Main Menu

Comment at the Ledger-Enquirer

Dr. Conspiracy

Dr. Conspiracy

The Ledger-Equirer has become the epicenter of birther media through its coverage of the Cook v Good hearing. After reading some the birther remarks left there, I added the following to the article:

Sometimes racism is invoked to explain the unprecedented demands for every scrap of documentations about Obama’s life from kindergarten to his law practice, and I’m confident that’s true some of the time.

But what is unmistakeably racist is the implication that Hawaiians are complete fools insofar as their administrative processes in issuing birth certificates, and that their documents certifying the location of someone’s birth can mean anything one imagines them to mean.

When the signed and sealed Certification of Live Birth from Hawaii says Barack Obama’s “Location of birth: Honolulu” then you can be damned sure that it means what it says.

More at obamaconspiracy.org.

, , ,

395 Responses to Comment at the Ledger-Enquirer

  1. avatar
    BlackLion July 18, 2009 at 11:34 am #

    Take a look at this link. Now that mainstream media is discussing the issue, the birthers will become more agressive and I don’t think nothing will stop them. Basically they have an out. Even if the BC is authentic in their eyes, the Constitution says that both parents have to be citizens so Obama is ineligible anyway. He won’t be able to end this issue not matter what. That is pure hatred of the man. Whether or not you want to call it racism, it is something. And it is disturbing.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200907170039

  2. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    This is what I am concerned about, too. My feelings exactly.

    OT: There was a post about NBC, and Kissinger, Albright, et al. To those who question that requirement, I have two words: Adolf Hitler.

    Hitler was Chancellor, but he was born in Austria. If Germany had that
    requirement…well, you know the story.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 12:15 pm #

    I guess we know now for sure that Alan Keyes knows that he’s a plaintiff in that lawsuit Orly filed.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 12:29 pm #

    I don’t see how Hitler being born in Austria made him the monster.

    If there was a law in Russia that no one named “Joseph” could serve in the government, then they wouldn’t have had Stalin either.

  5. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 2:30 pm #

    BlackLion:

    the issue is not – and never was – where the man might have been born and any BC is merely a necessary but not sufficient starting point. The issue is legal eligibility under the US Constitution to hold the office the man now occupies.

    It has nothing to do with race. political party, or social outlook (e.g., Communism), or anything else. As such, it’s a pretty straightforward fact-finding process and then one of legal interpretation.

    The attempts of those of you on this blog who attempt to spin things to represent things otherwise do no change the truth of the matter … nor will they.

    Step back for a moment – put all your prejudices and political proclivities and presumption of facts not in evidence aside and THINK about what the situation would be is we were found to have someone as our President who was in the office illegally.

    Can you begin to see the implications?? Is that what you wish for this country?? Is it of any concern to any of you that everything being done by this man might be illegal?? Do you think that having a criminal holding office is “OK”?? Stop and think no matter how much it hurts.

    All of these questions and others are quite proper unless tha man can establish with credible certainty that he is factually Constitutionally eligible. That’s what the adversarial legal system will supposedly establish in court.

    Ranting and raving about “birthers” (and other presumed pejorative terms many of you repeatedly use) accomplishes nothing at all. Why not reflect a bit about the above questions?

  6. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    You know, all of that would worry me mightily . . if only the birffers had any factual evidence at all to back up their claims.

    I’m about as much worried about birffer eligibility claims as I am about the claims that it was really George Bush who blew up the Trade Towers and killed 3,000 of our own people.

  7. avatar
    aarrgghh July 18, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    step back for a moment – put all your prejudices and political proclivities and presumption of facts not in evidence aside and think about what the situation would be if we were found to have someone as our president who is a werewolf.

    can you begin to see the implications?? is that what you wish for this country?? is it of any concern to any of you that everything being done by this man might be unholy?? do you think that having a lycanthrope holding office is “ok”?? stop and think no matter how much it hurts.

  8. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    ” it was really George Bush who blew up the Trade Towers and killed 3,000 of our own people.”

    The Mossad did it. Gotta watch out for those Jews – they have their tentacles in everything. A Pakistani newspaper says so – it must be true.

  9. avatar
    Bob July 18, 2009 at 2:54 pm #

    All of these questions and others are quite proper unless tha man can establish with credible certainty that he is factually Constitutionally eligible.

    Please cite the legal authority concerning how Obama is to demonstrate his eligilbity.

    That’s what the adversarial legal system will supposedly establish in court.

    Too bad for you that there’s no litigant who has standing (and can state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

  10. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 2:59 pm #

    Lollie:

    You are right to be worried by the questions I posed – plus the many others that stem from them.

    Actually there is a great amount of factual evidence to be considered along with many legal decisions that evolve from the facts. The court is supposed to be a finder of fact and from such finding supposed to be able to rule on the legal issues involved.

    The finding of fact in the instant matter is relatively straightforward and it starts with a very basic original document which the state of HI has pronounced as existing it their records – the original long-form BC (and not the ridiculous computer image COLB that is quite possibly not even reflective of the real BC since, keep in mind, it has been loudly proclaimed by the pro-O website FightTheSmears.com – which has “oddly” gone the way of all good things; disappeared).

    One might ask why such a website might be electronically executed but keep in mind that it did admit that the man’s father was not a citizen.

    In contrast to these facts that many of the items of litigation are attempting to obtain (and which they are being stonewalled in many ways on since Mr. O. has not produced any verifiable relevant facts) and those attempting to thwart the finding of fact – and the ruling of how those facts do or do not matter in law – are only temporatily delaying things.

    Or perhaps most of you think the truth can be suppressed forever? I don’t think so when there are millions of citizens who are now aware of – and rightfully concerned about – this issue (eligibility; not the BC per se).

  11. avatar
    Bob July 18, 2009 at 3:01 pm #

    There’s no competent evidence that disproves the COLB is what it says it is.

    And there ends the story.

  12. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    aarrgghh:

    That’s one of the sorts of comments that show the unfortunate tendency of many on this site to throw out presumed insults first and not reflect upon the serious questions I presented.

    I suggest you put your thinking cap on – and use it for some worthwhile purpose such as presuming to help your country … or not, as you choose!

  13. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 3:11 pm #

    What’s worse, is that Emmanuel is a Mossad agent!! And he’s concealing that Bo is a vampire!

    Think of that – no matter how much it hurts. Innocent people go out for an evening stroll in Lafayette Park, and…well, I won’t go into the bloody details.

    And now, it turns out, a werewolf is wandering the White House. What horrors have been unleashed on this nation by liberals.

    Werewolves,vampires and communists…oh, my!

  14. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    Bob:

    No, it’s not “too bad for” me at all about the standing issue. That will change over time and the truth will not be forever perverted from coming to the fore. If not, it’s “TOO BAD” for all Americans as this man affects citizens’ lives in a multiplicity of ways.

    The fact finding about the matter is relatively straigntforward and actually Mr. Obama has already admitted that his father was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he, as a result, was also governed by that act.

    The interpretation of the BC “fact” as Obama has himself shown above along with possibly other factual date will be used by the court in interpreting the eligibility portion of the law. But it should properly start from the finding of fact of the actual BC – and I believe that will occur.

    The legal authority is the United States Constitution; Article II, Section 1, clause 5, quod vide .

  15. avatar
    aarrgghh July 18, 2009 at 3:19 pm #

    just because you claim your questions are serious does not make them so.

  16. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    misha:

    Perhaps you are correct about the werewolf but that has nothing at all to do with the eligibility issue.

    But you’re welcome to hold that view. I don’t happen to. I – and millions of others – are merely rightly concerned that this man has never shown that he is eligible for the office under tha laws of the land.

    Perhaps you don’t think our laws matter … I (and many others) do.

  17. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 3:24 pm #

    That also has nothing to do with the eligibility issue despite the fact that I’m no Bush fan.

    You can hate the Mossad, etc. as much as pleases you I suppose. I don’t. In fact I don’t hate anyone – life is too short!!

  18. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    “this man has never shown that he is eligible for the office under tha laws of the land.”

    And there ladies and gents is the biggest birther lie of all. Yes, he has shown he’s eligible. To the satisfaction of the DNC, the RNC, the FEC, the states for which he was on the ballot, the Electoral College, the entire Congress, not mention 70 million voters.

  19. avatar
    TRUTH July 18, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    Black Radio Hosts blasting Talk Radio. Mostly Left views, which you’ll like. Although Rev. Petterson makes nothing but good sense.

    http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Q4SUZukU

    Podcast for Reverend Peterson Radio Show

    http://www.podcastalley.com/player/player.php?pod_id=48409

  20. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    There are claims and counter-claims. There are so many questions, only one man can sort out this mess: Inspector Clouseau.

  21. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 4:21 pm #

    Millions of worried citizens?

    rotflamo

    400,000 (at best) malcontents is now millions?

    No one other than the birffers and a couple of sound bites by 2 congressional nutters care about this issue.

    Not FOX, not the GOP, not McCain, not Palin … not even Darth Cheney.

    Americans are satisfied that he is what he says he is and have moved on to questions of how best to fix America.

    As Bob says below, there is no competent evidence evidence to disprove the COLB.

    Even the so-called “Soetoro school registration” that WND parades around says place of birth, Honolulu, Hawaii.

    When your own evidence argues against you, it’s time to face the fact that you got no argument.

  22. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    You have no factual basis. The State of Hawaii has stated that this is the document folks get when they apply for passports and can use to apply for a drivers license. It looks very much like the one I got last year when I lost my birth certificate. I don’t live in Hawaii but as was explained to me they do NOT give out the original form with the Dr’s and hospital info. Everything is stored without paper. The State of Hawaii has also said that if he were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii that the certificate would state the place of birth. What more do you want? I know everything. This will never end because you do not like this president. I believe that if Obama gives in to this it will lead to , dad was not American, then to Soetero adapted him, then to he registered as a foreign student, then to he traveled on an Indonesian passport, then to he has false Social Security members and if all that failed perhaps he murdered his grandmother and his mother is still alive. This is not about his birth certificate. This is about the evil desire to put aside the results of an election you did not like. Period.

  23. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    You don’t understand what the statement of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in the 14th Amendment, jtx.

    That basically means that as long as you can’t shoot a man, walk into a court room, and state, “I’m not under the jurisdiction of your laws” then that means you’re under the jurisdiction thereof. This was decided in 1898 by the Supreme Court.

    In Perkins v. Elg, the Supreme Court also states that United States Citizenship Law is not dependent upon the laws of any foreign nation. That eliminates your contention that a foreign nation determines whether or not someone or not is a U.S. Citizen. Therefore it doesn’t matter if he’s a citizen of Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Britian, or Krypton. Those nations (whether fictional or not) do not determine the qualifications for the U.S. Presidency.

    Furthermore, in all the reading that I’ve done, the Supreme Court uses the terms “Citizen by birth”, “Natural-Born Citizen” and “Native Citizen” interchangably. Can you point me to one U.S. Supreme Court ruling that discusses the differences between these terms? I can’t seem to find one.

  24. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 4:32 pm #

    “You have no factual basis. The State of Hawaii …”

    Yes. What the birffer argument boils down to now is that they are calling the Hawaiian officials liars and frauds, and conspirators trying to hide the “real truth.”

    That’s really a winning strategy, you betcha.

  25. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Mary Brown & Lollie:

    Nope. HI has “said” nothing of the sort.

    What they HAVE said is that they do indeed have the man’s original BC on file. In fact the state official most closely involved said that no COLB was ever sent at the time of putting it on his website – it is most probably a fraud (they didn’t say that either; just that they hadn’t sent one). Even if the COLB image shown on his website were valid, it would merely be confirmation of what the HI officials have said – that they have the original BC in their files.

    THAT’S the bc that will need to be produced in court. And many of the side issues you mention may need to be demonstrated factually but you’ve no factual basis for your claims in any event.

    And it has nothing to do with not “liking” the man or wishing to alter the results of the election or anything. It has ONLY to do with his legal right to hold the office under the laws of this country.

    Why do you find that so hard to understand?

    Do you wish to have a criminal for President??

    BTW, no one is calling anyone in HI liars or frauds – or even the man himself. Should actual, lawful court hearings prove him to be so, that’s another matter. Most of us just wish to see genuine proof of his eligibility at this point. If he IS so determined to eligible, good for him. If NOT, bad for all of us (and not just your so-called “birthers”).

    And, no, everything is not stored “without paper”. The state of HI has already stated they have his original bc – so why not show it in a court setting???

  26. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    kimba:

    You’ve not been too aware, apparently, Even some of the mainstream media programs are beginning to realize that NONE of the organizations you mention have done anything to vet the man re eligibility – nor did Congress which has some Constitutional duties in that regard but failed to do them.

    Your Congressmen are cowards and sat on their hands on this matter.

    If you truly believe what you’ve said then show us the money (proof of their actual vetting). I can show you a signed, notarized statement that Obama SAID he was a “natural born citizen” and was eligible under the requirements of the Constitution to be President. He’s “talked the talk” under oath and notarized so now most Americans would like to see him “walk the walk” – shouldn’t be that tough (if he is).

    And the number of concerned citizens is growing rapidly as they tumble to the likely con (if that’s what it is – the biggest in worlk history).

  27. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    “I can show you a signed, notarized statement that Obama SAID he was a “natural born citizen” and was eligible under the requirements of the Constitution to be President. ”

    He swears to it. That’s good enough for me. Along with the COLB, that’s all I need to know. Why do you want more identification from Obama than you have gotten from any President in history?

    And the “con”? The con is by the likes of Orly, Hale, Berg, Kerchner-goat et al. Why else did Orly file a first amended complaint in Keyes and promise a second, rather than completing service like the judge ordered, but to delay justice and have the rest of the summer to drum up -$- ? There’s your con.

  28. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    The 14th Amendment gives no one the status of “natural born citizen” as you can determine by reading it. Also, the terms containing the word “citizen” are way off the mark.

    There are actually several types of such “citizen” terms and they mean different things but only one – “natural born citizen” is a requirement for the Presidency. the terms are not interchangeable. As for eligibility, that for the court desicions to figure out – but that comes after the finding of facts (which has not yet been done).

  29. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    kimba:

    Good enough for you because he “says” he’s eligible???

    I guess we don’t need the Constitution then, do we. And that means that whatever a majority of people want is used instead, eh??? Wouldn’t THAT simplify things; then this country could be like so many others in the world … no laws at all.

    Why is it do you suppose that so many of the world’s people try to immigrate here??? Because we have no laws???

  30. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 18, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    And here is what would happen if President Obama were to show his “longform” BC:

    No birther would accept that he is a natural born citizen. They would still scream that he is British and or Kenyan.

    So then Congress steps in and says that yes, if you are born in the US and not a child of a foreign diplomat then you are a natural born citizen.

    And then they would still scream that this is not acceptable – that it is contrary to the Constitution. There is no way to win this ridiculous claim against President Obama.

  31. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    Yes, it’s good enough that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Meets the requirements based on what I was taught in 5th grade civics, and it’s the basis the Electoral College and the Congress used. If you were really about the Constitution, you’d know your remedy is not in the courts, it’s in the Congress and the voting booth. So stop with the “Constitution” crap. My people came here for the opportunity. Bet yours did too.

  32. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    By the way, have you ever before seen the application/affidavit for a Presidential candidate stating he is qualified for the office? If so, state whose and link us. Poor Bobby Jindal, born in LA, but you folks are going to eat him alive. He might be one of the brighter bulbs in the Republican box too. Not my cup of tea but seems to be a decent public servant. You don’t hear about him off hiking the Appalachian Trail.

  33. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 18, 2009 at 5:41 pm #

    I’m of Scots/Irish descent from the Appalachians. Many of my kin are still looking for the opportunity, lol!

  34. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 18, 2009 at 5:43 pm #

    Where do these crazy people come from? Does the right breed them in a secret lab?

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/nesara/news/news.php?q=1246845403

    Just another lie the right is perpetuating -that President Obama did not celebrate the 4th of July. Yet, here is the report of a party for military personnel and their family?

    http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2009/07/06/michelle-obamas-fourth-of-july-style/

  35. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 5:51 pm #

    I wonder if this is good enough for ’em?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3691396040/

  36. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 5:55 pm #

    “You can hate the Mossad, etc. as much as pleases you I suppose. I don’t. In fact I don’t hate anyone – life is too short!!”

    It’s called irony. Look into it.

  37. avatar
    Joyce July 18, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    “I wonder if this is good enough for em?”

    Oh come on – that was photoshopped!

  38. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm #

    Ok, this one?
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3691396040/

    This one?
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3690600513/in/photostream/
    ( this one might piss ’em off!)

  39. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 6:07 pm #

    ” You don’t hear about him off hiking the Appalachian Trail.”

    No, but he did participate in an exorcism, after smelling sulfur. The poor woman was having a breakdown, and they were tantamount to practicing medicine without a license.

    I remember reading that if someone claims possession, they should go to a Jewish psychiatrist.

    That crowd is already starting on Jindal – don’t worry. His parents were Indian citizens at the time, which means too bad Piyush. This is going to be fun to watch.

    Michelle Malkin, married to a Jewish neo-con, has written extensively against the 14th Amendment. She and Jindal were anchor babies…haha. Typical hypocritical conservatives.

    Popcorn.

  40. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm #

    If there was a law in Russia that no one named “Jughashvili” could serve in the government, then they wouldn’t have had Stalin either. (bada-bing)

  41. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 6:25 pm #

    Here are photographs of a true natural born citizen.

  42. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 6:41 pm #

    “Where do these crazy people come from? Does the right breed them in a secret lab?”

    No, in an incubator under a rock.

  43. avatar
    richCares July 18, 2009 at 6:48 pm #

    Hawaii – Democrats and Repubs Say Obama and McCain are Constitutionally Eligible
    here is link to their signed and notarized certifications for Hawaii, this was done in all 50 states. If you wish I can give links to all 50 states certifications. jtx the judge is a lying sack of S____.
    link:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9344926/Hawaii-Dems-and-Repubs-Say-Constitutionally-Eligible

  44. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 6:50 pm #

    I don’t know Misha, your cat looks, how can I say it, Siamese. Are you sure he didn’t travel here on an Indonesian passport?
    Where’s the birth certificate? And parents’ citizenship papers?
    That is a fine looking cat by the way.

  45. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    re: “There is no way to win this ridiculous claim against President Obama.”

    You’re right. It reaslly goes beyond ludicrous to claim that, when the Hawaiian authorities say, “we have his original on file,” that’s some kind of code-speak for “not natural born”

    I mean, really, normal people can figure what the Hawaiian authorities said without having to have them do a paint-by-numbers rendition.

  46. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    “Hawaii – Democrats and Repubs Say Obama and McCain are Constitutionally Eligible”

    well, one more thing for the birffers to deny.

  47. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    Reportedly, there’s a secret lab, somewhere in the wilds of Alaska, in a location where ole Putin can’t rear his head and look back at who’s looking at him.

  48. avatar
    kimba July 18, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    Cuz we all know when Ms Okubo says they twist everything she says what she is really trying to tell us is that the Obama Administration has threatened her/ paid her off/brain-washed her.

    Paranoia strikes deep.
    Into your life it will creep.
    It starts when you’re always afraid…

  49. avatar
    richCares July 18, 2009 at 7:12 pm #

    “I guess we don’t need the Constitution then, do we. ”
    jtx, what an idiotic statement, you appear to be mentally challenged, is that why you lie? Is that why you ignore the constitution?

    did the judge school give you all this great reasoning power that you lack?

  50. avatar
    NBC July 18, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    The issue is legal eligibility under the US Constitution to hold the office the man now occupies.

    Eligibility which is determined by Congress under the 20th Amendment.

    2012 you will have your next chance. The Founding Fathers never envisioned people abusing the legal system to get a duly elected president removed from office.

  51. avatar
    Bob Weber July 18, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    On the other hand, some of the greatest national heroes in history have been non-natives. Just off the top of my head:

    Catherine the Great of Russia – not Russian, but German.

    Prince Eugene of Austria – not Austrian, but French-Italian-Spanish.

    King Canute of England – Danish.

    I’m sure others can greatly expand this list.

  52. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 7:25 pm #

    Orly, to her clientele: come into my den, said the spider to the fly.

  53. avatar
    Bob Weber July 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Black Lion,
    Donofrio’s “Emmerich de Vattel said this” argument will never fly with any but a tiny cult that wants to believe. Everyone else’s eyes glaze over whenever a birfer spouts off on this, pretty much no matter what their politics,

  54. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Again, jtx, point to one Supreme Court case where it is discussed that “Natural-Born” and “Citizen by birth” are discussed to be different terms. As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court considers them to be the exact same term.

    You never did answer my question, jtx. I’m just asking for one case that supports your contention that there are more than 2 types of citizenship. As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court has never held that there are any more than 2 types of citizenship. I’d really like to show me where the Supreme Court states that there are 2 types of citizenship.

  55. avatar
    Bob Weber July 18, 2009 at 7:39 pm #

    “And the “con”? The con is by the likes of Orly, Hale, Berg, Kerchner-goat et al.”

    Kimba,

    Sometimes a simple statistic tells you all you need to know. With 800,000 lawyers in the U.S., and “the greatest constitutional crisis in history”, the birfers are represented by the likes of Orly and Berg. A few birfer lawyers like Apuzzo have at least some basic competence, but this is like a race-car team where some of the drivers know how to shift gears.

  56. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 7:42 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    What is it that makes you believe that SCOTUS believes the terms “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are the exact same thing? I know of no such case decisions in the high courts’ purview.

    As for answering your questions I see no reason to do that since you won’t accept any such answer. The only meaningful things is an actual legal decision in a properly constitued and run court of law. But there are applicable cases and they will certainly show up in the trial.

  57. avatar
    Bob Weber July 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm #

    But I’ll bet you can see Russia from there!

  58. avatar
    Epectitus July 18, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    Jtx:

    the issue is not – and never was – where the man might have been born and any BC is merely a necessary but not sufficient starting point. The issue is legal eligibility under the US Constitution to hold the office the man now occupies.

    Nonsense. The issue has always been to find a way to circumvent the Constitution and overturn the November election by any means necessary.

    Plan A: Claim he was born in Kenya (or Canada).

    Plan B: Claim he lost his citizenship by being adopted in Indonesia.

    Plan C: Claim he is ineligible because he was a dual citizen.

    Plan D: Claim he lost his citizenship by traveling as an adult on an Indonesian passport.

    Plan E: Claim the definition of natural-born citizen requires two citizen parents.

    Each of the various and inconsistent Birther claims has been nothing more than a tactic to achieve an end. That is the issue. Everything else is mere commentary.

    It has nothing to do with race. political party, or social outlook (e.g., Communism), or anything else. As such, it’s a pretty straightforward fact-finding process and then one of legal interpretation.

    Were this true, there would not have been so much evolution and iteration of the Birther narrative as they have moved from one failure to the next. Were there a genuine eligibility issue, Birthers would be expected to have much less trouble identifying what it is and then rallying around it with coherence and cinsistency. As it stands, the current favorite did not even exist when the first Birther case was filed. It is a late comer to the party… a new tactic for an unchanging objective.

    Let no one live under any illusions here. The Birther movement is not about defending the Constitution, else it would not be rife with extra- and anti-constitutional calls for things like citizen’s grand juries,’ judicial impeachments or military insurrections. The Birther objective is to boot Obama. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

    The general strategy has been to assert ineligibility based on Article II. The tactics, though, have been all over the map… demonstrating beyond doubt that the Constitution is merely the beard for other, baser motives.

    The Birther movement is fundamentally a fraud. Even Birthers, in their more honest moments, understand that in spades.

  59. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 7:46 pm #

    NBC:

    Nope – they do nothing of the sort, they merely are supposed to certify the EC results in a certain fashion specified in the Constitution (which they did not do).

    Eligibility is a different thing and it’s called out in the Constitution. Did you not know that? And if the man is not eligible, he is certainly not “duly elected” – quite the contrary; he’s then a usurper. And that will surely be determined before the 2012 elections.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    Your argument, as I see it, becomes: An ineligible person occupying the White House is so terrible that there can never be proof strong enough to outweigh the consequences of making a mistake.

    No matter what the proof, as long as an objection is made to it (even if that objection is based on a lie, or demand for non-existent documentation), it automatically becomes insufficient. Further any opposition to acquiescing ever-mounting demands for proof is in and of itself a valid objection to eligibility.

    This is why the birthers are essentially an irrational movement. This why they will never be satisfied. This is why they should be ignored by the courts and the government.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    jtx: great amount of factual evidence to be considered

    You would think that if this were actually true, that somewhere along the line, jtx would have at least slipped up once and mentioned what one of these alleged facts was.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    You know as well as everybody here that there is nothing in the Constitution that mentions parentage in any context. So who are you trying to fool?

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:58 pm #

    Until you come up with some evidence of fraud, you are wasting our time.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    WorldNetDaily is not mainstream media. CNN and Politifact.com investigated and concluded that the birthers are raving lunatics.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    jtx has no evidence or authority to back up this claim.

  66. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 8:01 pm #

    Epectitus:

    Your erroneous attempt to formulate the eligibility issue as an attempt to “circumvent the Constitution and overthroiw the election” is a complete and utter misuse of logic.

    It is the Constitution that calls out the eligibility requirements which is the matter at issue (the “natural born citizen” matter which happens to be black letter law in that document.

    As for “overturning” the election, let me point out that if the man is actually not legally eligible then there has been no “election” as it would be unlawful and making that determination of non-eligibility merely puts things back on a lawful course where, presumably, a valid lawful action (whatever it might be) can be formulated and enacted to correct the illegality.

    Should the man be found to be eligible, that that would help solidify his legacy (for good or ill depending upon his Presidential acts).

    If not eligible, then this man is the slickest soft-shoe salesman in history and many millions of us have been both duped and terribly wronged and I think there must be some valid legal remedy for that in our laws, don’t you???

    I understand that you are filled with hope and change and earnestly wish for his eligibility, but if “wishes were horses …” as the old saying goes – but why wish, why not make a valid legal determination? There’s nothing fraudulent at all about that.

    You really do not seem to grasp that there are millions of Americans who have grave doubts about this man’s legal eligibility for the office he holds … and the number is increasing all the time no matter your wishes to the contrary. Let’s get it settled correctly!!

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Obviously “citizen” and “natural born citizen” are different because naturalized citizens are not born citizens. However, many cases mix the terms “native born” and “natural born” at will.

  68. avatar
    Lollie July 18, 2009 at 8:08 pm #

    re: 800,000 lawyers in the U.S., and “the greatest constitutional crisis in history

    rotflmao … these fringe movements — I’m having a hard time seeing how a group no larger than 1/3rd of 1 percent of the electorate, and statistically smaller than the number of people who hate the color red is somehow “a movement — always represented by cutting edge legal minds such as Orly, the correspondence school barrister.

    The militia “movement” — remember them? — was represented by a one-year-in-general-law practice attorney named Linda Thompson.

    Who self-appointed herself to the command role of “Acting Adjutant General.”

    Any day now, I’m sure, Orly will find some role she wants to play-act at, other her current actress role.

  69. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 8:09 pm #

    “like a race-car team where some of the drivers know how to shift gears.”

    None of those lawyers knows how to shift gears. You give them too much credit.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm #

    President Obama meets every eligibility requirement in the Constitution. A few visitors here over the months have said the Constitution says “Parents (plural)”, but of course that’s silly: the word “parent” does not exist in the Constitution. The Constitution says “natural born citizen” and no competent authority has ever claimed that “natural born citizen” carries a parental requirement. That was true from colonial times up to the ratification of the Constitution, from ratification to the 14th Amendment, and from the 14 Amendment up until the present.

    jtx, you do not have an argument.

  71. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    ” there are 2 types of citizenship.”

    There are 3: naturalized, natural, and artificial.

  72. avatar
    jtx July 18, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Doc:

    No – and I’m surprised at your intellectual dishonesty for attempting that.

    It is nothing but the Constitution that calls out the eligibility requirements to be President, not those pointing out that the man has never conslusively shown that he IS eligible.

    If he demonstrates eligibility in a properly constituted and run court of law then he iss entitled to the job. If not, he’s a usurper and quite probably guilty of some very heinous offenses.

    Neither you nor I know which might be true but we certainly do not agree yet all I see on this website is primarily the casting of thoughtless and unjustified denigration of those who do not hold your views.

    Do I tell you how foolish you look in your “Old Farmer’s Hat”??? NO!! since that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed but perhaps your pride of authorship does cloud your view a bit and you do not notice the many castigations equally off-topic thrown out by those who obviously agree with your beliefs.

    Further than that, I don’t understand your comment about a demand for “non-existent documentation”. Clearly their IS documentation germane to the eligibility issue that exists since the various pro-O websits proudly the questionable COLBs are indicative of the fact that some birth information DOES exist and, in fact, the state of HI has stated that the man’s original BC is in their files (but they’ve said no more). There are other documents that may also be germane to the issue over and above the BC itself and some have been clearly stated to exist (but have been blocked by Obama-initiated legal maneuvers) so they too should be involved in adjudicating his eligibility.

    What you are in effect saying, Doc, is that “… we don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution …” – and I certainly disagree heartily and 100% of the time.

  73. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 8:34 pm #

    Actually, jtx, you should really read the Constitution.

    If you are right, and that is a big if, it would fall under the 20th Amendment of the Constitution, which would make Joe Biden President. It wouldn’t go back and make them redo the election.

    If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

    Read that. It’s first becomes the President, then the Vice President, then it’s upto Congress.

    Of course, now, it could be argued that this would be under the Presidential Succession Line, since a President and Vice President have been duly elected in the constituion. That would still put Joe Biden as President, followed by Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. After that, according to the Succession Act, goes to Hillary Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Ken Salazar, Tom Vilsack, Gary Locke, Hilda Solis, Hilda Solis, Shaun Donavan, Ray LaHood, Steven Chu, Arne Duncan, Eric Shinseki, and Janet Napolitano.

    Nowhere in any Federal Law does it say that they would redo any sort of election.

  74. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 8:41 pm #

    Conversations between Robert Gibbs and Les Kinsolving have proved most interesting in the matter. While in conversations Les often mentions Obama’s Vault Copy BC supposely listing the hospital and doctor. For what I can tell, it seems the Gibbs has deliberately refused to acknowledge the existance of such document even though the State of Hawaii says they have it. Gibbs constantly refers to posted COLB that is online. From what I can tell, neither Gibbs nor the Obama administration has ever had any comment or really acknowledgment of the Vault Copy BC that State of Hawaii claims they have. Instead to keep harping on the posted COLB even though a great number of people have no interest in seeing that document and instead want to see the Vault Copy BC.

    I believe the Obama adminstration is scared to death of mentioning the Vault Copy yet alone releasing it.

    They is something on the Vault Copy BC that Obama is very fearful of and does not want the American People to see what is on it.

    That is all the more reason why we must see the Vault Copy BC and Obama must be forced to release it.

    The American People have the right and the duty to see what Obama keeping from us.

  75. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyw90ykQAEk

    Alan Keyes is Right on key!

    Why is Obama refusing the his Vault Copy BC? Makes no Sense.

  76. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 8:59 pm #

    All great honor goes to Major Cook. Cook makes a very good point.

    It common knowledge that African countries know Obama was born in Africa and constantly state references of Obama’s African birth. Even other countries such as Pakistan have documented that Obama was born in Kenya. Of course any time this get caught leaking out Obama’s African birth they backpedal and change their story.

    If Cook were to be captured, such countries who know about Obama’s African birth could deny Cook certain right and protections because his orders would be unlawful and illegal since they stem from a Predsident whose position is unlawful and illegal.

  77. avatar
    Bob Weber July 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm #

    “Now that mainstream media is discussing the issue, the birthers will become more agressive and I don’t think nothing [sic] will stop them.”

    Black Lion,

    My interest in this has been sociological: “Why Do People Believe Weird Things?”. I started following it in June of last year and really thought it would be dead by January, just a passing bit of historical trivia. Instead, it seems to be growing, if only in the sense of getting a bigger and bigger share of a shrinking percentage of the populace. I haven’t been interested in this as a political issue, since there’s absolutely nothing there. But from a political viewpoint, IMHO the GOP is in a real political pickle. If the GOP quashes or continues to ignore the birfers, they alienate a substantial percentage of their base, and a passionate one at that. But if they embrace the birfers, they’ll be made fools of, and lose a bigger share of the general population. If Obama is paying any attention to this (and we don’t know if he is), he’s playing it brilliantly, and has even more political smarts than I’ve given him credit for. Either that, or as was said of Coolidge, he’s the luckiest SOB who ever lived.

  78. avatar
    Rickey July 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm #

    Nonsense. The State of Hawaii has NOT said that they have the supposed “vault copy” of Obama’s birth certificate. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.

    And, it’s only available in electronic form.

    Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.

    “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said…Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”

    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

  79. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm #

    Actually, John, the Vault Copy of the Birth Certificate is immaterial. As the State Department of Health has said, the Certification of Live Birth is “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” They also have said that it contains all the information needed to prove citizenship to the Federal Government. They have also said that it is the only document that they issue anymore.

    It’s amusing to see you avoiding the ultimate issue. Unless you’re accusing the Republican Governor of Hawaii, and a bunch of public employees of fraud, the birth certificate in the vault will say absolutely the same thing. On the back of the Birth Certificate, it contains the signiture of Alvin T. Onaka, who is signing to state “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii State Department of Health.” I’d like you to walk upto Alvin T. Onaka, and tell him to his face that you think he’s a bold-faced liar, who is part of a 50-year conspiracy to get Barack Obama elected to the Presidency.

    Furthermore, I don’t understand what you don’t fundamentally understand. Proving your place of birth to the Federal Government is the same as proving your place of birth to the Federal Government. The Birth Certificate that Obama has published online is sufficient to prove his place of birth to the Federal Government. If it’s not sufficient for you, that’s just too bad.

  80. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    And exactly how would he make his vault copy public? Maybe request a copy of his birth certificate from the Hawaii Government? He did that, and got one.

    Oh, and by the way, you should see the full clip, John, instead of trying to see the edited version that just shows Alan Keyes. You can view the full clip here: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907170043

    The 30 seconds before when your clip starts is paticularly interesting.

  81. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 9:17 pm #

    So, you agree with Cook that every one of our troops are war criminals and terrorists.

    That’s nice to know…

  82. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    All you need to know is that he was born in Hawaii. We know his mother was an American citizen. I just dug out my certificate from NY the State I was born in. It replaces my lost vault copy.
    Certified Transcript of Birth
    State of New York
    Department of Health

    Full Name of Child
    Date of Birth
    Place of Birth
    Maiden Name of Mother
    Name of Father
    Date Filed
    State File NO.

    This is to certify that the information concerning the birth of the above named person is a true and accurate transcription of the information recorded on the original certificate of birth with the New York State Department of Health.

    Stamped signature of
    Director of Vital
    Records section

    Do not accept this transcript unless the raised sea of the New York State Department of Health is affixed theron.

    Any alternation voids this transcript.

    There are other numbers on the bottom

    Now, I can run for president(God forbid) with this certificate. You do not need to see my vault copy for any reason. You could check to see that one of my parents was a citizen. That’s it. Obama has provided all of this. We know the number for Obama’s certification. We know it had a seal on it. These are your new birth certificates and contain all the info legally needed.

  83. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    Um, even having one of the parents as a citizen is not a requirement. Natural-Born Citizenship means citizenship by birth. Anybody born in the United States, even to 2 foreigner parents, are Natural-Born Citizens. It doesn’t matter what the status of your parents are.

  84. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 9:22 pm #

    Major Cook abandoned his soldiers. He is a blue falcon to my husband and others I know who are far more conservative than you. Obama was born in Hawaii. I thank God for the brave soldiers willing to defend us and give nothing to a coniving coward.

  85. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 9:25 pm #

    Thanks for the correction. You are so right.

  86. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    The State of Hawaii is backpedaling. First they say they have the Vault Copy then say they don’t have it. Which one is it?

  87. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    There is a Vault Copy Birth Certificate. It should painfully obvious and blatant even to an Obot that Obama has taken an emorous effort to prevent from being released. I have to ask myself – WHY?

    There is something on the Vault Copy BC that Obama is very fearful of. He does not want the American People to find out what it is.

    Again, this all the more reason that is of paramont importance that Obama Vault Copy BC be released.

    The American People have the right and the duty to find out what Obama is hiding.

  88. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    Everything is electronic, John. I suppose in the day we would call that the vault copy. All the info you LEGALLY need is given. Check my comment above it gives the info on my NY State Certified Transcript of Birth. They no longer give out the so called valut copy. I checked. If the State says I was born in NY you do not need to know the city or county or hospital. Where in the State I was born does not matter. Just that I was born there.

  89. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    John, Get this. Read my info. They do not give those out. If you lost yours as I and others do it is not available. You get a transcript or certification with all that is legally needed to get a job, a passport or a license or run for president. Anything else is personal info not related to legal needs. I happened to get mine out because my son has lost his and searched to see if we had a copy. We do not. He will get one from Virginia and they will send him a transcript or certification. They will NOT send him a copy of what you call the vault certicicate.

  90. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 9:39 pm #

    And John, tell me, what is missing from Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate that doesn’t make it prove the place of birth to the State Department? The Hawaii Department of Health has said that it’s sufficient for any and all transactions requiring a birth certificate. The State Department accepts that birth certificate for applying for a passport. And if you don’t believe that, here are the requirements, and please tell me what is missing from the COLB that Obama has provided?

    “A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/comment-at-the-ledger-enquirer/comment-page-2/#comment-14097

    Tell me, what exactly is missing from Barack Obama’s birth certificate where it isn’t sufficient for proving the place of birth to the Federal Government?

    My question to you is why are you stating that proving your birth place to the Federal Government is different than proving your birth place to the Federal Government?

  91. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    Where are the documents. You seem to want to see documents, John. Where is the Kenyan Birth Certificate or the Port of Entry Birth Certificate to get him back into the US. You demand all this proof but are willing to rely on “common knowledge”. What court will you take that to.

  92. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 18, 2009 at 9:54 pm #

    Meant it here. Sorry for the wrong link.

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100004.pdf

  93. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 18, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    Now THAT crazy one is going to be moving to the lower 48 soon to begin her march to 2012. How someone so lacking in intelligence could ever be elected governor is amazing, and scary, to me.

  94. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 10:09 pm #

    Orly Taitz is fierce and relentless. Like in Star Trek, she is the borg. She will not give up and will stand on top of Obama no matter what it takes. Although Orly doesn’t have very good lawyer skills, I imagine her fiercness and relentlessness is primary reason why she is still in this and Alan Keyes continues to support her. Even if Orly eventually fails, others will follow her path. Obama may not be to stop them all. Obama will be dogged until the end of his days. Of course, Obama could end most of the contraversy by simply releasing his Vault Copy BC. But Obama refuses to do this.

    Although, regardless of where Obama was born it really won’t matter because his father was Kenyan and never a US citizen or even permanent resident.

    That argument while strong it certainly boasted and perpretuated by the fact Obama is refusing the release his BC.

    I think if Obama were to release his BC, must of contraversy would die.

    While die hard birthers would still insist he not a “Natural Born” citizen, much of their support would be lost because Obama did release his BC.

    Obama refusal to release his BC gives power to the “Natural Born” citizenship argument.

  95. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 18, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Orly Taitz will give up when she

    1. Isn’t in the news anymore and/or
    2. Isn’t receiving anymore donations.

  96. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 18, 2009 at 10:15 pm #

    Orly Taitz is a publicity whore.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:18 pm #

    It’s not a “farmer’s hat”. It is a cowboy hat. But my hat is not evidence for your cause, no more than the rest.

    You have no evidence that Obama is ineligible, no more than you have any evidence that I have spoken against the Constitution.

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:19 pm #

    Hawaii no longer issues the old style birth certificate.

  99. avatar
    Jeff R July 18, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    “Orly Taitz is fierce and relentless. Like in Star Trek, she is the borg.”

    So she’s only half human and the rest is soulless machine. Makes sense to me.

    The ‘Borg, of course, always lose to the good guys, or hadn’t you noticed?

  100. avatar
    richCares July 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm #

    “I think if Obama were to release his BC, must of contraversy would die.”
    Obama released the only BC that Hawaii currently sends, that didn’t work for john did it? Hawaii stated that it’s the only type they issue. That didn’t satisfy john. John you are a liar!

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm #

    You silly person. African countries know Obama was born in Hawaii. I found this comment on a Kenyan blog:

    Gathoni, you are missing your chance to become rich and fame. McCain and Palin would really appreciate if you can pass to them the information that Obama was born in Mombassa. He was born in Hawaii. Gathoni, I respect your comments, but I think you are dead wrong on this.

    See this and other comments from Kenya here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/comments-from-kenya/

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:27 pm #

    They said they have it, but they no longer issue that form.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    The more relevant question is why have Obama opponents spend millions of dollars trying to force a birth certificate form out of Hawaii, that everyone already knows (since we have a certified copy) says he was born in Honolulu, and doesn’t matter anyway, they say, because he’s not eligible even if he were born in the US.

  104. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    John: “Although, regardless of where Obama was born it really won’t matter because his father was Kenyan and never a US citizen or even permanent resident.”

    So you ADMIT that Obama providing any form of birth certificate is a waste of time.

  105. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    3. She gets the right meds.

  106. avatar
    Joyce July 18, 2009 at 10:40 pm #

    “Why do you want more identification from Obama than you have gotten from any President in history?”

    Because a black man is always required to show more identification.

  107. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    She is also petty and vindictive.

    What is it with these refuseniks? She, Sharansky and Avigdor Lieberman are all right wing nut cases.

    Note to Orly et al: get a life.

  108. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    That’s the new tactic from Orly: Obama can never be NBC because of his father.

    It’s a fool’s errand.

  109. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    “Now THAT crazy one is going to be moving to the lower 48 soon to begin her march to 2012.”

    It is in my prayers that Romney/Palin run in 2012…please let it happen.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 18, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    I’m interested in what folks think about the main article: whether comments made against how Hawaiians manage their vital records are at their foundation racist.

  111. avatar
    John July 18, 2009 at 11:08 pm #

    I think the Natural Born Citizenship argument is harder to win becomes it requires a court ruling on it. Determining whether Obama was born in Hawaii is simply a factual determination. Incidentially, The State of Hawaii can release the Vault Copy but won’t do because Obama hasn’t constented. Andy Martin has been fighting with Hawaii officals and courts for months now trying to get his eyes on Obama’s Vault Copy. The main argument from Hawaii is that since Andy Martin does not have tangible interest and is not related to Obama in some way, the can’t release the Vault Copy.

  112. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm #

    John, I don’t care if she gives up. She can go on with this till the cows come home. The point is she has no case. The election was certified by all members of Congress who KNEW Obama’s family history. They are all lawyers with a varied set of experiences with the law. None of them, not even those who think President Obama is some kind of socialist and a scourge on American politics objected. None. Orly’s 2 parent position received no backing. Why? They felt it had no merit.

  113. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    John, there is no vault copy. They release a Certification of live birth to everyone. The Certicication gives all the infor you or I or a court needs. Where was he born. Hawaii. That’s all you need to know. If you think otherwise produce documents, adaption certificates, birth certificates, Port of Entry Birth Certificates. Produce them John.

  114. avatar
    Mary Brown July 18, 2009 at 11:37 pm #

    Correction. Most are lawyers.

  115. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 11:46 pm #

    I am so happy you brought up Andy Martin. Where shall I begin?

    “In 1973 the Illinois Supreme Court refused to grant him a license to practice law in the state…His 1996 run for the Florida State Senate came unraveled when it was revealed that he’d named his campaign committee for his 1986 congressional run “The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America.” He assaulted two cameramen from WPTV, the NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach. He was convicted of criminal mischief and sentenced to a year in jail. In his motion for his 1983 bankruptcy case, he called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.” Martin stated, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did…Jew survivors are operating as a wolf pack to steal my property.” Martin then claimed that the anti-Semitic comments were inserted into his court papers by malicious judges.”

    As I said, thanks for bringing up Martin. He is the gift that keeps on giving, as are the rest of the denizens of Birfistan.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)

  116. avatar
    misha July 18, 2009 at 11:53 pm #

    “So she’s only half human and the rest is soulless machine.”

    She has refrigerant for blood.

  117. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 19, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    Actually I think that only about 1/3 of the people in Congress are lawyers, but of course their job is to understand laws and legislation (and many have lawyers working for them on staff).

  118. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 2:04 am #

    Obama refusal to release his BC gives power to the “Natural Born” citizenship argument.

    Ignorance is what fuels the ‘controversy’…

    Obama released his COLB

    Shows him born in Honolulu.

    What more do you want?

  119. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 2:25 am #

    John, Barack Obama has released all the information that is required for determining where his place of birth. The birthers just don’t want to acknowledge it.

    I asked you before. The State Department have standards for what constitutes evidence to prove the place of birth to the Federal Government. What exactly is missing from the COLB that invalidates it for proving your place of birth to the Federal Government? And if birth certificates do not prove your place of birth to the Federal Government, then why does the State Department allow them as evidence of citizenship?

  120. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 2:30 am #

    re: doesn’t matter what the status of your parents are

    Birffers must have short memories.

    Back when they wanted to build the Big Wall and deport every illegal alien (translation: just Mexicans) Tancredo and that bunch got their drawers all bunched up over the fact that the children of illegal aliens, if born in this country, are natural born citizens.

    The only children, if born on U.S. soil, who are not natural born citizens are the children of foreign diplomats and/or civil servants of foreign nations.

    Birffers keep coming up with these ever more shrill and ever more torturous parental lineage/citizenship claims, and throw in a lot of legal terminology that they don’t understand anyway, but the bottom line doesn’t change — the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and if you’re born here, you’re a natural born citizen.

  121. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 2:35 am #

    re: Ignorance is what fuels the controversy’…

    Ignorance ain’t the only thing fueling this anti-Obama lunacy.

  122. avatar
    Mrs. Polly July 19, 2009 at 2:37 am #

    Not only is Obama’s COLB the full and legal document that any Hawaiian would get from the Hawaiian Dept of Health, the Birfers already have their plans to discredit the long form if it should be released: the Heidelberg machine! No! Yes, a 1960 Heidelberg printer was sold somewhere in England, and it MUST be to forge the long form!

    Give these people an inch, and they’ll try to take the country. They shouldn’t be given the time of day.

    It was funny in the ledger comments today; I quoted Obamaconspiracy, without realizing that Dr. C himself had shown up a few comments down.

    Good hunting with you, Dr. C.!

  123. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 2:50 am #

    re: All great honor goes to Major Cook. Cook makes a very good point.
    ~~~~~~
    The man is a disgrace to himself, his family, and is an affront to the honor and dignity of the men and women who wear the uniform.

    There is no point.

    Never, absolutely never, does the sworn loyalty to the United States by a soldier become contingent upon his personal opinions.

    He should thank those “activist judges” that they found enough breadth in the First Amendment that it can cover even a seditious Bravo Foxtrotter like him.

  124. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 2:57 am #

    4. Starts being sanctioned and fined by the courts

    Orly’s not competent enough to even argue a case on “Night Court,” but she’s smart enough to figure out one thing:

    Pandering to haters pays pretty damn well.

  125. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 3:12 am #

    If Cook were to be captured, such countries who know about Obama’s African birth could deny Cook certain right and protections because his orders would be unlawful and illegal since they stem from a Predsident whose position is unlawful and illegal.

    Total specious nonsense There is no legal foundation for this claim and in fact there is caselaw which contradict this. Before you repeat such nonsense which places in danger our troops, why not familiarize yourself with the law.

    You are making up ‘facts’, why?

  126. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 7:57 am #

    I would guess it’s because they have collected far more than they have spent. They collect money by convincing the ignorant ( insert your favorite reason) a) it will show he’s not a natural born, b) he wasn’t born in Hawaii c) that there is “something” on that “vault copy” that will “embarrass” President Obama. such as c1) his father isn’t Barack Hussein Obama Sr c2) he was adopted c3) it will actually say “mother underage hussy” or something. c4) all of the above. d) By all that is holy, he is a usurper.
    This would all end the minute any one of these con artists had to spend a dime of their own money.

  127. avatar
    BlackLion July 19, 2009 at 10:15 am #

    JTX, we all have thought about it. The birthers are the ones aligning themselves with the racists at Stormfront and the racist secessionists (Charles Lincoln) and the disgraced military officers like Fitzpatrick. Most Americans believe that the President was born in HI. No rational person believes the ridiculous “Kenyan birth” scenario. Being born in the US makes one eligible to be President. This has been recognized in the SCOTUS cases of Wong Kim and Elg. So to answer your question I don’t worry about the implications of having a foreigner as President because we don’t. We have a duly elected man that is President.

    We don’t rant and rave about the birthers. These individuals are so incomptent that we laugh at them and their gulibility and stupidity to allow themselves to be conned by dentists posing as attorney’s, pretend attorney’s that were not allowed to pass the bar due to psychlogical problems, disbarred felons, and other assorted cast of characters that have joined their movement.

  128. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    And that is what I am hoping for.

    Once she gets hit with defense costs, she’ll go back under her rock – or maybe Moldova, or Israel so she avoids the fine.

    Ahh, it wouldn’t get any better.

  129. avatar
    BlackLion July 19, 2009 at 10:35 am #

    Bob, I would agree with you. I also thought that this issue would have been put to rest already. However we did not anticipate the financial motives of the participants involved. Once they realized that there was money to be made in donations, the longer they draw this issue out the more they can make. Orly has basically shown us that it is not about the BC or COLB. She even claims that even if President Obama was born in HI that it is irrelevant, that because his father was born in Kenya that he was ineligible.
    For people like JTX that claim to be patriots, what I find interesting is that to support their outlandish claims, they are willing to follow a Russian Communist, an anti-Semite, disbarred attorneys and disgruntled former military officers. In addition they would usurp our Constitution in order to state that a 1948 British Nationality law (which was overturned in 1981 by that updated BNL), a European philospher (de Vatel) and the Magna Carta are the relevant laws and legal precedents in this situation. It is totally amazing to see the amount of people that will use this in order to justify their hate.

  130. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 10:51 am #

    Orly is willing to overlook that Martin is a vicious anti-Semite. When she is no longer useful to him, he’ll turn on her.

    Orly should try this garbage in Russia or Israel – especially the Cook caper.

  131. avatar
    Reality Check July 19, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    Persistence only works when you have facts on your side. The Flat Earth Folks are very persistent but I do not think they have advanced their cause much in the last few hundred years.

    Of all the silly Birther arguments the most frustratingly stupid one is the “long form” aka “vault copy” argument. The document that Obama’s campaign posted is a self-authenticating form of proof of citizenship and would be recognized by any federal or state court in the country as valid proof of birth on American soil. Birther ignorance of the facts is no excuse for demanding further proof.

    I think this argument has two origins. First, i think Birthers tend to be older republicans and they haven’t had to produce a birth certificate for any reason in years and they remember the unofficial hospital certificates that their parents probably kept in shoe boxes or the old photostatic copies that were issued as official copies by states. Again, Birther sentimentality and ignorance is not an excuse to demand more documents.

    The second origin of the argument most likely came from Berg and others who pointed to an outdated Hawaiian Homelands brochure that was available on line that stated that the “short form” certificate has to be supplemented with additional information to prove Hawaiian heritage. Berg then dishonestly argued that this somehow lessened the value of the “short form” certificate to prove Hawaiian birth. The fact is that it is equally valid for that purpose as the DOH officials from Hawaii have attested. The brochure also was used to promote the falsehood that you could request a copy of the original birth document if you did not have one. That has not been the case since 2001. The use of this brochure in the Hollister case by Berg led to Judge Robertson’s funny remark about “flower pictures” in the Berg filing.

  132. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 12:08 pm #

    I think your first example is spot on. It makes perfect sense that you could convince older people, familiar with the old typewritten originals and copies, that those are more valid, carry more weight. I checked mine ( dating myself here). The only things on mine that are not on Obama’s are my mother’s and father’s age and occupation, the doctor’s signature and the name of the hospital. Information that has nothing to do with my citizenship or my eligibility to be President, and is really the kind of information that would be of interest only to demographers. I would be curious to know the average age of birthers. I would venture there are few under 40. I think your second example about Hawaiian Homelands is an argument for more hardcore birthers. By the time they get to that part, most people’s eyes are glazing over. But I completely agree the long form, vault argument catches the imagination of the casual, 50-ish and older birther.

  133. avatar
    TRUTH July 19, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    hippie, I to am from the North Appl. and of Irish decent. For whatever that is worth, but since you mentioned it thought I’d say it also.

    What exactly makes any NutCase online that Slams Obama automatically from the Right? I’d bet if we could look in a crystal ball the same Nutcases slammed Bush W & Clinton & Bush Sr. Maybe not, I don’t know that but neither do you.

    You left leaners ASSume any nutcase, that at least has the smarts to recognize Obamas arrogance, is from the Right. And MISHA jumps on board the same train, for lack of originality. KIMBA posts a Made for Advertisement Photo of the First Couple as if it’s some “moving and inspirational” photo capture. It is nothing different than the same rhetoric he has dished out to you lefties that have soaked up his glamor for the past 18months, only instead of words from a teleprompter its a picture from a good photographer. Sorry, and nothing personnel, but there were a lot of people that thought James Jones was something special also.

  134. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 1:21 pm #

    Yes! I thought James Jones was something really special in Dr Strangelove, The Great White Hope and Star Wars. But I’ve always really liked his voice-over work, especially as Mufasa in the Lion King. Remember the Lion King and its character Simba? Just a Disney rip-off of me, Kimba!

  135. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 1:46 pm #

    RE: The State of Hawaii can release the Vault Copy but won’t do because Obama hasn’t constented

    There is no “vault copy.”

    Hawaii has already said that birth records since 1908 have been computerized.

  136. avatar
    Mary Brown July 19, 2009 at 1:49 pm #

    I am an older blue dog democrat and it did startle me when I received the Transcript of Birth from New York State. But I checked into it and found it is as valid as the older form. I dare any birthers who claim otherwise to obtain a copy of their certificate, see what it says, look into its validity. Maybe if some of them are willing to do a little “tactile” learning they might gain some perspective.

  137. avatar
    Mary Brown July 19, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    My New York transcript contains less information than Obama’s and no mention of doctor or hospital.

  138. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 1:53 pm #

    “From Here to Eternity” was a masterpiece.

  139. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 2:01 pm #

    “And MISHA jumps on board the same train, for lack of originality.”

    Well, excuuuse me. Originality lacking, my foot. Here are original photos of a natural born citizen. Harummpf.

    I was one of five Jewish students at a Jesuit college, and I am committed to social justice. Left wing? Of course. My grandfather, in whose house I was raised, subscribed to the Yiddish Forward until he died in 1970. And when he first came here in 1906, he read Der Tag, which was a Yiddish communist paper.

    One of my Jesuit professors was active in the Catholic peace movement, and used the Berrigan Brothers in his lectures.

    I am a lifelong Democrat. The conservative movement is riddled with white nationalists, anti-Semites, theocrats and assorted other kooks. Buckley once said he spent a lifetime getting rid of the kooks; he didn’t do a good job.

  140. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 2:02 pm #

    “Made for Advertisement Photo of the First Couple as if it’s some “moving and inspirational” photo capture.”

    I bet you ate up Pete Souza’s White House photos when he was Reagan’s official photog!

  141. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    “I bet you ate up Pete Souza’s White House photos when he was Reagan’s official photog!”

    Zing.

  142. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 2:05 pm #

    re: i think Birthers tend to be older republicans

    IMO, the bir’fer “movement” is an amorphous group composed, in part, of unhappy but otherwise harmless Republicans who, unbeknownst to them, have been joined by remnants of discredited extremist groups such as kluckers, the militias, the Posse Commitatus true believers, and other anti-government and anti-court extremists like anti-16th Income Taxers and the anti-child support deadbeats.

    All of whom would be delighted not only to see Obama fall from the big chair, but also to usher in what they believe would be a paralyzing “constitutional crisis.”

    Regardless of the fact that the Constitution clearly spells out the path of presidential succession.

    But, facts obviously mean nothing to this self-styled “movement.”

  143. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 2:09 pm #

    Here’s two more natural born citizens playing one of America’s favorite pastimes! One is a native Texan!
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/lestudio1/3572395301/
    “Barack Obama et son meilleur ami Bo” !!!

  144. avatar
    TRUTH July 19, 2009 at 2:26 pm #

    Its amazing how entwined you lefties will allow yourselves to get listening to MSM, and believe every Spin and Twist they put on a persons words. Simply amazing, yet still funny in a weird way. You would probably donate to a church ran by Keith Olberman just to hear him say negative things about Palin and buy 8-track tape recordings of it from Billy Mays son for $19.99….but WAIT, that’s not all. We’ll throw in a taped recording of Katie Curic talking trash about Sarah also free if you call the next 10 minutes.

  145. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 2:38 pm #

    The natural born citizen answer has been a part of common law since before the Constitution. It doesn’t require a court ruling, or anyone “winning”. It’s long settled. Look, for example, at Lunch v. Clarke (1844).

  146. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    That’s probably true (percentage)

    However, the two most rabidly anti-Obama types in the Congress, Shelby and Bachmann, are both lawyers.

    And neither ever raised even a single squeak at time of election certification.

    Which ought to give the Bir’fer “movement” pause to consider — if one’s most vocal enemies didn’t say a word, does that mean they too are part of this vast conspiracy that only Bir’fers are able to see?

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm #

    For the record, I never listen to Keith Olberman (unless somebody posts a link to something in particular here). I have no use for spin in either direction; I find it insulting.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    “Pause” and “consider” are not in the conspiracy theorist vocabulary.

  149. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    Reality Check:

    You should take the advice offered by your screenname and do one of those as you seem not to distinguish between that and some of the things you mention.

    The COLB is in no regard a “self-authenticating” form at all. In fact, if anything it proves that prima facie if you’d but read and understand what it actually says.

    Moreover it actually functions as proof that the state of HI has (as they have stated – but nothing beyond that) his original BC in their files. But even beyond all of that, the issue is not the BC per se but whether the man is eligible under the laws of our country to hold the office he now occupies.

    He could have been born on the steps of the Supreme Court which (while it MIGHT make him an American citizen) does not necessarily make him a “natural born citizen”.

    He has stated under oath in writing (with jurat notarizsation) that he IS a “natural born citizen”, that he is qualified to hold the office, and has fulfilled the requirements of the U. S. Constitution to hold the office. Great!! That means he’s “talked the talk” – now let’s see him “shiow us the money” as it were; the proof of what he has sworn.

    Surely we all know he wouldn’t lie … right???

  150. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    “We’ll throw in a taped recording of Katie Curic talking trash about Sarah also free if you call the next 10 minutes.”

    Tina Fey does a much better job.

    “I’d bet if we could look in a crystal ball the same Nutcases slammed Bush W & Clinton & Bush Sr.”

    Prove it – provide links.

    And this epitomizes the birthers:

    Andy Martin, Orly’s new BFF: “His 1996 run for the Florida State Senate came unraveled when it was revealed that he’d named his campaign committee for his 1986 congressional run “The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America.” In his motion for the 1983 bankruptcy case, he called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.” In another motion that year, Martin stated, “I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.” He went on to say that “Jew survivors are operating as a wolf pack to steal my property.” When later pressed in an interview about his remarks, Martin claimed that the anti-Semitic comments were inserted into his court papers by malicious judges.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)

  151. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 3:06 pm #

    kimba:

    Actually I’m one of the younguns you seem to think do not care about the laws of our country – and you’re quite wrong; many of us do care and wish to see the laws upheld.

    As for the BC – that’s a great big YAWN!!! unless it should show that he’s born in another country or that his parents are not who he has claimed they are. But I imagine that the actual vault copy will show that he IS born in HI pretty much as stated (could be wrong, though), but that isn’t even the issue.

    The looney left is merely trying to morph the issue of Presedential eligibility under the Constitution into a “birth certificate” issue – which it is not. He could have been born in the El Tovar Lodge at the Grand Canyon and STILL not necessarily be eligible under the laws of the country. You seem to not realize that.

    Many normal, well intentioned citizens are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that this man has never done more than proclaim himself to be “eligible” (and he’s done so under oath in writing BTW) so it’s only reasonable that we now be able to investigate his “eligibility” … but of course he wouldn’t lie (would he?).

  152. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm #

    Make up your mind. Do you want the birth certificate? You already got it. Oh the birth certificate means nothing? Then shut up about the birth certificate. The proof was good enough for the DNC, the RNC, the FEC, the Electoral College and the entire Congress as well as 70 million voters. You’re saying they all have natural born citizen wrong? Arrogant. Laughable.
    And no, he has no reason to lie. He has been scrutinized more than any other candidate or President in history. If he lied you’d have caught him by now. Get over yourselves, your remedy is in the voting booth.

  153. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 3:16 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    That’s not the issue at all.

    Any “transcript” is basically an extraction of part of the data available in the original which merely means that there IS an original copy on file – and the state of HI has already stated that (but nothing beyond that).

    This man has been elected to the highest office in the land and has an extreme amount of power over the citizens of this country. He has stated under oath in writing and signed under jurat notarization that he is a “natural born citizen” and also that he’s qualified to hold the office under the US Constitution.

    That’s all well and good – but having made that claim it is now up to him (not you) to let us hold that claim up to the light of day and determine that it is factually correct. Perhaps you are willing to take such a statement on faith, but I think that many – or even most – citizens have by now noticed a tiny little lie or two by this person. You may be willing to follow along as he “leads”, but many are getting more and more concerned about whether he is truly eligible to hold the office.

    It’s not a matter of political party, race, or social idealogy (e.g., Communism) but merely a matter of Constitutional law. And it’s certainly not a “birth certificate” issue to anyone who would stop to think about it!!!

  154. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    Baloney. You must have flunked 7th grade civics. Otherwise you’d know that you have it exactly backwards. No matter where in the world Barack Obama was born, he would be a natural born citizen. The fact that you don’t know this and that you are not the least ashamed to show your ignorance from the mountaintops is pathetic.
    Birthers= Epic Civics Fail.
    You finally got your big moment on CNN and local news and who did you put out front? Crazy Taitz and Crazy Keyes. Now what citizens are becoming more aware of is that birthers are led by a couple of exciteable crazies. Nicely played birthers.

  155. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    “He could have been born in the El Tovar Lodge at the Grand Canyon and STILL not necessarily be eligible under the laws of the country.”

    Are you out of your ever loving mind? I suggest you read the 14th Amendment, and back to us.

    This gets crazier by the minute. What are you poor slobs going to do when Corey Booker announces?

  156. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 3:23 pm #

    “it’s certainly not a “birth certificate” issue to anyone who would stop to think about it!!!”

    Then why do you spend so much time writing about the birth certificate? Make up your mind. Do you question if he was born in Hawaii or not? If so, prove he wasn’t. Otherwise, fully embrace the un-educated “2 citizen parents” argument instead of just dipping your toe in it.

  157. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 3:29 pm #

    Lollie:

    You’re quite wrong! And I say that as being one who fits in none of the odd classification of what you seem to categorize as “groups”. Perhaps it is because you merely those who don;t believe as you do.

    The Constitution spells out a number of things – most particularly in this instance the requirements for Presidential eligibility as it gives three elements with none being optional but rather mandatory.

    If Obama fulfills those three things then he is certainly the elected President; however …

    He has never done more than state he is eligible and there is growing concern over whether that is actually the case since he has been known to lie – or perhaps you didn’t notice.

    I would think that everyone would feel relieved to know for certain (and yes, I know that many of the “true believers in the hope and change” mantra ardently believe that is true to the bottom of their tippie toes … but it has not been demonstrated in any credible fashion no matter what you might wish.

    That’s why a number of the military are getting involved in litigation seeking proof of eligibility. And note that is not merely a “birth certificate” matter but an eligibility matter and they are different things. The BC is a necessary but not sufficient part of it but only a part.

  158. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm #

    The COLB is in no regard a “self-authenticating” form at all. In fact, if anything it proves that prima facie if you’d but read and understand what it actually says.

    In fact, the COLB is a self authenticating form per rules of evidence. As such, you are correct that it provides for a prima facie evidence which requires the opposing party to show that it fails as such. Attacking the COLB requires more than stating that it may be false, one need to actually show a compelling case that it fails to match the original. Since the document is signed to certify its accuracy, it will be hard to overcome prima facie evidence here.

    Being born on the steps of the Supreme Court would make him a natural born citizen, unless the child was born to ambassadors, or invading military.

    Natural born is well established by law to mean born on US soil.

  159. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm #

    kimba:

    I realize you have a virulent case of Obama love – and that’s your right.

    Let me point out the inadequacy of your statements, however. He has not been vetted at all by any of the groups you mention (or any others) and the man has EVERY reason to lie as he was burning to obtain the office of US President when he had his “Dreams …” book ghost written by Bill Ayres.

    Despite the ghost writing, he’s hardly the first presidential candidate to do that nor am I claiming that makes him ineligible. He does admit, however, that the book is not completely factual – not an autobiography but a made up novel intended to further his political ambitions. So, you see, he has every reason to lie (becoming the President) and in his mind the end justifies the means.

    As for “scrutiny” he is – in fact – the LEAST scrutinized person ever to hold the office is the last 100 years or perhaps more. All that is know about his, basically, is what he has disclosed in his book (and a good bit of that is untrue which he has admitted). Aside from the things he has claimed, we know next to nothing about him aside from the facts (obtained by independent researchers) that his mother, his grandfather, a close drinking buddy of his grandfather (with whom he had a lot of contact in his formative years), and many of his father’s relatives were Communists.

    Of course you’re welcome to close your eyes to those facts and believe what you will, but I’d think that you’d at least wish to know definitively if the man you’ve hired to control your life and well-being meets the three eligibility requirements of the US Constitution.

    But perhaps you hold the view that laws don’t matter. I hold the opposite view.

  160. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 3:50 pm #

    If Obama fulfills those three things then he is certainly the elected President; however …

    Given the evidence of what is known Obama clearly fulfills these requirements

    That’s why a number of the military are getting involved in litigation seeking proof of eligibility. And note that is not merely a “birth certificate” matter but an eligibility matter and they are different things. The BC is a necessary but not sufficient part of it but only a part

    true but it will be hard to argue that Obama’s father was an invading military or a foreign dignitary not under allegiance to the laws of the United States

    Military complaints show that the real issue is not Obama’s eligibility but rather his policies which upset the sensibilities of these ‘military patriots’ and thus they want him removed via un-constitutional methods.

    Somewhat ironic isn’t it? The judge in the Cook v Good case cleverly pointed out how the same Constitution these ‘patriots’ claim to be upholding also denies them standing.

    now that is truly ironic. Somehow it will be lost on the few.
    What I find hilarious is how jtx and others are moving from the BC issue to incidental issues which are so far removed from the concept of natural born that they are forced to ignore any evidence to the contrary.

    Yes, blame the looney left… The alternative may be too hard to swallow…

  161. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    Of course you’re welcome to close your eyes to those facts and believe what you will,

    Irony alert

    But perhaps you hold the view that laws don’t matter. I hold the opposite view.

    And yet you want a duly elected President removed from office via non-constitutional means. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk my dear friend.
    Laws do matter, and the laws all suggest that Obama, being born on US soil, is by any relevant standard a natural born citizen.

    Just read Thomas Jefferson or the Court in Wong Kim Ark and the various other cases. Given the common law nature of our country, precedent is incredibly relevant and should not and cannot be ignored. Until someone can reach standing, the issue will remain resolved as it is. And given our Constitutional protections, standing is unlikely to be overcome by these plaintiffs.

    This is how the law works and I am glad that you agree that the law matters as it means that the case has been settled.

  162. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    re: Lollie:

    You’re quite wrong!

    After constant repetition of your wholly fallacious claims — including many things that the near proverbial “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader” would know — being called wrong by you is pretty much axiomatic proof of the reverse.

    His claim to eligibility requirement of natural birth has been met, and to the satisfaction of all pertinent law.

    Whether or not you, or other Bir’fers like that, finds itself within no statute in any jurisdiction in this country.

    Bottom line: whine all you, create all the ludicrous court cases you want, demand whatever yo want to demand, stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath ’til you turn blue …

    At the end of the day?

    Obama is still the *lawful* President of the United States.

  163. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 4:03 pm #

    kimba:

    More nonsense and further attempts on your part to denigrate others.

    You should know better! You’d better do some further research on what a “natural born citizen” really is. It’s obvious you do not know.

    Even the earliest Naturalization Act of this country had the phraseology such as “… the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States …” and this wording basically held sway for much of the 233 year history of the US. Since his father, he admits, was a Kenyan student here temporarily your belief is at odds with the laws of the country (but you’re welcome to hold them).

  164. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 4:09 pm #

    misha:

    The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with making anyone a “natural born citizen”, but merely a citizen.

    But you’re right – it does get “crazier by the minute” … and you help make it so by such misstatemtns of fact. Many people do not know the various types of citizen classifications but – like you – mistakenly equate “citizen” or “naturalized citizen” with “natural born citizen”. They are not the same.

    And though I don’t know Corey Booker, I DO know that you are misinformed about what a “natural born citizen” might be.

  165. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 4:16 pm #

    He could have been born on the steps of the Supreme Court which (while it MIGHT make him an American citizen) does not necessarily make him a “natural born citizen”.
    ~~~~
    For the love of God, what is with you people?

    Any person born on the soil of the United States — except the children of diplomats and civil servants of foreign nations — *IS* a natural born citizen of the United States. Period.

    Even if their parents are here illegally.

    Ask Tancredo and his Mexi-phobic band of followers.

  166. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    kimba:

    It is not – as I’ve said a number of times – a birth certificate issue at all but one of eligibility to hold the office occupied.

    That seems to start with definitive proof of birth and not merely stating (as Obama has done) that he is (“trust me”) eligible. His statement means very little in light of his many – shall we call them – “little misstatement of facts”.

    Definitive proof is required … and it is called out not by me but by the Constitution. The birth certificate is merely a necessary but not sufficient bit of factual evidence and an image on a computer screen is not the same thing at all.

    I believe that he may very well have been born in HI and perhaps even to the father and mother he claims as his and possibly even on the date he has offered everyone. That still does not make him eligible under the Constitution – and that’s the sad part that many of you “true believers” do not understand or perhaps do not wish to understand.

    The true information will eventually surface I’m sure – and then we’ll go from there. Have you stopped to think what it might mean if the man is shown to NOT be eligible to hold the office he occupies?? Do you think that’s “just fine”???

  167. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    JTX, then you must believe that there has been a conspiracy for the last 129 years, because 129 years ago, we had Chester A. Arthur elected President. His father was a citizen of Ireland and Great Britian at the time. So, therefore, Chester A. Arthur must not have been eligible.

    Furthermore, there is significant evidence that people knew this about him when he was running for President. So, those people must have covered this up in order to get an ineligible man to become President! Therefore, there must have been a conspiracy 130 years ago to get an man to hold an office that he was ineligible for! It’s a vast conspiracy that dates back 130 years!

  168. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 4:28 pm #

    NBC:

    The reason the case you cite was denied “standing” is that the man’s orders were quickly rescinded by the DSS, making the issue moot at that point (1 day before the hearing). You think that’s a coincidence??

    What “evidence” do you think has been presented by Obama re Presidential eligibility? There’s a good bit of information floating around on many pro-Obama websites showing images purported to be a COLB (or several) from HI, but HI has said it did not issue such a document to anyone. They have also said they have his original BC in their files (period).

    I’d be pleased to see a valid BC from the state and certified by them so that we can all know what the man’s legal name might be, when his DOB actually happened, and who his parents were. I presume he was born in HI, but the original BC would certainly prove that definitively.

    So let’s see YOUR “evidence” … Obama has offered none.

  169. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 4:34 pm #

    JTX quote: the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States

    This applied to children born abroad.

    JTX: You’d better do some further research on what a “natural born citizen” really is. It’s obvious you do not know.

    Physician heal thyself. Natural Born is a simple concept meaning born on the soil of a country (Jus Solis).

    Simple really and your appeal to irrelevant laws suggests that you may be the one ignorant of law.

  170. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    JTX: The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with making anyone a “natural born citizen”, but merely a citizen.

    And if born on US soil, a natural citizen as well. You cannot be a natural born without being a citizen. Since anyone born on US soil, regardless of the nationality of their parent is a citizen and since anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen owing allegiance to the laws of the US, the 14th amendment extends the established case law.

  171. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm #

    So, you’re stating that there’s a grand conspiracy to keep this issue out of the courts, right jtx? I thought in a few posts, you said there was no conspiracy.

    The fact is that what happened is that the officer asked for objector status as part of his law suit. This revoked his security clearance (by default), and therefore removed him from being able to fulfill his post.

    There’s also the theory that since he could ask for revocation of his orders at any time, the Department of Defense considered this a request to revoke his orders. Since he volunteered to go over there (months after signing onto one of Orly Taitz’s lawsuits, and months after Obama was President), he could not go at any time.

    There are completely logical reasons that his orders were revoked.

  172. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    JTX: Definitive proof is required … and it is called out not by me but by the Constitution. The birth certificate is merely a necessary but not sufficient bit of factual evidence and an image on a computer screen is not the same thing at all.

    A birth certificate is sufficient proof to establish citizenship and since the place of birth is Honolulu, it is also sufficient in establishing natural born citizenship.

    That’s all the ‘proof’ needed and sufficient for Congress to find President Obama eligible per 20th amendment.
    Obama is thus, until proven otherwise, our duly elected President.

    End of discussion really…

  173. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    JTX: So let’s see YOUR “evidence” … Obama has offered none.

    Ignoring once again the COLB. Sadly enough JTX not only ignores the evidence but also suggests without any reason or logic that it is not sufficient.

  174. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    And JTX, please show me where Hawaii said “it did not issue such a document to anyone.” I’d really like to see your evidence.

    The only place I’ve seen you link to where you link that is them saying that they didn’t confirm that they issued a document. That’s a whole lot different than saying that they didn’t issue the document.

    I can point to 5 different places where they directly said that the certificate is “a valid Hawaii state birth certificate”.

  175. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 4:44 pm #

    JTX: The reason the case you cite was denied “standing” is that the man’s orders were quickly rescinded by the DSS, making the issue moot at that point (1 day before the hearing). You think that’s a coincidence??

    Standing would have been denied even if the order had not been rescinded. We have sufficient evidence from the many denied cases here.

    Cook questioned his voluntary deployment and the military responded by enforcing Cook’s right to reconsider and revoked the order. Oops… In addition, since Cook invoked conscientious objector status, his clearance status may have to be revoked per the applicable rules.
    Cook should have found counsel who could have informed him of the risks involved in his action.

    Standing will continue to remain a constitutional barrier to having any case heard. The best person with standing would have been McCain before Congress certified the election results and found Obama to have qualified per 20th amendment.

    Now that Obama is our duly elected President, there is only one legal remedy and that is “impeachment by congress”. There is also another Constitutional remedy which is called ‘elections’

  176. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    As for “scrutiny” he is – in fact – the LEAST scrutinized person ever to hold the office is the last 100 years or perhaps more.
    ~~~~~

    Yes, of course … you were, I take it, at the front of the line of Bir’fers demanding to see the birth certificates of Clinton, Carter, both Bush’s, Nixon, Ford, Truman, etc etc.

    They all claimed to be eligible. Using the Bir’fer “logic” (chuckle), how do you know?
    Did you see their birth certificates?

    The only birth certificate anyone has seen from any recent past President was Reagan’s.

    And even then it was only that of a picture in a book, until the Reagan library was built.

  177. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    And finally the Judge in Cook v Good clearly observed

    The same Constitution upon which Major Cook relies in support of his contention that President Barack Obama is not eligible to serve as President of the United States very clearly provides that federal courts shall only have the authority to hear actual “cases and controversies.” By restricting the Judiciary’s power to actual “cases and controversies,” our founders wisely established a separation of powers that would ensure the freedom of their fellow citizens. They concluded that the Judicial Branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely “political disputes,” and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.

  178. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 4:52 pm #

    NBC:

    I’m not at all sure that I’m your “dear friend” but no matter.

    And you should realize (but apparently do not) that if the man is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies he is anything but “duly elected”.

    I realize that many of you who voted for him (but certainly no longer all) earnestly wich him to be “your President” – and perhaps he genuinely is … but that has not yet been shown with anything resembling definitive information.

    Nor have I ever proffered the idea of “removing him from office”. If he is not found to be eligible for the office it will not be ME that determines what should be done but the laws of our country. Those laws do nothing at all to either suggest or demonstrate that the man is eligible, however no matter how earnestly you wish that to be true.

    As for “standing”, that is merely a judicial fiction in any event and I think that there will be a court honest enough to hear the issue on merit. If so, we will certainly be “… living in interesting times …”. The term “standing” BTW appears nowhere in the Constitution and your opinion that Wong Kim Ark is somehow a controlling or influencing case is way off base as we’ll eventuyally see I believe.

    Since you are insistent in “telling me how the law works”, wou you please advise us all as to what would occur should the man be found to be ineligible?

  179. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 4:59 pm #

    Lollie:

    Sorry, but you are incredibly misinformed about the issue. You – and many others – have confused the difference between “native born citizen”, “citizen”, “naturalized citizen”, and “natural born citizen”. These are not synonomous categorizations despite your claim otherwise.

    What is it with “you people” (which I’m not sure what that might mean, I’ll assume it’s an intended pejorative)??? It’s called the law!! And Mr. Obama has not yet complied with it. It’s up to his as a seeker for the office to comply with the eligibility requirements and he has not yet shown us definitively that he IS eligible. He’s merely said that he is … but as you may observe, he’s said a lot of things – a goodly subset of which are untrue.

  180. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 5:12 pm #

    “The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with making anyone a “natural born citizen”, but merely a citizen.”

    “And though I don’t know Corey Booker, I DO know that you are misinformed about what a “natural born citizen” might be.”

    Thank you sooo much. There it is, folks.

    jtx, take a bow.

  181. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    JTX: I’m not at all sure that I’m your “dear friend” but no matter.

    In many ways I consider you my dear friend and ally. Who else could better expose the lack of arguments?

    JTX: And you should realize (but apparently do not) that if the man is not eligible to hold the office he now occupies he is anything but “duly elected”.

    You may be unfamiliar with the De Facto Officer Doctrine which states that anyone who is elected according to the rules and is later found to be ineligible, is still a de facto officer and his actions until found otherwise, are legally binding. This means that as a de facto President a ‘quo warranto’ can only be issued by Congress per the Constitution which provides that impeachment is the only constitutional remedy.

    JTX: I realize that many of you who voted for him (but certainly no longer all) earnestly wich him to be “your President” – and perhaps he genuinely is … but that has not yet been shown with anything resembling definitive information.

    And until data are presented that he is NOT eligible, he will remain our President.

    JTX: Nor have I ever proffered the idea of “removing him from office”. If he is not found to be eligible for the office it will not be ME that determines what should be done but the laws of our country. Those laws do nothing at all to either suggest or demonstrate that the man is eligible, however no matter how earnestly you wish that to be true.

    And since he was found to be eligible per the supreme laws of our country, the laws of our country provide that he can only be removed through the Constitutional process of impeachment. Anything else is wishful thinking.

    JTX: As for “standing”, that is merely a judicial fiction in any event and I think that there will be a court honest enough to hear the issue on merit.

    Funny to hear JTX complain that standing is a judicial fiction even though it is a Constitutional requirement.

    JTX: If so, we will certainly be “… living in interesting times …”. The term “standing” BTW appears nowhere in the Constitution and your opinion that Wong Kim Ark is somehow a controlling or influencing case is way off base as we’ll eventuyally see I believe.

    Unlikely that the Courts will address the issue so indeed, prior rulings remain the controlling case. I assumed that you were familiar with how the law works in our Country, but perhaps I was to hasty in my presumptions.

    JTX: Since you are insistent in “telling me how the law works”, wou you please advise us all as to what would occur should the man be found to be ineligible?

    First of all, there is only one way to find President Obama to be ineligible since it is a constitutional political question and thus non-justiciable in courts. And that is through the Constitutional process of impeachment. If Congress decides to impeach the President based on eligibility issues, then Congress can remove him as our President. Any other remedy is not provided for in our Constitution. The argument that he is not eligible and thus not our President ignores the ‘de facto officer doctrine’ and its implications.

    President Obama is clearly not a usurper as he obtained the office under color of law through an election which was certified as required and he was sworn in, as required by the Constitution. To suggest that there would exist legal remedies beyond impeachment, would ignore the clear language in the Constitution.

  182. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 5:14 pm #

    Sorry, but you are incredibly misinformed about the issue
    ~~~~

    Such arrogance is astounding, especially when coming from someone who knows nothing more about me than what can be gleaned from an analysis of screen pixels.

    Did you, like, hire TechDude as your expert?

  183. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    Sorry, but you are incredibly misinformed about the issue. You – and many others – have confused the difference between “native born citizen”, “citizen”, “naturalized citizen”, and “natural born citizen”. These are not synonomous categorizations despite your claim otherwise.

    True: Naturalized citizen is someone who acquires citizenship per statute. Native born citizen and natural born citizen are very similar concepts however, where the only difference is that a few native borns are not natural born such as children born to 1) invading military 2) foreign dignitaries and 3) native americans born on US soil but under allegiance to tribal law.

  184. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 5:16 pm #

    I’ve asked you at least three times, jtx, and still don’t believe I’ve recieved a response. Can you please show me one Supreme Court case where the difference between “Native-born” and “Natural-born” is discussed? I haven’t been able to find one, jtx.

  185. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    JTX: It’s called the law!! And Mr. Obama has not yet complied with it.

    On the contrary, Obama has been found to be qualified per 20th amendment and was duly sworn in. To suggest that Obama has not complied with the law ignores these simple facts.

  186. avatar
    aarrgghh July 19, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    jtx:

    “as for “standing”, that is merely a judicial fiction in any event and I think that there will be a court honest enough to hear the issue on merit.”

    no one who understands legal standing would make such a statement. to reiterate nbc’s except from the cook ruling:

    “… the judicial branch, the unelected branch, should not inject itself into purely “political disputes,” and that it should not entangle itself in hypothetical debates which had not ripened to an actual legal dispute.”

  187. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    NBC, there’s a difference. Basically, what you’re stating is people who are not citizens by birth, but born on this soil (but they’re not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States).

    A natural-born citizen is a citizen at birth, plain and simple.

  188. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    The only ruling that I found so far is on Dr C’s page

    Schneider v. Rusk (1964)

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

    While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,

  189. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    have confused the difference between “native born citizen”, “citizen”, “naturalized citizen”, and “natural born citizen”. These are not synonomous categorizations despite your claim otherwise.
    ~~~~

    You may feel free to take your legal theories to Tancredo (or his Mexi-phobic following), who proposed a constitutional amendment to prevent the children, born here in the United States, of parents who are illegal aliens, from being natural born Citizens.

    Your legal theories are diametrically contrary to what any of the illegal immigration proponents say, but I am nonetheless certain that they’ll give your claims all the consideration they merit.

  190. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:26 pm #

    Funny how JTX is all about the Constitution until it does not agree with his sensibilities, then it is judicial fiction.

    In United States law, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated, “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues”.

    See also Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)

    Held: Whether the rules of standing are considered as aspects of the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff must make out a “case or controversy” within the meaning of Art. III, or, apart from such requirement, as prudential limitations on the courts’ role in resolving disputes involving “generalized grievances” or third parties’ legal rights or interests, none of the petitioners has met the threshold requirement of such rules that to have standing a complainant must clearly allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers. Pp. 422 U. S. 498-518.

  191. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    Yes Tancredo seems to be ill informed about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which basically excludes two groups: Children born to Ambassadors and children born to invading military. and in d the US also children of indian tribes.

  192. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    Tancredo, and his Mexi-phobic supporters and co-sponsors, believed (quite rightly) that it would take an amendment to the Constitution to prevent the children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents from being legally designated as “natural born citizens.”

    Thereby reinforcing the prevailing legal opinion that persons born on U.S. soil are, in fact, natural born citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

    Bir’fer obfuscating arguments to the contrary simply don’t wash, in light of the reality around us.

  193. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm #

    But even under Tancredo’s revision of the 14th Amendment, Obama would have been a natural born citizen

    Tancredo is trying to keep the immigration issue alive. At his news conference Wednesday, he unveiled an immigration bill that would crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants and limit citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is also a U.S. citizen or lawful resident.

  194. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 5:42 pm #

    re:

    NBC says:
    July 19, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Yes Tancredo seems to be ill informed about the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which basically excludes two groups: Children born to Ambassadors and children born to invading military.

    I hate to find myself in the position of defending Tancredo, but I’m pretty certain that even he understands that foreign ambassadors and invading armies fall outside of any reasonable construance of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — and would, therefore, be excluded.

  195. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 5:53 pm #

    I did not mean to claim that Tancredo does not understand these restricted categories but rather that he wants to include a class of people that historically never were part of said exclusions.

  196. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 6:09 pm #

    NBC says:
    July 19, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    “… regardless of the nationality of their parent is a citizen and since anyone born on US soil is a natural born citizen owing allegiance to the laws of the US, the 14th amendment extends the established case law.”
    ~~~~

    Any claim to the contrary is simply not supported in any the pertinent case law.

    Bir’fers simply have no legal leg to stand on.

  197. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm #

    NBC:

    Sorry, but you have misinterpreted what was said.

    Let me see if I can give you the full text of the NA of 1795 Section 3 (the one I have the full text available for but which is the same as that in 1790, 1802, etc. for many iterations of the Act).

    “SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.”

    Please note that the “Provided …” phrase I highlighted earlier is an independent sentence and does not refer only to the those born abroad as you claim.

    The termn “natural born citizen” indeed IS a simple concept and it will eventually found to be a person born of two US citizens and born on US soil. Your “interpretation” is utter nonsense asa well as being incorrect.

  198. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    Could you forward that to Major Cook and Orly Taitz?

    Neither seems to understand the concept of being the “proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.”

    Last I checked, there is nothing in the Constitution, or US statutes, or treaties made, that conveys military officers any Proper role in legally questioning the legitimacy of any elected official, be that President of the United States or mayor of a township.

    Like that “Missing 13th Amendment” that militias were so fond of, there must be some “Missing 28th Amendment” in Orly’s copy of the Constitution. :))

  199. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:22 pm #

    NBC:

    Under your definition any wetback anchor baby would be eligible to run for President (assuming the two other requirements are met).

    That is patently false! it is also stupid.

  200. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    Lollie:

    Your use of NBC as an “authority” is on exceedingly shaky ground. He doesn’t know zip about the eligibility issue and has shown that by his comments.

    As you will eventually come to see there is, indeed, case law that discusses the matter … and it supports nothing NBC has presented.

  201. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    The termn “natural born citizen” indeed IS a simple concept and it will eventually found to be a person born of two US citizens and born on US soil. Your “interpretation” is utter nonsense asa well as being incorrect.

    There is simply no justification for JTX’s interpretation which runs counter to established jurisprudence, historical writings and common law.

    Now if JTX were to attempt an actual argument then would could explore his rejection of the facts and judicial rulings. But given that JTX also considers standing to be something of a ‘judicial fiction’ I doubt that he will be interested to explore how history and the courts have consistently defined natural born to refer to born on the soil of a country, regardless of the status of the parents.
    In JTX’s attempt to show the Naturalization Act he forgets that in none of the examples, the child is actually born on US soil.

    I welcome my friend’s input and encourage him to further explore his musings and provide some reason and logic as a foundation.

  202. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:28 pm #

    JTX: Your use of NBC as an “authority” is on exceedingly shaky ground. He doesn’t know zip about the eligibility issue and has shown that by his comments.

    Funny how JTX has to reject my factually supported statements because they do not agree with his faith.
    The argument ad hominem seems to still be a most favored one amongst those who lack foundation in history and legal precedent.

    I understand and I applaud my dear friend for exposing this clearly. Examples like this help understand the mind of those who seem to be interested in reintrepreting history and legal precedent.

  203. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    JTX: Under your definition any wetback anchor baby would be eligible to run for President (assuming the two other requirements are met).

    That is patently false! it is also stupid.

    Wow… Your true colors are becoming increasingly clear.
    And yes, that is not only patently true but also in line with the American tradition.

    For those who have missed it, “Wetback is a derogatory term for an illegal alien of Hispanic descent”

    As long as the child is born on US soil, he is natural born. That is disturbs JTX’s sensibilities is of little relevance other than helping one understand his ‘position’ better.

  204. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    Followup: Bir’fers don’t get it that, there’s no way they’re ever going to win with this approach. Better they quit wasting their money supporting Orly, and filing these doomed-to-failure-from-the-start goofy cases, and instead invest it in trying to find and prep some candidates whose qualifications are more than “gosh darn” vocabularies.

  205. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    In spite of all the smoke thrown up on this site, Arthur his his ineligibility (sound familiar?) when he became VP. He was never elected as President, however. Obama has been but millions of citizens now think he may not have met the eligibility requirements.

    Arthur however was careful to conceal the facts relevant to eligibility and fooled everyone into believing that somehow his birth certificate was meaningful to the matter (it wasn’t as was eventually determined), but his eligibility was never challenged and it eventually (after the fact) became knows that his father was not a citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.

    If you’re trying to present that a fraudulent assumption of the office is a great precedent, you’re in for a big surpise even though many on this thread would probably claim it’s “just great”.

  206. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 6:34 pm #

    Right back atcha jtx, because the entire election authority in this country agrees with my understanding of the law. You’re just plain misguided and brainwashed.

  207. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:36 pm #

    It all comes down to “under jurisdiction thereof”

    What is the meaning and import of the qualifying words and subject to the jurisdiction thereof that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States contained in the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment What is their legal effect What class of persons born or to be hereafter born in the United States are to be by those words excluded from citizenship These words were ex industriae placed in the amendment in order to preserve in our law of nationality the two exceptions to the ancient and fundamental common law rule of citizenship by birth within the territory vi 5 the exclusion 1) of children born in England of ambassadors and other diplomatic agents of foreign states who had been accredited as the representatives of their governments in England and 2) the children born of alien enemies within and during a hostile occupation of a part of English territory such children being excluded because they were not born within the allegiance protection power or jurisdiction of the British crown and 3 the qualifying words were also intended to exclude from citizenship by birth the children of the members of the Indian tribes who are alien dependent political communities standing in a peculiar relation

    The 14th Amendment clearly makes children born to illegal aliens citizens of the United States and since they are born on US soil, natural born citizens.

  208. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    “Conspiracy”??? No – I’m merely pointing out the “accident of timing”. And you, no doubt, think that being fired from his job due to governmental pressure was just “normal?, eh?? “Just logical”, right???

  209. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 6:39 pm #

    “Under your definition any wetback anchor baby would be eligible to run for President ”

    Of course they are. Michelle Malkin and Piyush Jindal come to mind. Even a little Salvadoran baby born right after his momma crosses the Rio Grande. I can’t wait for Michael Steele to explain to you why Jindal is eligible. Good times.

  210. avatar
    kimba July 19, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    jtx, if anyone could prove Barack Obama is not who he says he is, born where his birth certificate says he was born, it would have been on every news network and in every paper before the convention. You’re chasing a trumped up fantasy by two groups of people. Group A wants to do anything they can to discredit Pres Obama. This group includes the neocons and the far right politicians. Group B is the Orlys and Hales and Swennsons and Farahs, in it for the publicity and money. Group B will disappear when the donations dry up. Group A is the usual troublemakers and when Group B folds, Group A will find some new tub to thump.

  211. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

    NBC:

    The COLB shown on line in different locations is not a document at all be merely a manipulatable image of of something that may or may not even exist.

    At best it would merely be “evidence” that the state of HI has the real BC in their files … which they had already stated.

    … and you seem to not realize that I’m not the one that needs to prove my eligibility so therefore do not have to give you (or anyone else) any “evidence”. Obama ran for and was elected to the office he now holds and has claimed under jurat-notified oath and in writing that he is a “natural born citizen” AND Constitutionally qualified to hold the office.

    Saying that is just fine but now he needs to prove it factually which has not yet been done – the BS on this site notwithstanding.

  212. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:47 pm #

    In the United States it is too late now to deny the political rights and obligations conferred and imposed by nativity for our laws do not pretend to create or enact them but do assume and recognize them as things known to all men because pre-existent and natural and therefore things of which the laws must take cognizance. Acting out this guiding thought our Constitution does no more than grant to Congress rather than to any other department the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And our laws made in pursuance thereof indue the made citizen with all the rights and obligations of the natural citizen. And so strongly was Congress impressed with the great legal fact that the child takes its political status in the nation where it is born that it was found necessary to pass a law to prevent the alienage of children of our known fellow citizens who happen to be born in foreign countries. The act of February 10 1855 10 Statutes 604 provides that “persons” (not white persons) persons heretofore born and hereafter to be born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of tho United States shall be deemed and considered and hereby declared to be citizens of the United States Provided however That the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States SEC 2.

    Source: Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States By United States Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1873

  213. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:51 pm #

    dunstvangeet:

    You’ve got the wrong idea I’m afraid. You should be insisting that Mr. Obama (or those operatives running his pro-O websites) get the appropriate official in HI to swear under oath that the image circulated on one or more of the various internet sites is actually from an image of such a document provided to that person by the state of HI and that the information matches the data in the original BC in their files – oh, yes, and that it is the complete data in there files also.

    So far no one has done that, have they?

  214. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    JTX: The COLB shown on line in different locations is not a document at all be merely a manipulatable image of of something that may or may not even exist.

    Given the evidence presented and the fact that the document was available for inspection and scanned and photographed by independent sources, it seems rather desperate to argue that the document may or may not exist.

    JTX: At best it would merely be “evidence” that the state of HI has the real BC in their files … which they had already stated.

    Why would it establish that? And why would it not be evidence of the location of birth, just as the birth announcements show?

    JTX: … and you seem to not realize that I’m not the one that needs to prove my eligibility so therefore do not have to give you (or anyone else) any “evidence”. Obama ran for and was elected to the office he now holds and has claimed under jurat-notified oath and in writing that he is a “natural born citizen” AND Constitutionally qualified to hold the office.

    And Congress found him qualified. That’s all that is needed.

    JTX: Saying that is just fine but now he needs to prove it factually which has not yet been done – the BS on this site notwithstanding.

    There are no legal requirements that indicate that President Obama needs to prove this. All the Constitution provides for is that Congress finds the president elect to be qualified. If there are real indications that the President may be ineligible, Congress can start the only Constitutional process provided; impeachment. You have failed to make your case.

  215. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    JTX: You’ve got the wrong idea I’m afraid. You should be insisting that Mr. Obama (or those operatives running his pro-O websites) get the appropriate official in HI to swear under oath that the image circulated on one or more of the various internet sites is actually from an image of such a document provided to that person by the state of HI and that the information matches the data in the original BC in their files – oh, yes, and that it is the complete data in there files also.

    Why? and since these officials are bound by the law to remain quiet on this topic, why should we insist that President Obama does this? Your request does not make legal sense.

  216. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    Lollie:

    I’m not aware of anyone ever questioning the eligibility of the others you mention … but there certainly ARE many who question Obama vital statistice from many different standpoints.

    It’s not merely a “birth certificate” as you keep trying to pretend.

  217. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 6:56 pm #

    JTX: “Conspiracy”??? No – I’m merely pointing out the “accident of timing”. And you, no doubt, think that being fired from his job due to governmental pressure was just “normal?, eh?? “Just logical”, right???

    There is no evidence that he was fired due to governmental pressure. There is however a rule which states that security clearances are revoked to people indicating their interest in Conscientious Objector status. The government may have communicated this rule to the employer but that hardly is ‘governmental pressure’.
    In fact, the government did not force the civil contractor to do anything as far as we know now.

    Is it not ironic that asking for CO status may have cost Major Cook his security clearance?

  218. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Lollie:

    No arrogance inv0olved – just a statement of facts from your presentation.

    I don’t know TechDude so can’t comment.

  219. avatar
    Mary Brown July 19, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    Jtx, you have made it a birth certificate issue. He was born here. He owes you no other proof. The proof is in his COLB. As you state the information comes from what you call the vault copy. As does mine. And mine does not even specify city or citizenship of MY PARENTS. So they could have been immigants from The Netherlands or Slovakia. I am still a natural born citizen. I can get a passport, a license or run for President based on that information. Case closed.

  220. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 7:02 pm #

    aarrgghh:

    You’ve obviously missed quite a few citations that say otherwise.

    Judicial fiction is judicial fiction.

  221. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    JTX: You’ve obviously missed quite a few citations that say otherwise.

    So have you it seems…

  222. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    JTX: I’m not aware of anyone ever questioning the eligibility of the others you mention … but there certainly ARE many who question Obama vital statistice from many different standpoints.

    A few perhaps so what… Legally speaking there is no case.

  223. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm #

    NBC:

    Where is it in the Constitution where we can find the term “standing”???

    Please advise.

    And don’t quote a bunch of cites that you think show your point – we;re not having a MTD here. I can read the FRCP as well as can the DOJ jokers.

  224. avatar
    jtx July 19, 2009 at 7:08 pm #

    NBC:

    … yet you only choose to offer the cites on one side of the issue and not even recognize that there are others.

    Doesn’t that mean you have a bias???

  225. avatar
    Mary Brown July 19, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    Or they could have come before my birth to make sure I was a citizen. You don’t know and I won’t tell you. Whatever the case I was born here and like President Obama am a natural born citizen. Case closed

  226. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    JTX: Where is it in the Constitution where we can find the term “standing”???

    The courts have found standing to come from the fact that federal judicial power extends to “cases or controversies”. This means that for instance the courts cannot give advisory opinions, as George Washington found out.
    Standing is required to establish a case or controversy.

  227. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    And where are you citations that show standing to be judicial fiction?

  228. avatar
    NBC July 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    JTX: Doesn’t that mean you have a bias???

    We all have our biases which is why we should attempt to provide compelling arguments with references that allows others to research the issues for themselves and come to their own conclusion.

  229. avatar
    Reality Check July 19, 2009 at 8:38 pm #

    JTX

    I used the term “self authenticating document” with purpose and I knew exactly what it meant. You obviously didn’t. NBC explained the term for you so I need not repeat the definition.

    Leo Donofrio already tried petitioning the Supreme Court to stop the certification of the electoral vote based on the “native born is not natural born” argument and his case was denied writ of certiorari. One would think if they thought this was a valid argument that they would have heard the case.

    Please do me a favor and go to the dictionary and look up the term “natural born”. In my dictionary one of the definitions is “native born”.

  230. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    jtx: “Under your definition any wetback anchor baby would be eligible to run for President”

    It doesn’t get any better.

  231. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Where is it in the Constitution where we can find the term “standing”???
    ~~~~

    One would think that common sense would dictate that common sense does not need to be articulated in the Consittution.

  232. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 10:28 pm #

    misha says:
    July 19, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    jtx: “Under your definition any wetback anchor baby would be eligible to run for President”

    It doesn’t get any better.
    ~~~~~

    It’s kind of difficult to imagine how he can top that scintillating display of sentiment, but I’m sure he’ll find a way.

  233. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 10:29 pm #

    The Constitution grants certain jurisdiction to the federal courts. The concept of standing is tied to that jurisdiction. The federal judiciary can hear cases at law under the Constitution, but it must be that the Constitution (or a law) gives someone a right that the federal courts can enforce. Further, the court has jurisdiction to hear controversies, but that is taken to mean an actual controversy, not a theoretical one (for example when a retired soldier sues Obama claiming he might be recalled to active duty and then decide whether to follow orders).

  234. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 10:30 pm #

    And he’s not a racist? Could’a fooled me.

  235. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 10:31 pm #

    NBC says:
    July 19, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    JTX: Your use of NBC as an “authority” is on exceedingly shaky ground. He doesn’t know zip about the eligibility issue and has shown that by his comments.

    Funny how JTX has to reject my factually supported statements because they do not agree with his faith.
    ~~~~~

    I;m still wondering how it is that he manages to glean things about people he’s never met.

    I’m kind of thinking he’s that document analysis “Tech” dude, with another username.

  236. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    If there is a relevant citation that’s missing from this web site, please share with us so it can be added. I post ’em all.

  237. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 10:45 pm #

    Ah, TechDude.

    Here is an article from Israel Insider (who claims to know the real name of TechDude by the way) about TechDude’s shocking revelation:

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13040.htm

    And here is an article from Israel Insider admitting that his forensic analysis of Obama’s birth certificate was a fraud:

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13052.htm

  238. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    That’s right! It’s not just the birth certificate. There are fantasies running the gamut from Kenyan Birth to Obama being the Antichrist, to him being one of the lizard people!

  239. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 10:51 pm #

    jtx, if you had any reasonable doubt, perhaps one might ask for evidence. But you don’t. I’ve lost count of how many posts you’ve made on this web site, but I don’t need one finger to count the evidence you’ve presented.

  240. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    Your comments about Arthur are not factual. He never said or did anything to conceal his father’s nationality. The kooky theory from Donofrio was that Arthur hinted that he was born in Canada to throw his opponents on the wrong scent. But the fact is, and this is evidenced by Arthur opponent A. P. Hinman’s book cited on this web site, that he knew quite well the president’s nationality. That fact was such a historical non-starter that indeed it was generally unknown until recently when modern citizenship deniers went looking to prove Obama was the first US President with an alien father (and failed).

    Lynch v. Clarke (1844) from the Supreme Court of New York (Arthur was a New Yorker) explicitly states that the children of aliens born in the US are eligible to be president and that this is the universal opinion of the public and of the legal profession that such are natural born citizens. With this case available, why would Arthur (a New York lawyer) think he had anything to hide?

    Conspiracy theory thinking: it rejects real evidence and tries to find scenarios, no matter how implausible, to keep the conspiracy alive.

  241. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 11:02 pm #

    NBC: There is simply no justification for JTX’s interpretation which runs counter to established jurisprudence, historical writings and common law.
    ~~~

    Just wait until the day that Bobby Jindal announces his bid for president.

    You will see an epiphany among the divorced-from-reality Bir’fers.

  242. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    kimba: Right back atcha jtx, because the entire election authority in this country agrees with my understanding of the law
    ~~~~~

    It is obvious then that you, the election authorities, the electorate (minus less than 1 percent), and the finest legal minds in this country have no idea what the law really is, doncha know? πŸ™‚

  243. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 19, 2009 at 11:05 pm #

    Your reading is sloppy. No “independent” sentence starts with “provided”. “Provided” adds a condition on what goes before. Look it up.

    But at least you tried to cite some evidence. You got it wrong, but at least you tried.

  244. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 11:16 pm #

    I kinda like the “Barry Soetoro” student registration document that WND is waving around, the one with place of birth noted as Honolulu, Hawaii.

    I’m in constant amazement that Bir’fers cannot understand the delicious irony.

  245. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 19, 2009 at 11:21 pm #

    jtx, I’ve asked you this 5 times before, and each time you seem to be avoiding this essential question. You state that there are 3 or more types of citizenship. Do you have any ruling that supports this view? Do you have a ruling that discusses the differences between “natural-born” and “native-born” citizenship? Do you have a ruling that discusses the differences between “citizen at birth” and “natural-born citizen”? Do you have anything that can back you up.

    I also asked you to back up a claim. You claimed that the Hawaii Department of Health claimed that they never processed the claim for a birth certificate. Do you have anything to back this up? Where are you getting your information on this?

  246. avatar
    Lollie July 19, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    This claim is not too much different than the “14th Amendment Citizen” claims by the militias, that somehow there is a subclass of citizens born on our native soil.

  247. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 19, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    The constitutional standing doctrine is a jurisdictional prerequisite based upon Article III, without which federal courts lack power to entertain proceedings. If a plaintiff lacks standing to maintain the lawsuit, the federal court in which the suit is pending lacks judicial power to adjudicate its resolution.

    The law is well settled that the party invoking federal jurisdiction – generally the plaintiff – has the burden of establishing the constitutional standing elements.

    Nevertheless, federal courts also have the power to raise the issue on their own, and are urged to do so, because litigants cannot confer jurisdiction on a federal court, either by waiver, express consent or other conduct.

    See:
    The Constitutional Standing Doctrine

  248. avatar
    misha July 19, 2009 at 11:51 pm #

    “Just wait until the day that Bobby Jindal announces his bid for president.

    You will see an epiphany among the divorced-from-reality Bir’fers.”

    I doubt it. The same crowd is already starting on Piyush. They won’t give in on him, because that would mean they would have to give up on their claims about Obama.

    No, they’ll be just as shrill about Piyush. I’m just wondering what their tactic will be about Booker – they’ll surely be creative, though. Talk about mental gymnastics.

    Fun times ahead. Popcorn.

  249. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    The Israel Insider makes me embarassed to be Jewish.

    They are having a contest with WackoNutDaily to see who can publish the most innuendo and libel, without getting sued.

    The Israeli right wing, evangelicals, the neocons and the Insider are going to make Israel an international pariah, like South Africa.

    Good job, guys. Thanks, you convinced me to stay in Philly. Who wants to live with that daily turmoil?

    I should vote for a bible thumper like Huckabee or Palin, because they love Israel? I’m not completely insane.

  250. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 12:33 am #

    So, I’m trying to figure it out . . .

    when the Bir’fers remove Obama by extra-legal means and create their “constitutional crisis” and a shatter public faith in elective government officials and the foundations of government itself . . . does that coup against the United States mean that Orly will become President, or would it be Sarah Palin?

  251. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 12:55 am #

    You forgot to mention the “fact” (not fantasy) that Obama’s eloquence in speech is, in and of itself, clear and convincing evidence that Obama is Hitler reincarnated.

    I know it’s true, I heard it on Fox News Radio.

  252. avatar
    aarrgghh July 20, 2009 at 1:06 am #

    jtx says “fiction” but what he really means is “inconvenience”.

    in jtx’s demands for the president to demonstrate his eligibility in court, we simply cannot inconvenience jtx by having him demonstrate his eligibility to sue.

  253. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 1:18 am #

    misha says:
    July 19, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    “Just wait until the day that Bobby Jindal announces his bid for president.

    You will see an epiphany among the divorced-from-reality Bir’fers.”

    I doubt it. The same crowd is already starting on Piyush. They won’t give in on him, because that would mean they would have to give up on their claims about Obama.
    ~~~~~~

    So, now I’m wondering, if the Senate passes a non-binding resolution declaring Obama a natural born citizen, like they did with McCain, that’ll stop the Bir’fer challenges, right?

    (* wink *)

  254. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 20, 2009 at 2:07 am #

    I know. I’m asking jtx to back up his claim with one Supreme Court case that discusses the differences between a Citizen at Birth, and a Natural-Born Citizen. You’d think that if it was a true legal theory, and not just some oddball severe minority claim, they’d be able to cite one supreme court case that holds that there’s a difference between a citizen at birth, and a Natural-Born Citizen.

    He has yet to do this.

  255. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 2:39 am #

    He has yet to do this.
    ~~~~
    Are you surprised? (rhetorical question)

    Back during the militia heyday, they had all these legal-sounding ridiculous terms like “Citizen at Birth,” “State Sovereign Citizen,” “14th Amendment Citizen,” etc.

    Never provided a cite to any court case to substantiate the claims, but they thought it sounded good.

    The only substantiation that ever resulted from these terms was filling the coffers of “the cause” with cash from the credulous.

  256. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 20, 2009 at 3:03 am #

    So, now I’m wondering, if the Senate passes a non-binding resolution declaring Obama a natural born citizen, like they did with McCain, that’ll stop the Bir’fer challenges, right?

    I believe they already did:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQrs_5KOIRc

  257. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 6:00 am #

    “does that coup against the United States mean that Orly will become President, or would it be Sarah Palin?”

    Sarah Palin would be prezdent, cause she’s so gosh darn down to earth, you betcha. And Orly would be Chief Justice, cause she’s the best lawyer money can buy.

    And it’s not a coup: it’s saving the country from those people controlled by Zionists. If the American people don’t know what’s right for them, then gosh darn it, Orly is going to make them understand, dad gum it.

    I don’t know how someone who looks like Obama slipped through, but you can bet your bippie that Orly is going to fix it, dontcha know.

    And once Sarah is in the Oval Office, she’s going to have Bishop Muthee exorcise the evil spirits in there, and then he’ll chase witches out of the whole country, yep. Cause Huckabee warned us we are surrounded by pagans. And Reverend Falwell told us the First Amendment was a mistake, and should be repealed, with the Jewish people declared a protected minority. And he was the best pastor since Elmer Gantry.

    Even Nancy Reagan had an astrologer advise her.

    Then Huckabee and Muthee are going to save the poor Jewish people from their fate. And her church teaches that Auschwitz and terror against Israel, is divine retribution because the Jewish people do not accept Jesus. Once all the Jews have been saved, Jesus will come back. Sarah says so.

    I can’t wait.

  258. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 7:40 am #

    I think it fair to say that Schneider v Rusk (1964) Rogers v Bellei (1971) created a 3rd type of citizen, some who is born a citizen by law, but to whom the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply (because they were not born in the United States, nor were they naturalized). I think most authorities would say that this 3rd class of citizen is eligible to be president as well (John McCain is such a citizen).

  259. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    That was a “binding” resolution.

  260. avatar
    Black Lion July 20, 2009 at 10:01 am #

    jtx says:
    July 19, 2009 at 6:18 pm

    “…Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”

    If you recall this was written at a time when women did not have the same rights as men. The term “fathers” is sexist because it implies that only fathers could convey citizenship on children. If you update this statement to have more current language, then the word fathers would have been updated to either say fathers or mothers or one parent. If that is done then President Obama meets your rather dated interpretation of this statute, NBC’s rebuttal notwithstanding.

  261. avatar
    Bob July 20, 2009 at 10:18 am #

    Schneider was not born a U.S. citizen, but acquired citizenship as a teen; she was a naturalized citizen. That the logic of the case inevitably leads to a third type of citizenry is not quite as clear.

  262. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 10:34 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    July 20, 2009 at 7:44 am

    That was a “binding” resolution.
    ~~~~~

    What was a binding resolution?

    On my screen comments are being listed sequentially, without the indentation.

  263. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 11:19 am #

    I’m not following the logic here, Doc.

    The Constitution is straightforward in who is eligible for President, either it’s a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Constitution.

    Since no one meeting the latter criteria is still alive, today that means only a natural born citizen can be President.

    If we call that a Class 1 citizen, and then say that McCain falls into a separate third class of citizen, it’s hard to figure out (for me, anyway) how Class 3 somehow becomes Class 1.

  264. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    NBC:

    You seem to be oblivious to the fact that “the courts” have never defined “natural born citizen” so your attempts to pretend that you have some legalistic realism in this particular kangaroo court of Obama lovers means nothing at all.

    Nor do I understand why you call me your “friend” yet consistently launch scurrilious personal attacks directed at me. And real friend I know does not do that.

    But perhaps you’ve merely trying out for a slot in the White House corps of liars and misfits. Are you a Communist, perhaps?

  265. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:49 am #

    NBC:

    Your insistence in talking about the 14th Amendment as being somehow pertinent to “natural born citizen” is more than a bit odd since that Amendment makes no one a “natural born citizen”.

    And you’re right, the term “wetback” is deragatory as are many of the other words that might be used to describe those who infect our country illegally. The derogation is deserved despite your seeming approbation of those criminals. But then abain you seem to approve of the man holding the office of the Presidency of the country who very likely is also doing so illegally so perhaps your love of criminals is merely reflecting your hatred of the United States.

    The eligibility issue will eventually be addressed in a proper court and history will make its judgement of the situation. Will you admit to yourself that – should the man be found to be ineligible – you were wrong??

  266. avatar
    NBC July 20, 2009 at 12:00 pm #

    JTX: You seem to be oblivious to the fact that “the courts” have never defined “natural born citizen” so your attempts to pretend that you have some legalistic realism in this particular kangaroo court of Obama lovers means nothing at all.

    The courts have noted that any child born on US soil is natural born, matching the common law tradition. The courts have noted minor exceptions to this.

    Lynch v Clarke

    he term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

    Wong Kim Ark

    ***[Discussion of pre-Revolutionary period British law] ***
    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

    JTX: Nor do I understand why you call me your “friend” yet consistently launch scurrilious personal attacks directed at me. And real friend I know does not do that.

    Scurillous personal attacks? Wow my dear friend you seem to have some problem dealing with the facts and I am here to help you.

    JTX: But perhaps you’ve merely trying out for a slot in the White House corps of liars and misfits. Are you a Communist, perhaps?

    Wow, you are full of surprises, now if you could have actual facts to support your claims…

  267. avatar
    Black Lion July 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    WND, finally acknowledging what we all knew about the supposed “Kenyan Birth Certificate” that the birthers and WND were so excited about, their so called “smoking gun” proof that the President was born in Kenya. What was more surprising is that WND actually admits that this is a fraud, after writing many articles supporting the seller and making people think that this document actually existed.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104495

    “CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – The eBay seller who first offered – and then promised to reveal to WND – an alleged Barack Obama birth certificate from Mombasa, Kenya, has dropped communications with a team of people offering to help him verify the document, only fueling belief the sale was a scam.”

    However WND should have known that this document could not have existed because Drew Zahn, the writer of this article, also wrote this back in August of 2008…

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

    So the question is why are they finally admitting that the so called seller of the Kenyan BC was a fraud when back in August they verified that President Obama’s COLB was authentic? That seems kind of strange. However we all know the real reason. It is the same reason that Orly intentionally does not follow the Judge’s orders to serve the President properly and continually amends her complaints so that it takes longer and longer for any of her so called lawsuits to go in front of a judge. The reason is that the longer that this so called controversy goes on, the more money that can be milked from these birthers. Orly, like Berg, Andy Martin, and WND all have a financial interest in having this issue continue. Donations, cash money. There is no accounting on where the funds go. These individuals and WND are not a charity. So all of the money is going directly into someone’s pocket. This is why this issue won’t die and will continue. Anyone who actually believes in Orly and the others or WND are fools. And fools and their money are soon parted.

  268. avatar
    NBC July 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm #

    JTX: The eligibility issue will eventually be addressed in a proper court and history will make its judgement of the situation. Will you admit to yourself that – should the man be found to be ineligible – you were wrong??

    I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. However I have to point out that the meaning of the term natural born has been clearly established and makes no reference to the citizenship of the parents, furthermore your suggestion that such a case will make it to court lacks in arguments as to why the Courts would accept such a case since the Constitutional principle of standing continues to interfere?

    JTX: And you’re right, the term “wetback” is deragatory as are many of the other words that might be used to describe those who infect our country illegally.

    Sigh… There appears to be a lot of anger and little understanding guiding your ‘thinking’. Perhaps that is the reason why it often skips in logic?

  269. avatar
    Black Lion July 20, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    We keep seeing that there is no person that has claimed that they witnessed Obama’s birth or that knew him as a child…However there was an article written back in January that seems to disprove that statement somewhat. See the following excerpt from the article…

    http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html

    “I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.

    His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”

    The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

    “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.

    She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

    “I remember Dr. West saying Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006.

    Some birhters have claimed that the Buffalo news article regarding the doctor that delivered Obama and a former teacher that remembers him was discredited. I thought that sounded kind of strange so I did some more research. The only organization that tried to discredit her was good old WND. And we know how honest they are in regards to reporting on President Obama.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87233

    And if you read the article, she was not really discredited. Mainly because she had never claimed that Dr. West delivered the President. She indicated that he was aware of the birth. See the following statement….
    “Nelson confirmed that West, who died only months ago, spent a great deal of his life in medical management , working with the major obstetrics providers in Hawaii, serving the American Medical Association in the state and directing one of the obstetrics clinics “

    In the article addressing this issue, WND writers claim…

    “…claimed to have spoken with Nelson, who said she never claimed that West delivered Obama: “Being one of the leaders in obstetrics in Hawaii, he could have had physical or informational access to all of the obstetrics [on the islands].”

    However further research by ConWebBlog indicates the following….

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?entry_id=1928008
    “But the online version of the Buffalo News article does not indicate any correction has made to it, nor does the version of the article in the Nexis database. If Nelson was as concerned as Unruh portrays her about the newspaper’s purportedly misleading portrayal, surely she would have sought a correction or clarification from the paper. But there’s no indication that she did.”
    So what we have is an article that only WND has attempted to claim may be not true. No other reputable newspaper has found real evidence to contradict what Ms. Nelson has said. And Ms. Nelson has never herself claimed what she said in the newspaper article was wrong or misquoted or has tried to get it corrected. And WND, with their anti President Obama agenda, has not provided any irrefutable proof that Ms. Nelson was wrong. And they never addressed the fact that she taught him as a youngster, knew that he played on the school’s basketball team, and remembers him from class. And remembers him as Barry Obama. So it kind of goes against the birther claims that no one remembers him as a child at high school, remembers him as Obama, but most of all remembers him has being born.

    But we all know that this is not enough for the birthers. They will now use the false “2 parents must be US citizens” claim in order to challenge the eligibility of President Obama. No amount of proof will dissuade them. Because after all it is not about that, it is about removing an duly elected President of the US because they don’t like him or his politics.

  270. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 12:07 pm #

    NBC:

    “End of discussion”??? Just because you make that assertion? Hardly.

    You seem completely unaware of what the term “natuiral born citizen” means as well as who gets to decide its meaning. Believe me – it is neither you nor Doc. Consipracy nor any of the other hate-filled mindless attackers on this website.

    It’s certainly true that Obama may have a real BC in HI and that it may, indeed, show him to have been born in HI. But that may also not be the case. We won’t know until we see that real document which represents only the first step in the process of factual determination of things.

    The issue is NOT the BC – as I’ve repeatedly stated – but whether the man meets the eligibility requirements for the office he holds (which he has so claimed under oath in a signed, jurat-notarized statement). That’s the issue and you and Doc will not be the deciders of the issue – nor will I.

    I’m merely trying to let people know the the birth certificate is not the issue but merely a necessary but not sufficient bit of information in the eligibility issue regarding this man.

  271. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 20, 2009 at 12:09 pm #

    Schneider v. Rusk didn’t, though. Schneider was a Naturalized Citizen by birth, because she was naturalized because her parents were naturalized.

    The situation is.

    “Appellant, who was born in Germany, came to this country with her parents as a child and acquired derivative American citizenship. She lived abroad since graduation from college, became married to a German national, and, except for two visits back to this country, has lived in Germany for the past eight years. The State Department denied her a passport, certifying that she had lost her American citizenship under 352 (a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that a naturalized citizen, with exceptions not material here, loses citizenship by continuous residence for three years in the country of origin. She thereupon sued in the District Court for a declaratory judgment that she is still an American citizen and has appealed from that court’s adverse decision. Held: by a majority of this Court that 352 (a) (1) is discriminatory and therefore violative of due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, since no restriction against the length of foreign residence applies to native-born citizens, though some members of that majority believe that Congress lacks constitutional power to effect involuntary divestiture of citizenship.”

    That was the situation. The Supreme Court was signifying deritive naturalization citizenship, not the born side. Their parents were naturalized as U.S. Citizens, so they were also naturalized.

    In Schneider v. Rusk, they call it “Deritive American Citizenship”. There is still nothing in the opinion to state that a Natural-Born Citizenship is different than Native-Born, and there is also nothing to state that a citizen-at-birth is any different than a Natural-Born Citizen. Schneider v. Rusk doesn’t count for this case.

    And I’d say that most authorities would say this deritive U.S. Citizenship is not eligible, because they didn’t have it at birth, but they got it later. In fact, the Supreme Court was treating it as Naturalized citizenship in the opinions.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=163

  272. avatar
    NBC July 20, 2009 at 12:52 pm #

    JTX: The issue is NOT the BC – as I’ve repeatedly stated – but whether the man meets the eligibility requirements for the office he holds (which he has so claimed under oath in a signed, jurat-notarized statement). That’s the issue and you and Doc will not be the deciders of the issue – nor will I.

    That is true the issue was decided by Congress when they qualified the President.
    The eligibility requirement includes “natural born citizen” which by any legal or historical standard means “born in the US”.

    Comon law, court rulings, Jefferson notes, Blackstone commentary all point to the same findings.

  273. avatar
    NBC July 20, 2009 at 1:04 pm #

    Mary, JTX’s concern appears to be that this would mean that anyone, legally or illegally in the United States could give birth to a child who then could become President.
    The issue of legal residence is an interesting one but not of relevance to the Obama case as he has one US parent while the other parent was legally in the United States as a student.

  274. avatar
    SFJeff July 20, 2009 at 1:17 pm #

    JTX has finally shown his true colors:

    “Under your definition any wetback anchor baby would be eligible to run for President…”

    First of all- evening allowing some credence to your follow up about ‘wetback’ refering to illegal aliens- you called the baby a wetback- which is a perjorative(and we all know it is) for a hispanic illegal- but the baby born here is a legal citizen. Somehow I don’t think you would have called the baby of a Canadian who was working here without a visa a ‘wetback’, or the child of an Irish nanny who is here illegally a ‘wetback’. Nope you sir, have used a clearly racist and derogatory term in describing a legal U.S. citizen born of Hispanic parents who are illegal aliens.

    So now that we have ‘clearly’ established that you have racist tendencies, lets consider why of all the U.S. Presidents, this is the first one whose eligibility you have questioned. What could be the reasons….oh yes, this is the first one where there is a ‘controversy’. Why is there a controversy? No one ever asked for Bush’s BC, or Kerry’s or Clinton’s….who all just happen to be white men with good Anglo-Saxon names.

    The same thing about natural born citizens. How many hours were spent pouring over legal documents trying to find some even slightly plausible reason that Obama cannot be eligible? When I was in Jr. High, our textbooks clearly stated that anyone born in the United States was a natural born citizen. Obama doesn’t have to prove anything- at best you birfers have to prove that the constitution says what you say it does.

    Finally, I just have to say- why have the Birfers spent over 3 billion dollars trying to prove President Obama is not eligible? (No citation but trust me, I know they have spent that much, really, trust me)

  275. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 2:34 pm #

    I’m so embarrassed. I meant Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

  276. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    The binding resolution was when Congress certified the election of Barack Obama.

  277. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 2:46 pm #

    We can split it up different ways. One way is:
    1. Those who are citizens by birth in the United States and under its jurisdiction (according to the 14th Amendment)
    2. Those who are naturalized citizens
    3. Those who are “citizens at birth” by statute (such as the children of citizens born abroad). The important distinction for this group is that they are not afforded the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment (Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)). That does not, in and of itself, make them not “natural born” citizens; however,…

    One might further break that 3rd group down into:
    3a) Those who were citizens at the time they were born according to statute.
    3b) Those who were not citizens at the time they were born, but were later declared “citizens at birth” by statute.

    I’m not a John McCain citizenship expert, but I understand that he falls in category 3b, not being a citizen of the US until he was 11 months old. Folks interested in this question, can refer to this law review article for a detailed discussion of the issue.

  278. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 2:49 pm #

    The courts have more than once said that the children of aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens. See Lynch v Clarke (1844).

  279. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    Sorry! Wrong case. I meant: Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).

  280. avatar
    Joyce July 20, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    “When I was in Jr. High, our textbooks clearly stated that anyone born in the United States was a natural born citizen.”

    Last weekend I found a citizenship handbook at an estate sale. Just for fun I looked through it and found only two flavors of citizenship; citizen by birth, and naturalized citizen.

  281. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    That $3 Billion number may be have been right at one time, but I know it’s over $4.3 billion now. Look at how many cases have been filed! You’d think with all that money flowing around that SOMEBODY in the Kenyan vital statistics would have coughed up that birth certificate.

  282. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    I had posted the Buff News link earlier; thanks for posting it again. I went to Buffalo for my two degrees.

    Great town, BTW. One hour to Toronto, a Chinatown in Ft.Erie, across the border.

  283. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm #

    Actually, there are three flavors: naturalized, natural, and artificial. (bada-bing)

  284. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 3:31 pm #

    No, because Obama and his handlers have paid even more to Kenyans and everyone else. Where does he get that kind of money? Emanuel raising it from Jewish bankers. (irony alert)

  285. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 3:33 pm #

    Black Lion:

    You obviously missed what a number of people have said all along about the eBay BC most likely being a fraud (actually, that puts it in the same class as the COLB than many of you still cling to despite it being shown to be a fraud also).

    As for $$$, that’s sort of like all of the taxpayer funds that Obama is using to combat the legal actions against him (most filed prior to his being the ObamaFuhrer). Must be nice to use all of the tax funds to defend your ineligibility for office, eh??? That’s far more unethical than the stuff you try to put “out there”.

  286. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 3:36 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Guess it’s too difficult for you to learn how to spell “heresay”, huh?? Netter check the FRE.

  287. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 3:42 pm #

    “Are you a Communist, perhaps?”

    Yes! A proud, card carrying member of the International Jewish Communist Conspiracy. Karl Marx was the first Communist, so I guess it runs in our blood.

    Sing along with me, in my rendition of the Internationale.

    Comrade Misha Jughashvili (a name you can trust)

  288. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 3:46 pm #

    Doc, maybe I’m stupid, but that just doesn’t wash.

    If we can acknowledge that “Class 1” citizen is a the pure natural born citizen, meaning born on the soil of the United States . . .

    And only natural born citizens (ie, Class 1) can be President . . .

    Then it is simply logically unfathomable that a “Class 3b” citizen can be both “Class 3b” and, simultaneously “Class 1”

    What you’re saying, in essence, is that John McCain was ineligible to be President.

    And that people from the past, such as George Romney and Lowell Weicker, were likewise ineligible.

    I just don’t see how that claim holds water.

  289. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    “those who infect our country illegally”

    That’s how Hitler did it.

  290. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 20, 2009 at 3:54 pm #

    Who showed it to be a fraud? Polarik? Techdude? I want to see someone with a real name and a real title who has seen and touched the certified copy of the COLB to indicate that it is a fraud. You cannot determine that a document is forged when you are dealing with a scanned or digital image. The only way to do that is to examine the actual document.

  291. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    SFJeff:

    Bullshit! If they’re here illegally they are wetbacks. And it’s merely a term that honestly describes the conditions that got them here. Perhaps you’d rather call them “Wong Kim Arkies”???

    You have foolishly not established “racial tendencies” (oh, horror upon horror) at all but are merely too inept to realize that the term is pejorative only in your own foul mind and actually distinguishes how they got here illegally.

    You may not know it but it is a crime to be here illegally. Are YOU here legally???

    And you also seem too dimwitted to note that Obama himself has said that his pappy was a Kenyan under the BAN of 1948 and that he was also governed by that act. To anyone who might be listening, that makes Obama anything BUT a natural born citizen.

    It may actually may make him any of several different things, but “natural born citizen” is not among them. Possible you cannot grasp that since apparently you never got beyone Jr. hign texts. None of the other Presidents that I’m aware of in my lifetime have ever stated that their birth was governed by the laws of some other country – and their names have nothing to do with eligibility … nor does Obama’s.

    As for your claim of money spent, stop and thing of the millions of tax dollars that Obama is spending to try to cast off all of the lawsuits, almost all of which were launched before he assumed the office. Some of THAT is your money, too and while you may think that’s neat – I don’t.

    And neither you nor I “say” what the parts of the Constitution might mean. It is the Judicial system (the courts) that do that when ruling on the law … but perhaps that part was left out of your junior high text since it’s a very complex concept.

  292. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm #

    Joyce:

    You must be (mis)using the same citizenship handbook that SFJeff had in junior high. There are actually more than two types.

    For example, check Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution sometime and you’ll see it requires (mandatory wording – for eligibility to be President) several things one of which is to be a “natural born citizen”. Next, you’ll probably tell us that if it wasn’t in your “estate sale book” that the Constitution must be wrong, eh???

  293. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 4:04 pm #

    misha:

    Actually there are more than three types, but the only one that matters in this instance is “natural born citizen” – which Obama has claimed he is but has never so shown.

    He has “talked the talk”, now can he “walk the walk”??? We’ll see.

  294. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 4:11 pm #

    Doc:

    How is it you “know” that $4.3 billion figure??? Got a spy in the OO??

    … oh, and stop trying the spin about him being born in Kenya. No one knows where he was born for sure lacking the real BC and the issue is not even where he was born in any event but is he eligible for the office he now holds? That’s a different thing.

    Maybe he was born in Fon du Lac, Wisconsin or, better yet, in Arlington National Cemetary on the gravesite of JFK. None of that would make him “eligible” either unless he has lied to all Americans about all of his vital statistics … and we KNOW he would never do that – right? RIGHT!!!

  295. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 4:19 pm #

    Followup: the point being that “natural born citizen” is obviously *not* limited — by everyday practice within the law, if for no other reason — solely to definition as “native born.”

    And, I’m comfortable in thinking that the Framers never really intended such rigid definitions — explaining, too, their seemingly intentional ambiguity in words and phrases within the Constitution.

  296. avatar
    Black Lion July 20, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    jtx says:
    July 20, 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Black Lion:

    “Guess it’s too difficult for you to learn how to spell “heresay”, huh?? Netter check the FRE.”

    Thanks JTX, I knew I could count on you to correct my spelling…I guess not going to an online law school really cost me a great education. But again thanks for pointing that out. I figured that you would need to respond to something since you could not contradict much of anything in the article…By the way could you point out where teh word “netter” is?

  297. avatar
    Black Lion July 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    Orly will claim this to be a victory for the people’s republic of Birtherland…If Rush Limbaugh, the king of the GOP is mentioning the birth certificate issue, then I am sure that the President is worried. The GOP doesn’t realize that the more the are associated with these wingnuts, the more credibility they lose and they begin to look foolish…

    http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/07/20#0034

    Then Rush went back to wading in the swamp of Birther nonsense. He played an audio clip from a town hall meeting with Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) featuring a woman yelling about Obama’s lack of birth certificate and claiming that he was actually born in Kenya. Rush repeated the woman’s claims and noted that “all kinds of stuff is bubbling up out there.” That’s true, there are “all sorts of stuff” out there, and it’s crazy. What makes this bit of lunatic idiocy different from other similarly lunatic bits of idiocy is that this one was broadcast across the nation on The Rush Limbaugh Show without so much as a word in contradiction.

    Unbelievable…The birthers are everywhere. Even if you try and declare that the President is a citizen of the US, you get booed. I guess Orly has succeeded in her goal of dividing the US from the inside. The most amazing part is how many fools believe this garbage.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0709/Castle_confronted_by_Birther.html?showall

  298. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 5:00 pm #

    Jtx, His COLB says where he was born as does my Transcript of Birth. Acturally his is more informative. Mine is issued by NY State and does not give the city I was born in. Still, I can get a passport, drivers licence or run for President based on that information.

  299. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 5:15 pm #

    I’m not saying that the Class 1 citizen is the “pure natural born citizen”, not at all. Indeed the courts seem to use the terms “natural born citizen” and “born a citizen” interchangeably. I’m fine with that.

    The issue with McCain, and the reason that the Senate held hearings and passed a resolution was exactly that there was a question about John McCain’s eligibility to be president because he might not have been “born a citizen” but through statute declared a “citizen at birth” at some time after he was born. As I said, I don’t claim expertise here, and I don’t make a claim one way or another. I’m just guessing that Romney fit under 3a. But you know, until Obama, people were NOT all that hung up on the fine nit-picking details of presidential eligibility.

  300. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 5:17 pm #

    “Wetback (slur), a derogatory, slang term for illegal aliens in the United States. It especially refers to illegals entering Texas by crossing the Rio Grande river.” Wikipedia.

  301. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 5:18 pm #

    So what textbook did you get your definition from, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

  302. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    No, I have a spy in WorldNetDaily who showed me the books of the 50 millionaires club that fund them.

    Your crank constitutional theory about “natural born citizen” has no law or legal authority to support it.

  303. avatar
    thisoldhippie July 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    I’m still waiting for a link to someone who has actually inspected the COLB and claims it is forged.

  304. avatar
    aarrgghh July 20, 2009 at 5:29 pm #

    black lion:

    unbelievable…the birthers are everywhere. even if you try and declare that the president is a citizen of the US, you get booed. i guess orly has succeeded in her goal of dividing the US from the inside. the most amazing part is how many fools believe this garbage.

    i’m not worried about any supposed divisions orly and her posse think they may have created. the birthers are loud and obsessive, but their volume and monomania far outstrip their numbers. and most of the publicity they garner is counterproductive. indeed, the more light they demand, the uglier they look to j.q. public. these folks will have no impact on the course of this nation and at best will be relegated to a historical footnote.

    the only people that i worry about are the individual random bystanders, like the holocaust museum guard, who get caught in the blast whenever one of these loons explode.

  305. avatar
    Bob July 20, 2009 at 5:36 pm #

    Merriam-Webster says the term is “usually offensive.” Dictionary.com says it is “disparaging and offensive.”

    Why must those darn dictionary editors be so prejudiced?

  306. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 20, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    You guys do know that it is spelled H-E-A-R-S-A-Y, right?

  307. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 20, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    Lottie, the 14th Amendment makes it clear that every child born in the US is an American citizen from birth, hence “native born” or “natural born”.

    But the 14th Amendment does NOT guarantee that children of American citizens born abroad are citizens from birth. The only way that those children gain their automatic or birthright status is from a statute, enacted by Congress..

    The difference between a statute and the US Constitution (or a Constitutional Amendment) is that Congress can change a statute any time it wants, by a majority vote of both houses — and it has indeed changed the law governing children born abroad to citizens many times over the years.

    On thing it has done at times is impose a condition on the citizenship status, saying that it can be lost of the child born abroad does not live in the US at some time before reaching the age of majority, or return to the US to reclaim citizenship. This exact provision has changed over the years, but it did indeed create a different “class” of citizen, and the Rogers v. Bellei case clearly holds that to be the case.

    It is an open question as to whether John McCain is or is not a “natural born citizen”, because he was born abroad — partly because of the issue that applies to all born-abroad citizens, and partly because in John McCain’s case, the statute changes after he was born. It’s possible that McCain’s citizenship is due to retroactive application of a law that went into effect a year after he was born.

    Because THAT question (citizen born abroad) is unresolved, McCain felt it necessary to seek a resolution from Congress affirming his status before getting the nomination. While that resolution was “nonbinding”, it pretty much eliminated doubts for this particular election, simply because the same Congress that voted that resolution would be making the decision the following January. (Actually a different Congress, but the majority of the members would not change).

    By “open question” I don’t mean something that bloggers debate; I mean something that legal scholars debate. You can find several published law review treatises exploring the issue and coming to different conclusions.

  308. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 20, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    I don’t know of anyone with credentials that has looked at the JPG file and claims it is forged.

  309. avatar
    BlackLion July 20, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    JTX is trying to be funny by saying that the woman’s opinion is hearsay. Kind of like the Sarah Obama tape. Even if she didn’t claim that Obama was born in Hawaii, her statement would be hearsay. But in that case it would be OK for JTX and the other birthers…kind of like Polarik, who has no documentation to support who he is, is believable, but the President, who has supplied his COLB and other documents, is not who he says he is. Ridiculous…

  310. avatar
    Bob Weber July 20, 2009 at 7:53 pm #

    My mother, who worked as an obstetrical nursing supervisor, always liked passing on hospital scuttlebutt, most of which she wasn’t present for. Anything unusual in any workplace pretty much becomes common knowledge.

  311. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    Rush loves to play these little mind games. Let him. He does not realize, given his over grown ego, that he is dealing with someone who is smarter than he.

  312. avatar
    Bob Weber July 20, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    By actual practice, anyone born abroad to U.S. citizens is eligible to be president, such as candidates George Romney and John McCain. They are/were citizens by statute, and I humbly predict that the courts will never address the issue of their eligibility, but will punt and declare it to be a “political question” and defer to Congress.

    Congress is free to pass pointless and stupid legislation requiring people in McCain’s position to go through the regular nationalization process, whereby the would be presumably ineligible for the presidency.
    The odds of this happening are like winning the lottery three weeks in a row.

  313. avatar
    Bob Weber July 20, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    “Once she gets hit with defense costs, she’ll go back under her rock – or maybe Moldova”

    Misha,

    What have you got against Moldova?

  314. avatar
    Bob Weber July 20, 2009 at 8:57 pm #

    “I’m interested in what folks think about the main article: whether comments made against how Hawaiians manage their vital records are at their foundation racist.”

    Dr. C,

    I think it’s more a crazed unprincipled partisanship, a “throw mud everywhere and hope some of it sticks” kind of thing. Birfers rarely think out their arguments.

  315. avatar
    Bob July 20, 2009 at 9:37 pm #

    Hawaii has an Asian ethnic majority, and some of players in the birth certificate drama have Asian sounding surnames. And there is a tinge to the birth-certificate argument that Hawaii is unable to competently issue and regulate vital documents.

    Whether there is a connection between those two statements is difficult to ascertain. If, for example, Obama claimed to have been born in Idaho, I have no doubt the birfers still would have scoured the Idaho statutes to somehow claim an Idaho birth certificate can’t be relied upon, could be issued to foreigners, etc.

  316. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm #

    Orly supposedly has had some woman who claims to be a forensics expert look at the document and (surprise surprise) has declared it invalid. If I remember right, her affidavit was included as part of one of Orly’s filings.

  317. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    Methinks someone’s underwear is way too tight.

  318. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 10:42 pm #

    thisoldhippie:

    It should be pretty clear to most who have actually looked into the matter that there isn’t any “real” COLB. It’s entirely phake, guy. But that may come out in court – not that it matters since it is an eligibility issue, not a BC/COLB issue.

    Might be good for some perjury charges for any involved in the COLB fraud, however. Were you??

  319. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    “he is dealing with someone who is smarter than he.”

    Yeah, like any chimpanzee.

  320. avatar
    Lollie July 20, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    comments made against how Hawaiians manage their vital records are at their foundation racist
    ~~~~~

    To imply that Hawaiians are lying and guilty of corruption, with no substantive evidence other than they won’t give bir’fers what they want, I think the bir’fers are walking a really thin line.

  321. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 10:50 pm #

    Doc:

    Then you should expand your circle of acquaintances by an order of magniture or two. Living inside this hate-filled attack site as you do has dulled your mind, I’m afraid.

    It’s actually not hard to see the COLB is false … but that’s not the issue – eligibility to occupy the office held is the issue. The BC stuff is just something that Obama supporters – no doubt including The Zero hisself – hopes will fool everyone … you know “fool me once, shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me”.

    Obama is said to be a big Lincoln fancier even going to the extent of wearing a silly cat-in-the-hat-esq Lincoln top hat. He seems to have missed that Lincoln supposedly said “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can’t …” well, maybe you can figure out the rest.

  322. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    Lollie:

    Not “supposedly” at all. She IS a forensic expert and has so testified in many court cases unlike the many “document expert wannabes” on this site.

  323. avatar
    misha July 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    ” the birfers still would have scoured the Idaho statutes to somehow claim an Idaho birth certificate can’t be relied upon, could be issued to foreigners, etc.”

    And that is exactly what is going to happen when/if Corey Booker announces. His BC is a forgery, he was really born in Canada, he’s the illegitimate son of an illegal alien from Africa (2-parent claim), or _____.

    These guys are just getting warmed up.

  324. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm #

    BlackLion:

    You’ve completely missed the fact that Mr. O. has already told everyone that at birth he was governed by the BNA of 1948.

    That makes him anything BUT a “natural born citizen” and the man claims to be a Constitutional lawyer who has taught classes in such. That means that he cannot have missed the fact that he was ineligible under that document – he just thought he could con everyone.

    Even the Pravda online version has had articles about how he has pulled off such an astonding con right in the face of all Americans – the biggest one in world history. I guess Pravda does not understand how deficient our public education systems are now and how pig-headed some Americans are who voted for him in not wishing to admit their own gullibility.

  325. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:06 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    You’ve been gulled by the man and his political hit squad into thinking the COLB presented is real. It isn’t which can be easily enough determined.

    But that’s not the issue; eligibility is. Your attempt at spinning to try to make the BC/COLB into some sort of defense or rational excuse for the man will not work.

  326. avatar
    NBC July 20, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    JTX: You’ve been gulled by the man and his political hit squad into thinking the COLB presented is real. It isn’t which can be easily enough determined.

    Note the absence of any evidence.

    Well done my friend.

  327. avatar
    NBC July 20, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    JTX: That makes him anything BUT a “natural born citizen”

    Again wrong. Being born to a British father on US soil does not disqualify the child from being a natural born US citizen.

    Still ignoring the facts I notice. Good job, makes my life so much easier.

  328. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Hey, GREAAAT, Doc. – how ’bout getting a small loan from them and buying a new hat??? Thile you’re at it, you could mebbe lean on them for numerous thou for good old jtx, too.

    As for Constitutional theories on “national born citizen” you’ll be dumbfounded as to how much legal authority there is to back that up … but shucks, everyone knows you’ll never believe that either.

    What’s amazing to me is that so many of you supposedly educated people do not realize you’ve been conned our of your nightshirts … but then that’s the mark of a skilled con man, isn’t it??

  329. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:14 pm #

    Doc: and Bob:

    So who’s trying to be complimentary to criminals who break the laws of not only our country but their own???

    Wetbacks is wetbacks and never the twain shall meet (without a coyote).

  330. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:17 pm #

    Lollie:

    If you intend, then, to adjust your underwear, please let me know and out of the simple gentlemanly courtesy innate in my soul I’ll turn my head until you’ve completed the maneuver.

  331. avatar
    BlackLion July 20, 2009 at 11:18 pm #

    JTX always ignores the facts…He forgets that the United States Constitution and US SCOTUS rulings don’t give two craps about the British Nationality Act. I love how the birthers use foreign laws like the BNA, Magna Carta, De Vatel, and the laws of the United Federation of Planets to usurp United States law. Like the SCOTUS will say wait, this may be a violation of the British nationality act. Fortunately for us the Wong Kim ruling, the Perkins v Elg ruling, and the 14th amendment say otherwise…

  332. avatar
    jtx July 20, 2009 at 11:25 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Actually I’m surprised that such a cognizant gent (I presume a gent) as yourself does not realize that Rush is way behind the curve on the eligibility issue ()as are you apparently).

    Keep in mind that Mr. O. has already stated that his birth was governed by the BNA of 1948 at birth which absolutely makes him NOT a “natural born citizen” and – since he so damned smart and a Constifutional lawyer to boot – that he KNOWS he’s not eligible to hold the office and even knew it when he swore otherwise under oath.

    But, hey – what’s one more little lie, right???

  333. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 11:28 pm #

    Jtx, I have to laugh. I have done my own investigation and come to a different conclusion. I am also from a military family and believe me if I thought for one minute you were correct I would be at the doors of Congress until hell freezes over. I think this is an evil attempt to overthrow an election and I will continue to call it that until hell freezes over.

  334. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 11:32 pm #

    Off the subject Jtx, I see you at Dr. Taitz blog. Why doesn’t she have the courage to allow the kind of discussion that occurs here.

  335. avatar
    Mary Brown July 20, 2009 at 11:33 pm #

    The BNA does not apply to a child born here. Or are we still a colony? His father’s nationality does not govern his citizenship, his place of birth does.

  336. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 20, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    And U.S. Citizenship law is not governed by the British Nationalization Act of 1948. This has no bearing on Barack Obama’s AMERICAN citizenship.

    Perkins v. Elg makes it quite clear, jtx, our nationalization is governed by our laws, and we don’t allow other countries to determine who can and cannot be our president, jtx. If he’s Natural-Born, he’s Natural-Born, and no British Law is going to affect that.

    What you’re stating is that another country’s law actually affects the United States Constitution.

  337. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    JTX: As for Constitutional theories on “national born citizen” you’ll be dumbfounded as to how much legal authority there is to back that up … but shucks, everyone knows you’ll never believe that either.

    Note again the lack of any references.
    Typical. As Dr C so aptly pointed out

    Your crank constitutional theory about “natural born citizen” has no law or legal authority to support it.

    Those are the facts.

  338. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 12:03 am #

    JTX: Wetbacks is wetbacks and never the twain shall meet (without a coyote).

    I understand your use of derogatory terms. What surprises me is how, once again you appear to be so ill informed about these issues.

  339. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 12:04 am #

    JTX: gentlemanly courtesy innate in my soul

    Right, the gentleman who refers to illegal Mexican immigrants by a derogatory term…. Your actions speak louder than your words my dear friend.

  340. avatar
    Lollie July 21, 2009 at 12:40 am #

    these folks will have no impact on the course of this nation and at best will be relegated to a historical footnote.

    I see them as pretty much the same as the militia movement, led by a nutcase lawyer, creating all sorts of extra-legal entities like “Citizen Grand Jury,” highly vocal in proportion to their numbers, pretty much ignored as nutbags by the overwhelming majority of the public, and after a few years will disappear from the landscape — with their sole contribution being a case study in extremist behavior for clinicians and historians.

  341. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 12:48 am #

    JTX: Keep in mind that Mr. O. has already stated that his birth was governed by the BNA of 1948 at birth which absolutely makes him NOT a “natural born citizen”

    Wrong, at least according to common law, US legal history. But who cares about these details, it’s more fun to make unsupported assertions isn’t it?

  342. avatar
    Lollie July 21, 2009 at 1:02 am #

    jtx says:
    July 20, 2009 at 10:50 pm

    Doc:

    Then you should expand your circle of acquaintances by an order of magniture or two. Living inside this hate-filled attack site as you do has dulled your mind, I’m afraid.

    Dude, what is with you?

    I have seen no one, other than you, who has spewed personal attack after personal attack, snide side bar after snide side bar, at people with virtually every single posting you write.

    And you call this “hate-filled attack site?”

    For my money, the people here have been extremely tolerant and measured in their responses to you.

    Why don’t you try rising to the occasion of acting in similar fashion?

    Note: Doc, if I’m out of line, I apologize.

  343. avatar
    Lollie July 21, 2009 at 1:22 am #

    jtx says:
    July 20, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Lollie:

    Not “supposedly” at all. She IS a forensic expert and has so testified in many court cases unlike the many “document expert wannabes” on this site.

    Again you miss the obvious.

    As Doc implied, the only thing Orly’s “expert” has looked at is the JPG image.

    And from that has declared the COLB a fraud.

    No real forensics expert who has any professional scruples at all is going to do that. They’d be laughed out of the profession (not to mention ripped to shreds in a courtroom)

  344. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 1:23 am #

    And you call this “hate-filled attack site?”

    It’s a translation for: People are asking me the outrageous question to back up my assertions. I am/used to be a ‘judge’ I need no facts…

    JTX has no arguments so what else but to call names, insult large groups of people who seek refuge in our country and propose outrageous theories.
    Which is why he’s such a good buddy…

  345. avatar
    NBC July 21, 2009 at 1:25 am #

    JTX: It should be pretty clear to most who have actually looked into the matter that there isn’t any “real” COLB. It’s entirely phake,

    Note once again the total lack of argument or supporting evidence.
    Par for the course for my buddy.

  346. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 1:35 am #

    So who’s trying to be complimentary to criminals who break the laws of not only our country but their own???

    Is there a point here that you are trying to make?

    You are the one unapologetically using a derogatory term to describe someone from a specific ethnic group, yet you think others are prejudiced. “Hmmm.”

  347. avatar
    Lollie July 21, 2009 at 1:59 am #

    jtx says:
    July 20, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    Black Lion:

    You obviously missed what a number of people have said all along about the eBay BC most likely being a fraud (actually, that puts it in the same class as the COLB than many of you still cling to despite it being shown to be a fraud also)

    rotfmao … you just don’t get it, do you?

    Anyone who claims the COLB is a fraud has done so based on an examination of a JPEG image — JPEG is an image compression format that, like all image compression formats, distorts the original photographic image to some degree.

    So, all these nutter “experts” who find color variations, pixel irregularities, and all the rest of the nonsense they find are commenting on irregularities in the JPEG image, and saying not a thing about the original document which they haven’t even seen.

    Then, never having examined the original document, they nonetheless declare it a fraud.

    That’s idiot forensics … not to be confused with real forensics

  348. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 10:00 am #

    JTX, can you show us where in US law does it state that the United States is subject to the British Nationality Act? If you can show us some ruling or citation then we can have a frank discussion on this issue. The US is not subject to the laws of other countries in regards to its citizens. Obama being born in the US makes the BNA null and void. I am curious why do you think otherwise? Do you feel that the US is subject to the law os Great Britian? Or just in this one specific case?

  349. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 10:11 am #

    Mary, most people are smarter than Rush. This is a guy that could not hack it at Southwest Missouri State University, making comments about a Judge more educated than himself and a President that has more intellect in his finger than Rush has in his entire Oxy infested blovated body. My 15 year old nephew is smarter than Rush. All the guy does is read of the Drudge report, make wild accusations for 3 hours, and goes home. He is on the birther movement because the George Bush bailout/stimulus, the Judge Sotomayor issue, and healthcare failed to diminish President Obama or the democrats.

  350. avatar
    Lollie July 21, 2009 at 10:24 am #

    Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you should right now give up any aspirations of ever running for the presidency.

    Maybe if you stay in a second floor suite at a Holiday Inn in Texas near the Mexican border, and stare across the divide, that foreign policy experience will qualify you for some position in the State Department, maybe even Secretary of State.

    But your chances of getting to sit in the big chair in the house of white are nil.

  351. avatar
    Black Lion July 21, 2009 at 10:32 am #

    Mary would also have to have her IQ lowered by 50 points, say things like “You betcha ya” and know nothing about everything, plus quit her job after 2 years, and pal around with successionists, then she would have a chance.

  352. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 10:54 am #

    “JTX, can you show us where in US law does it state that the United States is subject to the British Nationality Act?”

    Because it’s going to be handy when Piyush announces.

  353. avatar
    misha July 21, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    “Misha, What have you got against Moldova?”

    Nothing; that’s where she was born.

  354. avatar
    SFJeff July 21, 2009 at 2:04 pm #

    “If they’re here illegally they are wetbacks.”

    As I pointed out- you called the child of illegals- who by the way is a legal citizen of the United States a “wetback anchor baby”. Calling that child a wetback is no different than calling a jew a kike. You could have chosen any term but you chose a specific racial slur.

    “You may not know it but it is a crime to be here illegally. Are YOU here legally???”

    I actually am against illegal immigration, for many reasons. Yet I can be against it without using racial slurs. I think the use of racial slurs shows a prediliction to bias based upon race. I am linking your clear racial slur to your racial bias against President Obama. It is really the only rational explanation for your irrational belief in a loony theory.

    “to note that Obama himself has said that his pappy was a Kenyan under the BAN of 1948”

    Interesting choice of word- Pappy. Could have used father, dad, but used Pappy. Curiously archaic and vaguely racial term.

    Of course Obama has acknowledged his father was a Kenyan- he wrote a whole book devoted to that subject. Hardly the brightest thing in the world if he was trying to conceal anything, or if anyone had any concept that some loons would create two totally new concepts(which of course apply to the our first African American President)- i.e. that the President cannot have been born with dual citizenship and that to be eligible both parents must be citizens. Please find me a citation prior to 2007 making either argument. You won’t, because these arguments were created because of Obama- who just happens to be black with a Muslim sounding name.

    “Possible you cannot grasp that since apparently you never got beyone Jr. hign texts”

    I cited that for one specific reason- that was clearly understood by my civic’s teachers, it was in the text books- as in- it was considered a settled issue at the time. The concept you are advocating is a radical change of understanding of our constitution. You keep harping that President Obama as a constitutional law professor would have known this, but the contrary is true- as a constitutional law professor he had no reason to embrace a concept that didn’t exist when he was teaching law. This concept has been created out of thin air, with rationalizations provided by obscure, and out of context writings.

    “As for your claim of money spent, stop and thing of the millions of tax dollars that Obama is spending to try to cast off all of the lawsuits, almost all of which were launched before he assumed the office.”

    I checked the books and Obama has spent $35.83 defending the law suits, and all of that was taken from his daughters college fund. I have decided every time a birther make up stuff about money President Obama spends, I will too. You want to refute my claims of money spent, give me a real citation to show what Obama has spent. Otherwise its all wild speculation, and I can do that too.

    Birthers have now spent 5 billion dollars- all of governement money- filing law suits.

  355. avatar
    Bob Weber July 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm #

    “Werewolves,vampires and communists…oh, my!”

    I always wondered what would happen if a vampire were bitten by a werewolf, or vice versa. Would they become a werewolf AND a vampire? Maybe Orly would know. Moldova isn’t far from Transylvania. [:^)

  356. avatar
    SFJeff July 21, 2009 at 4:46 pm #

    Hey JTX- what is the proper derogatory slur for the Irish nanny who is working here illegally? The English guy who lets his tourist visa expire and works for cash bartending? I am scared to even think of what you might consider the proper term for the Chinese illegal working in his Uncle’s restaurant.

    All here illegally. The child of any of which born here in the U.S. is both a legal citizen and also a natural born citizen.

    I am against illegal immigration, but calling them all criminal is a gross simplification. There are days I wish I could wave a magic wand and instantly transport every illegal back to their native country just show the ramifications of our current immigration policy. We have millions of illegal aliens and millions of Americans who knowingly hire illegal aliens- who technically are just as much criminals as the illegals themselves.

  357. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm #

    That would be the Sandra Lines Ramsey affidavit, misrepresented by Orly. In fact it says, one cannot determine whether a picture on the Internet is genuine or not.

  358. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:57 pm #

    jtx, by what justification do you claim: “It should be pretty clear to most who have actually looked into the matter that there isn’t any “real” COLB.”?

    You keep typing, but no evidence comes out.

  359. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Common decency, civility and fair play are seldom exhibited by birthers.

  360. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    I’m waiting for some evidence.

  361. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    I should point out that the Sandra Ramsey Lines affidavit has been on this web site since last December. She is an expert: true. But she never said the COLB was fake.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obamas-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery-part-3/

  362. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 21, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Pravda.ru is a sensationalist tabloid.

    Obama did not say that “he was governed by the BNA of 1948” but that his “status” was… It made him a citizen of the UK and Colonies. The US Constitution (which trumps British law in THIS country) says he is a citizen of the United States.

  363. avatar
    Mary Brown July 22, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    I agree with you. Especially since I know a family that brought a young relative here legally and it took them two years to do it. But you are quite correct in your statement about jtx and his bent toward bringing race into it.

  364. avatar
    Lollie July 22, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    Somewhere the concept of “sovereign nation” eluded him.

  365. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:00 pm #

    “judge” NBC:

    Glad I was never in your court guy – your idea of justice is far too one sided.

    As for “name calling” – better look around and in the mirror as well. You and your pals are the ones hurling hate and insults.

    Apparently you can’t abide the fact that not everyone swallows your nonsense. The “evidence” will be available for the court hearing which will eventually get here. Until then you get to keep spewing your Kool-Aid.

  366. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    Perhaps you’ve not noticed, but NONE of the computer images presented by the Obama fan club have been anything BUT computer images.

    No one has shown the real COLB if it even exists, e.g., a certified paper copy. And, oh yes, don’t tell us the nonsense that “so and so” has seen, held, kissed, and loves the real paper COLB certified by the state of HI.

    That failed to make the cut months ago.

  367. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:10 pm #

    Lollie:

    You don’t know it, of course, but you’re trying to lecture someone about “jpegs” that works with them – and other audio and video formats – for a living.

    The Polarik analysis rings quite true as a forensic-strength analysis that will hold up in court. But – (is there an echo in here?) – that’s not the issue at all unless, perhaps we get to a criminal trial.

    The real issue is not the COLB (if it even exists), not the BC (which per the HI officials does exist as an original in their files). but whether or not the man is eligible to hold the office he now occupies. There are huge numbers oa Americans who do not think so and their numbers are growing as the Obots keep stalling.

  368. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:13 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Can you spell “heresay”??? Guess not!

  369. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:15 pm #

    SFJeff:

    “trust me”??? You sound like your hero on his Constitutional eligibility. “trust me!!!” ROTFLMAOAKAS

  370. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    aarrgghh:

    It will be quite interesting to see what the court determines the man’s citizenship to be after the finding of facts, won’t it???

    Maybe Doc should have an office pool!!

  371. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    JTX: “judge” NBC:

    I am not claiming to be a judge my dear friend

    JTX: Glad I was never in your court guy – your idea of justice is far too one sided.

    That’s ironic. I am not the one calling standing ‘judicial fiction’ πŸ˜‰

    JTX: As for “name calling” – better look around and in the mirror as well. You and your pals are the ones hurling hate and insults.

    Hmm, remember the derogatory term used to describe illegal mexicans? I do not see why a “tu quoque” defense should be applicable?

    Apparently you can’t abide the fact that not everyone swallows your nonsense. The “evidence” will be available for the court hearing which will eventually get here. Until then you get to keep spewing your Kool-Aid.

  372. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:19 pm #

    aarrgghh:

    Then again, perhaps you never heard of Philip Nolan …

  373. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm #

    JTX: Perhaps you’ve not noticed, but NONE of the computer images presented by the Obama fan club have been anything BUT computer images.

    Duh, what do you expect on an electronic forum. But photographs of the documents have been provided, of course in digital format.

    JTX: No one has shown the real COLB if it even exists, e.g., a certified paper copy. And, oh yes, don’t tell us the nonsense that “so and so” has seen, held, kissed, and loves the real paper COLB certified by the state of HI.

    That’s incorrect, people who took pictures were in fact shown the certified paper copy.

  374. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 7:21 pm #

    JTX: The Polarik analysis rings quite true as a forensic-strength analysis that will hold up in court. But – (is there an echo in here?) – that’s not the issue at all unless, perhaps we get to a criminal trial.

    Without any supporting argument JTX proclaims the Polarik analysis as ‘ringing quite true’. Seems that our friend JTX is now also an expert in image analysis…

  375. avatar
    BlackLion July 22, 2009 at 7:22 pm #

    JTX…Can you provide us the US law which states we are required to follow the British Nationality Act in regards to US citizenship law? Of course not. And you never will be able to answer that question.

  376. avatar
    jtx July 22, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    Why do you call your hero and role model a liar????

    He has said that his father was a citizen of Kenya governed under the BNA of 1948 and that he, the son, was also at birth governed by that law.

    You’re welcome to show Black Lion (etc.) your “evidence” to the contrary that it’s fashionable to request since he’ll no doubt ask for it.

  377. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 7:23 pm #

    JTX: It will be quite interesting to see what the court determines the man’s citizenship to be after the finding of facts, won’t it???

    No such thing will happen. The Courts have consistently rejected based on mootness, failure to state a claim, non justiciability and lack of standing.

  378. avatar
    nbc July 22, 2009 at 7:26 pm #

    JTX: He has said that his father was a citizen of Kenya governed under the BNA of 1948 and that he, the son, was also at birth governed by that law.

    No he did not say that. He said that his citizen status was governed by the BNA.

    It is important to really read and accurately represent the issues, lest one may accuse others of being reckless…

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.

    You’re welcome my friend.

  379. avatar
    Bob July 22, 2009 at 8:17 pm #

    The Polarik analysis rings quite true as a forensic-strength analysis that will hold up in court.

    Until “Dr.” “Polarik” signs his real name to declaration, his opinion is inadmissible.

    And in which court do you foresee there being a trial?

  380. avatar
    Bob July 22, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    Who is in the horse trading business?

  381. avatar
    Mary Brown July 22, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    Jtx, again state US Court rulings that support your contention that Nationality Act you site determines US citizenship. We keep asking you and you never answer. People have held the COLB. I don’t believe the hands in the photos I saw were on a mannequin.Somebody from factcheck was holding it. Unless you plan to add them to your conspiracy. As far as more and more people-not the conservatives I live with in my very conservative state. Those who can’t accept this election yes. Those who see financial gain yes. But mostly jtx, just answer the first query. Site US court rulings that support your claim about the British Nationality Act in regard to President Obama. As the late Adlai Stevensen said to the Soviet Ambassador “I will wait till hell freezes over.” I am still waiting. No excuses, no smart remarks. Just site rulings.

  382. avatar
    Mary Brown July 22, 2009 at 9:13 pm #

    Again, you assume that because I find your assertions false that President Obama is my hero. I believe firmly that you and those you support wish to overturn a valid election for political purposes. Now he never said that law governed him. Anymore than it governed the thousands of US citizens whose moms moved here from Britain following WW11. Some mothers became American citizens, some did not. I knew two of them. Are you telling me that those kids I knew were British Citizens? They were born and raised here and you are going to tell me they are not US citizens? Obama’s citizenship is governed by US law. His citizenship is not governed by British law or a quote you took out of context.

  383. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 22, 2009 at 10:35 pm #

    Factcheck.org examined the paper COLB and photographed it.

  384. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 22, 2009 at 10:43 pm #

    I believe the Court case jtx relies on is Gotcha v Obama. In Gotcha, the court ruled that if Obama every says anything that can be twisted to sound bad, then the twisted claim automatically becomes law and proves he is ineligible to be President. That case relies on the precedents set in Gaffe v Slipup which immediately declare any official who says something unwise, ineligible for office.

  385. avatar
    NBC July 23, 2009 at 1:26 am #

    Do not bother these people with annoying facts. They are not interested in the truth Dr C.

  386. avatar
    Rickey July 23, 2009 at 4:02 pm #

    True enough, as evidenced by how often they move the goalposts.

    If, as Orly, jtx and others now claim, Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen, why the fuss over the birth certificate? Obama freely acknowledges that his father was never a citizen of the U.S., so what more evidence do they need? And if their opinion on “natural born citizen” has merit, why hasn’t a single prominent constitutional attorney signed on to take one of these cases?

    The answer is that this isn’t about getting a new election, or removing Obama from office. They know that isn’t going to happen. It’s all about trying to de-legitimize the Obama administration in the eyes of the public. And we got a hint about the sub-text of this in jtx’s “wetback” comments. As Chris Matthews has suggested, this is more about pigmentation than documentation.

  387. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    thisoldhippie:

    Obviously you’ve never studied Dr. Polarik’s complete dismantling of the so-called COLB, but in any event that will only matter in a criminal document fraud trial.

    The real issue at hand is the man’s eligibility to hold the office he now occupies. He’s never shown himself to be eligible.

  388. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    Black Lion:

    You’re the one who doesn’t get it. The Flaying Monkeys have been holding out the jpeg images of FactCheck, DailyKos, etc. all along claiming that they really meant something.

    They so not since the real issue is the man’s eligibility rather that where he was born. He could have been born on the steps of the Supreme Court and STILL not be eligible – and he’s already told you that but you’re apparently unable to read and understand.

    He’s gotta be laughing his ass off at all of you struggling so hard to “protect” him and help drag down your country. Many, however, think that’s sad, not funny – and the numbers are growing by leaps and bounds. In fact I imagine you’re in the minority already.

  389. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 7:52 pm #

    Black Lion:

    Actually it’s the second word after your “teh”.

    And there’s no need to contradict any supposed article that at best is heresay and inadmissible. It’s the man’s eligibility that to hold the office he occupies that is the issue … or had you figured that out yet?

  390. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 7:56 pm #

    NBC:

    Oh, but it does disqualify him and that will be shown in the trial.

    He would perhaps be at most a citizen, but he may be an illegal alien. Let’s face it – without a finding of facts he can claim anything he wishes – especially when he has such a willing cadre of fools to think they are “protecting” him when all they’re doing is being complicit in trying to destroy the US Constitution.

    Nice work, Flying Monkeys!!

  391. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 8:00 pm #

    BlackLion:

    I guess you don’t realize it but the correct law to follow is the US Constitution. Mr. O has just pointed out to everyone that he was governed by the Brits when he was born. It is not I that needs to claim anything about the BNA48 governing his birth – he’s already clarified that and probably hugely enjoyed thumbing his nose at you gullible and dumb Americans that he hates so much.

  392. avatar
    jtx July 26, 2009 at 8:05 pm #

    Mary Brown:

    Many people have already been “at the doors of Congress” – and they are seemingly all too cowardly to take on the Obama eligibility issue. That’s one of the things in the Kerchner et al v. Obama et al lawsuit; the flawed actions or lack thereof by Congress. So your “hell” you see has already frozen over.

    But the main issue is the lack of the man’s having never shown himself to actually be eligible under our laws.

  393. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 26, 2009 at 11:58 pm #

    Did you just say to follow both the Constitution and the British Nationality Act of 1948 in the same paragraph? Doesn’t it hurt to go two different directions at the same time?

  394. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 27, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    Polarik has never shown himself to be a “Dr.”

    His analysis is a fraud. I took Polarik apart months ago.