definition saying that you believe that it’s possible that the Department of Health is actively conspiring with Obama as well. It’s quite paranoid.

  126. 11/12/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    That’s not what the article that Granite previous cited claimed.

    Try re-reading (or taking a reading course)…

    :
    Mean-spirited person, aren’t you?

    OK, so I missed that paragraph as I scanned the story…

    (As a bit of a snark back at you, I bet you’ll never admit to being wrong as fast as I do!)

    “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

    OK, so, given the above pull-quote, we’re basically saying that the lawyer decided not to do anything because he assumed that there had been a certificate issued by HI DoH. The same perspective as what you hold.

    The fundamental issue at hand here is assumptions.

    Let’s start at the beginning:

    Some assume that Mr. Obama is not President of the United States because they believe that other circumstances — such as having been a British subject at one point in his life (to which he’s already admitted, online) — keep him from being a natural born citizen.

    Some assume that an online image of a certification of live birth that claims that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii is legitimate.

    Some assume that an online image of a birth certificate that claims to originate from Kenya is really Mr. Obama’s birth certificate.

    Some assume that any time the HI DoH Director speaks about Mr. Obama’s vital records, that she is making a direct link between an online image and what they have on file.

    Some assume that presenting an alleged COLB or birth certificate is enough to declare someone eligible for the presidency.

    Some assume that the Joint Session of Congress — wherein Electoral College votes are counted and certified — is the only place that presidential eligibility can be determined.

    Some assume that there are federal or State laws that (1) enforce presidential eligibility; (2) determine the level to which eligibility must be substantiated; and (3) direct a health department official to make such a determination.

    In my over two years of covering this story and of monitoring countless other sources performing similar services in the court of public opinion, these are the only facts we know:

    1. The HI DoH clearly states that they have vital documentation on file for Mr. Obama;

    2. There is an image of an alleged document claiming to be Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth;

    3. The Judiciary will never throw a President out of office.

    And none of the above three points have ever been directly connected in any way — except in the minds of those who wish to pretend that the HI DoH made any sort of claim that the online image of an alleged COLB actually came from their office.

    -Phil

  127. 11/12/2010slcraig says:

    You say;

    That’s not what the article that Granite previous cited claimed.

    Try re-reading (or taking a reading course):

    “To the extent that we could, we looked into the substantive side of these allegations,” said Potter. “We never saw any evidence that then-Senator Obama had been born outside of the United States. We saw rumors, but nothing that could be sourced to evidence. There were no statements and no documents that suggested he was born somewhere else. ”

    I say;

    Other than statements from the ‘0’Sr. family members and various Kenyan Officials and various international news publications following the then Senator ‘0’ stating he was ‘Kenyan Born / native Son, etc’ coupled with the fact that any and all documentation post 1961 other than the news of his death, re: the ‘0’ Sr, the family, etc. are ‘sealed’ by the Guv……..all of which is explainable by an 0’poligist to anyone with their head in the sand……..

    On the other side, there was proof that he was born in Hawaii. There was a certificate issued by the state’s Department of Health, and the responsible official in the state saying that he had personally seen the original certificate. There was a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser, which would be very difficult to invent or plant 47 years in advance.”

    I say, there is NO proof the COLB was issued by the DoH and they consistently refuse to release the index date that is LEGALLY RELEASABLE as PUBLIC RECORDS that could confirm or disprove the aforementioned fact, further, NO Hawaiian Official has said that they saw an ORIGINAL HAWAIIAN BC and it is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that Hawaii issues COLB for Foreign Born Children and the micro-film from which the birth announcements were ‘produced’ from show every trace evidence of having been tampered with, but again, 0’pologists will continue to assert their partisan position ignoring ALL inconsistencies and claiming sufficient ‘vetting’ in spite of the Congressional Research Service document that shows NO SUCH VETTING was done due to the lack of Statutory, Regulatory or Party Rules and policies requiring such.

    No wonder they always seem dizzy, going in circles all the time.

  128. 11/12/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    If there was such a simple way to verify a document and go a long way to shutting folks like me up, wouldn’t you want to go after that opportunity ASAP?

    I know I would, but that’s just me.

    I would too, but there is no “simple way” to help “shut folks like you up.”

    You’ve hinted many, many times on this website that you think that a natural born citizen requires that both parents be citizens. Under such a scenario, of course, Obama would never be eligible for President.

    Frankly, it doesn’t really matter what you or I think with respect to the law with respect to presidential eligibility, now, does it? The Supreme Court has never ruled on presidential eligibility (to my knowledge), and we know that there are no currently-existing laws that enforce it.

    To me, the whole point of this multi-year exercise has been to expose this (what I call) flaw in the system.

    Your receipt gambit pointless anyway. Birth certificates are self-authenticating. You don’t need a receipt to prove their veracity.

    Once again, I am fully aware that “[b]irth certificates are self-authenticating.” Fundamentally, however, that presumes that the certificate, itself, is legitimate.

    And I still want to see a receipt.

    It’s all about liability. Dr. Fukino has nothing to lose by mentioning the alleged online image in the way that she did.

    Bull. That’s testimony given under oath before the state. Dr. Fukino is liable for perjury if what Obama put on his website is not a copy of his birth certificate.

    Uh, she’s only liable if it can be substantiated that (1) Mr. Obama’s alleged COLB is a fraud; and (2) Dr. Fukino had reason to otherwise know this; and (3) it could be shown that she made any sort of direct claim that the image posted online actually came from her office.

    You’re so busy splitting your split hairs in order to squint at the statement sideways to make it say what you want that you’re missing the point. The Department of Health has never said it wasn’t a document they produced.

    Remove the first sentence of this two-sentence claim on your part and you’d actually qualify for carrying on an intellectually-stimulating conversation!

    The DoH has never said that it was a document they produced.

    That’s not verbal contortion; in fact, it’s the difference between legally safe verbiage and fraud, especially in the case if the image were manipulated even for totally different reasons than anyone knows.

    At this point if you’re saying that you’re not sure whether the COLB posted on Obama’s website is legit, you are by definition saying that you believe that it’s possible that the Department of Health is actively conspiring with Obama as well. It’s quite paranoid.

    It’s also possible that you appear to no longer be able to carry on a conversational thread with me without making all sorts of banal and baseless claims against my person.

    I’ve made a very simple request, and you and at least one other commenter seemed to have become exceptionally maddened and/or threatened by it.

    In fact, the sentiment has become (what I call) so extreme that you’ve decided to leapfrog over my request and tell me that I’m not really making the request (even though it’s plainly obvious what I’m asking for) and that I’m really just being “pointless” and “paranoid,” to use your verbiage, in even making the request (as if somehow making this simple request is illogical, irrational, or otherwise psychologically crazy).

    So, forget showing me the birth certificate…

    I just want to see the receipt for the COLB!

    -Phil

  129. 11/12/2010qwertyman says:

    micro-film from which the birth announcements were ‘produced’ from show every trace evidence of having been tampered with

    Take the tin foil hat off.

    INDISPUTABLE FACT that Hawaii issues COLB for Foreign Born Children

    Hawaii is not in the practice of falsely declaring that people were born in Hawaii when they know they were not. They do not declare on birth certificates that people born in Japan were actually born in Oahu. You can get a Hawaiian birth certificate if you were born in Japan, but it will say you were born in Japan.

    “If you were born in Bali, for example,” Okubo explained, “you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate. But it’s become very clear that it doesn’t matter what I say. The people who are questioning this bring up all these implausible scenarios. What if the physician lied? What if the state lied? It’s just become an urban legend at this point.”

    I say, there is NO proof the COLB was issued by the DoH

    You can say that as many times as you like and stamp your little feet and cry as much as you want, but that doesn’t make it so.

    1. The HI DoH clearly states that they have vital documentation on file for Mr. Obama

    1(a) – The DoH clearly states that those vital records reflect a birth in Hawaii.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i”

    those who wish to pretend that the HI DoH made any sort of claim that the online image of an alleged COLB actually came from their office.

    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

    You can hide your head in the sand as much as you like, but it won’t make what you say factually accurate.

  130. 11/12/2010slcraig says:

    Phil says;
    In my over two years of covering this story and of monitoring countless other sources performing similar services in the court of public opinion, these are the only facts we know:

    3. The Judiciary will never throw a President out of office.

    To which I would extend a ‘qualified agreement’, in that, a Writ of Mandamus does actually instruct an appropriate ‘Party or Body’ to do that which the Mandamus instructs.

    But it remains, in the 1st instant, that the Constitutional definition of NBC must be made and a Declaratory Judgment of the same be issued.

    From there it depends upon what context the Petition considered was presented and what remedies were sought.

    The Apuzzo/Kerchner Petition is explicit, and correct, in its analysis of the responsibly of SCOTUS, and ONLY SCOTUS, in making that determination to the exclusion of any and all other means of making such a determination within the Rule of Law under the Constitution.

    Close scrutiny would reveal that even an attempt by Congress to write and circulate an Amendment or an Executive Order would find it 1st necessary to clear litigation at SCOTUS in order to have Constitutional authority.

  131. 11/12/2010bob says:

    Mean-spirited person, aren’t you?

    If I was mean-spirited person, I would be like Bill Cutting and simply call you a moron.

    OK, so I missed that paragraph as I scanned the story…

    Exactly; you were twice referred to that article (that was published over a year ago), and you twice missed the rather obvious proof of Granite’s assertion. Speaks volumes about your ability (and desire) to seek “the truth.”

    The fundamental issue at hand here is assumptions.

    Wrong. Again. Granite’s assertion was the McCain campaign did investigate this “issue,” but rejected it. You waste many elections disputing the robustness of the investigation, but ignore Granite’s point: the McCain campaign did expressly discuss (and reject) this issue.

    Seriously, reading course.

  132. 11/12/2010Granite says:

    Re: “NO Hawaiian Official has said that they saw an ORIGINAL HAWAIIAN BC..”

    Answer: Actually, that is what they said. They said that there was an original Hawaiian BC in the file in the first of the two confirmations.

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. That was the first of TWO confirmations.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “and it is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that Hawaii issues COLB for Foreign Born Children…’

    Yes, it does now, but it did not in 1961, and both then and now, it does not allow a Hawaii birth document of any kind to lie as to the place of birth. The BC cannot say “born in Honolulu” if the child was born in Maui or in San Diego, or for that matter in Kenya. Obama’s official birth certificate says that he was born in HAWAII, and that is the fact that the officials and the governor have confirmed twice.

    So not only is there an official birth certificate, not only has there been no evidence that it was forged, but the officials in Hawaii and the governor of Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it. And, as I said before, the attorney general of Hawaii is conservative Republican, so if he had thought that the BC was forged, or that the officials had lied, he would have taken action–but he didn’t.

  133. 11/12/2010qwertyman says:

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on presidential eligibility (to my knowledge)

    Weasel words. You know that the Supreme Court over a century ago clearly stated its opinion on who is a natural born citizen in an opinion that no court has even challenged.

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

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

    Uh, she’s only liable if it can be substantiated that (1) Mr. Obama’s alleged COLB is a fraud; and (2) Dr. Fukino had reason to otherwise know this; and (3) it could be shown that she made any sort of direct claim that the image posted online actually came from her office.

    If Obama did not post a copy of his birth certificate on his website, then Dr. Fukino made a false statement under oath.

    The DoH has never said that it was a document they produced.

    You’re like President Bush when he was trying so hard to imply that Iraq was behind 9/11 without actually saying it. “We don’t know all the facts about whether Saddam was behind the attacks.” You come so close to alleging that the Department of Health is an active co-conspirator, but you don’t want to actually say it because you know that there’s absolutely nothing to back it up.

    I’ve made a very simple request

    You’re asking for something that is completely pointless. The point of a receipt is to show that a transaction took place, not that the underlying document is authentic. The seal is what authenticates it, not the receipt.

  134. 11/12/2010Granite says:

    Phil said:

    “these are the only facts we know:

    1. The HI DoH clearly states that they have vital documentation on file for Mr. Obama;”

    Answer. NO, you are referring ONLY to the first of the two confirmations. The first that you refer to stated that there was an original BIRTH CERTIFICATE in the file. The SECOND of the two confirmations stated that it VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    And there is the further statement of the governor of Hawaii, which actually lists the hospital:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

    And here is the statement of the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

  135. 11/12/2010bob says:

    I just want to see the receipt for the COLB!

    THE STATE OF HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    “Some” people repeatedly have ignored this. Rather, “some” move the goalposts and demand additional evidence that, even if shown (or not), still would not undermine that THE STATE OF HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    “Some” then shift arguments and suggest that even if President Obama had a valid COLB (and a receipt!) that demonstrate he was born in Hawaii, he still wouldn’t be a natural born citizen. If the COLB (and the receipt!) wouldn’t help prove that President Obama was a natural born citizen, then they’re not relevant — just a tail-chasing time waster.

    “Some” — self-professed non-attorneys — then make legal pronouncements such as a birth certificate may not be enough to prove natural born citizen, or there’s no definitive definition of natural born citizenship, when there is, in fact, ample legal support for those propositions, and no legal authority to the contrary.

    No wonder “birther” is nothing more than a punchline.

    I’ve made a very simple request, and you and at least one other commenter seemed to have become exceptionally maddened and/or threatened by it.

    I just love how the “no psychoanalyzing” rule works only in one direction.

  136. 11/12/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Phil

    We’re both rather good at wielding the English language.

    But we use the language very differently and for very different purposes. You use it explicitly to promote a position that you know cannot be defended with evidence and reason… were it otherwise you would not so quickly change the subject when confronted with the poverty of both that underlie your claims. Let’s look at how you continue to dissemble and mislead in your latest response.

    That certification is a direct link between the COLB and the Hawaii Department of Health…

    So the image claims.

    The receipt, sir.

    Yes. We both know that the image claims this. We also both know that the receipt (either as an image or in hard copy) would not. How then does one account for your rejection of the direct claim pending another document that makes no claim at all? Certainly, no rational person could understand that as a reasonable position to take, and the law (as represented in the Federal Rules of Evidence) is explicit regarding the difference between them.

    In simple point of fact, your challenge for a direct connection between the COLB and the Hawaii DoH was met explicitly and quite elegantly… more than two years ago.

    And, as you know, that same State Department has no specific regulation regarding presidential eligibility. Therefore, you’re pursuing the wrong question.

    Here again we find you employing the flaccid rhetorical tactic of releasing a red herring in the face of having no genuine response to the point made. If I am “pursuing the wrong question” then why did you ask it in the first place?

    The question you asked is whether or not there was a direct connection between the COLB and the Hawaii DoH, not whether or not the State Department has a “specific regulation regarding presidential eligibility.” The State Department regulation discussed here establishes that the State certification on the COLB is exactly such a direct link.

    If I credited you with merely being a sloppy thinker I would suggest here that you try and keep up with your own argument. But I am not accusing you of being sloppy, I am accusing you of being willfully dishonest.

    Excellent. This is why I would love to see that thing in Court (of law, not public opinion).

    I myself would love to win the lottery. Life is just filled with little disappointments. But we all know that for me to win the lottery I actually have to first buy a ticket. And for you “to see that thing in a Court (of law…)” you have to first earn your way into that court.

    It is now well established by at least 71 attempts to do so that the civil justice system is not amenable to such an effort. The alternative has always been obvious.

    While it would be really nice to see the actual law that “compel[s them] to declare a fake a fake,” that would also miss the point, too.

    Let’s not run too fast from that point. The general Federal Law is Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. There are equivalent laws in the HRS as well … and it certainly does not miss the point that I am using it to make. While you may feel comfortable running away from the points that you make, in this case I am making the point and I choose to stick with it for a moment. By the numbers…

    1- The Hawaii DoH is proscribed by law from authenticating the COLB. But it is also required by law to declare it a fake were it actually a fake.

    2- They have not done so, and so either it is authentic, or they are accessories to fraud.

    3- If evidence existed they are accessories to fraud, then the “standing” hurdle has just been (what is your phrase?) “leap frogged.”

    After all, by not directly referring individuals to anything online and instead legitimately retreating back to the position of merely answering direct queries, they have perfect plausible deniability in the event that a cause for fraud ever surfaced.

    For starters, you do not seem to know what “plausible deniability” means. It is not some sort of legal defense, but a tool for insulating higher echelons in an organization from blame for an action performed by that organization. While Governor Lingle might have plausible deniability for misprision of fraud by her underlings, Drs. Fukino and Onaka do not. They are both on record for having personally checked the original records, and for being aware of the existence of a document bearing their imprimatur (and Onaka’s official certification).

    They have directly acknowledged that the on-line COLB exists. Their official spokesperson has said, “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate” They have acknowledged in formal statements that they have checked the original records. If the COLB is not absolutely authentic then a fraud has been committed and these two persons are accessories after the fact.

    And why would fraud ever surface? Since there’s currently no publicly-known evidence that contradicts what the alleged online image purports, where’s the harm?

    You are confusing civil with criminal law again. “Harm” is a civil concept required to establish standing to sue. Criminal law (within which fraud is included) requires no actual harm whatsoever. It only requires that the act committed is in violation of a criminal statute.

    In this case, proving fraud would require there to be something that denies what’s already publicly available, regardless of whether or not such publicly-available documentation is legitimate or not.

    Why. Yes. It would.

    See? What I was saying was the point after all and you seem to have picked up on it. There is as you admit “currently no publicly-known evidence that contradicts what the alleged online image purports.”

    So… why are there Birthers? This is not a rhetorical question.

    The entire movement was founded on the bald and unsupported assertion that Obama was born in Kenya. The whole “Vatell definition” subterfuge and its variations are no more than fallback arguments that still ultimately trace back to the seminal Birther claim of a foreign birth. Legal proof otherwise was publicly released more than two years ago and (as you acknowledge) nothing has been presented by anyone to contradict it.

    Back up. I never declared that the alleged COLB is a forgery. But I leapfrog that issue by simply asking for another piece of documentation — a receipt — that could legitimately substantiate not just the alleged document but also, potentially, Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    I will not back up. Your very request for the receipt is an unmistakable assertion of your belief in the falsity of the COLB. Since we all know that an authentic COLB is self authenticating under the FRE, any demand for extrinsic evidence of its authenticity is an accusation of fraud by definition.

    That said… you leapfrog nothing. A COLB that says a person was born in Hawaii is legal proof of Hawaiian birth. A receipt cannot even be tied to any particular document at all, let alone substantiate the information any document contains. Your request for the receipt effectively serves one purpose only… to move the goal-posts given that the original challenge has already been met.

    And, once again, when I ask for a receipt that would substantiate a transaction that procured this alleged COLB, I am now being told that I don’t really want that receipt, and, even if I did, it would really prove nothing, and that I should just accept the alleged COLB for what it is.

    So many presumptions.

    You do not appear to understand the idea of a “presumption” any better than you understand the idea of “plausible deniability.”

    It is an objective fact (not a presumption) that you have a track record of not really wanting things you have asked for, because once you are provided with them, you move the goal posts.

    It is an objective fact (not a presumption) that the receipt would prove nothing, not even that a COLB was ordered.

    It is an objective fact (not a presumption) that no evidence has been shown to exist that contradicts the COLB.

    So again, Phil, the non-Rhetorical question:

    Why are there Birthers?

  137. 11/12/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Steve Craig:

    The Apuzzo/Kerchner Petition is explicit, and correct, in its analysis of the responsibly of SCOTUS, and ONLY SCOTUS, in making that determination to the exclusion of any and all other means of making such a determination within the Rule of Law under the Constitution.

    Pretending for a second that 1) what you say is true and 2) the Supreme Court had not already defined NBC in Wong Kim Ark… so what?

    The issue is not before the court.

    SCOTUS is considering only whether or not Kerchner has standing. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

  138. 11/12/2010Granite says:

    Re: “insinuating that at the time of the founding the 14th Amendment Jus Soli feature was already in existence.”

    I am STATING, not insinuating, that only the jus soli applied at the time that the Constitution was written, and that the meaning of Natural Born at the time was “born in the country.’ I have six or eight quotations from American (not Swiss) writers at the time, and they always used Natural Born to refer to the place of birth and not to the parents.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  139. 11/12/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Phil

    In my over two years of covering this story and of monitoring countless other sources performing similar services in the court of public opinion, these are the only facts we know:

    1. The HI DoH clearly states that they have vital documentation on file for Mr. Obama;

    Not true. The HI DoH claims that they have an “original birth certificate” on file for President Obama, and that it verifies that “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”

    How, after over two years of covering this story” do you manage to get your “facts” so wrong?

    2. There is an image of an alleged document claiming to be Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth;

    In fact, there are several. Between the original release of the scan and the Factcheck investigation there are at least ten such images of the document available online.

    3. The Judiciary will never throw a President out of office.

    Close, but no cigar. A more accurate statement would be that the Judiciary cannot throw a President out of office. The separation of powers doctrine proscribes it.

    And none of the above three points have ever been directly connected in any way — except in the minds of those who wish to pretend that the HI DoH made any sort of claim that the online image of an alleged COLB actually came from their office.

    Except of course when they said, “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”

  140. 11/12/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Steve Craig

    Obama Sr was an alien foreign national British Colonial Kenyan Subject.

    Yes he was. It is a very good thing then that he never ran for president of the United States.

    Jr. is not, was not and could not be a Constitutional natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court of the United States appears to disagree with you. I refer you again to the case of Wong Kim Ark.

    Notwithstanding what you may have been told, there is no ‘legally acknowledged Constitutional definition of natural born citizen’.

    What about this definition do you not understand?

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

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

    As for Hawaii, I would not expect ANY creditable information to emanate from the Communist/Socialist welfare enclave.

    Too bad then that Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution gives you no choice.

  141. 11/12/2010slcraig says:

    Well, I see the 0’pologists have moved on to the next chapter of there talking points and make ASSERTIONS that are NOT true.

    Dictum in the body of an opinion HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. Only those things found in the ORDER are of ‘legal effect’.

    Little Wong was affirmed a ‘citizen of the United States’, notwithstanding the several errors of the opinion. He was NOT affirmed as a ‘natural born subject’.

    Subject and citizen are NOT synonymous in American jurisprudence nor are Queen Anne’s Laws on Nationality.

    THERE IS NO ‘legally acknowledged definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born citizen’, notwithstanding your protestations and providing dictum for dictum see Minor v Happerstte, (also cited in WKA)

    “[T]he Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens…”

    Only SCOTUS has the imprimatur to ‘interpret and or define’ the definitions, meanings and intents’ of the various Clauses of the Constitution when a controversy arises.

    The ‘question’ as to the definition, meaning and intent of the A2S1C5 idiom of natural born citizen has NOT,(ever), been presented in a Bone-Fide Petition to SCOTUS, notwithstanding any and all protestations to the contrary.

    In that your understanding of the distinctions between ‘common law’ and the ‘English Common Law’ is suspect I will not expect an enlightened response from you on the construction of civil law or of citizenship.

    Suffice it to know that you are wrong.

  142. 11/12/2010Granite says:

    Re: “Little Wong was affirmed a ‘citizen of the United States’, notwithstanding the several errors of the opinion. He was NOT affirmed as a ‘natural born subject’.”

    Answer: The Wong Kim Ark ruling, to which you refer, ruled that EVERY child born in the USA, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is NATURAL BORN. It also ruled that Wong is a citizen of the USA.

    What kind of a citizen? A Natural Born Citizen because he was born in the USA. A Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen who was Natural Born and every child born in the USA is Natural Born. Not every citizen is Natural Born because some citizens are naturalized, but every citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

    A citizen who is cross-eyed is a cross-eyed citizen. A citizen who is red headed is a red headed citizen, and a citizen who is Natural Born is a Natural Born Citizen.

    Moreover, the Wong Kim Ark ruling upheld the ruling of the lower court that actually called Wong a Natural Born Citizen.

  143. 11/13/2010bob says:

    Well, I see the 0pologists have moved on to the next chapter of there talking points and make ASSERTIONS that are NOT true.

    And how did your case end?:

    “Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally born, as understood by the Constitution’s Framers, is no longer acknowledged. According to Mr. Craig, this has resulted in the ‘involuntary expatriation’ of those whom he believes fall into this category of citizens. Mr. Craig argues that the definition is knowable, and he proffers a definition from a 1758 Swiss philosophical treatise. He further argues that the district court should legally define ‘natural born Citizen’ in an effort to prevent the deprivation of citizenship legacy, as contemplated by the Constitution, and the diminution of his and purported class members’ ‘rights and intrinsic property as … multi-generational citizen[s].’ …

    “The district court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Where a complaint seeks recovery directly under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, an exception to subject matter jurisdiction lies when ‘ “such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” ‘ … Having carefully reviewed Mr. Craig’s amended complaint, we find that it is ‘very plain,’ … that his ‘alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es’ falls within this ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’ category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant.”

    Suffice it to know that you are wrong.

    Oh, the irony.

  144. 11/13/2010brygenon says:

    Phil wrote:

    Unfortunately, your response to my receipt both (1) didn’t answer my posit and (2) is completely irrelevant due to federal law.

    Yes, obviously I’m not fulfilling your request for some receipt. I’m showing how deceitful you are in pretending to respect the Constitution. The proof President Obama showed was the right proof: a state record proven as Congress prescribed in 28 USC 1739, as per their Article IV, Section 1 authority, and thus granted full faith and credit by the Constitution.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Yeah, I know — you want to shut people up, and that’s what this is all about.

    Hey yeah, someone brought up how some evidence might shut people up — oh look — that was *you*, Phil.

    My point, contrary to your reporting, was the opposite. For over a year I’ve been telling you, and demonstrating, that I’m not here to shut anyone up. I’ve made no secret of my objective here: to put the debunk as close as possible to the bunk.

    And all I want to see is a receipt.

    Well, at least that’s progress. Previously, Phil, you had been on about a whole lot of other eligibility-denier nonsense. Glad to hear it’s down to just this one thing, and that it was just your choice, not anyone like me shutting you up.

    Of course I’m being facetious. We all know that Phil is not telling the truth there; he’ll say a receipt is all he wants if that’s best smear he can think to write at the time. The interesting question is why he would pretend that the receipt is all important, when it’s so demonstrably false. Why demand a receipt to prove a legal state record when we all know that state records are legally proven by the seal and attestation of the record keeper and not by showing a receipt?

    The answer is what we’ve seen over and over before: Barack Obama showed the right proof long ago, so to go on smearing him, Phil has to fabricate an issue. No matter what evidence is shown, no matter what the proper authorities say, cranks can always imagine something else and pretend importance in the non-existence of their imaginary statement or evidence.

    You want people to stop questioning Mr. Obama.

    No Phil, you tell not the truth. I’m over and over pointing to the answers to your questions. Where was Mr. Obama born? He was born in Hawaii. See the link above and also:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    And Phil, as you so disingenuously try to act like you’re asking serious questions, have you considered the questions you fail to ask? The report at issue here noted that there is no official procedure for vetting eligibility of elected federal officers. Never has been. That seems to be a big deal to you, but you’re not on about vetting the constitutional eligibility of President Reagan, nor Eisenhower, nor any of the other first 43 presidents. A week and half ago we elected 472 members of Congress; we’re right now in the period between their election and their seating in our 112’th Congress. Not a peep from you about any need to vet their eligibility. Your relentless “questioning”, Phil, is about the eligibility of the one and only elected federal officer in our nation’s history who, in the course of attaining the office, exhibited a properly proven legal record to show he was constitutionally eligible.

  145. 11/13/2010slcraig says:

    Bob cites my case ‘dismissed in part and REMANDED in part thinking that it furthers his position;

    And how did your case end?:

    “Though it is somewhat difficult to distill Mr. Craig’s arguments on appeal, he continues to assert that due to the lack of a legal definition for natural-born citizen, the existence of citizens who are naturally born, as understood by the Constitution’s Framers, is no longer acknowledged.

    But in the myopia that clouds the logic, reason and intellectual honesty of the 0’poligist minions does not allow them to understand that the USDC and USCA did NOT say that my contention is ‘wrong’, for if it is they could have easily said so, which they did NOT. If they agreed with and it was the LAW that a person ‘naturalized’ as a ‘citizen’ by the 14th Amendment ‘collective naturalization BORN clause’ was/is synonymous with ‘natural born citizen’ they could and should have said so.

    The case was dismissed on Article III grounds of construction, failing to satisfy the ‘particularized harm’ requisite of standing and was REMANDED without prejudice allowing for resubmission of the question under different construction of the complaint.

    The courts did not say the premise was WRONG, for if they had they would have been deciding on the ‘merits’ of the case and would have been OBLIGATED to assert the alternative and or LEGAL definition of ‘natural born citizen’.

    That is proved here;

    ‘ … Having carefully reviewed Mr. Craig’s amended complaint, we find that it is ‘very plain,’ … that his ‘alleged claim under the Constitution or federal statu[t]es’ falls within this ‘wholly insubstantial and frivolous’ category such that federal jurisdiction is not extant.”

    They are saying that; ‘[T]he Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens…” and that there is NOT a ‘Statute’ defining NBC in one way another, upon which my complaint sought redress and for those reasons my complaint was deficient in the legal requisites, just as your position would be considered should you attempt to assert the same within a complaint to the courts.

    As for Granite says:

    The ‘Lamaze non-Cesarean’ birth proposition being as if a Constitutional NBC is a bit over the top, but, perhaps without realizing it, makes a pertinent point. Born blind remains born blind even though sight may be gained later in life,; Born red haired remains born red haired even though the hair may change over time. Born a ‘statutory citizen’ remains a statutory citizen WITHOUT CHANGE as no statutory feature can deem one as if a NBC under the Constitution.

    There is NO Constitutional means for a person relying on the 14th Amendments collective naturalization feature for citizenship to be DEEMED as if a Constitutional NBC.

  146. 11/13/2010Bill Cutting says:

    bob
    [I’m not going to do your homework for you, but I am confident in predicting that, in 2012, there will at least one court challenge over President Obama’s re-election campaign: Someone will figure out how to establish standing and jurisdiction for a candidacy challenge (hint: see names above). At that point, President Obama will release his COLB as part of the discovery process; and the court(s) will have no problem accepting the COLB and ruling President Obama is eligible to serve.]

    A buck says Soebarka pussies out and doesn’t run.

  147. 11/13/2010slcraig says:

    Bill Cutting says:

    I absolutly agree that multiple challanges will issue from not only individuals, opposing candidates and political parties, but from various States as well;

    … but I find it amusing that you feel that SCOTUS would find the ‘0’ a NBC based on British Manarchies nationality laws as applied through their Common Law structure while ignoring those same British Nationality Laws as are owed to the little ‘0s’ Daddy’0’…?

    …that’s kinda like ‘having your FAKE and believing it too..?’….ain’t it…?

  148. 11/13/2010Bill Cutting says:

    http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html

    Naturalization act of 1795, signed into law by George Washington

    [and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreigh prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.]

    Yet mere birth on US soil to a foreign father assured the same allegiance?

    Not likely , OBAMA doesn’t even meet the requirements of citizenship that our first naturalized citizens were required to meet.

    OBAMA is a dual citizen with foreign allegiance.

  149. 11/13/2010bob says:

    The courts did not say the premise was WRONG

    The 10th Circuit’s exact words were “wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Said differently: wrong.

    * * *

    Yet mere birth on US soil to a foreign father assured the same allegiance?

    Damn that common law!

    A buck says Soebarka pussies out and doesn’t run.

    A buck?

    Care to make it $100? $1000?

    * * *

    Yeah, I know — you want to shut people up, and that’s what this is all about.

    With the great irony that it was Phil who banned San Diego Sam, and otherwise censored people.

  150. 11/13/2010slcraig says:

    Bill Cutting says:
    November 13, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/naturalization/naturalization_text.html

    Naturalization act of 1795, signed into law by George Washington

    [and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreigh prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.]

    Yet mere birth on US soil to a foreign father assured the same allegiance?

    The 0’pologist continually make the same mistake when they see a statement like a ‘foreign born father’ without taking into notice the context, i.e., ONCE NATURALIZED, issues a NBC………very often in statements by the Founders they reference the ‘Foreign Birth of a then ‘Naturalized citizen’ to distinguish from a person that was ‘native born’ to either citizen parents or acquired citizenship through naturalization to one of the various states.

    Historical facts elude them, or, perhaps more correctly, they ‘evade’ them.

  151. 11/13/2010robert strauss says:

    Strunk v Paterson/Obama et al: Treason, Sedition, Scheme to defraud… (Updated Filing)

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2626622/posts#comment

  152. 11/13/2010qwertyman says:

    Guess I shouldn’t be surprised that an illiterate plagiarist like yourself is a fan of FreeRepublic.

    It’s a motion to file an amended complaint. I highly doubt that this is going to make any more difference, except run up the score of birther legal victories from 0 to 0, and up the count of losses to 72 (or is it more than that by now)?

  153. 11/13/2010qwertyman says:

    Historical facts elude them, or, perhaps more correctly, they ‘evade’ them.

    Please name a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause.

    OBAMA is a dual citizen with foreign allegiance.

    You’ve already shown your internal inconsistency when you stated that a dual citizen of the US and Italy can be a natural born citizen.

    Further, same question to you – name a single current congressman, judge, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your position.

  154. 11/13/2010robert strauss says:

    Further, same question to you – name a single current congressman, judge, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your position.

    Tribe and Olson.

  155. 11/13/2010bob says:

    Further, same question to you – name a single current congressman, judge, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your position.

    Tribe and Olson.

    For the SECOND TIME:

    Quote — QUOTE, don’t paraphase — the specific language in Tribe and Olson’s memo that states President Obama is ineligible to serve.

  156. 11/13/2010bob says:

    I just want to see the receipt for the COLB!

    Here you go.

  157. 11/14/2010Bill Cutting says:

    Q

    [You’ve already shown your internal inconsistency when you stated that a dual citizen of the US and Italy can be a natural born citizen.]

    I may have mis read and answered your stupid question, but now you knew that, didn’t you. So stop lying.

    Unlike OBOTS, I am not trying to mislead anyone.

    Full Disclosure!!

    Anyone with half a brain who has read the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts signed by George Washington and John Adams can plainly see that dual citizens with foreign allegiances (like Obama ) were not what the Framers/Founders had in mind for NBC.

    If NBC mean’t mere birth on US soil they would have said so……

  158. 11/14/2010qwertyman says:

    I may have mis read and answered your stupid question, but now you knew that, didn’t you. So stop lying.

    Are you changing your answers then?

    I asked you whether somebody who was born a dual citizen of Italy and the US, granted Italian citizenship because of an Italian great-grandfather would be eligible for the presidency. You said yes.

    I also asked you if somebody born a dual citizen of the US and Israel could be eligible for office. You gave a qualified yes to that as well.

    You also said that it wouldn’t matter if Kim Jong Il granted North Korean citizenship to every American.

    When you’ve been repeating over and over again that it’s impossible for somebody with dual citizenship to be a natural born citizen, and then you say that under at least some circumstances a dual citizen can be a natural born citizen, it makes it seem like you haven’t thought things all the way through. If you are indeed saying that in all circumstances dual citizens are ineligible for office, and you’re changing your answers to those three questions, please let me know.

    Anyone with half a brain who has read the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts signed by George Washington and John Adams can plainly see that dual citizens with foreign allegiances (like Obama ) were not what the Framers/Founders had in mind for NBC.

    If it is so obvious how come there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with that interpretation?

  159. 11/14/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Steve Craig

    Dictum in the body of an opinion HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. Only those things found in the ORDER are of ‘legal effect’.

    It is always fun to watch Birthers grab onto legal concepts they have only the most tenuous understanding of, and then shake them like a terrier with a squeeze toy. Dicta may have “no legal authority.” But the quotation repeatedly offered from Wong Kim Ark is not dicta. It is ratio decidendi. And as such it has full legal and precedential authority.

    And of course we all saw that in operation last year in the case of Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana where, based on the legal authority of the ratio decidendi in question concluded:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    Subject and citizen are NOT synonymous in American jurisprudence nor are Queen Anne’s Laws on Nationality.

    Returning again to Wong Kim Ark:

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

    It is one thing to be wrong, Steve. It is another to repeat the same lies again and again after being repeatedly corrected. The former is understandable. The latter is pathological.

    Only SCOTUS has the imprimatur to ‘interpret and or define’ the definitions, meanings and intents’ of the various Clauses of the Constitution when a controversy arises.

    Did you not realize that Wong Kim Ark actually is a SCOTUS decision?

    Suffice it to know that you are wrong.

    Win a case first, Steve, and maybe then such an assertion on your part will be met with something rather than derisive amusement.

  160. 11/14/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Bill Cutting

    A buck says Soebarka pussies out and doesn’t run.

    I’ll take that bet.

  161. 11/14/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Bill Cutting

    I may have mis read and answered your stupid question, but now you knew that, didn’t you. So stop lying.

    Oh? You have changed your mind since you explicitly acknowledged that a person can be both a dual citizen and a natural born US citizen at the same time?

    How… pathetically Birtherish of you.

    Anyone with half a brain who has read the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts signed by George Washington and John Adams can plainly see that dual citizens with foreign allegiances (like Obama ) were not what the Framers/Founders had in mind for NBC.

    That would only be true if those acts actually said that. Sadly for you… they don’t.

    If NBC mean’t mere birth on US soil they would have said so……

    What a dumb assertion.

  162. 11/14/2010Bill Cutting says:

    The debates and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of … By Michigan. Constitutional Convention, William Blair Lord, David Wolfe Brown

    Mr. FARMER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question ?

    Mr. LOVELL. Certainly.

    Mr. FARMER. Does the gentleman wish this Convention distinctly to understand, that he holds that children born here of foreign parents, who reside here until they are twentyone, have to take any preliminary steps to become citizens of the United States?

    Mr. LOVELL. No sir; I do not

    wish to bo understood in any such sense. I understand that according to the Constitution and laws of our government, when a father has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, when he becomes a citizen, his minor children also become citizens.

    Mr. FARMER. Suppose that he does not declare his intention ?

    Mr. LOVELL. If he does not declare his intention to become a citizen, for instance, if he be an Englishman claiming to be a subject of the Queen of Greai Britain and Ireland, claiming her protection as an English resident in this country, and he has children born to him, he has a right to claim that they, too, are English citizens, entitled to the protection of the government of Great Britain.

    Mr. FARMER. Then it is a mere matter of election with him ?

    Mr. LOVELL. We claim the same right in relation to our citizens who have children born abroad. Ought we to deny to citizens of other nations the privilege which we claim for ourselves ? Suppose that our minister in England has a child born on English soil; is that child a foreigner? No, sir; he is a native born citizen of the United States. Just so with a citizen of some foreign country who resides here for a time, and has children born to him; they are foreign, although born in this country. But this is a matter of no importance. I speak of it only by way of illustration.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=xTsHKJgPG-oC&dq=can%20a%20foreign%20prince%20become%20president%20of%20the%20united%20states&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q=born%20citizen&f=false

  163. 11/14/2010bob says:

    @Bill Cutting

    Unlike OBOTS, I am not trying to mislead anyone.

    Let’s test that.

    The debates and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of … By Michigan. Constitutional Convention, William Blair Lord, David Wolfe Brown

    The full title: “The debates and proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Michigan: convened at the city of Lansing, Wednesday, May 15th, 1867.”

    Woah! 1867! Certainly just a wee bit past the Framers’ era.

    The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

    Wong Kim Ark was decided in 1898.

    So: You are quoting a single conventioner, from the convention for a state constitution, which was held approximately two generations after the Framers’ era and predated both the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.

    If you are not trying to mislead anyone, you are (in the words of my friend Bill Cutting) a moron.

  164. 11/14/2010robert strauss says:

    Sunday, November 14, 2010
    Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 14 Nov 2010 6 PM EST
    Les Naiman Show
    Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner will be featured guests on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 14 November 2010, 6 PM EST. The subject will be the status of the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit which is currently on Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Link to WGTK 970 in Louisville KY: http://www.970wgtk.com/

  165. 11/14/2010Granite says:

    Re: “Born blind remains born blind even though sight may be gained later in life,; Born red haired remains born red haired even though the hair may change over time. Born a ‘statutory citizen’ remains a statutory citizen WITHOUT CHANGE as no statutory feature can deem one as if a NBC under the Constitution.”

    Answer: The Constitution does not say that you must be a Natural Born Citizen at birth. It says that you must be a Natural Born Citizen in order to be president, meaning at the time when the elected person takes office.

    My point still holds that the original meaning of Natural Born means “born in the country,” and that when someone is a US citizen under law, and born in the country, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen. If the requirement were for a left-handed citizen, the two qualities that would have to be satisfied would be (1) being left handed and 2) being a citizen. The same also holds for being a Natural Born citizen.

    The two qualities that must be satisfied are (1) being natural born, and (2) being a citizen. The US Supreme court in Wong made absolutely clear that EVERYONE born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born. Both Wong Kim Ark and Obama were born in the USA. They both are thus: (1) citizens under law; (2) Natural Born under the definition given by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and (3) Natural Born Citizens because they are both (1) and (2).

  166. 11/14/2010robert strauss says:

    Cabby – AZ | November 14, 2010 at 6:32 pm |

    GLOBE’S LATEST ISSUE (11/22/10) HEADLINES:
    New Congress Launches Top Secret Obama Birth Certificate Investigation!
    At the store today, I spotted the paper and broke down and bought it. (Seldom does it cover things that interest me)

    I can give you a synopsis. It is the 4th article and takes two pages. The gist of it is that a stunning secret order “find President Barack Obama’s REAL birth certificate “ has been issued to hand-picked investigative teams under orders from a new Congress. The point will be to prove that he was born in Africa, not the U.S.

    It seems that there are Congressmen who have not been saying much publicly, but they are eager to get to the bottom of the puzzle. Even though the new members of Congress won’t be sworn in until Jan. 2011, the word is out that secret witnesses are already being lined up to testify in “explosive hearings.” One Beltway insider says that the investigation is “going to rock Washington and the nation.” The word is that if Obama’s got something to hide, they’ll find it and it could be the beginning of the “most shocking presidential fall in American history!” It would make “Watergate look like small potatoes.”

    The investigators are relying heavily on the Kenyan birth certificate (not yet proven to be authentic). Also, this investigation would include getting a look at Obama’s college records. They intend to leave no stone unturned. One imsider says, “Why on earth would he be so secretive – unless they contained damaging evidence?”

    If this is not hype, it would appear that there is work going on behind the scenes and nothing is being said on TV . Floyd Brown, president of the Western Center for journalism, says they would be happy to turn over the evidence it collects to a congressional committee. One Congressman said if the birth certificate issue gains steam, he doesn’t mind “being in the fight.”
    (So, you see, there has been a lot of timidity and fear out there – shame on them.) Oh, also, Timothy Adams is mentioned as being a witness – not in court – but in congressional hearings.

    So, what do you think? I would say, if nothing else, this issue sits on the newsstands and can’t help but attract attention and inform some who are still in the dark.

    Citizen Wells and others have been in the vanguard on this issue from Day One. Maybe, just maybe, some are finally beginning to listen to our cries, if not fully on the NBC issue, at least in a measure that we haven’t seen before.

  167. 11/15/2010Granite says:

    Re: GLOBE’S coverage.

    Their lies are no different from WND’s lies. They all stem from the big lie that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya–when she said very clearly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii. And she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

    The Globe, like WND, ignores the fact that IF Obama–or any child–were actually born in Kenya, she or he would need a US travel document to enter the USA, such as a visa, and no such document has been found.

    Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, and by the Republican governor of Hawaii.

  168. 11/15/2010Bill Cutting says:

    bob
    [Woah! 1867! Certainly just a wee bit past the Framers’ era.]

    uh, didn’t say this was from the Founders/Framers era now did I. And I also posted a link for others to read.

    In the United States “STATES” ratify ammendments to the Constitution.

    I wonder how many other states voted for the 14th because they were under the impression that jurisdiction thereof meant complete political jurisdiction, only to have a corrupt SCOTUS change the meaning 30 years later.

    Stay tuned….

    Have you bothered to read the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization laws ? I thought not.

    These 2 acts speak for themselves and clearly show what was on the Founders/ Framers mind. Alas you remain a moron…

  169. 11/15/2010slcraig says:

    Granite says: in reply to;
    slcraig

    November 14, 2010 at 5:13 pm
    Re: “Born blind remains born blind even though sight may be gained later in life,; Born red haired remains born red haired even though the hair may change over time. Born a ‘statutory citizen’ remains a statutory citizen WITHOUT CHANGE as no statutory feature can deem one as if a NBC under the Constitution.”

    Bob’s Answer:

    The Constitution does not say that you must be a Natural Born Citizen at birth. It says that you must be a Natural Born Citizen in order to be president, meaning at the time when the elected person takes office.

    Total lack of intellectual honesty, objective logic and reason, respect for history or the pains, suffering and loss involved in establishing a Sovereign Nation characterize not only your blatant absurdities but, in fact, exemplify the lack of character of O’bot’s and 0’pologists in general. Heil, Alynski, Heil, Orwell, ….

    You stick to your position that statutory and democratically acquired status is found in A2S1C5 in the manner of Queen Ann’s British Nationality Laws of the 16th Century as adopted by the One World morons while we in the REAL world continue to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  170. 11/15/2010Granite says:

    slcraig said: “You stick to your position that statutory and democratically acquired status is found in A2S1C5 in the manner of Queen Ann’s British Nationality Laws of the 16th Century as adopted by the One World morons while we in the REAL world continue to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    Reply: DREAM ON. We in the real world know that the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred simply to the place of birth, and that AMERICANS at the time of the writing of the Constitution never used it to refer to the parents of the citizen. That is why dozens of Constitutional and legal scholars have held as in the following quotations:

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    “Blackstone says ‘The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.’ The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here… The English Law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone – natural born and naturalized citizens.” Rep. Wilson. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lest Sess. 1116 (1866).

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …” Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) (Meese was Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General.)

    ” “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” “Native-born citizens are natural born by virtue of the nearly universal principle of jus soli, or citizenship of place of birth.” Jill A.Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, at 881 and n. 2 (1988)

    “United States citizens born to parents subject to United States jurisdiction in one of the fifty states are unquestionably natural born citizens. Even the narrowest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment dictates that all current states are in the United States. This is true regardless of parental citizenship, unless a child’s parents are protected by the full immunity extended to foreign diplomats and their families, or they are enemy combatants.” Sarah Helene Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005)

    “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …’ St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803) (Reprint)

    “The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. ” William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

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

  171. 11/15/2010bob says:

    uh, didn’t say this was from the Founders/Framers era now did I. And I also posted a link for others to read.

    If not a Framer (or a Founder), then not really relevant to what the Framers (or Founders) thought, now is it?

    So you found someone who you think agrees with you. A person of no particular relevance. And?

    By the way, love your search term, “can a foreign prince become president of the united states.” Is President Obama royalty now?

    In the United States “STATES” ratify ammendments to the Constitution.

    And was this particular state constitutional convention convened to ratify the 14th Amendment?

    I wonder how many other states voted for the 14th because they were under the impression that jurisdiction thereof meant complete political jurisdiction, only to have a corrupt SCOTUS change the meaning 30 years later.

    SCOTUS was a corrupt? A CONSPIRACY!!! Are you going to retell the yarn about how the ghost of Chester Arthur haunted the halls of the Supreme Court until he learned the true meaning of Christmas?

    So you concede that President Obama is a natural born citizen under Wong Kim Ark, and you merely disagree with the result in that case.

    Have you bothered to read the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization laws ?

    Yes. Not relevant. (Read footnote 46 on page 9 of Maskell’s memo.)

    These 2 acts speak for themselves and clearly show what was on the Founders/ Framers mind.

    O RLY? Where in those two acts did Framers say that to be a natural born citizen one must have two citizen parents? (That, by the way, is a rhetorical question.) It is you who infers such a meaning. I will gladly take SCOTUS’ express rulings on these matters over yours any day.

    Alas you remain a moron…

    Oh, the irony.

    * * *

    GLOBE’S LATEST ISSUE (11/22/10) HEADLINES:
    New Congress Launches Top Secret Obama Birth Certificate Investigation!

    Also:
    * Doris Day’s Fight for Life!
    * Natalee’s Killer Attempts Suicide!
    * Wynonna Stomach Staple Scandal!
    * David Cassidy Booze Hell!

    …do you think this source is where Costituton Expart Tad Olsen gets his information?

  172. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    OK, so I missed that paragraph as I scanned the story…

    Exactly; you were twice referred to that article (that was published over a year ago), and you twice missed the rather obvious proof of Granite’s assertion. Speaks volumes about your ability (and desire) to seek “the truth.”

    Depends on your perspective. And I do mean your perspective.

    If your perspective is to get me to shut up, then I’d say you’re clearly trying to build up a case regarding that (which is an entirely different question altogether than eligibility, and something that is philosophically unsound; after I, why should I be shut up any more or less than you?).

    And if I were actually getting paid to blog (e.g.: this were to be my career), then I’d probably be a little more observant than I already am.

    Nevertheless, I do thank you for helping to hold me accountable, even to the nth degree :)

    The fundamental issue at hand here is assumptions.

    Wrong. Again. Granite’s assertion was the McCain campaign did investigate this “issue,” but rejected it. You waste many elections disputing the robustness of the investigation, but ignore Granite’s point: the McCain campaign did expressly discuss (and reject) this issue.

    Seriously, reading course.

    Well then! I didn’t know that if Sen. McCain made the decision to not pursue Mr. Obama’s eligibility, then that should have settled it!

    Again, assumptions.

    Just the receipt, sir.

    -Phil

  173. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on presidential eligibility (to my knowledge)

    Weasel words. You know that the Supreme Court over a century ago clearly stated its opinion on who is a natural born citizen in an opinion that no court has even challenged.

    But that wasn’t the point I was making.

    Again:

    The Supreme Court has never ruled on presidential eligibility (to my knowledge).

    I am sure that you’ll be more than happy to correct me if I’m wrong, and I would certainly welcome it.

    In the meantime, you’re certainly free to characterize my inconvenient points as “weasel words” all you’d like. But the point still remains.

    Uh, she’s only liable if it can be substantiated that (1) Mr. Obama’s alleged COLB is a fraud; and (2) Dr. Fukino had reason to otherwise know this; and (3) it could be shown that she made any sort of direct claim that the image posted online actually came from her office.

    If Obama did not post a copy of his birth certificate on his website, then Dr. Fukino made a false statement under oath.

    Referring to my remarks to your remarks, above, it appears we’re still talking past each other.

    The DoH has never said that it was a document they produced.

    You’re like President Bush when he was trying so hard to imply that Iraq was behind 9/11 without actually saying it. “We don’t know all the facts about whether Saddam was behind the attacks.” You come so close to alleging that the Department of Health is an active co-conspirator, but you don’t want to actually say it because you know that there’s absolutely nothing to back it up.

    There’s also nothing to back up that there’s any other evidence publicly available that shows that what the HI DoH stated would be fraudulent, so whatever they have said in the past could not be legally false.

    Using a pun, you could say that we’re in an argument between “Iraq” and a hard place: since there are no laws that determine presidential eligibility, nor to what extent to determine it, nor who has the authority to make such a decision, nor any evidence in the public domain that suggests that Mr. Obama was not otherwise born in Hawaii, but no substantiation for an alleged COLB posted on a third-party blog, it’s a tough case to make, either way.

    The assumption is all based on an alleged COLB. Some folks take that COLB on face value for “gold,” as it were, because they say that it’s self-authenticating (as if nobody would ever falsify such a document, because we’re all inherently good people who would never mean anyone else harm). I never claimed that it was or was not falsified, and I think that the HI DoH has every reason to believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

    However, who is to say that any of this is sufficient to declare presidential eligibility? Since no laws exist (as I’ve just mentioned) to make this determination, then it is all clearly left to the court of public opinion.

    And I think that’s why folks like you want folks like me to just shut up about the whole thing. It raises too many questions and the stakes are way too high. For some.

    I’ve made a very simple request

    You’re asking for something that is completely pointless. The point of a receipt is to show that a transaction took place, not that the underlying document is authentic. The seal is what authenticates it, not the receipt.

    Assuming that what you say is true, the seal is a stamp that could very easily be reproduced under a number of circumstances. After all, the document is dated in 2007, not late 2008 or 2009, when the questioning began in earnest over Mr. Obama’s eligibility.

    This is anecdotal evidence, but it is interesting that someone knew to start questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility long before the questions actually got started.

    Either way, you are once again free to characterize my request for the alleged COLB’s receipt as “completely pointless,” but, once again, that won’t get me to shut up about it.

    -Phil

  174. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    Phil said:

    “these are the only facts we know:

    1. The HI DoH clearly states that they have vital documentation on file for Mr. Obama;”

    Answer. NO, you are referring ONLY to the first of the two confirmations. The first that you refer to stated that there was an original BIRTH CERTIFICATE in the file. The SECOND of the two confirmations stated that it VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    I don’t think I ever stated that the HI DoH didn’t have Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on file; that’s why I used the qualified verbiage in my point 1, “vital documentation.” That includes what they have on hand.

    Incidentally, they only have what they’ve been given on hand. Nobody knows outside the DoH what exactly is on file for Mr. Obama. However, there is no law that states that HI’s DoH has to go out and independently verify whatever documentation they’ve been given for any individual.

    So, who knows exactly what they have on hand, except for them, and they’re not declaring that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. They’re only declaring what they believe to be true.

  175. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    That certification is a direct link between the COLB and the Hawaii Department of Health…

    So the image claims.

    The receipt, sir.

    Yes. We both know that the image claims this. We also both know that the receipt (either as an image or in hard copy) would not. How then does one account for your rejection of the direct claim pending another document that makes no claim at all? Certainly, no rational person could understand that as a reasonable position to take, and the law (as represented in the Federal Rules of Evidence) is explicit regarding the difference between them.

    In simple point of fact, your challenge for a direct connection between the COLB and the Hawaii DoH was met explicitly and quite elegantly… more than two years ago.

    First, I never claimed what, exactly, the receipt for the alleged COLB would show.

    Second, I never claimed that getting the alleged COLB into Coult would not legitimize it.

    And, as you know, that same State Department has no specific regulation regarding presidential eligibility. Therefore, you’re pursuing the wrong question.

    Here again we find you employing the flaccid rhetorical tactic of releasing a red herring in the face of having no genuine response to the point made. If I am “pursuing the wrong question” then why did you ask it in the first place?

    The question you asked is whether or not there was a direct connection between the COLB and the Hawaii DoH, not whether or not the State Department has a “specific regulation regarding presidential eligibility.” The State Department regulation discussed here establishes that the State certification on the COLB is exactly such a direct link.

    If I credited you with merely being a sloppy thinker I would suggest here that you try and keep up with your own argument. But I am not accusing you of being sloppy, I am accusing you of being willfully dishonest.

    My apologies if you get easily confused by having what would otherwise be known as “sidebar” conversations. I employ them all the time.

    Excellent. This is why I would love to see that thing in Court (of law, not public opinion).

    I myself would love to win the lottery. Life is just filled with little disappointments. But we all know that for me to win the lottery I actually have to first buy a ticket. And for you “to see that thing in a Court (of law…)” you have to first earn your way into that court.

    It is now well established by at least 71 attempts to do so that the civil justice system is not amenable to such an effort. The alternative has always been obvious.

    I wasn’t addressing the ability of the alleged COLB to make it into Court. I was merely agreeing with the proposition that many who disagree with my assertion of questioning Mr. Obama’s presidential eligibility that it could be entered as evidence into Court and could be used as a means to substantiate that eligibility.

    While it would be really nice to see the actual law that “compel[s them] to declare a fake a fake,” that would also miss the point, too.

    Let’s not run too fast from that point. The general Federal Law is Title 18 U.S.C. § 4. There are equivalent laws in the HRS as well … and it certainly does not miss the point that I am using it to make. While you may feel comfortable running away from the points that you make, in this case I am making the point and I choose to stick with it for a moment. By the numbers…

    1- The Hawaii DoH is proscribed by law from authenticating the COLB. But it is also required by law to declare it a fake were it actually a fake.

    2- They have not done so, and so either it is authentic, or they are accessories to fraud.

    3- If evidence existed they are accessories to fraud, then the “standing” hurdle has just been (what is your phrase?) “leap frogged.”

    You make an interesting point (which I’d like to verify by seeing the law citation for your claim), but is still based on certain assumptions, which I’ve long since covered here on my own site.

    In this case, proving fraud would require there to be something that denies what’s already publicly available, regardless of whether or not such publicly-available documentation is legitimate or not.

    Why. Yes. It would.

    See? What I was saying was the point after all and you seem to have picked up on it. There is as you admit “currently no publicly-known evidence that contradicts what the alleged online image purports.”

    I never didn’t pick up on it. You simply stopped assuming enough to realize that I’m not completely unreasonable.

    …A COLB that says a person was born in Hawaii is legal proof of Hawaiian birth. A receipt cannot even be tied to any particular document at all, let alone substantiate the information any document contains. Your request for the receipt effectively serves one purpose only… to move the goal-posts given that the original challenge has already been met.

    Per your last sentence, that’s obviously your perspective, and I know you think you’re trying to call me out on it. And that’s fine. I won’t try to stop you (as if I ultimately could).

    However, with your first couple of sentences, I never claimed that the receipt would do anything at all except confirm that the alleged COLB was, in fact, from the HI DoH.

    And, once again, when I ask for a receipt that would substantiate a transaction that procured this alleged COLB, I am now being told that I don’t really want that receipt, and, even if I did, it would really prove nothing, and that I should just accept the alleged COLB for what it is.

    So many presumptions.

    You do not appear to understand the idea of a “presumption” any better than you understand the idea of “plausible deniability.”

    It is an objective fact (not a presumption) that you have a track record of not really wanting things you have asked for, because once you are provided with them, you move the goal posts.

    One person’s “goalposts” is another person’s subsequent questions.
    It is an objective fact (not a presumption) that the receipt would prove nothing, not even that a COLB was ordered.
    Really? Then why does the IRS require receipts when it comes to determining some individual’s or corporation’s tax liabilities?

    I guess all this time that individuals whom I’m sure we both know who, say, contract for a living would be simultaneously relieved and scared out of their minds that a receipt really doesn’t prove anything at all, according to what you’ve just said.

    It is an objective fact (not a presumption) that no evidence has been shown to exist that contradicts the COLB.

    Once again, the lack of evidence merely shows that evidence is lacking. And that is simply for a snapshot in time.

    For example, Joe down the street shows zero evidence of having cancer today, but ends of dying of cancer 5 months later.

    I’m sure that the mythical Joe would have loved to stay attached to the fact that, 5 months earlier, there was no evidence that he possessed any cancer.

    Regarding eligibility, I have a whole site worth of discussions regarding the “lack of evidence” question. I’m not going to reprise all of that in this discussion.

    So again, Phil, the non-Rhetorical question:

    Why are there Birthers?

    As I’ve said before:

    I cannot prove Mr. Obama is ineligible for the presidency; however, you cannot prove that he is eligible.

    -Phil

  176. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    brygenon,

    While you certainly have every right to hold a negative perspective about me, I am only going to answer some of your claims about me, below. I am certainly not going to answer every claim you make about me, because I have neither the time nor the patience to do so:

    And all I want to see is a receipt.

    Well, at least that’s progress. Previously, Phil, you had been on about a whole lot of other eligibility-denier nonsense. Glad to hear it’s down to just this one thing, and that it was just your choice, not anyone like me shutting you up.

    Of course I’m being facetious. We all know that Phil is not telling the truth there; he’ll say a receipt is all he wants if that’s best smear he can think to write at the time. The interesting question is why he would pretend that the receipt is all important, when it’s so demonstrably false. Why demand a receipt to prove a legal state record when we all know that state records are legally proven by the seal and attestation of the record keeper and not by showing a receipt?

    Actually, it’s not “down to just this one thing,” and I never claimed such a sentiment — so, since folks like you like to say that I’m always moving the proverbial goalposts, you’d better get some wheels installed on ‘em! :)

    And secondly, I never denied that the alleged COLB could be entered as evidence in Court and could be used as a means of substantiating eligibility.

    And Phil, as you so disingenuously try to act like you’re asking serious questions, have you considered the questions you fail to ask? The report at issue here noted that there is no official procedure for vetting eligibility of elected federal officers. Never has been. That seems to be a big deal to you, but you’re not on about vetting the constitutional eligibility of President Reagan, nor Eisenhower, nor any of the other first 43 presidents. A week and half ago we elected 472 members of Congress; we’re right now in the period between their election and their seating in our 112′th Congress. Not a peep from you about any need to vet their eligibility. Your relentless “questioning”, Phil, is about the eligibility of the one and only elected federal officer in our nation’s history who, in the course of attaining the office, exhibited a properly proven legal record to show he was constitutionally eligible.

    Regarding previous Presidents, I have already addressed this on my site, I think over a year ago, in fact. If you’re all that interested in debunking this claim of yours, go do a search — my site is fully open to searching, even via Google.

    The bottom line on the previous Presidents issue is that they should have been vetted, but since my site only started on approximately October 18, 2008, it doesn’t chronologically go back as far as the timeframes of these previous Presidents (nor was I alive for all of them), and, more importantly, the eligibility issue wasn’t an issue for me until approximately August of 2008, because of my own ignorance (which I’d also previously admitted both here on my site and in a couple of Blog Talk Radio interviews I’ve given, I think).

    Make of that what you will (I’m sure everyone will regardless).

    -Phil

  177. 11/15/2010bob says:

    since there are no laws that determine presidential eligibility, nor to what extent to determine it, nor who has the authority to make such a decision, nor any evidence in the public domain that suggests that Mr. Obama was not otherwise born in Hawaii, but no substantiation for an alleged COLB posted on a third-party blog, it’s a tough case to make, either way.

    Not tough at all:
    1. SCOTUS has ruled the term “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution includes birth in United States; numerous judges, professors, and other experts agree with this definition (and none do not);
    2. Pre-election candidate challenges over eligibility occur regularly in the court systems, and the Constitution details how to remove a sitting president; and
    3. Hawaii’s uncontested, publicly accessible records show President Obama was born in Hawaii (and thus in the United States).

    This nation’s prolific acceptance of self-attestation for candidates for elected offices does not compel that one candidate for one office during one election cycle should be held to ridiculously higher standards. Especially without any competent evidence to support these allegations.

    Your Doubting Thomas routine’s attempt to move the goalposts remains entirely unconvincing (except, perhaps, to yourself) .

    If your perspective is to get me to shut up

    Assumptions; heal thyself, physician.

    I didn’t know that if Sen. McCain made the decision to not pursue Mr. Obama’s eligibility, then that should have settled it!

    Rational people understand if the person who had the most to gain from this “issue” (as well as the means and opportunity to pursue it) expressly rejected this “issue,” then there’s no “there” there.

    Which is why “birther” is just a punchline, and nothing more.

    Just the receipt, sir.

    Here you go.

  178. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    since there are no laws that determine presidential eligibility, nor to what extent to determine it, nor who has the authority to make such a decision, nor any evidence in the public domain that suggests that Mr. Obama was not otherwise born in Hawaii, but no substantiation for an alleged COLB posted on a third-party blog, it’s a tough case to make, either way.

    Not tough at all:
    1. SCOTUS has ruled the term “natural born Citizen” in the U.S. Constitution includes birth in United States; numerous judges, professors, and other experts agree with this definition (and none do not);

    The actual question of presidential eligibility, however, has not been heard by SCOTUS.

    2. Pre-election candidate challenges over eligibility occur regularly in the court systems, and the Constitution details how to remove a sitting president; and

    I don’t think I’ve ever doubted this.

    3. Hawaii’s uncontested, publicly accessible records show President Obama was born in Hawaii (and thus in the United States).

    If only that alleged COLB had a receipt, there’d at least be a starting point that concluded that this random image posted online is legitimate.

    This nation’s prolific acceptance of self-attestation for candidates for elected offices does not compel that one candidate for one office during one election cycle should be held to ridiculously higher standards. Especially without any competent evidence to support these allegations.

    And yes, I’m fully aware that requiring substantiation for eligibility is — to use your term — a “ridiculously higher standard[],” even though it’s a constitutional requirement.

    The question has always been, how is eligibility substantiated, to what degree, and who makes the call?

    Your Doubting Thomas routine’s attempt to move the goalposts remains entirely unconvincing (except, perhaps, to yourself) .

    Like I said to SanDiegoSam today, you’d better get some wheels on those goal posts; after all, every time I or someone sympathetic to my views raises a question, folks like you claim it’s a move…

    So I guess we’re going to do a whole lotta movin’! Correction, you already think we’ve been doin’ a whole lotta movin’. And yet you persist on the belief that you have to make folks like me either change our minds or castigate us for what you think is so obvious. All because you feel as if you have to debunk us (that, I believe, is brygenon’s excuse for perusing my site) based on your perspective.

    I must once again say I’m rather flattered at the concept that anyone would take my humble, little site so seriously as to spend any kind of time on it.

    I didn’t know that if Sen. McCain made the decision to not pursue Mr. Obama’s eligibility, then that should have settled it!

    Rational people understand if the person who had the most to gain from this “issue” (as well as the means and opportunity to pursue it) expressly rejected this “issue,” then there’s no “there” there.

    Which is why “birther” is just a punchline, and nothing more.

    Of course, I completely disagree with your Sen. McCain premise.

    However, it should be painfully obvious to the casual observer that saying that being a “birther” is synonymous with being worthy of only comedic “punchline[s],” as you’ve termed it, doesn’t stop anything.

    I guess maybe there are some people that think, “If we just tell them that they’re being stupid and silly long enough, they’ll feel as if they need their opinion to be validated by us, and will then simply go along to get along.”

    I guess I just don’t fit the mold.

    -Phil

  179. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    bob,

    This was so choice — even for you — that I had to create a separate reply.

    ****ATTENTION!!! ATTENTION!!!******

    bob has found an image of the receipt for Mr. Obama’s certification of live birth!

    It’s right here >>>>> LINK <<<<<<<

    ****** THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION *****

    Oh! Wait! Doesn’t it cost $10.00 to get a COLB? Now it’s $12.50? Maybe we’ll have to blame this on “Quantitative Easing II,” eh? Inflation — yeah, that’s it!

    [smirk]

    There’s a part of me that thinks I should make a posting out of this splendid item. Of course, if I did, I’d simply have to point out the sheer, unadulterated irony of the situation!

    Or, to put it another way, it’s just another image floating around on the Internet!

    No, really, bob — that’s just awesome. Very, very cool. And shows that, underneath it all, you have a great sense of humor.

    -Phil

  180. 11/15/2010Granite says:

    Phil said: “I don’t think I ever stated that the HI DoH didn’t have Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate on file; that’s why I used the qualified verbiage in my point 1, “vital documentation.” That includes what they have on hand.”

    Okay. But you did not say that (1) the officials have specifically said that they do have the original birth certificate on hand, and (2) that this was the first of two confirmations, and (3) the second confirmation said that the document VERIFIES that Obama was born in hand.

    Re; “Nobody knows outside the DoH what exactly is on file for Mr. Obama.”

    Answer: Actually, we are not sure of this. I searched the DoH rules and could not find that the document was only available to the DoH and the department of vital records. Others may have asked to see it too, such as the police and the atty general, and maybe the governor. (This is simply speculation, I admit, but your assumption that ONLY the DOH saw the original document is equally speculation. The document cannot legally be shown outside of government except to a select list. Possibly it can be shown widely within government).

    However, as I pointed out before, IF there were a suspicion that the COLB was forged or that the COLB or officials lied about the place of birth, the CONSERVATIVE atty general of Hawaii could have taken legal action against them, and he did no such thing.

    Re: “So, who knows exactly what they have on hand, except for them…”

    Answer. The fundamental answer is that that is the way that birth certificates work. The certificate says that the filed documents (which we do not and cannot see) state the following facts, and the certificate (or certification, the name doesn’t matter) is the legal document, so it must be accepted, barring proof to the contrary. That is the first answer.

    The second answer is that in 1961 an original birth certificate from any place other than Hawaii was not allowed to be filed in Hawaii. That was not allowed until 1982. Yet we know that Obama’s birth certificate was filed in 1961, and that the officials have stated that it is an original birth certificate. We also know that Obama was born in 1961 both from the COLB and from the notices in the newspapers, and the notices were sent out by the department of vital records, so there was an Obama birth file in Hawaii in 1961.

    The third answer is that if would make little sense for three officials in Hawaii (the clerk and the heads of the departments of vital records and health) all to have said “born in Hawaii” if the document said: “born in Kenya.’ That would presumably be some kind of fraud, and as I said if there were a hint of such a fraud, the atty general could have taken action. So it would have been %$%#@*&^ stupid for them to have lied about the place of birth—and of course they didn’t.

    So for you to say “except for them’ is a little like saying “except for the evidence.”

    The three main points are: (1) that is the way birth certificates work; (2) the original document in the file cannot have been from another country; (3) the risk of being caught makes the confirmations highly likely to be the truth. The second of the confirmations says that the document VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    In addition, we have the confirmation of the witness who recalls being told of Obamas’ birth in Hawaii, and of the governor of Hawaii (who may only have been repeating what the officials said, or perhaps she had further information; after all she named the hospital, where the officials didn’t).

    Re: “and they’re not declaring that Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. “

    Answer; Of course not, it is not their job.

    Re: ‘They’re only declaring what they believe to be true.”

    Answer: Yes indeed. I agree. They were stating what they believe to be true, based on the facts in the file, which is the way that birth certificates work. If we both agree that the officials are stating what they believe to be true and hence are NOT lying, then the official document in the files MUST say that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    But you clearly think that this is not sufficient proof. You say: “then it is all clearly left to the court of public opinion.”

    Answer: It was left to the court of public opinion in the national election, which Obama won 69 million to 59 million, and the Electoral College, which Obama also won strongly. After the election, public opinion is irrelevant. The only way that a president can be removed is by impeachment, which means in the case of an eligiblity-based impeachment that the facts would have to be proven to an investigating committee, and then to a majority of the House of Reps, and then to two-thirds of the Senate. And, how would the initial committee find out anything other than what we already know?

    It could subpoena the original, but we know that the officials have said that the original says “born in Hawaii.’ Since there was always a chance that the original could be subpoenaed, the officials would have been fools to lie about what it said. So, what are chances that there would be even an investigation?

  181. 11/15/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    The only comment in Phils response to me that is even mildly interesting is:

    Really? Then why does the IRS require receipts when it comes to determining some individual’s or corporation’s tax liabilities?

    1. They don’t. Unless they are actually conducting an audit, the IRS requires no receipts whatsoever when individuals or companies file their tax returns.

    2. Even when conducting an audit, receipts are desired, but not required. There are six different ways to claim deductions even without receipts or canceled checks, to include oral testimony, affidavits and reconstructed accounting records.

    3. The IRS can challenge any receipt they choose if it does not contain the information necessary to link it to the deduction in question… like the receipt you ask for fails to do.

    4. When audits actually are performed, a tax return (unlike the president’s COLB) is not a self authenticating (i.e. prima facie) document under the federal rules of evidence.

    So, nice try. No cigar.

  182. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    Granite,

    Re; “Nobody knows outside the DoH what exactly is on file for Mr. Obama.”

    Answer: Actually, we are not sure of this. I searched the DoH rules and could not find that the document was only available to the DoH and the department of vital records. Others may have asked to see it too, such as the police and the atty general, and maybe the governor. (This is simply speculation, I admit, but your assumption that ONLY the DOH saw the original document is equally speculation. The document cannot legally be shown outside of government except to a select list. Possibly it can be shown widely within government).

    However, as I pointed out before, IF there were a suspicion that the COLB was forged or that the COLB or officials lied about the place of birth, the CONSERVATIVE atty general of Hawaii could have taken legal action against them, and he did no such thing.

    Per your first paragraph, I like your thinking. That speculation is equally as permissible in the court of public opinion as mine is. The issue is whether or not a Court order was issued for any official to peruse Mr. Obama’s records. Privacy works both ways.

    Secondly, the whole concept of partisanship with respect to eligibility is really irrelevant to me. Considering how radical to the Left that conservatives are in America, if HI AG were truly conservative, I could just as easy say that he would have taken action against Mr. Obama; either way, we simply don’t know and can only speculate out to the third standard deviation of that bell curve.

    Re: “So, who knows exactly what they have on hand, except for them…”

    Answer. The fundamental answer is that that is the way that birth certificates work. The certificate says that the filed documents (which we do not and cannot see) state the following facts, and the certificate (or certification, the name doesn’t matter) is the legal document, so it must be accepted, barring proof to the contrary. That is the first answer.

    The fundamental aspects of the original birth certificate document, if it exists, would answer a lot.

    The second answer is that in 1961 an original birth certificate from any place other than Hawaii was not allowed to be filed in Hawaii. That was not allowed until 1982. Yet we know that Obama’s birth certificate was filed in 1961, and that the officials have stated that it is an original birth certificate. We also know that Obama was born in 1961 both from the COLB and from the notices in the newspapers, and the notices were sent out by the department of vital records, so there was an Obama birth file in Hawaii in 1961.

    Can you cite a reference that backs up your claim?

    The third answer is that if would make little sense for three officials in Hawaii (the clerk and the heads of the departments of vital records and health) all to have said “born in Hawaii” if the document said: “born in Kenya.’ That would presumably be some kind of fraud, and as I said if there were a hint of such a fraud, the atty general could have taken action. So it would have been %$%#@*&^ stupid for them to have lied about the place of birth—and of course they didn’t.

    See this link from “Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer,” and following into the next section.

    The gentleman who put this info together does an even better job than I of explaining why I question.

    So for you to say “except for them’ is a little like saying “except for the evidence.”

    The three main points are: (1) that is the way birth certificates work; (2) the original document in the file cannot have been from another country; (3) the risk of being caught makes the confirmations highly likely to be the truth. The second of the confirmations says that the document VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    In addition, we have the confirmation of the witness who recalls being told of Obamas’ birth in Hawaii, and of the governor of Hawaii (who may only have been repeating what the officials said, or perhaps she had further information; after all she named the hospital, where the officials didn’t).

    “[W]itness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii?” Who was that?

    But you clearly think that this is not sufficient proof. You say: “then it is all clearly left to the court of public opinion.”

    Answer: It was left to the court of public opinion in the national election, which Obama won 69 million to 59 million, and the Electoral College, which Obama also won strongly.

    According to the Constitution, strong Electoral College wins do not bypass Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. In fact, in the Constitution, a national popular vote was (and is) irrelevant to the situation.

    After the election, public opinion is irrelevant.

    Then I guess we should trash the 25th Amendment then, huh? After all, in the opinion of high-level public officials (enough of them), a President could be considered unfit for office.

    The only way that a president can be removed is by impeachment, which means in the case of an eligiblity-based impeachment that the facts would have to be proven to an investigating committee, and then to a majority of the House of Reps, and then to two-thirds of the Senate. And, how would the initial committee find out anything other than what we already know?

    Such a committee would have the subpoena power to confirm/deny Mr. Obama’s background documentation.

    It could subpoena the original, but we know that the officials have said that the original says “born in Hawaii.’ Since there was always a chance that the original could be subpoenaed, the officials would have been fools to lie about what it said. So, what are chances that there would be even an investigation?

    And, ultimately, that’s really all that I care about — getting the official documentation verified.

    -Phil

  183. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    Well, golly-gee, everyone — go throw out all your receipts! SanDiegoSam says they really don’t mean squat!

    (I, of course, am being highly sarcastic, and would never suggest that anyone not keep their evidence of transactions for tax purposes)

    -Phil

  184. 11/16/2010brygenon says:

    While you certainly have every right to hold a negative perspective about me

    I’m all about the demo.

    Actually, it’s not “down to just this one thing,” and I never claimed such a sentiment — so, since folks like you like to say that I’m always moving the proverbial goalposts, you’d better get some wheels installed on ‘em! :)

    Phil I *quoted* you: “And all I want to see is a receipt.” You’re not fooling anyone. There’s only one reason to pretend a receipt is a big deal, and that’s because no one is ever likely to bother showing one. Obama showed the right evidence to prove his eligibility during the 2008 campaign, so you have to make it about the wrong evidence.

    And secondly, I never denied that the alleged COLB could be entered as evidence in Court and could be used as a means of substantiating eligibility.

    Is that supposed to be a response to something I wrote?

    And Phil, as you so disingenuously try to act like you’re asking serious questions, have you considered the questions you fail to ask? The report at issue here noted that there is no official procedure for vetting eligibility of elected federal officers. Never has been. That seems to be a big deal to you, but you’re not on about vetting the constitutional eligibility of President Reagan, nor Eisenhower, nor any of the other first 43 presidents. A week and half ago we elected 472 members of Congress; we’re right now in the period between their election and their seating in our 112’th Congress. Not a peep from you about any need to vet their eligibility. Your relentless “questioning”, Phil, is about the eligibility of the one and only elected federal officer in our nation’s history who, in the course of attaining the office, exhibited a properly proven legal record to show he was constitutionally eligible.

    Regarding previous Presidents, I have already addressed this on my site, I think over a year ago, in fact. If you’re all that interested in debunking this claim of yours, go do a search — my site is fully open to searching, even via Google.

    Yes Phil, for over a year when I’ve pointed out that you are singularly smearing Obama, you say the others should have been vetted too, but just as I wrote here, you’re not on about vetting anyone but Obama.

    The bottom line on the previous Presidents issue is that they should have been vetted, but since my site only started on approximately October 18, 2008, it doesn’t chronologically go back as far as the timeframes of these previous Presidents (nor was I alive for all of them), and, more importantly, the eligibility issue wasn’t an issue for me until approximately August of 2008, because of my own ignorance (which I’d also previously admitted both here on my site and in a couple of Blog Talk Radio interviews I’ve given, I think).

    So now would be the time to vet those 472 federal officers we just elected, every one which must meet a constitutional eligibility requirement. Turns out the Constitution is not really what you care about.

  185. 11/16/2010bob says:

    The actual question of presidential eligibility, however, has not been heard by SCOTUS.

    SCOTUS also has never heard the actual question regarding whether it is murder if you commit the killing while wearing a purple suit. Did you waste two years of your life obsessively writing about the possibility of purple-suit-wearing mass-murder sprees?

    If only that alleged COLB had a receipt, there’d at least be a starting point that concluded that this random image posted online is legitimate.

    Did I say anything about a COLB, or an online image? THE STATE OF HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII. The red-herring receipt is about the stupidest “eligibility issue” ever raised here, and that’s no mean feat.

    And yes, I’m fully aware that requiring substantiation for eligibility is to use your term a ridiculously higher standard[], even though it’s a constitutional requirement.

    You seriously cannot read for comprehension: President Obama is being held to a ridiculously higher standard than any other candidate for that (or any other) public office during that (or any other) election cycle. (And eligibility verification isn’t constitutionally required.)

    The question has always been, how is eligibility substantiated, to what degree, and who makes the call?

    Have you not been paying attention? How: Relevant competent evidence. What degree: Preponderance of the evidence. Who: Pre-election: courts; post-election: Congress.

    Not rocket science.

    every time I or someone sympathetic to my views raises a question, folks like you claim it’s a move

    If the goalpost-moving shoe fits….

    And yet you persist on the belief ….

    Again, assumptions: Heal thyself, physician.

    Of course, I completely disagree with your Sen. McCain premise.

    Which is why I intentionally limited it to include only rational people.

  186. 11/16/2010Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Actually, it’s not “down to just this one thing,” and I never claimed such a sentiment — so, since folks like you like to say that I’m always moving the proverbial goalposts, you’d better get some wheels installed on ‘em!

    Phil I *quoted* you: “And all I want to see is a receipt.” You’re not fooling anyone.

    Apparently I fooled you. Of course a receipt isn’t the only thing I’m personally looking at with respect to eligibility.

    There’s only one reason to pretend a receipt is a big deal, and that’s because no one is ever likely to bother showing one. Obama showed the right evidence to prove his eligibility during the 2008 campaign, so you have to make it about the wrong evidence.

    Correction: “Obama showed the right evidence [for you] to prove his eligibility during the 2008 campaign.”

    I’ve said this over and over again: Because there are no federal (or State, for that matter) statutes that govern presidential eligibility (in terms of the enforcement thereof), the only thing that’s left is the court of public opinion.

    You say you’re satisfied with what’s presented, I say I’m not. And ’round and ’round we go.

    And secondly, I never denied that the alleged COLB could be entered as evidence in Court and could be used as a means of substantiating eligibility.

    Is that supposed to be a response to something I wrote?

    It’s called context. I was further fleshing out my viewpoint. Of course, there are times like this when I wonder why I even bother.

    Regarding previous Presidents, I have already addressed this on my site, I think over a year ago, in fact. If you’re all that interested in debunking this claim of yours, go do a search — my site is fully open to searching, even via Google.

    Yes Phil, for over a year when I’ve pointed out that you are singularly smearing Obama, you say the others should have been vetted too, but just as I wrote here, you’re not on about vetting anyone but Obama.

    Since you seem to hold this aspect near and dear to your heart (else you wouldn’t be bringing it up as much as you and others do), I’ll make you a deal:

    Barring some unforeseen circumstance (which is kind of a given, since nobody knows the future for sure), if Mr. Obama either (1) gets Primaries in the DNC for 2012; or (2) loses the 2012 election; or (3) makes it all the way through to 2016, in which case, after 2016, I’ll be more than happy to drop pushing to look at Mr. Obama’s background documentation to check his eligibility.

    Why is that? Because like all past Presidents (as he would be at that time), while it would be a wonderful thing to spend the time to find out if all past chief executives were truly natural born citizens, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is only in force for those who either are President or who are actively aspiring to the top job.

    Maybe I’m reading the Constitution wrong on that point; if so, I’m sure you or someone else will be glad to let me know.

    So now would be the time to vet those 472 federal officers we just elected, every one which must meet a constitutional eligibility requirement. Turns out the Constitution is not really what you care about.

    Regarding your first sentence, I don’t disagree.

    Regarding your second sentence, as I’ve said many times before, feel free to characterize my thinking process however you wish.

    -Phil

  187. 11/16/2010sharon2 says:

    “Did you waste two years of your life obsessively writing about the possibility of purple-suit-wearing mass-murder sprees?”

    From an agitated man posting comments at a time when Phil is getting a good night’s rest…

  188. 11/16/2010Phil says:

    “Did you waste two years of your life obsessively writing about the possibility of purple-suit-wearing mass-murder sprees?”

    From an agitated man posting comments at a time when Phil is getting a good night’s rest…

    It would be interesting to turn the question around. I’m wondering how many in the opposition feel that they’ve wasted lots of electronic ink on a very, very little-known personal blog out here in the blogosphere who refuses to stop questioning even when the apparent lack of evidence would seem (to some) to suggest that the question has already been answered.

    Well, of course, that would actually require a government official to specifically certify, say, the alleged COLB to be authentic (yes, yes, yes, I know, “But Phil, the document has a seal on it!” What — someone (we don’t know who, specifically) gave FactCheck some document (with no specific claims as to its origination) and posted it online saying, “See? Here it is! Now, stop questioning!”).

    Also, just because federal/State law doesn’t require background documentation to substantiate presidential eligibility doesn’t stop anyone from giving the alleged document to a government-run web site — say, the FEC — for full display, now, does it?

    Like I’ve said before: I can’t prove that Mr. Obama isn’t eligible, and the opposition can’t prove that he is. At this point, it’s all a matter of personal opinion.

    Alas, lots in the opposition think I’m being disingenuous with my questions, and that’s fine; that’s their prerogative. As I’ve just said, though, I get a kick out of the fact that my little web site here has provoked so much antipathy from the opposition.

    Really, all I am is a concerned citizen. That’s it.

    If this is how some random dude is treated in the blogosphere, you gotta wonder how the opposition would treat an actual enemy of theirs that they’d actually be able to converse with in real life… yikes!

    -Phil

  189. 11/16/2010Granite says:

    Phil:

    Regarding: Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer

    That only works if the family claims that the child was born without a doctor or midwife present. In Obama’s situation, it only affects birth inside of the USA if all these things happen at the same time: (1) He was born outside of the USA; (2) his parents or grandparents claimed that he was born in Hawaii and that there was no physician presdent; (3) The officials in Hawaii at the time accepted this claim without a demand for further evidence (and the PUMA Lori, a former obstetric nurse, said that the procedure was to demand further evidence such as doctor checkups); (4) The officials at the time generated a Hawaii birth document stating that Obama was born in Honolulu–when they have said that what they do is to create a Hawaii birth certificate without any place of birth; (5) the officials today saw the original report of birth without a doctor present and LIED when they said that it verified birth in Hawaii because as you have said, a report of birth at home might be inconclusive and therefore could hardly be said to have verified; (6) the witness is lying about her discussion with the doctor from Kapiolani Hospital back in 1961; (7) The governor of Hawaii is lying about Kapiolani Hospital.

    The law that allowed foreign births to be registered in Hawaii was passed in 1982. Yes, as Obama Presidential Eligibility – An Introductory Primer says, it was possible to register an unattended birth, but that is NOT the same thing as putting a New Jersey birth certificate into a Hawaii birth certificate file. The officials in Hawaii have said that there is an original birth certificate in the file, therefore it cannot be from New Jersey or Kenya.

    Re your claim that the original would show more. Only if the officials, the governor and the witness all are lying. In any case, it is HAWAII’S decision not to send out the original anymore. You are welcome to lobby the new governor and legislature of Hawaii to change that rule and allow the original to be sent out again–but, I am certain that it would show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  190. 11/16/2010Granite says:

    Re: “[W]itness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii?” Who was that?”

    And here is the statement of the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

  191. 11/16/2010bob says:

    It would be interesting to turn the question around.

    What would be interesting if you could answer the freakin’ question posed to you: Why haven’t you spent the last two years obsessively writing about the fear of a purple-suit mass-murder spree? It is, after all, still a question that SCOTUS has not decided.

    Also, just because federal/State law doesn’t require background documentation to substantiate presidential eligibility doesn’t stop anyone from giving the alleged document to a government-run web site — say, the FEC — for full display, now, does it?

    Why would the FEC do that? The FEC administers and enforces the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) – the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The FEC is not a government-run photo-sharing site.

    I can’t prove that Mr. Obama isn’t eligible, and the opposition can’t prove that he is.

    Wrong. Again. It has been proved, repeatedly; you just refuse to accept that proof:
    1. Uncontradicted law has ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient for natural-born citizenship.
    2. Uncontradicted competent evidence demonstrates President Obama was born in Hawaii, which is in the United States.

    Anything else is an argument from ignorance, or goalpost shifting.

    I’ve said this over and over again: Because there are no federal (or State, for that matter) statutes that govern presidential eligibility (in terms of the enforcement thereof), the only thing that’s left is the court of public opinion.

    Or the actual courts, or Congress (depending on when enforcement is sought).

  192. 11/16/2010qwertyman says:

    I never claimed that it was or was not falsified, and I think that the HI DoH has every reason to believe that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.

    “Just wanting to see a receipt” is an indirect allegation that you believe that the COLB is somehow falsified and that the DoH is lying. Your feeble attempts to pretend to be neutral or not jumping to conclusions are not convincing.

    And I think that’s why folks like you want folks like me to just shut up about the whole thing. It raises too many questions and the stakes are way too high. For some.

    The “questions raised” are not based on any competent evidence.

    Either way, you are once again free to characterize my request for the alleged COLB’s receipt as “completely pointless,” but, once again, that won’t get me to shut up about it.

    I know it won’t; conspiracy theorists often believe that a complete lack of evidence is evidence of a cover up, rather than, you know, a complete lack of evidence! You have your conclusion (Obama must somehow be ineligible; after all, by your words he is a secret Muslim who hates America!) and you try to do your damnedest to find some way of showing that he is ineligible for office.

  193. 11/16/2010Bill Cutting says:

    Granite
    [Reply: DREAM ON. We in the real world know that the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen referred simply to the place of birth, and that AMERICANS at the time of the writing of the Constitution never used it to refer to the parents of the citizen. That is why dozens of Constitutional and legal scholars have held as in the following quotations:]

    Hey another OBOT who has never read the 1795 Naturalization act signed by President GW and Vice president JA.

  194. 11/16/2010Bill Cutting says:

    sponge bob said
    [So you concede that President Obama is a natural born citizen under Wong Kim Ark, and you merely disagree with the result in that case.

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    I am proposing inviting Prince William of England and his bride to be, to the USA to birth their first child. He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.

  195. 11/16/2010Bill Cutting says:

    Phil

    I am creating the “Romney Conspiracy Theory.Org” blog to get a head start for 2012.

    Regards

    Bill

  196. 11/16/2010Granite says:

    Re: The invitation to the British royalty to have their child in the USA. “He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.”

    Answer. Yes, he or she would be eligible, big deal.

    Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    “Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

    Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

    “The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

  197. 11/16/2010Granite says:

    Re: “the 1795 Naturalization act signed by President GW and Vice president JA.”

    Answer: All that that act did was to add the foreign-born children of US citizens to the class of already existing Natural Born Citizens, and the class of natural born citizens were (and still are) the US citizens who were born in the country. The only 35-year old 14-year-resident US citizens who are excluded from eligibility are naturalized citizens.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  198. 11/16/2010qwertyman says:

    Answer. Yes, he or she would be eligible, big deal.

    I’m not so sure. Prince William is in line to the throne of the UK, he could easily qualify as a foreign diplomat when traveling through the US. If he was to renounce any rights to the monarchy though, and was a private British subject, then any child he had in the US would absolutely be eligible.

    Of course, Bill is just putting together a strawman and ignoring the fact that there is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with his interpretation.

  199. 11/16/2010qwertyman says:

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    The case explicitly stated as part of its reasoning that anybody born in the US, regardless of parentage (with inapplicable exceptions to Obama), is a natural born citizen.

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    In the unlikely event of Wong being overturned, that in itself would not make Obama retroactively ineligible for office. The Supreme Court is not going to retroactively remove citizenship from millions of Americans going back over a century. Not even the Republicans advocating the repeal of the 14th Amendment are suggesting that they would try to retroactively remove citizenship from those born here.

  200. 11/17/2010bob says:

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    Because it is the law. Duh.

    What if it was overturned ?

    As there’s no indication that will happen, I don’t give it much thought.

    Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    If your hypothetical situation occurred, I would have to study the specific changes in the law before having an informed opinion.

    I am proposing inviting Prince William of England and his bride to be, to the USA to birth their first child.

    Weird hobby, but whatever floats your boat. (And why would they ever accept?)

    He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.

    Not “the OBOT” definition. The law of the United States. Duh.

    Now, if this U.S.-born child of Prince William, for reasons inexplicable, sought both the American presidency and the British Crown …

    … President Obama would still be eligible, as he is not in line for the British Crown.

    * * *

    If this is how some random dude is treated in the blogosphere, you gotta wonder how the opposition would treat an actual enemy of theirs that they’d actually be able to converse with in real life yikes!

    Thankfully, Walter Fitzpatrick is in jail, and hopefully won’t harm anyone while there. And Darren Huff will likely soon be joining him there.

  201. 11/17/2010Granite says:

    Re: “I’m not so sure. Prince William is in line to the throne of the UK, he could easily qualify as a foreign diplomat when traveling through the US. If he was to renounce any rights to the monarchy though, and was a private British subject, then any child he had in the US would absolutely be eligible.’

    Answer: No, so long as the child is born in the USA and neither parent is a foreign diplomat she or he is Natural Born. If that person gives up citizenship before 35 she or he is not a citizen and hence not a Natural Born Citizen.

    But foreign laws, such as the succession to foreign crowns, have no effect on the situation. And for good reason. How can we allow some foreign law affect the capabilities of a US-born citizen? For that reason dual nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. Some countries hold that the children of their citizens are still citizens of that country EVEN IF their parents have become naturalized citizens of the USA. Others say the children are not citizens if they are not born in that country. US law says that we don’t care about the foreign laws on the matter; only our laws apply.

    The Constitution excludes foreigners from becoming president and it excludes naturalized citizens, but it does not exclude ANY US-born citizen.

  202. 11/17/2010Granite says:

    Further to the Prince William discussion. Re diplomat. You may be right on William having diplomat status. If so, the child would not be eligible. However, King Bumiphol of Thailand actually WAS born in the USA, and if I remember right, he had to give up US citizenship in order to become king of Thailand. (The difference might be that Bumiphol was born during a coup of some kind and so his parents may not have had diplomatic status.)

  203. 11/17/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    @ Bill Cutting

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    Since it is the law, and we are talking of the law, why would you find that strange?

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    That would depend entirely on how it was overturned.

    I am proposing inviting Prince William of England and his bride to be, to the USA to birth their first child. He or she could then be eligible for President under the OBOT definition.

    Until prince William ascends to the throne, he does not carry diplomatic status while traveling abroad. So yes. Their child, if American born, would absolutely be eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution until such time as he became king.

  204. 11/17/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    Well, golly-gee, everyone — go throw out all your receipts! SanDiegoSam says they really don’t mean squat!

    Of course, I never said that. But as we know, when Phil cannot attack the argument being made, he invents another one.

  205. 11/17/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    But foreign laws, such as the succession to foreign crowns, have no effect on the situation. And for good reason. How can we allow some foreign law affect the capabilities of a US-born citizen? For that reason dual nationality has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status.

    This is not entirely a hypothetical situation, either. In the line of succession to the British throne, # 46 is Tewa Lascelles. Born in Edgewood, New Mexico he is both a natural born US citizen and British royalty.

    http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

    There are others… but he is closest to the throne.

  206. 11/17/2010brygenon says:

    Bill Cutting wrote::

    Strange how every OBOT points to the WKA as legitimizing OBAMA.

    We like arguments that *win* in court.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” — Court of Appeals of Indiana, Ankeny v. Daniels

    What if it was overturned ? Is OBAMA now ineligible in the eyes of the OBOT?

    Happy fantasizing.

  207. 11/20/2010robert strauss says:

    SanDiegoSam says:
    November 17, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    Until prince William ascends to the throne, he does not carry diplomatic status while traveling abroad. So yes. Their child, if American born, would absolutely be eligible for the Presidency under the Constitution until such time as he became king.
    **********************************
    Sam, Do you really think the framers of the Constitution, after going to great lengths to provide for the security of the country in declaring no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be president, would allow the son of a Prince of England to be Commander in Chief of the military? You don’t give the framers of the Constitution much credit do you? Your arguments are absurd, and make all of you obots look like fools, and liars.

    Seriously Sam, do you really think the framers were that stupid, as to allow the son of any foreigner to be eligible to be President? Where is the security in that? It just shows how ridiculous your argument is.

  208. 11/20/2010bob says:

    Sam, Do you really think the framers of the Constitution, after going to great lengths to provide for the security of the country in declaring no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be president, would allow the son of a Prince of England to be Commander in Chief of the military?

    I suspect the Prince of England (as heir appearant) travels on a diplomatic passport. So any child of his born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen.

    Next phantom problem?

  209. 11/21/2010Bill Cutting says:

    I suspect the Prince of England (as heir appearant) travels on a diplomatic passport. So any child of his born in the United States would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural-born citizen.
    —————————————————————————————————–

    Maybe, Maybe not

    [Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity.]

    Now if the 14th ammendment were enforced as it was intended by congress, it would be crystal clear. Not even a U. S. citizen.

  210. 11/21/2010Granite says:

    “Do you really think the framers of the Constitution, after going to great lengths to provide for the security of the country in declaring no person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to be president, would allow the son of a Prince of England to be Commander in Chief of the military?’

    Answer: They really did not go to extraordinary lengths. Yes, they barred foreign citizens, and yes they barred naturalized citizens. But they did not, for example, bar convicted criminals from becoming president. They could have said “no Tories’ (Remember the Tories, the Americans who fought against the Revolution?) But they didn’t. They could have said; “No one convicted of treason,’ but they didn’t. They made very few exclusions. They excluded foreigners and they excluded naturalized citizens because they were not born in the USA (and those under 35 and not resident for 14 years). But that is all.

    Why not? Because the principle is that the voters decide and that the voters are smart enough to make the decisions.

    So, the question is, if the son of the King of England (or, say Thailand, whose king actually WAS born in the USA) was born in the USA, was a citizen of the USA, had lived in the USA for at least 14 years and was at least 35 years old and was ELECTED whether the framers would have excluded him? And the answer is, probably no, there is no evidence that they would have excluded him. If we have the right to vote for US-born criminals, we have the right to vote for the US-born son of a king. (And if we make a mistake, then we have the right to make mistakes.)

    Further to “great lengths.” I’ve always wondered if the framers were so worried about foreign influence why they required only 14 years of residence in the USA. If a candidate was 55 years old and had resided in the USA for only 14 years, he would have been outside of the USA for nearly three-quarters of her or his life. If that is allowed, and it is, and if US-born criminals are eligible, then what is the evidence that the framers were so terribly worried? The evidence is just the reverse, that they figured that the voters in future years could decide for themselves whether to vote for criminals, Tories, people who have lived most of their lives abroad, sons of kings or whatever.

  211. 11/21/2010Bill Cutting says:

    Obama changes the rules, Children of Diplomats now Natural Born Citizens?

    I guess that these children are now eligible to be POTUS. They have born in USA birth certificates like Obama.

    This get’s better every day

    [Children of Diplomats
    By Mark Krikorian , August 13, 2010
    There’s a wrinkle of the birthright citizenship debate that I think is telling. One thing that everyone accepts is that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes kids born here to representatives of foreign governments. Hans von Spakovsky points out in his comments at Politico, “All scholars agree that the children of diplomats are not citizens.” This comes up also at Ramesh Ponnuru’s forum on the topic at the Washington Post site, and pretty much everywhere else this issue is discussed, as a prefatory point not worth dwelling on.

    But it’s not true. It’s not true as a practical matter, and it seems the Obama State Department may be revising the formal rules as well.

    As a practical matter, there is nothing preventing the U.S.-born child of a foreign diplomat from simply making himself a U.S. citizen. I’d guess that a significant number of foreign diplomatic personnel live in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and some of them are bound to have children born there. I have three boys born in Virginia and didn’t notice anywhere on their birth certificates, or the forms I filled out at the hospital when they were born, anything asking whether I was the diplomatic representative of a foreign country. So I called the Virginia Department of Health, Office of Vital Records, and confirmed they do not make any inquiry or notation on the birth certificates they issue that the baby in question was born to foreign diplomats.

    That means such a person could use that birth certificate to get a Social Security number, a passport, and driver’s license, and register to vote. It’s not even fraud, because who are you to say that he’s not a U.S. citizen? He’s born here, he has a legitimate birth certificate, which is accepted in all instances as definitive proof of citizenship — he is a U.S. citizen.

    more here
    http://www.cis.org/krikorian/children-of-diplomats

  212. 11/21/2010bob says:

    Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity

    The monarch is literally the head of state. When diplomats travel (on diplomatic passports), they represent the state; this “agent of the Queen, not Parliament” is nonsense. (In the future, you should not rely on jsmack19 on wikilaw3k.org for legal advice.) Sovereign immunity is an entirely different concept, but you thus far have displayed no fear of speaking from ignorance.

    Obama changes the rules, Children of Diplomats now Natural Born Citizens?

    “Obots” haven’t changed any rules.

    I guess that these children are now eligible to be POTUS.

    No; as SCOTUS has ruled, as children of diplomats, they are not even citizens.

    They have born in USA birth certificates like Obama.

    Yes, because they were all born in the United States. It is not the birthing attendant’s or the state’s job to record whether a parent was a diplomat.

    While it would be possible for these diplomatic children to obtain government documents that only citizens are entitled to, i.e., a passport, that would be a crime, as by law, they are not citizens.

    And none of this applies to President Obama, as he was born in the United States, and neither parent was a foreign diplomat.

    Any more strawmen?

    Now if the 14th ammendment were enforced as it was intended by congress, it would be crystal clear.

    Glad to know you speak for Congress. And are smarter than SCOTUS. Can’t wait for you to proclaim yourself emperor.

  213. 11/21/2010Bill Cutting says:

    bob said

    [Yes, because they were all born in the United States. It is not the birthing attendant’s or the state’s job to record whether a parent was a diplomat.]

    Not suprising, you missed the point of the article completely.

    Who’s job is it bob ?

    They were born in the USA with valid birth cetificates. That makes them Natural Born Citizens. I don’t make the rules King OBAMA does.

    Why did OBAMA change the rules to begin with? I am sure you have an answer to this one smart guy.

    again

    [ It’s not even fraud, because who are you to say that he’s not a U.S. citizen? He’s born here, he has a legitimate birth certificate, which is accepted in all instances as definitive proof of citizenship — he is a U.S. citizen.]

    bob said

    [No; as SCOTUS has ruled, as children of diplomats, they are not even citizens.]

    You seem to be under the delusion that just because SCOTUS makes a ruling, the 2 other branches of government snap to, and follow suit. Wrong again!!

    Here is the OBAMA change.

    [Then there’s the formal rules about this. Here is what an older version of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual said (dated 1995, emphasis mine):

    Under international law, diplomatic agents are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state. Diplomatic agents are also immune, with limited exception, from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the state. The immunities of diplomatic agents extend to the members of their family forming part of their household. For this reason children born in the United States to diplomats to the United States are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and do not acquire U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment or the laws derived from it.

    So far so good. But the current version of the FAM no longer says that:

    “Blue List” Cases – Children of Foreign Diplomats: 7 FAM1100 Appendix J (under development) provides extensive guidance on the issue of children born in the United States to parents serving as foreign diplomats, consuls, or administrative and technical staff accredited to the United States, the United Nations, and specific international organizations, and whether such children are born “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”]

  214. 11/21/2010Bill Cutting says:

    [Prince Charles and his sons, acting as agents of the Queen, not Parliament would be considered under Sovereign Immunity rather than Diplomatic Immunity

    The monarch is literally the head of state. When diplomats travel (on diplomatic passports), they represent the state; this “agent of the Queen, not Parliament” is nonsense. (In the future, you should not rely on jsmack19 on wikilaw3k.org for legal advice.) Sovereign immunity is an entirely different concept, but you thus far have displayed no fear of speaking from ignorance.]

    Nice fabrication.

    You have no proof of what type of passport the English Monarchy travel under.

    Get back to us when you do.

  215. 11/21/2010bob says:

    You have no proof of what type of passport the English Monarchy travel under.

    Which is why I prefaced my comment with “I suspect.” If the heir apparent is not recognized as being a diplomat by law (and I don’t think the heir apparent is), I cannot think of a logical reason why the heir apparent would not travel on a diplomatic passport, when many who are not the heir apparent do so travel.

    And none of this applies to President Obama, as he is not in line for the British throne.

    Who’s job is it bob ?

    Nobody’s. If you think it is such a pressing concern about diplomat’s children’s birth certificates, then contact your legislator to sponsor a law to make it somebody’s job. Perhaps this primer on how laws are created can explain it for you.

    They were born in the USA with valid birth certificates. That makes them Natural Born Citizens.

    No; people born in the United States to a diplomat are not United States citizens. Possession of a (valid, even) birth certification does not automatically make a person a U.S. citizen, as there are two minor exceptions (this being one them) to the rule regarding birth in the United States.

    He’s born here, he has a legitimate birth certificate, which is accepted in all instances as definitive proof of citizenship — he is a U.S. citizen.

    Again, another one of your propter hoc mistakes: A birth certificate is evidence of place of birth (which is a question of fact), but it is not evidence of citizenship (which is a question of law). Although a birth certificate is proof of place of birth, if it used to gain a benefit reserved only for citizens, then that would be a crime.

    None of this, however, applies to President Obama, as neither of his parents were foreign diplomats.

    Why did OBAMA change the rules to begin with?

    President Obama didn’t change any rules.

    It’s not even fraud, because who are you to say that he’s not a U.S. citizen?

    I don’t say; SCOTUS says. (And, note, I never said “fraud”; I said “crime.”)

    You seem to be under the delusion that just because SCOTUS makes a ruling, the 2 other branches of government snap to, and follow suit. Wrong again!!

    Have you read Marbury v. Madison? Or, say, Federalist Paper No. 78?

    [Then there’s the formal rules about this. Here is what an older version of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual said (dated 1995, emphasis mine):

    1. If you attempting to prove that there was a change of law since 1995, you have to prove the change occurred while President Obama was president (as he was not president from 1995 to 2008).
    2. If you stopped mindless copying from this article, and actually read it, you’d note the author failed to demonstrate on actual conflict between the prior regulations and the present ones.

  216. 11/22/2010Granite1 says:

    We seem to have strayed from the basic discussion, which was:

    (1) whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii (He was, and he has proven it with the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the repeated confirmations of the Republican officials); and

    (2) Whether or not Obama’s father’s citizenship has any effect on his Natural Born Citizen status (It doesn’t, since every US citizen who is born in the country is a Natural Born Citizen).

  217. 11/29/2010Dan says:

    To Qwertyman: I have to laugh over your enthusiasm over Obama, however
    I admire your dedication to try and convince “American’s” that Obama is legit.

    To this Day………No Legal Proof. No Court has allowed Discovery. Why hasn’t
    Obama allowed Discovery????

    Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY
    being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? Which only proves his father was born in Kenya.

    That’s one you have failed to answer on many occasions.

    You have made fraudulent statements as usual. YOU HAVE NO LEGAL PROOF
    ABOUT OBAMA BECAUSE IT IS CONCEALED. HE SUBMITTED NOTHING BY HIMSELF,
    ONLY THROUGH FACTCHECK, ETC.. NOT HIM

    IF YOU HAD “LEGAL” PROOF IT WOULD BE ON THE “FRONT” PAGE OF EVERY
    NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD.

    Sure, Hawaii might have Obama’s “COLB”. That is “sealed”, which usually occurs
    after an adoption took place.

    Why don’t you consider reading “ALL” of Hawwaii Statutes, Federal Statutes and Our
    Constitution before making your “comments’

    If there was absolute “PROOF” of Obama’s citizenship there would not be
    any Lawsuits against him…….

    Since when does “COMMENT’S” over the internet prevail over a Legal Discovery?

    EVERYONE KNOWS, that not allowing Legal Discovery is cause for concern.
    You know it and everyone else knows it………….

    SHOW THE “PROOF” IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW… UNLESS YOU ARE AFRAID TO.

    Which must be, as it hasn’t happened yet.

    For someone who “thinks” or tries to project (he/she) knows the Law as you try
    so often, you have failed by NOT SHOWING US “Undeniable FACTS”, you only offer
    your opinion……..Again NO PROOF. We don’t want to hear about “here say” from
    Gov. Lingle or the Hawaii DoH. We know they “worded” their statements to say
    “only” they have his records on file. Hawaii Law prevents them from saying if
    Obama was adopted.

    Show us the LEGAL proof ……which you do not have…

  218. 12/1/2010qwertyman says:

    To this Day………No Legal Proof. No Court has allowed Discovery. Why hasn’t
    Obama allowed Discovery????

    No court has ordered discovery in a birther case, a streak unlikely to end any time soon.

    Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY
    being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? Which only proves his father was born in Kenya.

    A copy of Obama’s legal birth certificate has been posted on the internet. Just because WND and birthers refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not so.

    If there was absolute “PROOF” of Obama’s citizenship there would not be
    any Lawsuits against him…….

    Untrue. Any crank can file a lawsuit against anybody for any reason, as Orly and others birthers have shown. The quickest and cheapest way to dispose of completely frivolous cases is to have them promptly dismissed, as Obama has done in the few cases which named him as a defendant, and as has every defendant named in a birther suit to date.

    SHOW THE “PROOF” IN A LEGAL COURT OF LAW… UNLESS YOU ARE AFRAID TO.

    Or, unless you are able to get every birther case thrown out without the time and expense of discovery. Nothing about being afraid, just about avoiding spending time and money you don’t have to.

    Also, there is not a single birther suit that would have been satisfied with any production of documents. Every case to date alleges some other reason besides “where’s the birth certificate?” In essence, every birther has had a backup plan, from Phil Berg’s erroneous claim that Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia, to the, um, novel claim that dual citizenship is a disqualifier, a claim no current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor agrees with.

    For someone who “thinks” or tries to project (he/she) knows the Law as you try
    so often, you have failed by NOT SHOWING US “Undeniable FACTS”, you only offer
    your opinion……..Again NO PROOF. We don’t want to hear about “here say”[sic] from
    Gov. Lingle or the Hawaii DoH. We know they “worded” their statements to say
    “only” they have his records on file. Hawaii Law prevents them from saying if
    Obama was adopted.

    The paper copy of the birth certificate Obama put on his web site is prima facie evidence in any court of law in the United States. That means that on its own, the COLB proves that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in August 1961. Unless you have specific evidence rebutting those facts (which you do not), that is the end of any legal case.

    Further, your implication that Obama was adopted is not matched by any facts.

  219. 12/1/2010Granite1 says:

    Re: “Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY
    being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? ‘

    Answer: No one believes that birthers would pay anything. The birth certificate that Obama has already posted and shown the physical copy of is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by two department heads in a Republican governor’s administration and the Republican governor herself.

    Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  220. 12/2/2010robert strauss says:

    qwertyman says:
    December 1, 2010 at 9:28 am
    A copy of Obama’s legal birth certificate has been posted on the internet. Just because WND and birthers refuse to accept it does not mean that it is not so.
    *******************************
    Don’t make me laugh. Do really believe this crap?

    “Obama’s legal birth certificate” has been shown to be a forgery, along with his entire life in America, all FAKE. Just a photoshop phony.

  221. 12/2/2010qwertyman says:

    “Obama’s legal birth certificate” has been shown to be a forgery, along with his entire life in America, all FAKE. Just a photoshop phony.

    So Obama and his campaign perpetrating a massive conspiracy to create a fraudulent document.

    You must also of course believe that Factcheck is in on this conspiracy. Also in on this conspiracy are the Republican governor and Health Director of Hawaii, since those two have stated on multiple occasions that their original vital records reflect that Obama was born at Kapi’olani in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    Do you have any idea how paranoid you sound, my illiterate plagiarizing birther friend?

  222. 12/3/2010robert strauss says:

    qwertyman says:
    December 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
    You must also of course believe that Factcheck is in on this conspiracy. Also in on this conspiracy are the Republican governor and Health Director of Hawaii, since those two have stated on multiple occasions that their original vital records reflect that Obama was born at Kapi’olani in Honolulu, Hawaii.
    *********************************************
    qwerty, The two you mention is really only one. Lingle got her information from the other one. Lingle’s speaking on this issue is hearsay. Nice try though, keep obfuscating.

  223. 12/3/2010bob says:

    Gotcha: Dr. Fukino told Governor Lingle that Hawaii has a valid birth certificate for President Obama. Because, as you say, President Obama doesn’t have a valid birth certificate, Dr. Fukino is a liar (and quite possibly a criminal as well). Are there any other Hawaii Health Department officials that are also in on it?

    What about FackCheck? Are they in on it as well, or were they just taken by this forged COLB?

    And what about the newspaper announcements? Obviously the newspapers just print was given to them; they’re likely innocent rubes. But if President Obama doesn’t have a valid birth certificate, how did they have any information to print in 1961?

  224. 12/3/2010Granite1 says:

    Re: “Lingle got her information from the other one. Lingle’s speaking on this issue is hearsay. Nice try though, keep obfuscating.’

    If Lingle got the information from her officials, it means that she must believe them, and she supplied information that they did not deliver in their statements, namely the name of Obama’s hospital, Kapiolani. In any case, there were two department heads who confirmed, and then the governor (who may only be saying that she believes her officials). In addition, there is this witness, who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii and writing home about it (heresay too, of course, but tending to confirm):
    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    For the birth certificate to be false, first there must have been a birth outside of Hawaii, and then at least three officials of the Hawaii government (the clerk who filled in the form and the two heads of departments who confirmed) must be lying about the facts in the file. I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have taken action. But he didn’t.

    So, the conservative attorney general must be in on the conspiracy too. The governor of Hawaii would under your theory merely be a dupe, but it would be outright conspiracy for a conservative attorney general to hear the birther claims of birth in Kenya and not investigate. But, of course, he actually may have investigated, and found that the published Hawaii birth certificate is based on a real original birth certificate in the files saying, as the governor said, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    And, by the way, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother NEVER said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly in the taped interview that he was born in Hawaii, where his father was studying, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii. There is not a shred of real evidence that Obama was born anywhere else that Hawaii (except for obviously forged “Kenya birth certificates.”)

  225. 12/3/2010Granite1 says:

    Regarding this statement: “Why haven’t you collected the massive “REWARD” MONEY being offered to anyone producing Obama’s LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL, LEGAL
    BIRTH CERTIFICATE??????? ‘

    Answer: No one believes that birthers would pay anything.

    The birth certificate that Obama has already posted and shown the physical copy of is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by two department heads in a Republican governor’s administration and the Republican governor herself.

    Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here is confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

    (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.html)

    Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

    http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html

    Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.

    Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.

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

    Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.

    And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  226. 12/4/2010robert strauss says:

    What is it Obama is hiding?

    “Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells and millions of concerned Americans

  227. 12/4/2010robert strauss says:

    Obama’s COLB is a forgery.

    Sam, qwerty, bob, and others, this is the truth, in case you didn’t already know.

  228. 12/4/2010bob says:

    Obama’s COLB is a forgery.

    …says “Dr.” “Polarik,” the nonexpert (who admits to lying in court affidavits).

    “Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”

    In response to these frivolous lawsuits, President Obama’s lawyers simply have filed dismissal motions, and have a perfect track record of success.

  229. 12/4/2010robert strauss says:

    Alan Keyes, ran for president against Obama in 2008, this is what he thinks about Obama.

  230. 12/5/2010robert strauss says:

    From miss tickly AKA terri K
    The Hawaii Department of Health finally disclosed an image of their ‘departmental embossed seal’ to me through a UIPA request and not only did they do everything to try to keep from giving it to me–but *ahem* it is probably not what Obama voters imagined.=) Anyway, everything is in the post….thanks!

    http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/unveiling-the-hdoh-seal/

  231. 12/6/2010Granite1 says:

    Re: “The Hawaii Department of Health finally disclosed an image of their ‘departmental embossed seal’ to me through a UIPA request and not only did they do everything to try to keep from giving it to me–but *ahem* it is probably not what Obama voters imagined.=) Anyway, everything is in the post….thanks!”

    So, are you saying that the image that FactCheck published was forged? Then, why would the officials in the Republican governor’s administration of Linda Lingle, and the governor herself, repeatedly say that the facts on the birth certificate are accurate?

    I am told that the attorney general of Hawaii is a conservative Republican. If he thought that there was anything wrong with Obama’s birth certificate, he could have taken action. But he didn’t. So, he and the governor and the two officials who confirmed (not to mention the original clerk who filled in the computer form to generate the certification) are all part of the plot?

    By the way, did you ask in your request whether the seal that they sent you now is the same seal used in 2007 when they sent the document to Obama? Yes or No?