Main Menu

When will the Birthers be happy?

Once again, we read a long discussion, with a rational-sounding style, laying out the facts, so it appears, about citizenship in the United States. Is it reasonable and is it true?

Our guest commentator has doubts, and responds to When will the Birthers be happy?


ARTICLE SAYS: World Net Daily, has actively covered many of these issues relating to Obama’s eligibil[i]ty over the last 8 months and have a collection of all eligib[i]lity related articles. See http://bit.ly/147bkD

RESPONSE: Interesting to note that, before the issue seemed such a potential publicity boon, WND reported that its own experts determined the COLB to be authentic:

“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.”

WND also reported that the claims that Obama lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child is not supported by US citizenship law:

“In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child [ITALICS IN ORIGINAL(Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law)END ITALICS]; may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. ….


ARTICLE SAYS: Other Senators, like Mel Martinez, believed that Presidential candidates are vetted by the “voters.” Needless to say that these members of Congress made it into the “hall of shame” for the simple reason that they turned a blind eye to legitimate concerns of American Citizens. See http://bit.ly/147bkD

RESPONSE: Mel Martinez was RIGHT in contending that, at least at the first instance, Presidential candidates are – and should be – vetted by the voters.

As eloquently stated in Sen. McCain’s Motion to Dismiss Hamblin v. Obama (D. Az.):

“The Constitution indicates that issues relating to a candidate’s eligibility for the Office of President rest, in the first instance, with the VOTERS and then with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE, the constitutionally created body responsible for selecting the President of the United States. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2 “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” electors for the President and Vice President; id. amend. XXIII, § 1. The Constitution’s commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President subsumes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because the examination of a candidate’s qualifications is an integral component of the electors’ decision-making process. If a court were to sit in judgment of a candidate’s qualifications, its judgment could “inappropriately interfer[e]” with the Electoral College’s constitutional authority to elect the President and to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates seeking that office. …

“The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate’s eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with CONGRESS. Where no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Constitution commits to the House of Representatives the authority to select the President and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates’ qualifications. See 8 U.S. Const.. amend. XII. Similarly, the Twentieth Amendment explicitly grants Congress the responsibility for selecting a President when a candidate elected by the Electoral College does not satisfy the Constitution’s eligibility requirements. See id. 11 amend. XX, § 3 …

“Both the House and Senate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide questions relating to presidential elections. …

“The Constitution therefore provides that, in the first instance, the selection of the President – and the evaluation of a candidate’s qualifications – should be made by the VOTERS and politically accountable bodies without judicial participation. VOTERS and electors can choose not to vote for a candidate they believe to be ineligible, and members of Congress can object to electoral votes as they are counted. 3 U.S.C. § 15. IF A COURT WERE TO PASS UPON THE ELIGIBILITY OF A CANDIDATE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT – A DETERMINATION RESERVED FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND CONGRESS – IT MAY INVOLVE ITSELF IN POLITICAL MATTERS FOR WHICH IT IS INSTITUTIONALLY ILL-SUITED, AND INTERFERE WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND CONGRESS TO EVALUATE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

“Accordingly, the political question doctrine instructs [the] Court[s] to refrain from superseding the judgments of voters and those governmental bodies the Constitution designates as the proper forums for determining McCain’s eligibility to hold office. If the Court were to make this determination – as it must to resolve Hamblin’s claims – it risks disrupting the Constitution’s carefully calibrated separation of powers – “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government.” ….

See http://tiny.cc/MonNBC @ 8-10 (some internal citations omitted for readability).


ARTICLE SAYS: Obama’s 1st day in office, he signed an executive order to limit the access to Presidential Records. See http://bit.ly/147bkD

RESPONSE: The article has the facts completely backwards. Once again, reading the source rather than someone’s characterization of the source is useful.

The fact is that Obama Executive Order 13479 **expanded** access to Presidential Records by

(a) revoking Bush’s Executive Order 13222 that limited access to Presidential Records, and
(b) restoring Reagan’s Executive Order 12667.

Source:
Obama Executive Order 13489 @ http://tiny.cc/EO13489
—>Note Sec. 6: “Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.”

Bush Executive Order 13233 @ http://tiny.cc/EO13223
—>Note Sec. 6: Executive Order 12667 of January 18, 1989, is revoked.

Reagan Executive Order 12667 @ http://tiny.cc/EO12667


ARTICLE SAYS: “It appears that shortly after Obama Sr. and Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham split up, Ann got married to Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Citizen who adopted Obama when Ann and Obama Jr. returned to Indonesia with him to live.”

RESPONSE:

A. There is, to date, no facts or evidence to prove that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. (Notably, the article fails to cite any such evidence.) Moreover, even if he was adopted under Indonesian law, that law simply could NOT strip his US citizenship. See http://tiny.cc/WYE_Indonesia for more on that issue.

B. The US State Department has, officially – “in court” (i.e., while subject to under Rule 11 penalties), declared that Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro and never became an Indonesian citizen. See, e.g., ¶37-38, 48, 50 @ http://tiny.cc/StrunkGovAns


ARTICLE SAYS: “Indonesian law at the time did NOT allow for dual citizenship.”

RESPONSE:

A. There is, to date, no facts or evidence that Indonesian law at the time did not allow for dual citizenship. (Again, the articles cites to no such evidence.) This “theory” was originally offered by Phil Berg, with multiple “citations” to Indonesian law. However, if one actually READS the laws he cites (the ones that exist), those laws simply do not say what he says they say. See http://tiny.cc/OC_Indonesia for more info.

B. Moreover, whatever Indonesian law at the time (or today), the fact is that US law determines US citizenship and under US law, a minor cannot lose his citizenship merely by virtue of his relocation, the adoption by a non-US citizen, or even his parent’s attempt to “renounce” his citizenship. See http://tiny.cc/WYE_Indonesia for more info.

C. The US State Department has, officially – “in court” (i.e., while subject to under Rule 11 penalties), declared that Obama was never adopted by Lolo Soetoro and never became an Indonesian citizen. See, e.g., ¶37-38, 48, 50 @ http://tiny.cc/StrunkGovAns


ARTICLE SAYS: “If Obama WAS an Indonesian citizen he would have had to renounce his Indonesian Citizenship as an adult to reassume US Citizenship. There is no record, however, of Obama doing this. Therefore, again, more questions than answers.”

RESPONSE:

This is a “red herring,” given that (a) Indonesian law does not provide what the article contents it provides and (b) regardless of what Indonesian law provides, that country cannot “trump” US law on the issue of who, under US law, is a US citizen.


ARTICLE SAYS: “Yes, Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. visited Kenya while Dunham was pregnant with Obama. There is credible evidence that indicates that because Dunham was so far along in her pregnancy, she might not have been able to board a plane to fly back to the states.

RESPONSE: Notably, there is no citation to any alleged “credible evidence” of an Ann Durham trip to Kenya while pregnant with Obama? If you have some, I’d love to see it.


ARTICLE SAYS: “Obama’s Kenyan grandmother has also made the statement that she (granny) was present at Obama’s birth and there is much hoop-la in Kenya that Obama is a “son of Kenya” and that he was “born” in Africa.”

RESPONSE:
A. Obama’s Kenyan STEP-grandmother was misquoted (and a recording clipped to say) that Obama was born in Africa when, in fact, she repeatedly and emphatically stated (on the same FULL recording) that Obama was born in Hawaii. See http://tiny.cc/SOSpeaks

B. The US State Department has, officially – “in court” (i.e., while subject to under Rule 11 penalties), declared that Obama was born within the state of Hawaii and NOT in Kenya. See ¶36 at http://tiny.cc/StrunkGovAns


ARTICLE SAYS: “Read what Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No.68, writes: “Indeed, the ”chief magistrate” who is also Commander-in-Chief has to grow from the soil.”

RESPONSE

This is a perfect example of the type of inaccuracies contained throughout this and other articles challenging Obama’s eligibility based on flawed facts and flawed reasoning.

A. Federalist No 68 does NOT include your purported Hamilton quote. READ IT!!! http://tiny.cc/Fed68 That quote is simply *not* there.

The article attributes to Alexander Hamilton a statement made by Balint Vazonyi, Director of Center for the American Founding, in connection with a 2000 push to amend the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens (i.e., naturalized) to become President. (See http://tiny.cc/NotFed68 at page 22.)

B. In any event, “Grow from the soil” is a reference to jus solis, the principle that citizenship is based on LOCATION of birth – as opposed to jus sanguinis, the principle that citizenship is based on PARENTAGE.

See, e.g., Jus Solis @ http://tiny.cc/JusSolBD compared to Jus Sanguinis @ http://tiny.cc/JusSangBD

C. The fact is that throughout the history of US jurisprudence, with the exception of cases now overturned, harshly criticized, and/or abrograted by statute (e.g., Dred Scott), legal scholarship has consistently, overwhelmingly held that a “natural born” or “native born” citizen (used interchangably) means born in the USA – regardless of parentage.

See compendium of legal scholarship at http://tiny.cc/NBCDefined. See also compendium of US Supreme Court cases on the issue at http://tiny.cc/SCtonNBC and more at http://tiny.cc/OC_NBC

For more information on “Natural Born Citizen” and Vattel, oft-quoted in this and other similar articles, see http://tiny.cc/OC_Vattel & http://tiny.cc/OC_Vattel2

———QUERY———

IF … “natural born citizen” really means “born of two US citizen parents,” and if Wong Kim Ark (http://tiny.cc/WKA) does not stand for the proposition that a person born in the US is a natural (or native) born citizen regardless of his parents …
THEN, … why did so many conservative groups file briefs in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) strongly urging the Supreme Court to “reverse” 100 years of jurisprudence to find that birthright citizenship means born of two US parents? I mean, if the issue is settled, as this and other similar articles seem to contend, why would the groups be asking the Supreme Court to “reverse” current law? And if “born US citizen” means something different than “natural born” citizen, why did these briefs advocate for reversal of Wong, and adoption of the dicta in Happersett?


ARTICLE SAYS: “However, originalists look at the founders intent, therefore, they conclude that a class of citizens should be considered “natural born” today only if they would have been considered natural-born citizens under the law in effect at the time of the framing of the Constitution.”

RESPONSE

A. I agree that “originalists” look to founders’ intent. (This does not, however, mean that only original intent is applicable, but that’s another issue.)

B. An “originalist” starts with applicable laws – common law and statutory law – in effect at time of the particular law at issue. Yet the article totally ignores that, as discussed rather extensively in Lynch v. Clarke, the law of ALL THIRTEEN colonies, and ALL THIRTEEN states at the time of the Revolution and drafting of the Constitution provided that a person born OF THE SOIL (of colony or state) was a natural born citizen regardless of that person’s parentage:

“It may then be safely assumed, that at the Declaration of Independence, by the law of each and all the thirteen states, a child born within their territory and liegeance respectively, became thereby a citizen of the state of which he was a native.

This continued unchanged to the time when our National Constitution went into full operation. There is no evidence of any alteration of the rule in any of the states during the period that intervened; and the references which will be made under another head, show conclusively that there had been no intermediate change to their policy.”

http://tiny.cc/NBC_OI. at pp. 243-44.

The court continued:

“It is a necessary consequence, from what I have stated, that the law which had prevailed on this subject, in all the states, became the governing principle or common law of the United States …. If there had been any diversity on the subject in the state laws … it is reasonable to believe that the framers of the constitution would have borne in mind, and enacted a uniform rule, or authorized Congress to establish one. THE ENTIRE SILENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN REGARD TO IT FURNISHES A STRONG CONFIRMATION, NOT ONLY THAT THE EXISTING LAW OF THE STATES WAS ENTIRELY UNIFORM, BUT THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO ABROGATE OR CHANGE IT. The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. ….”
—————–
http://tiny.cc/NBC_OI at pp. 246 (emphasis supplied).

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

89 Responses to When will the Birthers be happy?

  1. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 8:10 pm #

    Barackryphal’s most excellent Birther Platonic Dialogue also explains why birfers will never be satisfied.

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 8:14 pm #

    The birthers will never be satisfied because they don’t want to be satisfied. They want Obama out of office, by hook, or by crook.

  3. avatar
    Bob Weber August 7, 2009 at 8:21 pm #

    Pretty solid, although there’s enough birfer nonsense for a part 2, part 3, or even an entire book.

    The “query” in section 3 is rather murky and should be either further expounded, or omitted, since it’s not really central. I had a hard time following it so I daresay most people will, too.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2009 at 8:29 pm #

    If our guest contributor wants to update it, I will surely make it so.

  5. avatar
    strikefighter August 7, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    “ARTICLE SAYS: “If Obama WAS an Indonesian citizen he would have had to renounce his Indonesian Citizenship as an adult to reassume US Citizenship. There is no record, however, of Obama doing this. Therefore, again, more questions than answers.””

    Or, there could be no proof of it happening because it never happened in the first place, which is implied by their use of the word “IF.” Really, these degenerates should try a LITTLE harder to mask their true intentions.

    These people make my head hurt.

  6. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 7, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    Also, under the Indonesian Citizenship thing…

    I have to admit, that’s not a take I usually hear. However, usually if a country doesn’t allow dual citizenship, it’s usually that’s country’s laws that require them to renounce all foreign citizenship, or risk losing their citizenship there.

    It is not reasonable to believe either of the following two things.

    1. The U.S. State Department would accept a renouncing of citizenship from a 6-year-old (when Obama was supposedly adopted and obtained Indonesian Citizenship).

    2. The U.S. State Department would renounce citizenship from someone who had been a citizen of the United States since birth, and a resident of the United States for 11 years at the time, without some sort of formal renouncing of citizenship.

    But anyways, even if he did have Indonesian Citizenship at one time, it doesn’t matter. The Court already ruled on that in Perkins v. Elg.

  7. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    The divorce papers of Stanley Ann Dunham to Lolo Soetoro do suggest that Obama was indeed adopted by him. The papers refer to Obama as the child of Lolo and Stanley. This suggest he was adopted. Usually legal terminology referring a child not adopted or acknowledged by the other as child from a previous marriage. This is not so.

  8. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 9:32 pm #

    If Obama was adopted by Lolo, his name was legally changed and his citizenship became Indonesian. It makes no legal sense to suggest that the US maintains a citizenship claim to an Indonesian citizen. Even if this isn’t so, Obama still had his name changed. So far, no evidence has been seen that Obama changed his name back to Barack Obama. If this is true, Obama is guilty of fraud.

    I happen know my that my brother adopted a girl from China. My brother had to go to China to get her. When he brought back to the states she was declared a US Citizen (It like a cermonial act putting her feet down on US Soil for the first time and becoming a US Citizen.) To this day, My brother’s daughter is a US citizen and her name has been legally changed. All China Citizenship claims have been severed and she is a Nationlized US Citizen.

  9. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    “Suggesting” is not legal proof. Very simple: Where are the adoption papers?

    All the divorce papers really “suggest” is that Soetoro, as Obama’s step-father, had (and may continued to have had) a legal obligation to support Obama.

  10. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    If Obama was adopted by Lolo, his name was legally changed and his citizenship became Indonesian.

    Except there’s no proof of adoption.

    Even if this isn’t so, Obama still had his name changed.

    Except there’s no proof of this name change.

    If this is true, Obama is guilty of fraud.

    As there is no proof of this name change, there no indication Obama committed fraud.

  11. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 9:42 pm #

    My adopted niece is only 4 years old. I doubt that when she grows up, she can go back to China and start living and declaring benefits as a Chinese citizen. It is likely, this would be possible since she was born in China, but she would probably have to go though the immigration process to be rerecognized as a Chinese citizen. I suggest this would have been true for Barack Obama as well. He would had to went back to the states and had to have his name changed back to Barack Obama. Addition, Obama would have to taken some process to reaffirm his US Citizenship. It makes no legal sense to suggest that persons can take residence in different countries assuming different names and citizenships without some sort of immigration process. Certainly, when Obama returned to the states, he had to go through some sort of immigration processs. Did This process entail Obama getting his name changed back to Barack Obama and reaffirming his US Citizenship? To date, we don’t know.

  12. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 9:45 pm #

    The school record is proof. Although the other records are probably sealed, we did a piece of his Indonesian record through his school. The divorce record also suggests adoption as well. Assuming some court case allows discovery, all of this can be proven.

  13. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 9:46 pm #

    Except there’s no evidence Obama was adopted.

    As he never lost his U.S. citizenship, there’s nothing to reaffirm.

    And as there’s no evidence he ever legally changed his name, there would be no need to change it back.

  14. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    Also, Obama’s legal status in Indonesia may be contained in his passports which why we can’t see them. Addition, it appears the Obama Administration may be involved in murder cover up concerning this issue:
    Is There A Connect Lt. Harris Death Kenyan Birth Certificate
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmZPcvN9jGI

  15. avatar
    Bob August 7, 2009 at 9:48 pm #

    The school record is proof.

    The school records is proof that he went to school there. Not that he was adopted (or legally changed his name.

    The divorce record also suggests adoption as well.

    The divorce record is proof only that Obama’s mother and step-father got divorced, nothing more.

    Assuming some court case allows discovery, all of this can be proven.

    To date, no court has allowed discovery, and there’s no indication any will.

  16. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 10:12 pm #

    Even though the Grandma’s claim is questionable, the Kenyan Ambassdor did confirm Obama was born in Kenya. When he “Got Caught” he changed his story. Addition, the Kenyan Assembly a day after the election did affirm Obama’s Kenyan birth. Further, numerous African New outlets have leaked out Obama’s Kenyan birth. Each time they “Get Caught” they change their story. Can someone please tell me what Hospital Obama was born at? To this day, we don’t know. Don’t say Kapaloni. There is no proof Obama was born there. The letter that Obama wrote is a fabrication. The White House has never acknowledged Obama wrote that letter and Robert Gibbs has refused to acknowledge its existance. The State of Hawaii claims they have a vital record Obama was born in Hawaii, but we do not know what it is in that vital record. The State of Hawaii still has not explained why Obama had a higher Certificate Number even he was born before the 2 twins who have lower Certificate numbers. It is speculated, that Obama was born in Kenya and his birth was registered as being born in Hawaii due to the lax laws at the time. This would create a vital record and would explain why Obama Certificate Number might have been higher than the 2 twins.

    Finally, please tell me that it is amazing conincidence that shortly after the alleged Kenyan BC was released, Hillary Clinton decided to take a tour of Africa and stop in Kenya. If Hillary Clinton trying to destroy records or seal up records and shut people up? Definitely a birther needs to be Hillary to watch he every move.

  17. avatar
    John August 7, 2009 at 10:32 pm #

    In the Constitution, the term “Natural Born Citizen” is only used to describe a person to be eligible to the POTUS. Certainly, the “Natural Born” intent must be viewed in a different light and at a higher degree for a person who is the POTUS. Even the POTUS and the ordinary citizen are the same, they are different in that the POTUS is endowed with powers and abilities not given to ordinary citizens.

    Further, Congress does have the ability to define and punish those who violate provisions in the Law of Nations:

    Article 1 Section 8:

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

  18. avatar
    nbc August 7, 2009 at 10:52 pm #

    In the Constitution, the term “Natural Born Citizen” is only used to describe a person to be eligible to the POTUS. Certainly, the “Natural Born” intent must be viewed in a different light and at a higher degree for a person who is the POTUS. Even the POTUS and the ordinary citizen are the same, they are different in that the POTUS is endowed with powers and abilities not given to ordinary citizens

    Correct, which is why naturalized citizens were excluded.

    History is undeniable

  19. avatar
    Catbit August 7, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Clinton had already planned and announced the tour of Africa prior to the release of the phoney BC. In fact, I must wonder if the revelation of said forgery was not done after the announcement of the trip just to ‘add to the joke of the conspiracy’. Kinda double-whammy. Birthers are SO gullible!

  20. avatar
    Shrieking wombat August 7, 2009 at 11:01 pm #

    From a commenter over at Orly’s House of Crazy:

    ‘Please now, we “birthers” aren’t rednecks, crazy, or deminted in any manner.’

    Next:- ‘Birfistan: The Demintening’.

  21. avatar
    strikefighter August 7, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    No, certainly not deminted. Because that is not a word.

    But they are most certainly demented. And crazy. And some of them are rednecks. Except Orly. I don’t know what she is, exactly.

  22. avatar
    misha August 7, 2009 at 11:50 pm #

    Or, Welcome To Birfistan. About 1/4 down.

  23. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2009 at 12:02 am #

    Read Perkins v. Elg, John. It clearly states that a parent cannot give up the citizenship of a minor child. So, even if he obtained Indonesian Citizenship at age 6, he would not have given up his U.S. Citizenship. The Supreme Court is very clear on this point.

    Further, the only way for a minor to give up his U.S. citizenship was for him to convince a U.S. Consulate that he knew the full actions of giving up his citizenship. How many people would be convinced that a six-year-old knew the full actions of any decision that they made?

    You have no claim to suggest that Barack Obama ever renounced his U.S. Citizenship, not that a six-year-old could even legally do that.

  24. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2009 at 12:07 am #

    The school record is also proof that he was born in Hawaii, therefore a Natural-Born Citizen. I suggest that you read the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Perkins v. Elg.

    Elg was born a U.S. Citizen, who was removed when she was a child to a foreign country, where she obtained foreign citizenship. She, while she was still a minor, resumed her U.S. Citizenship, and immigrated back to the U.S. The court ruled that she never lost her U.S. Citizenship in the first place, and the actions of her parents could not remove her U.S. Citizenship.

    Now tell me, how is that any different than your claims of Obama’s Indonesian Citizenship?

  25. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2009 at 12:12 am #

    I knew it was only a time before the Birthers went into further irrelevance by accusing Obama of murder, when there’s absolutely no evidence of the fact. Reminds me of Vince Foster.

    Why is it that when Conservatives lose an election, they always accuse their opponent of murdering someone?

  26. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 12:14 am #

    “I don’t know what she is, exactly.”

    My grandfather was from Moscow. Russian and Jewish is a volatile mix. Believe me.

    First, she’s from Moldova when it was part of the USSR. Then she was a refusenik, and like Lieberman and Sharansky, she goes in for crackpot politics. Next, she thinks this is like a parliamentary system: if she makes enough noise, he can be driven from office. Well, there’s not going to be a ‘no confidence’ vote in Congress. As a lawyer, she speaks poorly, and is a terrible advocate.

    She went through hell in the USSR, and won’t let go. She spends her day licking her wounds. Read my post A Culture Of Persecution.

  27. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 12:19 am #

    Demint is that crazy senator from South Carolina.

  28. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    I think a much bigger concern is if Obama is still a citizen of Krypton, or Tralfamadore. What if he has dual loyalties to another universe? Think of the problems it would cause, if war were to break out between Teflondia and Souvlakia. What would Obama do? What if Obama fled to Ruritania, like Sandford took off for Argentina?

    I tell you, it keeps me up at night.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 12:22 am #

    And what does the Law of Nations have to do with the price of tea in China? Of were you thinking of that Swiss book, Droit des Gens. ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle, appliques a la conduite & aux affaires des Nations & des Souverains.

  30. avatar
    brygenon August 8, 2009 at 12:24 am #

    John doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as long as an American-born child returns to the U.S. to establish permanent residence before the age of 25, his U.S. citizenship was never lost.

    On the name-change issue, even if John had the facts, which he doesn’t, his claim of fraud would still be a lie. Barack Obama ran under the under the name by which the public knows him.

    To get on the Maine ballot as “Jimmy”, President Carter had to go to court. Carter swore out an affidavit that included: “In short, Jimmy Carter is not my nickname. It is the only name which I use in connection with my public activities, and it is the name by which the public knows and recognizes me”.

    Judge David Nichols of the Superior Court of Maine agreed, and ruled, in part: “It appears that, without resorting to judicial proceedings, this nominee did change his name to Jimmy Carter.”

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 12:25 am #

    “Kenyan Ambassdor did confirm Obama was born in Kenya”

    Total bull.

    “numerous African New outlets have leaked out Obama’s Kenyan birth”

    Names? Of course not. Total Bull.

    I think we are far beyond calling the Kenyan Birth Certificate “alleged”. It has jumped OFF the ledge and it’s broken body is laying at the bottom of the canyon below.

    “Don’t say Kapaloni.”

    OK, how about Kapi’Olani? :roll:

  32. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 12:29 am #

    John: “Assuming some court case allows discovery, all of this can be proven.”

    Assuming the moon is made of green cheese, mice would be happy there.

  33. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    “OK, how about Kapi’Olani?”

    How about M.O.U.S.E.?

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 12:32 am #

    Can I get evidence for any of that? No? Why would you say it if you had no evidence? It can be because it’s true, because you can’t know that.

    There’s a TROLL in the dungeon!

  35. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    “Why is it that when Conservatives lose an election, they always accuse their opponent of murdering someone?”

    I tell you, Obama helped plan Foster’s murder. Obama obtained the weapons from the East German embassy, and then threw them into the Potomac. The conspiracy has tentacles everywhere.

    Now he’s in the WH. Lions and tigers and bears! Oh, my!

  36. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 12:45 am #

    When I lived in Taipei, my wife’s family adopted me. Uh, oh – now what do I do?

  37. avatar
    BenjiFranklin August 8, 2009 at 12:46 am #

    Good grief, John!

    The “Law of Nations” you cite from text in the Constitution is not referring to Vattel’s book title – it refers to “International Law” and did before Vattel and since. Vattel’s book includes so many unconstitutional laws, it is absurd to think they would be incorporated into the Constitution at all, much less “enforced”. You need to read Vattel’s whole book to see how bizarre your interpretation is. Try Chapter 9 where he declares the law making it okay for a country with a woman shortage to kidnap women from other countries. Or Chapter 12 where he outlines the law giving the head of the government authority over religion and those who teach it! Your reference in the Constitution refers only to the international laws that controled piracy in the framer’s era.

    Look up “Law of Nations” in Blackstone; it has always referred to international law, but many of Vattel’s “laws” are now crimes. Hatred for Obama is a foolish rearranger of history. Or are you saying Congress has the right to strip away all the legal rights of women, as Vattel’s treatise would approve?
    You probably are unaware that Vattel’s book, which was only subtitled “Law of Nations” was actually just an expanded version of Christian Wolff’s prior treatise, which was actually titled, “The Law of Nations”.

    Now tell us you know of an enforcable law which says that a Citizen’s Grand Jury can be unjust and that would be just grand.(Misha Boom!)

    Regards,
    Benji

  38. avatar
    Joyce August 8, 2009 at 12:47 am #

    “Except there’s no evidence Obama was adopted.

    As he never lost his U.S. citizenship, there’s nothing to reaffirm.”

    Did Obama’s mother renounce her US citizenship? If not, then wouldn’t it be unlikely that she would renounce her son’s?

  39. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    “Assuming the moon is made of green cheese, mice would be happy there.”

    There’s not enough oxygen. Probably because Obama stole their atmosphere. You know those blacks – they steal.

    You know what happens when someone has one Jewish parent and one black parent? They only shoplift wholesale. (bada-bing)

  40. avatar
    Shrieking wombat August 8, 2009 at 1:04 am #

    You’re saying he’s deminted?

  41. avatar
    Bob August 8, 2009 at 1:19 am #

    Did Obama’s mother renounce her US citizenship? If not, then wouldn’t it be unlikely that she would renounce her son’s?

    No evidence she did; yes, very unlikely.

  42. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2009 at 1:50 am #

    She can’t renounce her son’s citizenship. That was decided in Perkins v. Elg. So, even if she did renounce her U.S. Citizenship, it would have no effect on Barack Obama’s, because no action of a parent can affect the citizenship of a minor.

  43. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 2:29 am #

    “Suggesting” is not legal proof.”

    It’s been suggested I’m a Mossad spy. Go prove it. It’s been suggested my cat is planning to attack me. It’s been suggested the earth will be destroyed on 11/11/2011.

  44. avatar
    NBC August 8, 2009 at 2:37 am #

    To date you know nothing and your stories lack in much of any validation.

  45. avatar
    Shrieking wombat August 8, 2009 at 2:38 am #

    Could, would, if, but, seems, possibly, however, might, though…

  46. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 8, 2009 at 2:58 am #

    “I happen know my that my brother adopted a girl from China…Citizenship claims have been severed…’

    True, as laid down under Article 9 of the relevent Chinese Nationality Law

    http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/chnnationality_1.htm

    but last time I looked the USA was not part of the Peoples Republic of China so this is relevent how?

    I’ve often seen birfers assume that assume that other nations’ laws are the same as US law but this is the first time I’ve seen it the other way round!

  47. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 3:03 am #

    I have a suggestion for John: crawl back under your rock. Thank you.

  48. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 8, 2009 at 3:56 am #

    “Article 1 Section 8:

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”

    Recently I read a birfer argue that this was a reference to Vattel because it was capitalized. Could any birfer who believes that please tell me where I can find a copy of the work ‘Blessings of Liberty’ refered to in the Preamble!

  49. avatar
    IzMeBee August 8, 2009 at 8:05 am #

    john is a perfect example of a birther.

    When faced with facts ignore them and maybe they will just go away.

  50. avatar
    kimba August 8, 2009 at 8:18 am #

    The papers “suggest” what you wish to read into them. “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

  51. avatar
    kimba August 8, 2009 at 8:24 am #

    John showed up a few weeks with his ” oh shucks, oh golly, I just don’t know much about this and I really don’t think Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii but I think it should be settled for good, still I personally don’t think it’s really a problem” Now he’s writing long essays on “what must be”. But if you read what he’s written, he hits every birther-twofer-proofer talking point. They can’t All be true John. At least pick a conspiracy scenario and stand behind it. Oh, no, wait, that won’t happen. John’s a Troll.

  52. avatar
    kimba August 8, 2009 at 8:30 am #

    “The Law of Nations was written in the Constitution in Article 1 Section 8, so our Blessed Framers DID use Vattel for the meaning of Natural Born Citizen” is now all the rage in birtherdom. They’re all spouting it as the new Holy Grail of Birther A-HA. Check out the birther sites, it is being told and re-told and hashed rehashed. “THIS IS IT! THIS IS JUST WHAT WE NEEDED.” Exactly what they were saying last weekend, the Kenya BC was the big A-HA, IT WAS IT. What is fascinating is how with the debunking of each Fantasy Fact, they reach into their bag of crazy and pull out a new one. I swear it’s like Jason in Friday the 13th – you can stab him, shoot him, drown him, bury him and he just keeps coming back as if new. I salute their capacity to absorb disappointment and adversity and come back with new faux facts.

  53. avatar
    misha August 8, 2009 at 10:50 am #

    If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a trolley car.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    Hey, I’m looking for a copy of “Piracies and Felonies”. Every Noun in the Sentence is capitalized.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2009 at 5:03 pm #

    Can I call you a taxi?

  56. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 5:47 pm #

    The ridiculous notion that “Law of Nations” in Article 1, Sec.8 refers to de Vattel’s work came from Master Leo Donofrio, Esq. himself. A man in a yellow suit gave it to him.

  57. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    My Mom was born in this country but with an “ethnic” and “difficult” name. She used various anglicizations and translations of her name all before her mid-20′s. No problem as long as it’s not for fraudulent purposes, such as to avoid paying a debt.

    She got an “American” name when she married my Dad, who was, ironically enough, born in Hungary.

  58. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 8, 2009 at 6:12 pm #

    Very true!

    It was a common term at the time particulary in the context that it’s used in it’s used in Article 1 Sec 8. The letter of marque could be the difference betwen being released on parole or hanged!

  59. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm #

    After Orly’s latest fiasco, the birfers must be really burned over how Kenyans are laughing at their gullibility. Black folk laughing in the face of white folk.

    Over at FreeRepublic, a lot of the birfers are like a belligerent drunk who just got his ass kicked in a bar fight, yelling how he really won that fight, and he’ll beat up anyone who says different. Except he can’t stand up.

  60. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

    *********************

    Or, as my uncle put it, “Wish in one hand, sh*t in the other, and see what you get.”

  61. avatar
    Welsh Dragon August 8, 2009 at 6:31 pm #

    I think I’m going to suggest that freeperville becomes a TV reality show. I think it could be a big hit.

    Of course there’D have to be an on-screen disclaimer:

    “NO WE’RE NOT MAKING THIS UP – WE COULDN’T IF WE TRIED”

  62. avatar
    kimba August 8, 2009 at 6:46 pm #

    My old grandpappy used to say “Wish in one hand and sh!t in the other and see which one fills up first.”

  63. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 11:00 pm #

    Jeez Louise, this again!

    As previously pointed out, “Lt.” Quarles Harris was a petty thief and con artist involved in an identity theft ring. (His NAME was Leiutenant (note spelling), he wasn’t a “lieutenant” in anything. The identity theft ring was stealing personal info from passport applications with the help of an insider at the passport office. They used this info to fraudulently obtain credit cards. Harris was caught with some of these cards and agreed to turn state’s evidence. Later he was found murdered, possibly by his confederates.

    The conspiracy fantasy is that Harris, who had no discernible computer hacking skills, was the one who really snooped on Hillary Clinton’s, Obama’s, and McCain’s passport files, while the employees of John Brennan’s security company falsely confessed to the breach, even though they DID have computer hacking skills! Harris was then murdered to cover up the fact that HE was the one who did the real break-in! Makes perfect sense, at least in Birfistan.

  64. avatar
    Bob Weber August 8, 2009 at 11:09 pm #

    Everyone should have a salty-tongued older relative who dispenses folk-wisdom.

  65. avatar
    Rickey August 8, 2009 at 11:29 pm #

    I’ve been perusing my Library of America collection “Debate on the Constitution” (two volumes, approximately 2400 pages). There is not a single mention of Vattel. There are mentions of Plato, Confucius, Plutarch, the Magna Carta, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, Sir Thomas More, numerous references to Blackstone – but alas, no Vattel.

    It is apparent that the founders were influenced by Blackstone (and there is no evidence that they were influenced by Vattel), so it’s worth taking a look at what Blackstone had to say about citizenship:

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html

    Note especially:

    The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

  66. avatar
    Marie Devine August 9, 2009 at 7:49 pm #

    Those various records are on file at those places. It has been part of an employment application that you say where you went to school and what years and the employer was able to check your records and see if you were a good student, tardy or absent a lot, had reprimands etc, and to see if the other information you gave was correct. The president is hiding what could take him out of office or show that he deceived the voters to get elected. That would be election fraud and disadvantage other candidates. Truthfulness, honesty and openness or transparency are what was promised. Have we refused to see the truth? http://rightsoup.com/right-sightings-20/ Link: Video: Obama’s Communist Influences: Youtube http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html#anchorADD “The Soviet Art of Brain Washing Kenneth Gott testimony and An Address By Lavrent Pavlovich Beria Call for Barack Obama’s records while we still can.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/07/EDRP195IA7.DTL#ixzz0NjUCAFRZ

  67. avatar
    ImaForener August 9, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    Sigh

    Well Marie, you list your “qualifications” for “advising world leaders” as follows:
    “A variety of work and life experiences have prepared me to understand many areas of life.”

    Apparently none of these experiences have prepared you to understand the word “irony”. They have probably also not prepared you to understand the word “sarcasm”.

    How do you people hold down jobs, not mention conversations with other living, breathing humans?

  68. avatar
    Vince Treacy August 9, 2009 at 8:49 pm #

    I think she said at her site that she took business studies in high school 50 years ago. What more does anyone need?

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 9, 2009 at 9:06 pm #

    While you may fantasize what evil lurks in totally mundane and ordinary records that no president ever releases, that is proof of nothing, and not even suggestive of anything of anything besides your own prejudices.

    “The president is hiding what could take him out of office” is an absurd statement. What do you think could exist that would take Obama out of office. Perhaps your imagination is more fetid than mine.

    I suggest you look up what “election fraud” so you can stop misusing the term.

  70. avatar
    jtx August 9, 2009 at 9:31 pm #

    kimba:

    You miss the point. Obama himself has admitted that he was not a “natural born citizen” and the Vattel treatise appears and in US case law.

    All Obama need do, of course, is to demonstrate that he is, indeed, legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies – yet he has not done so but has instead wasted vast sums of Democratic and taxpayer funds in trying to keep things hidden.

    Why would that be?

  71. avatar
    jtx August 9, 2009 at 9:36 pm #

    nbc:

    Also undeniable is the fact that “citizens” were also excluded as the “natural born citizen” is a different classification. If it were not, the Constitution could merely have specified “citizen” or “native born citizen” … but they did not; instead they used the term of art “natural born citizen”.

  72. avatar
    jtx August 9, 2009 at 9:38 pm #

    An an Obama supporter you certainly shouldn’t be lecturing others about “crackpot politics”.

  73. avatar
    Greg August 9, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    Citizen in the Constitution = natural-born and naturalized.

    If they had said “citizen” that would have implied that naturalized citizens could be President.

    So, they used the OTHER term! Natural born.

    Naturalized or natural born.

    Those are the only two classes.

  74. avatar
    Greg August 9, 2009 at 10:02 pm #

    Define crackpot.

    Generally, it’s considered to be someone who holds beliefs that are way outside the mainstream.

    69 million people voted for Obama. More people voted for Obama than McCain. 50+% of Americans support his policies, depending on which pollster is doing the questioning.

    An Obama supporter is not outside the mainstream, much less WAY outside the mainstream.

    Want to compare how well the birthers’ theories are accepted by the mainstream?

    Maybe you should get yourself a dictionary.

  75. avatar
    Greg August 9, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    Many cases traced the term of art “natural born citizen” and found that it meant born here, regardless of parents’ citizenship.

    It’s clear and uncontroverted that Britain used “natural born” that way. It’s also clear and uncontroverted that the American colonies under British rule used it that way.

    To conclude that Vattel’s conception of natural-born citizen was the one that the Founders used runs into two problems:

    1. There’s no evidence that any of the Founders used Vattel for his definition of citizenship. There’s no evidence that Vattel’s definition was, in any way, a common term of art.

    2. It assumes the Founders are stupid. There was, undoubtedly, a term of art in widespread common usage at the time: “natural born subject.” According to you, the Founders used “natural born citizen” which was the exact opposite both from what Britain used, and also from what the Colonies used, and yet, the Founders, being as dumb as rocks, didn’t mention that they were overturning the widespread term of art “natural born” when used with subject and putting in its place the exact, polar, opposite when used with “citizen.”

    Lynch v. Clarke looks at the, then, 500 year history of “natural born” in England and the Colonies and assumes the Founders weren’t dumb. Because they could tie their shoes, if they meant to change the term “natural born” from its 500 year meaning to something completely opposite, someone would have mentioned it.

    Why do you think the Founders were so completely stupid that they would fail to mention, even once, that they were completely redefining 500 years of common law usage of the term of art: “natural born?”

  76. avatar
    Nullifidian August 9, 2009 at 10:54 pm #

    Do I read this correctly? Are you seriously arguing that Obama could be removed from office for racking up too many tardies in school?

  77. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion August 10, 2009 at 12:25 pm #

    “If Obama was adopted by Lolo, his name was legally changed and his citizenship became Indonesian.

    1) Under Indonesian law, Barack Obama was one year too old to gain Indonesian citizenship had such an adoption took place.

    2) Under US law, a minor US citizen cannot renounce their US citizenship nor can the parents renounce for the child.

    3) There is no credible proof or evidence of adoption

    It makes no legal sense to suggest that the US maintains a citizenship claim to an Indonesian citizen.

    Except under US law, Barack Obama would have had to claim Indonesian citizen AS AN ADULT and renounce in front of Embassy officials with the appropriate paperwork. It can’t be done under US law as a child.

    Even if this isn’t so, Obama still had his name changed. So far, no evidence has been seen that Obama changed his name back to Barack Obama. If this is true, Obama is guilty of fraud.

    There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Barack Obama has ever legally held the name “Barry Soetoro” in the United States.

  78. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion August 10, 2009 at 12:27 pm #

    “Did Obama’s mother renounce her US citizenship? If not, then wouldn’t it be unlikely that she would renounce her son’s?”

    1) No evidence supports the claim that Stanley Ann Dunham ever renounced her US citizenship.

    2) Under US Law, parents cannot renounce their child’s US citizenship. Only the child can do that, and only when upon adulthood.

  79. avatar
    polo August 10, 2009 at 6:21 pm #

    huh?

    Birfer madness.

    Obama admitted he wasn’t NBC yet you claim he could prove otherwise?

    Nut soup.

  80. avatar
    BlackLion August 10, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    JTX, of course you miss the point. President Obama has met the qualifications of what a natural born citizen is because he was born in the US and he was not naturalized. You need to prove that he does not meet the qualifications, not the other way around. You need to prove your ridiculous British Nationality Act theory and prove how that superceeds US law. You are attempting to change that because you know your argument does not hold water.

  81. avatar
    It October 23, 2009 at 1:41 pm #

    A question concerning Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)

    My question concerns Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)

    The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

    Supreme Court Ruling Quote: The opinion of the Court in No. 95-1853, Clinton against Jones will be announced by Justice Stevens.

    “We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require Federal Courts to stay all private actions against the president until he leaves office.”

    I have a specific question about the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government.

    In a unanimous opinion,9-0, the Court held that the Constitution does not grant a sitting President immunity from civil litigation except under highly unusual circumstances. After noting the great respect and dignity owed to the Executive
    office, the Court held that neither separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from judicial process. While the independence of our government’s branches must be protected under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Constitution does not prohibit these branches from exercising any control over one another. This, the Court added, is true despite the procedural burdens which Article III jurisdiction may impose on the time, attention, and resources of the Chief Executive.

    Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against

    Legal provision: Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2: Separation of Powers

    On December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has fulfilled the requirements under the Constitution. State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242)

    The landmark case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) has set the precedent that a sitting President is not immune from prosecution for acts committed before taking office.

    My specific question is about the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government.

    My specific question asks if Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) , would apply to any State or Federal Court Case that would involve the question of “natural born citizenship” that Obama has
    indicated on State Of Arizona Presidential Preference Election Candidate Nomination Paper (A.R.S. 16-242) but has not been validated by law. In other words can I or any other US citizen file a civil suit claiming obama committed fraud before the election and expect obama to answer the suit because of Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) precedent?

    How can I pose this question to Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer if questions are taken during the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation discussion Oct. 26 program, the Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation, with the William H. Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law ?

    If not these 2 judges that have ruled in Supreme Court Ruling No. 95-1853, case of Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) in the affirmative then can you direct me to a lawyer in Arizona or elsewhere who can?

    I am serious and would like an answer.

    This seems to me to be a a lawsuit that begs the question I have asked.

    Is there anyone in the nation that will pose this question in a court of law?

    If not why. The Supreme Court has opened the door to examine what obama did BEFORE the election in Arizona.

    Please Devvy ask this question for me and all of America!

    Thank You

    An American

  82. avatar
    Greg October 23, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Jones’ case did not allege impropriety in an election. She alleged a particular harm. She had standing and her issue didn’t raise a question best addressed by Congress – committed, in fact, TO Congress by the Constitution!

  83. avatar
    Bob October 23, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    Anyone can file anything.

    If you tried to sue Obama over this alleged “fraud,” the suit would be dismissed as you lack standing as there’s no particularized injury.

    But, more basically, there’s no evidence of fraud.

    Clinton v. Jones would not let Obama “pause” the suit due to him being president, but are myriad other problems with your proposed suit.

  84. avatar
    Greg October 23, 2009 at 4:10 pm #

    Additionally, there is no private right of action for you to prosecute election fraud. If you think that he committed election fraud, send the evidence to the Arizona Attorney General. But, be warned, prosecutorial discretion is absolute.

    You also seem to be taking Leo’s analysis in this – the whole “the Court hasn’t said that children of an alien born here are natural born citizens, so Obama couldn’t swear he was” nonsense. Let me set you straight. To plead fraud, or false pleading, you have to prove that the defendant knew the statement was false – not simply that it was objectively false.

    Now, even if you only had to prove that it was objectively false, that a reasonable constitutional lawyer would say, “I don’t know whether I’m a natural born citizen,” your problem is that no constitutional lawyers, none, would say that!

    Only you and Leo and a handful of other people (all whack-job birthers) believe that this is even a remotely possible definition of natural born citizen. You can read dozens, hundreds, of law review articles about it over the past 100 years and you’ll find this as an issue in none of them. You can maybe, if you squint, misinterpret one of them to support the issue, but other than that, opinion is univeral

  85. avatar
    SFJeff October 23, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    “On December 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM Mountain Time, Barrack Hussein Obama, II
    fraudulently filed a sworn affidavit in his own hand that declared himself to be
    a natural born citizen of the United States of America,”

    My first suggestion would be for you to actually find and present some actual evidence of the claim that you have made. Consider this- you stating that you know that the President of the United States committed fraud- can you look yourself in the eyes and say that you know that to be a fact? On what basis? What evidence has convinced you that the President knowlingly committed fraud?

    I rather suspect you just cut and pasted your question from some other site, but if you really actually have these thoughts yourself, I would love to hear your response.

  86. avatar
    Bob October 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm #

    The usual response is “that’s what they taught him at Harvard.” Yet you can’t find a Harvard law grad that’ll say that’s what they teach there.

  87. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm #

    Bob: Anyone can file anything.

    Orly has said: “If Judge Carter dismisses the case, we’ll appeal and keep filing and bringing new cases until we get a resolution.”

    Perhaps Orly will meet the same fate as Andy Martin. According to the New York Times:

    The CBS News program “48 Hours” in 1993 devoted an hourlong program, “See You in Court; Civil War, Anthony Martin Clogs Legal System with Frivolous Lawsuits,” to what it called his prolific filings. (Mr. Martin has also been known as Anthony Martin-Trigona.) He has filed so many lawsuits that a judge barred him from doing so in any federal court without preliminary approval.

    I had a really difficult time finding an authoritative source for that information.

    This is ironic, though. After plowing through page after page of commentary about Andy Martin and finding zero specifics, the page I landed on with the most information and the best links was MINE. ROFL. So I added that citation above to my page too as a favor for the next guy. Google returned my page before the NY Times article doing the query: “andy martin” federal court connecticut.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    It: In other words can I or any other US citizen file a civil suit claiming obama [sic] committed fraud

    I guess the short answer is that the president is not immune from civil lawsuits. Lawsuits are filed against the president ALL THE TIME, and I’ve documented dozens of them, none of which was dismissed because of a claim of immunity.

    Usually, when someone says “prosecution” they refer to a criminal prosecution. It has generally been held that a sitting President is immune from indictment and criminal prosecution (except impeachment by the House of Representatives). See: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/sitting_president.htm.

    For you to press a claim of fraud against Obama, you would have to show that you were actually (not theoretically) harmed individually by this fraud.

  89. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 23, 2009 at 7:01 pm #

    I’d note that as a general rule of law, there is a heightened standard for pleading fraud — the exact facts underlying the claim of fraud must be set forth with specificity.

    The person who is suing for fraud must also be able to show that they were injured because of their reliance on the fraud. That is — even if it were possible for a mere citizen voter to establish standing, that person would have to be a voter in Arizona who looked at the affidavit filed by Obama before voting, and then voted for Obama in reliance on that paper. And of course it would have to be also established that Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen, AND that Obama knew that he was not a “natural born” citizen at the time of signing the affidavit.

    Again, the FACTS establishing that Obama is not a natural born citizen would have to be specifically set out.

99999 00000
?????????