Main Menu

Chester A. Arthur: Rest In Peace

Chester Arthur

Chester Arthur

President Chester A. Arthur was born, like President Barack H. Obama in one of the United States of American to an American mother and a father who was a British citizen. One might wonder, if there is this historical precedent, why anyone today would raise a claim that Barack Obama was less a natural born citizen than his predecessor Chester A. Arthur.

Out of necessity, a fiction was created, one which says Chester A. Arthur hid the naturalization status of his father, because he knew he was ineligible. It is true that Arthur lied about his age (making himself a year younger than what was in the Family Bible) and he got some other dates wrong from the history of his family before he was born (Arthur was estranged from his father). But he never gave any lie that hid his father’s naturalization status.

A 19th century political operative, bent on bringing down Arthur went about trying to prove Arthur was really born in Canada. Indeed, the operative, a lawyer named A. P. Hinman began before the election and continued his investigation until he published a book, four years later, titled How a British Subject became President of the United States. Today the claims of a Canadian birth for Arthur are dismissed by Arthur biographers. However, in a remarkable irony, A. P. Hinman’s little book leaves us proof that Arthur’s birth to an Irish citizen was well known at the time!

Obama Conspiracy Theories original research led to a copy of the crumbling volume from 1884, and publication of it on the Internet for the first time. Within that volume we find 3 interesting passages:

City and County of New York, ss
Chester A. Arthur, being duly sworn, says he is a native born
citizen of the United States; that he is of the age of
twenty-one years, and a resident  of the First Judicial District
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
CHESTER A. ARTHUR.
Sworn to before me this 4th day of May, 1854.
WM. A. DUSENBERRY, Com. of Deeds.
Indorsed; filed May 8, 1854.
State of New York,
City and County of New York, \ ss
I, William A. Butler, Clerk of the said City and County,

Page 82

The second is even more interesting. It appears that not only did Americans know their President was born to an Irish father, the rest of the world did also:

PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.)
London, December 12, 1881.

…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.

Page 88

And as usual, leaving the best for last. A. P. Hinman assuming that Arthur was born in Canada, wrote a letter to Senator Bayard, asking if the father becoming naturalized could make his [alleged Canadian born] son a “natural born citizen”. This is the Senator’s reply:

Senate of the United States
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.

Page 89.

You see, we can infer that Arthur’s fiercest critic, A. P. Hinman knew Arthur’s father was naturalized after Arthur was born. He shows it in his own book. And certainly the Donofrio allegation that Hinman was so utterly confused by the Canadian birth issue that he didn’t think of the naturalization of Arthur’s father is completely ruled out by the contents of the preceding letter.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

166 Responses to Chester A. Arthur: Rest In Peace

  1. avatar
    Heavy April 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    All he has to do is SHOW THE DAMN THING!

  2. avatar
    Heavy April 27, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    But then you, like JJ and Al, would be out of business.

  3. avatar
    Gordon April 27, 2009 at 6:24 pm #

    No he doesn’t Heavy. If the law states the COLB as shown is legal, there is no requirement for him to satisfy the prurient interest of birthers.

  4. avatar
    jtx April 27, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    Not at all, Dr. C – your “research” shows no such thing. Arthur was sworn in as President on 9/19/1881 (having been elected as VP – with the NBC required for that office – considerably before that date).

    The first of your three “research” examples shows nothing at all helpful, the second was several months after he was sworn in as President (let alone elected as VP). In fact it was Hinman himself who was making the allegations of Irish birth which, of course was never proved so your second example is meaningless. The third example is a completely meaningless “Senator’s opinion” which – much like the more recent SR511 proclaiming McCain a NBC is Constitutionally meaningless.

    If in fact it were widely known that Arthur was not a NBC (which your paucity of “examples” certainly do not demonstrate) then perhaps he was not as anti-American as the current office holder appears to be and no one pursued the issue (the author Hinman seems to have not pursued the matter at the time perhaps illustrating that some of your “examples” were also a bit off-kilter as your second example).

    In any event, Arthur’s father did not become naturalized until Arthur (seemingly born in VT to one US citizen parent and the other not – much as with Onama) was approximately 14 – clearly showing him to not be a NBC and Arthur destroyed almost all of his papers and records no doubt to prevent anyone from unearthing that information (which has only recently surfaced).

    Regardless, basing the Presidency upon a fraud (as Arthur did) does not set a valid precedent for Obama – and your “research” shows nothing like widespread knowledge (in fact, none at all) of the fact. Why do you pretend otherwise? Can you not accept the fact that Obama is most likely ineligible under the Constitution to be the President??

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 27, 2009 at 8:56 pm #

    What you didn’t know, I suppose, is that Hinman published his book in 1884 to prevent Arthur’s re-election. My third citation clearly shows Hinman was aware of the naturalization status of Arthur’s father, but he makes nothing of it. The real secret of the Arthur presidency, which Arthur did keep well, was that he was dying, and this is why he didn’t seek a third term.

    Your point about Arthur’s burning his papers (which he did) is laughable. His father’s naturalization was a public record, and they didn’t have photocopies. What relevant document do you imagine that he burned?

    The point of the last two examples, and the complete and utter lack of any public outcry, and Arthur’s fiercest opponent hell bent on preventing his re-election making nothing of the information he had, all points to the obvious conclusion that no one thought that Arthur’s father’s immigration status meant anything. And if further proof were needed, then let me leave you with this comment from Vice Chancellor Sandford of the Supreme Court of Arthur’s own State of New York:

    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.

    Just as the controversy that Arthur was born in Canada remains as little more than a couple of sentences in a 500 page biography of Arthur, so 100 years from now, this whole Obama eligibility nonsense will no doubt share equally significant treatment.

  6. avatar
    myson April 28, 2009 at 4:06 am #

    Let me also add, your definition of NBC is wrong & never the law of the USA ?

    Leo Don (the great) even acknowledged that the new definition of NBC he’s proposing is not the controlling law but what he wants it to be

    [Ed. If in her opinion he was eligible than there is no false certifying of anything. The biggest misconception most of you are making is that your opinion is somehow controlling law. My opinion is not controlling law... my opinion reflects what I believe the law is supposed to be, but it has never been decided so all any of us have right now is just an opinion... ]http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/two-us-postal-receipts-for-letters-to-us-attorney-taylor/
    Go down to April 7 at 8.20pm

  7. avatar
    KJ April 28, 2009 at 9:43 am #

    A. P. Hinman assumed that Arthur was born in Canada and wrote a letter to Senator Bayard, asking if the father becoming naturalized could make his [alleged Canadian born] son a “natural born citizen”. This is the Senator’s reply:

    Senate of the United States
    City of Washington, January 10th, I881. (just before Arthur sworn in as VP)
    A. P. HINMAN, E sq., New York.
    DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
    the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution
    and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of
    the U. S.
    The naturalization by law of a father before his child
    attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
    such minor.
    Yours respectfully,
    T. F. BAYARD. (Democratic VP candidate running against Arthur)

    (my notes)

    Dear Dr. C,

    The letter only states that Chester Arthur would have been naturalized if his father was naturalized before Chester Arthur became 21. If born in Canada, he would not have been “natural born”.

    The letter does not address whether Chester Arthur’s father was a US citizen when Chester Arthur was born nor does it define “native of the US”.

    As the VP Candidate running against Chester Arthur, surely it would have been considered “sour grapes” and ungentlemanly like conduct to try to discredit his opponent immediately before Inauguration. From the article on T. F. Bayard in wikipedia, he sounds like a pretty level headed man who thought for himself.

    You might want to check out the following from
    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

    “Secretary of State (T. F.) Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Seems like there were several different opinions about just plain citizenship, let alone “natural born citizenship” at that time.

  8. avatar
    ballantine April 28, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    Seriously, why exactly does anyone treat Donofrio as some kind of authority. Does the guy have any scholarly credentials at all? Does he even practice law? His briefs are pretty much frivolous nonsense. Can the birthers find one actual scholar who supports this duel citzenship nonsense? Anyone who holds this view either hasn’t done any research or is being dishonest, as the early authority that is relevant to the original meaning is that one-sided.

    Simply, there is no evidence that anyone in America from the revolution to reconstruction, the period that is relevant to establish the original public meaning of the phrase, defined natural-born citizen in such manner with the exception of Chitty’s translation of de Vattel that wasn’t published until a decade after the federal convention and hence wasn’t relied upon by the founders. The translation of de Vattel the founders had, and the one cited by antebellum courts, contained the term “indigenes” rather than “natural born citizen.” There simply isn’t a shred of evidence that anyone in the early republic connected de Vattel to the phrase. What is clear is that “natural born” was a well known term of art to the common law lawyers who wrote the constitution, that the common law was the only use of such phrase in America at that time, that the common law jus soli doctrine continued after the revolution with “citizen” being substituted for “subject,” that that the terms “citizen” and “subject” and “natural born citizen” and “natural born subject” were conflated during this period so it is inconceivable that the founders wouldn’t have known everyone would associate the phrase with the common law which clearly is the case with every significant antebellum commentator and court that addressed the phrase. This is really game, set, match as later authority is not very relevant to establishing the original meaning.

    Not sure what the Chester Author thing is supposed to prove, even if true. If it’s supposed to mean that there was a general view a century after the founding adopting the duel citizenship point of view, we know such isn’t the case by looking at the mainstream scholarship at such time. Even if it was the mainstream view in 1880, such provides little evidence of the original meaning nearly a century earlier. It is true that jus soli citzenship was criticized in the post-reconstruction period (in large part due to the reluctance to grant indians birthright citizenship) and that during this period certain contrarian views with respect to birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment were circulating until essentially resolved by Wong Kim Ark. Such views never were adopted as mainstream by scholars or the courts and I would have difficulty thinking of anything as unpersuasive to the original meaning of NBC as whether or not Arthur hid his parentage to avoid the attack of the birthers of his day.

    On second thought, the citation of Bingham might actually be less persuasive. A statement of a congressman, well known for his kooky views of the constitution, made 75 years after the founding that is ambiguous to anyone who understood what “allegiance” meant under the common law is pretty weak. However, in this case another congressman clarified or corrected Bingham by citing authority that natural born citizen was based solely on locality of birth in accordance with the common law and Bingham said nothing. Hence this is, at most, two congressmen disagreeing in a period not very relevant to determining the original meaning, one citing authority, the other one not. Never going to get certiorari granted with this nonsense.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 11:48 am #

    The import of Bayard’s letter is not what he says about citizenship, but that it shows us that Arthur opponent Hinman was exploring the case of Arthur’s father becoming naturalized after Arthur was born, which was exactly the case. Donofrio’s argument, and perhaps I should have gone into this, is that Arthur toyed with his opponents about being born in Canada for the sole purpose of misdirecting them away from his father’s naturalization (or lack thereof). Here we see proof of exactly the opposite; Arthur’s chief opponent was exploring, and from the letter it appears that he had discovered the truth. However, in a book designed to prove Arthur ineligible to run for president in 1884, lawyer Hinman never says anything about the father’s citizenship mattering (which it didn’t).

    I’m familiar with the P. A. Madison article.

  10. avatar
    jtx April 28, 2009 at 11:58 am #

    Dr. C, you are certainly assuming facts not in evidence when you make the outlandish claim “What you didn’t know, I suppose …” since I clearly DO know that Hinman was trying to prevent Arthur’s election (and later reelection) and you seem to have perhaps missed the point I mentioned about “… it was Hinman himself who was making the allegations of Irish birth …”.

    Hinman pursued Arthur vigorously (but never was able to come up with anything definitive such as his non-US citizen father. If he had done so and made a legal pursuit of it we might already have has a SCOTUS ruling telling us that a non-US father did, indeed, negate the eligibility of Arthur … or maybe not (and we wouldn’t have to discuss it).

    Hinman never had any significant evidence to discredit Arthur’s eligibility since the letter from the Senator you seem to present as such was as I said meaningless in that regard. It may have given Hinman more encouragement in digging for facts but obviously he never found them. As to the “public record” issue of the naturalization of the father, the fact that we had very limited Internet service then (not to mention limited USPS abilities in addition to copying machines, etc.) would have meant that uncovering it in the Library of Congress records (as was recently done) would have been VERY difficult since Google wasn’t then too functional.

    While – as you point out (and as did Leo Donofrio several times in his writings about the NBC/eligibility issue) – that is definitely an opinion (mine) and not a court ruling of any sort, it may eventually become one.

    I’ve never seen any evidence that Arthur “knew” he was dying so that may also be an example of your projecting your own belief as the the “real secret” of his Presidency. Certainly the fact he was not a NBC (in the Constitutional sense, I believe) was an even greater “secret” which he scrupulously kept – though perhaps not to him personally since death is rather final normally but that assumes he “knew” that and didn’t disclose it.

    You may find it “laughable” when you say Arthur “burned his papers” (BTW I did not say that but did say he “destroyed” them so please don’t misquote me), but I believe it is no more “laughable” that one running for, or achieving, high public office do such a thing than for such a person to hide the vital statistics of his birth as well as various school records, etc. from the public – as the current President has done; that’s certainly “laughable” (sad, more to the point).

    You – and the other “O-borters” that chime in seem to believe that such a technique is just fine since it fits with what your political opinions are at present. Let’s see, however, how your opinions alter when various disasters clearly at the feet of the present President take place … or perhaps you folks really DO think the guy is the messiah?

    Keep in mind that almost all of your “arguments” and “opinions” along the psuedo-legalistic lines (or perhaps you are an attorney in active practice) will most likely be inadmissible arguments when SCOTUS finally hears things on the merits – but in view of your quaint theories, I’m sure you won’t believe that either.

    In any event I note that you additionally throw up yet another red herring with the opinion of a NY court officer in attempting to backstop your various claims. That court officer can not (also) change the Constitution by his personal opinion which is no better than that of Ted Olson when he tried to opine similarly in SR 511 recetly.

    The only “nonsense” in the current eligibility issue that I can see is that the O-borters continue to blindly offer up their opinions and trying to project them as the equivalent of SCOTUS rulings when really all that needs to be done is for you to join with the birthers to get to the bottom of this entire nonsense. Let’s all insist that a jury trial of Quo Warranto be instituted under the laws of this country, the single finding of fact by the jury as to what the President’s vital birth statistics might be and, from that, a judicial ruling by the court on the NBC ruling. Any such rsesult (regardless of of the outcome) should be automatically appealed to SCOTUS for review and ruling for posterity as to the eligibility/NBC issue and meaning.

    That way we can ALL stop wasting our time and punishing the keyboards with all the birther/Oborter nonsense. Perhaps you do not have another life. I do.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Do you have a citation for:

    However, in this case another congressman clarified or corrected Bingham by citing authority that natural born citizen was based solely on locality of birth in accordance with the common law and Bingham said nothing.

  12. avatar
    Jez April 28, 2009 at 12:17 pm #

    One small correction, if I may. The Oaths of Allegiance and / or any records of Naturalization would have been kept at the County seat during the time frame of his father’s naturalization.

    Genealogy is a hobby of mine, and my family settled in the area, so I have some experience finding their naturalization records.

  13. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    The only “nonsense” in the current eligibility issue that I can see is that the O-borters continue to blindly offer up their opinions and trying to project them as the equivalent of SCOTUS rulings when really all that needs to be done is for you to join with the birthers to get to the bottom of this entire nonsense. Let’s all insist that a jury trial of Quo Warranto be instituted under the laws of this country, the single finding of fact by the jury as to what the President’s vital birth statistics might be and, from that, a judicial ruling by the court on the NBC ruling. Any such rsesult (regardless of of the outcome) should be automatically appealed to SCOTUS for review and ruling for posterity as to the eligibility/NBC issue and meaning.

    What I see is birthers making unsupported accusations and assertions and attempt to reinvent the judicial and constitutional foundation of our country.
    Quo Warrant was never intended to question a sitting President once elected.
    Neither the Courts nor the Supreme Court have any jurisdiction here.
    Let’s keep it that way rather than subverse our Constitution for political purposes.

  14. avatar
    Heavy April 28, 2009 at 12:21 pm #

    Define “Legal”, Gordo.

  15. avatar
    Heavy April 28, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    As I said, SHOW THE DAMN THING!

  16. avatar
    Heavy April 28, 2009 at 12:24 pm #

    But the PEOPLE do. SHOW THE DAMN THING!

  17. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    Certainly the fact he was not a NBC (in the Constitutional sense, I believe) was an even greater “secret” which he scrupulously kept – though perhaps not to him personally since death is rather final normally but that assumes he “knew” that and didn’t disclose it.

    If Arthur was born on US Soil then he certainly is an NBC in the Constitutional sense.
    Was this a ‘secret he scrupilously kept’?

  18. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 12:44 pm #

    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    Cheers.

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    JTX:

    “Dr. C, you are certainly assuming facts not in evidence when you make the outlandish claim “What you didn’t know, I suppose …” since I clearly DO know that Hinman was trying to prevent Arthur’s election (and later reelection) and you seem to have perhaps missed the point I mentioned about “… it was Hinman himself who was making the allegations of Irish birth …”.

    Well you know less than I thought. Hinman argues that Arthur was born in Canada, not Ireland. The Irish birth idea was abandoned almost immediately.

    Given that the Supreme Court of New York, less than 40 years before, said that it was the universal opinion of the public that anyone born on the country was a natural born citizen, your whole fantasy relies on a false premise.

    Arthur’s biographer in Gentleman Boss, says he knew he was dying. Have you read any Arthur biographies? It looks like you make up facts as you go along, so I guess not.

    You have a nice way of turning an opinion from the Supreme Court of New York into “a court officer”, but the fact is that this case, Lynch v. Clarke is cited in most important citizenship cases since then, including the US Supreme Court in US v. Wonk Kim Ark.

    That way we can ALL stop wasting our time and punishing the keyboards with all the birther/Oborter nonsense. Perhaps you do not have another life. I do.

    Well unless you come up with some real evidence and a logical argument, you are certainly wasting MY time. I personally think that if you’re going to start something, you should be willing to finish it, or resign (which is what you appear to be doing).

  20. avatar
    Heavy April 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    Very nice. The very “Certificate” you refer to says that ANY alterations invalidate it.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    KJ:

    You might want to check out the following from
    http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html

    “Secretary of State (T. F.) Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Bayard’s comment was cited by Justice Fuller’s DISSENTING OPINION (lost 6-2) in United States v. Wonk Kim Ark. There have been people who want to limit citizenship, P. A. Madison being one of them. However, the Supreme Court in the Wong case ruled Wong was a citizen, and the majority rejected Fuller’s interpretation of jurisdiction. Under the doctrine of Wong, Greisser was a citizen too, and I would argue a natural born one.

    Reading the old court cases, courts use citizen, native born citizen and natural born citizen pretty much interchangeably for anyone born in the United States.

  22. avatar
    ballantine April 28, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115 (1866); id. at 1117

    Rep. Wilson, chairman of the House Judiciary committee, quotes Rawle:

    “Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution.”

    And goes on to state:

    “The first section of the bill containes the following declaration of citizenship:

    That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color.

    This provision, I maintain, is merely declaratory of what the law now is. This, I presume would not be disputed if the language were qualified by the presence of the word “white.” In the absence of this word, I am sure that my proposition will be disputed by every member of the House who believes that this government is exclusively a “white man’s Government.” I think this question of sufficient importance to justify me giving it something more than a mere passing notice.

    Blackstone says:”The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural born subjects are such as are born within the dominion of the Crown of England; that is, within the ligeance, or, as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens are those as as born out of it.”

    The principle here laid down applies to this country as well as to England. It makes a man a subject of England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, “founded in reason and the nature of government.”

    The English law made no distinction on account of race or color in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects; nor does it do so in regard to naturalization. This law bound the colonies before the Revolution, and was not changed afterward.

    The Constitution of the United States recognizes the division of the people into the two classes named by Blackstone–natural-born and naturalized citizens.

    “Natural born” under the English common law was jus solis, which makes no regard to the citizenship of parents, unless the parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats residing in the US, in which case their children born here were not considered to be US citizens of any sort (nor subjects of any sort with respect to England).”

  23. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    The certificate was not altered

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    It wasn’t altered. Some of the pictures have been altered, although the unaltered versions were shown on FactCheck.org.

  25. avatar
    richCares April 28, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    According to the Brilliant Polarik, since the scanned internet copy of Obama’s COLB has been altered (number blocked) that voids the original. This is like when I took a copy of my drivers license to Allstate Ins, the agent spilled coffee on the copy, that voided my license. I shouted “You just voided my license!” but he just laughed. Polarik is Brilliant in that the Birthers believe this crap.! These Birthers are smarter than a dying worm!

  26. avatar
    Chris April 28, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    I’ll have to admit – Oborter is a new one for me…

  27. avatar
    jtx April 28, 2009 at 4:48 pm #

    Resign??? Only in your dreams, Dr. C.

    I’ve freqently noticed that whose who hold unpopular opinions that are not fact-based (e.g., you and the other O-borters) almost invariably turn to trying to denigrate those who disagree with their views.

    As for “real” evidence, the factcheck.org website of Obamas has for some time shown that he was not, indeed, a natural born citizen and if SCOTUS ever gets to things on the merits I believe that they will indeed so rule. You surely know that his poppa was a Kenyan most likely here on a green card to exploit the taxpayer funds in going to Harvard. Never was a US citizen and, of course, the “facts” shown on that O site (factcheck.org) have never been brought before a court for actual viewing of any form of certified evidence.

    So while it would be beneficial to the O-borters to determine that Big O was actually born in HI (if he was and there is certainly a big split in opinion of that) it still would not mean that he was eligible to hold the present office. At least you could all say that “see, see …” we told you he was “born on US soil” as though you think that means he is eligible. In short, it would warm your little O-borter hearts to be “right”.

    You overlook the fact that most of the birthers are judicious enough to realize that even if born in HI (or on the steps of the Capital building in DC) that does not make one eligible. It doesn’t; but rather than haranguing others on the blog, why not do as I suggest and settle things by the QW jury trial followed by the SCOTOS review???

    That way no one has to wonder what the correct interpretation might be or whether the high priest is eligible or not. After all, you O-borters are SO certain that you are right any your man is “just fine”, why not let’s join and petition the appropriate parties to do the QW thing and let’s not all guess and interpret all the time. All of you see to be deathly afraid of doing that which I’d think shows the weakness of your own beliefs in the outcome when rigorously determined.

    It is not “where he was born”, you see, but “is he eligible under the Constitution” that is the question. You collectively seem afraid to walk the walk in determining that.

    As for the NY Judge (is that like a NY Minute?), perhaps you miss the fact that he is not allowed to alter the Constitution (let alone how it is interpreted) – NOR ARE ANY OF YOU … NOR AM I. At least though I’m certainly willing to submit the issue to a valid legal proceeding rather that this kangaroo court you conduct and control.

    The poster NBC needs to research the Quo Warranto issue more thoroughly to determine that it can in fact apply to the Top Dog hisself. Perhaps you know that; he doesn’t seem to.

    As for Arthur’s bio – who cares?? My comment said nothing about that book, but that I felt that the “real secret” he was hiding was his Presidential (and VP) lack of eligibility. Even if he knew of his upcoming demise (and I think that’s an oxymoron since we all have it) he would surely not have his legacy be “the usurper” of the Presidency.

    It certainly bothers me not that you think I know very little and, while that may be true, the corollary is that you seem to know altogether too much – with a good bit of it seeming to be bogus, opinionated, and unfounded … in other words a much inflated self-importance. I’m quite happy to have Obama do the finding of fact of the single issue in a genuine jury trial with a requisite judicial decision so long as the outcome is then reviewed by SCOTUS – aren’t you???

  28. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 4:57 pm #

    I’ve freqently noticed that whose who hold unpopular opinions that are not fact-based (e.g., you and the other O-borters) almost invariably turn to trying to denigrate those who disagree with their views.

    That’s so ironic. First of all it is not the oborters who hold to unpopular opinions that are not fact based. On the contrary, they are supported by a majority of people and based on the facts. It’s the speculative arguments from NObmabers that lack in factual evidence, legal relevance which make their efforts so irrelevant. Your own ‘arguments’ further emphasize this

    As for “real” evidence, the factcheck.org website of Obamas has for some time shown that he was not, indeed, a natural born citizen and if SCOTUS ever gets to things on the merits I believe that they will indeed so rule.

    Factcheck, on the contrary, has shown that President Obama was born in the United States and thus by logic, reason as well as legal precedent and legislative history a natural born US citizen.

    And those are the facts some are ignoring in favor of their minority opinions.

    It’s that simple really

  29. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 5:07 pm #

    The poster NBC needs to research the Quo Warranto issue more thoroughly to determine that it can in fact apply to the Top Dog hisself. Perhaps you know that; he doesn’t seem to.

    In fact, there is significant legal and legislative history that suggests the opposite.

    1. A sitting president can only be removed by Congress. Even though the Founding Fathers envisioned strong separation of powers, they placed into the hands of the legislative branch the power to, under extraordinary circumstances, remove a sitting President.

    2. In early debates, it is clear that the concept of using a Quo Warranto against a sitting President was considered absurd and counter to the Constitutional principles.

    I have disussed my findings in several postings such as

    this one

    § 468a. Writs of quo warranto in the District Courts. The better opinion is that the District Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to grant the writ of quo warranto only when specifically authorized by statute; and that no writ of quo warranto can issue from them to try the title to the office of President of the United States.

    and this one

    Was it intended that the title to the office of President of the United States should depend upon a contest in a court, which contest itself is wholly dependent upon the fluctuating opinions of Congress? One Congress might pass a law clothing the Supreme Court of the United States with power to entertain a quo warranto in such a contest, and just when that contest was at its height, and before any decision had been rendered upon it, the next Congress might repeal the law conferring the jurisdiction. Was any such thing as that ever intended by the framers of the Constitution? It seems to me not. It would be a very extraordinary constitution that would thus leave it to the fluctuating will of Congress whether or not if the first place there should be any judicial cognizance of the question at all, and if the next place that would allow Congress one day to provide for this judicial cognizance and the next day or the next week repeal the law that gave the court jurisdiction.

  30. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm #

    As for the NY Judge (is that like a NY Minute?), perhaps you miss the fact that he is not allowed to alter the Constitution (let alone how it is interpreted) – NOR ARE ANY OF YOU … NOR AM I. At least though I’m certainly willing to submit the issue to a valid legal proceeding rather that this kangaroo court you conduct and control.

    And the Judge did not alter the Constitution but rather interpreted the meaning of the term natural born which, since it lacked an explicit definition, had to follow from the existing common law principles of those days, common law principles which considered a person born on US soil to be a natural born citizen.
    It’s hilarious to hear you talk about a kangaroo court when we cite from actual court decisions and do not rely on the true kangaroo ‘courts’ called together by the Birthers.

  31. avatar
    Chris April 28, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    “So while it would be beneficial to the O-borters to determine that Big O was actually born in HI (if he was and there is certainly a big split in opinion of that)”

    Split opinion of whom? The thing that gets me about the ‘birthers’ is the delusions of grandeur. You seem to think that there’s some sort of huge movement that is being silenced by the evil communist dictators. The truth of the matter is your group is on the fringe of the fringe. The only reason people pay any attention to you at all is to make fun of you for being a bunch of nutters. It’s the same reason people go to carnival sideshows – to see the freaks.

  32. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 5:13 pm #

    I’m quite happy to have Obama do the finding of fact of the single issue in a genuine jury trial with a requisite judicial decision so long as the outcome is then reviewed by SCOTUS – aren’t you???

    Why should we since there appear to be no issues that require a court to address these. Why would a jury trial be required to determine the meaning of the Constitution? What would the impact be of such on the Presidency and the effectiveness of the President in these dire times?
    Or is the issue that this would indeed render President Obama a ‘lame duck’?…

    So far 40+ efforts to have the issue brough in front of the courts have failed because the courts followed the laws and Constitution of this country. I see no reason to change that, do you?

  33. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    You surely know that his poppa was a Kenyan most likely here on a green card

    I can’t resist replying to this idiocy.

    Obviously Obama Sr. came to the US on a student visa.

    That the poster doesn’t know the difference between a student visa and a green card pretty much says it all. (History also tells us that he adhered to the terms of the visa, returning to Kenya promptly upon finishing his studies).

  34. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 28, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    You know it can be any COLB, right? That is, if there was some smudge or mark on the Factcheck-photo version that was deemed an “alteration”…. Obama could just send $10 off the Hawaii Health Dept for a new one.

  35. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 5:48 pm #

    You surely know that his poppa was a Kenyan most likely here on a green card to exploit the taxpayer funds in going to Harvard.

    He was here on a visa not a green card. Quite a difference…
    What tax payer funds were exploited? I thought that Harvard was a private school and Obama Sr attended on a scholarship.
    PS: The scholarship which paid for his undergraduate studies was, according to wikipedia

    Initial financial supporters of the program included Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, Jackie Robinson, and Elizabeth Mooney Kirk, a literacy advocate who provided most of the financial support for Obama Sr.’s early years in the United States, according to the Tom Mboya archives at Stanford University.[13]

    Facts to matter.

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    It’s in my glossary, although hyphenated, O-borters.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    My, but you certainly take up a lot of vertical space without saying much.

    I thought you were resigning because you said it was a waste of time and you had to get back to work.

    There are “natural born citizen” doubters who are content that Obama was born in Hawaii (those of the Donofrio school), and “birthers” of the Berg school (which was all the doubters until Donofrio came along) who are content that Obama is eligible to be President IF he was born in Hawaii. Then there are what I call “omnivores” or perhaps “opportunistic doubters” who will take either. Let me offer you a challenge (which you might meet) to find one blog post dated prior to June 2008 that says “even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he’s still not eligible because his father was not a US citizen”. I have personally never seen such a thing.

    jtx says:

    It is not “where he was born”, you see, but “is he eligible under the Constitution” that is the question. You collectively seem afraid to walk the walk in determining that.

    That’s an odd remark, given how many pages on this web site are devoted to exactly that question of defining “natural born citizen”.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/citizenship (or click on the Citizenship link upper right on the page)

    jtx: “perhaps you miss the fact that he is not allowed to alter the Constitution (let alone how it is interpreted) – NOR ARE ANY OF YOU … NOR AM I”

    Actually it is the courts who get to decide, and the Supreme Court of New York decided, then the California District Court decided (citing the New York Court) and the Supreme Court of the US decided and they cited the New York Court. See, you already lost about 100 years ago.

    If someone has a valid case to bring, I’d be the last one to object, and if they want to appeal to the Supreme Court, that’s fine too. But the issue has long been decided, so I’m not holding my breath. Most of the bloggers on your side (given recent history), if the Supreme Court affirmed Obama’s eligibility, they’ll be screaming foul and heaping invective on the court.

    You don’t fool me. This has nothing to do with the Constitution or where Obama was born. It’s all about getting Obama out of the White House or at least keeping him from being re-elected.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 6:40 pm #

    The FactCheck.org photos don’t have the number blocked.

  39. avatar
    jtx April 28, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    To Chris:

    Properly, it’s “O-borters”, not “oborters”. Actually it’s a new collective noun that just as fairly describes the players on the one side as does “birthers” on the other.

    The “split opinion” is that of the American people (whether you wish to believe it or not). There have been something like 350 to 400 thousand signing a petition asking something like:

    “We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection.”

    … and the number just keeps going up. Why don’t some of the O-borters sign on also – or are you afraid of the truth??? I’d lighten up on the “freak” talk; but that’s just my opinion.

    ================================
    Note to NBC:

    If you use the term, why not use it properly? It’s “O-borters”. But I suppose you can call them “cranberry-eaters” if you like that term better (check Anderson Cooper to see what that means; he’d no doubt know).

    And I’m not making “arguments” as you suppose but merely pointing out certain things such as Big O himself in both his (Bill Ayres?) books and website indeed tells us he’s not a NCB by specing out the fact that “daddy was a Kenyan” and therefore sonny’s a Brit under the BNA of 1948 (that’ll no doubt set Dr. C. off on another of his wild speculative “interpretation tangents).

    For myself – and I think for most Americans – we’d merely like a valid, legal clarification of whether or not the man is eligible under the Constitution (website and blogtrash notwithstanding). All of these opinions (yours and mine) aren’t “worth the paper they’re printed on”. Let’s get this settled for ALL Americans and not just those fanboys who voted for him and still “Believe” (there are quite a number of those who are now curious as to the truth of the eligibility matter – even if you are not).

    Let’s just duke it out in court – a QW hearing requires no belief in either guilt of innocence but merely a healthy desire for the truth. Do you not have that??? Same with SCOTUS review.

    Having factcheck claim that the head O-borter is US-born means little or nothing since even Sun Yat Sen had a BC from HI with bogus information – even the wrong birth date though it WAS quite beautiful. In case you haven’t noticed HI is very liberal and wishes to protect their native son but even so using the factcheck COLB still tells that only the O-borters claim the guy was born there – and we all know that their CIC tells no lies, eh???

    I merely want to see an official HI long form BC that says that (if it does) along with all other particulars and if it is a certified and verifiable BC saying he was born in HI, then we can move to the next (judicial) step. As it is, we only have the claims of a few clearly biased supporters showing documents that have just as clearly been altered to make the “born in HI” claim. If the state officially presents all that information (and they haven’t) and it becomes shown to be false, then the state and its officials would be quilty of criminal fraud; it’s doubtful they would be so foolish, but who knows?

    Being born in HI (or not) is not really the point but if he were born there that would at least provide a base for judicial determination. If not born there, then you’d be welcome to continue blogging along your present lines – but probably merely talking to yourself or Dr. C.

    At any rate let’s find our in an official manner, shall we???

    As for your ideas on the QW statutes try the current ones (3501 and following in the DC District) and show us where you think it says the head O-borter cannot be tried and even removed for that matter.

    The “opinion” of your NY Minute Judge is quite meaningless to the matter of eligibility though I’m sure Justice Ginsburg would love it (but better if it were a foreign court opinion) … but that matters not. He cannot interpret the Constitution nor what it means. Surely you know that only SCOTUS can do that – and I wish they would to save all this keyboard banging. Each clause in the Constitution has meaning including the NBC clause.

    Bringing up Wong Kim Ark as though it had some vague significance to the NBC matter on the O-borter side is truly funny. It actually says just the opposite and is probably close to being pitched as precedent. Perhaps if you O-borters would join the birthers in insisting that SCOTUS (instead of ducking like a bunch of O-borter-leaning cowards) rule “on the merits”, we could get on with paying our ever increasing taxes for the next 200 years.

    Since you like to claim you cite court decisions all the time (or words to that effect), please cite a single SCOTUS decision that defines the term “natural born citizen” (and please spare us the nonsense about Wong Kim Ark). I’d be more than happy to see it.

    The O-borters are not so “fact based” as you like to postulate. They actually try to ignore the fact that their hero himself has outed the fact that he was not born of two American parents. You’re welcome to show the “facts” you can dredge up that show otherwise, but don’t run around with such a holier than thou attitude that you – only you – have the “facts”. You don’t seem to realize that the actual facts of his ineligibility are staring you right in the face from his own words. You merely hold the opinion that NBC allows anyone born if the country to be eligible – the Constitution doesn’t say that but we’ll save the real arguments for the QW trial and SCOTUS review.

    As for the effects of finding out that the Official O-borter was ineligible, I would rather have this known pubicly known sooner rather than later so that appropriate steps could be taken to swear in an eligible man. Perhaps that would be Biden, but at lease he’d be eligible and it is becoming increasingly clear that the present guy is not only probably NOT eligible but seems to hate this country and many of its customs and institutions.

    BTW – are you and Dr. C. as good at “interpreting” Sharia law as Constitutional law???

  40. avatar
    Rick April 28, 2009 at 6:53 pm #

    If Chester Arthur successfully usurped the Presidency by becoming President despite having an Irish citizen father this in no way creates a precedent that should allow Obama to do the same. No court reviewed Arthur’s Natural Born Citizen status and ruled him eligible to be President despite having an Irish citizen father. Sadly, the courts in Arthurs time seem to have been just as incompetent as today’s courts.

  41. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    And I’m not making “arguments” as you suppose but merely pointing out certain things such as Big O himself in both his (Bill Ayres?) books and website indeed tells us he’s not a NCB by specing out the fact that “daddy was a Kenyan” and therefore sonny’s a Brit under the BNA of 1948 (that’ll no doubt set Dr. C. off on another of his wild speculative “interpretation tangents).

    Let’s separate your observation of fact with your argument.

    Fact: Obama admits that he was also a citizen of Brittain.

    Argument: This thus means that he was not a natural born citizen of the US.

    Fallacy: Citizenship of parents do not affect the status of the child. When born on US soil, such children are natural born citizens. When they reach the age of majority, they can continue their natural born birth right status.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    Rick, I am confused. If the courts are not competent to decide the issue, then who do you suggest, a lynch mob?

  43. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    Let’s just duke it out in court – a QW hearing requires no belief in either guilt of innocence but merely a healthy desire for the truth. Do you not have that??? Same with SCOTUS review.

    Why duke it out in court when the US people, the electoral college and Congress have accepted President Obama as eligible since he was born on US soil.
    A small minority of people refuse to accept the facts and insist on letting the courts turn the Presidency into a farce.
    Of course I have a strong interest in the truth which is that Obama was born on US soil and per history, legal precedent and legislative history, a natural born citizen.
    While some may want to abuse the legal system to harass the President, I see no reason to call this an interest in the truth.

  44. avatar
    Mary Brown April 28, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    Most folks accept Obama as President, think his COLB is all he needs-it looks very much like the certificates or certifications most of us have now- and are concerned with rebuilding this economy. That is reality.

  45. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    Bringing up Wong Kim Ark as though it had some vague significance to the NBC matter on the O-borter side is truly funny. It actually says just the opposite and is probably close to being pitched as precedent

    Fascinating, seems that you are actually believing that a dissenting opinion is somehow legally binding since Wong Kim Ark’s opinion quite clearly indicates that someone born on US soil is a NBC, regardless of the status of the parents.

    As to your request to see the longform, you will have to do with the legal equivalent; the certification of live birth which clearly shows Obama as born on US soil.

    But that does mean one has to be interested in the truth and not a fantasy.

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    jtx:

    “The “split opinion” is that of the American people (whether you wish to believe it or not). There have been something like 350 to 400 thousand signing a petition asking something like”

    There’s no way to verify those numbers.

    Bringing up Wong Kim Ark as though it had some vague significance to the NBC matter on the O-borter side is truly funny. It actually says just the opposite and is probably close to being pitched as precedent.

    I daresay you haven’t read US v. Wonk Kim Ark either. If you had, you would know that it makes a fair argument against Obama IN THE DISSENTING OPINION. The majority opinion says otherwise. But Wong was essentially a 14th amendment case. While a bitter defeat to the xenophobes of the time and a clear affirmation that those born in the US are born under its jurisdiction and by defining that term demolishing the whining allegiance objects of the nObamas. It is clear that those born in the United States (excepting slaves, ambassadors, Indians and invading armies) are natural born citizens and has been since the say the first colonist set foot on our shores, through the ratification of the Constitution and continuing to this day.

    [Am I getting the Plains Radio crowd early?]

  47. avatar
    NBC April 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm #

    BTW – are you and Dr. C. as good at “interpreting” Sharia law as Constitutional law???

    A pathetic attempt at either humor or an attempt to have our opinions dismissed.

    Quite telling and not totally unexpected. But what else is one to do when the facts clearly do not support one’s claims, time after time…

    Just to emphasize my point

    Wong Kim Ark

    [Doc C extends the quote for clarification:
    The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
    ...]

    The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274.

    The opinion continues

    II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.

    Oops…

  48. avatar
    JeffSF April 28, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    Rick believes that just because everyone in Chester Arthur’s time- including all the opposition politicians- believed him to be legally the President, this is no precedent. Rick apparently thinks either that Chester Arthur was part of a vast conspiracy similar to what he believes President Obama is part of, or that he is part of a political elite, far more capable of discerning and understanding the constitution than the entire Congress, the entire judicial system, the entire Republican Party leadership and the Repubican Governor of Hawaii- not to mention millions of voters. Remember- they are the political and intellectual elite- they understand that which we cannot.

  49. avatar
    KJ April 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    If you are in fact in possession of Hinman’s book or have access to a copy, would you also please print the letter that Hinman wrote to Senator Bayard or refer to a place on the internet where the whole book is available.

    Thank you.

    KJ

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 8:36 pm #

    The Internet copy of Hinman book resides exclusively here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. Hinman’s letter to Bayard is not in the book, and its contents can only be inferred from Bayard’s reply. It seems a fairly solid conclusion that Hinman asked if an alien parent’s naturalization would make his children natural born citizens (since it clearly would make them citizens). The reply was that such a child would be naturalized, with which we would all agree.

    The link to the book is up in the main article and following:

    How a British Subject became President of the United States.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 28, 2009 at 8:39 pm #

    Remember that movie, National Treasure, where there was secret writing on the back of the Declaration of Independence that led through a series of incredible clues to a vast treasure? Well, I think the denier’s definition of Natural Born Citizen must derive from an equally incredible set of connections.

  52. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 28, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Great job, Dr Conspiracy! It’s a good thing for you that the copyright on that book has expired! (Legal advice: don’t try that with any books published in the last 95 years — see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/sl15.html for further clarification)

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 6:55 am #

    My compliance with the copyright law was not accidental.

    However, I have some reservations about the constitutionality of the present copyright law. If memory serves me right the Constitution says that copyrights must be for a fixed term, while Congress has been extending the term every time works approach end of copyright, effectively making the term indefinite.

  54. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 8:32 am #

    MOST folks? We will soon see just how many folks want this illegal government shut down and you savior tried for his crimes against America.

    It’s gonna be a FUN time!

  55. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 9:42 am #

    Even Specter found it necessary to celebrate Obama’s first 100 days with a filibuster proof senate.
    Most people, including a good chunk of republicans support our President. A small, and often noisy group of people dream of times that will never come :-)

  56. avatar
    Chris April 29, 2009 at 9:47 am #

    “The “split opinion” is that of the American people (whether you wish to believe it or not). There have been something like 350 to 400 thousand signing a petition”

    Considering 150 million or so folks voted in the election, 350-400K isn’t exactly anywhere approaching a ‘split opinion’. Whether you wish to believe it or not, yours is an extreme minority viewpoint.

  57. avatar
    Gordon April 29, 2009 at 10:17 am #

    Heavy do you have a passport? If you don’t, contact the State Department and see if you can get one with the short form computer generated copy. I have one, and I got it using the same short form computer generated copy as Obama’s. I also used the same one to join the U.S Army. You can find out the legality of the short form B.C by contacting the U.S Standards on COLB, or the aforementioned State Dept. I have a feeling you wouldn’t take the time because you aren’t interested in the truth, it doesn’t fit your narrative. but if you ever reach down a find you have a pair, give Freepers a rest for a few days and see if you can handle the truth.

  58. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 10:37 am #

    Depending on the State your are in, the Department of State may accept a short form if such a form is legally equivalent. There are some states where a full birth certificate is required.

  59. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 10:42 am #

    Really? Where is your proof to back the statement, Mr. Research?

  60. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 10:47 am #

    Gordo, I’m ALL about the truth. I’ll know it when I see it. As far as BC’s, every copy I’ve ever had of mine is the long form. It contains lots more information. But I digress. All this monkey has to do is SHOW THE DAMN THING! He will, one way or another and the stuff will hit the fan. What a great day that will be for America!

  61. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    I appreciate you recognizing me as someone who researches before making claims. I suggest that you may achieve a similar results with minimal investments of time and resources on your part with incredible impact on you claims and assertions.

    As Bloomberg reports

    President Barack Obama has an approval rating of 68 percent, a higher figure than his predecessor had at his 100-day mark in office, a poll found.

    As to ‘times that will never come’? Over 40 failed attempts in the courts should mean something :-)

    Other than a few noisy websites, people show little interest in pursuing an intellectual dead-end.

    YMMV of course ;-)

  62. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 11:05 am #

    Do you have the demographics of those polled?

    With all of the “Research” you and the rest of the egomaniacal, intellectual wannabes here conduct, all you can come up with is;

    1. He dosen’t HAVE to show it
    2. He can’t be bothered with showing it
    3. You won’t believe it anyway

    Well done!

  63. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 11:21 am #

    Well said Heavy. Other than 1) He did show his COLB which shows him as born in the US

  64. avatar
    TRUTH April 29, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    40 Failed attempts? Thats actually an embarrassing number. After 3 or 4 it had they taken just ONE case to court and made an official ruling, that would have settled the differences. But instead of doing the SIMPLE thing, ObiWun-Kabama showing a piece of paper, instead of him being a professional and WANTING to prove everyone wrong and show he is Fine and leave no questions in the minds of Taxpayers HE makes decisions of and takes money from with the stroke of a pen, instead we get to hear Your “Opinions” and not know the TRUTH.

    And if your so Naive to think it is just “a few noisy websites”, you would be better off just not signing online ever again. You don’t know Squat about what is really going on, or you turn your head and close the website before you allow yourself to read the truth.

    Congrats on day 100. Your man has pushed the USA farther extreme left than anyone in history.

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31650

  65. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    68% is 68% and is higher than any of his predecessors.

    The Poll was based on a sample of 1,000 people showing that young people hold President Obama in higher regards than the older population, with extremely high numbers among democrats and less than 50% numbers amongst Republicans

    Emjoy

  66. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 11:40 am #

    Truth: And if your so Naive to think it is just “a few noisy websites”, you would be better off just not signing online ever again. You don’t know Squat about what is really going on, or you turn your head and close the website before you allow yourself to read the truth.

    Yes, a few websites at best. No mainstream media support, no legal progress, the issue is dead as it should have been once Obama showed that he was born on US soil.

    That’s the truth.

  67. avatar
    Chris April 29, 2009 at 11:44 am #

    I recently got a passport with the short form (Pennsylvania), which is the only one I’ve ever had. The info contained therein was my name, city and county of birth, gender and birth date. And it’s also called a certification as opposed to certificate. The same information as a Hawaii COLB. The State Dept. seemed to deem this as sufficient. I even got the passport in 4 days, which has to be some sort of record.

  68. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    This issue is ANYTHING but dead. It is just getting started. Tes, there is NO MSM coverage. This is how the scam was pulled off.

    The American people may be a bit slow on the uptake, but they WILL NOT be denied. This piece of dung will be brought to justice and his suppoters shunned at best. The trials will rival ANYTHING in American judicial history and I will laugh at and cry tears of joy when you sick, twisted traitors are exposed.

    Think I’m crazy? Just wait….

  69. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    Applying for a passport is MUCH different from running for President! There is NO comparison.

  70. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 11:56 am #

    This issue is ANYTHING but dead. It is just getting started. Tes, there is NO MSM coverage. This is how the scam was pulled off.

    Presuming that there was a scam of course. No evidence really exists.

    The American people may be a bit slow on the uptake, but they WILL NOT be denied.

    Indeed, they have instead chosen to DENY it.

    This piece of dung will be brought to justice and his suppoters shunned at best. The trials will rival ANYTHING in American judicial history and I will laugh at and cry tears of joy when you sick, twisted traitors are exposed.

    You really should get a life outside this fantasy world of yours.

    Think I’m crazy? Just wait….

    And waiting and waiting and waiting. In the mean time more and more lawsuits will be dismissed while the President continues our great country towards a new and exciting future.

  71. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 11:59 am #

    And yet that’s the ‘best’ argument from birthers lately, that President Obama should show us the documents that show that he was a natural born citizen or immigrant.
    The former requires one to shown born in the US or if born outside the US that certain rules apply.

    Since Obama has shown to be born on US soil, the issue has been resolved.

  72. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm #

    No scam? Hmmm…You mean the media cover up was not a scam. Look it up.

    Yes some people, such as you, have chosen to DENY it. That means nothing. You see, the truth CANNOT be changed.

    You’ll continue to wait. In the meantime, every word you speak on the matter is TREASON.

    This is an issue that very well may not be resolved in the courts. That would be a shame…Kinda!

  73. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    There you go again. Singing the same old song. He has not fulfilled the requirements for office, plain and simple. You can harp all you want, but the truth is he is not elligible until proven so.

  74. avatar
    richCares April 29, 2009 at 1:10 pm #

    it was fun to see the delusions that Birthers proudly show, but no more, it is just really sad, they have severe mental issues as well, responding to the mentally ill is no longer fun.

  75. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:13 pm #

    It’s your argument that it was a scam. I guess your inability to do so means you have come to agree with me?

    Yes some people, such as you, have chosen to DENY it. That means nothing. You see, the truth CANNOT be changed.

    You may be confusing truth and what you wish to be true.

    You’ll continue to wait. In the meantime, every word you speak on the matter is TREASON.

    Really…?.??

    This is an issue that very well may not be resolved in the courts. That would be a shame…Kinda!

    It’s an issue that will likely not be resolved in court for obvious reasons. No shame in following the law.

  76. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:15 pm #

    There you go again. Singing the same old song. He has not fulfilled the requirements for office, plain and simple. You can harp all you want, but the truth is he is not elligible until proven so.

    Such arguments have failed in the courts and ignore that Congress certified the election results.

    Such are the facts.

    The same old song is just another way of stating the facts of the matter. Can’t argue against the facts now can you?

  77. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    I do not think that the average birther suffers from mental illness. They are just disappointed with this country’s choice for President and lament the good old times. Lacking legal pathways, the dream of what will never be.
    One cannot blame them for being dreamers.

  78. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:19 pm #

    Congress did certify the election results. Under flase pretenses. They, of course, will be held harmless, but are NOT innocent.

    I DID just agrue the facts and you responded with NOTHING.

    So, you agree that your messiah has not proven elligible.

  79. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    “New and exciting future”???

    I hope you know that’s a genuine joke – and a sick one to boot. That’s exactly the opposite of what is happening and that is shown by at least one of the disgusted citizens (and I’m sure there are many others that share the sentiments even if you don’t):

    ===============================

    An open letter to Obama that’s making the email circuit.

    “April 17, 2009

    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

    Mr. Obama:

    I have had it with you and your administration, sir. Your conduct on your recent trip overseas has convinced me that you are not an adequate representative of the United States of America collectively or of me personally.

    You are so obsessed with appeasing the Europeans and the Muslim world that you have abdicated the responsibilities of the President of the United States of America. You are responsible to the citizens of the United States. You are not responsible to the peoples of any other country on earth.

    I personally resent that you go around the world apologizing for the United States telling Europeans that we are arrogant and do not care about their status in the world. Sir, what do you think the First World War and the Second World War were all about if not the consideration of the peoples of Europe? Are you brain dead? What do you think the Marshall Plan was all about? Do you not understand or know the history of the 20th century?

    Where do you get off telling a Muslim country that the United States does not consider itself a Christian country? Have you not read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States?
    This country was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and the principles governing this country, at least until you came along, come directly from this heritage. Do you not understand this?

    Your bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia is an affront to all Americans. Our President does not bow down to anyone, let alone the king of Saudi Arabia. You do not show Great Britain, our best and one of our oldest allies, the respect they deserve yet you bow down to the king of Saudi Arabia. How dare you, sir! How dare you!

    You can’t find the time to visit the graves of our greatest generation because you don’t want to offend the Germans but make time to visit a mosque in Turkey. You offended our dead and every veteran when you give the Germans more respect than the people who saved the German people from themselves. What’s the matter with you?

    I am convinced that you and the members of your administration have the historical and intellectual depth of a mud puddle and should be ashamed of yourselves, all of you.

    You are so self-righteously offended by the big bankers and the American automobile manufacturers yet do nothing about the real thieves in this situation, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelic, the Fannie Mae bonuses, and the Freddie Mac bonuses. What do you intend to do about them? Anything? I seriously doubt it.

    What about the U.S. House members passing out $9.1 million in bonuses to their staff members – on top of the $2.5 million in automatic pay raises that lawmakers gave themselves? I understand the average House aide got a 17% bonus. I took a 5% cut in my pay to save jobs with my employer. You haven’t said anything about that. Who authorized that?
    I surely didn’t!

    Executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be receiving $210 million in bonuses over an eighteen-month period, that’s $45 million more than the AIG bonuses. In fact, Fannie and Freddie executives have already been awarded $51 million – not a bad take. Who authorized that and why haven’t you expressed your outrage at this group who are largely responsible for the economic mess we have right now.

    I resent that you take me and my fellow citizens as brain-dead and not caring about what you idiots do. We are watching what you are doing and we are getting increasingly fed up with all of you. I also want you to know that I personally find just about everything you do and say to be offensive to every one of my sensibilities. I promise you that I will work tirelessly to see that you do not get a chance to spend two terms destroying my beautiful country.

    Sincerely,
    Every real American”

    =============================

    Any bets as to whether the O-borter respomnds??

  80. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    No need to respond. People have the right to voice their opinions, as such we know from actual polls that they support of the President and his policies are strong.

    Nuff said really

  81. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:24 pm #

    Yes, we dream of a day when the laws of the land will be upheld and enforced.

    Lacking legal pathways? Listen to yourself. You are starting to believe your own lies.

    YOUR choice for the office is unqualified, unvetted and ILLEGAL. That makes you a criminal and TRAITOR!

  82. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 29, 2009 at 1:27 pm #

    Applying for a passport is MUCH different from running for President! There is NO comparison.

    Yes, as a matter of LAW the passport requires more documentation.

    Under the US Constitution, there is no requirement of documentation. The candidate’s representation that he is a natural born citizen is good enough. “Natural born” = “born in the USA” and always has meant that.

  83. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:28 pm #

    Finally, we agree! None of this means anything. He will be removed from office and we will move on.

  84. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:30 pm #

    No documentation required? Really? How do we know his age, how long he has resided in the US or where he was born? Take his word for it?

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    Still trying to figure out which law isn’t begin enforced. And if you think there is a law about showing a birth certificate, by all means tell us where to find it.

  86. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 1:35 pm #

    To Chris:

    Please doublecheck your “facts” as they’re somewhat skewed. There were a bit under 129.5 million voters and “your man” got less than 53% of the vote. That means that fewer than 25% of all citizens voted for him (ignoring any illegal alien/ACORN coerced voting) – hardly an overwhelming endorsement. And, in fact, despite what you may think some of those who voted for him are now quite concerned about whether of not he is eligible and many of them are saying so on the net if you check the matter.

    Those 350-400 thousand who spoke up about his eligibility are certainly not everyone wishing to know definitively his eligibility. You O-borter fans seem paranoid about any eligibility trial; that seems a bit more than odd. If you are so certain (as you loudly, frequently, and offensively proclaim) of his ironclad eligibility under the Constitution there should be no reason why you would not also wish to see hour hero’s “legacy” spiffed-up for now and for posterity. Right?

  87. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    If you are so certain (as you loudly, frequently, and offensively proclaim) of his ironclad eligibility under the Constitution there should be no reason why you would not also wish to see hour hero’s “legacy” spiffed-up for now and for posterity. Right?

    Why? There are certainly no legal requirements to do so. Why should we take such efforts seriously when they only serve to undermine our President?

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 1:37 pm #

    The thing I find most offensive in that letter is the signature. The rest of us Americans have the right to speak for ourselves.

  89. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 29, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    I’d tend to agree with you, but that’s another matter entirely.

  90. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:40 pm #

    Funny how Heavy has provided no evidence that our President is unvetted, unqualified and illegal.

    As to unqualified, he is far more qualified than the majority of Presidents of the late 20th century and early 21st century.

    As to unvetted, he was placed on the ballot in all 50 States, voters found him qualified and eligible, electoral college found him qualified and eligible, and the Congress certified his eligibility.

    As to illegal, there is a certain lack of evidence and legal success to make such claims.

    In other words, false premise, false conclusion. Next time, please do your homework lest you insist on embarrassing yourself and if that is your goal, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

  91. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 29, 2009 at 1:42 pm #

    There are 3 types of birthers:
    1) Crazy people (i.e, suffering from severely delusional or disordered thought process)

    2) Really, extraordinarily stupid people

    3) Liars (scammers) who simply will try to foist off any lie they think they can get away with to further either their political agenda or to make a buck.

  92. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    I think the conservative propaganda telling the faithful that the whole country (except a liberal remnant) agreed with them left them ill-prepared for the election of the antithesis of the far-right model of what a president should be. They are in shock and denial. Rather than change their entire world view that the far right view is “the American Way”, they say that the ignorant minorities skewed the election, or ACORN defrauded them out of the election, or Barack Obama used hypnosis to get elected, or that the liberal-controlled media prevented the truth from getting out, or that Barack Obama isn’t really president.

    The last thing they’re prepared to admit is that they lost the election.

  93. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Dr. C. -

    Check out the DC Quo Warranto statutes to see how a President or other government official may be compelled to show his (real) birth certificate. A QW trial by jury could certainly compell the “showing” (your words) of a BC – bit you claim he’s “shown” it on his website; something that many people realize is not correctly a valid document no matter your smokescreen to the contrary.

    This whole thing can be clarified for the office holder and for posterity by correct legal proceedings “on the merits” – which has not – yet – happened. If it does and valid procedures determine the actual truth of his eligibility then almost everyone should be satisfied that he is eligible – not the least of whom should be the Head O-borter since, after all, that’s (the legal determination) how history will know him, eh???

  94. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:44 pm #

    Hey, good luck tonight!

  95. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:45 pm #

    I do not need evidence, he does. Next!

  96. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    Check out the DC Quo Warranto statutes to see how a President or other government official may be compelled to show his (real) birth certificate. A QW trial by jury could certainly compell the “showing” (your words) of a BC – bit you claim he’s “shown” it on his website; something that many people realize is not correctly a valid document no matter your smokescreen to the contrary

    Sadly enough, due to the Constitutional nature of the Presidence, Quo Warranto likely does not apply to the President.

    Nice try though. My predictions? The Attorney General will ignore, the DC courts will reject and the Supreme Court will refuse to hear.

  97. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    I understand that you do not hold yourself to the standards to which you hold others. If you believe that you do not need evidence, then by your own logic, we can safely ignore you :-)

    Ah the smell of a rhetorical victory in the morning…

  98. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 1:52 pm #

    A valid legal determination don’t “undermine our President” at all. They merely determine whether he is eligible under the Constitution or not.

    I would think that most citizens would like to have that assurance and – as I’ve pointed out before – we could all just stop this present pleasant banter and have a definitive determination.

    One would think that the O-borter hisself would like that concordance of eligibility – or then again, perhaps he’d rather just have all believe what he says. He’s never fibbed – right???

    So just what is it you O-borters are so terrified of as to a legally-determined eligibility determination that is made known to all??? Perhaps for the same reason that you hew to the insistence of the four different internet Certification of Live Birth documents being “proof”???

  99. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 1:56 pm #

    No, Doc. We understand we lost. We are just asking how the so called winner even got to play because he does not meet the requirements. Happens all the time. I’m sure you remember the Olympic marathon where a runner was deposited near the finish line having not even run the race. He did not win because he did not meet the requirements. HE had to prove he had and could not. Same applies here. The burden of proof lies on the one who claims he meets the requirements. If he cannot, he does not. Your guy CANNOT an DOES NOT!

    You can do all the research you want on things that happened in the past and cast thin shadows of doubt, but the truth remains…He is NOT President.

    It has nothing to do with party loyalty or warped world view. It has to do with TRUTH and common sense. It amazes me that this group of people fancy themselves as intellectuals and have NO common sense. That’s why they are liberals. They cannot survive in the real world. I bet most of them are academics of some sort.

    Those who can, do and those who can’t, teach. Truer words have rarely been spoken.

    GOOD LUCK TONIGHT.

  100. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 29, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Actually, I want to add that despite my initial somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment about copyright, I think you have done historians of the world a great favor by preserving an important historical document in digital form.

    Hinman’s work, unlike the work of present-day birthers, seems to represent an effort at providing more complete documentation, as he includes without comment letters and attestations that undermine his claims as well as those that bolster them. So whatever his opinion, the documentation is useful and worth preserving.

    I’d note that from reading the book it is obvious to me that Chester A Arthur was born in Vermont. Like present-day birthers, Hinman had to buy into a rather wonky theory to come to another conclusion. Hinman’s theory seems to be that Chester A. Arthur was actually William Chester Alan Arthur, born in Canada, who dropped the “William” from his name after his younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur died in infancy. But of course there was no evidence to support the predicate assumption that Arthur’s parents would decide to name 2 sons in a row “Chester”, especially given the fact that the father’s name was William. Far more likely that Chester Abell Arthur (name for the doctor who delivered him in Vermont) — simply opted to change his middle name at some point, as apparently his grandfather was named Alan.

  101. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    Haha. Another quasi-intellectual lib in love with himself. You know full well the he MUST prove his elligibilty and CANNOT!

    The only victory you have ever experienced is waking up in the morning.

  102. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    To NBC:

    You seem to hold great sway based upon “polls”. That’s your right, of course, but I don’t find them too meaningful is such a rapidly changing environment that makes me believe many people are changing their belief on the eligibility matter. There are polls and there are polls …
    “strong” is pretty meaningless in this case.

    It seems that (on certain blogs that shall deservedly remain nameless) that not everyone is allowed or expected to voice an opinion – especially so if it does not conform with those held by O-borters.

    =====================

    Dr. C.:

    Certainly – ALL “us Americans” have the right to “speak for ourselves” and that’s just what is going on when I ask all the O-borters to join in an effort to bring a Quo Warranto action to definitively clear up the matter so we can ALL rest our keyboards/vocal chords.

  103. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 2:03 pm #

    What they fear is retribution.

  104. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    That and $4.50 will get you a latte at Starbucks!

  105. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 2:06 pm #

    JTX: You seem to hold great sway based upon “polls”. That’s your right, of course, but I don’t find them too meaningful is a rapidly changing environment that makes me believe many people are changing their belief on the eligibility matter.

    I say “look at the facts” and data you say “I believe”…

    There are polls and there are polls …
    “strong” is pretty meaningless in this case.

    When facts disagree with beliefs, facts are often the first one to go.

    It seems that (on certain blogs that shall deservedly remain nameless) that not everyone is allowed or expected to voice an opinion – especially so if it does not conform with those held by O-borters.

    There may be a few, but nothing compared to the censorship by Birthers. That’s a fact.

  106. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 2:08 pm #

    A valid legal determination don’t “undermine our President” at all. They merely determine whether he is eligible under the Constitution or not.

    All evidence points to the fact that he is. Since the only reason to pursue such an unnecessary step is to undermine the Presidency, I see no reason to set such wide ranging precedent.

    So just what is it you O-borters are so terrified of as to a legally-determined eligibility determination that is made known to all??

    There is no fear involved, just common sense and legal facts.

    Born in the US, Natural Born per Wong Kim Ark and other rulings.

    It’s really that simple.

  107. avatar
    NBC April 29, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    In what form Heavy? The truth stands on its own.

  108. avatar
    JeffSF April 29, 2009 at 2:12 pm #

    “Let’s see, however, how your opinions alter when various disasters clearly at the feet of the present President take place … or perhaps you folks really”

    I will judge President Obama for his accomplishments and his failures. Personally- I hope he is a fantastic President, and does really well- I hoped the same thing for President Bush 2 when he was elected, even though I voted against him. A president deserves to be judged by what he does, or doesnt do, and not be judged on what you think he will do.

    “DO think the guy is the messiah”

    Where do you folks get this stuff? Really- only the right makes claims about this- those who favor Obama are no more fanatical than those who elected Ronald Reagan. I have high expectations for President Obama, and hope for our country that he is very successful, and leads our economy to recovery, and extracts us from unnecessary foreign incursions. I hope that we end up with more affordable health care, and viable oversight of our financial institutions.

    Would you prefer to see the country go down in flames rather than see President Obama as a successful president?

    My prediction- if 4 years from now our economy has rebounded, you will still be declaring his presidency a failure. And if the economy is in ruins, you will say it is all his fault.

  109. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm #

    In typical liberal fashion, you are confusing a man with an office. They are NOT one in the same! But that’s what liberals do…Avoid the truth and try to create gray areas, where they live.

    No fear involved? How about irrelevance? Ask you buddies Jesse and Al how that’s working out for them.

    NOT born in the USA perthe Constitution. It’s REALLY that simple. And even simpler to prove if he were.

    What’s the excuse?

  110. avatar
    Heavy April 29, 2009 at 2:23 pm #

    JeffSF…Let me guess…San Fran?

  111. avatar
    JeffSF April 29, 2009 at 3:25 pm #

    “He is NOT President.”

    Beg to differ- until he is impeached he is indeed the President. I disagreed with George Bush 2 on most things, and do not think he was actually elected President, but by golly, once he was sworn in I recognized he was President.

    Heavy- once again you position yourself as a self-appointed elite, who is in a position to decide for all the rest of the Americans what is true and what is not. You have nothing to support your position but your fears and wild theories.

    “It amazes me that this group of people fancy themselves as intellectuals and have NO common sense. That’s why they are liberals. They cannot survive in the real world. I bet most of them are academics of some sort.”

    Hmmm haven’t seen any intellectuals here, only some well reasoned arguments against wild flights of fancy. And I am no academic-I have been working ‘in the real world’ for over 30 years, and survive just fine thank you. Not that there is anything wrong with academics. However if you would like to get away from all academics, I hear Somalia is pretty much academia free.

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    But I don’t want an illegal quo warranto action, because such an action would be illegal. I believe it was Leo Donofrio who said: “you can’t save the constitution by destroying it.”

  113. avatar
    Chris April 29, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    OK if you want to get nitpicky, 131.2 is about the number of votes cast. Of course there are 212 million eligible voters in the country (169 million of which are registered). So, yeah, a few hundred thousand still isn’t impressing me. Basically you’ve got Corpus Christi, TX. Congratulations. I don’t mean to sound snarky, but the Orlybots of the world try to make it seem like there’s a “movement” when there’s just a smattering of kooks who want to think they’re important.

  114. avatar
    Chris April 29, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    You know what, heavy is actually right. Obama must prove his eligibility in order to be President. Fortunately, he’s done that already.

  115. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    To NBC:

    I certainly understand you are biased since you support the O-borter, but, really, you need to clear your head from the logjam of ignorance that has obviously logged there.

    There are and have been many lawsuits relating in one way or another to the eligibility status and NONE have been heard on their merits by ANY court. Each of those suits would – if the point of discovery were reached – have produced substantial evidence in opposition to your preposterous assertion. Bkog blather such as yours and mine are not “evidence” until they might be introduced in one of the eligibility lawsuits.

    Lest you think that nothing is going on eligibility perhaps you are unaware of Kerchner et al v Obama et al which not only brings actions against the Head O-borter but many of his incidental henchmen (and even Dick Cheney). Obama and the United States have already asked for a greater than normal extension of the response time and it was kindly granted, but both houses of Congress have yet to have an extension granted.

    It seems the noose is getting tighter and tighter. It will be both enlightening and entertaining to examine the “evidence” of you O-borters (and accomplices) in a real legal setting and “on the merits”.

    Of course it is always possible that all of the courts will turn tail and run for cover as did SCOTUS, but with the extent of coverage of this suit, that won’t be so easy. With so many defendants, some are likely to rat out the Head O-borter. If not, it wouldn’t bother me to see them go down with the ship as it were.

    Your continual raising of Wong Kim Ark as though it was meaningful as some sort of precedent is funny. You’ve obviously confused “dicta” with “ruling”. WKA is no “aid and comfort” to O-borters (but certainly I hope it is raised along with the Phoney factcheck COLB as “proof” of something).

    Keep an eye on that action, eh???

  116. avatar
    Kevin Bellas April 29, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    You know “Heavy” every post you have made here on this blog is a credit to Dr. C. Could I go do the same at Plains Radio? I have tried to post respectfully on Plains Radio and other sites that support your view. Do you know what the results? I was either banned or my posts were deleted.

    Have your post ever been deleted for no reason other that you have posted a opposing opinion(unlike you I try to post only when I have supporting evidence)?

    Or how about this totally banned for just posting any view that goes against “He’s not President” mantra.

    So why don’t you go any birther site and tell them to open up the ranks to opposing points. It works pretty well for you on this site.

  117. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    To Kevin Bellas:

    Don’t feel so “special”. I’ve been banned for no apparent reason from Plains Radio and other sites that have the opposite view that you have. Berg’s site comes to mind (and others).

    So I see no credence to being banned (or not) and most of the folks you call birthers make no claim that the Head O-borter is not the President. The claim is that he is not validly eligible to hold the office … and we shall see about that, won’t we??

    Perhaps you’d like to join with others to insist on a valid, legal Quo Warranto (or other) trial that conducts discovery and makes a legal determination re eligibility???

  118. avatar
    Kevin Bellas April 29, 2009 at 6:48 pm #

    Thanks, but no Thanks I no issues with the President credentials. My point is that I find it very ironic that “Heavy” has posted very cynical posts and all of his post have no supporting evidence.

    On Plains Radio his post would be deleted and butt banned. Have that happen here?

    Have you posted on Plains Radio before? And was your deleted and were you banned?

    Sorry for going off topic.

  119. avatar
    jtx April 29, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    Read the DC statues 3501 and following and you’ll see that the President is indeed NOT exempt – he is merely one of the government officers that operate within DC. As such, my belief is that he is covered.

    Whether any court will be brave enough to hear any issue relating to eligibility on the merits is an open question. Most seem too timid to take up the issue perhaps for political retaliation considerations. It is, however, something that should be definitively determined (since it has never been). It needs to be to clarified so that Obama’s legacy is clarified (or not). To me, it doesn’t matter which way the ax falls – just that it gets a respectful chop at it.

  120. avatar
    Kevin Bellas April 29, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    Sorry for missing words. I can’t type and talk on the phone at the same time.

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    In 2012, somebody ask me “are you better off than you were 4 years ago?”

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    jtx: Your continual raising of Wong Kim Ark as though it was meaningful as some sort of precedent is funny. You’ve obviously confused “dicta” with “ruling”.

    I am sometimes careless (not confused) about that distinction. However, if a case were ever to come to trial about the definition of natural born citizen, you can rest assured that the decision would cite the dicta of Wong, just as Wong followed the dicta of Lynch, et al.

    The dicta in Wong presents a compelling argument that people like Barack Obama are natural born citizens. Ruling or dicta, the logic of the decision won’t go away, nor that of Lynch, or Look Tin Sing or the host of others I list here (and others that I haven’t gotten around to yet).

  123. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 29, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    The mark of a conspiracy theorist is that they make everybody who disagrees with them part of the conspiracy, either through benefit or fear.

    Once you take that mindset, that no one can be trusted because everyone is in on it, you’re just a few steps away from the clinical diagnosis of delusional thinking.

  124. avatar
    Mary Brown April 29, 2009 at 11:24 pm #

    Yes, I am banned and labeled an obot. Mostly I would question their views from a practicing Christian’s persepective. They live in an alternate universe. I am a member of a very diverse family-politically, socially and religiously. We have very good and sometimes heated discussions. I think that when people lack that perspective they find it difficult to consider other ideas.P

  125. avatar
    Gordon April 29, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    Heavy, outside of a lone gunman, which frankly you guys prefer, there isn’t anything else legally that’s going to happen. You don’t realize how bad it is for people on the right far less stable than you.

  126. avatar
    Gordon April 29, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Why does a grown man have to be a monkey?

  127. avatar
    Gordon April 30, 2009 at 12:00 am #

    None of what you said has a thing to do with the subject, which on this site is all BC all the time. Stay on topic. If you have a problem with Obama on policy or style issues, there are plenty of sites for you.

  128. avatar
    Gordon April 30, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    What trial? There isn’t going to be any trial, except in the minds of the delusional.

  129. avatar
    Gordon April 30, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    Sorry Heavy, Police Detective 30 years. I deal in facts, not the fanciful, wishful, dreams of the disaffected.

  130. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2009 at 1:14 am #

    The DC statute specifies that quo warranto is brought by the US Attorney or Attorney General.

    The AG & US Attorney work in the executive branch, under the direction of the President. They cannot bring a quo warranto against the President because the Pres. has the authority and power to tell them not to. (That is why when Presidents are investigated for misconduct, special counsel is appointed — bu there is no statutory provision for appointment of special counsel under the current statute).

    Anyone familiar with the history of quo warranto would understand that this is so — historically it was a form of action brought by and in the name of the King. Our President is not a monarch, but to the extent that the writ survives, it survives as a form of legal action to be brought by and at the behest of the President.

    That this is so is obvious from the fact that in the Kerchner quo warranto action (improperly filed directly by the plaintiff, without statutory authority, and in the wrong venue) — Obama is being DEFENDED by the US Attorney’s office. That is the job of the US Attorney for DC as well as of the Attorney General: to DEFEND the President in any legal action brought against him related to the exercise of his duties.

  131. avatar
    Mike April 30, 2009 at 3:45 am #

    I do not need evidence

    Heavy in a nutshell, “nut” being the operative word.

  132. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:16 am #

    You’re just a cry baby. I could not give a rat’s ass if I was banned or not. I will NOT stop until the truth comes out and this traitor is tried for treason!

  133. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:26 am #

    JTX, this is a common occurance on the blog. They state opinion as if it were fact. They base those opinions on meaningless information and try to spin it into something meaningful.

    Look a the voluminous amount of information Doc has put together here. On the surface it looks impressive. In substance, it is meaningless…Every last word. All he has to do is SHOW THE DAMN THING!

  134. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:27 am #

    Wong Kim Ark is as relevant to THE ONE’S NBC status as Joan Van Ark!

  135. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:30 am #

    Only he can’t be defended because he is NOT President!

  136. avatar
    Heavy April 30, 2009 at 9:32 am #

    Think about it , Mikey, if you are able. I am not making an accusation, just asking a question. The burden of proof is on him to prove he is elligible. He cannot, therfore he is not. Get it?

  137. avatar
    jtx April 30, 2009 at 1:01 pm #

    To Dr. C.:

    Are you claiming that dicta has the same effect as precedent?

    I see lots of dicta presented in various actions but far less data presented as precedent.

    Just to be clear – do you have some objection to a valid legal hearing (e.g., a QW jury trial) on the eligibility issue to solve the question (legally) for posterity? There are many folks who would like to have the issue formally settled so other things can be concetrated on. Why not join in that sentiment and try to get the requisite court action?

  138. avatar
    jtx April 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm #

    To Expelliarmus:

    Nowhere in the QW statutes of DC is there a provision for Presidential overview and/or determination of such a legal matter since that would, in fact, be violating the legally constituted process of QW set up by Congressional action as I understand the matter.

    At best the Head O-borter could remove either the AG or the DC USA from their job(s) by “requesting” their resignation. Don’t you think that would seem “a bit odd” after an ongoing QW trial was in process??

    And after all if he is not a monarch as you say then he cannot just abort the Constitution also. In fact I suspect the Kerchner wording of QW means that it is based on some earlier form rather that the current DC statutes – but we’ll wait and see once the case is heard “on the merits”. I’m pretty sure the defense would like to believe (and will argue) that the DC QW statutes are inapplicable to a sitting officeholder but they may be aiming at the wrong target.

  139. avatar
    Gordon April 30, 2009 at 4:25 pm #

    Then it’s going to be a long eight years for you.

  140. avatar
    Gordon April 30, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    jtx if you’re actually holding your breath waiting to see if some mystical magical birth certificate issue is going to overturn the election, you are in for a rude awakening and will probably go to your grave maintaining your fairy tale.

  141. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    It doesn’t have to be in the statute, jtx. The President is the boss of the attorney general. He gets to pick the AG, and he has the power to fire the AG.

    Aside from the fact that the AG’s BOSS is the President, it would be a legal conflict of interest for the AG to bring an action against the President, because it is his job to defend the President in court in such circumstances … which, in fact, the US Attorney’s office in New Jersey is presently doing.

  142. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    jtx: Are you claiming that dicta has the same effect as precedent?

    No. But dicta is not “throw away either”, as the Supreme Court cites it all the time as part of the reasoning in their cases.

    Jury trial? Juries do not decide questions of law.

  143. avatar
    jtx April 30, 2009 at 7:44 pm #

    To Expelliarmus:

    The O-borter does not “fire” people; he asks them to resign and in any event, the QW proceeding is a civil matter (not criminal) having nothing to do with actions by the O-borter in office but instead relating to the curiosity of the court as to the man’s authority (eligibility) to hold the office.

    Any such trial by jury could be held and quite possibly be concluded in a very short time since there would only be a single finding of fact required from the jury (by viewing the vault copy of the vital statistics info) – was the man born in HI??

    From that, the judge should make a ruling using the law to state whether he is eligible under the Constitution. Any result should automatically go to SCOTUS (who has promulgated a cowardly side of its activity for qall to see by valiantly trying to duck the issue so far in several instances).

    In fact there would be no conflict on Holder’s part since to bring the QW action there is no presumption of either guilt or innocence on the issue involved. Same with USA Taylor in DC. They would be doing the O-borter a huge favor (asuming he is found to be eligible) since such a trial would clear his legacy from what will otherwise be a terrible stain … which will probably happen in no other way. Chester Arthur he’s not – too many citizens what to know the real deal and are gravely (and rightfully) concerned!!

  144. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Chester A. Arthur, by the way, turned out to be a good president.

    Drop this quo warranto nonsense. Presidents can only be impeached (not that you seem to care to go by the Constitution).

  145. avatar
    jtx April 30, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    TO JeffSF & Gordon:

    The fact is that the O-borter has himself stated in several venues that he was born of a father that was not a US citizen.

    There are many people that that fact gives great pause to along with the fact that he’s spending most likely millions of tax dollars trying to prevent the vital statistics of his birth from being known to the public.

    That, along with the sealing of many other of his records that might indicate non-NBC status, is making more and more citizens wonder why the secrecy when most people have to produce their reak BC for much lesser things … if there’s mnothing to hide, why hide it???

    And in fact since many of you O-borter fans believe (apparently) that he IS eligible, what harm is there in demostrating that under the laws of our land??? That way the rest of us – and others who are definitely on the fence about it – will have any fears about that matter allayed? It would be no skin off your nose if he IS eligible … and just think of the bragging rights you’d have.

    You apparently have some sub-rose concerns along with a fear of the consequences if he isn’t eligible. Would you rather have a Prez who was not eligible and hiding the fact than find out the truth in a rigorous manner??? Seems “passing strange” if so.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 30, 2009 at 9:43 pm #

    The problem is that Barack Obama has complied with the laws of our land and in addition provided to the public at large a copy of his birth certificate.

    What I object to is a smear consisting of fantasy, lies, misinformation, and misrepresentation (counted 3 in jtx’s comment) getting so much as the time of day from anyone.

    I was reading one of the lawsuits a few days back, that said that a “nigger should never be in a place of authority over a white man”. At least for some people demanding that Obama do this, disclose that–”hey boy, fetch me a copy of that birth certificate–no, not that birth certificate, the one way over there” is a way to assert their ultimate authority over the nigger. “Damn uppity nigger, don’t got no right to privacy.”

    Certainly no white president ever had such demands directed at him, nor been treated with such disrespect

    Yes, dear friends, Dr. Conspiracy played the race card. Can you deny this isn’t true, at least for some of the citizenship deniers? Heavy turns livid. [Clarification: I say Heavy turns livid because Heavy has turned livid before when race is given as a motive for Obama eligibility denial. I am not suggesting Heavy is a racist.]

  147. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 30, 2009 at 10:37 pm #

    JTX,
    1. The duty of the AG’s & US attorneys office includes the responsibility to defend the US President in CIVIL matters. They have a whole CIVIL division for this purpose.

    2. This extends to “quo warranto” which is why the US ATTORNEY is representing Obama in the Kerchner v. Obama suit.

    3. And the President indeed can FIRE a US Attorney. See: http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/03/who_can_fire_a.html
    (asking for resignation is simply a polite way of going about it)

  148. avatar
    jtx May 1, 2009 at 11:54 am #

    To Gordon:

    You misunderstand – completely (and perhaps intentionally). I haven’t the slightest interest in “overturning the election” no matter my opinion of the O-borter. My interest and that of many who question his eligibility is the sincle interest of seeing that the Constitution is followed relative to his eligibility to hold the office.

    A simple jury trial with one finding of fact and a judicial determination (as I’ve indicated in other places on this blog) would certainly do this – so long as it is conducted scrupulously under the laws of the country (QW in the present situation).

    Don’t put words in my mouth – it doesn’t gecome you. I am puzzled why so may O-borter fans resist being able to have a legal determination of eligibility since the man’s legacy will ALWAYS be suspect if this is not done. Perhaps you’d rather not believe this but it is the case.

  149. avatar
    Mary Brown May 1, 2009 at 1:26 pm #

    I was raised by a dad who would open the editorial pages of the two papers in our town-one that generally supported Republicans and the other Democrats. He would point out what he called “loaded words” or words meant to appeal to emotion and not reason. You use a loaded word which I will not repeat, then you ask me to believe that you are asking for a reasoned analysis. I don’t believe you. A reasonable person who wanted reason to prevail would not use the language you do. My dad was a great teacher. The name you use for President Obama gives me reason to doubt your motive.

  150. avatar
    Heavy May 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    You tell ‘em, teach!

  151. avatar
    Gordon May 1, 2009 at 2:18 pm #

    A jury trial? On what basis? That sounds more ridiculous than anything I’ve heard. What probable cause would you have to bring this nonsense before a jury, because folks have a feeling.You have to show cause. No one has done it,and that’s why Judges are throwing these cases out w/o hearing.

  152. avatar
    Gordon May 1, 2009 at 2:20 pm #

    The actual saying of his name does stick in his craw.

  153. avatar
    Heavy May 1, 2009 at 2:29 pm #

    Nonsense? Hmmm. I thought you were a detective, Gordo.

  154. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    Actually we believe that a legal determination of eligibility has been done. What we resist is an illegal (or extra-legal) determination of eligibility.

    If there were really an issue (to be distinguished from a conspiracy theory or a smear campaign), don’t you think some Senator and some House member would have objected to certifying the election? Now saying they’re all cowards, or they’re all stupid, or they’re all knuckling under pressure would be classic conspiracy theory talk. When the facts don’t fit the conspiracy theory, re-invent the facts.

    I, f you can come up with some rational reason the Congress, without a single voice in opposition, certified the election that DOESN’T require the entire Congress to be part of the conspiracy, then let’s hear it.

    These are the reasons I oppose a quo warranto trial:

    1. It violates the constitutional separation of powers. Only the Congress may remove a president.
    2. It will focus media attention on the current administration in a negative way. Even when the President wins (as inevitably he will), the fires of doubt will be fanned. People who knew nothing about the issue will be drawn into having an opinion, and statistically some of them will disagree with the court’s decision.
    3. The demands are based on ignorance and the lack of critical thinking. These should not be rewarded by giving them a “day in court”
    4. If we give Obama citizenship deniers their day in court, we’ll have to let the flat earthers, and the 9/11 deniers in too. Next thing people will be demanding for certified copies of the President’s x-rays to prove he’s not a reptoid.

  155. avatar
    Heavy May 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm #

    Sorry, doc. You arguments make no sense.

    1. Only Congress remove a President. My point exactly. If he were President.

    2.The fires of doubt are already being fanned. This is the only thing that can douse them. Are you actually saying that you don’t want people to know about this?

    3.There’s more than just a bit of arrogance, no?

    4. Flat Earth theories and 9/11 deniers have NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

    Doc, is that really you? Or has someone hijacked your handle? You are usually able to bury us with information, however useless, but this is not even well thought out.

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 1, 2009 at 4:12 pm #

    Heavy said: “4. Flat Earth theories and 9/11 deniers have NOTHING to do with the Constitution.”

    And neither does Obama Eligibility Denial.

  157. avatar
    Heavy May 1, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Really, Doc? See I am not denying anything. I am simply asking a question. If he is elligible, why won’t he prove it?

  158. avatar
    JeffSF May 1, 2009 at 4:26 pm #

    “The fact is that the O-borter has himself stated in several venues that he was born of a father that was not a US citizen”

    Certainly has. However, that doesn’t concern me, because a) when I was growing up, in Junior High Civics class we were taught that to be eligible to be the President, a person must be 35 or older, and natural born- and we were told that meant born in the United States. Until a black president with a arabic sounding name was elected no one even worried about the fathers citizenship. b) no credible authority takes this theory seriously- its all the Vince Foster crowd.

    “he’s spending most likely millions of tax dollars trying to prevent the vital statistics of his birth from being known to the public”

    Show me any evidence that this is true. Really, Birthers recite this as if it is written in the Federal Register, but show me some proof- not right wing rantings- that he is spending millions of his own money or of public money suppressing anything. If you can’t you are just parroting what you hear from your fellow travellers.

    “And in fact since many of you O-borter fans believe (apparently) that he IS eligible, what harm is there in demostrating that under the laws of our land???”

    Frankly, I don’t think you want proof- I think all of you want a fishing expedition to try to find something embarressing on the President.

    Exactly what would satify you- really lay it out- what lengths would President Obama have to go to convince you he was eligible. And then ask yourself if you ever asked those same questions of Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Carter.

  159. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    better thing to do, prove you are not an idiot!

  160. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2009 at 5:04 pm #

    sorry, I asked for the impossible!

  161. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2009 at 7:10 am #

    I don’t think the nObamas appreciate the significance of the Arthur precedent. They may kick and whine and make up fantastic stories about cover-ups and they may descry that the voters didn’t know the truth about the constitutional requirements (again), but the Congress was informed about the Constitution and they certified the election.

    Could anyone conceive of a court today saying that the black guy with a British father can’t be president, but the white guy with a British father could? You might find a court with a Confederate flag on the wall to rule that way, but it would lose on appeal.

  162. avatar
    Gordon May 3, 2009 at 4:41 am #

    Mary join the crowd. I have been banned from every Right Wing blog site I have been on, it’s a badge of honor. I have been banned from Team Sarah four times. I am respectful and courteous, unlike Heavy on a bad day here. But once they find you don’t agree with their twisted logic, the y label you and ban you.

  163. avatar
    Joyce May 3, 2009 at 5:15 am #

    “If he is elligible, why won’t he prove it?”

    How many times should he prove it?

  164. avatar
    NBC May 3, 2009 at 1:48 pm #

    If he is elligible, why won’t he prove it?

    He has done so and the congress seemed to agree.

    Perhaps the real question is: Why is Heavy ignoring these facts?

    Next..

  165. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    I would point out that the 1797 English translation also uses the phrase “natural-born citizen”. I have been unable to find what the 1787 and 1759 editions said.