Evening News: Eligibility, TSA, American Flags, Tea-nami

by Phil on 11/15/2010

GatewayPundit posted a great piece on the plight of 13-year-old Cody Alicea, the kid who got in trouble with his school over displaying the American flag on the back of his bike.

It turns out that a bunch of American Legion Riders and others escorted him to school today:

And for your viewing pleasure, commenter “bob” (credit must go where credit’s due!) “found” the Hawaiian Department of Health’s certification of live birth receipt!

Well, [obviously] not really, but at least CustomReceipt.com goes a part of the way in providing something that is not publicly known!

The back story, for those newer to my site:

Some have called into question the authenticity of the currently-posted alleged image of Mr. Obama’s alleged COLB. Detractors say that the COLB is all that’s required because a COLB is all that’s distributed by the DoH (based on their perspective of quotes from the HI DoH).

Yet, evidence exists that says the above is not the case. For one thing, by a matter of deduction, nobody presents any law or process by which the HI DoH must independently verify documentation given to them with respect to someone’s vital documentation, be it coming from a hospital or family source. In fact, it’s been proven — via individuals such as Sun Yat-sen — that actual facts could be different from what the DoH might have on hand for an individual.

Furthermore, BirtherReport linked to an individual who claims to have received their long-form birth certificate from the HI DoH, replete with the alleged receipt:

SettleTheBet.jpg picture by Danae_photos

This evening’s news:

Digest powered by RSS Digest

There are 40 comments in this article:

  1. 11/15/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    And Phil continues to disseminate false information:

    Detractors say that the COLB is all that’s required because a COLB is all that’s distributed by the DoH (based on their perspective of quotes from the HI DoH).

    False. No one, at least to my knowledge, has ever made such a claim. The fact that it is the only certified document distributed by the Hawaii DoH has nothing to do with the separate issue that it is all that’s required to prove President Obama’s birth location and citizenship status. After all, even if Hawaii still distributed a long form, the COLB would still be all that was necessary.

    You are confabulating completely separate issues and ideas.

    The actual claim is that a COLB is all that is required because:

    1) It meets the long established standards of the US Department of State for proof of citizenship at birth. (7 FAM 1119: “Proof of Citizenship by Birth in the United States”).

    2) It meets the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence for self authentication, specifically Rule 902(4).

    3) Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution says that, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The COLB is just such a public record.

    Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with the fact that it is all that Hawaii issues.

    For one thing, by a matter of deduction, nobody presents any law or process by which the HI DoH must independently verify documentation given to them with respect to someone’s vital documentation, be it coming from a hospital or family source.

    First and foremost, the process by which original vital records are recorded in Hawaii is not obviously different from that in any other state in the union. All such documents begin with the testimony of somebody somewhere, even a “long form” bearing the signature of a doctor or midwife.

    Secondly, Hawaii Revised Statutes do in several cases indicate a requirement for corroboration of information entered into vital records, especially when the reord is not immediately entered after birth. HRS §338-15 For example prescribes that “Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to substantiate the alleged facts of birth.” (emphasis added)

    Thirdly, the Public Health Regulations are also replete with demands for corroborating evidence before such a record can be filed, altered or supplemented. You can find them here: http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf

    I guess that when you write, “by a matter of deduction” you actually mean “just making stuff up without bothering to actually check.”

    In fact, it’s been proven — via individuals such as Sun Yat-sen — that actual facts could be different from what the DoH might have on hand for an individual.

    It is fascinating that you take the single anomalous example of Sun Yat-sen and exaggerate it to encompass multiple “individuals.” In point of fact, it remains to this day the only example of a fraudulent Hawaiian “birth certificate” that Birthers have ever been able to present, and it fails to serve the intended demonstration for several reasons. Why is that?

    First off, because it was issued decades before a State of Hawaii or a Hawaiian Department of Health even existed. It is completely unconnected with any state statute, regulation, process or standards in place at the time of President Obama’s birth.

    But more to the point, it fails for the same three reasons cited above for asserting that a COLB is all that is required:

    1. It does not meet State Department standards for proof of citizenship at birth, and would not be valid for any related proof of citizenship or the facts of birth.

    2. It meets none of the requirements for self authentication per the Federal Rules of Evidence.

    3. Since it was not issued by a State, it does not earn the full faith and credit that Obama’s COLB possesses.

    Furthermore, BirtherReport linked to an individual who claims to have received their long-form birth certificate from the HI DoH, replete with the alleged receipt.

    Ignoring that there is no way to tie the receipt to the “long-form birth certificate” that has been shown along with it (another demonstration that your own demand for a “receipt” is ludicrous), it is important to note something else about that “birth certificate.” It is not certified. It is merely a photocopy of a document, lacking any of the requirements for authentication under either the State Department regulations or the Federal Rules of Evidence. It (unlike President Obama’s COLB) could not be used to get a passport, or a driver’s license, or register for little league. It’s not even printed on security paper.

    So… it appears that your “furthermore” appears to have furthered nothing more. And this is, of course, what the State of Hawaii has been saying for at least the last two years… the only birth certification they issue (since about 2001) is the computer generated COLB, which is then turned into an official document by the certification and seal of the Hawaii DoH.

    Thanks for playing. Try again.

  2. 11/15/2010Benaiah says:

    Allahu Barackhbar, Taqqiya in Chief
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24002947/Allahu-Akhbar

  3. 11/15/2010Benaiah says:

    Why did Obama slap Tim Geithner on the ass, and did the Treasury Secretary like it?
    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/11/15/question-why-did-obama-slap-tim-geithner-on-the-ass-and-did-the-treasury-secretary-like-it/

  4. 11/15/2010Benaiah says:

    Seriously? Michelle Obama really did this in public? Seriously?
    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/11/14/seriously-michelle-obama-really-did-this-in-public-seriously/

  5. 11/15/2010Benaiah says:

    Michelle Obama’s underappreciated, one-woman crusade against dreamsicles
    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/11/15/michelle-obamas-underappreciated-one-woman-crusade-against-dreamsicles/

  6. 11/15/2010Benaiah says:

    REUNITED: Kal Penn returning to White House. Tiff with Obama apparently over.
    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/11/15/reunited-kal-penn-returning-to-white-house-tiff-with-obama-apparently-over/

    This is all kinds of strange.

    BUT, a lot of male couples go back and forth like this. Even if they fight, and try to move onto other guys, it gets all Annie Proux “I just can’t quit you”.

    [...]

  7. 11/15/2010Phil says:

    SanDiegoSam,

    And Phil continues to disseminate false information:

    Detractors say that the COLB is all that’s required because a COLB is all that’s distributed by the DoH (based on their perspective of quotes from the HI DoH).

    False. No one, at least to my knowledge, has ever made such a claim. The fact that it is the only certified document distributed by the Hawaii DoH has nothing to do with the separate issue that it is all that’s required to prove President Obama’s birth location and citizenship status. After all, even if Hawaii still distributed a long form, the COLB would still be all that was necessary.

    Actually, it has been posted (but not properly referenced) that after the department went electronic some years ago, and all they say they issue is the short form. Of course, according to my posting above, that doesn’t appear to be altogether true.

    You are confabulating completely separate issues and ideas.

    The actual claim is that a COLB is all that is required because:

    1) It meets the long established standards of the US Department of State for proof of citizenship at birth. (7 FAM 1119: “Proof of Citizenship by Birth in the United States”).

    2) It meets the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence for self authentication, specifically Rule 902(4).

    3) Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution says that, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The COLB is just such a public record.

    Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with the fact that it is all that Hawaii issues.

    And, guess what? I don’t disagree with any of the above three points; I never did.

    Furthermore, BirtherReport linked to an individual who claims to have received their long-form birth certificate from the HI DoH, replete with the alleged receipt.

    Ignoring that there is no way to tie the receipt to the “long-form birth certificate” that has been shown along with it (another demonstration that your own demand for a “receipt” is ludicrous), it is important to note something else about that “birth certificate.” It is not certified. It is merely a photocopy of a document, lacking any of the requirements for authentication under either the State Department regulations or the Federal Rules of Evidence. It (unlike President Obama’s COLB) could not be used to get a passport, or a driver’s license, or register for little league. It’s not even printed on security paper.

    So… it appears that your “furthermore” appears to have furthered nothing more. And this is, of course, what the State of Hawaii has been saying for at least the last two years… the only birth certification they issue (since about 2001) is the computer generated COLB, which is then turned into an official document by the certification and seal of the Hawaii DoH.

    Thanks for playing. Try again.

    I will be more than happy to admit that these are definitely good points. Not only this, but for all I know, whomever it was that scanned these images online could be faking everyone out, too. Of course, this has been a part of my point for a long time.

    Regardless, it is my opinion that a receipt for the alleged COLB would go a long way in substantiating the document, per se. Who’s to say that someone didn’t take someone else’s HI COLB and modify it? I’m not saying that anyone did or didn’t, but since all that anyone has to go on is yet another online image (nobody from the press, for example, actually asked to independently verify the alleged document), why not get independent verification going on?

    After all, I didn’t know that the HI DoH was in the business of verifying online images posted on sites other than theirs.

    -Phil

  8. 11/16/2010brygenon says:

    Actually, it has been posted (but not properly referenced) that after the department went electronic some years ago, and all they say they issue is the short form. Of course, according to my posting above, that doesn’t appear to be altogether true.

    Hawaii has an Open Records Law, part of their Uniform Information Practices Act, which is similar to the federal Freedom of Information Act. See: http://www.state.hi.us/oip/uipa.html If Hawaii has the original long-form record or a microfilm image of it, the subject should be able to be able to obtain a copy. As SanDiegoSam notes, that kind of copy is not an official state-issued birth certificate.

    Incidentally, the linked article http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/born-identity-star-bulletin-interviews-janice-okubo/ was properly referenced at the time, to a story in the Honolulu Star Bulletin which has since gone off line.

  9. 11/16/2010bob says:

    And for your viewing pleasure, commenter bob (credit must go where credit’s due!) “found” the Hawaiian Department of Health’s certification of live birth receipt!

    Not mine; just the messenger.

    For one thing, by a matter of deduction, nobody presents any law or process by which the HI DoH must independently verify documentation given to them with respect to someone’s vital documentation, be it coming from a hospital or family source.

    Common “eligibility” fallacy: Argument from igorance.

    And it ignores the entire purpose of the birth-registration process: to prevent needless re-examination of proof of birth. If you think it is possible register in Hawaii a birth without proof of, say, a baby, please go try to do so yourself, Mr. Phil.

    individuals such as Sun Yat-sen — that actual facts could be different from what the DoH might have on hand for an individual.

    Of course document fraud is possible. But there’s no actual evidence of document fraud with respect to President Obama’s Hawaiian birth — just the usual rumor, innuendo, speculation, and fallacious “reasoning.”

    BirtherReport linked to an individual who claims to have received their long-form birth certificate from the HI DoH

    A digital image, on some third-party site — why believe that?

    And it isn’t a certificate (there’s no certification): Where’s the stamp and signature?

    * * *

    REUNITED: Kal Penn returning to White House. Tiff with Obama apparently over.
    Michelle Obama’s underappreciated, one-woman crusade against dreamsicles
    Seriously? Michelle Obama really did this in public? Seriously?
    Why did Obama slap Tim Geithner on the ass, and did the Treasury Secretary like it?
    Allahu Barackhbar, Taqqiya in Chief

    I used to question if all these “eligibility concerns” were really just an excuse for a permanent smear campaign.

    I don’t question any more; I’m convinced.

  10. 11/16/2010Bill Cutting says:

    b
    [I used to question if all these “eligibility concerns” were really just an excuse for a permanent smear campaign.

    I don’t question any more; I’m convinced.]

    Funny

    I always thought the birth certificate issue was created by the Ruling class in DC to cover up Obama’s ineligibilty as a dual citizen with foreign allegiance.

    That has not changed

  11. 11/16/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    After all, I didn’t know that the HI DoH was in the business of verifying online images posted on sites other than theirs.

    And yet they have repeatedly done so. Go figure.

  12. 11/16/2010qwertyman says:

    I always thought the birth certificate issue was created by the Ruling class in DC to cover up Obama’s ineligibilty as a dual citizen with foreign allegiance.

    And the lack of a single current congressman, judge, constitutional scholar or law professor to stand up and say that dual citizens are ineligible is also part of this conspiracy, eh?

    Remember that you yourself have said that under at least some circumstances, dual citizens can be natural born citizens. You don’t seem to have understood the implications of the insane (and completely unsupported) legal argument you are making.

  13. 11/16/2010misanthropicus says:

    $17.48 for a kingdom? Nah – I got a better offer here:

    FREE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE with 3 Shrimp Tacos for only $8.99! Get it Get It! Offer valid as supplies last! Don’t miss it! Get it! Get it!

    And this offer was on a Martha’s Vineyard restaurant last summer, not far from dba Obama’s vacation house -

  14. 11/16/2010Bill Cutting says:

    [Remember that you yourself have said that under at least some circumstances, dual citizens can be natural born citizens.]

    You may have thought that I said that.

    Barack Hussein Obama 2 was born a British Subject this is fact.

    Why anyone want to void the Natural Rights passed onto Obama 2, given to him by his father, is beyond me.

    Barrack Hussein Obama married Stanley Ann Dunham “Legally” his citizenship at birth passed to his son. Is this even disputed?

    It’s not by me.

  15. 11/16/2010qwertyman says:

    You may have thought that I said that.

    If you’re going to play coy and vague then, let’s clear the air.

    Do you think that somebody born in America of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen, if he is given dual citizenship with Italy because of his great-grandfather, who was Italian?

    Do you think that a Jewish person born in America of two citizen parents is a natural born citizen, even if he is a dual citizen with Israel, who grants citizenship to every Jew in the world who wants it?

    Is somebody born in the US of two citizen parents a natural born citizen, even if they are a dual citizen with North Korea because of a decree of the North Korean government?

    Barrack Hussein Obama married Stanley Ann Dunham “Legally” his citizenship at birth passed to his son. Is this even disputed?

    That is not disputed. What is disputed is your legal interpretation of what those facts mean. There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation.

  16. 11/16/2010SanDiegoSam says:

    You may have thought that I said that.

    Since you did say that, thinking you said it becomes immediately understandable.

    But hey, it was fun the first time, so let’s do this again.

    I was born in Los Angeles to two US citizens. Both my parents were US citizens from birth, born in Erie, Pennsylvania.

    Am I, or am I not a natural born citizen?

  17. 11/17/2010bob says:

    Barack Hussein Obama 2 was born a British Subject this is fact.

    In fact, President Obama was born a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Why anyone want to void the Natural Rights passed onto Obama 2, given to him by his father, is beyond me.

    In other words, why did Kenya prohibit dual citizenship? Entire books have been written about Kenya’s independence, and the diaspora of some of its people. You could try reading one.

    And, for fun, you might also want to read Afroyim v. Rush. SPOILER ALERT: Wong Kim Ark makes a (not-so) surprise appearance!

  18. 11/23/2010robert strauss says:

    qwerty, will you please quit repeating this falsehood. You are starting to look desperate.

    “There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation.”

    Tribe,and Olsen agree, two US citizen parents, and born in Country.

    Kerchner v Obama, at SCOTUS today for conference.

  19. 11/23/2010bob says:

    Tribe,and Olsen agree, two US citizen parents, and born in Country.

    For the third time, quote — QUOTE, don’t paraphase — the part of the memo that you thinks supports this proposition.

    And, duuuuuuude: OLSON. O – L – S – O – N. You can’t even get his name right, even after being corrected!

    Kerchner v Obama, at SCOTUS today for conference.

    Not on today’s order list. Expect that cert. denial by Monday.

  20. 11/23/2010qwertyman says:

    qwerty, will you please quit repeating this falsehood. You are starting to look desperate.

    “There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation.”

    Tribe,and Olsen agree, two US citizen parents, and born in Country.

    Good God.

    There’s only so many times I’m willing to quote the portion of the memo where they state implicitly that Obama was eligible for office by saying “We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.” And the part that says “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States… satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”

    Tribe and Olson directly imply that Obama is eligible for office. Tribe and Olson, along with anybody who knew anything about Obama, knew that his father was a Kenyan who never became a citizen. To claim that they defined a requirement of having two parent citizens and then to directly imply that Obama is eligible is either massive fraud by the two of them or massive stupidity by the two of them. Personally, I go with massive stupidity by you, strauss; you’ve already by caught plagarizing other birther blogs and claiming that they were direct quotes from somebody else in order to support your position.

  21. 11/24/2010robert strauss says:

    There’s only so many times I’m willing to quote the portion of the memo where they state implicitly that Obama was eligible for office by saying “We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.” And the part that says “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States… satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”
    *******************************************************************
    More clever word games mentioning Obama in the above sentence, but you, and I know this doesn’t have anything to do with saying he is eligible for POTUS or saying he is NBC. Just more BS from some progressive peon, writing a letter, for Tribe and Olson to sign concerning McCain’s eligibility. Mentioning BS like this quip about Obama is why you have a reputation as an obot. You like that sentence about as much as your line, “There is not a single current judge, congressman, constitutional scholar or law professor who agrees with your interpretation.”

    Well qwerty, read the last paragraph on the signature page on the Tribe /Olson memo, and you will see Tribe, and Olson signed just below the sentence stating natural born Citizen has two US Citizen parents and he was born in US territory.

    Quit playing stupid, and learn how to read, and after you read what it takes for McCain to be considered a natural born Citizen, in the eyes of Tribe, and Olson, then apply that to Obama, and you will see Obama does not fit the definition, and Obama is not a natural born Citizen according to Tribe and Olson.

  22. 11/24/2010robert strauss says:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25457698/The-Tribe-Olson-Natural-Born-Citizen-Memo

    Here’s the memo qwerty, read the signature page. It says: two US Citizens, and born in US territory.

  23. 11/25/2010bob says:

    Well qwerty, read the last paragraph on the signature page on the Tribe /Olson memo, and you will see Tribe, and Olson signed just below the sentence stating natural born Citizen has two US Citizen parents and he was born in US territory.

    For the second time:

    Yes, let’s read it, together:

    “Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

    1. Nowhere do Tribe and Olson say birth within the United States alone is insufficient for natural born citizenship purposes; and
    2. Nowhere do Tribe and Olson say President Obama is ineligible to serve.

  24. 11/26/2010robert strauss says:

    bob says:
    November 25, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Well qwerty, read the last paragraph on the signature page on the Tribe /Olson memo, and you will see Tribe, and Olson signed just below the sentence stating natural born Citizen has two US Citizen parents and he was born in US territory.

    For the second time:

    Yes, let’s read it, together:

    “Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”

    1. Nowhere do Tribe and Olson say birth within the United States alone is insufficient for natural born citizenship purposes; and
    2. Nowhere do Tribe and Olson say President Obama is ineligible to serve.
    **********************************************************
    “Therefore, based on the original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Senator McCain’s birth to parents who were U.S. citizens…

    bob,for anything else to make a difference in one’s status he must first be born to parents who were U.S. citizens, without this, the fathers citizenship dictates, what citizenship the sons and daughters will inherit.

    Obama’s father is a foreigner, and yes bob it does make a difference. Why do you think US Citizenship is so highly sought after.

  25. 11/26/2010robert strauss says:

    Happy Thanksgiving Phil.

    Thanks for all you do on this blog. Your site attracts some of the most serious, Obama “protectors”, trying to make Obama look legitimate. Let the truth prevail.

  26. 11/26/2010bob says:

    bob,for anything else to make a difference in one’s status he must first be born to parents who were U.S. citizens, without this, the fathers citizenship dictates, what citizenship the sons and daughters will inherit.

    Under your ridiculously restrictive reading of what Tribe and Olson wrote, the only natural born citizens are those who were born to parents who were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. No president has been a natural born citizen!

    So, again:

    1. Nowhere do Tribe and Olson say birth within the United States alone is insufficient for natural born citizenship purposes; and
    2. Nowhere do Tribe and Olson say President Obama is ineligible to serve.

    And here’s how I really know they didn’t say what you think they said:

    Lawrence Tribe wrote a treatise called American Constitutional Law (3d Ed., vol. 1) in 2000 (Foundation Press; ISBN 1-56662-714-1).

    On page 969, Tribe wrote, “The two kinds of citizenship that the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes — citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization — are virtually equal.”

    Tribe then drops a footnote (No. 20), which states, “They are not, however, actually equal in one perhaps trivial but symbolically potent respect — eligibility for the Presidency. Art II, sec. 1, cl. 5, provides in relevant part that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Unites States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.’ This lone constitutional distinction between native-born and other citizens has been been lambasted by two scholars as the stupidest in the Constitution.” (Tribe then cites these two scholars.)

    That’s it. Nowhere in this huge two-volume set does Tribe discuss this alleged two-citizen rule. And of the hundreds and hundreds of authorities cited, guess who Tribe leaves out: de Vattel.

    Let the truth prevail.

    The truth has prevailed: It is you who refuses to accept it.

  27. 11/27/2010robert strauss says:

    Tribe then drops a footnote (No. 20), which states, this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.’“They are not, however, actually equal in one perhaps trivial but symbolically potent respect — eligibility for the Presidency. Art II, sec. 1, cl. 5, provides in relevant part that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Unites States, at the time of the Adoption of
    ****************************************************************
    bob, there you go again, you argue Tribe didn’t say two Citizen parents, and NBC matters, then you post a quote from Tribe that shows exactly that he does. What part of the above quote don’t you understand? Tribe says there are two different types of Citizens, 14th amendment citizens and natural born Citizens, who are the ones eligible to be president. It’s clear as day bob, what’s your problem.

    On page 969, Tribe wrote, “The two kinds of citizenship that the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes — citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization — are virtually equal.”

    “They are not, however, actually equal in one perhaps trivial but symbolically potent respect — eligibility for the Presidency.”

    Under your ridiculously restrictive reading of what Tribe and Olson wrote, the only natural born citizens are those who were born to parents who were U.S. citizens,

    You are right about what I said, I won’t argue that.

  28. 11/27/2010bob says:

    Tribe says there are two different types of Citizens, 14th amendment citizens and natural born Citizens, who are the ones eligible to be president.

    Tribe explicitly said there are two types of citizens recognized by the 14th Amendment: natural born, and naturalized; he did not create a mythical third type that requires two citizen parents. Unlike you, I’ve read Tribe’s treatise and he never uses the phrase “14th Amendment citizen.” In his huge book, Tribe never mentioned this two-citizen parent rule, or de Vattel.

    You are right about what I said, I won’t argue that.

    Consistent with to your dishonest ways, you edit out the remainder, which fundamentally altered the meaning. Typical birther dishonesty.

  29. 11/27/2010robert strauss says:

    bob, you posted all of this, read what you post, and you will see how futile it is defending Obama with these arguments. You make my case for me bob.

    bob posted:
    On page 969, Tribe wrote, “The two kinds of citizenship that the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes — citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization — are virtually equal.”

    “They are not, however, actually equal in one perhaps trivial but symbolically potent respect — eligibility for the Presidency.”

    Tribe then drops a footnote (No. 20), which states, “They are not, however, actually equal in one perhaps trivial but symbolically potent respect — eligibility for the Presidency. Art II, sec. 1, cl. 5, provides in relevant part that ‘No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Unites States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.’
    *****************************************************

    bob, Tribe is not on your side of this argument, he is on mine, just like the Tribe / Olson memo about McCain’s NBC status.

    bob, You post wonderful information that strengthens my arguments, keep em coming.

    Obama doesn’t cut the mustard bob, he is not a natural born Citizen, and Tribe, and Olson’s words cannot be twisted to make Obama appear to be eligible to be president.

  30. 11/27/2010bob says:

    bob, Tribe is not on your side of this argument, he is on mine, just like the Tribe / Olson memo about McCain’s NBC status.

    Then either you cannot read or have impairment issues. (You are correct about one thing: The Tribe/Olson memo is about McCain’s status.)

    Tribe in his book is very clear there are exactly two types of citizens: natural born or naturalized. President Obama wasn’t naturalized; therefore, he’s a natural-born citizen.

    Tribe nowhere in his book mentions a two-citizen-parent rule, or de Vattel. Never. (And it is huge filled with many details, possible arguments, etc.; Tribe didn’t “forget.”)

    Tribe’s book is consistent with the Tribe/Olson memo, which is consistent with Maskell’s memo, which is consistent with what every other judge and scholar has said.

    Tribe, and Olson’s words cannot be twisted to make Obama appear to be eligible to be president

    Oh, the irony.

  31. 11/27/2010robert strauss says:

    robert strauss says:
    November 1, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    The State of Hawaii sent me documentary proof that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
    **************************************
    Can you post what they sent you as proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii?
    *****************************
    Still waiting for that proof bob.

  32. 11/27/2010robert strauss says:

    President Obama wasn’t naturalized

    bob, that is why he is an illegal alien. Undocumented, no US birth certificate, just a forged COLB.

  33. 11/27/2010bob says:

    bob, that is why he is an illegal alien.

    And when it is clear the de Vattel argument is a loser, it is back to “not born in Hawaii.” Predictable.

    Undocumented, no US birth certificate

    THE STATE OF HAWAII’S PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS SHOW PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII.

    just a forged COLB.

    There no competent evidence of forgery, just the usual anonymous non-experts.

    Can you post what they sent you as proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii?

    For the second time, here is how to do it yourself (and why it is important for you to do it for yourself).

  34. 11/27/2010robert strauss says:

    bob…The State of Hawaii sent me documentary proof that President Obama was born in Hawaii.
    ********************************

    Still waiting to see that proof bob.

    Can you post it here so we all can see that “readily accessible proof from Hawaii that Obama was born there”?

    bob, you said you already have “it”, the proof bob, would you copy it to this blog for us all to see what you have? Then we will compare “it” to ours.

  35. 11/27/2010bob says:

    Wolf has been cried too many times: It’ll be declared a fake, which is why you obtain your own personal, paper copy for yourself, by yourself.

    Then we will compare “it” to ours.

    Only after you obtain the proof from Hawaii yourself first.

    Or are you someone who claims to be interested in “finding the truth” but can’t even be bothered to send a SASE to Hawaii? Pathetic.

  36. 11/27/2010bob strauss says:

    Come on bob, save me the 84 cents, and the cost of the envelope. More importantly we can solve this right now. I’ll wait.

    What’s pathetic is your constant name calling. Grow up.

  37. 11/27/2010bob says:

    You: I just want to find out the truth about Obama!

    Me: Send a SASE to Hawaii, and you will.

    You: Oh, I can’t be bothered.

    …Because you are so lazy: give me an address, and I’ll do it for you.

  38. 11/28/2010robert strauss says:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/150519

    US embassy cables: Saudi king urges US strike on Iran

    Al-Jubeir recalled the King’s frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. “He told you to cut off the head of the snake,” he recalled to the Charge’, adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.

    Will the truth be revealed?

  39. 11/28/2010robert strauss says:

    Found this over at Orly Taitz’s site. Black Box Voting.

    http://www.51capitalmarch.com/51CapitalMarchBlackboxVoting.shtml

  40. 12/5/2010robert strauss says:

    misstickly | December 4, 2010 at 2:55 pm | Reply

    I hope you guys don’t mind if I leave a link to a post here from my blog. It’s my first one in a very long time and I only published it today, so please let me know if you notice any glitches.

    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/