Main Menu

Mario Apuzzo

Mario Apuzzo

Mario Apuzzo

A New Jersey attorney who normally practices in the areas of Car Accidents, Criminal Law, DUI / DWI,  Injury Law,  Municipal Law is following in the footsteps of another New Jersey attorney, Leo Donofrio, by launching a web site and filing a Constitutional case aimed at President Obama.

His blog is A Place to Ask Questions To Get the Right Answers. Go there to get the latest from the plaintiff’s side on the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit.

Apuzzo is doing the talk radio circuit now, so this looks promising for some fresh entertainment to replace tired Orly and Phil. We’ll look at Kerchner v. Obama in more detail (if he’ll stop amending the thing and settle down).

Print Friendly

169 Responses to Mario Apuzzo

  1. avatar
    Heavy February 19, 2009 at 1:22 pm #

    Doc, although we disagree on just about everything, I do appreciate all your hard work on this blog. I know it takes a lot of time. It is very easy to use and reliable..

    Thanks!

  2. avatar
    richCares February 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm #

    heavy, if you don’t like Obama or his policies then start looking for and supporting a candidate for 2012. This Birther non-sense is going nowhere, like it or not Obama is the president, if you continue with this folly you will never have a chance to build a valid opposition, you are aware that Birhers believe in Big Foot and Elvis is Alive and don’t accept evolution and are laughed at. Do you wish to continue down that knuckle dragging path?

  3. avatar
    Heavy February 19, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Richy, my “Position” is backed by the Constitution. It is very solid and will prove out in the end.

    In the meantime, those who continue to support a usurper are just making it harder themsleves.

  4. avatar
    Bob February 19, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    I once did a search for Mario Apuzzo (before he filed his suit, and therefore the signal-to-noise was a lot lower than it was now). I found this picture from an award dinner for the NPDF, of which one Mario Apuzzo, Esq. was the treasurer:

    http://www.npdf.org/2008_MAY_AWARDS_DINNER/slides/884937007306_0_BG.html

    The picture I found elsewhere was captioned with Mario Apuzzo being the second person from the right.

    Unfortunately, I can’t find the captioned picture now; maybe someone else can. And, of course, I don’t have proof that there’s only one Mario Apuzzo, Esq., so it theoretically could be two different people. (Although circumstance evidence would say it is the same person, based on the age of the person in the picture, and other biographical information available about Mario Apuzzo.)

    For those with Westlaw/LEXIS access, try searching by his name. He’s counsel on a few cases, and a party in others. My favorite was Opdycke v. Stout, No. 06-1000, 233 Fed.Appx. 125, 2007 WL 1231754 (3d Cir. 2007). A crazy case about a HOA trying to evict a cat lady, who ends up getting detained by the police. She sues the police; Mario Apuzzo was her attorney.

    Here’s what the court had to say about the quality of Mario Apuzzo’s legal work: “Though this ‘shotgun complaint’ usually creates ‘a task that can be quite onerous’ for courts, resolving the issues in this particular appeal is fairly simple.” And then the court added this footnote: “This is not to lend our approval to such an unfocused manner of pleading.”

    The cat lady lost.

  5. avatar
    richCares February 19, 2009 at 5:09 pm #

    I didn’t know Big Foot was backed by the constitution. Good Luck in Court!

  6. avatar
    anon February 19, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    http://www.ipa-usa.org/Members/documents/IPANews0608.pdf

    Page 14 “Vi Powrie and NPDF Board Members (l to r) Mike Barry, Secretary; Jack Holder,President; Joseph Occhipint, Founder; and Mario Apuzzo, Treasurer…”

  7. avatar
    Bob February 19, 2009 at 8:26 pm #

    Thanks for the find. As you can see, the same person is in both pictures.

    This site says Mario Apuzzo has been a lawyer for 26 years:

    http://lawyers.justia.com/lawyer/mario-apuzzo-1050467

    As most lawyers graduate from law school when they are around 25 years old, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. would be in his early 50s. I would say the person in those photographs is in that demographic.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Thanks for the help. The picture is now up.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Thanks very much for the help. The picture is now up.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2009 at 11:34 pm #

    I went over to puzo’s blog and left him a couple of comments. First I pointed out nicely that the travel ban to Pakistan was not true.

    In the second comment I asked him if he thought US v. Wonk Kim Ark was wrongly decided. I seem to recall that Donofrio did.

  11. avatar
    Bob February 20, 2009 at 10:38 am #

    I recall him once making a distinction between a “natural born citizen” (the term the courts use) and a “natural born Citizen” (the term the U.S. Constitution uses).

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2009 at 1:03 pm #

    The Constitution Capitalized many Words that We would not Capitalize Today.

  13. avatar
    Bob February 20, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    But for Birfers, the Distinction is Very important!

  14. avatar
    vma224 February 22, 2009 at 2:37 pm #

    if Mario has followed any of the Birther cases he must be aware that he will lose, so why he he doing it, is it to keep the “hate Obama” campaign alive for fund raising, Marios’s appended complaint seems to have been designed to make judges laugh it is so phony, so why are is he so intent on losing. Anybody have ideas on that.

  15. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 22, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    That you are correct in your observations.

    I would point out that right now, any person who files a lawsuit challenging Obama’s birthright achieves a measure of instant celebrity amongst a small but fanatically dedicated core of very ignorant and gullible people who can’t seem to understand that no court could possibly have jurisdiction at this point.

    I’d also note that the pendency of a lawsuit can be used as a rationale to issue subpenas for documents and to take depositions.

  16. avatar
    ZAPEM February 28, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    Mario Apuzzo happens to specialize in citizenship and nationality law. The ones you have listed are common of any lawyer.

    An amended complaint is always filed as newer information is obtained. It’s standard. There’s no reason to “calm down”.

    I’m actually glad there’s another attorney focused on the law instead of parading a Factcheck.org owned birth certificate picture around as if that now qualifies presidential candidates.

    When you think of how absurd that double-standard was, maybe you might see what normal people do.

  17. avatar
    ZAPEM February 28, 2009 at 12:11 am #

    Mario Apuzzo is not a “birther”. Read his case.

  18. avatar
    ZAPEM February 28, 2009 at 12:15 am #

    Donofrio never said what you just alleged about Wong Kim Ark.

    Go back to his blog and read it again.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2009 at 1:12 am #

    I see your point. In response to a comment I made, Donofrio replied: ” I have the same issues with Wong Kim Ark as you, especially now that we know Justice Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur” and I took this, perhaps having P. A. Madison too much in mind, as negative on Wong.

    But Donofrio himself cites P. A. Madison.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    Mario Apuzzo is a birther. I read his case.

    43. The last two document examiners opine that the digital image and the source paper documents COLB used to make the images were forged. This doubt alone is sufficient to require Obama to produce the original, long form, Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate).

    44. Obama’s Kenyan paternal step-grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, “a very
    intelligent and educated citizen of Africa, a former teacher and respected evangelist throughout Africa” (October 27, 2008 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae), on October 16, 2008 stated twice to the repeated question that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya, per Affidavits of Bishop Ron McRae and of Rev. Kweli Shuhubia (actual name withheld for safety reasons) filed in the legal action by Philip J. Berg v. Barack Hussein Obama et al., Fed. Cir. D.PA., Civil No: 08-cv-04083.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    Mr. Apuzzo’s profile on Justia don’t mention citizenship or nationality law. The entire nationality law content in Kerchner v. Obama consists of one footnote about John Jay that doesn’t demonstrate any specialized knowledge.

  22. avatar
    Ian Gould February 28, 2009 at 8:20 am #

    “I’m actually glad there’s another attorney focused on the law instead of parading a Factcheck.org owned birth certificate picture around as if that now qualifies presidential candidates.’

    As opposed to waving around internet posts from the likes of “Polarik.”

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    And don’t forget Berg’s Dudley Do Right Canadian birth certificate for Obama.

  24. avatar
    Bob February 28, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    Apuzzo has been counsel of record on a few immigration cases; hardly a specialist. (And immigration lawyers don’t normally litigate natural-born citizenship issues; their clients usually want plain-ole citizenship or some form of legal residency.)

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    I hired an immigration lawyer once to handle an H1B application, recommended by the state lawyer referral service. Most incompetent professional I’ve ever run across.

  26. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 28, 2009 at 8:20 pm #

    In the complaint he wrote, Apuzzo alleges:

    Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an
    Indonesian citizen, and taken to Indonesia. It is likely that Obama lost whatever
    citizenship he had and became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption.

    No competent immigration lawyer would say such a thing – since anyone even vaguely familiar with US citizenship law would know that US citizenship cannot possibly be “lost” in that manner.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    Perkins v. Elg?

    Under wilting fire from the articles in this Blog [hey, I can have delusions of grandeur too!], Apuzzo appears to have largely abandoned the “birther” side of his case and is focusing solely on the [re]definition of “natural born citizen”. Unfortunately I cannot say “go listen to the whole tape” or “this is what the Hawaiian law really says” and disperse the “natural born citizen” issue quickly; that one takes some work.

    I hate to cut corners when I argue something, although it’s always impossible to say everything that could be said. On the NBC issue in particular, I have to put something out there shorter than the whole decision of US v. Wong Kim Ark. Hence articles like my Natural Born Citizen for Dummies.

  28. avatar
    Sally Hill March 1, 2009 at 10:33 am #

    Elg does not help Obama at all. If one reads that case and understands the historical references contained within, they will see upon careful reading that the case hurts Obama to the core. One first glance and reading without understanding the historical cases one would well take that case as helping, but not so. Re-read it.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm #

    I’m not sure exactly what part of the argument you’re addressing re Perkins v Elg. How Elg helps Obama is that it refutes any claim that Obama lost his natural born citizenship in Indonesia. (Since Elg did not lose her natural born citizenship.)

    I frankly have no interest in someone who is unwilling or unable to frame their own argument telling me that I’m wrong and that I should read something. If you can express a point, please feel welcome to do so. This blog exists to resist unsupported assertions.

  30. avatar
    Hitandrun March 1, 2009 at 3:32 pm #

    Doc,

    You’re quite correct in that Court decisions have eviscerated for now any ius sanguinis interpretation of the Constitution’s ‘natural born citizen’ phrase. However, you’re mistaken that Mr Apuzzo and fellow attorneys/plaintiffs have abandoned or discounted the birther argument in their case presentations. Quite the contrary. The birther argument is usually placed front and center as in Kerchner v Obama, while the other arguments are thrown against the wall beside it just in case Mr Obama releases the vault document and demolishes the birther case.

    You’ll note that Mr Easterling, in his screed against Mr Obama, has concentrated on the birther argument while adding others almost as an afterthought. Obama opponents understand the birther issue remains the only one truly resonating even beyond their limited constituency and has growth potential, should Mr Obama continue to refuse to release the vault document and settle the matter.

    Hitandrun

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    HR,

    I fully agree that Kerchner v. Obama is a birther case with NBC thrown in as a footnote. That’s not how he’s arguing it on the Internet.

    Look at what Mr. Apuzzo (and ZAPEM who is active at Apuzzo’s blog) said in comments here and on his blog. ZAPEM said “Apuzzo is not a birther” and Apuzzo asked me to stay “on topic” meaning not to talk about the birther part. Apuzzo’s blog has gone all NBC.

    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/ see thread 4.

  32. avatar
    GeorgetownJD March 1, 2009 at 3:56 pm #

    Interesting that you should bring up immgration lawyers. Back in January Mario Apuzzo was posting on Immigration Law Weekly, a legal news site for immigration attorneys, spewing his theory. The immigration specialists were wupping his ass.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    I frankly don’t think there ever was any jus sanguinis intent in the Constitution. Did you know that in South Carolina in the 18th century that the death rate from disease was so high that immigration was the only thing that kept the population from declining. Citizenship in South Carolina required nothing more than a single year’s residence (and owning property, and being male and white…). This does not sound like the kind of society where jus sanguinis makes a lot of sense. I think the courts were exactly right in accepting British common law which was in force through the Revolution and up until the United States legislated its own laws, as the correct basis for understanding the Framers’ intent. John Rutledge of South Carolina, the chairman of the committee who produced the first draft of the Constitution was trained as a lawyer in England.

    When South Carolina made its appeal to the British House of Lords for the repeal of the Stamp Tax, what single legal authority did they quote? Was it de Vattel? No it was Blackstone.

  34. avatar
    bogus info March 14, 2009 at 8:41 am #

    Dr. C.,

    Did you see this?

    “ZAPEM says:
    March 13, 2009 at 1:13 pm
    Oh God! Not you people here, too? Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.

    Phil, these people tried to discredit Mario Apuzzo and made several defamation attacks against him, too.

    Doesn’t that tell you something about their agenda? They’re not after the truth. They’re out to discredit people for asking simple questions.”

    Comment at RSOL under “Dr. Taitz Speaks with Justice Scalia at Book Signing.”

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    I left this reply:

    In regard to Zapem’s comment:
    “Dr. Conspiracy is a known person never to check facts and has done absolutely no research whatsoever.

    Phil, these people tried to discredit Mario Apuzzo and made several defamation attacks against him, too…”

    I would invite anyone interested to drop by http://www.obamaconspiracy.org and browse more than 200 articles on Obama eligibility issues, packed with unchecked facts and links to where they weren’t checked. You may also see first hand the comments left by Mr. Apuzzo and the courteous defamatory responses I made. And you can see my defamatory comments left on and censored by many blogs such as BraveNet, Apuzzo, Alan Keyes, Citizen Wells and The Betrayal.

    After you’ve finished, feel free to heap ridicule everywhere you find something objectionable — because we accept any and all comments from all points of view without censorship, even a few from ZAPEM.

    Zapem, can I say anything I want over at your place?

    Thanks,

    Dr. Conspiracy

  36. avatar
    ramjet767 March 14, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Apuzzo looks and sounds on the radio and reminds me of the movie “My Cousin Vinny”, but in a tuxedo in this picture of course. Actually a rather good looking guy. And he’s a very good lawyer too from his reputation, this site’s remarks aside. That’s a good picture you guys found of him. And tough looking too. Watch out he don’t “clean your clocks” of you guys and gals on the Obama side. That Vinny character won the case in the end. :-)

  37. avatar
    Bob March 14, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    And he’s a very good lawyer too from his reputation, this site’s remarks aside.

    After looking at his cases that are in the online databases, I’d disagree. Probably the best in the birfer crowd, which is not much of a compliment.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    It took some effort and cooperation from two visitors here to get that picture. I want to get the best picture I can for the Bio pages. Unlike some anti-Obama sites, I don’t want to ridicule someone with a bad picture. For Donofrio, I used all I could find.

  39. avatar
    Mario Apuzzo March 16, 2009 at 1:26 am #

    I have just had the pleasure to read your infantile comments on this blog. I hope that what you each had to say really inflated each of your lame egos. You guys/gals have got to be kidding me. You really should find another line of work, for no one with any degree of real intelligence can find anything of value in your current work.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  40. avatar
    mimi March 16, 2009 at 1:48 am #

    You and MommaE have all the answers. bwhahahahahahahaha!

  41. avatar
    myson March 16, 2009 at 3:19 am #

    M, Considering how right we’ve been on these cases & possibly the future cases, its better to be ‘lame’ but winners than matured but lossing ALL of your cases on eligibility !!!.
    We seems to know & speak the law more than your side, wont you rather be with pple who know the law & win there cases ??

  42. avatar
    Zuzu March 16, 2009 at 3:41 am #

    I hope your clients aren’t relying on your writing skills, Mr. Apuzzo.

  43. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 16, 2009 at 3:46 am #

    So basically you’ve got no law and no evidence to back up your “case” — so you resort to ad hominem?

  44. avatar
    NBC March 16, 2009 at 4:41 am #

    Poor Mario, lost for words when faced with the facts.
    He forgot to follow procedure and ignored the requirement to involve the AG, which is sufficient for his Quo Warranto to be dismissed. He is confused as to the effect of dual nationality on citizenship and the issue of being natural born.
    And let’s not even mention the lack of standing, the problem of judiciability, mootness, failure to state a claim and other legal foundations which will lead the courts to reject his claims, just like they have done consistently so far.

    I am looking forward to what’s next on the docket.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2009 at 6:39 am #

    Scanning for valid arguments . Found: 0.

    But y’all be nice to Mr. Apuzzo. If we stoop to the level of ad hominem attacks and general nastiness (with words like his “lame” and “infantile”), then folks like Zapem can cut and past what we say to the discredit of our little community here.

  46. avatar
    NBC March 16, 2009 at 11:27 am #

    I apologize for my hasty though accurate words.
    We shall see when the Court rejects the Quo Warranto filing.

    Anyone heard anything about

    Ankeny v Governor of Indiana (Daniels)

    There should be a ruling anytime now?

  47. avatar
    Heavy March 16, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    I’ve been saying that for months. But it’s fun to stop by and see what the commies are talking about and occasionally slap them around, verbally.

  48. avatar
    ramjet767 March 16, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Hey folks. I noticed something. If you are going to criticize people for not having the facts or things right on the other side for this new case, you better at least spell the plaintiff’s name right in the Attorney Mario Apuzzo case. I believe you have the name spelled wrong up top. The name is spelled with an “e”, not an “i”, yes/no? Best check it.

    From your posted header above about Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
    ===================================
    Go there to get the latest from the plaintiff’s side on the Kirchner v. Obama lawsuit.

    Apuzzo is doing the talk radio circuit now, so this looks promising for some fresh entertainment to replace tired Orly and Phil. We’ll look at Kirchner v. Obama in more detail (if he’ll stop amending the thing and settle down).
    ===================================

    Don’t underestimate Attorney Apuzzo. That could be your biggest mistake.

    RJ

  49. avatar
    Dabig March 16, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    This was NOT Mr. Apuzzo.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 16, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Thanks, Ramjet767. When I first started on that one, I got the spelling wrong in my head, and those old articles didn’t get fixed.

    I don’t guess I “estimate” Mr. Apuzzo one way or the other. Kerchner v. Obama sucks, though.

  51. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 16, 2009 at 10:48 pm #

    Ankeny v Daniels has been dismissed.

    Dreyer’s order today says the issue raised by the plaintiffs, Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn, now is moot. It also says they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that they are barred from bringing the action under the legal doctrine of laches, which means the plaintiffs waited too long to assert a time-sensitive claim.

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20090316/NEWS02/90316055

  52. avatar
    Gordon March 31, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    If he’s involved in this case he can’t be much of a lawyer. He sounds like an ambulance chaser.

  53. avatar
    Gordon March 31, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    I’ll bet this guy has a blog site where he solicits donations.

  54. avatar
    Gordon March 31, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    Attorney, since you link Article 2 of the Constitution to the term “natural born citizen”, where is the definition of the term? How did the term apply to the Framers and the first seven Presidents, or did they get an exemption that’s not listed in the Constitution?

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 31, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    I have no way of identifying the identities of any of the visitors here. The person posting under the name Mario Apuzzo posts from a consistent IP address, from which I conclude all 11 comments are from the same person, whoever that is.

  56. avatar
    ch April 29, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    Mario and Kerchner have a very nice, thoughtful approach, and have brought the spotlight onto some people who failed their duties deliberately, such as Cheney not asking for objections. Those who criticize this case are desparate, which is obvious when people go after the people not the case. They should get busy and focus on explaining to us why Obama seals all his records, instead of demeaning lawyers upholding our laws. As Obama said when he himsef went after an opponent to remove him from the ballot and had the man’s divorce records unsealed, “our right to know is greater than his right to seal.” Seems pretty appropriate now for Obama himself, do you not think?

  57. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 29, 2009 at 6:37 pm #

    There is a FEDERAL LAW that specifies how objections are to be raised. They have to be (a) in writing, (b) signed by at least one Congress member and at least one Senator.

    There is NO LAW that required Cheney to “ask” for objections. He was required as the presiding officer to consider written objections that had been lodged in advance. None were.

    At the end of the session, Cheney stated a fact: there had been no objections raised or lodged. That fact being true, he then declared the results.

    He did his job. I would suggest that you do yours and actually try to learn what the law requires before accusing people of “failing their duties”.

    Can you give me the name of a Senator and Congress member who wanted to object, but couldn’t? of course not — there was no valid grounds for objection and no one elected to congress who wanted to make a fool of themselves by interposing foolish objections.

  58. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 29, 2009 at 6:49 pm #

    Jack Ryan’s divorce records were opened at MEDIA request, in response to a request brought by the Chicago Tribune and a Chicago tv station. Obama had absolutely nothing to do with and said during the primary that Ryan’s personal affairs were not something he would talk about and were not “appropriate for debate.”
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0622041ryans1.html
    http://www.examiner.com/a-1536355~Mary_Katharine_Ham__Obama_helped_by_sex_scandal_that_wasn_t.html
    http://www.slate.com/id/2102872/
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0406180364jun18,0,7479994.story

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    None of us gets to influence (much less say) what the District Court of New Jersey does. So whatever happens in Kerchner v. Obama happens. When I was in college, the football team wasn’t that good; we had a cheer that went “up the middle, up the middle, up the middle, KICK!” In Mr. Apuzzos case, I think it will be complaint, dismissed, appeal, denied, appeal denied.

  60. avatar
    Just some schmo May 6, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    I took the time to read through his case. It seems to me like he has a point about Congress’s unequal treatment of their constituents and the presidential candidates.

    Here is the New York Times article Mr. Apuzzo mentions:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html
    Here is an article concerning Senate resolution that he says resulted because of the first article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01citizen.html

    Where is the corresponding investigation and resolution declaring that President Obama is eligible? People did, after all, send letters to their representatives questioning his eligibility. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but Mr. Apuzzo does seem to have a case here, however nitpicky it may be. I doubt that an investigation will prove President Obama ineligible to continue in his current office, but who can really say at this point as there has been no investigation. It ought to be carried out just to get this behind us. This President promised to unite the country, and he is causing unnecessary division by continuing to keep his records a secret. We do not need to be any more polarized than we already are. He should recognize this and help us unite again.

  61. avatar
    NBC May 6, 2009 at 3:53 pm #

    In case of McCain, there was a real issue of concern as to the status of children to US citizens born abroad.
    Obama is per his COLB Born in Honolulu. Why should the president cater to the requests of a small group of people who are unwilling to accept the facts?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    Actually, you have it backwards. The Senate rubber-stamped a “natural born citizen” card for John McCain (based on one-sided testimony and NO “investigation”) and they didn’t give one to Obama . They called only favorable witnesses, and they didn’t ask for any documents. It was not an investigation, but an invitation for a couple of folks to speak favorably.

    John McCain needed one.

    There are scholarly articles (e.g. Prof. Chin from Arizona State) declaring quite firmly that McCain was ineligible for the presidency. Are there any such things written about Obama?

    Obama didn’t need one.

    There was no question about Obama’s eligibility, and hence no need for a resolution to prop up his eligibility claim. If there was any doubt, the Senate would have rubber-stamped an NBC card for their colleague Obama too, but there was no need.

    Apuzzo is being disingenuous.

  63. avatar
    kimba May 6, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    And not only that, it wouldn’t satisfy these people. There would be some other reason Obama isn’t eligible or must be removed anyway because of “what he’s doing to this country”. The theories are already morphing. I read on one of the birther sites the other day where someone insisted that Obama disqualified himself by traveling to Kenya and visiting with a politician, and besides, he’s ineligible anyway because he has relatives that live in another country. ( I gather this is a morph of the “allegiance” concept). Nothing will satisfy them, they just don’t want Obama to be President.

  64. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 6, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    I’d point out that questions of McCain’s eligibility were floating early in the primaries – they actually had been raised back in 2000. It was a very significant concern that he needed resolved to get nominated, since he was not born in the US and thus not clearly a citizen under the 14th amendment. (Children born abroad to US Citizen parents acquire their citizenship by statute, not through the Constitution — so there is a better legal argument that they may not be “natural born”)

    Obama was well known to be the son of a Kenyan citizen from his autobiography published in the early 90’s (actually the first public reference is probably in this 1990 article: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html)

    However, no objections were raised as to his qualifications or “natural born” status until the eve of his nomination. Initially it was part of the “Muslim smear” — claims were raised that his middle name was Mohammed — it was only after Obama actually released his COLB that the challenges to his eligibility began. That, of course, started with the claims of the internet blogger “techdude” that the COLB was forged, and persisted even after “techdude” himself was shown to be a fraud.

  65. avatar
    Just some schmo May 6, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    These conspiracy theories are not born in a vacuum, whatever claims you may make to the contrary. Are there some loons out there who will not be satisfied by anything? Of course. There are also some normal people, me being one of them, who believe the last part of my original post. I’ll post it again, since it was not addressed and it is the valid point on which all the conspiracy theories currently hinge:

    I doubt that an investigation will prove President Obama ineligible to continue in his current office, but who can really say at this point as there has been no investigation. It ought to be carried out just to get this behind us. This President promised to unite the country, and he is causing unnecessary division by continuing to keep his records a secret. We do not need to be any more polarized than we already are. He should recognize this and help us unite again by releasing the relevant documents.

    I cannot conceive of a reason that he would want this divisive madness to continue. Offer a reason for his actions that does not put him in a negative light, and I am on your side.

    Until then, the President seems to be disingenuous.

  66. avatar
    NBC May 6, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    This President promised to unite the country, and he is causing unnecessary division by continuing to keep his records a secret.

    The President has provided his COLB which shows him born in Honolulu. Why should he subject himself to the scrutiny of some paranoid people who seem to be intent on undermining his presidency at all cost?

    So tell me, do you accept the President when he claims that he meets the eligibility requirements for being a President, as supported by his COLB?

  67. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 2:51 am #

    Whether I accept it or not is hardly the issue here. I, for one, expect that he is in fact a citizen and I am in no hurry to prove otherwise.

    Do I think that the COLB is sufficient evidence? I don’t know. I do know that there is a growing group of people who think that it is not. Are they paranoid? I don’t know–I haven’t met all of them. The ones that I have met could hardly be described as paranoid. They are upstanding citizens who are concerned about the fact that we know so little about our President.

    What we see here is a fundamental difference in temperament. On the one hand, there are those who hear the President speak and are convinced that we should trust him because he is so inspiring. On the other hand, there are those who hear his inspiring speeches and are immediately on the defensive because those who are most inspiring are also those who can cause the greatest harm. (I will note that they are also the ones who can bring about the greatest good.) So, the first group sees rhetorical inspiration as a cause for celebration and trust, believing the speaker to be a great bringer of good; and the other immediately takes caution and demands greater scrutiny in order to make certain that he is a bringer of good and not of evil.

    I am of the second group and do not want to have the wool pulled over my eyes. I think that history legitimizes this concern. Am I going to say that President Obama is the next Hitler? Of course not. I will say that he is deliberately keeping his past a secret, and that, in my mind, there is not a legitimate reason for doing so. When interviewing babysitters, a mother should probably not choose to hire the one who says “no comment” to questions about his or her past. I think that the question of the President’s eligibility is just part of this broader concern. These people are not paranoid. They just want to know who is babysitting the future for their children and their country. The eligibility issue offers a way to get the information that he has so far not seen fit to release.

    I do not appreciate being caricatured as paranoid. I have no interest in undermining Obama’s Presidency. I do not even suspect that the documents would do so. However, his desire to keep them secret does seem to suggest that there is something in them that would not look so good. I want the media to be a little bit more cautious in dealing with the President, and to at least ask him why he has not seen fit to release information about himself. When someone is so inspiring and rhetorically convincing, he or she is in a better position to manipulate and take advantage of us. We should, therefore, exercise greater caution when we listen to him, closely researching and analyzing the substance of the person behind the inspiration.

    The mainstream media could bring an end to all of these conspiracy theories in a week. All they would have to do is ask him the right questions, and I predict that these people would be satisfied. A large source of the conspiracy aspect of this situation is the media’s failure to ask these questions. If you don’t believe me, read around. They think the media is in on it.

  68. avatar
    myson May 7, 2009 at 4:14 am #

    May i respond to “Just some schmo says:
    May 7, 2009 at 2:51 am”, what exactly do you want to know about Obama that is relevant to his eligibility ? What definition of NBC do you subscribe to ? Born in America or blood & soil ?
    Because it would seem you WANT to believe the worst of Obama even if you have no proof of any wrong doing ? May i ask what investigation was done on Clinton, Bush (1 & 2), Reagan that you are aware off that proves them worthy of the presidency ? If you dont want to be thought of as paranoid let us know what type of investigation should be done differently on Obama from that done on the past presidents
    I am almost certain you will return with the conclusion that no special investigation was done on Obama than was different from that done on the past presidents i.e. if objection is raised during counting of electoral college votes, its investigated But where none is raised then appecting the votes means Congress believes the person so elected is qualified.
    So if Congress has by its action or inaction ruled that Obama is qualified what special investigation do you still want ??

  69. avatar
    aarrgghh May 7, 2009 at 4:16 am #

    you do not understand conspiracy theory if you believe that “the mainstream media could bring an end to all of these conspiracy theories in a week”. that’s not how they work. like religious faith, people believe conspiracy theories not because of evidence or despite the lack of it: they believe, as fox mulder says, because “i want to believe.” so “whether i accept it or not” is precisely the issue here.

    obama has gone through all the steps legally required of him. he has produced a state-vouched document attesting to his hawaiian birth. the state and homeland security departments rejected all the major birther claims in its recent response to the strunk v obama foia. at this point, without extraordinary verfiable proof to the contrary, to not accept his hawaiian birth as fact is objectively unreasonable.

    you claim to have reasonable doubts, ones not satisfied by the colb. would those doubts be satisfied by the long form document? you do not say. in fact, you don’t offer any criteria. i would expect most people to be very skeptical of the demands of people who don’t provide a goal post. because goal posts have a nasty habit of being moved.

    let’s say the long form is your goal post. let’s say obama produces it. let’s say it is independently verified as authentic. let’s say you are convinced. congratulations! welcome to the other side of the looking glass. … but, someone else says, “i’m still not convinced.” in fact, there are still many standing by him (though never as many as they claim), as there always will be, as long as obama is in office. what do you say to those folks? that they are being unreasonable? “no,” they insist, “we have our own goal posts, and obama has not met them.”

    those folks are where you are now, waiting for obama to jump through your hoop.

  70. avatar
    myson May 7, 2009 at 4:45 am #

    May i respond to “Just some schmo says:
    May 7, 2009 at 2:51 am”, what exactly do you want to know about Obama that is relevant to his eligibility ? What definition of NBC do you subscribe to ? Born in America or blood & soil ?
    Because it would seem you WANT to believe the worst of Obama even if you have no proof of any wrong doing ? May i ask what investigation was done on Clinton, Bush (1 & 2), Reagan that you are aware off that proves them worthy of the presidency ? If you dont want to be thought of as paranoid let us know what type of investigation should be done differently on Obama from that done on the past presidents
    I am almost certain you will return with the conclusion that no special investigation was done on Obama than was different from that done on the past presidents i.e. if objection is raised during counting of electoral college votes, its investigated But where none is raised then appecting the votes means Congress believes the person so elected is qualified.
    So if Congress has by its action or inaction ruled that Obama is qualified what special investigation do you still want ??

  71. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 7, 2009 at 5:02 am #

    . I do know that there is a growing group of people who think that it is not.

    Dwindling, the word is “dwindling” not “growing”.

    They are upstanding citizens who are concerned about the fact that we know so little about our President.

    Try reading Obama’s 2 books. If you haven’t, then you can’t honestly claim “concern” — as it means you simply haven’t tried to learn. “Know so little” simply flies in the face of reality: this is a man who wrote an autobiography detailing his early life and the lives of his extended family, when he was in his early 30’s — and he has been leading a public life holding elective office almost continuously since then. The guy’s whole life is literally an open book.

    I am of the second group and do not want to have the wool pulled over my eyes.

    You are raising a political concern, not a concern based on qualifications or eligibility. I would suggest that you read “The Audacity of Hope.” He pretty much lays out his viewpoint on every political issue as well as his basic analytical approach to everything in that book. There have been no surprises to anyone who has read the book.

    I am not saying this to sing his praises. I, too, was skeptical when he first started running. That’s why I read the books — it was the most direct way of figuring out what the guy was about.

    Obama is not keeping any “secrets” — the COLB is the official document Hawaii gives out when you ask for a birth certificate. Obama released it and made it available to journalists who wanted to see the original.

    One thing about Obama is that he doesn’t waste time with trifles. He doesn’t let himself or his people get distracted worrying about things he doesn’t think are worth his time to respond to. You could see it in the way he simply ignores all the little criticisms from the right wing about the hokey gift he gave to the British prime minister, or using a teleprompter, or whatever other trivial issue they are making a fuss about. He simply ignores all that stuff and keeps right on going. This is something that you can see from observation — it was very obvious in the debates, for example. He simply is not easily distracted. I would assume that he views the birther stuff as one more trivial distraction he doesn’t have time to bother with.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2009 at 6:59 am #

    I agree that there are some people who have doubts and who are not “nut cases”. However, those I know well are more “stubborn” than anything else.

    I also think that just as there are many lies and misinformation about the issue spread, so do I think that the extent of the controversy itself is misrepresented.

    But read the anti-Obama web sites. Even of the eligibility issue were resolved, to them Obama is still destroying the country. There is no resolution to this.

  73. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2009 at 7:17 am #

    Do I think that the COLB is sufficient evidence? I don’t know. I do know that there is a growing group of people who think that it is not. Are they paranoid? I don’t know–I haven’t met all of them. The ones that I have met could hardly be described as paranoid. They are upstanding citizens who are concerned about the fact that we know so little about our President.

    Reasonable people can reach false conclusions when they are misled as to the facts. If you believe that Hawaiian law permits them to give anybody that wants one a birth certificate that says they were born in Honolulu, then you might well not believe the COLB. If you believe Indonesian law only let Indonesians attend public school in the 1960’s then you might think Obama had become an Indonesian citizen. If you believe that Americans couldn’t travel to Pakistan in 1981 then you might wonder what passport Obama used. If you believe Ron Polarik has sworn an affidavit that the COLB is a forgery, then you might discount the document.

    Only all those “facts” are false, and well-documented as false. The problem is that people trust information from their friends, and that’s how rumors persist. And Obama’s ineligibility is very much a rumor that grows in the telling. And there are bald-faced liars making this stuff up. I’ve seen this in my discussions, where I will back someone into a corner with facts, and they will just make a new factoid up out of thin air, like MommaE apparently did with Obama admitting in the hard to get first edition of his book that he was adopted.

    I have spent literally hundreds of hours researching and writing on this topic, including scanning microfilm reels at the public library and pouring over obscure colonial legislation on the Internet. Every conspiracy theory claim, I have tracked back as far as it can be tracked. They all end in false assumptions. The ONLY document that I presume is legitimate is the Indonesian school record that says Obama’s nationality is Indonesian, and this form is just something his father filled out and has no legal import (and could not by law mean that Obama was an Indonesian citizen).

    But if you have doubts about Obama’s eligibility, I would suggest that you have had the wool pulled over your eyes.

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2009 at 8:17 am #

    I too was very impressed by the Audacity of Hope. Obama seemed to have a very clear analysis of our problems and our politics. He seems an immensely pragmatic person. This is partly proved by his getting elected. The next 4/8 years will test the rest.

  75. avatar
    NBC May 7, 2009 at 11:01 am #

    I will say that he is deliberately keeping his past a secret, and that, in my mind, there is not a legitimate reason for doing so.

    Even though he has presented his COLB, even though he has written several books detailing his past?
    You seem to be confusing the paranoid conspiracy claims with evidence of the President keeping something a secret. Why is he not showing his Indonesian Passport which he must have obviously used when visting Pakistan… Such claims are just too outrageous for the President to be distracted by them. Legitimate concerns need to be addressed, and as such, the rumors that the President was born in Kenya deserved to be laid to rest through the release of his COLB. If that is no sufficient for some, then too bad, I doubt that anything would satisfy their ‘requirements’.The large majority of people who feign ‘concern’ are not worried about the eligibility issue as much as about the policies of our first black President, calling him a Muslim, accusing him of treason, insinuating that his policies are communist, marxist and socialist.
    There is no reason for the media nor the President to give any credibility to these claims by addressing them, as the people voicing them will likely not be convinced through reason and fact.

  76. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    You have missed the main thrust of what I am trying to say. I will repeat the relevant parts and explain myself more clearly.

    What we see here is a fundamental difference in temperament. On the one hand, there are those who hear the President speak and are convinced that we should trust him because he is so inspiring. On the other hand, there are those who hear his inspiring speeches and are immediately on the defensive because those who are most inspiring are also those who can cause the greatest harm. (I will note that they are also the ones who can bring about the greatest good.) So, the first group sees rhetorical inspiration as a cause for celebration and trust, believing the speaker to be a great bringer of good; and the other immediately takes caution and demands greater scrutiny in order to make certain that he is a bringer of good and not of evil.

    I am of the second group because I do not like having the wool pulled over my eyes. I get a suspicious feeling whenever someone is selling me something. In any other area of life, you would recognize this as reasonable caution and not as paranoia. I don’t call in and buy what they are selling on infomercials. Why? I don’t trust it–I need to know more about it first because I know that they are set to gain from their description of the product. I think that history legitimizes this concern. Am I going to say that President Obama is the next Hitler? Of course not. I will say that he is deliberately keeping parts of his past a secret, and that in my mind, there is not a legitimate reason for doing so.(I am not here referring to his long form birth certificate, but to his school records.) When interviewing prospective students, a college is wise to ask for their references, accounts of themselves given by a third party. I think that the question of the President’s eligibility is JUST PART of this BROADER CONCERN. Some people are not paranoid. They just want to know who is babysitting the future for their children and their country. The eligibility issue offers a way to get the information that he has so far not seen fit to release.

    Reference has been made to the fact that he wrote an autobiography. Great. We know what he says about his past. Is it anything more than cautious to want a third-party account–a third-party review of the product before calling the number in the infomercial? How is this paranoid? Again, I am not particularly concerned about his eligibility. I do think it strange that he does not want us to see certain parts of his past outside of his own rhetoric.

    Give me a reason that he would keep his school records sealed that does not put him in a negative light, and you have won me over. Do not continue to lump me in with those who maybe are just paranoid. Please recognize that I am a part of legitimately concerned group of people who wants the media to look at a third-party review before buying the Obama Brand.

  77. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    So, to clarify even a little bit more. My goal post is not set for Mr. Obama. It is set for the media.

  78. avatar
    Heavy May 7, 2009 at 2:11 pm #

    He must be another one of them thar redneck racists! How DARE you question THE ONE?!?!

    We are to just take his word for it. He tlod us who he is in his books. What more could we possibly need?

  79. avatar
    NBC May 7, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    Lacking an argument, our resident ‘Heavy’-weight seems to have resorted to ridicule and non sequiturs.

    Good job…

  80. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 2:24 pm #

    I would appreciate it if you responded to my post, Mr. NBC, rather than to the one that is most easily refuted.

  81. avatar
    Heavy May 7, 2009 at 2:32 pm #

    NBC, you can’t be that much of a stick in the mud. Where’s your sense of humor.

    You must admit it is funny (I Personally find it sick) that some people just take his word for who he is and what he has done which is nothing and NOTHING.

  82. avatar
    NBC May 7, 2009 at 3:08 pm #

    Some people will ‘just take his word for it’, of course when his words are backed up by the facts, more people will come to accept. Then there will be those who in spite of the facts, continue to deny them

  83. avatar
    NBC May 7, 2009 at 3:15 pm #

    Give me a reason that he would keep his school records sealed that does not put him in a negative light, and you have won me over.

    School records are ‘sealed’ by privacy laws. Why should we have access to his school records?
    What’s next?

  84. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    NBC, I explained this in the post to which you are responding. We should ask for access to his school records as a matter of prudence, as an employer asks applicants for references. Read my post again and see if it is really that unreasonable.

    The media is usually very interested in a politician’s past. This is because we cannot know about someone’s character without some knowledge of his or her past. We cannot know with certainty that someone’s story of their own past is trustworthy when they are set to gain from the manner in which that story is told. Ergo, we should have access to a neutral statement of his story before we make any decisions concerning President Obama’s character.

    Unfortunately, many have declared him good based solely on the content of his autobiography and the information released by his campaign. Neither of these represents a neutral source.

    I am asking that we exercise more caution than this. Is that so unreasonable?

  85. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 7, 2009 at 3:35 pm #

    Give me a reason that he would keep his school records sealed that does not put him in a negative light, and you have won me over.

    To protect his former teachers from undue media and public harassment, since school records would give the names of every one of his teachers.

    Now here is my question for you: What could possibly be in school records that would bear upon eligibility? We know the man graduated from Harvard Law with honors, and we know is grades were good enough at Occidental to allow him to transfer to Columbia (an Ivy League school). We know he majored in political science… so we have a general idea of the courses he probably completed. What more could possibly be relevant?

  86. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 3:37 pm #

    Thank you for actually answering my question Expelliarmus. Yours seems a reasonable answer.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 7, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    “We should ask for access to his school records as a matter of prudence, as an employer asks applicants for references.”

    The election is over. Your pleas for caution might have had some validity last year, but I don’t see the relevance today.

  88. avatar
    Just some schmo May 7, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    He will be up for reelection in four years. You still seem to be right to a certain extent, as he will hopefully have proven his character by then. Either way, however, the media should alter its behavior and not declare someone to be of an excellent character on the grounds that he says he is good. This seems obvious to me. It is generally outside of the media’s role to make biased ethical judgments and to declare them as factual. Ex: Palin is dumb; Obama is good. This does not represent good or responsible reporting.

  89. avatar
    NBC May 7, 2009 at 5:52 pm #

    Ex: Palin is dumb; Obama is good. This does not represent good or responsible reporting.

    That’s what happens when you let them speak for themselves. Is that the media’s fault?

  90. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 7, 2009 at 6:43 pm #

    . We should ask for access to his school records as a matter of prudence, as an employer asks applicants for references.

    That’s a great analogy – but employers generally don’t ask for school records. Employers want to know what schools the applicant attended, and what degrees were earned — and they may call the schools to confirm the dates of attendance and degrees that are listed in the resume — but they do not generally ask for transcripts or school records.

    There may be some exceptions, especially when a student is applying for their first job out of college — but even then they are interested only in the records of the school where the highest degree was earned. So I certainly could see the University of Chicago asking to see Obama’s Harvard Law transcripts before hiring him to teach Constitutional law at their school — but no employer would be interested in Obama’s undergraduate records once he earned that law degree.

    Generally the only time those undergraduate records might be looked at is if the person was applying to a graduate program and needed to document previous course work.

    That’s why it is seen as both silly and intrusive when people claim Obama is “hiding” something that isn’t ordinarily disclosed. (You haven’t seen undergraduate college records for any other President or Presidential candidate, either … its not something that is ordinarily opened or disseminated in the course of a political campaign. We know that George W. Bush was a “C” student at Yale and that John McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at Annapolis only because they opted to disclose those facts — but the transcripts or school records have never been released.

  91. avatar
    tom May 18, 2009 at 6:39 am #

    what is it that all of you seem to be unable to grasp(apprehend)? Unless some evidence (eg orig vault vers long form bc, DNA, etc)surfaces; showing B.O. Jr.’s biological father to be someone other than British Subject/Kenyan citizen B.O. Sr ,non-immigrant and temporary sojourner to U.S. THEN this character currently occupying MY WhiteHouse is not a natural-born U.S. citizen & ineligble for the office. NO children of foreigners allowed to serve as PRES OR VEEP. Sorry , “NWO” dolts if you don’t like it you should work on an Amendment. If you can’t understand your own constitution then you are NOT ‘smarter than a 5th grader’

  92. avatar
    myson May 18, 2009 at 7:35 am #

    tom, we will ALL agree with you if your definition of NBC was what this site had been uncovering as he looked but it isnt. the definition of NBC as at the time of the framers we believe is “born in USA then NBC” . Of course you may not agree with this but site has consistently shown that almost (not all) everyone as the time of the birth of the USA believed that born in usa=NBC,we generally believe here that based on that Obama = NBC. It should be noted that even Leo Don (the all knowing) who diverted peoples attention to another definition of NBC has said his opinion “is not controlling law but what he would like it to be “(i paraphrase him), Most decision of courts in the usa accept that a person born in the usa even of foreign parents gets ALL the rights of an American . So wishing that your definition is accepted as fact is not the same as positively asserting it as true no matter how much you want it to be

  93. avatar
    NBC May 18, 2009 at 11:42 am #

    Your argument makes one little error: Born on US soil is sufficient to make the child natural born, regardless of the nationality of the parents.

    Simple really. Just follow common law tradition and the rulings of the Supreme Court and you will come to realize what the meaning of natural born is

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 18, 2009 at 7:29 pm #

    Tom, I’m confident that if you consult any 5th grade civics book (or any high school civics book) you will find no requirement regarding a president’s parents. It’s simply not there. No such requirement is in the constitution, nor in any law nor any US court decision. This is what my senator said:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”

    I suggest before you attempt to enlighten anyone else, you enlighten yourself, perhaps starting here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/

  95. avatar
    tom May 19, 2009 at 10:25 am #

    no need to “consult” the history book when a copy of the Constitution is readily available. No amount of faux-scholarship and lame attempts to obscure the meaning of natural born will change its’ true definition—hereditary right at birth vs territorial–the ligament/natural tie was not/had not been severed in B.O. ‘s case at the time of his birth. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that the eligibility req for Pres hardly merits a mention in most public school textbooks or that this most important Article has been omitted or the language altered. If you check out the official gov’t materials that are used to prepare immigrants for the current citizenship test the word ‘natural’ has been replaced with “native”. Now, why do you think that is? One asks, rhetorically. Funny thing is that I asked a recent immigrant from Guatemala, 22 yrs old, to tell me what constituted a natural born citizen….and without hesitation …he replied: someone who is born in the country, to parents who are citizens. he had no difficulty, whatsoever ,understanding the very simple concept of allegiance just as I along with ALL of my 7th & 8th grade classmates and teachers had no problem with it decades ago. Stop looking for a “definition” when it is right in front of you; apparent.

  96. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 10:36 am #

    If you check out the official gov’t materials that are used to prepare immigrants for the current citizenship test the word natural’ has been replaced with “native”.

    Because the two almost overlap. The only exceptions are those born to ambassadors, invading military and in case of the US, native Americans.

    When deciding the meaning of natural born, we should not rely on an “immigrant from Guatamala”. Instead we should focus on the meaning of the term at the writing of the Constitution. As the courts have quite consistently pointed out the term is not defined in the Constitution and thus one has to rely on Common Law practices which indicate that natural born includes anyone born on ‘native soil’, regardless of the nationality of the parents.
    Similarly, allegiance should also be correctly interpreted as: being held to the laws of the country. Which is why a small class of people, mostly children from ambassadors are excluded from being ‘natural born’.
    Now, given the facts, I have no problem with you wanting to reject legislative and legal precedent in favor of your personal beliefs and interpretations. I am curious, do you believe that the Constitution is open to personal interpretation of its meaning?

  97. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    Excellent resources Doc.

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 19, 2009 at 11:03 am #

    Tom tries to throw sand in our eyes: ignore the history, ignore the scholarship– ignore the facts.

    The truth is that the Constitution has no definition of natural born citizen, and anyone that says otherwise is ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead others. The definition comes from common law, where all the definitions in the Constitution come from (Smith v Alabama), and that definition has no parental requirement (US v Wong).

    As for the immigrant from Guatemala, that person was either guessing (wrong) or if the question was recent enough, he was responding based on some propaganda web site or rumor-based email. He certainly wasn’t speaking from any US Government publication, school text, court case, constitutional commentary or any other authoritative source — because there aren’t any.

    If it is true what you said about your 7th grade class (and I have no reason to believe that it is), what was the basis for your class’s view? What book or authority did you get it from? If they just made it up, then they were pooling their ignorance. I’ll take the opinion of the Supreme Court of New York over your 7th graders any day. The Court said:

    Upon principle therefore I can entertain no doubt but that by the law of the United States every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States whatever were the situation of his parents is a natural born citizen…the general understanding of the legal profession and the universal impression of the public mind so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it

    You say a definition is “right in front of you”. Where precisely is it “right in front of you”. What book, what decision, what document is it in? And don’t refer me to some Swiss philosopher, because his book didn’t contain the words “natural born citizen” until they were added by a translator AFTER the Constitution was written.

    The fact is that the two-parent definition was created specifically late last year as an attack against Barack Obama. Until then, anybody in the least informed knew that parentage has nothing do to with the eligibility of a president.

    Until you can provide any authority to back you up, I do not take you seriously because you have no argument. You are peddling your opinions as fact.

  99. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 19, 2009 at 11:12 am #

    Well until I see the “before” and “after”, I’m not going to concede that any government document was changed. Tom’s not provided us with any evidence for anything he asserts up until now, and doesn’t seem to have his facts straight in general. He hasn’t earned trust in this forum.

  100. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 11:29 am #

    So far the new citizenship test has nothing on native other than native americans.
    However, the ‘study book’ states “native born” as a requirement. The booklet was updated in 02/09 due to the change in administration. I am checking to see if the document was changed otherwise.

    The old Citizen Test states

    Answer 46: A candidate for President must
    be a native-born, not naturalized,
    citizen,
    be at least 35 years old, and
    have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years.

  101. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 11:32 am #

    The old version was revised 01/09. The USCIS is in transition from an old to new test and both tests are at this time available during a transition period.

  102. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 11:37 am #

    Last updated:09/19/2008

    As a naturalized US citizen you have the same rights and privileges as a native born US citizen with one exception. Only a native born US citizen can be president of the United States.

    and

    f you are not a native born U.S. citizen, answer the following as appropriate:

    Source: I_134: OMB No. 1615-0014; Exp. 04-30-07

  103. avatar
    NBC May 19, 2009 at 11:43 am #

    Flashcared from USCIS which are for the Bush era still mention native-born as a requirement.

    I’d say the myth is busted

  104. avatar
    paul m May 26, 2009 at 12:49 pm #

    “tom” is right
    the purest, most unbiased, unfiltered response to ; “natural” ” born” ……..PARENTS the trail leads no where else whether you sprung from a test tube, are the product of a broken home, or were raised in the most nurturing, supportive environment/family imaginable

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2009 at 1:12 pm #

    I respect the right of everyone to their own opinions, whether smart or stupid, well reasoned or dittoed from Rush Limbaugh, inclusive or racist. This is why we have elections. However, when it comes to questions of law, opinions such (yours included) don’t count.

  106. avatar
    barrack November 30, 2009 at 6:34 am #

    WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

  107. avatar
    Scientist November 30, 2009 at 8:28 am #

    Good point. Where IS Mario’s birth certificate?

  108. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy November 30, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    It’s in my fire-resistance box in the closet behind me. Why?

  109. avatar
    nbc January 20, 2010 at 12:13 pm #

    Apuzzo has filed his brief in the Appeal case. It seems that Mario’s attention to detail is as extensive as in his verified complaint…

    Note that Mario has exceeded both number of words and pages in his brief… Finding gold coins in a bucket of mud comes to mind.

    01/19/2010 Open Document ECF FILER: ELECTRONIC BRIEF on behalf of Appellants Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Darrell James Lenormand, Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. and Lowell T. Patterson, filed. Certificate of Service dated 01/19/2010 by email. (MA)

  110. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 9, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    What if all the conditions of Obama’s birth was the same except that his father was Nikita Kruschev? Would Obama be eligible to run for president under Article 11 section 1 of the U.S. Constitution? Would the press cover that story? Would a COLB be enough in that case to place a candidate on the ballot in the Presidential primaries and the general elections. What say you lawyers to this common sense analysis?

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    Dave Tincher: What if all the conditions of Obama’s birth was the same except that his father was Nikita Kruschev?

    While I think such a person would have next to no chance of getting elected, the Constitution doesn’t make any distinction as to who the President’s father is.

    Dave Tincher: What say you lawyers to this common sense analysis?

    What analysis? All I see is questions.

  112. avatar
    Scientist May 9, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    Dave Tincher: Do children necessarily believe everything their parents believe? You may not be aware that Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana, defected to the US and denounced her father in 1967. Due to her not being born in the US she was not eligible to be President, but suppose she had been?

  113. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 9, 2010 at 1:20 pm #

    I have a copy of her book, ”ва´цать писем к ´ругу (Twenty letters to a friend), but my Russian isn’t good enough to read it.

  114. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 20, 2010 at 12:06 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy, I was trying to give some logical analysis to Obama’s birth and his father being a foreign born citizen. Can you name any other Presidents whose father or mother was foreign born? I know of only one Chester Arthur and he pulled a quick one. There was not much media in those days. If the constitution says it does not matter who the father is, then following your reasoning if both parents were foreign born and not naturalized citizens of the U.S. then that child if born in America would be able to run for President. Why does the constitution even have two types of citizens naturalized and natural born? What is the point of all this? My previous post replacing obama’s dad with kruschev and all other conditions the same was to prove a point on how our country could be taken over by electing someone like kruschev’s son to the Presidency.

  115. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 20, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    Scientist, Why does the constitution have two types of citizens naturalized and natural born? Why does the constitution require a president to be natural born and not naturalized? You think maybe the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the British did not have any ideas of infiltrating our government by electing a president who was 35 years of age and born to two parents who were british citizens loyal to the crown and indocrinated their son or daughter on how evil the colonies are, and take over the executive branch of government.

  116. avatar
    nbC May 20, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Dave Tincher: Why does the constitution have two types of citizens naturalized and natural born?

    Since President Obama is clearly not naturalized, he must thus be natural born. As to your suggestion. The Founders were concerned about certain Europeans coming to the US and running for the office of President.
    The immigration requirements in those days were trivial and thus adding natural born eliminated naturalized citizens.
    However, if two British subjects would have had a child on US soil then the child, if meeting the eligibility requirements could run for President and if the people were to elect him/her, this person would be our President.
    Of course, even a child born to two US citizens could take over the executive branch of the Government, we have seen how poor a job Bush did… Almost destroyed our Country.

  117. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 20, 2010 at 1:20 am #

    Dave Tincher: Dr. Conspiracy, I was trying to give some logical analysis to Obama’s birth and his father being a foreign born citizen. Can you name any other Presidents whose father or mother was foreign born? I know of only one Chester Arthur and he pulled a quick one. There was not much media in those days. If the constitution says it does not matter who the father is, then following your reasoning if both parents were foreign born and not naturalized citizens of the U.S. then that child if born in America would be able to run for President. Why does the constitution even have two types of citizens naturalized and natural born? What is the point of all this?My previous post replacing obama’s dad with kruschev and all other conditions the same was to prove a point on how our country could be taken over by electing someone like kruschev’s son to the Presidency.

    Usually the question is posed about the citizenship of parents, not where they were born. The qualifications for president and vice-president are the same and just off hand I know that Hubert Humphrey and Spiro Agnew both had foreign born parents. George Washingon’s parents were not US Citizens, although one could hardly call them “foreign born.”

    I vigorously disagree with your comment “there was not much media in those days [when Arthur was elected Vice President].” We had large newspapers, including the New York Times, who covered the Garfield/Arthur campaign (Arthur was from New York) and at the time a Democrat lawyer named Hinman was scouring the countryside investigating the circumstances of Arthur’s birth, trying to prove Arthur was born in Canada. Hinman’s exploits were covered in the Times and the Brooklyn Eagle, to name a couple. I’ve read the press coverage of the campaign from microfilm copies of the Times. The press was quite strong.

    Finally, based on my extensive reading of what the founders and their contemporaries wrote, I find no evidence that they shared your concern about parentage. All their statements and writing say that they wanted a US-born president, someone who from the beginning was a attached to American society and even then they required only 14 years (out of 35) years residence.

  118. avatar
    G May 20, 2010 at 1:48 am #

    Dave Tincher: Why does the constitution have two types of citizens naturalized and natural born? Why does the constitution require a president to be natural born and not naturalized?

    SImple. The distinction is between those that have been citizens of this nation from the time of their birth and those that come to this country at some later point in their life and choose to become a citizen.

    The simplest explanation for the distinction of NBC in the role of President, as the highest power role in this country, is that it should be held by someone who has been always been a citizen of this country; not just someone who came here and decided to join the US later in life (with the exception made for those that fought in the Revolutionary War).

  119. avatar
    myson May 20, 2010 at 3:21 am #

    May i also add, travel isn’t like what it is today, to get to America in the 1700-early 1900s, one had to take a long journey in a ship probably a 3months journey from most of Europe.
    So if anyone has plans to have a child in the USA in that time, it would have to be a very long time plan not a simple jumping on a plane.
    I believe that’s y the NBC makes sense when it was put there, anyone that could get to the USA & have a child then such a child is entitled to NBC status. Even to have a 14year residency & be 35years old when life expectancy was surely less than what it is now.
    By this http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography, life expectancy for whites in 1850 was 39years, so its safe to assume that a man with a 14yr residency has spent about half his life in the USA & should have substantially assimilated into the American society.IMHO

  120. avatar
    Scientist May 20, 2010 at 6:05 am #

    Dave Tincher: You think maybe the founding fathers wanted to make sure that the British did not have any ideas of infiltrating our government by electing a president who was 35 years of age and born to two parents who were british citizens loyal to the crown and indocrinated their son or daughter on how evil the colonies are, and take over the executive branch of government.

    It isn’t 1776 and the British are NOT coming. The British Empire is dead and no British person alive today really thinks of the US as “The Colonies”. The last war between the US and Britain happened 200 years ago and in the last 100 years they have fought on the same side at least a half dozen times, including 2 on-going wars. The Queen didn’t send Barack Obama Sr. here with the goal of fathering a child who would grow up to be President so she could reclaim her domains. Nor did Obama Sr. devote much effort to “indoctrinating” his son or having anything to do with him at all.

    As for the founding fathers, I don’t know what “they” wanted, since they didn’t agree on much of anything. While some of them wrote and debated extensively about various aspects of the Constitution, they really had nothing at all to say about natural born citizen.

    Anyway, I am more tired than I can say of people citing the founding fathers to justify everything from the role of religion in public life to what to have for lunch. If the only reason someone can give for their position is that somebody in 1787 said thus and such, then they need to go back to square one and rethink.

  121. avatar
    SFJeff May 20, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    “did not have any ideas of infiltrating our government by electing a president who was 35 years of age and born to two parents who were british citizens loyal to the crown and indocrinated their son or daughter on how evil the colonies are, and take over the executive branch of government.”

    If that is really the fear, what would prevent that very same government sending two agents to the United States to become citizens, and then have a child here, and then return to the home country to raise their child there, only to return him 15 years before they want him elected?

    But most importantly of all to me- what you are suggesting- while potentially shocking to those who even remember Krushev- is a NBC test contrary to what I was taught growing up. I was taught that anyone born in the United States could become President.

    Until Obama was elected President I never heard of any such two-citizen parent nonsense. That of course is not a legal opinion, but my point is that the common understanding of what constitutes a NBC is a person born in the United States, and this is why the voters had no qualms about Obama’s eligibility when they voted for him.

  122. avatar
    Rickey May 20, 2010 at 11:25 am #

    Dave Tincher: Can you name any other Presidents whose father or mother was foreign born? I know of only one Chester Arthur and he pulled a quick one.

    The fathers of Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan were born in Ireland.

  123. avatar
    Bob Ross May 20, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    SFJeff: “did not have any ideas of infiltrating our government by electing a president who was 35 years of age and born to two parents who were british citizens loyal to the crown and indocrinated their son or daughter on how evil the colonies are, and take over the executive branch of government.”If that is really the fear, what would prevent that very same government sending two agents to the United States to become citizens, and then have a child here, and then return to the home country to raise their child there, only to return him 15 years before they want him elected? But most importantly of all to me- what you are suggesting- while potentially shocking to those who even remember Krushev- is a NBC test contrary to what I was taught growing up. I was taught that anyone born in the United States could become President. Until Obama was elected President I never heard of any such two-citizen parent nonsense. That of course is not a legal opinion, but my point is that the common understanding of what constitutes a NBC is a person born in the United States, and this is why the voters had no qualms about Obama’s eligibility when they voted for him.

    Whats funny about this whole conspiracy about England infiltrating the presidency is that our system runs off a series of checks and balances. Now if this was a single branch government yeah it would make sense. However the conspiracy discounts the other two branches of our government. Even if they infiltrated the presidency they still have to contend with the legislative and judicial branch. I think it would be much easier for them to just have infiltrators in congress because then they could set legislative policy.

  124. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 21, 2010 at 5:38 pm #

    Rickey said that the fathers of Andrew Jackson and James Buchanan were born in Ireland.
    Rickey, we are comparing these presidents to Obama obviously. I will give you a history lesson and a constitution lesson here! The constitution was adopted on sept 17, 1787 and future presidents who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution met that citizen requirement to run for President. Andrew Jackson was born in the U.S. on March 15, 1767, Andrew Jackson’s father could be born in a foreign country in that case under Article !! section 1 and he became a citizen unlike Obama Sr. Next is James Buchanan whose father was born in Ireland. James Buchanan was born on April 23, 1791, and that was after the constitution was adopted, but James Buchanan’s dad became a citizen unlike Obama Sr. If your parents are foreign born and take a citizen’s oath and become a U.S. naturalized citizen then their offspring born in the U.S. are natural born citizens and meet the requirement to run for president and must be 35 years of age and been a resident for 14 years.. Obama’s father was a british subject so I guess Obama could also run for prime minister of Britain and the U.S. if we believe everyone posting on this board. Next question please?

  125. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 21, 2010 at 5:54 pm #

    nbC: Since President Obama is clearly not naturalized, he must thus be natural born. As to your suggestion. The Founders were concerned about certain Europeans coming to the US and running for the office of President.The immigration requirements in those days were trivial and thus adding natural born eliminated naturalized citizens.However, if two British subjects would have had a child on US soil then the child, if meeting the eligibility requirements could run for President and if the people were to elect him/her, this person would be our President.Of course, even a child born to two US citizens could take over the executive branch of the Government, we have seen how poor a job Bush did… Almost destroyed our Country.

    No Obama under 14th amendment can only be naturalized or simply born in the U.S.. Read the amendment that was adopted before Obama’s birth. The amendment covers people born the U.S. or naturalized. Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father Obama Sr never became a citizen by taking the oath. If we follow your reasoning then Obama could run for president and probably prime minister of England.
    Your wrong on the two british citizens having a child born in the U.S., and if the british took the oath and became citizens then the child born in America could run for President, but I guess if we follow your reasoning with the two british parents then the child born in America after being President could run for Prime Minister of Britain since both his parents were British.

  126. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 21, 2010 at 5:57 pm #

    Bob Ross: Whats funny about this whole conspiracy about England infiltrating the presidency is that our system runs off a series of checks and balances. Now if this was a single branch government yeah it would make sense. However the conspiracy discounts the other two branches of our government. Even if they infiltrated the presidency they still have to contend with the legislative and judicial branch. I think it would be much easier for them to just have infiltrators in congress because then they could set legislative policy.

    Read the 14th amendment about citizens being naturalized or born…..does not mention natural born. If we follow your reasoning naturalized or born equals natural born.

  127. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 6:05 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Read the 14th amendment about citizens being naturalized or born…..does not mention natural born. If we follow your reasoning naturalized or born equals natural born.

    Close but no cigar.

    Natural-born and natural-ized

    There are only two kinds of citizenships. Legal jurisprudence, scholarly research and historical documents all point to this.
    Natural-born/native-born were considered to be equivalent concepts. The 14th amendment recognizes that there are only two kinds of citizens (natural) born or natural-ized.
    The discussion surrounding the 14th where it was admitted that children born to aliens could run for President merely reflect the common law practices of our country.

  128. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 21, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    Scientist: It isn’t 1776 and the British are NOT coming. The British Empire is dead and no British person alive today really thinks of the US as “The Colonies”. The last war between the US and Britain happened 200 years ago and in the last 100 years they have fought on the same side at least a half dozen times, including 2 on-going wars. The Queen didn’t send Barack Obama Sr. here with the goal of fathering a child who would grow up to be President so she could reclaim her domains. Nor did Obama Sr. devote much effort to “indoctrinating” his son or having anything to do with him at all.As for the founding fathers, I don’t know what “they” wanted, since they didn’t agree on much of anything. While some of them wrote and debated extensively about various aspects of the Constitution, they really had nothing at all to say about natural born citizen. Anyway, I am more tired than I can say of people citing the founding fathers to justify everything from the role of religion in public life to what to have for lunch. If the only reason someone can give for their position is that somebody in 1787 said thus and such, then they need to go back to square one and rethink.

    Sorry about that trying to protect the constitution. We are the oldest form of government in the world and I would not want the constitution changed to accomadate Obama. Just because some foreigners come over to the U.S.. and do not become citizens by oath, but instead have a child, then that child falls under the 14th amendment, and that child is simply born or naturalized. No where does the 14th amendment discuss natural born, but when the constitution was adopted in 1787 natural born fell under Article !! section 1. Like I stated earlier if we followed that type of reasoning then with Obama’s father a british subject and Obama born in the U.s. then maybe Obama could run for prime minister of Kenya or Great Britain. My we have arrived to a world government.

  129. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    Dave Tincher: No Obama under 14th amendment can only be naturalized or simply born in the U.S..

    There is no difference between simply born and natural born.

    Yes, it could be that someone born on US soil to a UK citizen, could run for President as well as Prime Minister as long as said person meets the requirements for eligibility in the United States and is elected by a majority of the electorate/electoral college.

    Your point being? Dual allegiance at birth has never been an issue for a child to retain his birth right US citizenship, nor can such a birth right citizenship be taken away just because another country may claim the child as a citizen as well.

  130. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    Ironic historical detail
    A person going by the moniker Dave Tincher wrote in 2008

    Dodd endorses Obama who will lose to the Republican candidate in a recession. What is wrong with the democratic party picking losers?

    Posted by: Dave Tincher | February 26, 2008 5:10 PM

  131. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Like I stated earlier if we followed that type of reasoning then with Obama’s father a british subject and Obama born in the U.s. then maybe Obama could run for prime minister of Kenya or Great Britain. My we have arrived to a world government.

    You seem to suggest that this is somehow a relevant objection to the simple fact that natural born is simply born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents. From the moment of the formation of our Country till recent years.

  132. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 21, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Usually the question is posed about the citizenship of parents, not where they were born. The qualifications for president and vice-president are the same and just off hand I know that Hubert Humphrey and Spiro Agnew both had foreign born parents. George Washingon’s parents were not US Citizens, although one could hardly call them “foreign born.”I vigorously disagree with your comment “there was not much media in those days [when Arthur was elected Vice President].” We had large newspapers, including the New York Times, who covered the Garfield/Arthur campaign (Arthur was from New York) and at the time a Democrat lawyer named Hinman was scouring the countryside investigating the circumstances of Arthur’s birth, trying to prove Arthur was born in Canada. Hinman’s exploits were covered in the Times and the Brooklyn Eagle, to name a couple. I’ve read the press coverage of the campaign from microfilm copies of the Times. The press was quite strong.Finally, based on my extensive reading of what the founders and their contemporaries wrote, I find no evidence that they shared your concern about parentage. All their statements and writing say that they wanted a US-born president, someone who from the beginning was a attached to American society and even then they required only 14 years (out of 35) years residence.

    Washington was a citizen of the U.s. at the time of the adoption of the U.S. constitution, so it did not matter about Washington’s parents (Article !! Section 1) Ok I will give you the credit that the media covered Chester Arthur’s eligibility, but the media today (mostly liberal) only shows Obama’s short form birth certificate. Why won’t the media demand that Obama show the long form birth certificate. I mean can’t Obama at least have the decency and integrity to show the long form to our fighting troops. Our troops should never have a doubt about the commander in chief. We are in the age of computers and enhanced copiers, and I guess I am afraid to just take the word of CNN or the Hawaii Health Director that Obama is natural born. I hope that does not offend you! Maybe you don’t want to be for sure on Obama’s birth certificate, but do you mind if I am? Humphrey’s mother a norwegian immigrant and Agnew’s father a greek immigrant became a citizen unlike Obama SR., so two foreign born parents who come to the U.s. and take the oath and become naturalized citizens then their child is natural born and eligible to run for President with the other requirements.

  133. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 21, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    nbc: Ironic historical detailA person going by the moniker Dave Tincher wrote in 2008

    That was me, but this novemeber I will get vindicated the house goes repub and the senate. Your earlier comment that someone could run for President and could also run for Prime Minister gives you the moniker of the year award! I am going to sign off now, and enjoyed your conversation ,and I can see after corresponding with you that I must go up my local tavern originally owned by the John Boehner family and have a draft.

  134. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 6:53 pm #

    Dave Tincher: We are the oldest form of government in the world

    Really? So no one had a government before 1787? That would be news to the rest of the world. Iceland is the oldest democracy, having had their parliament, called the Althing, since the 12th century. There were certainly governments of one sort or another back when our ancestors wandered around in East Africa.

    Dave Tincher: maybe Obama could run for prime minister of Kenya or Great Britain.

    No, he couldn’t because he is not a citizen of either of those countries. But If a former US President were also a citizen of some other country, why not? Many Ex-Presidents seem a bit lost with no real job. I’m sure Bill Clinton would jump at the chance to be prime Minister somewhere and I bet a lot of countries would be happy to have him. Obama will only be 56 when he finishes his second term. That’s young to retire.

  135. avatar
    Scientist May 21, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Dave Tincher: my local tavern originally owned by the John Boehner family

    Don’t you mean tanning salon??

  136. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    Dave Tincher: That was me, but this novemeber I will get vindicated the house goes repub and the senate. Your earlier comment that someone could run for President and could also run for Prime Minister gives you the moniker of the year award!

    Seems history has not taught you much of a lesson :-)

    As to your inability to address my response, enjoy your drink.

  137. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 6:56 pm #

    Dave Tincher: so two foreign born parents who come to the U.s. and take the oath and become naturalized citizens then their child is natural born and eligible to run for President with the other requirements.

    I thought you had not interests in changing the Constitution just for Obama’s sake and yet that is exactly what you are doing here with your ‘interpretation’ of natural born. Somewhat ironic…

  138. avatar
    Bovril May 21, 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Sorry about that trying to protect the constitution. We are the oldest form of government in the world and I would not want the constitution changed to accomadate Obama. Just because some foreigners come over to the U.S.. and do not become citizens by oath, but instead have a child, then that child falls under the 14th amendment, and that child is simply born or naturalized. No where does the 14th amendment discuss natural born, but when the constitution was adopted in 1787 natural born fell under Article !! section 1. Like I stated earlier if we followed that type of reasoning then with Obama’s father a british subject and Obama born in the U.s. then maybe Obama could run for prime minister of Kenya or Great Britain. My we have arrived to a world government.

    David, David

    “Oldest form of government in the world”….not by a long long stretch. Even if you want to try and restrict it to “democratic” forms, the Icelandic Althimg was set up in 930 AD. Considerably longer than 1776 you will agree.

    “and I would not want the constitution changed to accomadate Obama.”

    There is no intemt or requirement, the Constitution quite plainly says as a US born individual who is not born of invadimg soldiers of individuals holdimg diplomatic immunity he is inherently Constitutionally sound. If you are not happy the ACTUAL state of the Constitution, the FF plainly set oiut ways to amend it.. Be a supporter of the Constiution and adhere to that path.

    Just because some foreigners come over to the U.S.. and do not become citizens by oath, but instead have a child, then that child falls under the 14th amendment, and that child is simply born or naturalized

    Don’t like it, it’s your PERSONAL opinion, see remedy above

    Like I stated earlier if we followed that type of reasoning then with Obama’s father a british subject and Obama born in the U.s. then maybe Obama could run for prime minister of Kenya or Great Britain. My we have arrived to a world government.

    Again, tough, thats the LAW and the CONSTITUTION, see remedy above.

  139. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Dave- lets review your original question:
    “What if all the conditions of Obama’s birth was the same except that his father was Nikita Kruschev? Would Obama be eligible to run for president under Article 11 section 1 of the U.S. Constitution?”

    You got your answer- eligible, but would have to get voters to vote for him. In the United States most Americans believe that the individual should not be judged upon the actions of the their parents, but the voters can make that decision.

    Your next question: “Can you name any other Presidents whose father or mother was foreign born? ” – and posters here supply you with the names of Presidents and Vice-Presidents whose parents were foreign born.

    But then you qualify and say you mean parents who are foreign born, but weren’t citizen’s when the President was born- but you then further qualify but gloss over the fact that according to your theory Chester Arthur was not a natural born citizen either.

    I understand that you feel that since President Obama’s father wasn’t a citizen, that he can’t be a natural born citizen, but the majority of voters clearly disagree with your interpretation, as do pretty much everybody else other than a couple third rate lawyers and a dentist.

    Show me a civics textbook that says that in order to be elected President, both of his parents must have been citizens. I have looked- I can’t find a one.

  140. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    “Why won’t the media demand that Obama show the long form birth certificate.”

    Probably for the same reason the media never demanded George Bush’s or Bill Clinton’s?

    “I mean can’t Obama at least have the decency and integrity to show the long form to our fighting troops.”

    Oh soooooo tempted to make a very inappropriate joke about your statement! Bottom line is that a) he already provided a legal form of identification and b) you are making a huge assumption that Lakin represents our troops.

    “Our troops should never have a doubt about the commander in chief.”

    I agree. Why are birthers trying to raise those doubts for our troops? Why are you encouraging soldiers to refuse orders?

    “We are in the age of computers and enhanced copiers, and I guess I am afraid to just take the word of CNN or the Hawaii Health Director that Obama is natural born. ”

    I will say it once more- we have more evidence that President Obama was born in the United States than we have had for any previous President. You can choose to reject the birth certificate he presented to the people, you can refuse to believe the Governor of Hawaii, and the health Director of Hawaii, but there is no reason the President should humor you, or anyone else by releasing one more document which will show he was born in the United States

    “I hope that does not offend you!”

    No….what offends me is the rather selective nature of proof of eligiblity that birthers have.

  141. avatar
    SFJeff May 21, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    “Sorry about that trying to protect the constitution. ”

    Actually thats what I am doing. I am trying to prevent the illegal overthrow of a constitutionally elected President.

    “I would not want the constitution changed to accomadate Obama.”

    Since the majority of voters, congress and Chief Justice Roberts apparently all disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution, perhaps you might consider it is the other way around- Birhters are trying to reinterpret the Constitution to oust a President they detest.

    “then that child falls under the 14th amendment, and that child is simply born or naturalized.”

    Last I read, the 14th Amendment says anyone born in the United States is a citizen. I don’t remember there being any disqualifiers there- such as ‘a citizen but not a natural born citizen’

  142. avatar
    nbc May 21, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Our troops should never have a doubt about the commander in chief.

    And yet some decide that a certificate showing our President born on US soil is somehow insufficient and that they can second guess the wisdom of the people, the electoral college, the Congress who found President Obama to have qualified to be our President, all per Constitution…

    Quick to claim to be supporting the Constitution, they somehow forget some relevant parts of it.

  143. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 21, 2010 at 8:09 pm #

    Dave Tincher: . Why won’t the media demand that Obama show the long form birth certificate.

    Because the idea of a “long form birth certificate” is a fiction, invented by uninformed people and used to supply ignorant and stupid people with some sort of rationale to question the OFFICIAL, LEGAL document posted by Obama, which is the COLB.

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 8:57 pm #

    Dave Tincher:
    That was me, but this novemeber I will get vindicated the house goes repub and the senate. …

    The Senate going majority Republican in November would, it would seem to me, be a very unlikely outcome.

    My son got a perfect score on the SAT. When they sent him the analysis of his scores it said that people with his score tended to do less well if they took the test again. It’s rather the same thing when a political party wins big. My high school Civics teacher told us that politics was like a pendulum, swinging right and then left.

    [My son did take the test again and got another perfect score, so trends can be bucked.]

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 9:01 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Washington was a citizen of the U.s. at the time of the adoption of the U.S. constitution, so it did not matter about Washington’s parents (Article !! Section 1)

    Well actually when the requisite number of states had ratified the Constitution so that it took effect, Washington’s state of Virginia was not among them.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Thus Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father Obama Sr never became a citizen by taking the oath.

    Common sense would tell us that if such a thing were actually true somebody in Congress, the Media, the Courts, State government, academia or an opposition candidate would have figured this out before the election.

    I’m sorry, but your idea is just too incredible to take seriously.

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Dave Tincher: I will give you a history lesson and a constitution lesson here!

    Excuse me, but what are your qualifications to teach constitutional law or history? I’m serious. Are you qualified in either of these areas and what are your credentials?

    In my experience, people who really know their subjects don’t sport ideas without knowing the background. Your assertions about the application of the exception for persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is at odds with what was being said at the time. That exception was made specifically for persons not born in the United States (or what became the United States) but who fought in the Revolution, as was the case with a few of the founders, most notably Alexander Hamilton. It is clear that our presidents such as Washington and Jefferson considered themselves natural born citizens of the United States and even under the Articles of Confederation new states passed laws that talked about the current adult natural born citizens.

    So let me leave you with a puzzle. Thomas Jefferson sponsored a resolution in the Continental Congress in 1777 that ambassadors and foreign envoys of the United States should only be natural born citizens. Who do you think those natural born citizens were? One year olds?

    I think that you might spend some time reading the articles on this web site that provide the documentation for all of this and less time trying to teach others.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 9:43 pm #

    Dave Tincher: Read the 14th amendment about citizens being naturalized or born…..does not mention natural born. If we follow your reasoning naturalized or born equals natural born.

    We agree that there were natural born citizens before the 14th amendment. Can you provide any historical reference to legislation, a court case, or constitutional textbook prior to the 14th amendment that says that there was any citizen of the United States who was neither naturalized nor natural born?

    Common sense tells me that if there ever were a citizen of the United States who before the 14th amendment was neither natural born nor naturalized that someone somewhere would have mentioned it. Google Books has an excellent selection of old works for you to look in.

    However, let me warn you in advance, I’ve been over a lot of material and never found a hint of such a thing.

    We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1

    Schneider v Rusk (1964)

    The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;’ and the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8.

    Elk v Wilkins (1884)

  149. avatar
    Sef May 21, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Can you provide any historical reference to legislation, a court case, or constitutional textbook prior to the 14th amendment that says that there was any citizen of the United States who was neither naturalized or natural born?

    As a corollary to this can anyone cite evidence that there is such a thing as “naturalization at birth”. In other words, are all persons who attain citizenship at birth ipso facto natural born citizens independent of birth location. I think it was on this site where I read that British common law includes (or included) statutory natural born subjects. If this is the case & the definition of natural born citizen comes from British common law then why must NBC exclude statutory citizens at birth?

  150. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    Sef: As a corollary to this can anyone cite evidence that there is such a thing as “naturalization at birth”. In other words, are all persons who attain citizenship at birth ipso facto natural born citizens independent of birth location.

    The only reference I know of referring to naturalization at birth is from our old friend Emerich de Vattel who states that English law naturalizes the child of an alien at birth.

    As to your second question, reasonable people might disagree.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 21, 2010 at 11:33 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Because the idea of a “long form birth certificate” is a fiction, invented by uninformed people and used to supply ignorant and stupid people with some sort of rationale to question the OFFICIAL, LEGAL document posted by Obama, which is the COLB.

    “Long form” isn’t a term invented by the birthers. People in the vital statistics industry use the term. In fact it was just last week at the birth certificate factory a fellow was showing me a birth certificate (computer printed) he was working on, and I saw something I hadn’t seen on a birth certificate before, and I asked if the state of [mumble] really printed that on a birth certificate, and his reply was “they do on the long form.”

    “Long form” just refers to a form with more stuff on it that some other form. It does not imply that the form is “original” or that it is “an image with signatures on it” just that it has more stuff on it than something else. And Expelliarmus says, long or short, they are equally valid as evidence of what they say.

  152. avatar
    Sef May 21, 2010 at 11:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The only reference I know of referring to naturalization at birth is from our old friend Emerich de Vattel who states that English law naturalizes the child of an alien at birth.As to your second question, reasonable people might disagree.

    If this is the case then that implies that there is no such thing as naturalization at birth & everyone who has citizenship at birth is a natural born citizen independent of birth location.

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 12:23 am #

    Sef: If this is the case then that implies that there is no such thing as naturalization at birth & everyone who has citizenship at birth is a natural born citizen independent of birth location.

    In 1790 Congress passed an act making the children of citizens born overseas “natural born citizens.” That act was repealed in 1795 and replaced with a much longer act that did not use the phrase “natural born citizen” nor has any naturalization legislation used the term since.

  154. avatar
    Rickey May 22, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    Dave Tincher: Rickey, we are comparing these presidents to Obama obviously.

    You are moving the goalposts, a standard birther tactic.

    Your question was “Can you name any other Presidents whose father or mother was foreign born?” You did not ask “Can you name any other Presidents whose father or mother was foreign born after the Constitution was ratified?”

    I will give you a history lesson and a constitution lesson here!

    You can rest assured that I do not need either a history lesson or a Constitution lesson from you.

    Our troops should never have a doubt about the commander in chief.

    They don’t. Having actually served in the military during a war, I know that most soldiers and sailors do their duty to the best of their ability regardless of their personal feelings about the President. I served two years under LBJ and two years under Nixon, and I can assure you that it made absolutely no difference to us which one was Commander in Chief.

    As an aside, this is a good time to point out that only three members of the military have actually filed legal challenges to Obama. Two of them are medical officers, who have no combat command responsibilities and who have never commanded combat soldiers. The other is a reserve officer who “volunteered” to be deployed solely for the purpose of trying to gain legal standing to file a lawsuit against Obama and who never had any intention of deploying. Apart from those three losers, where is the unrest amongst our troops about Obama? I read Military Times, Navy Times and Army Times, and if the rank and file have any qualms about serving under Obama, it is extremely well-hidden.

  155. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 22, 2010 at 10:57 pm #

    Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution states as one part that congress shall have the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. Hmmm it looks like the founding fathers refered to the law of nations by Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel defined naturan natural born as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens” You think maybe the founding fathers used this definition when the stated the qualifications for President in Article 11 section1? The 14th amendment does not use the phrase natural born citizen (please read the amendment). The 14th amendment does provide that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are CITIZENS of the United States and of the state wherein they reside” Conclusion is all obama can be is a citizen, and if obama sr would have become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. before obama jr’s birth then Obama would be a natural born citizen qualified to run for President since it is a fact that Obama jr’s mother was born in Kansas. So there it is citizen does not equal natural born citizen and born in the u.s equals citiizen, but born does not equal natural born. Obama was qualified to run for senator but not president. What a shame that this is a happening event in the U.S. As to my qualifications I have two relatives who are lawyers, and I just happened to be well read and educated, and I think I struck a nerve with previous posters on this site, because look at the recent activity. What this amount to I believe is the other side can’t handle logic.

  156. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 22, 2010 at 11:25 pm #

    In our history was there ever a president born in the U.S. who had one parent that was not a naturalized citizen or born in the U.S., other then Chester Arthur who probably pulled a fast one?

  157. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 22, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    Dave Tincher: In our history was there ever a president born in the U.S. who had one parent that was not a naturalized citizen or born in the U.S., other then Chester Arthur who probably pulled a fast one?

    Please explain how you arrive at “probably” when saying Chester Arthur “pulled a fast one.”

    There is a difference between “probably” meaning “it must be so to make me right” and “probably” meaning “evidence shows it’s more likely than not.”

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 12:18 am #

    Dave Tincher: Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution [sic] states as one part that congress [sic] shall have the power to define and punish offenses against the law [sic] of nations [sic] [i. Hmmm it looks like the founding fathers refered [sic] to the law [sic] of nations [sic] by Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel defined naturan [sic] natural born as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens” You think maybe the founding fathers used this definition when the stated the qualifications for President in Article 11 section1?

    There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to tell where to start.

    First de Vattel’s book was not The Law of Nations but Le Droit des Gens. ou Principés de la Loi Naturelle, Appliqués la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains and if they were citing this work, they would have used the correct title, and even in English “The Law of Nations” is not the full title and at the time there were multiple books with this title. They are not citing Vattel’s book and I challenge you to find anybody in the entire history of our country assert that the Constitution is citing de Vattel at that point. In the 18th century “the law of nations” was another way of saying “International Law” and that’s how to read the Constitution at this point. And in any case the section where this appears is not a section related to citizenship and so is irrelevant to this discussion.

    Second, de Vattel did not define “natural born citizen”; he defined the term indegenes which is not, nor literally translates to “natural born citizen”. The words “natural born citizen” did not appear in the English translation of de Vattel either until a decade after the Constitution was ratified. So that’s another dead end.

    If you were “well read” as you claim, then you would know all this.

    As to my qualifications I have two relatives who are lawyers

    Have you talked to your relatives about the comments you’re making here, because it does not sound like you have the benefit of their counsel. I don’t have relatives who are lawyers; I have real lawyers to comment on this blog and they don’t agree with you. I haven’t found that you have come anywhere close to a well-argued comment so far on this site.

  159. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 23, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Please explain how you arrive at “probably” when saying Chester Arthur “pulled a fast one.”There is a difference between “probably” meaning “it must be so to make me right” and “probably” meaning “evidence shows it’s more likely than not.”

    Why not answer the question above?

  160. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    Dave Tincher: and I just happened to be well read and educated, and I think I struck a nerve with previous posters on this site, because look at the recent activity. What this amount to I believe is the other side can’t handle logic.

    It is not the quality of your arguments that have struck a nerve but the arrogance with which you present long-debunked nonsense that causes folks to reply from outrage at such things being stated as if they were somehow factual or, as you say, “logical.” But do not overestimate your response since there were over 40,000 comments here before you showed up.

    [This was not intended as a personal attack, but solely as an explanation for the reaction that this commenter has received.]

  161. avatar
    Dave Tincher May 23, 2010 at 12:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: There is so much wrong with this that it’s hard to tell where to start.First de Vattel’s book was not The Law of Nations but Le Droit des Gens. ou Principés de la Loi Naturelle, Appliqués la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains and if they were citing this work, they would have used the correct title, and even in English “The Law of Nations” is not the full title and at the time there were multiple books with this title. They are not citing Vattel’s book and I challenge you to find anybody in the entire history of our country assert that the Constitution is citing de Vattel at that point. In the 18th century “the law of nations” was another way of saying “International Law” and that’s how to read the Constitution at this point. And in any case the section where this appears is not a section related to citizenship and so is irrelevant to this discussion.Second, de Vattel did not define “natural born citizen”; he defined the term indegenes which is not, nor literally translates to “natural born citizen”. The words “natural born citizen” did not appear in the English translation of de Vattel either until a decade after the Constitution was ratified. So that’s another dead end.If you were “well read” as you claim, then you would know all this.Have you talked to your relatives about the comments you’re making here, because it does not sound like you have the benefit of their counsel. I don’t have relatives who are lawyers; I have real lawyers to comment on this blog and they don’t agree with you. I haven’t found that you have come anywhere close to a well-argued comment so far on this site.

    Please go to http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/, and that was a good one with the french intrepretation, but leaving that aside I would say if obama was born in Hawaii and if his father would have simply gone thru the naturalization process, and with Obama’s mother born in kansas we would have to say he is natural born. By the way I believe in tort reform regulation for trial lawyers.

  162. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 1:01 am #

    Dave Tincher: Please go to http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/, and that was a good one with the french intrepretation,

    I don’t know what you are expecting that I will find of interest at that page. You are pointing to the 1797 edition of the English translation of The Law of Nations. The Constitution dates from a decade earlier. The 1787 American Edition of the Law of Nations does not translate indigenes but retains the original French word.

    This was discussed here in May of 2009.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/

    Since de Vattel does not use the phrase at all (writing in French) and no English translation used the phrase before 1797, it is simply impossible to say that de Vattel defined the term in the Constitution.

    De Vattel did have some ideas about who the citizens of a country were and these have historical significance, but our courts, constitutional scholars and historians all say that our Constitution based its definition of natural born citizen on English common law, which was the basis for the citizenship definitions in the constitutions of the states. South Carolina, which did not define in its Constitution who its citizens were, explicitly wrote “English common law” (there is only one “English common law” and this is not an ambiguous term” into its 1776 constitution.

    See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/common-law-in-south-carolina/ and then the following:

    “That the resolutions of this or any former congress of this colony, and all laws now of force here, (and not hereby altered,) shall so continue until altered or repealed by the legislature of this colony, unless where they are temporary, in which case they shall expire at the times respectively limited for their duration.”

  163. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 23, 2010 at 1:16 am #

    Dave Tincher: I would say if obama was born in Hawaii and if his father would have simply gone thru the naturalization process, and with Obama’s mother born in kansas we would have to say he is natural born.

    If the moon were made of green cheese, mice would be happy there.

    The Constitution as interpreted by the courts, constitutional scholars and historians universally say that that those citizens born in the United States are eligible, without regard for who their parents are.

    The Supreme Court of Connecticut said in 1886:

    In McKay v. Campbell 2 Sawy. 118 it is said: “By the common law a child born within the allegiance of the United States is born a subject thereof without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.” …

    In Rawle’s View of the Constitution of the United States, p. 86, it is said: “Every person born within the United Slates, its territories, or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” …

    Town of New Hartford v. Town of Canaan, 5 A. 360 (Conn. 1886)

    The Federal District Court in California said:

    In that case one Julia Lynch, born in York in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice-chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.

    http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F1/0021/0021.f1.0905.pdf

  164. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 1:30 am #

    Dave Tincher: Why won’t the media demand that Obama show the long form birth certificate.

    Simple, because it is not needed and the media knows there is no actual story.

    The COLB is the official document provided by HI these days, in the format matching what Obama posted, for all official document requests.

    The COLB clearly states the place that he was born: Honolulu, HI. The “long form” would say the same, as the COLB pulls its info from this and just provides a lesser amount of fields of info.

    Therefore, Honolulu, HI is all that is needed. NBC. Done & settled.

    The “long form” is completely irrelevant and I know it just burns you up that as much as you try to distract and dodge and come up with fake strawman arguments, you can’t get around that simple, basic fact, which makes your whole birther crusade MOOT. Hahahaha!

    Why don’t you just come clean and admit that all this is really about is that you don’t like Obama and are upset that he (and possibly any democrat) won and you want to come up with excuses to justify your electoral loss? The comment nbc found on you from early 2008 reveals your partisan bias. This isn’t a real issue – just manufactured sour grapes spin by a bunch of people who can’t handle losing well.

  165. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 1:40 am #

    Dave Tincher:
    That was me, but this novemeber I will get vindicated the house goes repub and the senate. Your earlier comment that someone could run for President and could also run for Prime Minister gives you the moniker of the year award! I am going to sign off now, and enjoyed your conversation ,and I can see after corresponding with you that I must go up my local tavern originally owned by the John Boehner family and have a draft.

    LOL! Yeah, good luck with that. I really don’t understand why you partisan folks have to always set yourselves up for failure by setting your expectations beyond realistic parameters. You just invite your repeated and inevitable disappointment every time.

    It is one thing for you to be hopeful to gain seats in Nov. That is quite plausible.

    However, the number of seats that must be held & gained in order for the GOP to acquire the majority in either house are quite significant.

    Is there a teeny-weeny chance this could happen? Yes, but it is highly unlikely and becoming less and less probable, based on current realities.

    And now, even if your beloved GOP does well and gains a decent amount of seats in the fall, yet fails to obtain majorities, then it will fall critically short of your predictions and expectations and an otherwise reason for you to celebrate becomes mere egg on your face and stinging disappointment.

    You should probably plan to be at that Boehner family pub on election night as well, so you have a place to drown your sorrows.

  166. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 1:42 am #

    Scientist:
    Don’t you mean tanning salon??

    LMAO! Boom!

    Scientist, FTW! ;)

  167. avatar
    G May 23, 2010 at 1:53 am #

    Dave Tincher: Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution states as one part that congress shall have the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. Hmmm it looks like the founding fathers refered to the law of nations by Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel defined naturan natural born as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens” You think maybe the founding fathers used this definition when the stated the qualifications for President in Article 11 section1? The 14th amendment does not use the phrase natural born citizen (please read the amendment). The 14th amendment does provide that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are CITIZENSof the United States and of the state wherein they reside” Conclusion is all obama can be is a citizen, and if obama sr would have become a naturalized citizen of the U.S. before obama jr’s birth then Obama would be a natural born citizen qualified to run for President since it is a fact that Obama jr’s mother was born in Kansas. So there it is citizen does not equal natural born citizen and born in the u.s equals citiizen, but born does not equal natural born. Obama was qualified to run for senator but not president. What a shame that this is a happening event in the U.S. As to my qualifications I have two relatives who are lawyers, and I just happened to be well read and educated, and I think I struck a nerve with previous posters on this site, because look at the recent activity. What this amount to I believe is the other side can’t handle logic.

    No, what it amounts to is you’ve spouted nothing but a bunch of unfounded nonsense, complete misinterpretation of law and gibberish and have no credible actual evidence or legal rulings to back up your birther claims.

    Good for you that you believe yourself to be well read and educated. However, on the topics & issues you’ve discussed here, you’ve demonstrated just the opposite, so I have no rational basis to take you at your word for that either.

  168. avatar
    Whatever4 May 23, 2010 at 3:20 am #

    Dave Tincher: Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution states as one part that congress shall have the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations. Hmmm it looks like the founding fathers refered to the law of nations by Emmerich de Vattel. Vattel defined naturan natural born as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens”.

    This is the silliest thing the birthers have come up with so far. Jus gentium, Latin for “law of nations”, dates back to Roman times. De Vattel used the phrase as part of his title: so have other authors before and since. Here’s a few: http://books.google.com/books?q=law+of+nations+-vattel&btnG=Search+Books

    The Constitution itself contains a few “offenses against the law of nations” if you assume it’s referring to de Vattel. The Second Amendment is one, as de Vattel thought only the nobility and soldiers should bear arms. (Book 1, Chapter 13, 176)

  169. avatar
    Sef May 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Whatever4: The Constitution itself contains a few “offenses against the law of nations” if you assume it’s referring to de Vattel. The Second Amendment is one, as de Vattel thought only the nobility and soldiers should bear arms. (Book 1, Chapter 13, 176)

    If we are to assume de Vattel is the law of the land then the government should go around confiscating ladders. LOL!