Main Menu

The return of the Taitz

Prolific birther litigant Orly Taitz is back in a new episode of “the president is a usurper” in the DC District court.

Rather than gathering a long list of plaintiffs, Taitz is the sole pro se plaintiff in this case filed in the District of Columbiaย  January 27, 2010. Judge David O. Carter formerly rebuffed Taitz’s quo warranto claims in his California court since legislation requires all such lawsuits to be filed DC. Taitz has remedied that particular defect by filing this one in DC. It seems more of the same old same old, although better written than her former fare.

You can read it for yourself here.

665 Responses to The return of the Taitz

  1. avatar
    Saint James January 30, 2010 at 3:40 pm #

    The Judge will stop reading this 95 page bundle of crap when he reaches the part that states….”inspite of 12 citizen grand jury presentments and indictment”. The Judge will say “oh no, not again!”

    Can Orly be sanctioned with $76,543.21…in PENNIES, NICKELS AND DIMES? She has to count the money infront of the collecting officer then bring then to the bank herself to be deposited as part of her sanction!

  2. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    The Court will likely take the following steps:

    1. The AG has not shown that it is not interested in filing the case.
    2. A decision by the AG to not file is not reviewable by the Courts
    3. Orly is not an interested party under DC’s Code

    Motion to Dismiss granted, or motion for leave to file dismissed due to lack of Standing.

    Of course, to save SCOTUS from rejecting an appeal, he may just not render a final decision…

  3. avatar
    Expelliarmus January 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    I don’t think it gets as far as “motion to dismiss”. In an extraordinary writ proceeding (whether habeas corpus, writ of mandamus, quo warranto or anything else) — the first step is that the movant files a verified petition to the court, setting forth their claims.

    The court then reviews the petition to determine whether or not there is sufficient cause to proceed. If yes, the court issues the writ prayed for, which is essentially an order directed to the opposing side directing them to show cause why the relief prayed for in the writ should not be granted.

    If not, then the court summarily denies the writ.

    So I think within a very short time you will see a summary denial from the court. It would be sufficient, legally, for this to be done in one word (“Denied”) — but I wouldn’t be surprised to see a very short (1-2 paragraph) statement as to the basic flaws in the pleading. (i.e., that Orly is not an interested person under the meaning of the statute, that Orly did not properly apply for leave of court in any case, and that the DC statute does not authorize an action against a sitting President in any case)

  4. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    Would it not be nice to see instead of denied, the judge use “expelliarmus’ed”

  5. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 30, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    NBc: The Court will likely take the following steps:1. The AG has not shown that it is not interested in filing the case.
    2. A decision by the AG to not file is not reviewable by the Courts
    3. Orly is not an interested party under DC’s CodeMotion to Dismiss granted, or motion for leave to file dismissed due to lack of Standing.Of course, to save SCOTUS from rejecting an appeal, he may just not render a final decision…

    I think the Interested Party is the Super American Grand Jury.

    Judge Lamberth has Granted the Super Am. Grand Jury leave to file their presentments after tendering a filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. Judge Lamberth warned their case will then be dismissed because they lack standing to criminally prosecute a case.

    Orly is asking for leave to prosecute the presentments.

  6. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    I

    SvenMagnussen: I think the Interested Party is the Super American Grand Jury.

    What’s interesting about their party? Halloween is over and those robes have been done before.

  7. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 5:48 pm #

    I think the Interested Party is the Super American Grand Jury.

    Nope, they have no direct interest in the Office of the President.

    Since Orly is not an AG, she cannot file leave to prosecute a criminal case. Not under QW and not under US Constitutional law and precedent.

    If Orly is truly asking to prosecute presentments which Judge Lamberth said would be dismissed if filed, then I wonder about her wisdom of this.

    Of course, there is no foundation that provides Orly or the AGJ with standing here. Read the Lambert response.

  8. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 5:53 pm #

    First response of Judge Lamberth:

    The Fifth Amendment provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury….” U.S. Const. Amend. V. Although presentments are constitutionally permitted, there is no authority under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or in the statutes of the United States for this Court to accept one. United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794, 803 n.14 (5th Cir. 1975); Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1065 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1969); see also United States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 184 (5th Cir. 1965) (Brown, J., concurring).

    Furthermore, grand juries are convened by the court for the district in which they sit. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(a)(1); In re Grand Jury, 490 F.3d 978, 986 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“the district court itself convenes and supervises the grand jury proceedings.”). Grand jurors are also to be selected at random from a fair cross section of the district in which they are convened. 28 U.S.C. § 1861.

    The individuals who have made this presentment were not convened by this Court to sit as a grand jury nor have they been selected at random from a fair cross section of this district. In addition, the individuals who have made this presentment did not meet under the supervision of any district court and, in fact, convened online rather than in person. Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.

  9. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 6:00 pm #

    Why Judge Lamberth denied standing

    Before we can consider the merits of appellant’s claim or the propriety of the relief requested, however, appellant must first demonstrate that she is entitled to invoke the judicial process. She must, in other words, show that the facts alleged present the court with a “case or controversy” in the constitutional sense, and that she is a proper plaintiff to raise the issues sought to be litigated. The threshold question which must be answered is whether the appellant has “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”

    Concluding

    The Court’s prior decisions consistently hold that a citizen lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 401 U. S. 42 (1971); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 369 U. S. 33 (1962); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 367 U. S. 501 (1961). Although these cases arose in a somewhat different context, they demonstrate that, in American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another. Appellant does have an interest in the support of her child. But given the special status of criminal prosecutions in our system, we hold that appellant has made an insufficient showing of a direct nexus between the vindication of her interest and the enforcement of the State’s criminal laws. The District Court was therefore correct in dismissing the action for want of standing, [Footnote 5] and its judgment must be affirmed. [Footnote 6]

    Linda v. Richards, 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)

  10. avatar
    Scientist January 30, 2010 at 7:09 pm #

    Speaking of QW, is there any actual evidence that Donofrio has ever filed one? I believe he may have filed something regarding the Chrysler dealers, but it didn’t go into eligibility at all. Come to think of it, I’m not even sure he filed that. Has anyone seen anything in court documents?

  11. avatar
    NBc January 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm #

    QW may not be as profitable… Certainly Leo must have understood that it would go nowhere by now.

  12. avatar
    misha January 30, 2010 at 8:46 pm #

    “What’s interesting about their party? Halloween is over and those robes have been done before.”

    How about a beer party? Maybe a painting party? (bada-bing)

  13. avatar
    misha January 30, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    For a landsman, she sure acts like a putz.

  14. avatar
    richCares January 30, 2010 at 10:10 pm #

    what’s amazing is the reaction in birther land. to each birther, this is an OMG moment, so exciting. this is true even Though so many were shot down in the past. the delusional world of sven and friends forget previous failures as they cheer the latest dumb Orly action. How can anyone be that stupid, hating Obama evidently causes brain damage.

    Each and every new birther action is a OMG action till it fails, then there’s a new OMG action. You have to feel sorry for a nither, how patheticthey are!

  15. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 30, 2010 at 10:53 pm #

    richCares: Though so many were shot down in the past. the delusional world of sven and friends forget previous failures as they cheer the latest dumb Orly action. How can anyone be that stupid, hating Obama evidently causes brain damage.
    Each and every new birther action is a OMG action till it fails, then there’s a new OMG action. You have to feel sorry for a nither, how patheticthey are!

    Orly is thinking outside of the box. Judge Lamberth Ordered the Super American Grand to pay filing fee and ask the AG to prosecute the presentment. The AG, an Obama appointee, ignored it.

    Orly is merely requesting to leave to prosecute the case. There is nothing crazy, dellusional or damaging about it.

    Let me guess, BHO II will resign before he demonstrates his eligibility and you’ll blame everyone but him for it.

  16. avatar
    richCares January 30, 2010 at 11:04 pm #

    “Let me guess, BHO II will resign before he demonstrates his eligibility and you’ll blame everyone but him for it.”

    WOW, delusional beyond help! You need some meds. The elegibilty issue has been over for more than a year (except for delusional people like you)

    answering an idiot is a waste of time!

  17. avatar
    Black Lion January 30, 2010 at 11:31 pm #

    Dr. C, were you on the Chalice show? Your legally challenged nemisis seems to think so…

    Linda says:
    January 30, 2010 at 10:56 pm
    Maybe for once I could find out that there have, in fact, been cases that involve US citizenship specifically referencing presidential eligibility that have actually been tried in the Judiciary in the past — and I’m not even talking about the dozens that have been petitioned over the past year or so.

    -Phil

    Phil, There is only once case, it is Perkins v Elg in which the supreme Court upheld the lower court that declared Elg to be a natural born citizen, born to 2 US citizens the year after the parents naturalized. In the opinion, the court discussed 2 similar situations whrein those children were also born to naturalized parents & would qualify to be president if they choose to return to the US upon coming of age & resume their US natural bnorn citizenship status.

    Dr Conspiracy & politijab like to forget this case, they say it is not relevant. And speaking of Dr Consiracy, uh er I mean foogy’. Was quite the amusing Chalice show at PHN this week. Foggy made a few freudian slips. He should have stuck to his script. He also has absolutely no background in constitutional law, and his meager resume of the rest was quite enlightening. As for the rest of his background, well, let’s just say he is a perfect postor child for the flower power/ nudest camper/soldier/war bashing ideologues. Pelosi would be proud of her native state comrade.

    Finally, did anyone else participate in the 6 hr Constitution Town Hall by Hillsdale today?

    Linda says:
    January 30, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    For the Record Patriots who didn’t catch the Chalice show…

    Dr Conspiracy, uh er I mean foggy’ made it very clear in his interview at PHN what the mission of politijab statist are.

    Go out the the most visited & active sites showing dissent to their usurper and try to Disrupt & Divide.

    Too bad for them that we weren’t built to fall for that age old tactic, so…

    Keep this in mind Patriots when further engaging with them. They are posting from worn out scripts because they have nothing further to add to their defense.

  18. avatar
    richCares January 31, 2010 at 12:02 am #

    “Judge Lamberth Ordered the Super American Grand to pay filing fee and ask the AG to prosecute the presentment”

    birthers believe in fairy tales, but in real life they don’t come true. they need to get out and see the real world.

  19. avatar
    aarrgghh January 31, 2010 at 12:03 am #

    richcares observes:

    “the delusional world of sven and friends forget previous failures as they cheer the latest dumb Orly action. How can anyone be that stupid, hating Obama evidently causes brain damage.”

    amnesia is often an unwitting defense mechanism against unbearable psychotrauma. however for birfers an abridged memory is not merely therapeutic — it is a necessary built-in standard feature of their clown car.

    flagrant lying also works wonders.

  20. avatar
    misha January 31, 2010 at 12:37 am #

    “Orly is thinking outside of the box.”

    Orly is thinking outside the solar system. She has managed to time travel, sending only her cerebellum. BTW, Orly has made medical history by using her large intestine for reasoning. Your reasoning is guided by audio cassette tapes.

  21. avatar
    Dave January 31, 2010 at 12:38 am #

    I think you must be referring to this:

    http://jaghunters.blogspot.com/2009/09/judge-royce-lamberth-gives-premission.html

    Your chacterization of Lamberth’s ruling is similar to jaghunter’s, but jaghunter helpfully links to a copy of the order, where you can see that the judge does not ask the AG to prosecute — he says that if the presentment is filed, he will dismiss it.

    You really lost me in your last sentence — why in the world would Obama resign?

  22. avatar
    misha January 31, 2010 at 12:42 am #

    “why in the world would Obama resign?”

    Because he was born on Krypton, and spent his childhood on Tralfamadore. Don’t you keep up with current events?

  23. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 12:48 am #

    Orly is merely requesting to leave to prosecute the case. There is nothing crazy, dellusional or damaging about it.

    Where do I start with explaining the level of ignorance demonstrated here.

    1. A criminal case can only be prosecuted in the name of Government by the Government.

    2. In case of QW where a plaintiff has an immediate and direct interest in the office, a QW action may be allowed.

    3. In this case Orly has no such immediate interest in the office.

    4. Judge Lamberth showed that criminal proceedings cannot proceed without the involvement of the AG

    5. Judge Lambert allowed the AGJ to pay the filing fee after he which he would throw out the case

    6. The decision of the AG to refuse to prosecute in unreviewable by the Courts.

    In other words, Orly lacks standing, AGJ’s case either remains pending or will be dismissed.

    And no Orly is in no way asking leave to prosecute the case. She is asking leave to file a Quo Warranto but since she has no immediate interest in the office, the judge will throw out her lawsuit. Newman v Frizzell sets the stage here.

    Orly is not thinking in any coherent manner here, her filing shows evidence of such. Note how she fails to establish ANY foundation for standing…

  24. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 12:52 am #

    With 62 cases dismissed, 30 or so more appeals dismissed, and few cases remaining, none of which are showing any promise. With the Republicans failing to ask the question when given a public forum to do so, it is clear that the issue is dead from a political and legal perspective.

    Obama has no reason to resign.

    Why do you think that Orly succeeds where she has managed to fail in such grandious manners, all because of her own inabilities to understand and adhere to the issues of law?

    Please explain how attaching one’s case to one which will be dismissed if the payments for filing the presentments is received is ‘thinking outside the box’?

    To me it looks like a guaranteed failure of the usual Titanic proportions we have come to expect from out dentist friend.

  25. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 12:54 am #

    Yeah, Jaghunter showed a familiar unfamiliarity with the facts. He is still hurting that a real grand jury would not allow him to present his case…

    ‘Patriots’ of the finest kind…

  26. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    Judge Lamberth Ordered the Super American Grand to pay filing fee and ask the AG to prosecute the presentment. The AG, an Obama appointee, ignored it.

    Wrong, as usual.

    Judge Lamberth ruled that AGJ has the right to file its presentments, if the filing fee is paid. However, he would then immediately dismiss the presentments because AGJ has no standing.

    You apparently have missed the key part of Judge Lamberth’s ruling: “…the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States…The question of whether and when prosecution to be instituted is within the discretion of the Attorney General.”

    It’s laughable to think that Orly, who has never tried a case in her life, would be given leave to prosecute a case against the President of the United States.

  27. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 1:43 am #

    You apparently have missed the key part of Judge Lamberth’s ruling: “…the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States…The question of whether and when prosecution to be instituted is within the discretion of the Attorney General.”

    Seems that lack of reading comprehension combined with fertile sense of imagination and fantasy leads to predictable results of failure.

    Guaranteed…

    And yet rather than having learned from his past mistakes, Sven comes back with more of the same.

  28. avatar
    chufho January 31, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    Have you looked at the real world lately, its being dismanteled piece by piece

  29. avatar
    Lupin January 31, 2010 at 2:50 am #

    I assume you’re referring to your twisted version of an America that is not, and never was.

    That ghastly phantasm deserves not only to be dismantled but entirely expunged — after being thoroughly discredited.

  30. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 8:48 am #

    Dismantled? In what sense? 62 lost cases you mean? Yes, birthers really should see the real world where Courts continue to deny standing to the issue.

  31. avatar
    chufho January 31, 2010 at 11:27 am #

    we are still driving on the mountian road of economic disaster only now we are in a faster car

  32. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 31, 2010 at 11:43 am #

    Leo ‘splains it for us …

    “The Constitution provides in the 5th Amendment that a grand jury can return a “presentment” without the acquiescence of a Federal Prosecutor. I have encouraged people who are sworn in on Federal Grand Juries to use this power to investigate Government crimes even when the Prosecutor has not led them to such crimes. This is the power I was speaking of, and I first wrote about it in 2005 with regard to Constitutional crimes of the Bush administration.

    Imagine 25 grand jurors who really know their power sitting in a DC court room… The Government can’t indict without a grand jury so they must have a grand jury empanelled at all times. If the citizens of this nation understood their true power, then once sworn in as grand jurors they could investigate ANY crime that was undertaken by Government.”

    – Leo Donofrio
    April 2, 2009

    Thank you, NBc. Your site is terrific.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2010 at 12:17 pm #

    The essential characteristic of a grand jury is that it is randomly selected to be representative of the community. This is in stark contrast to a group of Obama denialists who select themselves and self-assign the label “grand jury”.

  34. avatar
    richCares January 31, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    chufho, is this what you mean by fastest car?

    The U.S. economy grew at the fastest pace in more than six years during the fourth quarter. The nation’s gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, rose at a 5.7% annual rate in the fourth quarter. That was much stronger than expected and provides another sign that a recovery in the economy is taking hold.

  35. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- January 31, 2010 at 1:08 pm #

    Yeah, whatever happened to the good old days when only white men of privilege could occupy the White House? You give those uppity negros an inch, and now they’re running the place and appointing Latinas to the Supreme Court! Where’s Lou Dobbs when you really need him!

  36. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    Linda seems to think that I am the same person as forum moderator “Foggy” on Politijab.com. I’m not. I post under the name “DrConspiracy” on Politijab.

  37. avatar
    richCares January 31, 2010 at 1:41 pm #

    Birthers, like right wingers, are banded together through hate. They hate Obama. Obama told those republicans about their nasty rhetoric in that match up at the GOP retreat, (where replublics were totally whipped). Their whole life is held together by a venom of hate. They religiously turn to right wing talk shows to find who they should hate today. The sad part is they teach their children to hate. The real world only interest them if they can hate it!

  38. avatar
    thisoldhippie January 31, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Why do these people not realize that you can’t handpick your grand jury? That it is picked by the court from a group of people summoned to serve by the court and that they must swear to be unbiased before hearing any evidnce??

  39. avatar
    NbC January 31, 2010 at 1:49 pm #

    “The Constitution provides in the 5th Amendment that a grand jury can return a “presentment” without the acquiescence of a Federal Prosecutor.

    What 5th Amendment have you in mind here?

    Yes, the grand jury may return presentments although few statutes allow for that anymore but the AG needs to sign off on them or they will go nowhere.
    And that’s exactly what happened in the case of the AGJ in DC.
    Of course, it did not even pretend to have made an effort to be a real grand jury other than in name…

    Relying on Leo’s musings is obviously not getting you anywhere, and neither is Leo…

  40. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Hmm, be careful, a lot may be caused by inventory replenishment

    The change in inventories added 3.4 percentage points to the growth rate in the final quarter of 2009.

    Still, good to see a few points growth…
    It’s a good time for some additional stimulus spending though, especially to help decrease the unemployment. Obama’s plans could reduce the rates by 2 points…

  41. avatar
    SvenMagnussen January 31, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    richCares: Birthers, like right wingers, are banded together through hate. They hate Obama. Obama told those republicans about their nasty rhetoric in that match up at the GOP retreat, (where replublics were totally whipped). Their whole life is held together by a venom of hate. They religiously turn to right wing talk shows to find who they should hate today. The sad part is they teach their children to hate. The real world only interest them if they can hate it!

    BHO II is not the only target. The Super American Grand Jury has indicted others for fraud and treason, as well.

    “The Court is in receipt of certain documents identified as “Grand Jury Presentments” filed by Mack H. Ellis. The documents purport to represent grand jury presentments for fraud, treason and election fraud against President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention.”

    This is very serious. I’m shocked the Speaker of the House is not taking this seriously.

  42. avatar
    Dave January 31, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    This is the point that is most astonishing to me. Not just that birthers think the law allows volunteer grand juries — but that it only takes about a millisecond of thought to realize that nobody in their right mind would want the law to allow this. Hey, wingers, don’t you think there might be 25 people who want to indict Bush? Cheney? Rove? Would that be good governance if every famous person got indicted by whatever lunatic fringe doesn’t like them?

  43. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 4:02 pm #

    This is very serious. I’m shocked the Speaker of the House is not taking this seriously.

    ROTFL, why would the speaker of the House take the action more or less seriously than the actions of a knitting club? There is nothing special about the AGJ there is no foundation in law for its claimed powers and as the courts have observed, if they intend to file a criminal complaint, they will have to do so with the Attorney General. Any other approach will lead to dismissal of their “presentments”/”complaints” as only the AG has ‘standing’ to file a criminal complaint.

    In QW, an interested 3rd party can still claim standing, with leave of Court to start an action which is historically criminal in nature, but neither Orly nor the AGJ have the necessary interest in the Office.

    And finally, there is sufficient reason to doubt that a QW against a President is Constitutionally permissible. At least that was the Conclusion of Congress when they voted down such an attempt.

    The AGJ is nothing more or less than any other group of US citizens who make known their feelings and grievances and as such they have no more or less standing to force the Government or the Courts to insist on redress of grievances. That would be a fallacious interpretation of the 1st Amendment right.

    The freedom of speech should not be confused with the freedom to be heard and listened to. Similarly the right to petition for redress of grievances need not be confused with a duty of Government to address said grievances.

    Hope this may clarify your confusions?

  44. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Actually some tried and were as successful as the AGJ in getting their grievances redressed.
    You rightly point to a fiction of law, based on a confusion thereof.
    Of course, Sven has shown himself to be extremely vulnerable to the figments of his imaginations and fantasies.
    Just because something sounds plausible does not make it probable or even relevant and factual. There is a significant step between proposing a novel ‘hypothesis’ and showing that such hypothesis has any merits.

  45. avatar
    richCares January 31, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    “This is very serious. I’m shocked the Speaker of the House is not taking this seriously.”

    Clowns are to be laughed at, not taken seriously. If they want to be taken seriously then they should get off the clown bus or at least hide their Nazi memorabilia.

  46. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    Let me explain your logical fallacy here:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

    This should not be confused with a right that a Grand Jury can make presentments. It only states that a Grand Jury shall return an indictment or presentment can someone be held to answer for his crimes.

    A requires B does not mean that B has any rights to enforce A.

  47. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 4:23 pm #

    Because when reason is insufficient, imaginative figments are created to compensate and create a false sense of control.

  48. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    The town of Brattleboro, Vermont, in their annual town meeting, did in fact indict Bush and Cheney for war crimes. That is far more valid than the “AGJ” “indictment” of Obama because the meeting was open to all residents, not just a self-selected group. In addition, Bush and Cheney DID commit war crimes, whereas Obama, even if you believe he is ineligible (despite the facts that say otherwise), is not responsible for where he was born or who his father was.

    Interestingly, Vermont is the only state that Bush did not visit during his Presidency.

  49. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Brattleboro, Vt., voted today in support of a measure calling on the town’s police force to arrest and indict Bush and Cheney. The vote was 2012-1795.

    Marlboro, Vt., passed a similar measure at its town meeting today at which the vote to indict Bush and Cheney was 43-25-3. That’s 43 in favor and 3 abstaining. Thus Marlboro beat Brattleboro to it by a few hours. In Brattleboro, the indictment question was on the primary ballots for both parties.

    Hilarious… Did not even realize that it had been an actual vote of the town’s voters.

    Too bad Bush chose not to test the enforcability of this measure. I agree, it beats the AGJ but that’s a pretty low bar…

  50. avatar
    Scientist January 31, 2010 at 5:54 pm #

    Not to dredge up ancient history, but the constitutional case against Cheney’s eligibility was far stronger than that against Obama. The Constitution forbids electors voting for residents of their own state for both President and Vice President. Cheney lived in Houston, having recently retired as CEO of Haliburton, and was by any reasonable standard a resident of Texas, as was Bush. Thus, Texas electors should not have been able to vote for both Bush and Cheney. Without Texas’ votes, Lieberman would have been elected VP, not Cheney.

    There were a couple of court cases filed, which were quickly dismissed. Unlike the whining, snivelling, 2-year-old birthers, the anti-Cheney people dropped the matter and moved on to concerns over actual policy (torture, unlawful detentions and other serious matters). This really illustrates the difference between the 2 sides.

  51. avatar
    racosta January 31, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    All of us on Dr. C’s site have got together and formed a Grand Jury, we have iniated treason charges against sven for going against our constitution and trying to undo a valid election. We will submit our presentments next week. I would urge sven to confess quickly as our chamber contains waterboarding equipment.

  52. avatar
    Saint James January 31, 2010 at 7:45 pm #

    I, as a self appointed member of the double order super grand jury latte also volunteer to serve the presentment and initiate water boarding upon sven without farther delay! So help me God!

  53. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Some have argued that President Obama would fail to qualify as a natural born citizen under Vattel’s principles of International Law (also known as the Law of Nations). However, even Vattel is clear that children born to parents in a foreign country which extends protection to their father and themselves may cause such children, when reaching the age of majority to determine which birthright citizenship to pursue; their father’s or the birth right obtained through birth on the soil of the country, which in turn provides them with protection and security. It should become clear that although at birth, multiple nations may claim a child as a citizen of their country, it is the decision of the child when reaching the age of majority, to decide to which nation he truly wants to belong. And while in the intermediate time, the general principle is that the child follows the condition of the father, the father cannot renounce a child’s birth right citizenship nor can he prevent such a child when growing up, from continuing a different citizenship than his father’s. Of course, when a father’s involvement in the raising of the child has been minimal, and the child never followed his father to his father’s native country, but rather continued his presence in the country of his birth, it becomes hard to argue that such a child does not have the right to elect and continue his birth right native citizenship.

    The importance of these findings is significant as it also helps understand the ill translated section from Vattel while ignoring Vattel’s other statements on this topic. So even allowing the argument that Vattel’s principles had some relevance to the concept of natural born citizen, it is hard to ignore that even under Vattel, it is the child who decides which of the birth right citizenships to continue. And in fact, in the case of President Obama, it was the Common Law tradition which caused his birth on US soil to make him a natural born citizen thereof, while it was a statutory law which made President Obama also subject to English citizenship laws. Furthermore, the relative limited time spent by President Obama with his natural father, combine with President Obama’s clear choice about which birth right citizenship to continue, further undermines any argument that President Obama was somehow ineligible because of the laws of some foreign nations conflicting with the United States principles of citizenship.

    To understand the meaning of the term natural born as used by the Founders, we need to go no further than Hamilton’s proposal which he made public on June 18, 1787. When subsequently, John Jay showed concern about foreign princes gaining access to the presidency, the decision was simple; to limit the eligibility to the Office of the President to those born a citizen of the United States.

    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

    Compare this to the version which was finally approved and we see a strong similarity

    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;

    Continued here

  54. avatar
    Black Lion January 31, 2010 at 10:28 pm #

    That is what I thought…I could not imagine Linda and her limited skill set winning any sort of debate with you….She is still delusional…She is now pushing her innane theory that the Perkins v. Elg affirms that the definition of a NBC has to have 2 citizen parents…She is similar to Sven…No real evidence but likes to make stuff up…

  55. avatar
    Rickey January 31, 2010 at 10:56 pm #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    This is very serious. I’m shocked the Speaker of the House is not taking this seriously.

    Poor, deluded Sven.

    The people who participated in the SAGJ did so because they had already made up their minds that Obama, Pelosi, et al. were guilty of treason. That by definition is a kangaroo court.

    I have it on good authority that Pelosi has not lost a minute of sleep over this.

    So nearly a year ago Leo encouraged real grand jurors to take up the issue of Obama’s eligibility. How has that worked out?

    What continues to amaze me is how much you birthers still rely upon the Three Stooges of jurisprudence – Orly, Leo and Mario.

  56. avatar
    NBc January 31, 2010 at 11:12 pm #

    Sven has be unusually quiet. Will he leave to lick his wounds and return with his Indonesia fantasies?

  57. avatar
    racosta January 31, 2010 at 11:14 pm #

    “What continues to amaze me is how much you birthers still rely upon the Three Stooges of jurisprudence – Orly, Leo and Mario”

    Hey, the Three Stooges were funny, but these guys are jerks!

  58. avatar
    misha January 31, 2010 at 11:29 pm #

    “The Super American Grand Jury has indicted others”

    You mean the Super Duper American Mini Jury.

  59. avatar
    misha January 31, 2010 at 11:37 pm #

    “Cheney lived in Houston, having recently retired as CEO of Haliburton, and was by any reasonable standard a resident of Texas”

    Cheney’s domicile is in Wyoming, so he wins on a technicality.

    Just like Bush Sr declared his domicile in Houston, even though he spent most of his time in Maine.

  60. avatar
    Ballantine February 1, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    “Phil, There is only once case, it is Perkins v Elg in which the supreme Court upheld the lower court that declared Elg to be a natural born citizen, born to 2 US citizens the year after the parents naturalized. In the opinion, the court discussed 2 similar situations whrein those children were also born to naturalized parents & would qualify to be president if they choose to return to the US upon coming of age & resume their US natural bnorn citizenship status.”

    Are these people really that stupid. Even if the court said Elg was a natural born citizen, since she would satisfy both the Vattel and the Blackstone definition, it is meaningless as authority unless it says why she was natural born. Duh. Of course, the only only acknowledged that the lower court determined her to be natural born. You would think that she would look at why the lower court called her a natural born citizen and she would get a lesson on the common law:

    “The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691, in which he said:

    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.”

    This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking of the latter doctrine, said:

    “The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity, instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the soil.”[2]

    But this was not the common law.[3] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890. When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381137503537572247&q=perkin+v.+elg&hl=en&as_sdt=2002

  61. avatar
    Ballantine February 1, 2010 at 12:20 am #

    How stupid are these people. Even if the Elg court said she was natural born, since she would satisfy both the Vattel and the Blackstone definition it would be meaningless unless the court said why she was natural born. Duh. Of course, the court only acknoweledged the lower court said she was natural born. You would think she would go read why the lower court said she was natural born.

    “We think the decision of the lower court is in all respects correct.

    The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691, in which he said:

    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.”

    This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking of the latter doctrine, said:

    “The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity, instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the soil.”[2]

    But this was not the common law.[3] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890. When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.” Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 410 (D.C. Cir. 1938), modified and affirmed, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

  62. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 1, 2010 at 5:08 am #

    Rickey:
    I have it on good authority that Pelosi has not lost a minute of sleep over this.
    So nearly a year ago Leo encouraged real grand jurors to take up the issue of Obama’s eligibility. How has that worked out?What continues to amaze me is how much you birthers still rely upon the Three Stooges of jurisprudence – Orly, Leo and Mario.

    I relied on Judge Lamberth’s jurisprudence.

    After rejecting the presentments, he reconsidered and Ordered the presentments to be filed and a filing fee paid.

    Now, I’m getting feedback on the quality or veracity of the grand jury proceeding and its been accepted by Judge Lamberth.

    Although it’s not clear, it looks like Orly may request leave to prosecute the presentments. If I were Speaker of the House and a Federal Judge was pointing out a path to my prosecution for treason, then I’d be concerned.

    But that’s just me.

  63. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 1, 2010 at 6:37 am #

    What part of this sentence don’t you understand?

    [H]owever, should the fee be tendered the presentments will be dismissed as the petitioners lack standing to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.[citations]

    Order of Chief Judge Royce D. Lamberth, Sept. 10, 2009 — see: http://agjnow.org/judge-lamberths-second-order-and-agjs-response

  64. avatar
    racosta February 1, 2010 at 9:57 am #

    sven is an Obat doing his best to discredit the birther movement by showing how stupid they are. Either that or he is the world’s most stupid person who is alergic to truth.

  65. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    After rejecting the presentments, he reconsidered and Ordered the presentments to be filed and a filing fee paid.

    Wrong again (do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?).

    Judge Lamberth didn’t ORDER anything. All he did was give them permission to FILE the presentments, as long as they pay the filing fee. However, he warned them that if they pay the fee and file the presentments, he will immediately dismiss them because the SAGJ has no standing to indict anyone.

    Judge Lamberth’s ruling is that the SAGJ has the right to file its presentments, but also that the government can and will ignore the presentments. That’s why the SAGJ hasn’t paid the filing fee – they are stupid, but not that stupid.

    Now do you understand?

  66. avatar
    Black Lion February 1, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    Interesting article…

    “For all its apparent freshness, the Tea Party movement is firmly rooted, in its ideology, rhetoric and — there’s no polite word for it — its paranoia, in the post-World War II American right.

    Even reasonable Tea Party activists take it as given that Obama is a socialist. It hardly seems to matter that a significant chunk of the stimulus was a tax cut, or that his chief economist is centrist Larry Summers, or that the bailouts of the auto and banking industries began under President George W. Bush, or that Reagan favored the bailout of Chrysler in 1980, or that Reagan raised taxes to save Social Security.

    Kathy Olmsted, a University of California, Davis historian of the period, notes that they accused the one-time Supreme Allied Commander of being a communist agent, an allegation made repeatedly by candy tycoon Robert Welch.

    The use of the clinical term “paranoid” to describe the president’s opponents is surely condescending.

    “It’s condescending, but it also happens to be true,” says Michael Munger, a Duke University political scientist who is a libertarian and has been a keynote speaker at a number of Tea Party rallies.

    He says we’ve reached a tipping point of paranoia and conspiracy mongering, fed by two trends: loss of credibility of official sources culminating, as far as conservatives are concerned, with this administration; and the profusion of media outlets that feed on conspiracy and paranoia.

    Perlstein notes that establishment media of the early 1960s acted as a filter against extremism. Walter Cronkite, for instance, would never countenance the likes of Orly Taitz, a leader of the movement to prove Obama was born in Kenya. And, yet, there she is on the cable networks.

    As Olmsted notes, “With cable, there’s an endless appetite for feeding the monster. And with Fox, it’s made to order.”

    http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/50969

  67. avatar
    Black Lion February 1, 2010 at 10:45 am #

    Ballantine, we are talking about birthers…Intelligence is not a requirement. When backed in a corner regarding any ruling after Wong that declared that a natrual born citizen needed to have 2 citizen parents, the birthers, particularly Linda came up with this misreading of Perkins v. Elg to attempt to support her theory. As we all know the birther MO is to repeat debunked theories enough so that someone stupid might believe them…

  68. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 1, 2010 at 11:17 am #

    Expelliarmus: What part of this sentence don’t you understand?
    Order of Chief Judge Royce D. Lamberth, Sept. 10, 2009 — see: http://agjnow.org/judge-lamberths-second-order-and-agjs-response

    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.

    Orly has asked two U.S. Attorneys and an AG to prosecute the case. Hopefully, Judge Lamberth will tell Orly nothing further can be done.

    After all, President Obama would probably fire any appointee who filed charges against him.

  69. avatar
    Greg February 1, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.

    Did you see this part of the ORDER? “…they are given LEAVE to file their “PRESENTMENTS,” upon tendering the filing fee to the Clerk of Court, HOWEVER, should the filing fee be tendered the presentments WILL BE DISMISSED as the petitioners LACK STANDING to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.”

    Do you know what “LEAVE” means? It means the SAGJ has PERMISSION to file their “presentments.” Not that they are REQUIRED to. And, while they CAN be “filed,” they WILL be dismissed.

    And, surprise, they WERE dismissed.

    Orly is thinking outside the box, alright, she’s also thinking outside the law.

  70. avatar
    NBc February 1, 2010 at 12:33 pm #

    After all, President Obama would probably fire any appointee who filed charges against him.

    Speculating again I notice. Have you no regard for facts?

    Poor Sven

  71. avatar
    NBc February 1, 2010 at 12:35 pm #

    Now, I’m getting feedback on the quality or veracity of the grand jury proceeding and its been accepted by Judge Lamberth.

    The filing was accepted, case dismissed…

    What part do you not comprehend Sven?

    You’re dreaming again…

  72. avatar
    racosta February 1, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    “Hopefully, Judge Lamberth will tell Orly nothing further can be done.”

    you require a course in reading comprehension:
    Lambert said “…HOWEVER, should the filing fee be tendered the presentments WILL BE DISMISSED”

    check in with Rush and find something else to hate, the birther issue is over.

    the January 29th court date is still keeping birthers excited, we need to purchase a lot of dunce caps.

  73. avatar
    NBc February 1, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    Orly is asking for leave to prosecute the presentments.

    If the AGJ lacks standing, what pray tell, do you think Orly lacks?

    Hilarious, this continued lack of logic and reason by Sven.

  74. avatar
    John February 1, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    While I hope the best for Orly, I have a feeling it’s going to be dismissed. Since, Eric Holder and the US attorney have neither refused or constented, the court will say since Eric Holder has no responded either way, he can’t be penalized for his inaction. Therefore, Orly won’t have permission to act on his behalf. The only way to be sucessful is for Orly or someone on her behalf to try to track Eric Holder and get him to admit that he refused to take the case. Once that happens, Orly can intervene. But, I think as long Holder stays silent, nothing can be done. If that is the case, Orly’s mission is to track down and haunt Holder until she can a response from him that will allow intervention. Eric Holder does not exist in a vacuum. It should be possible to research and track Eric Holder’s movements and prepare to send fronts to follow him where ever he goes.

  75. avatar
    NBc February 1, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    Oh the fantasy of some, the fantasy of some.
    The best for Orly is for the case to be just dismissed.

  76. avatar
    Black Lion February 1, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    NBC. This is the problem when birthers have access to Google….

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm
    Who has the power/duty to define constitutional issues?

    ALL 3 Branches, in this town hall lectures series, the scholars & professors also explain how the colonists had adopted the law of nations until the Brits came in and forced changes & over the course of time, the oppresive form of government could no longer be tolerated & the colonists wished to return to their freeman’ status & thus the revolution silently began. I recommend all 5 parts, but this one directly speaks to interpreting the constitution.

    http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/default.cfm?id=11995&type=flv&test=0&live=0

    And what did the founders say as to interpretation of constitutional issues by the courts?

    Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention, that wrote the U.S. Constitution. As the nations’s first Secretary of the Treasury, he played a crucual role in shaping the policies that became known as the American System. Here we examine how his thinking was shaped by Emmerich de Vattel’s work, “The Law of Nations.”

    The issue of whether the American Republic would be a true republic, or merely a new government of landed aristocrats and financial oligarchs, was the central issue of the dispute, in which Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson became leaders on the two opposing sides. Contrary to most of today’s lying historians, Hamilton was the leader of the republicans, and Jefferson, a leader of the aristocratic party. Although many men contributed to the founding of the United States, it is useful to focus on Hamilton, since of all of America’s founders, he was most clearly influenced by Vattel, and his actions were most coherent with Leibnizian natural law. No one played a more important role than Hamilton, in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and in fulfilling its Leibnizian mandate. A number of Hamilton’s key initiatives show how Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} shaped Hamilton’s thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States.

    Exerpts from Vattel’s Law of Nations

    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id5.html

    “Rutgers v. Waddington.” Rutgers v. Waddington (1784) is an excellent example of how Vattel shaped Hamilton’s philosophical outlook. Furthermore, Hamilton’s arguments in Rutgers v. Waddington were a milestone in the formulation of the American doctrine of judicial review, or the doctrine that legislative decisions must be reviewed by the courts, to determine if they are coherent with higher forms of law. In this case, a British merchant, Mr. Waddington, had occupied a brewery after its owner, Mrs. Rutgers, a patriot widow, fled New York City, following British occupation. In February 1784, at the height of anti-Tory feeling, Mrs. Rutgers filed a suit against Waddington under the Trespass Act. Hamilton represented the defendant, Waddington.

    The Trespass Act and other acts by the New York legislature were extremely destructive, forcing one-fifth of the state’s population to flee, and thereby weakening the nation. Even worse, Hamilton saw these legislative actions as a new form of tyranny, spawned by the momentary passions of the mob, which could lead to a new aristocracy or oligarchy.

    The case contrasts the Lockean approach of popular sovereignty, to Hamilton’s reliance on natural law. Lawyers for the plaintiff argued that the legislature was the supreme law-giving authority of the state, and was subject to no control except that of the people. However, the New York State Constitution had adopted the common law of England, as part of the Constitution of New York. This British feature, of making past precedents part of the Constitution, Hamilton turned on its head, by arguing that, since the law of nations was part of the common law, the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations, in order to have validity. And Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations.

  77. avatar
    NBc February 1, 2010 at 2:32 pm #

    Fascinating how they claim but fail to apply reason and logic.

    If Hamilton were so enamored with Vattel, why did his proposal talk about citizen by birth…

    As to Rutgers v. Waddington, it was a horrible decision, and of no relevance to the issue of citizenship. The case involved a dispute which involved a treaty made by the US versus municipal law made by New York. The Court waffled between two concepts and decided to avoid the real issue.

    I guess these posters are willing to abandon state rights over US supremacy ๐Ÿ™‚

  78. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 1, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    Good idea, John. You want Orly and her followers to follow Holder around to harass and intimidate him until he takes action, right? Fits pretty neatly under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. But the good news is that as long as you birthers are careful not to physically hurt him in any way, and avoid carrying any weapons while you are busy tracking and following Mr. Holder, the maximum penalty is 5 years.

  79. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm #

    John: Your head must be filled with osmium (the densest material on Earth). There is no point harassing Holder, since there is nothing he can do. There is only ONE way to remove a sitting President-impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. And no matter what crimes he might commit, he can only be prosecuted after removal from office.

    Do you get it now?

  80. avatar
    ballantine February 1, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Silly argument. You can’t cite someone acting as an advocate as authority as they are arguing for a client. Of course, everyone, including Blackstone and Rawle agreed that the law of nations was part of the common law. However, no one suggested it superceded municipal law particularly with respect to citizenship. Remember, Hamilton suggested the president only be a citizen at birth.

  81. avatar
    Bob February 1, 2010 at 3:59 pm #

    Allen v. Obama dismissed.

  82. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2010 at 4:12 pm #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.

    But you apparently don’t understand the difference between “order” (the verb) and “ORDER” (the noun).

    Judge Lamberth issued a ruling, which is called an Order (the noun) of the court. However, he did not order (the verb) anyone to do anything.

    He did grant the petitioners leave to file their presentments if they pay the filing fee. However, he warned the petitioners that if they file the presentments, he will immediately dismiss them because the petitioners have no standing.

    There is no order (the verb) involved. The petitioners are free to pay the filing fee and file their presentments, or they can do nothing. It’s up to them.

  83. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 1, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Good idea, John.You want Orly and her followers to follow Holder around to harass and intimidate him until he takes action, right? Fits pretty neatly under18 U.S.C. § 2261A.But the good news is that as long as you birthers are careful not to physically hurt him in any way, and avoid carrying any weapons while you are busy tracking and following Mr. Holder, the maximum penalty is 5 years.

    Sean Hannity called for Holder to be fired or resign, today. Can I have Sean arrested?

  84. avatar
    Expelliarmus February 1, 2010 at 4:43 pm #

    I’ve lost count. Is this birther-loss #62 or #63?

  85. avatar
    Black Lion February 1, 2010 at 4:45 pm #

    Agreed…And then the respond when called on the carpet with this….

    Linda says:
    February 1, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of
    your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting …|.

    The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions “of the circumstances of a rising state,” is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel’s arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our “British Brethren,” but since they “have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,” we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, “to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.”

    The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel’s Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration’s Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke’s philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to “Life, Liberty, and Property.” The inclusion of “the pursuit of happiness,” rather than “property,” as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.

  86. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Sean Hannity called for Holder to be fired or resign, today. Can I have Sean arrested?

    Stupidity is not a crime. If it were, Hannity would be doing life.

  87. avatar
    Montana February 1, 2010 at 5:03 pm #

    We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with the so call facts that they present. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.

  88. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 5:21 pm #

    Sean Hannity called for Holder to be fired or resign, today. Can I have Sean arrested?

    Do you even realize how non sequitur this is?

  89. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Noone is doubting that Vattel played a role in defining international law, however, this is a far cry from it having any relevance to areas where a Sovereign nation clearly has the right to decide for themselves. Citizenship is one such area and even Vattel accepts this.

  90. avatar
    Whatever4 February 1, 2010 at 5:59 pm #

    Jack Ryan is amazing.

  91. avatar
    kimba February 1, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    65, I think.

  92. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 6:54 pm #

    I believe it was Tes who remembered to check the docket

  93. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 1, 2010 at 7:46 pm #

    The ORDER was issued after a Motion to Reconsider a previous ruling, i.e. the Court reversed itself.

    I’m not saying the Court will Grant Orly’s Writ of Mandamus, I’m saying the Court is not adverse to reconsideration.

    I understand Sen. Lamar Alexander called for Holder’s resignation yesterday. Holder has got to be a little skittish. If Holder acted upon the SAGJ Presentment, it is likely he would be fired.

    Maybe the Court understands this. Maybe the Court will Grant Orly’s request. Maybe not.

  94. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 7:51 pm #

    The ORDER was issued after a Motion to Reconsider a previous ruling, i.e. the Court reversed itself.

    Novel interpretation of the facts.

    They were allowed to file knowing very well that their case would then be dismissed. But the would first have to pay the filing fee.

  95. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 1, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    NbC:
    Novel interpretation of the facts.They were allowed to file knowing very well that their case would then be dismissed. But the would first have to pay the filing fee.

    Leo is correct …

    A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute (D.C.C. Chap. 35 16-3503) may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.

    Maybe I’ll prosecute the case.

  96. avatar
    Scientist February 1, 2010 at 8:02 pm #

    You can’t prosecute a sitting President, nor remove them from office except through impeachment. Period. End of story.

  97. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute (D.C.C. Chap. 35 16-3503) may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor.

    This person needs to have a direct interest in the office per Newmann v Frizzell… In other words, a challenger to the office.

    let me help educate yourself

    The Code — making a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” — recognizes also that there might be instances in which a person might have such an interest in the matter as to entitle him to a hearing, even where he had failed to secure the consent of the Attorney General or District Attorney to use the name of the United States. Section 1540 deals with that case, and provides that, where these law officers have refused the request of a “person interested,” he may apply to the court by a verified petition for leave to have said writ issue. If, in the opinion of the court, his reasons are sufficient in law, the said writ shall be allowed to be
    issued in the name of the United States on the relation of said interested person on his giving security for costs.

    followed by

    Frizzell does not allege that he had been an incumbent of that office and had been unlawfully ousted before his term expired. He does not set up any claim to the office. And, of course, if he, as a citizen and a taxpayer, has the right to institute these proceedings, any other citizen and taxpayer has a similar right to institute proceedings against Newman and all others who “exercise within the District . . . a public office, civil or military.” District Code, §1538(1). Such result would defeat the whole policy of the law, which still regards usurpation as a public wrong to be dealt with primarily by the public prosecutors.

    How come that you are not familiar with these cases? The Supreme Court has been quite clear on Quo Warranto and you believe anyone can volunteer to be a prosecutor.

    You fool…

    Failed again.

  98. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    That’s what the limited precedent on this topic suggests yes. Certainly logic and reason would lead one to such a conclusion.

  99. avatar
    Rickey February 1, 2010 at 8:52 pm #

    SvenMagnussen says:

    The ORDER was issued after a Motion to Reconsider a previous ruling, i.e. the Court reversed itself.

    I’m not saying the Court will Grant Orly’s Writ of Mandamus, I’m saying the Court is not adverse to reconsideration.

    More ignorant nonsense. Are you deliberately obtuse, or does it just come naturally?

    The only ruling which Judge Lamberth reversed was a procedural ruling. He initially ruled that SAGJ could not file the presentments. He then reconsidered and decided that they had the right to file (if they paid the filing fee), but he said that if they did so he would immediately dismiss the case for lack of standing.

    It’s really no different than your right to petition the government. You have the right to petition, but the government is not required to respond to your petition.

    As for Holder:

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., appearing on the same show, disagreed, saying calls for Holder to resign were “political” and noting that decisions by the former Bush administration to try some terror suspects in criminal courts didn’t bring calls for resignations.

    Van Hollen also said that FBI agents who interrogated Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes before he was “Mirandized” said they “got the information that they needed, and he will certainly be convicted as a result of the court proceedings.”

  100. avatar
    Greg February 1, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    I understand Sen. Lamar Alexander called for Holder’s resignation yesterday.

    For Mirandizing the Christmas-day bomber. In other words, upholding the Constitution.

    Guess this just shows your supposed commitment to the Constitution is situational.

  101. avatar
    NbC February 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    Wow, seems that the Republicans have lost any respect for the Constitution…

  102. avatar
    NBc February 1, 2010 at 11:38 pm #

    In Cook v Good, Orly files an appeal and the Court outlines 13 deficiencies. On par with our expectations…

    read here

  103. avatar
    G February 2, 2010 at 12:25 am #

    Yeah, good luck with that Sven. Keep plucking that chicken and get used to disappointment.

  104. avatar
    G February 2, 2010 at 12:26 am #

    Yeah, go for it. I’d like to see you try. LOL!

  105. avatar
    misha February 2, 2010 at 4:01 am #

    “Maybe I’ll prosecute the case.”

    Be my guest.

  106. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 2, 2010 at 5:52 am #

    Rickey: SvenMagnussen says:
    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.But you apparently don’t understand the difference between “order” (the verb) and “ORDER” (the noun).
    Judge Lamberth issued a ruling, which is called an Order (the noun) of the court. However, he did not order (the verb) anyone to do anything.
    He did grant the petitioners leave to file their presentments if they pay the filing fee. However, he warned the petitioners that if they file the presentments, he will immediately dismiss them because the petitioners have no standing.
    There is no order (the verb) involved. The petitioners are free to pay the filing fee and file their presentments, or they can do nothing. It’s up to them.

    Judge Lamberth didn’t ORDER the Super American Grand Jury to pay a fee if they chose to file? ‘Cause that sounds like an instruction or ORDER to take an action (verb) based on a condition.

    Do we have difficulty admitting we’re wrong on an occasional basis?

    The reason the Judge threatened to dismiss was because he knew an Obama appointee would not prosecute the Presentment against his boss. So, the Judge was letting them know that without a prosecutor, their money would be wasted.

    Orly has graciously offered to prosecute the case on the government’s behalf. Now, it will look pretty bad if the Judge turns her down. But anything is possible.

  107. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 2, 2010 at 6:10 am #

    Rickey: SvenMagnussen says:
    The ORDER was issued after a Motion to Reconsider a previous ruling, i.e. the Court reversed itself.I’m not saying the Court will Grant Orly’s Writ of Mandamus, I’m saying the Court is not adverse to reconsideration.More ignorant nonsense. Are you deliberately obtuse, or does it just come naturally?The only ruling which Judge Lamberth reversed was a procedural ruling. He initially ruled that SAGJ could not file the presentments. He then reconsidered and decided that they had the right to file (if they paid the filing fee), but he said that if they did so he would immediately dismiss the case for lack of standing.It’s really no different than your right to petition the government. You have the right to petition, but the government is not required to respond to your petition.As for Holder:Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., appearing on the same show, disagreed, saying calls for Holder to resign were “political” and noting that decisions by the former Bush administration to try some terror suspects in criminal courts didn’t bring calls for resignations.Van Hollen also said that FBI agents who interrogated Abdulmutallab for 50 minutes before he was “Mirandized” said they “got the information that they needed, and he will certainly be convicted as a result of the court proceedings.”

    Actually, Judge Lamberth’s ORDER to perform an action (verb) if a condition exists indicated the Super American Grand Jury did not have the right to prosecute the case and it was at the AG’s discretion.

    Orly disagrees and is offering to prosecute the case because we all know the AG would be fired by his boss if he prosecuted his boss.

  108. avatar
    Greg February 2, 2010 at 6:43 am #

    Sven, instead of attempting, poorly, to read the Judge’s mind, why don’t we look at the WORDS of the Judge’s ORDER?

    [the SAGJ] are given LEAVE to file their “PRESENTMENTS,” upon tendering the filing fee to the Clerk of Court, HOWEVER, should the filing fee be tendered the presentments WILL BE DISMISSED as the petitioners LACK STANDING to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.

    IF they file their “Presentments,” THEN they have to pay a fee.

    IF they don’t file their “presentments,” THEN they DON’T have to pay a fee.

  109. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 2, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    NbC:
    This person needs to have a direct interest in the office per Newmann v Frizzell… In other words, a challenger to the office.let me help educate yourself
    followed by
    How come that you are not familiar with these cases? The Supreme Court has been quite clear on Quo Warranto and you believe anyone can volunteer to be a prosecutor.You fool…Failed again.

    Your argument would be much stronger without the name calling.

    I get the impression you want to argue for an appeal of the ORDER for conditional acceptance of the Presentments.

    Why don’t you? As a courtesy, you should initally contact the Super American Grand Jury and the AG to ask for permission to file a Friend of the Court brief.

    After that, ask the Court for permission to file Amicus Curiae. Be clear, concise and don’t call anyone any names.

  110. avatar
    misha February 2, 2010 at 11:21 am #

    “you should initally contact the Super American Grand Jury”

    What basement do they meet in?

  111. avatar
    misha February 2, 2010 at 11:22 am #

    “Republicans have lost any respect for the Constitution…”

    Just ask GWB and Cheney.

  112. avatar
    misha February 2, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    “Orly disagrees and is offering to prosecute the case”

    Is that between teeth cleaning, and washing dishes?

  113. avatar
    NbC February 2, 2010 at 11:59 am #

    I guess poor Sven does not understand the precedents.

    This has nothing to do with presentments being accepted and case rejected.

    What a fool… (Just giving Sven an excuse to ignore the facts)

  114. avatar
    NBc February 2, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    Why should I need a stronger argument to expose your claims as based on ignorance?

  115. avatar
    G February 2, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    No Sven. You just can’t seem to grasp simple concepts, can you? Why is reading comprehension so difficult for you?

    Let me put it in simple terms for you:

    The judge plainly informed the Grand Jury folks that their stuff is frivolous tripe and their “pretend Grand Jury” is not a proper Grand Jury. He basically said that if they want to continue to waste his time, they can pony up the money to file more of their crap, but as soon they do, he will promptly dismiss them.

    It is really that simple.

  116. avatar
    Greg February 2, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    I get the impression you want to argue for an appeal of the ORDER for conditional acceptance of the Presentments.

    Conditional acceptance?

    Condition 1: They file the presentment
    Condition 2: They pay the fee
    THEN: The presentments will be rejected!

    If the Super Grand Jury files the presentments, they get the special privilege of having the judge dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction.

    It’s not conditional acceptance – do these things and we’ll accept your presentments – it’s a conditional rejection – you are welcome to file the presentments, but be warned they WILL be dismissed.

  117. avatar
    SFJeff February 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm #

    Am I the only one that giggles a little everytime I see the term “Super American Grand Jury”?

  118. avatar
    NBc February 2, 2010 at 1:26 pm #

    Seems simple enough terms. Will poor Sven comprehend?

    The AGJ wants to file so-called ‘presentments’ to criminally indict President Obama and others. The Court has ruled that only the AG can file such and allowed the AGJ to pay for the filing and then deny the motion.

    Orly wants to be declared under the Quo Warranto statute as an “interested party”. Since she lacks any direct interest in the office, her request will be denied.

    Furthermore, even if she had a direct interest, the Courts would reject a QW against the Office of the President. For obvious reasons.

    Sven, why don’t you return to your imaginary speculations rather than focus on something you lack any foundation of understanding.

  119. avatar
    NBc February 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm #

    The only thing accurate about Super American Grand Jury is the ‘super’ part.

  120. avatar
    G February 2, 2010 at 1:29 pm #

    NBc says: “The only thing accurate about Super American Grand Jury is the ’super’ part.”

    As in super silly?

  121. avatar
    NBc February 2, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    Super wrong… But it is doubtful that it is American’ and it is certain that it is not a ‘Grand Jury’

  122. avatar
    GeorgetownJD February 2, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    No need to entertain a Motion to Dismiss. Judge Lamberth can — and will likely — dismiss it sua sponte, on precisely the grounds that you have so observantly noted.

  123. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 2, 2010 at 3:46 pm #

    Did anyone read the SAGJ’s response to the Order? That was fun! (Not). These people are nuts.

    And yes I have resorted to name calling because otherwise it is just wasting oxygen trying to speak rationally to these people.

  124. avatar
    NBc February 2, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

    You are probably right, the Court has no doubt an easy case to deny based on standing.

  125. avatar
    Mary Brown February 2, 2010 at 10:19 pm #

    Amen. What randomly selected group of citizens would do anything but laugh at these people and then ask why they wasted everyone’s time.

  126. avatar
    misha February 2, 2010 at 11:18 pm #

    “Am I the only one that giggles a little everytime I see the term “Super American Grand Jury”?

    Everytime I see “Super American Grand Jury”, I…wait, isn’t this the Penthouse Forum?

  127. avatar
    sponson February 3, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    Elected birther alert: Tennessee Lt. Governor, running for Gov, says he “doesn’t know” if Obama was born in the United States.

  128. avatar
    Saint James February 3, 2010 at 12:20 am #

    Super American Grand Jury? Everytime I say it, it makes crave for super jumbo buritto or pizza. I sometimes feel like going to starbucks…ha ha ha ha ha!

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 3, 2010 at 7:38 am #

    Well he said:

    I don’t know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not. I don’t know what the whole deal is there. But I’m going to tell you something. When you walk out on the street down, people don’t really care about this issue. I’m all about winning elections, not as Republicans in this nation but also as Republicans in this state of Tennessee. We need to be about creating jobs. We need to be talking about how we’re the best in education. We need to be talking about how we are small business people We need to be talking about how we’re fiscal conservatives and we know how to balance the budget and Democrats don’t.

    I wouldn’t quite call that pandering to the birthers.

  130. avatar
    misha February 3, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    “I don’t know whether President Obama is a citizen of the United States or not. I don’t know what the whole deal is there.”

    Not to argue with you, DrC, but that IS pandering. He did not know it would end up in the paper, especially the Nashville Scene, one of them thar librul rags.

    So now he’s sayin’ it were takin’ outta context, ya know.

    He now joins Nathan Deal, and South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who has compared those on government assistance to “stray animals,” saying that the reason you stop feeding animals is that “they breed.”

    He also joins a slew of others.

  131. avatar
    NBc February 3, 2010 at 1:36 pm #

    OMG, Orly’s process server, Christopher Earl Strunk has filed a motion for leave to intervene…

    02/02/2010 6 MOTION to Intervene by CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK (rdj) (Entered: 02/03/2010)

    Lots of the usual ramblings

    “9. In explanation, Plaintiff’s Special-Appearance is as a Living-Soul Son-of-the-Most-High-God-Yahweh in existence nunc pro tunc the moment of Creation in Joint-Heir-with-His-Son Made Debt-Free with the Yahshua Payment (consideration) of His Blood, in which Strunk Stands in the Kingdom of the Most-High-God Yahweh and that is under reserve, without dishonor, without prejudgice, without recourse in good faith, no dolus; and that this court and or any temporal entity or person is unable to offer a higher consideration”

    It was pointed out to me that the process server cannot be a party to a case. Would this void the serving of the subpoenas ๐Ÿ™‚

  132. avatar
    G February 3, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    Wow…that is just beyond nutty!

  133. avatar
    Mark February 11, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    I am finding it hard to believe in our country that you and the others like you no matter what political party you are with are afraid to ask questions of our political officials. He Mr. Obama has not been forthright in his eligibility and the question needs to be answered, if we are still a nation of laws. The political parties on both sides of the aisle are corrupt and could give a damn about the Constitution, law or the nations in general well being. We need to have the hearing and clear the air once and for all. Or are you scared of what may come out. You should be for truth not ideology…

  134. avatar
    Saint James February 11, 2010 at 11:10 pm #

    Mark, the President had been forthright with his eligibility. He had shown his COLB from Hawaii. The document was scrutinized and was found to be authentic. STUPID TINFOIL WEARING BIRTHERS do not want to admit that the President’s COLB is legit. SO! THOUGH LUCK!

    It’s the BIRTHERS who wants to circumvent the Constitution and our American Laws.

  135. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 11, 2010 at 11:47 pm #

    The law says that Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President of the United States.

    The truth is that Barack Hussein Obama is currently the President of our United States.

    As for who is ‘scared’, we’re not the ones who went diving for long form birth certificates and three hundred year old treatises on citizenship the instant Cleavon Little strode into Rock Ridge.

  136. avatar
    NbC February 12, 2010 at 12:46 am #

    President Obama released his COLB showing him to be born in the US.

    What now dear Mark?

  137. avatar
    misha February 12, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    “the instant Cleavon Little strode into Rock Ridge.”

    You mean like this?

    Incredible parallels, no?

  138. avatar
    G February 12, 2010 at 9:33 am #

    It is this simple, Mark:

    Truth is based on reality and evidence. All credible evidence backs up his claim of being born in HI like he says. As a result, he was elected and sworn in as President.

    No credible evidence that would hold up in court disputes that narrative.

    Reality is he has been President for well over a year now. The truth is that the only legitimate way of replacing him as such is at the ballot box in 2012, although there is a fairly good chance he’ll be re-elected, which means that he will remain President for at least another 3 years and possibly another 7.

    That is just plain and simple reality, regardless of what ideological perspective you have.

    Any other wild-ass claims you seem to make are based on nothing rational and have nothing to back them up. I wouldn’t even classify those as ideological – just fear / hate driven.

  139. avatar
    SFJeff February 12, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    In my city there is a guy who walks around downtown every day with a sign on it that has a long list of rambling questions on it that he demands someone answer.

    We all have the right to question our elected officials. However no one- not me, not you, not the guy carrying the rambling sign are guaranteed an answer

  140. avatar
    Slamdunk February 13, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    How do you suggest that Obama be exposed for not being a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible? Do patriots subvert the constitution?

  141. avatar
    Slamdunk February 13, 2010 at 6:07 pm #

    Forget the birth certificate. The real issue is that he’s not a natural born citizen and has usurped the presidency.

  142. avatar
    Slamdunk February 13, 2010 at 6:13 pm #

    Will one of you Obama hot shots please present documentation defining natural born citizen?

  143. avatar
    Mike February 13, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    Here you go: http://tiny.cc/15tjy

  144. avatar
    kimba February 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Here is the definition for someone born within the borders of the US:

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf Page 17

  145. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    @Mike: brilliant. I bookmarked it for future use.

  146. avatar
    misha February 13, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    “How do you suggest that Obama be exposed for not being a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible?”

    This couple may be able to help you.
    .

  147. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    Slamdunk says: “Do patriots subvert the constitution?”

    Real patriots wouldn’t subvert the Constitution.

    And therein lies the fallacy with all these self-titled “patriots” who are really nothing but “hatriots”.

    Many of the things they say and want to do fly in the face of the very Constitution they claim to uphold. Hypocrites of the highest order.

  148. avatar
    G February 13, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    Slamdunk says: “The real issue is that he’s not a natural born citizen and has usurped the presidency.”

    Based on what?

    Of course you have to claim to “forget the birth certificate”, because it clearly states born in Honolulu, HI, which by definition makes him an NBC and therefore brings a quick and simple end to your whole silly “ursurper” business.

  149. avatar
    Scientist February 13, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    Slamdunk: has usurped the presidency

    Please tell us exactly who you believe is the rightful President then.

  150. avatar
    Mike February 13, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Misha-le:

    Just doin’ my bit to make the net a better place…

  151. avatar
    Slamdunk February 15, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    Thank you. You can now respond to my question if you feel led. How do you suggest the President’s not being a natural born born citizen be handled?

  152. avatar
    Slamdunk February 15, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    At this point in time, it is Obama’s not being a natural born citizen that disqualifies him, constitutionally, from the presidency. Where he was born is of secondary value compared to that.

    So how should America handle someone who has usurped the Presidency?

  153. avatar
    Slamdunk February 15, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    There is no constitutionally qualified president serving in that capacity. Obama has knowingly usurped it. The big question is, what to you do with usurpers?

    Don’t any of you tell me you uphold the constitution and condone what the usurper has done.

  154. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 1:05 pm #

    Slamdunk: How do you suggest the President’s not being a natural born born citizen be handled?

    In order to take office a President would have had to have been found qualified by the body designated to make that decision-Congress. Therefore, they are by definition qualified, so nothing would need to be done. When they ran for re-election, legitimate opponents could challenge their placement on the ballot. If there was solid evidence of material mis-representation, then impeachment could be considered. However, interpreting the Constitution and the law in the way that every legal scholar considers completely valid is not impeachable.

  155. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Slamdunk: How do you suggest the President’s not being a natural born born citizen be handled?

    In order to be in office, the President would have been found qualified by the body designated to make that determination-Congress. Therefore, there is nothing to handle. When they run for re-election, opposing candidates can challenge their position on the ballot.

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm #

    Slamdunk: The big question is, what to you do with usurpers?

    Like the American Grand Jury? You mostly ignore them. It’s the folks who are trying to play congressman, lawyer, grand jury, judge and prosecutor who are usurping lawful authority.

  157. avatar
    Slamdunk February 15, 2010 at 3:22 pm #

    The online BC was scrutinized by two forensic document specialists who have declare it to be a forgery. They have both given affidavits to that effect. The on line birth certificate did not come from the Hawaii Dept. of Health. We are told that it was put up by Obama, but that’s not true either. He, Gibbs, or no one in the Administration says that it was put there by the President. It is assumed that it was. It’s a fraud, just like the imposter in the White House.

  158. avatar
    Slamdunk February 15, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    So it’s all right with you if someone sits in the White House who is not constitutionally qualified to be there.

    Republicans in Congress, along with O’Reilly and Beck, have sunk to the same level as Obama on this issue. Either that, or they are woefully ignorant of what it means to be a natural born citizen.

  159. avatar
    NBC February 15, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    The online BC was scrutinized by two forensic document specialists who have declare it to be a forgery.

    Liar… Present your affidavits and their professional requirements.

    But even if the COLB were a fraud, the President is clearly born on US soil and thus eligible.

    That you have to lie about the document, which was called real by the DOH of Hawaii, seems rather ironic.

  160. avatar
    nbC February 15, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    PS, I know exactly which two forensic researcher you have in mind, although you may just be repeating the hearsay.

    One is a real forensic researcher who claimed that she could not verify the document one way or the other, the other was a self-proclaimed ‘researcher’ whose work was significantly flawed.

    I bet you did not know this…

  161. avatar
    Scientist February 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Slamdunk-The constitutional qualifications for the presidency include WINNING THE MOST ELECTORAL VOTES. Do you have anyone other than Obama who meets that qualification?

    Didn’t think so….

  162. avatar
    nbC February 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    So it’s all right with you if someone sits in the White House who is not constitutionally qualified to be there.

    Once duly elected there is no choice under the US Constitution. Which is why we accepted the election of Bush…

    The alternatives are just too disruptive to ponder…

    If you really believe President Obama is ineligible then present some case, 60+ cases have failed to do so. And in at least one, the President was found to be natural born under the Wong Kim Ark ruling.

  163. avatar
    kimba February 15, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    HAHAHA!! Polarik and TechDude? Document experts?? Almost 2 years hence and people are still citing these bozos? HAHAHAHA!!! Where have you been? TechDude disappeared when it was discovered he’d “borrowed” the CV of a real documents expert. Polarik was outed as an anti-Muslim arts professor from Florida. And the only real documents expert said she couldn’t draw a conclusion without seeing the document that was scanned. But it doesn’t matter, the State of Hawaii confirmed Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. That makes him a natural born citizen. We don’t need the COLB anymore. Have you been in a cave somewhere for the last 2 years?

  164. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 4:05 pm #

    Simple. Yours is a FALSE question, based on false premises.

    I see no evidence that indicates the President is anything other than a Natural Born Citizen.

    Furthermore, I see an accumulated amount of evidence that supports that he is a NBC.

    Therefore, I see no Constitutional crisis whatsoever and think you are full of delusional fantasies with no basis in reality.

  165. avatar
    kimba February 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Natural born citizen. Really, don’t you people have anything new?

  166. avatar
    nbC February 15, 2010 at 4:08 pm #

    I am somewhat concerned that some people repeat claims of which they have no first hand knowledge and thus allow others to manipulate them…
    If I were to make a claim about something, I would first research it before exposing myself as ignorant.

  167. avatar
    G February 15, 2010 at 4:15 pm #

    Well, since your premise is completely flawed and based on nothing but massively debunked, BS, then your entire question is meaningless as it describes a situation that doesn’t exist.

    The only credible evidence supports the conclusion that Obama is an NBC.

    He was legitimately elected by a large margin of the American voters.

    The voting percentages were not even close. The actual vote totals were over 9.5 million more for him than his nearest challenger, McCain. This all translated into an electoral college vote margin that was even more significantly overwhelmingly in his favor, which is how Presidential elections are decided in this country.

    Without a single vote of dissent, the electors and the Congress approved his electoral victory and margins and he was sworn in as President of the US.

    Therefore, there is no “ursurper”.

    Therefore, there is no Constitutional crisis.

    Therefore, everything you have your panties all up in a bunch about is nothing but pure fiction and BS and meaningless and a complete non-concern to those of us that actually live in the real world.

  168. avatar
    Greg February 15, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    A president may be removed by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. He may be removed for incapacity by a vote of his cabinet. He can be succeeded by his VP upon his death in office.

    The courts have been clear that these are the ONLY ways that a sitting president may be removed.

    There’s some ambiguity in the language of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” so you could, maybe, convince an overwhelmingly Republican Congress to impeach without showing criminal fraud (material misrepresentation).

    Anything else is a subversion of the Constitution. You’re talking legal coup at this point.

  169. avatar
    SFJeff February 15, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    “So how should America handle someone who has usurped the Presidency?”

    I strongly recommend that you write out your accusations in big letters- have someone help you with the hard words- on a sign and stand out in front of the White House 24/7.

    If you are convinced of the correctness of your cause, it is your constitutional duty to go to Washington and stay there waving your sign until you are satisfied. 24/7. Go be a patriot.

    I particularly support you going this month.

  170. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2010 at 4:52 pm #

    Slamdunk: The online BC was scrutinized by two forensic document specialists who have declare it to be a forgery.

    You don’t happen to remember their names by any chance.

  171. avatar
    misha February 15, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    “So how should America handle someone who has usurped the Presidency?”

    You should bring legal action against Obama. I will support you. There are three lawyers who will be happy to assist.

    Best of luck!

  172. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 7:45 am #

    [G SAYS]Of course you have to claim to “forget the birth certificate”, because it clearly states born in Honolulu, HI, which by definition makes him an NBC and therefore brings a quick and simple end to your whole silly “ursurper” business.

    Where do you get your definition of “natural born citizen(NBC)? It’s not enough to just be born in the U.S. Supreme Court cases affirm that a NBC is born of parents who are U.S. citizens. Here they are, along with other sources affirming the same thing:

    The U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790 – “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” (The Act was repealed in 1795, but not because of any dispute over the meaning of “natural born citizen.”)

    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857). The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 – 1874) “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. “

    John Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    Emerich de Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” Book 1, Chap. 19, Sect. 212 – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (In 1814 the U.S. Supreme Court in THE VENUS relied upon and cited Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority in determining the citizen-ship of a “domicil”. See U.S. Supreme Court, THE VENUS, 12 U.S. 253 and The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

  173. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 7:59 am #

    NBC SAYS – NBC says:
    February 15, 2010 at 3:41 pm (Quote)

    [NBC] Liar… Present your affidavits and their professional requirements.

    [Slamdunk ]Look up affidavits of Sandra M. Lines and Ron Polarik on line. Don’t go into denial just because you haven’t heard about these two. Both of their affidavits are included in the dosier of Orly Taitz and are sitting in the Appellate Court just waiting for the Judge to hear the case, which he probably won’t. All it will take is one of the 60+ cases to be heard on merit and the truth will be known. You should want that to happen since you’re so convinced that Obama is eligible.

    [NBC] But even if the COLB were a fraud, the President is clearly born on US soil and thus eligible.

    [Slamdunk] What is the source of your definition of natural born citizen? See my reply to G for the Supreme Court’s definition.

    [NBC] That you have to lie about the document, which was called real by the DOH of Hawaii, seems rather ironic.

    [Slamdunk] Any man who has the brass to run for the presidency without being qualified will do anything to hide the truth. Why do think he has spent almost two millions dollars to keep all his personal records under seal?

    Forget the birth certificate. In Obama’s case it’s not as important as his father not being a U.S. citizen. We’ll see who the real liars are.

  174. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    [KIMBA SAYS] But it doesn’t matter, the State of Hawaii confirmed Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. That makes him a natural born citizen. We don’t need the COLB anymore. Have you been in a cave somewhere for the last 2 years?

    [Slamdunk] See my response to G for SCOTUS definition of natural born citizen. Where do you people come up with just being born in the U.S. makes someone a natural born citizen? Fact: Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. That alone disqualifies him. Obama has even admitted this about his father. Yet, he knew he was not a NBC when he swore to uphold Art. 2, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the constitution at his inauguration. Obama’s first official act as President was to violate what he swore to uphold. He is a usurper. I’m sure you don’t approve of the the Presidency being usurped. Or do you?

  175. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 8:24 am #

    Sandra M. Lines and Ron Polarik (His real name is Ron Polland. He uses the alias because threats have been made against him)

  176. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 8:25 am #

    What is the source of your definition for natural born citizen?

  177. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 8:30 am #

    What you need to do is research the meaning of natural born citizen. That is the bottom line. Of course, you can make up your own definition and appease your conscience.

    VP Cheney was supposed to call for objections immediately following the vote count. He didn’t do that and broke the law. The fix was in and Republicans are guilty of not challenging the President’s qualifications. Of course, we wouldn’t expect Democrats to do that.

  178. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    Slamdunk-I find your position to be un-American in the extreme. The ideal of America is that anyone can achieve anything through their talents and hard work, regardless of who their parents were. You represent nothing but the “Old Europe” of heriditary aristocracies. Very very sad.

  179. avatar
    Black Lion February 17, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    Have you read their affadavits? You might want to. Ms. Lines never claimed it was a forgery. IF you have information that says otherwise, then show us the link. And Polarik did not have the background nor experience to make a claim about anything. So his so called affadavit, in a fake name, is worthless.

    Secondly the so called SOCTUS rulings you cite are a joke. You are reading from the Linda book of misinformation. First of all you neglected to include the ruling in Wong, which states that anyone born in the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born citizen. And that was in 1898. You cite rulings that occured before Wong and then ignore Wong thinking that we are all so stupid that we would not realize how incorrect your information is? Come on.

  180. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 8:32 am #

    So you agree that Obama has usurped the presidency. Will you join me with your own sign?

  181. avatar
    Black Lion February 17, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    The same as the SCOTUS decided for us in the ruling in Wong and repeated recently by the state of Indiana Appeals court…Sorry, not even Vattel believed that both parents had to be citizens for a person to be considered a natural born citzen…..

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

  182. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2010 at 8:38 am #

    Slamdunk: VP Cheney was supposed to call for objections immediately following the vote count. He didn’t do that and broke the law.

    Now, if you are suggesting arresting Dick Cheney, I would be happy to support that.

  183. avatar
    Black Lion February 17, 2010 at 8:41 am #

    Just because you believe in fantasy does not make it reality….In the SCOTUS ruling in Wong, the Court said the following…

    “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, and 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.”

    “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    Name one judical scholar or politican that believes in the theory that for someone to be a NBC, they had to be born in the US to parents that were citizens. Cheney, who has made many mistakes did not make one there. Not one individual in the 535 members of Congress had an issue with the vote or the fact that the President wasn’t eligible. Since then not one of them has come out and disagreed. So your fantasy that somehow Cheney broke the law and prevented someone from objecting is crap. You have nothing but extreme hatred of the lawfully and legitimate President of the US.

    The Indiana Appeals Court said it best in regards to your theory and ridiculous citations you use to support it…

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

  184. avatar
    kimba February 17, 2010 at 9:11 am #

    Source of definition of natural born. The 14th amendment. Citizens are either natural or naturalized.

    Tell us where you got the idea that having one parent who is not a citizen, even though you were born in the United States makes you Not a natural born citizen. Because as best I can tell, that idea was invented by Leo Dono in June 2008 and even he calls it an “exotic legal theory”. What does it say about your intellectual fortitude and moral integrity that you could be convinced that a theory invented less than 2 years ago is the law and “the way it’s always been.”? I think it suggests you are so mentally weak and hate Obama so much, you allowed yourself to be conned by a con man.

  185. avatar
    Whatever4 February 17, 2010 at 10:19 am #

    Deja vu.

  186. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 10:22 am #

    It’s not enough to just be born in the U.S. Supreme Court cases affirm that a NBC is born of parents who are U.S. citizens.

    Everyone has known that Obama had a father who was a Kenyan since 2004 when he gave his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention.

    Despite this well-known fact, not a single law professor has disputed the fact that someone born here to two legal residents is a natural born citizen. In fact, you have to go back to 1898 to find anyone who said unequivocally that someone born to an alien wasn’t a citizen. And until 2008 and Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo, there was no one that thought that someone could be born in the United States, become a citizen, but not be a natural born citizen!

    Prove me wrong, SD, find anyone other than a birther that says that you can be born a citizen on US soil but still not be a natural born citizen.

  187. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    Obama has knowingly usurped it.

    You clearly don’t understand the word “knowingly.”

    Before 2008, not a single person thought that you could be born in the United States, become a citizen because of that birth, but still not be eligible to become President. Then, Leo Donofrio found a quote by Vattel, and we were off to the races.

    The legal universe, from law professors, to practitioners, to Congress, to the Supreme Court, are in complete agreement (with the exception of Donofrio, Apuzzo and Taitz) that the state of the law is that Obama is a natural born citizen.

    Thus, if Obama did anything knowingly, he knowingly took office as President secure in the knowledge that he was a natural born citizen!

  188. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 10:34 am #

    Actually, none of the sources you cite support your argument.

    The legislative history shows the 1790 Naturalization Act was merely mimicking Parliament in providing natural born status for children of citizens born oversees, Makes pretty clear they were following English law.

    The majority opinion of Dred Scott was silent on natural born status. Are you people so dumb you don’t know the concurring opinion of one Justice is not the opinion of the court. Dud.

    Minor specifically declined to address the only relevant issue with respect to Obama’s citizenship, the statis of children of aliens. It simply does not say a NBC needs citizen parents. It said some people had doubts and declined to address such doubts. Really not that hard.

    Bingham quote is meaningless. The supreme court doesn’t care about opinions of congressmen 79 years after the founding. Bingham didn’t write the citizenship clause and 5 other members of the same congress defined natural born by the common law.

    Vattel’s law of nations at the time of the founding did not contain the term natural born citizen and there is not a shred of evidence that the framers tied the term to Vattel.

    Sorry, you need to do better on this thread. I suggest you do more research. Try starting here:

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/2010/02/quotations-from-english-common-law_13.html

  189. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 10:38 am #

    The birthers actually pretend that their 2 citizen parent theory is common knowledge, but of course can find no legal dictionary or textbook containing such definition. Thus, Obama secretly knew the real definition that the framers never told anyone about, has never been endorsed by any court and isn’t in any significant legal authority in our history. Sounds like fraud to me.

  190. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 10:39 am #

    Ron Polarik does not exist. There is no person named Dr. Ron Polarik.

    Obama spoke to an audience of more than 50 million people in 2004 telling them that his father was a Kenyan student. He wrote a book sold to millions which told that his father went back to Africa.

    So, what’s he hiding? He was born in Hawaii. His father was Kenyan and never a United States citizen.

    That it took you guys until 2008 to figure out that NBC disqualifies the children of American moms whose fathers are foreigners, the fact that no law professor or legal professional (other than Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Taitz) agrees with you, is pretty damning proof that you guys are making all this up.

    Like your $2 million figure. It’s made up. Obama spent $1.5 million to run the legal side of his campaign. His campaign brought in more than $750 million, and each donation and expenditure had to be legally accounted for. His campaign hired lawyers to train volunteer lawyers (like myself) in 50 states to watch critical polling places. It had to be prepared to fight a recount. It had to be ready to file in federal courts throughout the country to keep polling places open.

    McCain also spent about $1.2 million to run his legal campaign.

    You guys are almost painfully (but most certainly willfully) ignorant!

  191. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    Yet, he knew he was not a NBC when he swore to uphold Art. 2, Sect. 1, Clause 5 of the constitution at his inauguration.

    How could he possibly know this, since 99.9999999% of legal professional, legal scholars, judges, Congressmen, etc. agree that people who are born here to legal residents are natural born citizens?

    Try it, dunk, go to a legal library and look up ANY article about the natural born citizen clause. They all start off noting that it is unquestioned that those born here are NBC regardless of who the parents are!

  192. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    Slamdunk, there are more scientists who claim the earth is flat than there are legal professionals who think that NBC requires two citizen parents.

  193. avatar
    Slamdunk February 17, 2010 at 5:45 pm #

    BALLANTINE SAYS:
    Actually, none of the sources you cite support your argument.

    The legislative history shows the 1790 Naturalization Act was merely mimicking Parliament in providing natural born status for children of citizens born oversees, Makes pretty clear they were following English law.

    [Slamdunk]

    “Merely mimicking???” It meant what it said:

    “the CHILDREN OF CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES ..shall be considered as natural born citizens.” (Nat. Act of 1790).

    [BALLANTINE] The majority opinion of Dred Scott was silent on natural born status. Are you people so dumb you don’t know the concurring opinion of one Justice is not the opinion of the court. Dud.

    I wonder why the majority was silent.

    [BALLANTINE] Minor specifically declined to address the only relevant issue with respect to Obama’s citizenship, the statis of children of aliens. It simply does not say a NBC needs citizen parents. It said some people had doubts and declined to address such doubts. Really not that hard.

    [Slamdunk]

    But the opinion addresses exactly the issue of what a natural born citizen is.

    MINOR V HAPPERSETT
    “IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS who WERE ITS CITIZENS became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. THESE WERE NATIVES OR NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. AS TO THIS CLASS THERE HAVE BEEN DOUBTS, BUT NEVER AS TO THE FIRST.

    [BALLANTINE] Bingham quote is meaningless. The supreme court doesn’t care about opinions of congressmen 79 years after the founding. Bingham didn’t write the citizenship clause and 5 other members of the same congress defined natural born by the common law.

    The author of the 14th amendment didn’t know what he was talking about? He’s right in line with Minor, Nat. Act of 1790, Vattel and others.

    [BALLANTINE] Vattel’s law of nations at the time of the founding did not contain the term natural born citizen and there is not a shred of evidence that the framers tied the term to Vattel.

    [Slamdunk] Vattel wrote LON in 1760 and the founders used his volumes and were well aware of Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.
    http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/vattel-law-of-nations-is-the-key-and-it-is-now-verified/

    Art. 1 Section 8:

    The Congress shall have power to….define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the LAW OF NATIONS;

    The VENUS court recognized Vattel as the authority on domicile and citizenship.

    There’s another problem for the Usurper. The law on the books at the time of his birth, which fell between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986: “…If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and his mother was only 18 when he was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen.

    MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE USURPER:

    Don’t you find it strange that not one person in the Obama Administration has openly hallenged Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen?

    Why has Obama spent almost two million dollars on all the court cases filed against him? He could have saved all that money and satisfied the world if he would have just released his official 1961 long form BC. Doesn’t that tell you something?

    And why won’t the Hawaii Dept. of Health, Kapi’olani Hospital, or anyone in the Obama Administration affirm his birth at Kapi’olani even knowing that he wrote a letter to the hospital in Jan. 2009 affirming his own birth there????? I have contacted all three and they are silent. Oh, yes, privacy prevents us from such disclosures. BS!!!

    It should be obvious to the most ardent denier, like yourself, that the Usurper doesn’t want people to know the facts of his birth, citizenship, etc. Why are you so blind to this? Whatever happened to the transparent president?

    Go back and read Dinofrio and Puzo. They got it right on natural born citizen.

  194. avatar
    nbC February 17, 2010 at 6:11 pm #

    the CHILDREN OF CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES ..shall be considered as natural born citizens.” (Nat. Act of 1790).

    Very creative editing….

  195. avatar
    ballantine February 17, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Is that the best you can do? Where do you people come from all reciting the same discredited nonsense over an over?

    Why do you think the 1790 naturaliztaion Act helps you. It doesn’t have the Vattel definition. Do you really think one needs to be born oversees to be a natural born citizen. If you do, you are an idiot. Read the history, they were copying english law, not Vattel.

    You can pretend all you want, but Minor takes no position on children of aliens and hence declined to distinguish between blackstone and vattel. Saying it supports your theory is simply dishonest.

    Dred scott had one justice cite vattel and one blackstone. The majority took no position so it is not precedent.

    So all you are left with is the opinion of one congressman citing a vattel definition when 5 members of the same congress cited blackstone. And, of course, Bingham had nothing to do with the citizenship clause. You should do some research as Bingham is actually famous for his nutty opinions as the leading conservative scholars of the past 50 years have made a hobby of disparaging him. See, Charles Fairman, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, 2 Stan.L.Rev. 5 (1949); Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary, pg. 1445 (1978; Alexander M. Bickel, The Original Understanding and the Segregation Decision, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 5 n. 13 (1955).

    Finally, even after it has been pointed out repeatedly that the term natural born citizen was in no edition of Vattel’s law of nations available to the framers, you and your ilk still claim they were referring to Vattel when there was obviously no reason to connect the term to Vattel at such time. Obviously, this is irrational and the kind of argument that gets laughed out of court. And please tell me you don’t think the framers were referring to vattel when they referred to law of nations in the constitution. The framers were familiar with Vattel, however, they
    memorized and lived Blackstone as they were common law lawyers sent to a convention by states who all had adopted the english common law.

    The bottom line is no court ever said a natural born citizen needed two citizen parents. Nor did any early legal authority or any framer. It is a frivolous theory made up by a dentist, poker player and dwi lawyer pretending to be constitutional scholars. I suggest you try reading actual scholars on the subject and you will have a hard time finding anyone in the past 220 years to support your view.

    Again, try educating yourself on this:

    http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-02-13T05%3A41%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=1

  196. avatar
    Scientist February 17, 2010 at 7:49 pm #

    The Supreme Court has already ruled >1 year ago that Barack Obama is President. Here’s a photo.

    http://filer.case.edu/ned2/Thomas_sleeping.jpg

    You really need to keep up with the news. By the way, if your name is meant to refer to the birther’s legal “cases”, it is very apt, as they were indeed slam dunks for the other sude.

  197. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 17, 2010 at 8:34 pm #

    Why is that whenever BlackLion posts the information regarding Wong SlamDunk suddenly disappears from that thread and then shows up at another one spouting the same, tired, lies and BS? Everything he listed has been thoroughly debunked right here, yet he continues to repeat it like a robot who has been programmed by Taitz herself. I am calling SD out. Respond to BlackLion’s post quoting Wong or consider yourself “served.”

  198. avatar
    SFJeff February 17, 2010 at 9:05 pm #

    Wow Slamdunk is like a blast from the past- all he left out was the Kenyan Granny in discredited theories why the black man couldn’t possibly be President.

    “Look up affidavits of Sandra M. Lines and Ron Polarik on line”

    Give me a link to something other than Orly Virus infested site to see this most excellent proof of yours.

    “What is the source of your definition of natural born citizen”

    I relied upon what I was taught as a kid- born in the United States- as were the vast majority of voters who voted for him knowing his father was a Kenyan citizen. Apparently the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice all had the same class in Civics as the voters who voted him in did.

    What really irritates me is that you have the gall to call him the Ursurper without a shred of evidence, yet you are trying to reverse the votes of the majority of voters in the United States. I really don’t know what is more Unamerican than trying to take way the votes of American citizens.

    You have no shame.

  199. avatar
    SFJeff February 17, 2010 at 9:09 pm #

    “Don’t you find it strange that not one person in the Obama Administration has openly hallenged Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen? ”

    I wonder if there is a single birther who had ever heard of Vattel before Obama was elected?

    I certainly hadn’t. And I had read a fair amount about the writing of the Constitution and early Supreme Court cases.

    Face it- Vattel is immaterial, a red herring in a plot to unseat a legally elected president.

  200. avatar
    Greg February 17, 2010 at 10:08 pm #

    The Bingham quotes are all taken out of context. A reading of the REAL history of the 14th Amendment shows that the Senators knew that they’d be making the children of aliens into natural born citizens. Senator Cowan voted against the amendment after talking at great length of the dangers of making Chinamen into natural born citizens.

    Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.

    Why do you suppose no one got up to tell him that he was wrong, that the children of aliens couldn’t be President? Because, as the Senators who did answer him made clear, they ALL knew that’s what the 14th Amendment would do.

    And Obama didn’t spend $2 million on hiding his birth certificate.

    And you don’t need his birth certificate if you think Vattel is the end-all-and-be-all. We all know his dad was Kenyan.

    Oh, and its Donofrio and Apuzzo. How can we take your legal reasoning seriously if you can’t even spell the names of your prophets right?

  201. avatar
    Whatever4 February 17, 2010 at 11:03 pm #

    Slamdunk: [many snipped paragraphs of rehashed debunked sound and fury signifying nothing]

    Too bad I gave up birther-bashing for Lent. Or maybe it’s for the best…

  202. avatar
    Slamdunk February 18, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    I will stick with the definition of natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens, of which Obama does not meet, according to:

    1. Emmerich Vattel – Law of Nations – “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
    2. Judge Marshall quotes Vattel definition of NBC in THE VENUS, RAE, MASTER. 12 U.S. 253, 8 Cranch 253, 3 L.Ed. 553, Feb. 1, 1814
    3. John Bingham
    4. Minor v Happersett
    5. Naturalization Act of 1790
    6. Founders had to be well aware of Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen.

    7. SANDRA M. LINES DECLARATION:
    I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.

    (Note: Death threats? Now why would someone want to threaten him if all this “birther” thing is nonsense?)

    Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.

    In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.

    8. What SCOTUS case has ever ruled that Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen is incomplete or wrong?

    9. Common sense calls for Obama to release his 1961 long form BC to back up the on line BC. Why won’t he simply release that document, put the whole matter to rest and stop spending all that money to fight the cases filed against him?

    10. On Jan. 24, 2009, Obama sent a letter to Kapi’olani hospital affirming his birth there. I have called both and neither will publicly affirm Obama’s birth at Kapi’olani. There is no privacy issue to prevent them from saying he was born there. Press Secretary Gibbs would not comment on it either. Why?

    11. It should be obvious that the transparent president wants all his personal records sealed. Why do you suppose that is?

    12. Attorney General Holder at least owed Dr. Taitz’ a courteous response to her first request for Quo Warranto. She has yet to hear a word for that, nor her most recent request.

    13. I really blundered in my spelling of “Dinofrio” and “Puzo.” I should disqualify myself from any further discussions, just like Obama should disqualify himself for mispronouncing “corpsman.” (For those in Rio Linde, the “p” is silent).

    14. To put this whole matter to rest, and in the process make “birthers” look like idiots, President Obama should volunteer the release of his 1961 long form BC. What is objectionable with this?

  203. avatar
    SFJeff February 18, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Slamdunk- let me get the good stuff out of the way first.
    I think that you are Un-American, I think that you are a False Patriot who blatently misrepresents the truth.

    I think your agenda has nothing to do with eligibility and everything to do with trying to invalidate the votes of over 60 million Americans for political reasons.

    Where were you when Obama was running in the primary? Did you file suit then- as a supposed patriot- to block his election? Did you even know who Vattel was?

    Come on- show me a citation from any school textbook showing me that a NBC means born to two citizen parents.

    And have you ever even thought about what that really means? In order to be certain a President is really the progeny of two citizen parents, you would then require DNA testing of not only the candidate, but of both of his supposed parents. DNA would be the only way to really prove who a parent was. And even that could be suspect if say the father had a twin brother who had different citizenship.

    What about a child who grows up never knowing who his father was? Is he ineligible to be President because he cannot prove that his parent was a citizen?

    It is such a stupid, made up argument. Until the birthers came along, I had never heard of Vattel, nor this silly ‘two citizen’ thing. Nor had the voters who had voted for President Obama, or the Electoral College who voted for him, or the Congress who confirmed his election or the Chief Justice who swore him in.

    So this is the question you do not dare to answer- because you know you are lieing-

    Why did the voters, the Electoral College, Congress and the Chief Justice all ignore this supposed ‘two citizen’ rule?

    The answer is because it doesn’t exist.

  204. avatar
    SFJeff February 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    Now to answer Slamdunks silly points
    1) Lupin has answered Vattel clearly- Vattel nevers says that in French.
    2) He quotes Vattel’s definition of ‘native’ and goes further to say:

    “Three classes of residents are recognized by the law of nations.
    1st. Mere residents.
    2d. Domiciled residents.
    3d. Natural born subjects.”

    Note he doesn’t refer to citizens, but subjects- and further reading shows he only makes a distinction between a native citizen and a naturalized citizen. He never defines Natural Born Citizen.

    3- I don’t know enough about John Bingham but I bet you never looked at the source either.
    4-5- I will leave to others- they have been discussed ad nauseum here.
    6 is just silly. Whether the founders are aware of Vattel or not is immaterial. The only question is what is the correct definition of NBC.
    7. How do you know her affidavit is not a fake? Really- if you doubt the BC, have you had her affidavit verified? And her supposed affidavit doesn’t even conclude its a fake, but admits she can’t confirm whether its a fake or not without looking at the original.
    8. Why would the Supreme Court be required to rule upon Vattel? They have however ruled definetively that NBC is not defined in the Constitution, and therefore is goverened by English common law. Nary a reference to Vattel.
    9 If you believe that Vatel nonsense, why do you care about the BC? To me this is clear- if anyone really believes the Vatel nonsense they would not care about the BC- because everyone knows the Presidents father was not a citizen. Since you ask for both- you are just looking for an excuse for him to be disqualified.
    10 Why would the hospital give you- a private citizen- any information about who was born there? Again- if you truly believe the Vatel nonsense- why do you care?
    11 The President has released the relevant documents- which by the way are as many as any previous President. Other than that, perhaps he feels that his kindergarten records are not your business?
    12 AG Holder doesn’t owe Orly zip, let alone a courtious response. Orly is abusive and discourtious to the President.
    14. Because he has real things to deal with? Really- we have troops at war in two countries and we are recovering from the worst Recession in 60 years. Why should the President waste 5 seconds of his time to try to appease a few nutcases who can’t even understand what a Natural Born citizen is? If he were to release it, I wouldn’t care, but considering the piggishness of many of the birthers, I say give them squat.

  205. avatar
    nbC February 18, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    Seems to me that Slamdunk wasn’t

  206. avatar
    Greg February 18, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    8. What SCOTUS case has ever ruled that Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen is incomplete or wrong?

    Wong Kim Ark.

    Here’s what the government argued:

    It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

    Wong analyzed this proposition and rejected it:

    Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.

    The founders must have been familiar with Vattel’s definition? So, what? They also must have been familiar with the 400 year history of the term “natural born” in English Common Law and in the colonies. Given that they must have been familiar with both definitions, why didn’t they take five minutes to tell someone that they were adopting Vattel’s over the 400 year-old one that was familiar to everyone?

    John Bingham said something that equivocally supports your view? Tell us, then, why did no one stand up in the Senate to correct Senator Cowan when they were debating the 14th Amendment?

    The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

    And, since the amendment was bitterly fought, why didn’t anyone correct Senator Conness who voted against the amendment because it granted citizenship to the children of the Chinese? He voted against the amendment because it granted citizenship to the children of:

    people who … owe [my state] no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own …; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him.

    Couldn’t Bingham have taken a minute to correct the Senator to get his vote?

    Now, assuming you still don’t accept the well-accepted definition of natural-born, how on earth could the birth certificate answer your concerns? Obama would STILL be born to a Kenyan.

  207. avatar
    Scientist February 18, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Slamdunk: I will stick with the definition of natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens,

    Stick with it, sure. Now, if you’d like to know where to stick it, I have a suggestion…

  208. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 18, 2010 at 3:01 pm #

    Slamdunk: I will stick with the definition of natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. citizens … 1. Emmerich Vattel – Law of Nations – “The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

    Interesting that you use the language from de Vattel that was used in the English edition available in America when the Constitution was written. Good job! One first notes the absence of the word “citizen”, appropriate since it is absent from the French original too.

    So let me answer the question you asked: What SCOTUS case has ever ruled that Vattel’s definition of [native born citizen] is incomplete or wrong? It was in 1824 in the case of McCREERY’S lessee v. SOMERVILLE. The court said:

    … W. MCreery left at his death no children, but a brother, Ralph MCreery, a native of Ireland, who is still living, and who has not been naturalized, and three nieces, Letitia Barwell, Jane MCreery, and Isabella MCreery, the latter being the lessor of the plaintiff, who are the daughters of the said Ralph, and native born citizens of the United States.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/354/case.html

    I believe this is a “bada bing” moment. ๐Ÿ™„

  209. avatar
    Black Lion February 18, 2010 at 3:18 pm #

    First of all the President doesn’t need to do a thing in order to make the birthers look like idiots….You guys do a fine job of doing that on your own. Secondly you birthers recycle the same debunked talking points and pretend that once you get this information everything will be OK. When we all know that it won’t matter. This is driven by hatred of the President, period. This is why you all focus on both the so called BC and the two parents theory. Because it is all about invalidating the votes of 69 million Americans. It is evident in how groups like the so called teabaggers, right wing conservatives, and neo nazis are willing to get into bed together to get rid of the President and his party. It is evident by how the birthers try and tear apart a simple statement from the state of HI which said that “Barack Obama was BORN in the United States”, attempting to make people think that somehow it is implying something other than the President being born in the US. But most of all is how you guys are willing to want a violation of laws, (ie privacy laws) when it suits you and you are willing to support bad lawyers, convicted felons, and liars in order to somehow get rid of the rightfully elected President of the US. And what amazes me the most is that you call yourselves “patriots” when all you have shown yourselves to be are seditious and un American.

  210. avatar
    misha February 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    “So you agree that Obama has usurped the presidency. Will you join me with your own sign?”

    Right now, I think Orly Taitz and Mario Apuzzo are the best ones to challenge Obama. I think with enough donations, they will be successful.

  211. avatar
    SFJeff February 19, 2010 at 12:36 am #

    Slamdunk, I was wondering if you had the courage of your convictions.

    Of course I don’t agree with you- you are advocating the unconstitutional overthrow of a legally elected president.

    But I really encourage you to go stand there with your sign.

  212. avatar
    chufho February 19, 2010 at 3:16 am #

    lie

  213. avatar
    chufho February 19, 2010 at 3:26 am #

    slamdunk these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies to continue his dismantleing of our country remember spread the wealth around he meant spread it around the world you cant bring everyone up to our level so we have to take america down to theirs, the low lifes thought he was going to take from and give to them they were just stooges to elect him obama is bought and paid for, the stooges are still stooges and cannot accept that they were taken, pray they see the light as it is almost to lte

  214. avatar
    chufho February 19, 2010 at 3:29 am #

    your wrong our elected officials do owe us answers here comes a big word ” duh”

  215. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 19, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    Two things I’m waiting on:

    1.) The check I’m supposed to be getting from the Obama Administration. I’ve given them donations, the only cash I got back as a tax cut. You’d think for all my blog commenting I’d get a salary!

    2.) Someone realizing you’re off your meds and re-filling the prescription.

  216. avatar
    Slamdunk February 19, 2010 at 8:34 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm (Quote)

    Thank you for responding to all 14 points, allbeit they lack substance. I will explain why.

    Now to answer Slamdunks silly points
    1) Lupin has answered Vattel clearly- Vattel nevers says that in French.

    [SD] so what? It is written clearly in law of nations.

    2) He quotes Vattel’s definition of native’ and goes further to say:

    “Three classes of residents are recognized by the law of nations.
    1st. Mere residents.
    2d. Domiciled residents.
    3d. Natural born subjects.”

    [SD] None of these disparage or dilute Vattel’s definition which calls for both parents to be citizens for their child to be natural born.

    Note he doesn’t refer to citizens, but subjects- and further reading shows he only makes a distinction between a native citizen and a naturalized citizen. He never defines Natural Born Citizen.

    [SD] You can’t be serious. Look at Vattel’s definition in 212 which is plastered all over the internet.

    3- I don’t know enough about John Bingham but I bet you never looked at the source either.

    [SD] No one has shown that Bingham did not make that statement.

    4-5- I will leave to others- they have been discussed ad nauseum here.

    [SD] Wong Kim Ark cited Happersett approvingly. Ark was not a NBC.

    6 is just silly. Whether the founders are aware of Vattel or not is immaterial. The only question is what is the correct definition of NBC.

    [SD] They must have been aware of it because they used Law of Nations in forming the Republic. PUzzo has excellant source material showing this. You should visit his site.

    7. How do you know her affidavit is not a fake? Really- if you doubt the BC, have you had her affidavit verified? And her supposed affidavit doesn’t even conclude its a fake, but admits she can’t confirm whether its a fake or not without looking at the original.

    [SD] Her affidavit can be found on line. She clearly says the online BC “cannot be relied upon as genuine.” Her affidavit is far more indicting then exonerating.

    8. Why would the Supreme Court be required to rule upon Vattel? They have however ruled definetively that NBC is not defined in the Constitution, and therefore is goverened by English common law. Nary a reference to Vattel.

    [SD] Whether they are required to rule on Vattel isn’t the point. No SCOTUS case has ever overturned NBC as defined by Vattel, Bingham, Happersett, VENUS, or Naturalization Act of 1790.

    9 If you believe that Vattel nonsense, why do you care about the BC? To me this is clear- if anyone really believes the Vatel nonsense they would not care about the BC- because everyone knows the Presidents father was not a citizen. Since you ask for both- you are just looking for an excuse for him to be disqualified.

    [SD] A non-Hawaiian Obama birth would just be icing on the cake. I base his ineligibility on what is known. That is, his father’s lack of U.S. citizenship. And Vattel is not “nonsense.” No court has overruled or overturned his clear definition to which the founders subscribed.

    10 Why would the hospital give you- a private citizen- any information about who was born there?

    [SD] Because it is public information. There is absolutely no reason why the Hawaii DOH should withhold what the President has revealed.

    Again- if you truly believe the Vatel nonsense- why do you care?

    [SD] Again, a non-Hawaiian birth would be icing on the cake. But there is a lot of evidence he was born in Kenya. Since no court will rule on merit, those evidences aren’t made known through legal procedure, except on the internet.

    11 The President has released the relevant documents- which by the way are as many as any previous President. Other than that, perhaps he feels that his kindergarten records are not your business?

    [SD] What he feels isn’t relevant. He is the transparent president who won’t release the only document that would put this whole matter to rest – His 1961 long form BC which would clearly show whether or not he was born in Hawaii. He has no valid reason not to release it, esp. since he wrote in a letter to Kapi’olani Hospital that he was born there. How do you explain that? I would think that you would want him to release it and make fools of the birthers. No? Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history.

    12 AG Holder doesn’t owe Orly zip, let alone a courtious response. Orly is abusive and discourtious to the President.

    [SD] Holder is a public servant and accountable to the people. Taitz has not been abusive, rather calling it as she sees it.

    14. Because he has real things to deal with? Really- we have troops at war in two countries and we are recovering from the worst Recession in 60 years. Why should the President waste 5 seconds of his time to try to appease a few nutcases who can’t even understand what a Natural Born citizen is? If he were to release it, I wouldn’t care, but considering the piggishness of many of the birthers, I say give them squat.

    [SD] This is totally lacking in substance and merely wishful thinking on your part. He could settle this whole thing and save money by releasing his 1961 BC. It is not us “nut cases” who don’t understand what a NBC citizen, but you and the others here. Vattel, Bingham, Happersett, VENUS, Act of 1790 all stand as recorded.

    MR. OBAMA, TEAR DOWN YOUR WALL AND BE THE TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE:)

  217. avatar
    Scientist February 19, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    Slamdunk: Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history

    Would you be so kind as to point me to a birth certificate for either one? No “vault copy” necessary, just a simple state-issued form will do. Thanks in advance…

  218. avatar
    Slamdunk February 19, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    We birthers are real nut jobs, so we are told. I would think that all of you would want to see just one of the cases filed against the Usurper be heard so the world could see that he was born in Hawaii and what a bunch of idiots we birthers are. Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?

  219. avatar
    nbc February 19, 2010 at 7:40 pm #

    We birthers are real nut jobs, so we are told. I would think that all of you would want to see just one of the cases filed against the Usurper be heard so the world could see that he was born in Hawaii and what a bunch of idiots we birthers are. Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?

    It would be hilarious but we believe in the US Constitution which requires one to show actual standing before having one’s case heard in front of the Court.
    So far, the continuous failures continue to amuse us.

    And you are aware that the Indiana Appeal’s Court declared President Obama a natural born Citizen?

    Ankeny v Daniels…

    Not really Nirvana but still pretty close..

  220. avatar
    SFJeff February 19, 2010 at 9:02 pm #

    Well Slamdunk- you are back
    1) “so what? It is written clearly in law of nations.”

    No it is not. Do you read French? I don’t, but Lupin does and he has clearly demonstrated that Vattel in France refers to a singular parent being a citizen- he never, ever refers to requiring both parents.

    2) You don’t get it- Marshall references Vattel but does not rely upon him to define NBC. The case is about citizenship- and he his reference to Law of nations refers to three classes of residents- not one of them a class of citizen.

    “You can’t be serious. Look at Vattel’s definition in 212 ”

    I missed the part in the Constitution which says “refer to Vattel when it comes to defining a citizen”. Had you ever heard of Vattel 2 years ago? And I never rely upon anything ‘plastered all over the internet’- thats what got you into this mess

    “[SD] No one has shown that Bingham did not make that statement.”

    Well I guess that settles it then- wonder why the Chief Justice didn’t mention his name when he was swearing the President in?

    [SD] Wong Kim Ark cited Happersett approvingly. Ark was not a NBC.

    Wong Ark definetively shows that a NBC is anyone born in the United States- period.

    “They must have been aware of it because they used Law of Nations in forming the Republic”

    Only Mario asserts this- and I don’t rely upon anything from his site- he still believes it was illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan for gods sake! I have wandered once through his site of lies and that was enough.

    “Her affidavit can be found on line”

    Oh my god- you birthers keep saying that Obama’s BC is not legitimate because its only an online document, but you believe her online affidavit- which isn’t verified by anyone? Talk about cherry picking.

    “Whether they are required to rule on Vattel isn’t the point. No SCOTUS case has ever overturned NBC as defined by Vattel”

    How can the Supreme Court rule on how NBC is defined by Vattel when virtually no one but you and Mario believe that definition? Saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Vattel is like saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Santa Claus- its meaningless.

    “A non-Hawaiian Obama birth would just be icing on the cake. I base his ineligibility on what is known”

    So you admit there is no reason to ask for his birth certificate, only that it would be ‘icing on the cake’

    “And Vattel is not “nonsense.”

    Vattel himself, and his writings are not nonsense. Its really a shame how his writings have been manipulated by a few birthers. But in context of defining NBC- saying Vattel defines U.S. NBC status is nonsense- bordering on insane.

    “Because it is public information. There is absolutely no reason why the Hawaii DOH should withhold what the President has revealed.”

    But it isn’t public knowledge- the hospital is no more allowed to release that information than our hospital can release my daughters birth information.

    “But there is a lot of evidence he was born in Kenya.”
    No there isn’t. Really.

    “Since no court will rule on merit, those evidences aren’t made known through legal procedure, except on the internet.”

    You really have to start being more critical of what you read on the internet- you do realize not all of it is true?

    “He is the transparent president who won’t release the only document that would put this whole matter to rest”

    But you say that per Vattell he can’t be a NBC no matter what his BC says- so it wouldn’t put anything to rest would it?

    “Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history.”

    Neither of them ever released their birth certificates, nor did any hospital confirm their births. How are they open books?

    “Taitz has not been abusive, rather calling it as she sees it.”

    Taitz has been clearly abusive- she has called the President- and many judges traitors, communists, fascists, thugs- she tells her minions to harass other citizens- she respects no ones privacy- and has said that the Presidents grandmother probably committed fraud. If the President wasn’t a public figure she would be lucky not to get sued for libel. She is a bully and a charlatan.

    Slam- nothing you have brought forth has any substance- you recite Mario’s talking points as if they had any meaning- but here is the real situation:

    President Obama is the President- voted into office, confirmed by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice. None of those people mentioned “hey what about Vattel”

    Mario’s cases have gone nowhere- because he has no standing but even more so- no substance.

    Like I said- go stand with your sign in front of the White House- please.

  221. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2010 at 10:07 pm #

    SFJeff: Vattel in France refers to a singular parent being a citizen- he never, ever refers to requiring both parents.

    An admission preference to the Blood and Guts Military Academy for boys will be given to children whose parents are alumni.

    “I am sorry young Mr. Kerchner, but your mother did not graduate from our school.”

  222. avatar
    G February 20, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    We birthers are real nut jobs, so we are told. I would think that all of you would want to see just one of the cases filed against the Usurper be heard so the world could see that he was born in Hawaii and what a bunch of idiots we birthers are. Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?
    Slamdunk: February 19

    Just a few quick points:

    1. Yes, you birthers are real nut jobs. Plain and simple as that.

    2. Why would we be in support of frivolous court cases?

    As a taxpayer, I don’t want my money wasted on wild goose chases and utter nonsense.

    Nor do I want real justice to be slowed down any further than normal by having our courts waste time on frivolity.

    3. Trust me, among the world’s population that is even aware of the birthers, an overwhelming majority already knows you are idiots. They don’t require the courts to further demonstrate that which is so abundantly clear.

  223. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2010 at 8:20 am #

    Slamdunk: Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?

    Sorry, Kurt Cobain is dead. And so are your “lawsuits”.

    I don’t know why this is so hard for you guys to understand, but surely you’ve heard the expression “time is of the essence”? To give an example that maybe even you will understand, suppose you crash your car into mine in front of 20 witnesses and you are 100% at fault. Let’s even say you’re drunk. So on the merits, you’re toast. But instead of suing you, I sit on my ass for 5 years and then file in the wrong court. What do you think will happen? I will be out of luck. As are you.

    I have absolutely no objection to a court hearing your “case” as long as your “attorneys” can actually follow the rules for a change and file a proper ballot challenge at the proper time (BEFORE the election) in a proper venue. That window will re-open in 2012 for limited business. I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you, though, because your “attorneys” show few signs of learning to follow rules. Even if they do file a proper case at the right time, you will need actual admissible evidence (look the word up) to counter the strong presumption in favor of valid state birth documents. So far, you haven’t even gotten in shouting range, but you have a little over 2 years to try.

  224. avatar
    Greg February 20, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    John Bingham, framer of the 14th amendment: “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

    John Bingham drafted the 14th Amendment, but his version did not contain the citizenship clause. Your quote is about the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

    Senator Howard amended the 14th Amendment with the citizenship clause.

    He introduced his amendment this way:

    This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

    Opponents of birthright citizenship think this excludes foreigners and aliens, but they ignore the next phrase. If Howard had intended to exclude the children of aliens and foreigners, there would be no reason to mention ambassadors or foreign ministers.

    It was about this amendment that Senator Cowan stood to speak, saying that Howard’s change to the 14th Amendment would make Chinese people citizens. These Chinese people weren’t divided in their loyalty, according to Cowan, they were completely alien:

    people who … owe [my state] no allegiance; who pretend to owe none; who recognize no authority in her government; who have a distinct, independent government of their own …; who pay no taxes; who never perform military service; who do nothing, in fact, which becomes the citizen, and perform none of the duties which devolve upon him.

  225. avatar
    Slamdunk February 20, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 19, 2010 at 9:02 pm (Quote)

    Well Slamdunk- you are back
    1) “so what? It is written clearly in law of nations.”

    No it is not. Do you read French? I don’t, but Lupin does and he has clearly demonstrated that Vattel in France refers to a singular parent being a citizen- he never, ever refers to requiring both parents.

    [SD] Thank you for your considered responses. Please visit here for Vattel on natural born citizen in english and french – http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    Don’t be frightened by the “birther” website, it will only educate you:)

    2) You don’t get it- Marshall references Vattel but does not rely upon him to define NBC.

    [SD] Where does Marshall say he doesn’t rely on Vattel?

    “You can’t be serious. Look at Vattel’s definition in 212 ”

    I missed the part in the Constitution which says “refer to Vattel when it comes to defining a citizen”. Had you ever heard of Vattel 2 years ago? And I never rely upon anything plastered all over the internet’- thats what got you into this mess.

    [SD] Having read the “birther” website, I’m confident you now have a new perspective on NBC. That no one heard of Vattel until two years ago in no way diminishes him as the authority on NBC.

    Wong Ark definetively shows that a NBC is anyone born in the United States- period.

    [SD] Here’s an opposing view to yours:
    http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/why-us-v-wong-kim-ark-can-never-be-considered-settled-birthright-law/

    “They must have been aware of it because they used Law of Nations in forming the Republic”

    Only Mario asserts this- and I don’t rely upon anything from his site- he still believes it was illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan for gods sake! I have wandered once through his site of lies and that was enough.

    [SD] Of course you don’t accept Puzzo, Donofrio, or anything that supports Vattel who clearly defines NBC as one whose parents are both citizens in french. So

    Oh my god- you birthers keep saying that Obama’s BC is not legitimate because its only an online document, but you believe her online affidavit- which isn’t verified by anyone? Talk about cherry picking.

    [SD] Big difference between a sworn statement subject to law and an on line reproduction of a BC that doesn’t reveal the birth hospital or attending physician. So answer me this please: Why won’t the Hawaii DOH or Kapi’olani hospital affirm Obama’s birth there, esp. after he said he was in his Jan. 24, 2009 letter to the hospital? Go ahead, call them and see if they will tell you.

    “Whether they are required to rule on Vattel isn’t the point. No SCOTUS case has ever overturned NBC as defined by Vattel”

    How can the Supreme Court rule on how NBC is defined by Vattel when virtually no one but you and Mario believe that definition?

    [SD] Just me an Puzzo? I wear that as a badge of honor to be included with him:) Polls now show that at least 50% of Americans want more proof than the on line BC to show he is eligible. The “birther” movement keeps on gaining more birthers.

    Saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Vattel is like saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Santa Claus- its meaningless.

    [SD] There is no legal ruling that has overturned or diluted “born of U.S. citizen parents” according to Vattel, Happersett, Bingham, VENUS, Nat. Act of 1790 and other casesU. Wong Kim has it wong…..Ooops! I mean wrong.

    “A non-Hawaiian Obama birth would just be icing on the cake. I base his ineligibility on what is known”

    So you admit there is no reason to ask for his birth certificate, only that it would be icing on the cake’

    Sure I think it’s OK to ask for a BC, even though it will probably never be released due to the courts and AG being in the Usurper’s hip pocket. It’s just that the parent thing is a “known.”

    Vattel himself, and his writings are not nonsense. Its really a shame how his writings have been manipulated by a few birthers.

    [SD]How do you manipulate, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens?”

    But in context of defining NBC- saying Vattel defines U.S. NBC status is nonsense- bordering on insane.

    [SD] It’s insane not to understand what is clearly written.

    “Because it is public information. There is absolutely no reason why the Hawaii DOH should withhold what the President has revealed.”

    But it isn’t public knowledge- the hospital is no more allowed to release that information than our hospital can release my daughters birth information.

    [SD] It is public information because the Usurper has stated it publicly that he was born there. Why would you object to a simple yes or no assertion from the hospital where your daughter was born if you had already made it public knowledge?

    “But there is a lot of evidence he was born in Kenya.”
    No there isn’t. Really.

    [SD] Yes, there is, really. AAMOF, it’s overwhelming. There are gag orders in Kenya against official statements concerning Usurper’s birth there. Why? The Kenyan National Assembly, following his election, commented that he was a “son of the soil.” That is a common statement referring to national birth. Ambassador Ogego admitted that Obama’s birthplace “already was an attraction.” Then there is the 6-27-2004 Headline in the Kenya Sunday Standard headline: “KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKE HISTORY.”
    And don’t forget grandma’s statement that she was in the delivery room when he was born. If just one of these are true, Usurper is out.

    You really have to start being more critical of what you read on the internet- you do realize not all of it is true?

    [SD] Of course, but much of it is, esp. where things are officially documented. You use the net for the same purposes.

    “He is the transparent president who won’t release the only document that would put this whole matter to rest”

    But you say that per Vattell he can’t be a NBC no matter what his BC says- so it wouldn’t put anything to rest would it?

    [SD] Only if it’s never released does Usurper have the upper hand since the courts and media are supporting him. But if it were released, it would settle everything, wouldn’t it? This is where non-birther logic falls. There is no good reason for President Usurper not to release his 1961 BC. He is not bound by any law not to. Here is his great opportunity to be transparent. Polls show that most Americans want him to do this. Why not you? I would think you would want that because if he produced hsi 1961 long BC, it make fools of us birthers. Wouldn’t you like that?

    “Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history.”

    Neither of them ever released their birth certificates, nor did any hospital confirm their births. How are they open books?

    [SD] The point is that they would not have refused to release their BCs had they been asked. They are natural born citizens, unlike the Usurper who wants to hide that he isn’t.

    “Taitz has not been abusive, rather calling it as she sees it.”

    Taitz has been clearly abusive- she has called the President- and many judges traitors, communists, fascists, thugs- she tells her minions to harass other citizens- she respects no ones privacy- and has said that the Presidents grandmother probably committed fraud. If the President wasn’t a public figure she would be lucky not to get sued for libel. She is a bully and a charlatan.

    [SD] OK, I’ll give you that her language has been harsh. But she has also had death threats and other forms of harrassment. But she’s probably right about her accusations characterizing some of those in the Usurper’s camp. We know she is right about “communists and fascists.” (Who was that guy who claimed to be a communist and had to step down?) And you just have to wonder how accurate her information is of the Usurper’s use of a social security number that was never issued to him. All it will take is discovery in ONE court case. But none will hear it. There is no good reason not to.

    Slam- nothing you have brought forth has any substance- you recite Mario’s talking points as if they had any meaning- but here is the real situation:

    President Obama is the President- voted into office, confirmed by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice.

    [SD] And therein lies the great mystery. McCain was vetted as to citizenship, but not Obama. The vast majority of Republicans have remained silent. They are either ignorant, or fearful of addressing the issue. I know that many are ignorant because I have spoken with their staff members. Only one Republican Rep. has asked Obama to release his 1961 BC – Nathan Deal of Georgia. Obama has not responded. Why not at least a cordial refusal? It is a legitimate question to be asked since so many people want to know. There is a bill (HR 1503) that would require presidential candidates to produce their official long form BCs. Democrats oppose it, and it is gaining Republican support. Now why would anyone oppose producing a birth certificate which is required for so many other things?

    Mario’s cases have gone nowhere- because he has no standing but even more so- no substance.

    Like I said- go stand with your sign in front of the White House- please.

    [SD] WE have a local Tea Party group that stands at a major intersection, and have been for almost a year. It has been on the news. We have many signs that include the Usurper. You should see the scorn and hear the language from opposers when they see OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE signs. Something’s working because the Usurper’s numbers are falling.

    Puzo and Donfrio, IMV, have the right handle on the BC/citizenship issues, and the Usurper knows it. Otherwise, he would be quick to produce his 1961 BC.

  226. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 20, 2010 at 12:53 pm #

    ‘Puzo and Donfrio’ still have yet to win a case. They have yet to bring an argument that hasn’t been laughed out of court. Meanwhile, the ‘Usurper’ is still our legal and constitutional President.

    But if you want to spend your life getting posterized over and over as a racist asshat, then be my guest. Our great nation continues to move ahead without you.

  227. avatar
    Greg February 20, 2010 at 2:38 pm #

    If Apuzzo and Donofrio are right, that it does not matter whether Obama was born in the United States, he can never be a citizen because his father is Kenyan, why would it matter if he allowed Hawaii to release his birth certificate?

    If they are right about Vattel and NBC, wouldn’t it be more likely that Obama would allow Hawaii to release his birth certificate? Clearly, 99.9999% of Americans believe that it doesn’t matter if your father was a non-citizen, and so the release of a birth certificate saying Obama was born in the US would satisfy those folks.

    How would it satisfy Apuzzo and Donofrio?

    How, in fact, would it satisfy you?

    Is Obama’s birth certificate on the back of a draft copy of the Constitution that proves that Vattel was the inspiration for the natural born citizen clause?

    Or, maybe you doubt that Obama Sr. is Barack’s father, maybe you think he was lying in his book, and in his DNC keynote address, lying in such a way to make himself ineligible for the Presidency.

  228. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    So therefore, Obama’s “refusal” to release his long-form birth certificate is proof that he is fully convinced his constitutional eligibility is certain. Works for me.

  229. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    Slamdunk: Please visit here for Vattel on natural born citizen in english and french – http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    The problem with that page, and its footnote explaining the translation, is that it lacks any authority for the assertion that one translation is wrong and another right. The footnote is more of an appeal than an argument, and I didn’t pick up any hint that led me to think that the writer actually knew any French, much less had any expertise in 18th century French. It all sounded rather smooth and scholarly, except that there was no real content. While one can be misled, it is usually possible to tell the difference between someone who really knows his stuff and some totally clueless person with good writing skills who is spinning a yarn.

    Slamdunk: Puzo and Donfrio, IMV, have the right handle on the BC/citizenship issues, and the Usurper knows it. Otherwise, he would be quick to produce his 1961 BC.

    I don’t follow the reasoning there. If President Obama really believed that US Presidents must have two citizen parents, then why did he post prominently on his campaign web site that his father was a citizen of the UK and Colonies and he himself was born with dual citizenship? I can’t think of anything on the long form certificate that would go any further as to proving the President’s father was a British citizen than the COLB already published.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

  230. avatar
    Greg February 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Please visit here for Vattel on natural born citizen in english and french – http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    The same old tired, undersourced argument that boils down to, we’re American and “natural born” is British, so clearly we must have meant to incorporate the Swiss guy.

    I especially like the complete misreading of Virginia’s constitution. They think this means that citizenship follows only the parents’ citizenship:

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    Sorry, guys, it means the same as the standard definition of NBC:

    1. Those born here are citizens regardless of parental citizenship.

    2. Those born abroad (or in other states) are citizens if their parents were citizens.

    Here’s the thing. The founders did have a debate about the meaning of citizenship. Specifically, what did it mean to be citizens of England. Could they revolt? Were they full citizens, like those back in the homeland and therefore, entitled to representation.

    In this debate about citizenship and its meanings, the founders cited British authorities, like Calvin’s Case and Blackstone. I can’t find any evidence that the founders cited Vattel once in this debate.

    If the founders had really adopted Vattel over English Common Law, the birthers could find tons of material from these debates. They could look at the footnotes of Kettner’s treatise on the development of American citizenship and quote-mine to their hearts’ desire.

  231. avatar
    Scientist February 20, 2010 at 5:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t think of anything on the long form certificate that would go any further as to proving the President’s father was a British citizen than the COLB already published.

    Actually, this is an interesting point that I’m not sure anyone has commented on. The birthers are demanding an above and beyond standard for Obama to prove his birth in the US. The normal documents that anybody else has are insufficient. They certainly wouldn’t accept that Obama was born in Hawaii simply because he says he was. Yet the only proof that Obama Sr was a Kenyan/British citizen is his son’s say so. Woefully insufficient! I demand to see a document that proves Obama Sr. was not a US citizen. I will sue and scream and hold my breath until you birthers show me one.

    Until you have something beyond Obama’s say so, Obama was born in Hawaii of 2 US citizen parents. Even by your own (silly) standard, he is cool…

  232. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm #

    Slamdunk says:

    Will one of you Obama hot shots please present documentation defining natural born citizen?

    This is from “American Government and Economics in Christian Perspective,” a right-wing history text for home schooled students published by Pensacola Christian College in 1984:

    Anyone born within the fifty states or American-held territories (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Distict of Columbia) is considered a native-born citizen. This principle follows the ancient English law of jus soli, “law of the soil.”

    p. 96

    So you see, even conservatives used to teach that anyone born in the United States (with a few narrow exceptions) is a natural born citizen. Of course, that was before a black man with a foreign-sounding name was elected president.

  233. avatar
    nbC February 20, 2010 at 5:34 pm #

    Nice, guess that even the home-schoolers get to know the fact. Quite unusual

  234. avatar
    Slamdunk February 20, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    Thanks Chufo. Yes, I realize that the folks here are sold out for the Usurper and are not in possession of key truths.

    SFJeff says:
    February 19, 2010 at 12:36 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk, I was wondering if you had the courage of your convictions.

    Of course I don’t agree with you- you are advocating the unconstitutional overthrow of a legally elected president.

    But I really encourage you to go stand there with your sign.

    [SD] We have a Tea Party group here in Ft. Lauderale that assembles every Saturday between 12-3PM. Various signs, including eligibility, are part of the display. I have a foot problem so I have to use a chair. My sign says, “OBAMA INELIGIBLE,” and I briefly explain why. I also have pocket size flyers I pass out with the same information. I have canvassed the beach with them along the most crowded areas. I’ll send you one if you give me your address:)

    As far as advocating an overthrow, I suggest the courts and Congress get involved and decide what to do with someone who is not constitutionally qualified.

    MR. OBAMA, PRODUCE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

  235. avatar
    Rickey February 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm #

    Slamdunk says:

    MR. OBAMA, PRODUCE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Why do you need to see his long form birth certificate? Obama freely admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen. According to you, that fact alone makes him ineligible to be president, so what difference does it make to you where he was born?

  236. avatar
    NBC February 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    Thanks Chufo. Yes, I realize that the folks here are sold out for the Usurper and are not in possession of key truths.

    Like the fact that he was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen?

    You’re pathetic.

  237. avatar
    Greg February 20, 2010 at 9:28 pm #

    these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies

    If Obama paid us to spread these lies, we wouldn’t be posting them all on a single website.

  238. avatar
    misha February 21, 2010 at 12:44 am #

    “these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies”

    Have you been looking at my mail?

    “Obama freely admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen. According to you, that fact alone makes him ineligible to be president, so what difference does it make to you where he was born?”

    They can’t decide what to do.

  239. avatar
    nbC February 21, 2010 at 1:03 am #

    these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies

    Twice wrong in a single sentence. Have you no self-respect?…

    Pathetic… Is that the best you can do, accusing contributors her of spreading lies even though I doubt you can point to any non-trivial statement that should be considered a lie.

    Who is paying you to post this kind of nonsense? It’s hard to believe you would do it for free…

  240. avatar
    Slamdunk February 21, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    Rickey says:
    February 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk says:

    MR. OBAMA, PRODUCE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Why do you need to see his long form birth certificate? Obama freely admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen. According to you, that fact alone makes him ineligible to be president, so what difference does it make to you where he was born?

    The Usurper’s place of birth is the flip side of the coin that defines natural born citizen – Born in the U.S. of parents who are both U.S. citizens. If he was born in Hawaii, then he satisfies one side. If his parents, or even just one, weren’t U.S. citizens, he fails the other side and is ineligible for the presidency.

    So even if he produces his 1961 long form BC, he still isn’t eligible. Who the Usurper is, and who his parents were, far exceed the place of his birth when it comes to eligibility for the U.S. presidency. This was the founder’s major concern. Character matters and this Usurper has rubbed elbows with Marxists, communists, socialists and God only knows what else.

    Obama was a British subject at birth. The law changed and he became Kenyan. He then became Indonesian when his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro. (While in Indonesia, he listed his faith as Muslim). What is he now? He has never said what he is. I doubt that he was ever naturalized in the U.S. Why do you think he doesn’t want his personal records revealed? Use your Common sense. Why is he spending so much money to fight all these cases against him? Why wasn’t his citizenship vetted like McCain’s? Why won’t the Hawaii Dept. of Health and Kapi’olani hospital affirm his birth there in light of the fact that he said so in his 1-24-09 letter to the hospital. These are legitimate questions and the transparent president is short on answers. Can’t you see through this Usurper?

  241. avatar
    misha February 21, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    “Use your Common sense. Can’t you see through this Usurper?”

    The better question is, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    Can’t you crawl back under your rock?

  242. avatar
    Slamdunk February 21, 2010 at 9:43 am #

    nbC says:
    February 21, 2010 at 1:03 am (Quote)

    these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies

    Twice wrong in a single sentence. Have you no self-respect?…

    Pathetic… Is that the best you can do, accusing contributors her of spreading lies even though I doubt you can point to any non-trivial statement that should be considered a lie.

    [SD] When applying for the Illinois Bar the application asked if he ever went by any other name. He said no. His former name was Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He lied.

  243. avatar
    misha February 21, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    @Slamdunk: do you think coyotes can make good pets?

  244. avatar
    Slamdunk February 21, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    NBC says:
    February 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Thanks Chufo. Yes, I realize that the folks here are sold out for the Usurper and are not in possession of key truths.

    Like the fact that he was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen?

    You’re pathetic.

    [SD] Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

  245. avatar
    Slamdunk February 21, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    misha says:
    February 21, 2010 at 9:41 am (Quote)

    “Use your Common sense. Can’t you see through this Usurper?”

    The better question is, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    Can’t you crawl back under your rock?

    [SD] That’s probably a lie, but who cares what Beck did? He’s not the president.

  246. avatar
    misha February 21, 2010 at 9:54 am #

    @Slamdunk: what is the incidence of urban squirrel rabies?

  247. avatar
    Slamdunk February 21, 2010 at 10:10 am #

    RICKEY SAYS; Why do you need to see his long form birth certificate?

    It’s not that I, or anyone, need it. By asking Obama to produce it, and he doesn’t, should be enough to show you that he doesn’t have one. It would just make him a liar because he said he was born there. I don’t know about you, but if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

  248. avatar
    Scientist February 21, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    Slamdunk: I don’t know about you, but if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

    If someone threw one tenth of the names at me that you morons have thrown at the President, I would tell them to go F themseleves. Got it?

  249. avatar
    G February 21, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Slamdunk: February 21
    It’s not that I, or anyone, need it. By asking Obama to produce it, and he doesn’t, should be enough to show you that he doesn’t have one. It would just make him a liar because he said he was born there. I don’t know about you, but if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

    Well, Slamdunk, lets try turning this around on you. Why don’t you show your naturalization papers, your kindergarten records and proof of your name change? Why can’t you provide your foreign documents? I want to see your Kenayn birth certificate! If you can’t produce those or claim you don’t have them, or ignore this request, then well, gee, by your own “logic”, that must be proof of your being an illegal alien and that you have something to hide.

    So there, I’m accusing you of being an illegal alien until you can proof here otherwise and demand that you be deported immediately!

  250. avatar
    G February 21, 2010 at 12:37 pm #

    Slamdunk: [SD] When applying for the Illinois Bar the application asked if he ever went by any other name. He said no. His former name was Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He lied.

    And your proof of any LEGAL name change to Barry Soetoro is…oh sorry, you have none? Just some school admission form filled out by a step-father trying to enroll his kid, which has no legal basis? That is what I thought. Thanks for playing.

  251. avatar
    G February 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

    1. Those of us living in reality are completely satisfied with the BC from HI, stating his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI which he did produce, which was backed up repeatedly by the state of HI and for which 2 corroborating birth announcements in the local paper were found. For those of us in reality, that is more than sufficient.

    2. We don’t need to prove you birthers are idiots. You do that quite well on your own every time you speak or write your stupid bogus conspiracy drivel or parrot birther pseudo-lawyer’s crazy novelty interpretations of law.

    3. As I mentioned before, I’m against frivolous lawsuits and support reasonable tort reform. Therefore, as a taxpayer, I don’t want my courts wasting their time on frivolous or incorrectly filed claims that can’t go anywhere and are meaningless. I want them tossed as quickly as possible.

    Furthermore, I want junk lawyers who can’t seem to understand the rules in the legal process, who are abusive to the courts, and/or who are serial filers of frivolity to be heavily sanctioned and disbarred.

    4. We’re not afraid of any legit legal cases going forward. But none of the birther cases to date are legit.

    Cases that can’t even meet the standards of judiciability and cannot meet basic standing requirements are frivolous on their face.

    So far, with 65+ cases, the birthers are batting a total goose-egg and can’t even come up with anything to meet the minimum standards of those basic hurdles.

    5. You keep using the term “usurper”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To ursurp, means to seize and hold power by force or illegal means.

    Here in this country, we have a little something called the election process and a legal means of casting votes, having them counted and also having them certified, which results in the winner being sworn into office.

    Obama did all of these things and was overwhelmingly elected by a significant margin and majority of the voters and his selection ballots were recorded and certified as an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes.

    Why do you wish to overthrow the will of the majority of the people of the US and overthrow a legitimate election? What you birthers wish to do is USURP the presidency, not the other way around.

  252. avatar
    nbC February 21, 2010 at 1:21 pm #

    Slamdunk, misrepresents the facts

    [SD] When applying for the Illinois Bar the application asked if he ever went by any other name. He said no. His former name was Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He lied.

    He was asked if he had ever practiced law by any other name.

    And again SD is caught lying for others. Has he no self respect, has he no sense of shame

  253. avatar
    nbC February 21, 2010 at 1:25 pm #

    SD lies again since the question is about having used aliases while practicing law.

  254. avatar
    nbC February 21, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    And of course, this still does not address the simple fact that President Obama has been shown to be born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen.

    What a fool this SD.

  255. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    SD: By asking Obama to produce it, and he doesn’t, should be enough to show you that he doesn’t have one.

    And Obama producing his BC and putting a copy on his web site in June of 2008 proves? That he has nothing to hide on this point.

  256. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    Slamdunk: (While in Indonesia, he listed his faith as Muslim).

    He who? Are you saying that little kid Obama filled out the school registration forms? Not very likely.

  257. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2010 at 2:29 pm #

    It’s been a year and a half and I’m still waiting for my first check.

  258. avatar
    Greg February 21, 2010 at 2:48 pm #

    if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

    Personally, if I could get my political opponents to argue about an issue that made them look like morons and lose all credibility, I think I’d withhold the proof.

    Especially if releasing the “proof” wouldn’t actually get them to stop calling me a liar.

    I noticed you haven’t answered my question – What on Barack Obama’s birth certificate would convince you that Vattel wasn’t the source of the natural born clause.

  259. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 21, 2010 at 3:39 pm #

    Facts : SlamDunk :: Vince Carter : Frederic Weis

  260. avatar
    misha February 21, 2010 at 4:06 pm #

    “if I could get my political opponents to argue about an issue that made them look like morons and lose all credibility, I think I’d withhold the proof.”

    The more noise Denialists make, the worse it gets for conservatives. Have fun.

    I’m waiting for Glenn Beck’s major breakdown, and from the looks of it, here it comes.

  261. avatar
    aarrgghh February 21, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    facts : slamdunk :: air : cold harsh black endless vacuum of intergalactic space

  262. avatar
    Rickey February 21, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    Slamdunk says:

    If his parents, or even just one, weren’t U.S. citizens, he fails the other side and is ineligible for the presidency.

    I repeat: Why then do you care if his long form birth certificate is released? One of his parents wasn’t a U.S. citizen, and release of his original birth certificate isn’t going to change that.

    He then became Indonesian when his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro.

    Wrong. His mother’s marriage to Soetoro had absolutely no effect upon Obama’s citizenship.

    (While in Indonesia, he listed his faith as Muslim).

    Wrong again. Obama was six years old when he moved to Indonesia. He didn’t list anything. It was listed by someone else, most likely his stepfather.

    What is he now? He has never said what he is.

    He says that he is a Christian, but what difference does it make? There is no religious test for the office of president.

    I doubt that he was ever naturalized in the U.S.

    I doubt it, too. Why would he be naturalized, since he was a citizen at birth?

    Why do you think he doesn’t want his personal records revealed?

    Hmmm…the same reason that John McCain didn’t what his personal records revealed?

    Why is he spending so much money to fight all these cases against him?

    Define “so much money.” And please provide documentation about how much money Obama has spent. Documentation, not speculation.

    Finally, Vattel. The best document we have regarding the identity of the legal thinkers who influenced the founders is the two-volume set “Debate on the Constitution,” published by the Library of America.

    The number of references to Blackstone: 17
    The number of references to Vattel: 0

    The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68

    Why do you have an issue with Hamilton?

  263. avatar
    nbC February 21, 2010 at 7:25 pm #

    Slamdunk If his parents, or even just one, weren’t U.S. citizens, he fails the other side and is ineligible for the presidency.

    Not according to Vattel nor the Supreme Court rulings on the topic of (natural born) citizenship.

    Are you making things up again? Or have you allowed yourself to be fooled to present your foolish position?
    Either way…
    Pathetic

  264. avatar
    nbC February 21, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    Don’t expect Slamdunk to be in any way or form interested in correctly representing the facts.

    He is just mindlessly repeating the lies of other, allowing them to make himself look quite foolish.

    I would be quite upset if I came to such a realization. Slamdunk may be a different kind of person though.

  265. avatar
    Slamdunk February 21, 2010 at 8:32 pm #

    G says:
    February 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

    1. Those of us living in reality are completely satisfied with the BC from HI, stating his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI which he did produce, which was backed up repeatedly by the state of HI and for which 2 corroborating birth announcements in the local paper were found. For those of us in reality, that is more than sufficient.

    [SD Now please answer my questions.

    2. We don’t need to prove you birthers are idiots. You do that quite well on your own every time you speak or write your stupid bogus conspiracy drivel or parrot birther pseudo-lawyer’s crazy novelty interpretations of law.

    [SD] Again, would you like to see Pres. Usurper produce his 1961 long form BC to prove once and for all his on line BC is genuine? Would you sign a petition for him to do this?

    4. We’re not afraid of any legit legal cases going forward. But none of the birther cases to date are legit.

    [SD] So you wouldn’t oppose any of them to be judged on merit.

    Cases that can’t even meet the standards of judiciability and cannot meet basic standing requirements are frivolous on their face.

    [SD] This case is anything but frivoulous and you know it. Obama has the DC legal community in his pocket. 50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility. That’s not frivoulous.

    So far, with 65+ cases, the birthers are batting a total goose-egg and can’t even come up with anything to meet the minimum standards of those basic hurdles.

    [SD] Here’s an amazing thing. The evidence is strong that Obama was not born in Hawaii, is not a natural born citizen, and no court will hear the evidence. Denmark isn’t the only place that is rotten.

    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.” Those two little words, “So what” show that he ment it didn’t matter for a Senate race, but being a NBC would for the presidency.

    5. You keep using the term “usurper”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To ursurp, means to seize and hold power by force or illegal means.

    [SD] Nice try. He is not a legal president according to U.S. HISTORICAL and SCOTUS DEFINITIONS of NBC (Founders, Vattel, Nat. Act of 1790, Happersett, John Bingham and VENUS. Also, he was born in Kenya if the above are true. If just one Judge would hear one case on merit, all the facts on Obama’s BC, citizenship and the charges against him on social security and selective service fraud would come out, and the Obots know it. Why do you think there have been death threats against Taitz and Polarik? People don’t act like this if your just a fringe looney trying to get the President fired.

    MR. PRESIDENT! PROVE US WRONG AND RELEASE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Here in this country, we have a little something called the election process and a legal means of casting votes, having them counted and also having them certified, which results in the winner being sworn into office.

    Obama did all of these things and was overwhelmingly elected by a significant margin and majority of the voters and his selection ballots were recorded and certified as an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes.

    [SD] An election process, the legal means of casting votes and having them certified presumes the candidate was constitutionally qualified. If Hip-pocket Holder does his job he would proceed with Quo Warranto. He would have to prove he is natural born ACCORDING TO U.S. LAW, NOT BRITISH COMMON LAW. Wouldn’t you like that since you so firmly believe Obama is eligible?

    Why do you wish to overthrow the will of the majority of the people of the US and overthrow a legitimate election? What you birthers wish to do is USURP the presidency, not the other way around.

    [SD] While I admit I’m not an Obama fan, I do uphold our constitution. Why don’t you, at least in this matter? If Obama had to step down, Biden would step in. (O my goodness, bring back Obama:) How is it that you say we wish to usurp the presidency?

  266. avatar
    Greg February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    You’re doing a great job of proving that already!

    That’s why Obama will never release anything else.

    When your enemies are digging them a hole, you get out of the way!

    50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility.

    Where’s this poll? Show me.

    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    Then you’re not looking.

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.”

    Never happened.

    He is not a legal president according to U.S. HISTORICAL and SCOTUS DEFINITIONS of NBC (Founders, Vattel, Nat. Act of 1790, Happersett, John Bingham and VENUS.

    According to Wong Kim Ark, Lynch v. Clarke, Munroe v. Merchant, US v. Rhodes, AG Bates, Perkins v. Elg, Town of Hartford v. Town of Canaan, In re Look Ting Sing, Elk v. Wilkins, Morrison v. California, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Schneider v. Rusk, Rogers v. Bellei, Plyler v. Doe, INS v. Rios-Pineda, Blackstone, Tucker, Rawle, Kent, Story, Hurd, Paschal, McClane, Wright, he is a natural born citizen.

    You can also see the following law review articles:

    Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910).

    Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 Cornell.Q. 357, 364 (1950).

    L. Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007) (location of birth).

    Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005).

    Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 359-63 (2000-01).

    Smith, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY (1999).

    Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881(1988).

    Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 253, 258-261 (1987).

    Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, at 7-8 (1968).

    McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967).

    — James C. Ho, Defining “American”: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment, 9:4 The Green Bag, 366 (2006).

    — John W. Dean, A Fresh, Powerful Case for Amending the U.S. Constitution to Remove the “Natural Born” Qualification For the Presidency, FindLaw (2005).

    — Malinda L.Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 917, at 934-94 (2005).

    — John W. Dean, The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents, FindLaw (2004).

    — John Yinger, No Americans Should Be Second-Class Citizens: Prepared Statement by John Yinger (Professor of Economics and Public Administration, Center for Policy Research, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University) Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 24, 2000.

    — “Christopher L. Eisgruber, Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 54, at 177 (1997)] (acknowledging that everyone born in the United States receives citizenship automatically).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197] .

    — “Peter H. Schuck, The Re-evaluation of American Citizenship, 12 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 1, 4 (1997) (confirming that citizenship is extended to essentially all individuals born on United States soil).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197] .

    — “Robert J. Shulman, Children of a Lesser God: Should the Fourteenth Amendment be Altered or Repealed to Deny Automatic Citizenship Rights and Privileges to American Born Children of Illegal Aliens?, 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 669, 674 (1995) (stating that Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to all people born in the United States).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197].

    — “Note, The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1026, 1026 (1994) (stating that Fourteenth Amendment provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197].

    — “David S. Schwartz, The Amorality of Consent, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 2143 (1986) (disagreeing with Schuck and Smith [cited below] on political and moral theory grounds).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197]

    — “Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity 4 at 6-7 (1985)] (conceding that all people born in the US are citizens but arguing that some categories of people should not be).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197].

    Thanks to Tes.

    There’s a reason, SD, why no judge or law professor has EVER concluded that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents.

  267. avatar
    Scientist February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    Slamdunk keeps asking whether we “want a judge to hear it”. I want judges to follow the law. If one of you birther numbskulls had bothered to follow the rules and gotten plaintiffs with standing to file before the election it would have been heard. The fact that you didn’t is YOUR fault not ours or Obama’s.

    You will have another chance in 2012. Until then, you aren’t special and have to wait your turn and follow the laws like everybody else.

  268. avatar
    SFJeff February 21, 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    Oh Chufho, I really do wish that I was getting some of this mythical payoff money from the Obama campaign, but sadly it doesn’t exist- basically like every other ‘fact’ you spout.

    Since you have no facts, I figure you just make stuff up and then convince yourself its true and then write long run on sentences to convince others.

    Anyway- I am tired of being polite about this- you are an idiot- you have no facts, just slanderous statements.

    You would make Joe McCarthy proud

  269. avatar
    SFJeff February 21, 2010 at 10:50 pm #

    “I suggest the courts and Congress get involved and decide what to do with someone who is not constitutionally qualified. ”

    Simple enough- just show the evidence to Congress and have them impeach the President. Surely if Vattel is so commonly accepted as you think, you should be able to get the entire Republican side of the House to move for impeachment.

  270. avatar
    SFJeff February 21, 2010 at 10:58 pm #

    “Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?”

    Well you prove yourself idiots with pretty much every post. Releasing another Birth Certificate wouldn’t change that. And who is this Ursurper guy? Never heard of him.

    “Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you”

    Well, that has happened like 60 times so far.

  271. avatar
    nbc February 21, 2010 at 11:46 pm #

    SlamdunkWouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools?

    You already look like fools. What more do you want?

  272. avatar
    misha February 22, 2010 at 12:04 am #

    “You already look like fools. What more do you want?”

    Keep it up, birthers. You are dragging down the entire conservative movement. Popcorn…

    Signed,
    A Progressive

  273. avatar
    G February 22, 2010 at 1:00 am #

    Slamdunk: February 21
    SD Now please answer my questions.

    Um, your reading comprehension must really be poor, because I *did* completely answer your questions.

    What this really comes down to is you just don’t like the answers I gave, so you pretend to ignore them and go back to regurgitating the same crap over and over again.

    Let me try breaking it down for you one more time, bit-by-bit since you seem to be so reading-impaired. Therefore, here is each piece of your original question *again* with very, very, straight to the point answers. See my previous response again for further explanation.

    Q.) Would I like to see the Usurper…

    A.) For one thing, there is no “Usurper” except in your head. Obama was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected after being vetted by the public in a brutal two-year campaign. He won by commandingly decisive margins in both the popular vote and even more so in the all-important Electoral College vote. His election was certified without contention and he was duly sworn in, according to our Constitution. The proper title is President. The only fools trying to Usurp our Constitutional processes are you unpatriotic, hate-based birthers.

    Q.) …release his 1961 BC…?

    A.) If you mean President Obama’s 1961 BC, I’m completely satisfied by the documentation he already provided, along with supporting statements from HI officials and corroborating evidence announcing the birth in the paper, so why do I need to see anything else? Simple answer, Obama has released his 1961 BC. I’m satisfied *completely* by it and you aren’t. Tough cookies for you. Before you go off all crazy, whining about “long forms” and “baby footprints” and other stuff, let me just stop you right there. This so-called Hawaiian “long form” you want to rant about is not what HI produces anymore and it is NOT the document that even a license bureau would ask for to give you a driver’s license. They would ask to see the same type of document format that matches what Obama already provided.

    Q.) …and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    A.) Birthers prove themselves to be idiots every time they spouts off their wild & crazy unsubstantiated conspiracy crap. I don’t need you to do anything else to prove such; you’re doing a fine job of it all by yourself.

    Q.) Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

    A.) Not afraid of any of these cases. I never thought they had anything to them in the first place and I don’t see any on the horizon that do either. So far, over 65+ cases from birthers have gone to court and been fairly quickly tossed out. I see that as complete vindication that they are nothing but stupid, frivolous cases. Reading the opinions of many of the judges dismissals confirms that quite strongly.

  274. avatar
    G February 22, 2010 at 1:22 am #

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] This case is anything but frivoulous and you know it.

    NO. I think these birther cases are 100% BUNK. That means frivolous. I think they have NO merit to them whatsoever.

    I don’t see any credible evidence that supports ANY of their various throw-spaghetti-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks claims. I think some of the birther theories out there are some of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. I think all of you are completely out of your rational minds.

    I think that any judge who receives crazy frivolous crap is going to toss it out and there is nothing of value in those cases to be heard.

    So far, the entire court record on these cases and the judges’ opinions in such seem to support my contentions and not yours.

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Obama has the DC legal community in his pocket.

    Proof? Evidence? I didn’t think so.

    You really sound like a silly child or a total “vast conspiracy” flake when you make dumb statements like this. You know what I hear? I hear a sore loser trying to come up with lame excuses to blame the world and everyone else for his failings.

    Gee… somehow every single judge is wrong and the birthers are right? LMAO! Sorry, but the simple, straightforward explanation is simply that our nation’s laws don’t agree with the birthers and no reasonable person or judge is going to buy your made-up crap.

    All we have here is a few people who are upset and can’t handle that Obama was elected, for whatever your petty personal reasons on this issue are. So you birthers come up with all these ludicrous excuses to try to explain away the election and whine and pout and try to convince themselves that it didn’t really happen because your poor, fragile little minds obviously can’t handle the truth.

    Slamdunk: February 21
    50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility. That’s not frivoulous.

    Gee, where is your evidence to support that statistic? Yeah, didn’t think so.

    You just pulled 50% out of your butt, like everything else you say. You have an extremely over-inflated sense of the size or importance of the “birther” movement, just like the pathetic PUMAs did in 2008. Oh, and it is spelled “frivolous”.

    Maybe you can get away with making stuff up and lying to yourself or your fellow birthers to try to make your sore-loser selves feel better…

    …But we’re not stupid enough to buy into your pathetic BS just to make you feel better.

  275. avatar
    G February 22, 2010 at 1:34 am #

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Here’s an amazing thing. The evidence is strong that Obama was not born in Hawaii, is not a natural born citizen, and no court will hear the evidence. Denmark isn’t the only place that is rotten.

    Um, and just what “evidence” is that? I haven’t seen ANY. I think you are all delusional and full of total nonsense BS.

    Remember, rumor, innuendo, pure hypothetical speculation, misinformation, misunderstanding of law, and flat-out-lies do not count as evidence.

    There is nothing for the courts to hear, because after over 20 months of trying, you birthers cannot produce ONE SINGLE piece of EVIDENCE that could STAND UP IN COURT.

    The only thing rotten is your diseased minds and souls.

    Slamdunk: February 21
    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    Then you haven’t looked very far at all. I think you are referring to the AP article that was misattributed in one of its local printings.

    If so, those types of issues has already been looked at and covered in detail right here, so here are just a few links for you to read up on it:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/birth-location/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/newspapers-vary-on-obamas-birthplace/

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.” Those two little words, “So what” show that he ment it didn’t matter for a Senate race, but being a NBC would for the presidency.
    Slamdunk: February 21

    Prove it. Can’t? Didn’t think so.

    Of course, that because this is just another birther myth and lie. NEVER HAPPENED.

    You can’t find any such statement on the tapes or transcripts from that meeting.

  276. avatar
    G February 22, 2010 at 2:00 am #

    [SD] An election process, the legal means of casting votes and having them certified presumes the candidate was constitutionally qualified. If Hip-pocket Holder does his job he would proceed with Quo Warranto. He would have to prove he is natural born ACCORDING TO U.S. LAW, NOT BRITISH COMMON LAW. Wouldn’t you like that since you so firmly believe Obama is eligible?
    Slamdunk: February 21

    Sorry. You fail, try again. Quo Warranto doesn’t work the way your silly pseudo-laywer birther leaders tell you. There is no basis for their claims and no basis for Quo Warranto in this situation either. I want Holder to focus on real matters at hand, of which there are plenty. I do not see the birther issues as anything other than made-up and silly, so NO, I don’t want anyone to waste serious time on non-serious matters.

    You crack me up with your BRITISH LAW crud! Um, *hello* but this is the USA! Our US laws on citizenship TRUMP any other countries in regards to our own citizens. The fact that you birthers suddenly want every other nation’s laws to somehow supercede governance over our own is one of the most un-American and unpatriotic themes I’ve ever heard!

    I find it particularly ironic that your handle is “Slamdunk”. The last time I head that phrase used was when George Tenet tried to claim that the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was a “slam dunk”.

    By that measure, your handle is completely apt and apropo, since your statements are just as wrong and unsupported by the evidence and facts on the ground.

  277. avatar
    Slamdunk February 22, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 21, 2010 at 10:58 pm (Quote)

    “Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?”

    Well you prove yourself idiots with pretty much every post. Releasing another Birth Certificate wouldn’t change that. And who is this Ursurper guy? Never heard of him.

    “Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you”

    Well, that has happened like 60 times so far.

    [SD] No, it hasn’t happened. No case has been heard on merit, which if it were, would expose the Usurper. It would be a double hit. First, it would show that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and the on line BC exposed as the forgery that it is, and second, it would show he isn’t natural born. It would be lose-lose.

  278. avatar
    Slamdunk February 22, 2010 at 8:23 am #

    Scientist says:
    February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk keeps asking whether we “want a judge to hear it”. I want judges to follow the law. If one of you birther numbskulls had bothered to follow the rules and gotten plaintiffs with standing to file before the election it would have been heard. The fact that you didn’t is YOUR fault not ours or Obama’s.

    [SD] So do I take this to mean that you would look forward to one case being heard if it passes standing?

    You will have another chance in 2012. Until then, you aren’t special and have to wait your turn and follow the laws like everybody else.

    [SD] By then, the Usurper will have EO’d (executive ordered) his European styled socialist, unAmerican, unconstitutional agenda into place. Why are you people so blind? Or, are just one of the sheep?

  279. avatar
    Slamdunk February 22, 2010 at 8:29 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 21, 2010 at 10:58 pm (Quote)

    “Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?”

    Well you prove yourself idiots with pretty much every post. Releasing another Birth Certificate wouldn’t change that. And who is this Ursurper guy? Never heard of him.

    [SD] No, not just another BC like the on line phony, but his original 1961 long form BC which would show what hospital he was born in. This is obviously what the Usurper fears, that a court would force that BC into the court room. How absolutely telling it is that he is fighting the release of this BC.

  280. avatar
    Slamdunk February 22, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    misha says:
    February 22, 2010 at 12:04 am (Quote)

    “You already look like fools. What more do you want?”

    Keep it up, birthers. You are dragging down the entire conservative movement. Popcorn…

    [SD] Wrong Misha. There is mounting pressure for Usurper to release his original BC. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) asked Obama to settle the issue by releasing his original BC. Of course, the Usurper hasn’t even responded.

    What is wrong with you people? Can’t you see that Obama is clearly hiding something he doesn’t want Americans to see? Or are you in step with his socialist/anti-capitalist/ agenda?

  281. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2010 at 8:52 am #

    Slamdunk: [SD] So do I take this to mean that you would look forward to one case being heard if it passes standing?

    If there were a case that met the normal standards of standing, justiciability and political question doctrine that apply to any and all cases, it should and would be heard. Such a case would of course have to proceed under normal rules of evidence, meaning no conjecture, speculation or fishing expeditions allowed. Would I look forward to it? Probably not, because since you guys have nothing that would be admissible in court, the case would be over before it started and would lack entertainment value.

    I don’t see any possible case that could surmount those barriers, because the determination of presidential eligibility is a matter for Congress and hence a political question. Congress has already determined this president to be eligible, whether you agree or not. A ballot access challenge in state court in 2012 might be allowed. But, again, under the rules of evidence you will have to come up with actual admissible evidence to have the slightest chance.

    Slamdunk: [SD] By then, the Usurper will have EO’d (executive ordered) his European styled socialist, unAmerican, unconstitutional agenda into place.

    You’ve certainly tipped your hat as to what drives the birther agenda. The order of the day for you guys: (1) We oppose Obama; (2) Any non-right-winger in White House is by definition illigitimate; (3) Let’s look for a reason to call him illigitimate.

    With Clinton, you tried Vince Foster and draft dodging, with Obama it’s this nonsense. Contrast this with the left and Bush. Even though he won a very much contested election, the vast majority of those on the left moved on to oppose him on actual policy. You guys lack the maturity to do that. You are truly still in diapers.

  282. avatar
    Slamdunk February 22, 2010 at 10:02 am #

    Greg says:
    February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm (Quote)

    Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    You’re doing a great job of proving that already!

    That’s why Obama will never release anything else.

    [SD] He won’t release it because it doesn’t exist. Just one court case heard will reveal that.

    50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility.

    Where’s this poll? Show me.

    [SD] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105023

    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    Then you’re not looking.

    [SD] It’s possible I didn’t look far enough, that’s why I’m asking you, the expert, to show me. There should be hundreds of sites if that headline isn’t true.

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.”

    Never happened.

    [SD] FOLKS. LISTEN UP. HERE IS CLASSIC DENIAL. THE DEBATE DID HAPPEN AND KEYES BOLDLY NAILED OBAMA.

  283. avatar
    Greg February 22, 2010 at 10:42 am #

    AOL polls, where only those interested enough to click on the link are polled, are classically flawed. They aren’t randomly selected polls, for one.

    As for the Keyes allegation, even Keyes’ campaign manager says it never happened.

    Charles,

    Your instincts are right. That exchange never happened. It was the invention of somebody on the internet, one which seems to have sort of taken on a life of its own.

    Thanks for your diligence in getting at the truth.

    Tom Hoefling
    Chairman, America’s Independent Party
    Chairman, Alan Keyes for President 2008
    http://www.selfgovernment.us
    http://www.AIPNEWS.com
    http://www.AlanKeyes.com

    If it did happen, SD, why don’t you provide proof? It seems that even Keyes was unaware that such an exchange happened, or that he “nailed” Obama!

  284. avatar
    Greg February 22, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    Rep. Deal followed up by saying that he had no doubts that Obama was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President, he simply wanted to have somewhere to point his constituents.

    We’ll know that the birthers are really gaining traction when a Congressman demands Obama’s birth certificate without having to walk back his demands.

    Oh, and if you knew anything about real socialism, you wouldn’t call Obama a socialist.

    Obama is to socialism as Republicans are to Nazism.

  285. avatar
    Greg February 22, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    No, not just another BC like the on line phony, but his original 1961 long form BC which would show what hospital he was born in.

    The one he showed has the signature of the Registrar of the State of Hawaii saying that it is an accurate copy or abstract of the records they have on file.

    Therefore, you can be confident that Obama was born in Hawaii. The hospital he was born in? Unless he was born in the Russian embassy, this won’t make a difference. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    It is telling that Obama is fighting these cases at the filing stage. It tells that he has sense.

    If these cases are heard on the merits, it means that similar cases can be heard on the merits in the future. Cases that are so completely lacking in merit that at least two attorneys have been sanctioned for bringing them!

    Remember, SD, bad cases make bad law. I’m sure Democrats can manufacture a case against the next Republican nominee just as frivolous as these suits. In 2000, for example, one guy sued Bush to deny him the Texas electors because Bush and Cheney were both residents of that state. Cheney quickly moved to register to vote in Wyoming.

    We’ve also determined that you guys won’t be satisfied with any amount of information. Not the long form, not a court ruling saying that Vattel is meaningless in Constitutional interpretation. Until the Supreme Court says that Vattel is meaningless, and Obama ALSO proves dozens of negatives: that he never renounced his citizenship as a kindergartener; that he never received financial aid as a foreigner; that he never traveled on a foreign passport; that he never beat his wife; that he never ate human flesh; that he never ate at Taco Bell; that he never said never; etc; you won’t be satisfied!

    Plus, there are tangible benefits to letting you guys bang your heads against this wall of stupid:

    1. Every candidate who has touched this issue has had to scramble to walk it back, unless it hurt them. Scott Brown, Nathan Deal, JD Hayworth have all had to distance themselves from birther comments they’ve made.

    2. Every minute and dollar you spend on this issue is one you can’t spend on something real. I can say with metaphysical certainty that there is nothing to the birther allegations. Rezko, however? Well, the Clintons will tell you that there doesn’t have to be anything there for a special prosecutor to spend $54 million to investigate it.

    3. You discredit the legal strategies of others attempting to sue the President. Judicial Watch was a thorn in Clinton’s side for 8 years, but their attempt to have Hillary barred from being Secretary of State foundered on the shoals of standing – and your cases made it easily understandable to anyone paying attention. Of course JW doesn’t have standing, the birthers don’t have standing!

    4. You’re pulling people entirely from the Republican base. And when Republicans have to distance themselves from birther nonsense, it annoys only those Republican basers who were never going to vote Democratic any way.

    Democrats have taken a pounding in the polls recently. But, the birthers might save them. In generic match-ups, the Democrats and Republicans are about tied. Add a “tea-party” candidate into the mix, however, and the Republicans lose 15% of their support to that TP’er, while Democrats only lose 1%.

  286. avatar
    Scientist February 22, 2010 at 11:53 am #

    I’m glad the name of Rep Deal has come up, because I find him to present a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Pehaps, Mr “Slamdunk” you can shed some light on why, as a member of Congress on January 2009, if he had concerns about the President’s eligibility, he didn’t raise an objection at the time and place designated in the Constitution and the law?

    It seems his behavior is quite typical of the birthers-do nothing when the law allows or requires you to do something, then come in months later and scream foul when everyone ignores you.

  287. avatar
    nbc February 22, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Slamdunk[SD] Wrong Misha. There is mounting pressure for Usurper to release his original BC. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) asked Obama to settle the issue by releasing his original BC. Of course, the Usurper hasn’t even responded.

    The foolish birthers: The gift that keeps on giving..

    Thanks for the laugh SD

  288. avatar
    SFJeff February 22, 2010 at 2:43 pm #

    Slamdunk- who is this Ursurper person anyway that you keep talking about?

  289. avatar
    SFJeff February 22, 2010 at 2:53 pm #

    Slamdunk,

    It is amusing to disagree with you, but really its pointless- you keep on spouting Mario’s talking points as if they are facts, when in truth they are discredited.

    Its fine if you disagree with Obama- I don’t care if you think Obama is a closet Socialist/Marxist/Muslim.

    But I am irritated that you continue to try to invalidate the legal votes of American voters. I think there is nothing much more un-American than disenfrachising peoples votes. It is a typical neo-fascist move- have stage votes, and if by horrors the election doesn’t go your way- try to rig up some excuse to deny the election results.

    Luckily we have a Constitution and a legal system to protect us from- at least for now- from you and your fellow neo-fascists.

  290. avatar
    G February 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Slamdunk: February 22
    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.”

    Never happened.

    [SD] FOLKS. LISTEN UP. HERE IS CLASSIC DENIAL. THE DEBATE DID HAPPEN AND KEYES BOLDLY NAILED OBAMA.

    Then PROVE IT you LIAR! Provide a link from that interview that states what you claim it does. You can’t because it never happened.

  291. avatar
    Slamdunk February 23, 2010 at 8:37 am #

    SFJeff says – But I am irritated that you continue to try to invalidate the legal votes of American voters. I think there is nothing much more un-American than disenfrachising peoples votes. It is a typical neo-fascist move- have stage votes, and if by horrors the election doesn’t go your way- try to rig up some excuse to deny the election results.

    It’s not a legal victory if a Usurper takes the presidency. It amazes me how you people simply ignore the constitution on this matter. Obama should be required tostep down, the country would be strong enough to handle it and let Biden assume the presidency. That would be the right thing to do.

  292. avatar
    Greg February 23, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    We’re not ignoring the Constitution, he’s not a Usurper.

    The Constitution allows for only a limited number of ways for the President to be removed from office – impeachment, incapacity as determined by his cabinet.

    Quo Warranto is not mentioned in the Constitution. The effects of a quo warranto ruling, therefore, are also not in the Constitution. Assuming, for a moment, that quo warranto is a possibility, is it like an impeachment (what you’re implying) or is it like the election never happened. Orly seems to think it is the latter and that we’d have to have a special election.

    Why do you accuse people of “ignoring” the Constitution when you don’t seem to be aware of what is in it (impeachment) versus what is not (quo warranto).

    It is interesting to think that the birthers are relying on an English Common Law writ to enforce their belief that English Common Law doesn’t define a Constitutional Term.

    By golly, if Obama would just release his long form birth certificate, this all would go away! /sarcasm.

  293. avatar
    Lupin February 23, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    Before I take your constitutional bullsh*t seriously, you must show me links to any blog posts, articles, etc. you wrote prior to 2008 where you complained (or even cared) about the Bush/Cheney’s semi-permanent trampling of the constitution.

    If you haven’t written any such posts, then it’s clear you’re only upset now because your President is black.

  294. avatar
    Slamdunk February 23, 2010 at 12:59 pm #

    Scientist says:
    February 22, 2010 at 11:53 am (Quote)

    I’m glad the name of Rep Deal has come up, because I find him to present a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Pehaps, Mr “Slamdunk” you can shed some light on why, as a member of Congress on January 2009, if he had concerns about the President’s eligibility, he didn’t raise an objection at the time and place designated in the Constitution and the law?

    [SD] Perhaps some time after the no-call for objections, he felt that he had acted cowardly like the rest, and decided to do something about it. Or, maybe when it came time for objections, the natural born thing hadn’t been fully addressed. Now that it is, he is more comfortable asking Usurper for his original BC. It is a perfectly legitimate question that most limp-kneed Republicans are afraid to ask.

  295. avatar
    Scientist February 23, 2010 at 1:18 pm #

    The “no-call for objections”? Bogus!!! The objections are required to be in writing signed by at least 1 member of each house. There was a real objection made to the 2004 election. Here is how it’s done:

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/index.html

    You guys continually fail to follow the rules, whether in the courts or Congress, then whine like babies when you don’t get your way.

    As for Deal, there have been no new facts (the birthers have never had any) nor any new law since January 2009. Deal has as much credibility as a football coach who didn’t object to a call during the game, then goes to a bar afterward and wants to complain. Again, you guys are babies. Go cry somewhere else.

  296. avatar
    SFJeff February 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm #

    “It’s not a legal victory if a Usurper takes the presidency.”

    Slamdunk- you assert that Natural Born Citizen is defined by Vattel as born in the U.S. of two citizen parents and that therefore President Obama was inelibable. Yet, the voters knew that Barrack Obama’s father was not a citizen and still overwhelmingly voted him into office.
    Therefore it seems to me that either the majority of the voters ‘ignored’ the constitution or the obvious- the majority of voters disagree with your novel interpretation of the definition of NBC.

    “It amazes me how you people simply ignore the constitution on this matter.”

    We ignore nothing. President Obama fulfilled all the requirements to be legally elected President. He was confirmed to be eligible for the ballot by the individual secretaries of state, he was overwhelmingly voted in, the Electoral College voted him in, Congress confirmed him, and the Chief Justice swore him in- all as per the Constitution. Sure sounds to me like you are the one ignoring the Constitution.

    “Obama should be required to step down,”

    Why? He was legally elected by the majority of voters and you want ‘someone’ to require him to step down?

    “That would be the right thing to do.”

    No the right thing to do would be to realize you have absolutely no evidence or legal argument regarding why the President should step down.

    Nobody- nobody of any stature agrees with your whacky Vattel argument- when not even that Obama hating loon Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh agrees with you, you should take a moment and re-evaluate why you and 5 others are the only ones who know the ‘truth’.

    You are like the folks who are convinced that the Income Tax is Unconstitutional- even though every court always rules against them.

    Get some real evidence or give it up.

  297. avatar
    Slamdunk February 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm #

    Lupin said, If you haven’t written any such posts, then it’s clear you’re only upset now because your President is black.

    [SD] He isn’t black. He is half white.

  298. avatar
    Slamdunk February 23, 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    On your last point, I don’t think Usurper can release his original 1961 BC because he wasn’t born in Hawaii. And I think whoever put up his on line BC forged it, as claimed by document specialists. That makes sense to me since Usurper won’t release the 1961 original long form BC. So, the only evidence we’re supposed to believe is a computer generated document. Has Hawaii DOH ever said that they have his “1961 long form BC” on record?” It seems to me all they have said is that they have his original BC on record. Since Hawaii recognizes foreign births, they could be saying that it is his Kenyan BC. There’s too much secrecy over whether or not he was born there. If he was then that information alone should be made available on request, especially since Obama affirmed in a letter to Kapi’olani hospital that he was born there. And yet, no one will affirm his affirmation. Why? Don’t you think he is hiding something? Doesn’t his lack of transparency suggest a problem?

    Right after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly recognized Obama’s victory and noted he was “a son of the soil” and has “Kenyan roots.” Today, in Kenya, there is a gag order on Obama’s BC. Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history,” and the 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder. Then there is grandma Sarah’s claim that she was in the hospital delivery room when he was born and the Kenyan BC obtained by Lucas Smith who claims it is genuine. Finally, Kweli Shahudi, present at the recording of Sarah’s statement, went to the Mombasa Hospital and spoke with an official who affirmed Obama’s birth there. This is in his sworn affidavit. So the courts should hear at least one of these cases to determine whether or not these stories are true.

  299. avatar
    Scientist February 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm #

    Slamdunk: So the courts should hear at least one of these cases to determine whether or not these stories are true

    Courts are not a blog; they are bound by rules of evidence as to what they can and cannot hear. Let’s go through your list and see if any of it is admissible:

    Slamdunk: Right after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly recognized Obama’s victory and noted he was “a son of the soil” and has “Kenyan roots.”

    Kennedy had Irish roots, Eisenhower had German roots. No member of the Kenyan National Assembly has first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nothing a court can take notice of.

    Slamdunk: Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history,”

    Alleged. Where is the actual newspaper? What reporter supposedly wrote the story? What did he base it on? Inadmissible.

    Slamdunk: 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder.

    A Keyes spokeperson has denied the story. Find the tape. Otherwise- Inadmissible.

    Slamdunk: Then there is grandma Sarah’s claim that she was in the hospital delivery room when he was born

    She didn’t say that if you hear the whole interview. Testimony from the “translator” is hearsay. You would have to subpoena her and since she is in Kenya, a US subpoena would have no force. If she felt like coming, your side would be in real trouble because she says Obama was born in America. Nothing there for you.

    Slamdunk: the Kenyan BC obtained by Lucas Smith who claims it is genuine.

    Never been validated by forensic analysis or confirmed by a public statement by Kenyan authorities. In fact debunked. Smith says he bribed a Kenyan official to obtain it which is a felony under US law (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and kentan law as well. So your pal is either guilty of fraud or bribery] and is a felon in 2 countries. Either way, it’s inadmissible.

    So you got bupkis.

  300. avatar
    ballantine February 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Slamdunk: QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    Still making stuff up I see. Show any case stating quo warranto is a ninth amendment right. The ninth amendment has never been seen by the courts as a source of additional rights and quo warranto was never an individual right. Congress has no obligation to pay any attention to any such action or conclusion of any court, if any court was stupid enought to assert jurisdiction, as the Constituion makes clear it alone has the power to remive the president.

    You just keep making stuff like all your posts here. Still claiming that one justice quoting Vattel on the domicile of a citizen in the time of war means the court adopted Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship when such words appear nowhere in the decision? Still claiming the 1790 naturalization act defined natural born when it only bestowed such status on the foreign born and was copying English law in doing so? Do you think the president has to be foreign born? Still claiming Minor is precedent when it declined to address the only question relevant to Obama’s status? Seriously, I hope you are not a lawyer as your legal statements are simply not serious.

  301. avatar
    Rickey February 23, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    Slamdunk says:

    Since Hawaii recognizes foreign births, they could be saying that it is his Kenyan BC.

    Wrong. The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. If he had been born elsewhere, his COLB would say that. But it doesn’t – it says that he was born in Honolulu, which, the last time I checked, is in Hawaii.

    If he was then that information alone should be made available on request, especially since Obama affirmed in a letter to Kapi’olani hospital that he was born there. And yet, no one will affirm his affirmation. Why?

    Easy. Privacy statutes prohibit the hospital from releasing any information about Obama.

    Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history”

    A story which was debunked on this very blog when it was discovered that the original A.P. story made no such assertion. It was added to the A.P. story (unsourced, of course) by someone at the Standard, which a few days later published an editorial admonishing Kenyans that they should not refer to Obama as “Kenyan-born” because he was not born there.

    And I think whoever put up his on line BC forged it, as claimed by document specialists.

    Wrong again. The only “document specialist” who has claimed that the online COLB is a forgery is “Ron Polarik,” who has been exposed as an unqualified fraud. Even Orly doesn’t rely upon Polarik. Sandra Lines, who apparently is real document expert, has never claimed that the online COLB is a forgery. She only says that she can’t make a determination without examining the actual document.

    Today, in Kenya, there is a gag order on Obama’s BC.

    How can there be a gag order on a document which does not exist?

    The stories about Keyes and Obama’s step-grandmother have already been debunked by others, so I won’t take the time to comment on them.

  302. avatar
    Greg February 23, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    The document that was posted online was stamped with the Seal of Hawaii and signed by the Registrar of the State of Hawaii, Alvin Onaka. His signature was under the statement, “This is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the records on file at the Department of Health.”

    The files, therefore, say that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. Not Kenya. Not Indonesia.

    Honolulu, Hawaii!

    As for QW being a 9th Amendment right to challenge the Presidency, I’d ask you to cite cases using quo warranto to that effect.

    A single case where the President’s eligibility was challenged with QW.

    and the 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder.

    It’s still a lie. Alan Keyes doesn’t remember it. His campaign manager doesn’t remember it. The person with the camcorder hasn’t posted the video.

    There’s a reason why hearsay is considered unreliable evidence – a friend of a friend knew someone with a camcorder who heard Slamdunk say that he buggered horses.

  303. avatar
    SFJeff February 23, 2010 at 5:18 pm #

    Wow Slamdunk- a whole lot of nothing. There is not one thing you list which wouldn’t be laughed out of court. Seriously- you don’t believe this stuff do you?

    Really its like you will accept anything bad about Barrack Obama just because you want something bad- no matter what complete dreck it is.

    You don’t accept statements from Hawaiin officials that he was born in Hawaii, you don’t accept the certified copy of the BC he posted on line and you don’t accept the contemporary birth announcments, but you do find a supposed conversation, unverified, undocumented, unfilmed, between Keyes and Obama- which has been denied by Keyes campaign- to have merit.

  304. avatar
    SFJeff February 23, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    “[SD] He isn’t black. He is half white.”

    Okay- then obviously you are upset because he is only half white.

  305. avatar
    BatGuano February 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm #

    Slamdunk:
    On your last point, I don’t think Usurper can release his original 1961 BC because he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    as a graphic artist and printer i find it funny that you hold out for the 1961 BC as the absolute proof. a document that would be EASIER to forge than a COLB.

    oh well. carry on.

  306. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm (Quote)

    “It’s not a legal victory if a Usurper takes the presidency.”

    Slamdunk- you assert that Natural Born Citizen is defined by Vattel as born in the U.S. of two citizen parents and that therefore President Obama was inelibable. Yet, the voters knew that Barrack Obama’s father was not a citizen and still overwhelmingly voted him into office.
    Therefore it seems to me that either the majority of the voters ignored’ the constitution or the obvious- the majority of voters disagree with your novel interpretation of the definition of NBC.

    [SD] Without exception, every Democrat I speak with on this issue think that you only have to be born in the U.S. to be qualified to be president. They may have heard about Obama’s father being born in Kenya, but they didn’t connect that with Obama not being a natural born citizen because of that fact. The NBC issue did not get any publicity from the dupes of the MSM apart from the vetting of McCain on NBC. You had to rely on Keyes, Donofrio, Taitz, Greep and other conservative blogs.

    “It amazes me how you people simply ignore the constitution on this matter.”

    We ignore nothing. President Obama fulfilled all the requirements to be legally elected President. He was confirmed to be eligible for the ballot by the individual secretaries of state, he was overwhelmingly voted in, the Electoral College voted him in, Congress confirmed him, and the Chief Justice swore him in- all as per the Constitution. Sure sounds to me like you are the one ignoring the Constitution.

    [SD] When I say you ignore the constitution, I should qualify that. You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens. I don’t dispute that Obama was duly elected and all the other trimmings. I’m just saying he doesn’t meet the “two parent” clause of the traditional definition of NBC to which the founders obviously subscribed.

    “Obama should be required to step down,”

    Why? He was legally elected by the majority of voters and you want ’someone’ to require him to step down?

    [SD] In any contest, a player who doesn’t play by the rules is disqualified. Why should Obama be any different. Campaigning for the presidency is also a contest.

    “That would be the right thing to do.”

    No the right thing to do would be to realize you have absolutely no evidence or legal argument regarding why the President should step down.

    [SD] Father was not a citizen and that alone should have disqualified him.

    Nobody- nobody of any stature agrees with your whacky Vattel argument- when not even that Obama hating loon Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh agrees with you, you should take a moment and re-evaluate why you and 5 others are the only ones who know the truth’.

    Whether anyone agrees or not, the traditionally accepted definition of natural born citizen is U.S. birth, U.S. parent citizenship.

    I’m beginning to think that determining his birthplace might be better to pursue more vigorously because I can envision a long drawn out process to determine if Vattel et al are right about the meaning of NBC. You and others think British common places a big role in this, while others don’t. You also view some court cases supporting him. So it would be a long and involved debate between the courts and lawyers. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, that’s it, the debate is over. If he would just produce his 1961 long form BC, the matter would be settled, assuming of course, that he clears the two parent clause of NBC.

    You are like the folks who are convinced that the Income Tax is Unconstitutional- even though every court always rules against them.

    Get some real evidence or give it up.

    [SD] I have presented very strong evidence. Do you want me to post it all over again?
    The only hurdle to clear is just getting one case to court for discovery. So far, none are willing to go that far and that helps Obama sleep at night.

  307. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 8:22 am #

    BatGuano says:
    February 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk:
    On your last point, I don’t think Usurper can release his original 1961 BC because he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    as a graphic artist and printer i find it funny that you hold out for the 1961 BC as the absolute proof. a document that would be EASIER to forge than a COLB.

    [SD] I’ll yield to your expertise on that, but I still wouldn’t put it past Obama to have that one forged too. The man not only has the eligibility matter hanging over his head, but investigators have come up with social security fraud in that he has been using a number not issued to him. This is one of the major claims in the court case of Taitz. There is also evidence that his selective service form has been altered.

    oh well. carry on.

  308. avatar
    Black Lion February 24, 2010 at 8:47 am #

    [SD] When I say you ignore the constitution, I should qualify that. You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens. I don’t dispute that Obama was duly elected and all the other trimmings. I’m just saying he doesn’t meet the “two parent” clause of the traditional definition of NBC to which the founders obviously subscribed.

    Where exactly does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen is? Because the last time I checked, it did not. So for your to say that we “reject” the part of the Constitution that says that means you are not being truthful. All of your so called evidence has been debunked. You prefer to believe in unsubstantiated lies and innuendo rather than statements from the state of HI declaring that President Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. It is amazing. Since that statement has come out the birthers have done everthing from claim that born doesn’t necessairly mean his mother gave birth to him in HI to stating that because Dr. Fukino used the term natural born citizen then her entire statement is nullified. You want to know why? Because deep down we all know that once Dr. Fukino released the statement that the President was born in HI. That was it. You have nothing. So you rely on hearsay and forged documents or make believe charges from a soon to be disbarred dentist in CA to pin your hopes on. But the real world doesn’t work that way. Evidence is necessary. And unfortunately for you the birthers have none. The President was born in the US to an American mother. He is a natural born citizen. And most of all he is President of the United States.

  309. avatar
    Greg February 24, 2010 at 9:07 am #

    You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens.

    Here’s what the Constitution says:

    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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    I don’t see anything about parents in there. Do you?

    This site details the dozens of sources showing, decisively, that the U.S. operates under jus soli as compared to the three equivocal sources that suggest that the U.S. doesn’t.

    Here’s the funny thing, not only is it almost universally understood today that citizenship requires only that you be born here, it was universally understood in 1844, as detailed in Lynch v. Clarke:

    Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.

    It also seems to have been universally understood in 1807. In that year, the British seized the Chesapeake and here’s what Lynch says:

    It was alleged that three of the seamen taken from the Chesapeake, were American citizens. Not that their national character made any difference in the principle involved in that affair, but it aggravated the atrocity of the conduct of the British commander. The proofs of the fact of citizenship which were reported by the committee of the House of Representatives, and which were furnished to the British government, consisted of evidence of the birth and subsequent lives of the seamen, one of whom was born in 1784. Nothing was stated in regard to the condition or allegiance of their parents, in any of the reports or correspondence on the subject. It was evidently taken for granted that birth in one of the states, without regard to parentage, constituted those seamen, citizens of the U.S.

    Of course, since St. Tucker was writing in 1803 that natural born citizens were those born here…

    And, of course, there’s not a single word from the Founding Fathers that they intended to disturb the universally understood meaning of “natural born.”

    In short, you’ve got nothing. Your “evidence” is less than worthless.

  310. avatar
    Greg February 24, 2010 at 9:11 am #

    Can you concede, then, that you won’t shut up if Obama allows the State of Hawaii to release his original 1961 birth certificate?

    So, when you stated earlier that all of this would just go away if Obama would release it, you were lying, right?

  311. avatar
    nbc February 24, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    Hahaha… Seems that some birthers have failed to even read the Constitution which clearly does not define the meaning of the term natural born.
    As Court rulings have pointed out, the meaning has to be found in common law which defines natural born citizen to be any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

  312. avatar
    nbc February 24, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    So it’s all right with you if someone sits in the White House who is not constitutionally qualified to be there.

    It’s not as much what is ok with me but what the Constitution prescribes.
    Of course, it’s a mere hypothetical…

  313. avatar
    nbc February 24, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    SD is not going to concede anything as he is convinced that regardless of Obama’s eligibility he should be removed.
    That he believes the fake SSN story shows the level of despair…

    Fascinating…

  314. avatar
    SFJeff February 24, 2010 at 12:32 pm #

    “[SD] Without exception, every Democrat I speak with on this issue think that you only have to be born in the U.S. to be qualified to be president”

    Considering that there are more registered voters in the United States than any other party, I would take that as strong evidence that the commonly accepted definition of NBC is someone born in the United States. By the way- this is what I was taught in Junior High School, by my very conservative Republican civics teacher.

    “You had to rely on Keyes, Donofrio, Taitz, Greep and other conservative blogs.”

    And this is where you start down the road to crazyville. No one should ever rely upon anyone’s blogs- not good ones like this one, or blogs by whacko’s so far out of mainstream thought that they are ridiculed by both Conservatives and Liberals. My god- Taitz can’t even keep her blog virus free- not only does she post total lies, your risk your computer every time you visit that blog.

    But more importantly- basically there are about 5 blogs that support your multitude of reasons all centered around finding some reason why President Obama can’t really be President. None of these sites are looking for truth- only for dirt to embaress the President.

    SD: “When I say you ignore the constitution, I should qualify that. You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens.”

    This is not defined anywhere in the Constitution and virtually no one but yourself and a few other duped by Mario believe this.

    “I don’t dispute that Obama was duly elected and all the other trimmings. I’m just saying he doesn’t meet the “two parent” clause of the traditional definition of NBC to which the founders obviously subscribed”

    If this was the traditional definition which the founders obviously subscribed- how come- as you have admitted- no Democrat- and really no Republican- has heard of it before now. Show me a textbook which has this definition. Please.

  315. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 2:58 pm #

    Scientist says:
    February 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: So the courts should hear at least one of these cases to determine whether or not these stories are true

    Courts are not a blog; they are bound by rules of evidence as to what they can and cannot hear.

    [SD] At this point, the issue is standing, not evidence. That would be heard if just one case could get pass standing, jurisdiction, etc. Judge Carter was pumped up to hear Taitz’ case but then suddenly decided he didn’t have jurisdiction. Yeah, right.

    Let’s go through your list and see if any of it is admissible:

    Slamdunk: Right after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly recognized Obama’s victory and noted he was “a son of the soil” and has “Kenyan roots.”

    Kennedy had Irish roots, Eisenhower had German roots. No member of the Kenyan National Assembly has first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nothing a court can take notice of.

    [SD] Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was. They are Kenyans and certainly know from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there. You have to come up with something better than they didn’t have first hand knowledge. On top of that, reports I read say that it is common knowledge in Kenya that he was born there.

    Slamdunk: Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history,”

    Alleged. Where is the actual newspaper? What reporter supposedly wrote the story? What did he base it on? Inadmissible.

    [SD] Some here say “Kenyan-born” was added by someone at the newspaper. I am asking from anyone here for reliable source information from the AP or Kenyan Sunday Standard. There are many sites about this story and perhaps one shows the reporter.

    Slamdunk: 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder.

    A Keyes spokeperson has denied the story. Find the tape. Otherwise- Inadmissible.

    [SD] Two witnesses have come forward explaining they were there when the film clip was recorded. You’ll have to google “second witness Keyes obama camcorder” or other key words. It is true that Keyes said he can’t remember the incident.

    Slamdunk: Then there is grandma Sarah’s claim that she was in the hospital delivery room when he was born

    She didn’t say that if you hear the whole interview. Testimony from the “translator” is hearsay. You would have to subpoena her and since she is in Kenya, a US subpoena would have no force. If she felt like coming, your side would be in real trouble because she says Obama was born in America. Nothing there for you.

    [SD] Please direct me to a site where grandma Sarah says she was not in the delivery room. She was asked twice by Bishop MacRae if she was present and twice she said yes. There were some agitators there who tried to interrupt by saying Obama was born in Hawaii. According to Bishop MacRae and Kweli Shuhubia, his interpreter, she held firm that she was present when Obama was born. This is in both the MacRae and Shuhubia affidavits. Where are affidavits claiming otherwise? Let them stand up and be heard.

    Also, and this is important,in Shuhubia’s affidavit he swears that he went to the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa and spoke with the Registrar’s office who said that Obama was born in that hospital but that his records are closed. He makes this statement under oath. You can Look up his affidavit on line.

    Slamdunk: the Kenyan BC obtained by Lucas Smith who claims it is genuine.

    Never been validated by forensic analysis or confirmed by a public statement by Kenyan authorities.

    [SD] Of course Kenyan authorities wouldn’t confirm it. A cousin of Obama is socialist Raela Odinga, Prime minister of Kenya and you can be sure he has his finger on this pulse.

    In fact debunked. Smith says he bribed a Kenyan official to obtain it which is a felony under US law (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and kentan law as well. So your pal is either guilty of fraud or bribery] and is a felon in 2 countries. Either way, it’s inadmissible.

    [SD] So the BC could be genuine. Obama’s worst nightmare, if it is, would be for that document to show up in court, or by some other method as valid. The Smith affidavit and BC are with the Santa Ana District Court. Somehow, Smith was able to pay the guard “to look the other way” as he made a copy of the BC. The BC may not be admissable, but the affidavit is. The only thing not “admissable,” probably, is the BC, everything else I cited is. You got bupkis:)

    So you got bupkis.

  316. avatar
    SFJeff February 24, 2010 at 4:13 pm #

    No Slamdunk you got bupkis. As was pointed out repeatedly to you- not one of the items that you cite would be admissable in a court of law. Never mind standing- Not one of the items you cited is admissable in a Court of law. Not one. Nada.

    “Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was. They are Kenyans”

    Was Kennedy born in Ireland because he had Irish roots? No- the Kenyan assembly never said or implied that President Obama was born in Kenya. Wouldn’t stand up in court.

    “On top of that, reports I read say that it is common knowledge in Kenya that he was born there”

    “Do you even realize how silly this statement is? You really have to stop believing what you read on blogs. However I do encourage you to go to Kenya and ask several thousand Kenyans about this common knowledge.

    “I am asking from anyone here for reliable source information from the AP or Kenyan Sunday Standard. There are many sites about this story and perhaps one shows the reporter”

    So you admit you don’t actually have any accurate information about this? If you bother to look around on this site, it was discussed at length. Still nothing admissable in court.

    “Two witnesses have come forward explaining they were there when the film clip was recorded”

    Two unnamed ‘supposed’ witnesses who supposedly recorded this- but oddly the film isn’t availible either- and neither of the participants remembers it happening. Need I say- not admissable in court.

    “Please direct me to a site where grandma Sarah says she was not in the delivery room”

    Doc has the whole thing posted here- you go find it. Point being Grandma says very clearly in the entire transcripts that she was present when obama sr. was born. Anyway- again none of this is admissable in court.

    “So the BC could be genuine”

    And Obama could be from the planet Krypton. There is a difference between ‘could be possible’ and ‘a reasonable possibility’.

    But no Lucas document is not admissable either- how does he prove that he obtained it from an official source? How does he prove that it is authentic? Why do you put such faith on a convicted felon who hasn’t even proven he went to Kenya. My suspicion is that he never even went there.

    “The only thing not “admissable,” probably, is the BC”

    Nope- I am not even a lawyer and I can say that all this crap would be laughed out of court and frankly by any reasonable persons who looked at the source material.

    Really this stuff is pretty desperate.

  317. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm #

    [SD] Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was.

    The point is that they didn’t say that Obama was literally born in Kenya.

    [SD ] Some here say “Kenyan-born” was added by someone at the newspaper. I am asking from anyone here for reliable source information from the AP or Kenyan Sunday Standard. There are many sites about this story and perhaps one shows the reporter.

    The newspaper corrected their mistake here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm

    [SD] Please direct me to a site where grandma Sarah says she was not in the delivery room. She was asked twice by Bishop McRae if she was present and twice she said yes. There were some agitators there who tried to interrupt by saying Obama was born in Hawaii. According to Bishop McRae and Kweli Shuhubia, his interpreter, she held firm that she was present when Obama was born. This is in both the McRae and Shuhubia affidavits. Where are affidavits claiming otherwise? Let them stand up and be heard.

    First, McRae was on the US side of the phone conversation and he heard what is in the recording. He has nothing to add that we cannot hear for ourselves. His affidavit is just his opinion. Shuhudia “lied” in his affidavit by giving a false name so “under oath” is a fiction. One cannot swear under oath under a false name and be bound by it. An African newspaperman and native speaker of Swahili and Luo (Mr. Omolo) who knew the Obama family listened to the transcript and confirmed that Sarah Obama was indeed present in Mombasa when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This email interview was published by the Post & Email blog. The true transcript of the English in the recording was prepared by Greg Doudna and is published on this site. It is clear that Mrs. Obama vehemently denies that her step grandson was born in Kenya, and it is equally clear that McRae even apologizes for his mistake in a clearly audible portion of the tape.

    MCRAE: Oh, OK, fine. I mean, I–I just, I misunderstood what she was
    saying. I thought you said she was present when he was born.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/a-most-curious-article-at-the-post-and-email/

    [SD] Of course Kenyan authorities wouldn’t confirm it. A cousin of Obama is socialist Raela Odinga, Prime minister of Kenya and you can be sure he has his finger on this pulse.

    Odinga is not Obama’s cousin.

    [SD] So the BC could be genuine. Obama’s worst nightmare, if it is, would be for that document to show up in court, or by some other method as valid. The Smith affidavit and BC are with the Santa Ana District Court. Somehow, Smith was able to pay the guard “to look the other way” as he made a copy of the BC.

    It has been verified that the Smith certificate is not of the form used in Kenya in 1961. Even WorldNetDaily (no friend of Obama) say so, after having compared it to a real period certificate. Giving any credibility to a professional con man is rather silly, wouldn’t you say?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=107678

    Your comment is but a collection of humbug.

  318. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 4:46 pm #

    SFJeff: No one should ever rely upon anyone’s blogs- not good ones like this one,

    I got an email once from a college professor telling me that one of his students used my web site (not this one) as a reference on a term paper. It provided a “teaching moment” for the student.

    What you will find, I hope, on this blog and in many of the comments are links to authoritative sources that you can rely on.

  319. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 4:51 pm #

    ballantine says:
    February 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    Still making stuff up I see. Show any case stating quo warranto is a ninth amendment right.

    [SD] I just quoted a source I think is highly credible.

    The ninth amendment has never been seen by the courts as a source of additional rights and quo warranto was never an individual right.

    [SD] Not an individual right? See “a third person interest” http://obamarecords.com/?p=106

    9th Am: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    I’ll let you argue this one with Donofrio or Apuzzo. From what I understand, QW has rarely, if ever, been used at the federal level. So it could fall under the 9th Am. Who are you to say it couldn’t?

    You just keep making stuff like all your posts here. Still claiming that one justice quoting Vattel on the domicile of a citizen in the time of war means the court adopted Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship when such words appear nowhere in the decision?

    [SD] Show me where the Judge, or any justice in VENUS, rejected Vattel.

    Still claiming the 1790 naturalization act defined natural born when it only bestowed such status on the foreign born and was copying English law in doing so?

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it, which is consistent with Vattel, et al? George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, said English common law was not part of U.S.
    federal law. He’s not the only one.

    Do you think the president has to be foreign born? Still claiming Minor is precedent when it declined to address the only question relevant to Obama’s status?

    [SD] Minor defines NBC and is consistent with others I have mentioned. Obama does not meet that definition being born of a father who was a British subject. There is no room for dual citizenship in the presidency. That is, assuming he was born in Hawaii which I doubt. Has anyone shown if he was even naturalized? Is he still Indonesian? British? Kenyan? Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about and who won’t release any of his personal records? That should tell you he’s hiding things he doesn’t want Americans to know. To say that he just wants his personal life private is one huge crock of you know what. Never has there been a president whose past is so shrouded in mystery, while under the pretense of being the transparent president. BS!!!!

    Seriously, I hope you are not a lawyer as your legal statements are simply not serious.

    [SD] If just one case is ever heard, people would see that my points would swallow yours. It would be like Moses’ serpents swallowing the serpents of Pharoahs’ magicians (I.e. truth always, sooner or late, swallows the lie).

  320. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    Black Lion: Where exactly does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen is?

    The courts have in some sense teased out a definition. The Constitution provides two, and exactly two references to specific classes of citizen. They are the “natural born citizen” in the Presidential eligibility clause, and the “naturalized” citizen referring to the power of Congress to create a uniform rule of naturalization.

    From this, one may infer that natural born citizens are those citizens who have not been naturalized, and in particular, those who were born as citizens.

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.


    Minor v. Happersett
    (1874)

  321. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm #

    Greg: Can you concede, then, that you won’t shut up if Obama allows the State of Hawaii to release his original 1961 birth certificate?
    So, when you stated earlier that all of this would just go away if Obama would release it, you were lying, right?

    Yeah, all the issues surrounding his place of birth. I have stated several times that he still has the parent citizenship thing hanging over his head.

  322. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm #

    nbc: SD is not going to concede anything as he is convinced that regardless of Obama’s eligibility he should be removed.
    That he believes the fake SSN story shows the level of despair…Fascinating…

    [SD] Do you have any evidence that Obama is not using, or has not used, a Social Security number that wasn’t assigned to him? You should cite such evidence when making a statement like this.

  323. avatar
    Scientist February 24, 2010 at 5:29 pm #

    Slamdunk: [SD] Do you have any evidence that Obama is not using, or has not used, a Social Security number that wasn’t assigned to him?

    Do you have any evidence that YOU, Slamdunk, did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. In the absence of such evidence, we have to assume you are guilty.

  324. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    If either one of us turned up on a list of persons with our name, our SSN and addresses where we never lived, the obvious conclusion would be that somebody else was responsible. How is Obama any different?

  325. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm #

    Slamdunk: I have stated several times that he still has the parent citizenship thing hanging over his head.

    I think more accurately the “parent citizenship thing” is a bit of fog hanging over your own head. It’s certainly nothing in the law or the constitution.

  326. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm #

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it,

    That’s bizarre. Are you arguing that only persons born overseas to American citizen fathers who have had at some time lived in the United States may be President? That’s who the 1790 Act calls natural born citizens.

  327. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    Scientist says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:29 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] Do you have any evidence that Obama is not using, or has not used, a Social Security number that wasn’t assigned to him?

    Do you have any evidence that YOU, Slamdunk, did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. In the absence of such evidence, we have to assume you are guilty.

    [SD] How does a woman rape a woman? Orly Taitz claims she has the evidence of social security fraud. All she needs is one Judge to hear her case. I’m sure you would love to hear that evidence.

  328. avatar
    Scientist February 24, 2010 at 6:39 pm #

    Slamdunk: [SD] How does a woman rape a woman?

    You truly are a fool…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/14/earlyshow/main4943228.shtml

  329. avatar
    Scientist February 24, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    Slamdunk: No member of the Kenyan National Assembly has first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nothing a court can take notice of.
    [SD] Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was. They are Kenyans and certainly know from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there

    The US Congress passed a resolution declaring Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. They are Americans and certainly knew from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there.

    Furthermore, the Kenyan National Assembly never said Obama was born in Kenya, just that he had family ties there. But the US Congress is on record as saying Obama was born in Hawaii-once implicitly when they found him qualified to be President and then by an explicit resolution.

    Man, you are just dumber than a post.

  330. avatar
    Slamdunk February 24, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it,

    That’s bizarre. Are you arguing that only persons born overseas to American citizen fathers who have had at some time lived in the United States may be President? That’s who the 1790 Act calls natural born citizens.

    [SD] Now why would the Act contradict its own definition?

  331. avatar
    milspec February 24, 2010 at 7:52 pm #

    Ick. Just Ick.

  332. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 24, 2010 at 10:45 pm #

    Well I’m not sure what your idea of a definition in the Act of 1790 is.

    It actually doesn’t define natural born citizen. What is says, if you understand the legal context, is that persons born to US Fathers overseas are born citizens of the United States (provided that the father was at one time resident in the United States). This additional clause was to prevent a colony of Americans to exist overseas, none of whom had ever been in the United States. It was the general understanding at the time that “natural born citizen” was equivalent in meaning to being born a citizen (both here in the Constitution).

    A careless reading of the Act might leave one to believe that the citizen father applied to citizens in general; however, that is not what it means. It only applies to persons born overseas. And in any case the 1790 Act was repealed in 1795, and so has no effect today. However, it certainly puts de Vattel’s definition in the crapper.

  333. avatar
    Greg February 25, 2010 at 7:46 am #

    Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about

    It’s not like he wrote two autobiographies. In one of them, he admits cocaine use. It doesn’t seem like he’s hiding much.

    By contrast, we learned of Bush’s DUI on the eve of the 2000 election.

    Show me where the Judge, or any justice in VENUS, rejected Vattel.

    Have you read Venus? All of it, or just the one paragraph? Do you know what it is about?

    Chief Justice Marshall was dissenting in the section of the case that discussed Vattel:

    I entirely concur in so much of the opinion delivered in this case as attaches a hostile character to the property of an American citizen continuing, after the declaration of war, to reside and trade in the country of the enemy, and I subscribe implicitly to the reasoning urged in its support. But from so much of that opinion as subjects to confiscation the property of a citizen shipped before a knowledge of the war, and which disallows the defense founded on an intention to change his domicile and to return to the United States, manifested in a sufficient manner, and within a reasonable time after knowledge of the war, although it be subsequent to the capture, I feel myself compelled to dissent.

    Whenever birthers rely on Venus, it proves they cannot understand the process of the law.

    1. This is a dissenting opinion. Marshall lost this argument.

    2. Marshall is not making an argument about citizenship. He is making an argument about how you prove you intend to stay in a country permanently.

    3. Vattel’s definition, in this dissent, is dicta. Pure dicta, it is irrelevant to his argument.

    In both Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark the side arguing against citizenship cited Vattel. In both cases, Vattel was soundly rejected.

    WKA said, explicitly, there was no such thing as an established law of nations at the time of the founding, therefore it is stupid to suggest that the Founders were pointing to some established law of nations in defining NBC.

    There’s a reason why you can only cite the dissent in Venus, the concurrence in Dred Scott, and a throw-away line in Minor v. Happersett and we can quote dozens and dozens of cases, statutes, articles and treatises.

    The snakes of truth have swallowed the lies, SD.

    You are a liar.

    If you were so convinced of your rightness, Slamdunk, you wouldn’t need to rely on courts that, because of the Constitution will never hear your case. If you were convinced of your rightness, you could present your case to the American people and force Congress to impeach the President, or vote him out in 2012.

  334. avatar
    Greg February 25, 2010 at 8:53 am #

    Regarding the “camcorder” episode. Post and Email is the source of this rumor.

    One “witness” claims to have seen the exchange on C-Span back in 2005. The other claims to have seen it on YouTube after the election in 2008. Apparently, they’re talking about the same debate, but different videos.

    C-Span has an extensive archive. The internet is archived by Google and others.

    The birthers would love to play this clip on endless rotation.

    Despite these facts, there is currently no copy of the video.

    It took me two minutes to find the C-Span video of the Chicago debate in question as aired on C-Span. At least the one described by the “second” witness: “Both candidates were standing on the stage behind their respective podiums. The background was blue.”

    This first “witness” also claims that C-Span and the Obama campaign addressed the issue:

    At the end of the airing of the second debate, the C-Span host noted, as he read from a single sheet of paper, placed before him, that the Obama Campaign had contacted them and requested them to point out to their viewers that Obama’s response here should not be understood as a denial that he is a natural born citizen, only that Keyes’ accusation had nothing to do with the qualifications of office of a U.S. Senator.

    Despite the extensive records that C-Span keeps, there is no transcript of this correction. There is no transcript of the “unedited” debate that supposedly contains this exchange.

    You would think that an exchange that so shook the Obama campaign that they would issue a correction would have been remembered by the Keyes campaign. You would think that someone in the Illinois Republican party would have taped the debate and taken note of any good exchanges.

    Slamdunk, you don’t really want this to get to a trial. Let’s pretend, for a second, that you could get these “witnesses” on the stand (you couldn’t, their “testimony” is the most unreliable hearsay). Any half-way competent attorney would make these “witnesses” bleed during cross examination.

    C-Span has a record of every day they broadcast. Here, for example, is
    April 2, 2005. Here’s April 16, 2005. They even show the 3 minutes they spent broadcasting Bush’s statement about Timothy McVeigh’s execution. And everything on that schedule connects to a video. For example, if you click on the British Liberal Democrats Party Televised Message (bottom of the left-hand column, 3 minutes) you get a video of the British Liberal Democrats Party Televised Message?

    There was no rebroadcast of the Illinois Senatorial debate in April 2005, as the first “witness” claims.

    There is, however, on April 22, a 12 minute video of a tour of Chester Arthur’s grave, first broadcast in 2003. (2:15 starts a discussion of his citizenship – entirely about whether he was born on US soil.)

    Another interesting tidbit, you can click on “details” and find out every time it has aired.

    Each of the Obama/Keyes debates were shown on C-Span, and according to their air dates none were rebroadcast in 2005.

    Why would C-Span have gone to get the local station’s feed if they had their own?

  335. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2010 at 10:50 am #

    It’s hopeless Greg. He’s just going to keep repeating the same birther talking points. If he can’t understand that the citation to Vattel in The Venus has nothing to do with citizenship, he is hopeless. I only hope he isn’t a lawyer, although Mario keeps saying the same thing.

    They can keep spinning all they want but the fact is that no court, even in dicta, has ever said a natural born citizen requires citizen parents. The same can be said for any framer, early scholar or legislature. It is simply a fringe theory that would be ignored by any court that considers it, just like the Ankeny court.

  336. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2010 at 10:54 am #

    Your rely makes no sense at all. The act does not define natural born citizen, it bestows such status on certain foreign born just like Parliament had done. Duh.

  337. avatar
    nbC February 25, 2010 at 12:58 pm #

    The fact that the Founders found it necessary to enact the 1790 act to provide natural born citizenship status to children born abroad to US father (parents) totally undermines the concept that Vattel guided their thinking. Under Vattel’s interpretation such children would have been ‘naturals’.
    The existence of this act shows that the Founders were clearly working from the English Common Law definition of natural born.

    Oh well…

  338. avatar
    dunstvangeet February 25, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    Exactly. And if their goal was to define “Natural Born Citizenship” then why did they limit the act to only those born overseas?

  339. avatar
    ballantine February 25, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Exactly.And if their goal was to define “Natural Born Citizenship” then why did they limit the act to only those born overseas?

    Of course, Congress had no power to define “natural born citizenship” with respect to the native born. Congress had a power over naturalization. The people of that generation understood that “naturalization,” by definition, applied only to the foreign born. For example:

    “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857)

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated, note 274, (1968).

    I could go on and on with citations. It was repeatedly pointed out in early congressional debates that the power of naturalization was limited to the foreign born, as even James Madison pointed out. The primary argument against the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was that making freed slaves citizens was not naturalization since they were not foreign born. For example:

    ” I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)

    There is no mystery where this provision came from in the 1790 Act. Rep. Burke stated that they should provide for children of citizens born oversees just like Parliament had. Parliament had passed a number of naturalization statutes conferring natural born status on children of subjects born oversees and this act clearly was intended to do the same thing. The rights of the native born were, by definition, not determined by naturalization but, under both English and American law, were determined by the common law.

  340. avatar
    SFJeff February 25, 2010 at 6:27 pm #

    “Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about and who won’t release any of his personal records?”

    I realize you won’t listen or get this- but Barrack Obama has released more about his past than any previous President.

    As noted- he wrote two autobiographies detailing his life and his family. Which previous presidents opened up so much about his life prior to being elected? He released his BC- both for viewing at his HQ and online- show me any previous President who has done this?

    I- the 66 million voters who voted for him knew all we needed to know when we voted for him. We didn’t expect him- or Bush or Clinton to give us his Kindergarten records or copies of college papers.

    I really don’t know whether you are a dupe, and really believe this, or are just lieing hoping to suck people into this conspiracy theory for your own nefarious reasons.

    “That should tell you he’s hiding things he doesn’t want Americans to know. To say that he just wants his personal life private is one huge crock of you know what.”

    After the rumors of Bush’s cocaine use was circulated, did he ever release all of his medical records? Nope. Nor would I have expected him to. Was he required to prove he was not a cocaine fiend? No.

    Presidents do have a right to privacy about their private lives. The more that privacy erodes away, the smaller the pool of willing- and capable candidates becomes.

  341. avatar
    nbC February 25, 2010 at 7:54 pm #

    Slamdunk: QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    As Congress showed when it tried to pass legislation allowing QW to be used to try the office of the Presidency, they realized that such was unconstitutional and abandoned these efforts.

    I bet you never even knew these details from our history?

    Pathetic.

  342. avatar
    nbC February 25, 2010 at 8:03 pm #

    “Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about and who won’t release any of his personal records?”

    He is called our President, duly elected and duly found to be qualified.
    To claim that the President has not released any of his personal records is another lie.

    Why?

  343. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 7:14 am #

    nbc says:
    February 24, 2010 at 9:30 am (Quote)

    SD is not going to concede anything as he is convinced that regardless of Obama’s eligibility he should be removed.
    That he believes the fake SSN story shows the level of despair…

    Fascinating…

    [SD] Really! And what is your evidence that the story is fake?

    Neither are the following fake. Death threats made against people who either challenge the Usurper’s BC or want him to produce his original birth certificate:

    Ron Polarik (alias), who is a document specialist and claims the Usurper’s on line BC is a forgery.

    Kweli Shuhubia (alias) who gave an affidavit attesting to his visit to the Registrar’s office at Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa. He revealed that Obama was born there and that the birth records are sealed. He claism that it is common knowledge in Kenya that Usurper was born there. No president in the history of America has ever issued an executive order sealing all his personal records. What is he hiding?

    Orly Taitz who has incriminating social security fraud evidence against the Usurper. She has reported the death threats to the police. Her car has been tampered with and she receives other threats and harrassments on a regular basis.

    This is how the powers of darkness operate.

  344. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 7:44 am #

    The US Congress passed a resolution declaring Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. They are Americans and certainly knew from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there.

    [SD] I don’t care what Congress has resolved. Usurper still isn’t a NBC and they are just as duped as you. Either that, or they don’t want to come forth and experience the wrath of the Usurper and the left-stream media. But there is a ground swell at states level for Obama to release his original BC.

    Furthermore, the Kenyan National Assembly never said Obama was born in Kenya, just that he had family ties there.

    [SD] They didn’t have to say he was born there. It is common knowledge in Kenya that he was. “Son of the soil” was once posted on the Kenyan Parliament website but has been scrubbed, just like Obama’s letter on the Kapi’olani hospital website. Gosh, I wonder why.

    Then there’s the recording of the Kenyan Ambassador admitting Obama was born in Kenya on the “Mike In The Morning” show on WRIF radio, in Detroit.

    The radio jocks called the Kenyan Embassy, and spoke to the Kenyan ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego who admitted that it is a well known fact that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and plans are underway to build a memorial at the site of his birth.

    The ambassador of Kenya says that obama was born in Kenya and that his birth place has become a national shrine.

    The transcript reads:

    Radio Jockey: President elect Obama’s birth place over in Kenya — is that going to be a national spot where he was born

    Ambassador Peter Ogego: its already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.

    Radio Jockey: But his birth place…they’ll put up a marker there

    Ambassdor Peter Ogego: It would depend on the government. Its already well known.

    But the US Congress is on record as saying Obama was born in Hawaii-once implicitly when they found him qualified to be President and then by an explicit resolution.

    [SD] I have spoken with many Congressional staff members and it is appalling how ignorant they are of the facts that have come forth surrounding Obama. Like you, then depend on rumors, hearsay and the left-stream media. None of them even knew about all the historical evidence and court cases explaining what a natural born citizen is.

    The Usurper’s comrades are working full tilt to keep the truth hidden. And this is the kind of person you want in the White house?

  345. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 7:51 am #

    Scientist says:
    February 24, 2010 at 6:39 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] How does a woman rape a woman?

    You truly are a fool…

    [SD] Pray real hard that just one case does not make it to court. Your hopes are hanging by a thread.

  346. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: I have stated several times that he still has the parent citizenship thing hanging over his head.

    I think more accurately the “parent citizenship thing” is a bit of fog hanging over your own head. It’s certainly nothing in the law or the constitution.

    [SD] The Founders were well aware of Vattel and used his “law of nations” in their deliberations. They knew what a natural born citizen was unlike those dunces sitting in Congress.

    You people think that someone only needs to be born in the U.S. Well, if that’s the case, then McCain doesn’t qualify either. He was born in Colon which was not under U.S. jurisdiction even though it was part of Panama. Under the Panama Constitution he is Panamian. But the big question is, why did they vet him and not Obama on this issue?

    I would agree that to deny him a run for the presidency based on his military record and the fact that both of his parent were U.S. citizens, makes it very difficult to say he isn’t qualified. But if birth in the U.S., or its territories, is the standard, then he doesn’t qualify.

  347. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 8:10 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:35 pm (Quote)

    If either one of us turned up on a list of persons with our name, our SSN and addresses where we never lived, the obvious conclusion would be that somebody else was responsible. How is Obama any different?

    [SD] Suppositional or rhetorical questions don’t dismiss what Taitz has on file. I will continue to remind all of you to pray real hard that just one case doesn’t make it to court. The truth on Obama is being stone-walled at the highest levels, esp. at the AG’s office. It reminds me of the Bill and Hillary era and all their shenanigans.

  348. avatar
    BlackLion February 26, 2010 at 8:33 am #

    Which were never proven. You already have your excuse ready by stating that President Obama is being protected “at the highest levels, esp at the AG’s office”. However you have never provided any proof. All of your so called evidence has been disproved or debunked. Yet you still back these discredited claims because of your extreme dislike of the President. Although there is no evidence, I would personally love to see these cases in front of a judge. However once the judge rules against you and laughs your so called evidence out of the courtroom you would then claim that the Judge was part of the coverup or conspiracy. Let us be honest. Obama could never be innocent in your eyes because of your extreme dislike of him. And just like Bill and Hillary, where the GOP spent millions of taxpayer dollars to find some sort of evidence of “shennigans”, nothing was found but you still think that something happened because of your dislike of the Clintons. While the Bush administration spit on the personal liberties of all Americans and there was not a peep out of you. Amazing…

  349. avatar
    BlackLion February 26, 2010 at 8:40 am #

    So you are telling us you would prefer to believe a radio jockey and an ambassador that was not alive when the President was born and who’s first language is not English rather than the state of HI when the state that Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii. Amazing. There is no proof of a birth in Kenya. There has never been any proof that Obama’s mother ever visited the country. But you would belive in forged documents rather than statements by Americans from HI, a certified COLB from the state of HI, and the newspaper accounts from the state of HI. Just admit it. You hate the President so no matter what evidence is released, you will believe anything negative about him. So it is not really about evidence but hate.

  350. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 8:43 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:

    First, McRae was on the US side of the phone conversation and he heard what is in the recording. He has nothing to add that we cannot hear for ourselves. His affidavit is just his opinion.

    [SD] What is the source documenting that McRae misunderstood the interpreter’s (Shuhubia) statement about Sarah. Is there an audio of him saying this?

    Shuhudia “lied” in his affidavit by giving a false name so “under oath” is a fiction. One cannot swear under oath under a false name and be bound by it.

    [SD] He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    Of all the affidavits filed against Obama, this could be the most convincing since Shuhubia declares that he spoke with the Registrar’s office at Province Hospital in Mombasa where he learned that Obama was born there. That fact could be substantiated if a case goes to court. Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya. That he would “lie” would be outside his character. At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

  351. avatar
    Slamdunk February 26, 2010 at 9:03 am #

    BlackLionsaid, So you are telling us you would prefer to believe a radio jockey and an ambassador that was not alive when the President was born and who’s first language is not English rather than the state of HI when the state that Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii.Amazing.

    [SD] O the depths you people go to keep yourselves in denial.

    There is no proof of a birth in Kenya.There has never been any proof that Obama’s mother ever visited the country.

    [SD] As I have said in other postings, the interpreter for Sarah and McRae (Shuhubia) swears in his affidavit that he spoke with the Registrar’s Office at the Province Coast Hospital who said that Obama was born in that hospital and that the record is under
    seal, just like all his personal records. I appeal to your common sense to see that this president is obviously hiding things he doesn’t want the world to know.

    But you would belive in forged documents rather than statements by Americans from HI, a certified COLB from the state of HI, and the newspaper accounts from the state of HI.
    Just admit it.You hate the President so no matter what evidence is released, you will believe anything negative about him.So it is not really about evidence but hate.

    [SD] I don’t hate Obama, even though I call him a Usurper. Like millions of Americans, I want him to produce his original 1961 BC and explain natural born citizen.

  352. avatar
    Scientist February 26, 2010 at 9:10 am #

    SD said:

    Slamdunk: I don’t know the law,

    Finally, we have something we can all agree on.

  353. avatar
    NBC February 26, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    As I said, some vague assertions combined with a lack of any evidence. And then the misrepresentations and lies…

    You’re quite the gullible kind…

    That’s how the powers of ignorance operate my friend…

    My question to SD is simple: Why do you allow others to make you look so foolish when you make clearly erroneous claims?

  354. avatar
    BatGuano February 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Slamdunk: Like millions of Americans, I want him to produce his original 1961 BC and explain natural born citizen.

    you already dismissed the ’61 BC as a probable forgery when i brought up that it would be easier to fake than a modern COLB.

  355. avatar
    SFJeff February 26, 2010 at 12:45 pm #

    Of course there is absolutely no evidence that death threats were made against any of these people.

    And to blame the President or his agents for death threats would be like blaming Taitz for every death threat against the President.

    Really, you have to stop just accepting what whacko’s say on their blogs and look for some evidence- or at least rationality. Taitz refuses to provide either.

  356. avatar
    SvenMagnussen February 26, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    SFJeff: Of course there is absolutely no evidence that death threats were made against any of these people.
    And to blame the President or his agents for death threats would be like blaming Taitz for every death threat against the President.Really, you have to stop just accepting what whacko’s say on their blogs and look for some evidence- or at least rationality. Taitz refuses to provide either.

    It cost me $100 to have a fuel line reconnected in my vehicle. Whomever or whatever is attacking Orly is attacking others from coast to coast in a coordinated effort.

    People should fear the government right now. It’s outta control.

  357. avatar
    BatGuano February 26, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    It cost me $100 to have a fuel line reconnected in my vehicle. Whomever or whatever is attacking Orly is attacking others from coast to coast in a coordinated effort.People should fear the government right now. It’s outta control.

    gremlins.

  358. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2010 at 1:38 pm #

    I was wondering what your reasoning is here.

  359. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

    A) Shuhubia was not the interpreter. The interpreter was Ogombe.

    B) “Shuhubia” is not even a real name.

    Has he ever even shown his face or given an interview?

  360. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Yes, McRae’s admission is on the audio tape, posted in my original article. The fact you never listened to it tells me a lot.

  361. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 26, 2010 at 2:09 pm #

    Dear Ballantine,

    Just wanted to express appreciation for all the effort you put into your authoritative anti-birther brief! It is a great reference for citations related to debunking the required two citizen parent notion of Natural Born Citizenship. I consult it frequently. Thanks again!
    Sincerely,
    BenjiFranklin

  362. avatar
    PaulG February 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: It cost me $100 to have a fuel line reconnected in my vehicle. Whomever or whatever is attacking Orly is attacking others from coast to coast in a coordinated effort.People should fear the government right now. It’s outta control.

    Whomever or whatever? If we’re throwing the floor open to non-human agents, I think it’s most likely just a random embodiment of universal justice, frustrated beyond reason and called into existence by the inability of some people to learn to function in a modern world. Just a guess, of course.

  363. avatar
    ballantine February 26, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    Thanks Benji. Maybe one day I’ll have the time to actually finish it. Nevertheless, it is clear that it will not change the mind of any birthers as they are beyond reasoning.

  364. avatar
    nbC February 26, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    What we know is that a light came on in Orly’s car and when she took the car in, the mechanic found that a clip was missing.
    As far as I understand it, the clip was part of the system relevant for emissions control.

    It would be interesting to see if the car had been in for such an inspection some time earlier.

    There are just far simpler explanations than an attempt against Orly. After all, come on guys, she is her own worst enemy. Did you see today’s ruling in Cook v Good, denying Orly’s motion to reinstate the Appeal…

    So far Orly has failed to bring any credible ‘facts’ to the table that establish that the President was not born on US soil or ineligible to hold his position.

    The SSN is yet another hilarious example of using unreliable data sources to establish SSN ‘fraud’ where there is clearly no evidence that President Obama has ever used any other SSN than the one granted to him.
    Do you know how easy it used to be to get a SSN?
    As to the SSN having been assigned to someone born in 1890, there is no name, and the simplest explanation is that this is an error in these public databases, just like there were two entries for the actual birthday of Obama with the month and day switched

    Common sense and Occam’s razor.

  365. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 26, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    Barry and the Pirates Chapter 46: On The Lookout For Jack Ruby

  366. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 26, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    Slamdunk: He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    Of all the affidavits filed against Obama, this could be the most convincing since Shuhubia declares that he spoke with the Registrar’s office at Province Hospital in Mombasa where he learned that Obama was born there. That fact could be substantiated if a case goes to court. Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya. That he would “lie” would be outside his character. At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

    Let’s look at this more carefully. You say “Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya.” Given that you don’t even know his real name, how can you know that he is “well-respected?” Can you understand how incredible that sounds? How can you know that the writer of that affidavit is even an African, much less a well-respected minister? How do you know that Ron Polarik didn’t write it? That is why it is completely useless in court.

    “Shuhubia” claims that he feared for his safety, yet his affidavit says: “It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya.” Now this is a remarkable statement on two accounts: first, I have never seen any African publication, nor any credible US publication confirm this rather important, and newsworthy claim. Think about it: astounding information of interest to the whole world and “common knowledge” in Kenya that has remained utterly silent. My second point is that if “Shuhubia” is telling the truth here, how is he concerned with his safety for saying what is common knowledge in the community?

    Further, there is nothing in the affidavit that says that the name Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym, and therefore, the statement at the end: “I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct “directly contradicts what is at the beginning: “I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action.” The affidavit is a lie. He could have said “I am not using my real name out of fear for my safety,” but he does not.

    I taught my children a little rule of thumb: if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. In this case, “Shuhubia” right after the interview hops in the car, toodles across the whole country and locates the official (whose name is also conveniently omitted) who confirms that he has the documentation that Obama was born in Mombasa. Look at what “Shuhubia” says: “The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret.” That is a self-documenting lie. If the information is “top secret” then “Shuhubia” wouldn’t have been told!

    Let me leave you with one other little curiosity. The “Shuhubia” affidavit says: “A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto as EXHIBIT ‘A'”. If the writer of this affidavit were REALLY in the room with Sarah Obama during the interview, how can we account for the fact that any time the recording made in the US is unintelligible, the affidavit “Shuhubia” supplies says “unintelligible?” If he were in the room, then he should know what was said. It is obvious that the transcript “Shuhubia” supplied was based on the US end of the recorded conversation, and I think that is the smoking gun. “Brother Tom” is the African minister on the other end of the phone according to the transcript (any version). I have no reason to believe that “Brother Tom” had anything to do with the affidavit. I think it more likely that Ron McRae made up the affidavit himself and edited the phone transcript to remove the parts damaging to his fiction. Indeed, it appears that the affidavit being under the name of a pseudonym was something added later, possibly to account for the fact that there was no Kweli Shuhubia.

    Now you may ask: why Ron McRae would lie? Why would Janet Porter of Faith2Action lie about the travel ban to Pakistan? Why would a Christian murder a doctor who performs abortions? This is not a hard question.

  367. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2010 at 12:41 am #

    Slamdunk says:

    He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    The proper procedure would be to submit the affidavit with his real name, under seal, for an in camera review by the court. A court can’t accept an affidavit which doesn’t accurately identify the affiant. But a court would reject his affidavit in any event, because what he allegedly was told in Mombasa is hearsay.

    At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

    Everyone who has ever committed perjury has done basically the same thing.

  368. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    BatGuano says:
    February 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Like millions of Americans, I want him to produce his original 1961 BC and explain natural born citizen.

    you already dismissed the 61 BC as a probable forgery when i brought up that it would be easier to fake than a modern COLB.

    [SD] ??? Perhaps you misunderstood. I never agreed that the 61 BC only that you think it would be easier to forge due to your expertise. Let me be emphatic. That 1961 BC must be released to show whether or not the on line BC is genuine.

  369. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 26, 2010 at 1:44 pm (Quote)

    A) Shuhubia was not the interpreter. The interpreter was Ogombe.

    [SD] In both the McRae and Shuhubia affidavits, he is recorded as the interpreter. Of course, you are free not to beleive that fact. Ogombe was the Obot instigator who tried to say that grandma Sarah did not say she was in the Mombasa hossptial delivery room when Obama was born.

    B) “Shuhubia” is not even a real name.

    [SD] As noted earlier, he did not use his real name because of death threats. This is how serious some people are about keeping the truth hidden.

    Has he ever even shown his face or given an interview?

    [SD] Why not go to Kenya and try to get an interview? His affidavit is all the interview we need. As a godly man, like McRae, Shuhubia does not take lightly to speaking lies. He emphasizes that at the end of his affidavit where he says he is God’s servant and accountable to him. If you are a God-fearing person yourself, you will understand that.

  370. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    nbC says:
    February 26, 2010 at 4:29 pm (Quote)

    So far Orly has failed to bring any credible facts’ to the table that establish that the President was not born on US soil or ineligible to hold his position.

    [SD] Since none of the facts in Orly’s case have ever been ruled on merit, you cannot say that she has failed to bring them to the table. Denials of motions, standing and jurisdiction matters and justiciable issues have all prevented her facts from being revealed. Just let one case be heard and the facts come out and which would prove that the Usurper is ineligible.

    Did you read Apuzzo’s latest entry?

  371. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 9:30 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 26, 2010 at 12:45 pm (Quote)

    Of course there is absolutely no evidence that death threats were made against any of these people.

    SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails.

    And to blame the President or his agents for death threats would be like blaming Taitz for every death threat against the President.

    [SD] No one has blamed Obama or his Obites. They are most likely disgruntled Obama supporters who can’t handle truth.

    Really, you have to stop just accepting what whacko’s say on their blogs and look for some evidence- or at least rationality. Taitz refuses to provide either.

    [SD] As noted above, She has reported the threats to the authorities. I have no idea what Polarik and Shuhubia have done about the threats. We only have their word. I see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man and minister in Kenya. That may not be enough proof for you, but it sounds reasonable to me.

  372. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    NBC says:
    February 26, 2010 at 11:57 am (Quote)

    As I said, some vague assertions combined with a lack of any evidence. And then the misrepresentations and lies…

    You’re quite the gullible kind…

    That’s how the powers of ignorance operate my friend…

    My question to SD is simple: Why do you allow others to make you look so foolish when you make clearly erroneous claims?

    [SD] How is it you say that I make erroneous claims when most everything I have presented here are based on the claims and charges made in all the cases filed against the Usurper? Since none of the evidence in these cases have been ruled on merit, you cannot say that I have made erroneous claims.

  373. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    Rickey says:
    February 27, 2010 at 12:41 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk says:

    He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    The proper procedure would be to submit the affidavit with his real name, under seal, for an in camera review by the court. A court can’t accept an affidavit which doesn’t accurately identify the affiant. But a court would reject his affidavit in any event, because what he allegedly was told in Mombasa is hearsay.

    [SD] He has sworn that he spoke with the Registrar who said Obama was born in that Mombasa hospital. If the case goes to trial and he is questioned, and found to have lied, he goes to jail. Not a fitting place for a God-fearing man and minister.

    At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

    Everyone who has ever committed perjury has done basically the same thing.

    [SD] Right, and if he lied, he goes to jail.

  374. avatar
    Scientist February 27, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    Slamdunk: I don’t know the law

  375. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 10:06 am #

    Scientist says:
    February 22, 2010 at 8:52 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] So do I take this to mean that you would look forward to one case being heard if it passes standing?

    Would I look forward to it? Probably not, because since you guys have nothing that would be admissible in court, the case would be over before it started and would lack entertainment value.

    [SD] I’m just trying to see what your motives are. If you are interested in the truth, then you should have no objections to a case being heard. If you don’t want to see it being heard, then I must conclude that you think there are facts that would not bode well for Obama.

    I don’t see any possible case that could surmount those barriers, because the determination of presidential eligibility is a matter for Congress and hence a political question. Congress has already determined this president to be eligible, whether you agree or not. A ballot access challenge in state court in 2012 might be allowed. But, again, under the rules of evidence you will have to come up with actual admissible evidence to have the slightest chance.

    [SD] AGain, rules of procedure and evidence are not my point here. I want to see where your heart is. You want truth? Then you should have no objections to any of the cases moving forward to discovery.

    Slamdunk: [SD] By then, the Usurper will have EO’d (executive ordered) his European styled socialist, unAmerican, unconstitutional agenda into place.

    You’ve certainly tipped your hat as to what drives the birther agenda.

    [SD] I make no bones about my motives, on top of the facts that show Obama is ineligible. We live in a constitutional Republic, not a European style social democracy as concerns shown by Senate Minority leader McConnell and, of course, Limbaugh. In my view, they are right on the money. 53% of Democrats see no problems with socialism.

    The order of the day for you guys: (1) We oppose Obama; (2) Any non-right-winger in White House is by definition illigitimate;

    [SD] Not true. Obama is the only President in history who has ever been charged with not being constitutionally legitimate. Clinton became ineligible (i.e. unworthy to serve) when he lied to the American people, perjured himself and was impeached. There is no place for a President who cheats on his wife, commits adultery in the Oval office, lies to the American people about it, perjures himself before a Judge and is impeached. Only an equally immoral Democratic vote count saved him from removal.

    (3) Let’s look for a reason to call him illigitimate.

    With Clinton, you tried Vince Foster and draft dodging, with Obama it’s this nonsense. Contrast this with the left and Bush. Even though he won a very much contested election, the vast majority of those on the left moved on to oppose him on actual policy. You guys lack the maturity to do that. You are truly still in diapers.

    [SD] This is not about maturity or diapers. Obama has clearly usurped the Presidency and that should rile every American. It only goes to show how bound the Democrats are to abort the constitution and bring America to
    greater depths of socialism.

  376. avatar
    Greg February 27, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    As noted earlier, he did not use his real name because of death threats.

    He didn’t mention that in his affidavit.

    I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows…

    I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Dated: October 30, 2008
    Kweli Shuhubia

    Anyway, none of this is admissible. You are completely ignorant of the law of evidence, specifically hearsay.

    Call Sarah as a witness, or depose her under oath. Call the registrar from Kenya or depose under oath. Call the officials from the hospital or depose under oath.

    Otherwise, you’ve just got inadmissible hearsay.

    At best, you can use the affidavits to impeach Sarah’s testimony on the theory that her prior statements were inconsistent. Oh, wait, you can only impeach with prior testimony, meaning it had to be under oath. Your affidavits have zero value in the legal system.

    You might as well submit blank sheets of paper and save the effort.

  377. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 27, 2010 at 10:30 am #

    Seven more posts worth of gibberish from Frederic Weis, and yet that pesky uppity negro is still President.

    Slamdunk: I don’t know the law

  378. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 12:41 pm #

    Let’s look at this more carefully. You say “Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya.” Given that you don’t even know his real name, how can you know that he is “well-respected?”

    [SD] I base that on his working relationship with the Baptists in Kenya and their different ministries in reaching out to Kenyans. As a rule, people who reach and minister to the needs of the needy are highly welcomed in such areas.

    Can you understand how incredible that sounds?

    [SD] Reason it out. Go into your own poor neighborhoods and see how welcome those are who come to minister to them and help meet their needs. I do some volunteer work for our Community Hope Center and can see how much the homeless, poor appreciate the people and relief they receive. I see no reason to suspect that Shuhubia is any less welcome, admired and appreciated.

    How can you know that the writer of that affidavit is even an African, much less a well-respected minister? How do you know that Ron Polarik didn’t write it? That is why it is completely useless in court.

    [SD] Of course, you are free to speculate about such things if you so desire. Whether it is useless in court would only be determined if a case is heard.

    “Shuhubia” claims that he feared for his safety, yet his affidavit says: “It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya.” Now this is a remarkable statement on two accounts: first, I have never seen any African publication, nor any credible US publication confirm this rather important, and newsworthy claim. Think about it: astounding information of interest to the whole world and “common knowledge” in Kenya that has remained utterly silent. My second point is that if “Shuhubia” is telling the truth here, how is he concerned with his safety for saying what is common knowledge in the community?

    [SD] Again, you can speculate about circumstances, etc. but Shuhubia still made the statement. What you may be overlooking is that, while it may be common knowledge in Kenya that Obama was born there, it isn’t in the U.S. So when someone attests that it is common knowledge, such a person could come under threats to prevent him from spreading such information. With a media gag order on matters involving Obama, it’s not surprising that little information reaches the U.S. I too am speculating on certain mattees, but I don’t think it is unreasonable.

    Further, there is nothing in the affidavit that says that the name Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym, and therefore, the statement at the end: “I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct “directly contradicts what is at the beginning: “I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action.” The affidavit is a lie. He could have said “I am not using my real name out of fear for my safety,” but he does not.

    [SD] It was Bishop McRae who said that Shuhubia is an alias. Without knowing all the details, it seems to me that you are trying to think for Shuhubia and reason what he should do under the circumstances.

    I taught my children a little rule of thumb: if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. In this case, “Shuhubia” right after the interview hops in the car, toodles across the whole country and locates the official (whose name is also conveniently omitted) who confirms that he has the documentation that Obama was born in Mombasa. Look at what “Shuhubia” says: “The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret.” That is a self-documenting lie. If the information is “top secret” then “Shuhubia” wouldn’t have been told!

    [SD] But if he lied, he will go to jail should he ever have to account for statements in his affidavit. But since you don’t know all the details, you can’t make a summary judgment. It’s easy to speculate.

    Let me leave you with one other little curiosity. The “Shuhubia” affidavit says: “A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A’”. If the writer of this affidavit were REALLY in the room with Sarah Obama during the interview, how can we account for the fact that any time the recording made in the US is unintelligible, the affidavit “Shuhubia” supplies says “unintelligible?” If he were in the room, then he should know what was said. It is obvious that the transcript “Shuhubia” supplied was based on the US end of the recorded conversation, and I think that is the smoking gun. “Brother Tom” is the African minister on the other end of the phone according to the transcript (any version). I have no reason to believe that “Brother Tom” had anything to do with the affidavit. I think it more likely that Ron McRae made up the affidavit himself and edited the phone transcript to remove the parts damaging to his fiction.

    [SD] I would be the first to be critical of Bishop McRae, or Shuhubia, should it be found out that he has lied. He too would be subject to imprisonment if a court found him guilty. I can’t supply answers to some of your speculations, which may or may not have some merit.

    Indeed, it appears that the affidavit being under the name of a pseudonym was something added later, possibly to account for the fact that there was no Kweli Shuhubia.

    [SD] So it is a master plot to unseat obama.

    Now you may ask: why Ron McRae would lie? Why would Janet Porter of Faith2Action lie about the travel ban to Pakistan? Why would a Christian murder a doctor who performs abortions? This is not a hard question.

    [SD] I don’t know about the Pakistan trip or why a Christian would murder an abortion doctor. You can use them to convince yourself that McRae and Shuhubia are liars, but only a case heard on merits will reveal the truth. Wish hard that one case moves into a courtroom so we can learn the truth about everything.

  379. avatar
    Slamdunk February 27, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it,

    That’s bizarre. Are you arguing that only persons born overseas to American citizen fathers who have had at some time lived in the United States may be President? That’s who the 1790 Act calls natural born citizens.

    [SD] You may be confusing “native born subjects” with “natural born citizens,” which the founders viewed differently. It is my understanding that the founders did not rely on British common law when speaking of natural born citizens. Apuzzo goes into some detail about the Naturalization Act of 1790. I recommend that you visit his site. I do recall reading it, but can’t remember where its found in all his articles.I wish I could remember so I could share it with you.

  380. avatar
    NBC February 27, 2010 at 2:08 pm #

    [SD] How is it you say that I make erroneous claims when most everything I have presented here are based on the claims and charges made in all the cases filed against the Usurper? Since none of the evidence in these cases have been ruled on merit, you cannot say that I have made erroneous claims.

    Of course I can do so. Do you believe that these filings were without errors and omissions?

    You are the gullible kind indeed.

    Allowing others to make you look foolish… Have you no self respect my friend?

  381. avatar
    NBC February 27, 2010 at 2:24 pm #

    You may be confusing “native born subjects” with “natural born citizens,” which the founders viewed differently. It is my understanding that the founders did not rely on British common law when speaking of natural born citizens.

    It’s not your understanding, it’s what others have led you to believe… Apuzzo’s arguments have been consistently dismantled on this site.

    Natural born and Native born are for all practical purposes very similar concepts with minor exceptions.

    Have you read Wong Kim Ark? Have you read Ankeny v Gov of Indiana?

    SD, you are a victim of repeating arguments of which you have no full understanding. As such you have opened yourself up to ridicule.

    When you mindlessly repeat false information…

    Inform yourself, there are some great sites out there which look at the issue of natural born citizen, based on history, legal precedent and not based on wishful thinking.

    That you cannot even accurately present these wishful thoughts further outlines how much you rely on ignorance to further your ‘claims’. So my question is: Why do you make such strong claims about the eligibility of our President when you lack a coherent understanding of the arguments?

  382. avatar
    SFJeff February 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    How do you know any of this? Have the poiice and FBI confirmed that they have received any threats? Just because Orly says there have been threats and just because she says she has reported them doesn’t mean it has happened.

    ‘[SD] No one has blamed Obama or his Obites. They are most likely disgruntled Obama supporters who can’t handle truth. ”

    I think Orly has pretty clearly suggested that the Obama administration or campaign are behind the threats. But even assuming that Taitz is telling the truth(which is a big stretch considering her record) then as you said- it could be disgruntled Obama supporters- which direclty contradicts your first statement about death threats- which you said was evidence that Obama was hiding something.

    “She has reported the threats to the authorities.”
    Again- how do you know she has done this? All you have is her statement that she has.

    “I have no idea what Polarik and Shuhubia have done about the threats. We only have their word”

    Do you not realize how stupid this sounds? You reject the word of President Obama about where he was born, you reject the statements of Hawaiin officials, you reject the definitions of NBC given by consitutional authorities, but you somehow find credible two people you know nothing about.

    “I see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man and minister in Kenya.”

    How do you even know that either of those statements are true? And even assuming they are- how many ministers here in the United States have ended up fleecing their churches and ended up in prison? Or cheated on their wives? Or been shown to be liars.

    Your selective gullibility amazes me. President Obama declares himself a Christian, publicly attends a christian church- yet you assume he is a liar and probably a Muslim. Some complete unknown writes that he is a Christan minister and you automatically assume he must be truthfull.

    I hope a good Christian minister never tries to sell you a bridge

  383. avatar
    nbC February 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm #

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    And how seriously do these officials take these so called ‘threats’?

    Any idea?

  384. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    Slamdunk says:

    He has sworn that he spoke with the Registrar who said Obama was born in that Mombasa hospital. If the case goes to trial and he is questioned, and found to have lied, he goes to jail.

    Do you not understand what hearsay is? He would not be allowed to testify about what another person supposedly said to him. There is an exception for a declaration against interest, but that wouldn’t apply to a person who isn’t a party to the legal action.

    Right, and if he lied, he goes to jail.

    People lie under oath all the time, but very few of them go to jail.

  385. avatar
    SFJeff February 27, 2010 at 8:21 pm #

    “As a rule, people who reach and minister to the needs of the needy are highly welcomed in such areas”
    “Go into your own poor neighborhoods and see how welcome those are who come to minister to them and help meet their needs”
    “see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man”

    Excuse me are you speaking of Shuhubia(or whatever his real name is) or of Obama?

    Obama spent several years helping poor people meet their needs, and we have plenty of real evidence that President Obama is a practicing Christian- a god fearing man as you say.

    By your own standards, you should be accepting President Obama’s word over that of say Taitz or Mario- neither of which as far as we know has ever spent any time working with the poor, nor do we know their “godly” status.

  386. avatar
    SFJeff February 27, 2010 at 8:25 pm #

    Slamdunk:”McConnell and, of course, Limbaugh. In my view, they are right on the money.”

    So you feel that McConnell and Limbaugh are ‘right on the money” when labelling Obama a Socialist…yet they are what? Too stupid to realize that President Obama wasn’t eligible? Or are they willing to call President Obama a socialist, yet are somehow to cowardly to mention this?

    Which is it- Is Limbaugh too stupid or too cowardly?

  387. avatar
    Rickey February 27, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    Slamdunk says:

    I base that on his working relationship with the Baptists in Kenya and their different ministries in reaching out to Kenyans.

    How do you know that he has such a working relationship when you don’t even know what his name is? For all you know, he could be a total charlatan.

    It’s easy to speculate.

    As you have demonstrated time and again.

  388. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Slamdunk: Apuzzo goes into some detail about the Naturalization Act of 1790. I recommend that you visit his site.

    With all the legal scholars writing in law journals, and Supreme Court cases available, why would anybody to go to some paid advocate’s web site for information? The kindest thing I can say about Apuzzo’s arguments is that they are “biased.” I have a nearly 400-page book published by a university on American citizenship here (Ketner’s book). Apuzzo is no authority.

  389. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2010 at 9:47 pm #

    Slamdunk: With a media gag order on matters involving Obama, it’s not surprising that little information reaches the U.S.

    And exactly how do you know that? Read it on somebody’s blog? [sigh] As a matter fact, there are Kenyan political forums where people post comments just like you do here. They are in the Internet, and you can go read them. One favorite comment from Kenya is this:

    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. Convince me if you can, though.

    You seem to miss the essential point. How do you know that “Shuhubia” even exists? I could claim that I went to Kenya, found “Brother Tom” and produced an affidavit from him, paste an illegible signature onto it and say that Sarah Obama was adamant that Barack was born in Hawaii. What is the difference between mine and the one you believe? Nothing. Both would have nothing going for them except internal claims. What makes you think that if a trial happened that this Shuhubia could be found to testify?

    As for McRae, these are his own words:

    Even before the law (Matthew 2 is still under the law…see Luke 16:16), when governments sanctioned the killing of new born children (Exodus 1), God commended civil disobedience (Exodus 1:17, 21), and even moved His people to extreme measures in their civil disobedience (Exodus 2:1-3), but the disobedience was still civil, and never rose to the level of vengeance seen today in the matter of abortion, where professing Christians bloody the streets in killing abortion doctors in falsely so called “defensive action” for the sake of “the unborn”, thinking they do God a service.

    http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillRonMcRae.html

    McRae is in favor of “extreme measures” short of murder to prevent abortions. Do you think a fake affidavit might come under that category?

    The bottom line is that there is no person standing behind the Shuhubia affidavit; there is no Kenyan birth document; there is no evidence.

  390. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 27, 2010 at 9:56 pm #

    Slamdunk: Obama is the only President in history who has ever been charged with not being constitutionally legitimate.

    Does it ever cross your mind that you should look stuff up instead of just imaging your world?

    Obama is not the only president whose eligibility has been questioned. The difference between what you said and what I said is that I have facts, and you just made that up.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

  391. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 2:01 am #

    “Apuzzo is no authority.”

    He’s an authority on ambulance chasing, and frivolous claims. Also, contributory negligence.

  392. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2010 at 9:56 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Obama is the only President in history who has ever been charged with not being constitutionally legitimate.

    Does it ever cross your mind that you should look stuff up instead of just imaging your world?

    Obama is not the only president whose eligibility has been questioned. The difference between what you said and what I said is that I have facts, and you just made that up.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

    [SD] Yes, I stand corrected. Arthur successfully skirted natural born citizen, just like Obama is trying to do.

  393. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    SFJeff says:
    February 27, 2010 at 8:25 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk:”McConnell and, of course, Limbaugh. In my view, they are right on the money.”

    So you feel that McConnell and Limbaugh are right on the money” when labelling Obama a Socialist…yet they are what? Too stupid to realize that President Obama wasn’t eligible?

    [SD] It is a mystery to me why Limbaugh doesn’t talk more about this issue. Mr. Conservative’s silence is deafening.

    Or are they willing to call President Obama a socialist, yet are somehow to cowardly to mention this?

    [SD] Hannity and Limbaugh see Obama as a socialist. O’Reilly is not there yet, but getting closer. It’s not likely that Republicans in congress will call Democrats socialists, but 53% of them lean in that direction.

    Which is it- Is Limbaugh too stupid or too cowardly?

    [SD] Not stupid, but why he doesn’t do the “birther” thing is a mystery to me.

  394. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:41 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2010 at 9:47 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: With a media gag order on matters involving Obama, it’s not surprising that little information reaches the U.S.

    And exactly how do you know that? Read it on somebody’s blog? [sigh] As a matter fact, there are Kenyan political forums where people post comments just like you do here. They are in the Internet, and you can go read them. One favorite comment from Kenya is this:

    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. Convince me if you can, though.

    [SD] As I understand it, the gag order is on hospital and health department authorities. They are not permitted, like Hawaii, to release any information on Obama or make any statements about him being born in Kenya.

    You seem to miss the essential point. How do you know that “Shuhubia” even exists? I could claim that I went to Kenya, found “Brother Tom”

    [SD] “Tom” could be Shuhubia’s nick name. I agree, it’s curious why McCrae called him that.

    and produced an affidavit from him, paste an illegible signature onto it and say that Sarah Obama was adamant that Barack was born in Hawaii. What is the difference between mine and the one you believe? Nothing. Both would have nothing going for them except internal claims. What makes you think that if a trial happened that this Shuhubia could be found to testify?

    [SD] You’re speculating, and that’s fine. No one knows all the facts or circumstances. All I know is that if Shuhubia is a real person, even though that’s an alias, and is called to testify and is found lying, he goes to jail. The same with McRae.

    As for McRae, these are his own words:

    Even before the law (Matthew 2 is still under the law…see Luke 16:16), when governments sanctioned the killing of new born children (Exodus 1), God commended civil disobedience (Exodus 1:17, 21), and even moved His people to extreme measures in their civil disobedience (Exodus 2:1-3), but the disobedience was still civil, and never rose to the level of vengeance seen today in the matter of abortion, where professing Christians bloody the streets in killing abortion doctors in falsely so called “defensive action” for the sake of “the unborn”, thinking they do God a service.

    [SD] Other than the Tiller killer, who has killed a doctor or bombed a clinic and claimed to be a born again believer in Jesus Christ? Could it be that the TK was only a nominal Christian?

    http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillRonMcRae.html

    McRae is in favor of “extreme measures” short of murder to prevent abortions. Do you think a fake affidavit might come under that category?

    The bottom line is that there is no person standing behind the Shuhubia affidavit; there is no Kenyan birth document; there is no evidence.

    [SD] There’s evidence, all right, and Obama has it. Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?

    I think you’re groping to say Shuhubia is not the one making his affidavit. There’s now way Orly, or any other attorney, would accept an affidavit if they suspected the person wasn’t real.

  395. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 10:03 am #

    Go ahead, remain in denial. The man is real.

  396. avatar
    Mike February 28, 2010 at 10:32 am #

    SlapMonkey: Or are they willing to call President Obama a socialist, yet are somehow to cowardly to mention this?

    Or maybe they’re not quite as stupid as you. Given that we’re talking about Limbaugh, that’s pretty damning.

  397. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    February 27, 2010 at 8:21 pm (Quote)

    “As a rule, people who reach and minister to the needs of the needy are highly welcomed in such areas”
    “Go into your own poor neighborhoods and see how welcome those are who come to minister to them and help meet their needs”
    “see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man”

    Excuse me are you speaking of Shuhubia(or whatever his real name is) or of Obama?

    [SD] Shuhubia

    Obama spent several years helping poor people meet their needs, and we have plenty of real evidence that President Obama is a practicing Christian- a god fearing man as you say.

    [SD] Do you think someone who has worked for the poor makes them a Christian? This may prove helpful.
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

  398. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 2:46 pm #

    nbC says:
    February 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    And how seriously do these officials take these so called threats’?

    Any idea?

    [SD] So you accept the fact that she has received threats. What officials think about them is another matter.

  399. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 2:57 pm #

    Slamdunk: As I understand it, the gag order is on hospital and health department authorities. They are not permitted, like Hawaii, to release any information on Obama or make any statements about him being born in Kenya.

    OK, but why do you think there is a “gag order” on hospital and health department authorities? If you think this is true, there ought t be a reason and a reason beyond somebody’s blog or a professional smear artist like Jerome (“The Obama Nation”) Corsi . I cited in another comment the law from Kenya that permits general public access to (at the very least) an alphabetic index by year of births.

    Slamdunk: “Tom” could be Shuhubia’s nick name

    From the transcript and the affidavit, it is clear that the writer of the affidavit claims to be the person identified as “Brother Tom” on the tape. We also “know” (and I use that term very loosely) that Shuhubia is not the real name of the person making the affidavit, so there is nothing odd about the names not matching. I rather let this one slide, but I believe the actual identity of “Brother Tom” was figured out long ago. I will follow it up. So the real question is whether the person on the tape identified as being in the room in Kenya during the interview wrote the affidavit, or whether it was written by someone else.

    We need not be so concerned about whether “Brother Tom” is a well-respected minister, or an opportunistic con man, until we first know whether he wrote the affidavit in the first place. I am somewhat of the opinion that he did not, primarily for the utter lack of details that one would expect from an eye witness (such as the name of anybody present) and the fact that the transcript is wholly based on the recording.

    Slamdunk: [SD] Other than the Tiller killer, who has killed a doctor or bombed a clinic and claimed to be a born again believer in Jesus Christ? Could it be that the TK was only a nominal Christian?

    Actually the text from McRae was about Paul Hill, another abortion doctor murderer. This about Hill:

    In a statement before his execution, Hill said that he felt no remorse for his actions, and that he expected “a great reward in Heaven”. Hill left behind a manuscript manifesto which his backers promised him they would publish. That manifesto and his address to the jury that convicted him echoed the words of John Brown, who had attempted to incite a violent insurrection to end slavery in the United States. Hill was not apologetic for the killings, and in his last words he encouraged others who believe abortion is an illegitimate use of lethal force to “do what you have to do to stop it”.

    slamdunk: I think you’re groping to say Shuhubia is not the one making his affidavit. There’s now way Orly, or any other attorney, would accept an affidavit if they suspected the person wasn’t real.

    I guess a better way to say it is that “Brother Tom” (nor anyone present in Kenya during the interview) may not be the one making the affidavit.

    It’s Phil Berg who put this affidavit in his filing in the original Berg v. Obama lawsuit. Now Phil Berg believes that the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 World Trade Center bombing. He also included reference to a birth certificate saying Obama was born in Canada, one signed by a cartoon character. There is no report that Berg went to Kenya or that “Brother Tom” came to the US. There’s no reason to believe that Phil Berg has any first-hand knowledge of who wrote the affidavit.

    From the form of the affidavit, it is fairly clear that it was written in the United States by Berg and/or McRae. “Brother Tom’s” command of English on the recording is not up to the highly literate affidavit. It is possible that the text was sent to “Brother Tom” and that he sent back a piece of paper with his signature on it, a signature that was cut and pasted onto the document Berg published. “Brother Tom” could have had input into the affidavit and he could have signed it. We just don’t have any evidence that he did.

    One other curious item is that neither the “Shuhubia” nor the McRae affidavits appear among the case documents on the court web site.

  400. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 3:07 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    February 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    How do you know any of this? Have the poiice and FBI confirmed that they have received any threats? Just because Orly says there have been threats and just because she says she has reported them doesn’t mean it has happened.

    I think Orly has pretty clearly suggested that the Obama administration or campaign are behind the threats.

    [SD] Please site anything she has said to this effect.

    But even assuming that Taitz is telling the truth(which is a big stretch considering her record) then as you said- it could be disgruntled Obama supporters- which direclty contradicts your first statement about death threats- which you said was evidence that Obama was hiding something.

    [SD] Please find where I said that.

    “She has reported the threats to the authorities.”

    Again- how do you know she has done this? All you have is her statement that she has.

    [SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    “I have no idea what Polarik and Shuhubia have done about the threats. We only have their word”

    Do you not realize how stupid this sounds? You reject the word of President Obama about where he was born, you reject the statements of Hawaiin officials, you reject the definitions of NBC given by consitutional authorities, but you somehow find credible two people you know nothing about.

    [SD] Again,they are subject to prison if they lied in their affidavits.

    “I see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man and minister in Kenya.”

    How do you even know that either of those statements are true? And even assuming they are- how many ministers here in the United States have ended up fleecing their churches and ended up in prison? Or cheated on their wives? Or been shown to be liars.

    [SD] There you go again with the Liar thing. It’s absolutely essential for your case that they be found not credible or liars. Because if they are honest men with integrity, then their testimonies are true and Obama is the liar. I’m sure you really want just one case to be heard so the court will reveal that the birthers were the liars and fools.

    President Obama declares himself a Christian, publicly attends a christian church-

    [SD] Do you think just declaring yourself to be anything make you that? I’m not so sure that he attends church. If he does, not much is said about it. If he does, do you know which one? This site may prove helpful about his Christianity.
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

    yet you assume he is a liar

    [SD] He can prove me wrong by producing his 1961 LFBC.

  401. avatar
    SFJeff February 28, 2010 at 3:25 pm #

    Slamdunk, when I went to research a few things you mentioned here, I was immediately struck by how you are using the exact verbage of dozens of websites. The whole idea- the first President to have his eligibility challenged blah blah is found word for word in a dozen websites. Everything you post is recycled from other websites. You don’t even bother to put it in your own words, which convinces me that you are not doing any of your own thinking, but just parroting what others are posting.

  402. avatar
    SFJeff February 28, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    “[SD] Not stupid, but why he doesn’t do the “birther” thing is a mystery to me.”

    Well that only leaves cowardly- which personally I think Limbaugh is- or that he just recognizes there is no substance to the whole birther movement.

    You are the one that believes Limbaugh and McConnel are such great thinkers. They are either craven cowards or they don’t believe the whole Birther movement- well in Limbaughs case it probably is both.

    Come on Slamdunk- you are willing to make huge assumptions on why President Obama won’t release his kindergarten records, why no such assumptions on Limbaugh’s silence?

  403. avatar
    SFJeff February 28, 2010 at 3:35 pm #

    “SD] There’s evidence, all right, and Obama has it.”

    If Obama has the only evidence there is, then how do you know there is any evidence?

    “Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?”

    A) because he doesn’t have to- in the American Justice system it is up to the accuser to produce some credible evidence- not third hand rumors and speculations.
    B) because it wouldnt’ even settle it for you- because as you have said you think even if he was born in Hawaii he still isn’t a NBC. So the President shouldn’t waste anytime trying to placate a small group of denialist who make it clear they will not accept anything but will continue to be in denial.

  404. avatar
    nbC February 28, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    [SD] So you accept the fact that she has received threats. What officials think about them is another matter.

    You need to read more carefully my dear foolish friend. I stated “threats”, indicating that I have yet to see evidence of real threats, although I can imagine that whatever they are/were, Orly believes somehow that they are threats.

    What officials think about them matters a lot since it provides or undermines the ‘credibility’ of what Orly believes to be ‘threats’.

  405. avatar
    nbC February 28, 2010 at 3:38 pm #

    SD: Go ahead, remain in denial. The man is real.

    Is this why you can provide no credible evidence to support your claim?

    Silly SD…

  406. avatar
    SFJeff February 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    “[SD] Do you think someone who has worked for the poor makes them a Christian? This may prove helpful.”

    Of course not. But you of course parsed out my statement. President Obama has openly declared that he is a Christian- multiple times. He has publicly attended Christian churches for years- which has been clearly documented. As far as I am concerned he has led as Christian of a life as any politician serving in D.C.

    So I am baffled why you tell us that we should accept the affidavit of someone in Kenya who claims he is a man of god- and in the same document lies about his name- because he is a man of god and serves the poor- which is exactly what Obama is and does. I don’t even think those are relevant, but I think it is incredibly hypocritical for you to accept that this Kenyan person is a man of god when you have nothing other than his statement to base this on, while in the case of President Obama there is clear cut evidence that he is a practicising Christian who has worked with the poor to make their lives better.

    If you believe that a “god fearing” man who serves the poor should be given credibility, then by those standards you must accept the credibility of President Obama, or admit that your standards are really circumstantial- they only apply when you want them to apply

  407. avatar
    SFJeff February 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm #

    “SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart”

    You are the one that stated that the death threats to Orly were a sign that someone wanted to stop her. You were the one who mentioned the supposed death threats here. Do I think Orly is a liar- yes because she has clearly lied in the past. But to the specific point- just because she says in her blog that she has received death threats does not mean that she has received them. She might be lieing, she might be delusional or she may just be mistaken. In any case, there is no reason for me to accept her word for it. You won’t even accept the word of the Hawaiian state officials, why should I accept the word of Ortly Taitz?

    “Do you think just declaring yourself to be anything make you that? I’m not so sure that he attends church. If he does, not much is said about it. If he does, do you know which one?”

    Its funny you should mention that. Many Christians are all to ready to brand someone else not a ‘real Christian’- and that usually means they don’t believe in exactly the very narrow point of view they do.

    What does that leave us with? I watched in Baptist Church one time where a 6 year announced he was born again, and was welcomed into the church. So these folks were willing to accept a 6 year old’s statement at face value- but you aren’t willing to accept the President’s statement of faith?

    You really don’t do any original research of your own do you?

    Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html#ixzz0grm0WK9G

    this took me 3 seconds to find.

    Prior to that he was a member of Trinity Church in Chicago- which was well publicized.

    Or do you have some special litmus test that Christians must pass in order to be ‘real’ Christians?

    And-horrors- what if he were Jewish?

  408. avatar
    SFJeff February 28, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    “[SD] You’re speculating, and that’s fine. No one knows all the facts or circumstances. All I know is that if Shuhubia is a real person, even though that’s an alias, and is called to testify and is found lying, he goes to jail. The same with McRae.”

    Exactly how will ‘Shuhubia’ be summoned to court? Nobody has his real name, he is in Kenya- so first of all no one knows who to subpoena and secondly the subpoena would have to be served on him in Kenya which if he was lieing he could just ignore. I don’t think he would have any realistic reason to worry about going to jail.

    McRae- maybe he is concerned. Of course if he believes he is doing gods work, maybe he is willing to bear false witness for the glory of god.

  409. avatar
    Greg February 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm #

    Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?

    Well, I guess by EVERYONE, you mean everyone but yourself, and, well, every other birther out there.

    You’ve admitted that the “LFBC” wouldn’t settle the matter for you. So, why do you continue to LIE and suggest that it would. That doesn’t seem very Christian to me.

    As to Obama being the only president whose eligibility could be questioned by your cockamamie theory, there have been several presidents and vice-presidents whose parents were naturalized citizens. No one has ever looked at any of them to see if their naturalization happened before or after their birth. That is just one clue, SD, about how much credence your two-citizen parent rule has. None.

  410. avatar
    Greg February 28, 2010 at 4:31 pm #

    Barackryphal does a good job of giving some examples of Presidents and Vice-Presidents and candidates for same that had parents who were immigrants.

    No one has ever asked for the naturalization papers for any of these candidates to prove that they were naturalized prior to their child’s birth.

  411. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 5:01 pm #

    Awwwwwwwwk. Birther wanna cracker!

  412. avatar
    thisoldhippie February 28, 2010 at 5:19 pm #

    Why do these people continue to ask for the President’s birth records from the hospital? Most hospitals only keep medical records for 10 years and after that they are destroyed and if you send a request you will get a form letter stating that they do not have any records because they are too old. In fact, they often even don’t have a record of the person ever receiving medical treatment there. Of course, if a birther received this letter they would just scream conspiracy.

  413. avatar
    nbC February 28, 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    [SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    On the contrary, the case against Orly falls apart on a myriad of reasons such as lack of legal support, the lack of standing, the lack of merit.

    Her claims of ‘threats’ are just trying to hide the obvious…

  414. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    nbC says:
    February 28, 2010 at 6:03 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    On the contrary, the case against Orly falls apart on a myriad of reasons such as lack of legal support, the lack of standing, the lack of merit.

    [SD] How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Her claims of threats’ are just trying to hide the obvious…

    [SD] It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed.

  415. avatar
    Mary Brown February 28, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    It is very difficult for any modern President to attend church regularly, given the security concerns. I attend church weekly and work at my church. It would be impossible for us to accomodate these concerns. You never know who will be in attendance on a weekly basis. Members would have to pass security check points each week. I could go on. I notice they(the Obama’s) have attended on occasion. I also believe that God is the judge of each person’s heart. He alone has the right or power to judge belief.

  416. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    February 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart”

    You are the one that stated that the death threats to Orly were a sign that someone wanted to stop her. You were the one who mentioned the supposed death threats here. Do I think Orly is a liar- yes because she has clearly lied in the past. But to the specific point- just because she says in her blog that she has received death threats does not mean that she has received them. She might be lieing, she might be delusional or she may just be mistaken.

    [SD] How telling that you don’t consider she might be telling the truth. See what I mean? It’s crucial to your case to keep her cast as a liar, along with McRae, Shuhubia, Polarik, Lines, etc. So far the lie is winning because liars keep the truth from exposure.

    In any case, there is no reason for me to accept her word for it. You won’t even accept the word of the Hawaiian state officials, why should I accept the word of Ortly Taitz?

    [SD] Hint: Hawaii, like the MSM and AG Holder, is in the Usuper’s hip pocket. But things are happening at the HDOH that could prove interesting. Stay tuned.

    “Do you think just declaring yourself to be anything make you that? I’m not so sure that he attends church. If he does, not much is said about it. If he does, do you know which one?”

    Its funny you should mention that. Many Christians are all to ready to brand someone else not a real Christian’- and that usually means they don’t believe in exactly the very narrow point of view they do.

    What does that leave us with? I watched in Baptist Church one time where a 6 year announced he was born again, and was welcomed into the church. So these folks were willing to accept a 6 year old’s statement at face value- but you aren’t willing to accept the President’s statement of faith?

    [SD] What I say or think isn’t important. Does his life and words support his claim of being a Christian, that is, a born again believer in Jesus Christ? I know one thing; The scriptures say that Christians are supposed to know that there sins are washed away. Obama has said he wasn’t sure. Does that mean he isn’t a Christian? You can make you own call, but it does means that he doesn’t know, or has forgotten, what the scriptures teach about that.

    You really don’t do any original research of your own do you?

    Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

    [SD] OK, thanks for sharing that. But does he attend a church in DC when he’s in town?

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html#ixzz0grm0WK9G

    this took me 3 seconds to find.

    [SD] I’m impressed:)

    Prior to that he was a member of Trinity Church in Chicago- which was well publicized

    [SD] Yes, I knew that.

    Or do you have some special litmus test that Christians must pass in order to be real’ Christians?

    [SD] Isn’t a Christian the same as a “real” Christian. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

    And-horrors- what if he were Jewish?

    [SD] The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president, but his kingdom was not of this world. Imagine being without deceit, corruption, falsehood, greed, etc.

  417. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 8:49 pm #

    Slamdunk: Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    Orly Taitz is an attorney not a witness and has no first-hand knowledge she could testify to. Therefore, her veracity is immaterial.

    Slamdunk: It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed

    First of all when you say “our case” you are not a palintiff, so it isn’t your case. Second there are no active cases; they’ve been dismissed with prejudice, which means they can’t be re-filed. As for “your case”, I am not a defendant, so it is not my case either.

    As far as McRae and “Shuhubia”, they have no first hand knowledge of where Obama was born, so it really doesn’t matter whether they are lying or telling the truth. Sarah Obama is the supposed “eyewitness” to the birth. It’s she that would have to testify. The tape stands by itself and neither McRae nor “Shuhubia” have anything useful to add. As far as what the Registrar supposedly told “Shuhubia”, it is immaterial. “Shuhubia” hasn’t seen the records. The actual records would have to be brought to court along with the Registrar to testify about how they are kept.

    As you admitted before, you don’t know the law. So one wonders why you continue to post and display your ignorance.

  418. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 8:51 pm #

    Slamdunk: The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president,

    He wasn’t born in the US to 2 citizen parents, was he?

  419. avatar
    bovril1 February 28, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    [SD] How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Last I checked, appearing in a court before a judge kinda demonstrates that a cases validity has been heard and judged on it merits (or lack thereof)

    [SD] It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed.

    Nooooooo, your ‘case’ is based on lies, fabrications, innuendo, supposition, forgery, suborned “witnesses”, frivolous lawsuits……you get the drift?

    I could continue but leave it as an exercise for the ignorant, stupid, malicious, purblind, prejudiced, hate mongering, oops, got locked in a thesaurus loop.

  420. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    Mary Brown says:
    February 28, 2010 at 8:45 pm (Quote)

    It is very difficult for any modern President to attend church regularly, given the security concerns.

    [SD] Perhaps the difficulty is lack of committment. Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority, assuming there isn’t a national crisis? I mean, security for him would be no different than for any other place he goes. If a President wants to go to church every Sunday, then security arrangements will be made. Clinton didn’t seem to have any difficulty attending church when he was in office.

    I attend church weekly and work at my church. It would be impossible for us to accomodate these concerns. You never know who will be in attendance on a weekly basis. Members would have to pass security check points each week. I could go on. I notice they(the Obama’s) have attended on occasion. I also believe that God is the judge of each person’s heart. He alone has the right or power to judge belief.

    [SD] Right.

  421. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 9:07 pm #

    Slamdunk: How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Uhhh, you read the complaint?

  422. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm #

    “The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president”

    Ben Gurion was born in Poland, and was a committed socialist. Sorry.

  423. avatar
    chufho February 28, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    self described

  424. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:17 pm #

    Scientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 8:51 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president,

    He wasn’t born in the US to 2 citizen parents, was he?

    [SD] Well, his parents were both Jewish, and it’s his qualifications that are notable. I think if all public servants fit the Biblical definition for public service, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in (Exo. 18:21) Check it out.

  425. avatar
    nbC February 28, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    I doubt that SD actually reads, he just cut and paste his talking points, allowing others to make him look foolish.

  426. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:19 pm #

    misha says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm (Quote)

    “The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president”

    Ben Gurion was born in Poland, and was a committed socialist. Sorry.

    [SD] Jesus, silly ๐Ÿ™‚

  427. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:21 pm #

    nbC says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:19 pm (Quote)

    I doubt that SD actually reads, he just cut and paste his talking points, allowing others to make him look foolish.

    [SD] Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

  428. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:07 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Uhhh, you read the complaint?

    [SD] The idea is that the court will decide the merits. But first the evidence must be heard. Law 101.

  429. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 9:25 pm #

    Slamdunk: I would be the first to be critical of Bishop McRae, or Shuhubia, should it be found out that he has lied

    Well here is your opportunity.

    Long before anyone had suggested that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, the following appeared in the Chicago Tribune RedEye edition on March 27, 2007:

    Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband’s continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she “was so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S.”

    So Shuhubia, or whatever his name is, lied. Barack Obama was born in the US. Phil Berg was hoodwinked.

  430. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 9:30 pm #

    @Slamdunk: Hercules is the son of Zeus and a human woman. Jesus and Mary is based on Isis and her son Horus. And Jewish people consider worshiping a human to be idolatry and the cult of personality. Sorry.

    So my nominations are:
    1. Ben Gurion
    2. Theodore Herzl
    3. Moshe Dayan

  431. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    Slamdunk: But first the evidence must be heard. Law 101.

    The “evidence” has already been presented to the public, and found (to put it kindly) without merit.

  432. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    “Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?”

    Yes, in college sociology class. Along with Sinclair’s “The Jungle.”

    Alinsky was a Jewish Communist, right?

  433. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 9:33 pm #

    misha-You got something against Albert Einstein???

  434. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 9:34 pm #

    Slamdunk: Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

    I haven’t. What about you?

  435. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    “You got something against Albert Einstein???”

    He never answered the question about a car’s headlights projecting a beam, if travelling at the speed of light. (bada-bing)

  436. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Slamdunk: Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

    No, have you?

    I didn’t think so.

  437. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    Slamdunk: Well, his parents were both Jewish, and it’s his qualifications that are notable

    Now you have me confused. I thought the President had to be born in the US to 2 citizen parents. As far as I know Jesus was born in Judea of Jewish parents living under Roman rule. If Mario knew, he’d have a fit.

  438. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:39 pm #

    cientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 8:49 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    Orly Taitz is an attorney not a witness and has no first-hand knowledge she could testify to. Therefore, her veracity is immaterial.

    [SD] So let’s make sure that whatever knowledge or evidence she has gets a fair hearing. Fair enough?

    Slamdunk: It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed

    First of all when you say “our case” you are not a palintiff, so it isn’t your case. Second there are no active cases; they’ve been dismissed with prejudice, which means they can’t be re-filed. As for “your case”, I am not a defendant, so it is not my case either.

    [SD] I think you missed my point.

    As far as McRae and “Shuhubia”, they have no first hand knowledge of where Obama was born,

    [sd] Their affidavits claim that Obama was born in Kenya based Grandma Sarah. A court would determine whether or not they are telling the truth.

    so it really doesn’t matter whether they are lying or telling the truth. Sarah Obama is the supposed “eyewitness” to the birth. It’s she that would have to testify. The tape stands by itself and neither McRae nor “Shuhubia” have anything useful to add. As far as what the Registrar supposedly told “Shuhubia”, it is immaterial. “Shuhubia” hasn’t seen the records. The actual records would have to be brought to court along with the Registrar to testify about how they are kept.

    [SD] Yes, of course. Things like that happen every day, everywhere. You make such unwarranted statements that overlook the purpose of testimonies, affidavits and courts. They will determine who is telling the truth and who isn’t. So let’s agree that at least one case should be heard on its merits.

    As you admitted before, you don’t know the law. So one wonders why you continue to post and display your ignorance.

    [SD] I am not required to know the law. But I do understand the basic principle and workings of a fair trial. That’s all birthers have ever asked, after first asking the president to release his 1961 LFBC.

  439. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 28, 2010 at 9:40 pm #

    misha says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm (Quote)

    “The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president”

    Ben Gurion was born in Poland, and was a committed socialist. Sorry.

    [SD] Jesus, silly ๐Ÿ™‚

    Jesus would be crucified by the Tea Party before his first term was out.

  440. avatar
    Slamdunk February 28, 2010 at 9:46 pm #

    Scientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:38 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Well, his parents were both Jewish, and it’s his qualifications that are notable

    Now you have me confused. I thought the President had to be born in the US to 2 citizen parents. As far as I know Jesus was born in Judea of Jewish parents living under Roman rule. If Mario knew, he’d have a fit.

    [SD] Scientist? Having you been sipping some sauce? I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

  441. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    Slamdunk: [sd] Their affidavits claim that Obama was born in Kenya based Grandma Sarah. A court would determine whether or not they are telling the truth.

    Why don’t you want to hear from Sarah Obama herself? Why is there no affidavit from HER? She’s is the one you believe was present at the actual event, or am I missing something?

  442. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    And don’t forget the Peoples’ Front of Judea, and the Judean Peoples’ Front.

  443. avatar
    Scientist February 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm #

    Slamdunk: I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

    So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?

  444. avatar
    misha February 28, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    “So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?”

    Birthers can’t make up their minds about what they want.

  445. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- February 28, 2010 at 10:44 pm #

    Well, its obvious what they don’t want.

  446. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 12:45 am #

    Really Slamdunk- you need to stop moving the goal posts. When I pointed out that there was more evidence that Obama was a god fearing man than there was that Shuhibia or whatever his real name is- you questioned whether the President even attended church.

    So I point out a new article exactly where President Obama does attend church and said where he attended church previously- and then you declare that attending church doesn’t even matter.

    “Does his life and words support his claim of being a Christian, that is, a born again believer in Jesus Christ?”

    Oh good I am glad we are narrowing this down. Apparently Catholics are not Christians, nor are Greek Orthodox or Presbyterians. Do you even know if Shuhibia- or whatever the good Christian’s name is- was born again?

    “The scriptures say that Christians are supposed to know that there sins are washed away. Obama has said he wasn’t sure. Does that mean he isn’t a Christian? ”

    First of all- do you have a real reference to that? Or are you just picking that up from a Birther blog? Secondly- if a person believes that Jesus Christ is his saviour but interpret the bible different than you do- does that make him not a Christian? If a Christian admits he struggles with his faith, does that make him not a Christian? It sure seems to me that this is a very slippery slope where only a very select few Christians meet your definition.

    And how do you know that Shahubia believes in the same way as you do? I mean I still find it incredible that you find this unknown person credible because you believe him a Christian- but don’t find the President credible even though there is evidence he is a Christian.

    Like I said before- your view of who a Christian is seems more motivated by whether that person is for or against the President rather than some actual definition

  447. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    “I think if all public servants fit the Biblical definition for public service, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in (Exo. 18:21) Check it out.”

    So you believe that the United States would best be served if all our public servents were God-Fearing men?

    Because Exodus is pretty clear about the gender part there. Just glad we can clarify that you don’t believe women are qualified to be public servents. That really explains why you don’t trust Janet in Hawaii.

  448. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 12:57 am #

    I was about to post some more about “what would Jesus do if he was President” when I realized that this road is one that will only result in religious conflagration.

    Lets just agree that whether or not Jesus would or would not be a good President is not relavant to whether President Obama was eligible when he was elected President.

  449. avatar
    Rickey March 1, 2010 at 12:58 am #

    Slamdunk says:

    The idea is that the court will decide the merits. But first the evidence must be heard. Law 101.

    No, Law 101 teaches that merely filing a lawsuit does not entitle an attorney to a trial. Among other things, the attorney has to establish that the plaintiff has standing, that the plaintiff has an actual injury which can be traced to the defendant, that the court in which the lawsuit was filed has jurisdiction, and that a claim has been stated for which the court can provide relief.

    Filing a lawsuit does not give an attorney license to conduct a fishing expedition.

    Besides, Orly has already floated all of her “evidence” in her various court filings, and the only thing she has been able to demonstrate is her own incompetence.

  450. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 1:14 am #

    “Perhaps the difficulty is lack of committment. Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority, assuming there isn’t a national crisis?”

    By that measurement, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were good Christian Presidents, while George Bush and Ronald Reagan, who rarely attended church in DC were not Christian Presidents?

    Just trying understand your thought process here.

  451. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 1:58 am #

    “I am not required to know the law. But I do understand the basic principle and workings of a fair trial.

    No you do not understand the basic principle of a fair trial. Requiring standing protects all of us from frivolous lawsuits. And the burden of proof is on the accusers, not the accused. And evidence must be credible- not third hand speculation or affidavits of hearsay.

    “That’s all birthers have ever asked, after first asking the president to release his 1961 LFBC.””

    No, thats not what birthers have asked for. Birthers have asked for a fishing expedition hoping to find some evidence. Thats not how our legal system works. You need to prove you have a case before you can have discovery. Birthers have no evidence but keep hoping that they can fish around long enough to find something that will embaress the President.

  452. avatar
    myson March 1, 2010 at 3:03 am #

    U mean SD actually thinks b4 writing ALL these rubbish !!!!
    “Thought process” u must not have slept well to assume there is one to understand !!!
    SFJ u need 2 sleep more

  453. avatar
    JoZeppy March 1, 2010 at 10:47 am #

    “[sd] Their affidavits claim that Obama was born in Kenya based Grandma Sarah. A court would determine whether or not they are telling the truth.”

    Actually, a court wouldn’t. It would rule the statements inadmissable as hearsay.

    “[SD] Yes, of course. Things like that happen every day, everywhere. You make such unwarranted statements that overlook the purpose of testimonies, affidavits and courts. They will determine who is telling the truth and who isn’t. So let’s agree that at least one case should be heard on its merits.”

    Court do not let people with no personal knowledge to testify in order to “determine who is telling the truth and who isn’t.” McRae and “Shuhubia” were not present when Obama was born, and even if Sara Obama told them she personally delivered President Obama, they could not testify to what she said, because that would be hearsay. There is nothing to hear on the merits, because there are no merits. They don’t have standing, therefor, there is no basis in the Constitution for the case to be heard.

    “[SD] I am not required to know the law. But I do understand the basic principle and workings of a fair trial. That’s all birthers have ever asked, after first asking the president to release his 1961 LFBC.”

    You may want to brush up on that “basic principle and workings of a fair trial.” They include things like standing, who has the burden of proof, and the rules of evidence.

  454. avatar
    nbC March 1, 2010 at 11:36 am #

    Fascinating how ill informed SD is about the legal system and how the courts function…

  455. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm #

    “Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities”

    One more comment- Jimmy Carter was considered one of the most ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ Presidents during his term. He is clearly the most open and consistant regarding his faith of any Presidents going back as far as I can remember- yet is generally considered to have done a fairly mediocre job as President, so I am not sure that ‘moral and ethical’ are the only qualities a President should have.

    President Nixon was neither moral or ethical yet achieved some serious good for the United States internationally before he almost destroyed the Presidency because of his lack of ethics.

  456. avatar
    nbC March 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    What makes a person a leader in one area does not necessarily translate to other areas. Although I believe Jesus would have made for a great liberal.

  457. avatar
    Scientist March 1, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    Putting religion aside, as a secular leader I’d have to take Mohammed over Jesus. He lived to die in bed in his 60s and conquered the entire Arabian peninsula. His successor conquered everything from Egypt to Persia with a decade or so of his death. Jesus remained unknown in his brief lifetime. It took well over a century for his followers to gain any influence at all and really until the Roman Emperor Constantine converted for Christianity to become a major force in the world.

  458. avatar
    Slamdunk March 1, 2010 at 4:26 pm #

    NBC says:
    March 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm (Quote)

    What makes a person a leader in one area does not necessarily translate to other areas. Although I believe Jesus would have made for a great liberal.

    [SD] Interesting. What is your definition of liberal?

  459. avatar
    Slamdunk March 1, 2010 at 4:39 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    March 1, 2010 at 1:14 am (Quote)

    “Perhaps the difficulty is lack of committment. Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority, assuming there isn’t a national crisis?”

    By that measurement, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were good Christian Presidents, while George Bush and Ronald Reagan, who rarely attended church in DC were not Christian Presidents?

    [SD] Carter has said that he is born again and Bush claimed the same thing. Not sure about Clinton. I believe Reagan was a strong Christian, even though he didn’t attend church as much as others.

    Just trying understand your thought process here.

    [SD] I think attending a church where the Bible is taught and preached is good for anyone. But not all churches do that.

    I have to question Bush’s faith. When asked if he thought the Bible was the Word of God, he said, “Probably not.” IMV, no Christian would ever say that. While Reagan didn’t attend church in DC, he believed the Bible is the word of God. Carter also. Clinton, I don’t know. Obama, it would seem not if Israeli Insider is right.

  460. avatar
    Slamdunk March 1, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    March 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm (Quote)

    “Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities”

    …so I am not sure that moral and ethical’ are the only qualities a President should have.

    [SD] Assuming that any candidate is capable, has intelligence and education, morality and ethics are icing on the cake. Taking it one step higher, I would say that fear of God is the cherry on top of the icing. Give me a man who fears God, is capable, moral and ethical and you have, IMV, the ideal president. The founders wrote much about the importance of virtue and religion in government and society.

    President Nixon was neither moral or ethical yet achieved some serious good for the United States internationally before he almost destroyed the Presidency because of his lack of ethics.

    [SD] Right. Had he feared God, he would have been far more ethical. The reason I inject fear of God is because someone who does that recognizes his or her accountability to him, as strongly as they do civil law. If you esteem God’s laws, you will respect and obey civil law.

  461. avatar
    Slamdunk March 1, 2010 at 5:02 pm #

    Scientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

    So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?

    [SD] I’m not, but it appears that the Democratic National Party ignored the constitution when they nominated a candidate who may be admirable, but who does not meet the definition of natural born citizen.

  462. avatar
    Slamdunk March 1, 2010 at 5:10 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    March 1, 2010 at 12:57 am (Quote)

    I was about to post some more about “what would Jesus do if he was President” when I realized that this road is one that will only result in religious conflagration.

    Lets just agree that whether or not Jesus would or would not be a good President is not relavant to whether President Obama was eligible when he was elected President.

    [SD] I just think that if presidents and politicians emulated his character, morality and ethics, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. King David was a great king until he stumbled badly in his morality.

    So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?

  463. avatar
    Scientist March 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm #

    Slamdunk: it appears that the Democratic National Party ignored the constitution when they nominated a candidate who may be admirable, but who does not meet the definition of natural born citizen.

    I know this will come as a surprize to you (SD:I don’t know the law), but the DNC has lawyers whose knowledge in this area surpasses that of the Dentist, the losing poker player and the ambulance chaser. But show us your legal bona fides and cite published law review articles or the writings of those who regularly teach and practice constitutional law to back up your position.

  464. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm #

    Slamdunk- you original response:
    “Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority,”

    When I point out that Bush and Reagan rarely attended church on Sundays, your response?

    “Bush claimed the same thing. Not sure about Clinton. I believe Reagan was a strong Christian, even though he didn’t attend church as much as others.”

    Would you stop moving your goalposts please?

    You say that a good Christian President would have as a priority attending Church every Sunday- yet you believe Reagan was a ‘strong Christian’ even though he only attended church a couple times a year.

    So how come you don’t use the same rules for President Obama as you did for President Reagan?

    Really- how hard is this? What exactly is your litmus test for what a ‘real’ Christian is? And are you willing to concede in advance that if President Obama meets those conditions you will stop waffling about whether or not President Obama is a ‘good’ Christian.

    And if you finally will accept Obama is a good Christian- and he has certainly worked with the poor- will you then concede that he should be considered at least as credible as the person who signed Shuhubia falsely as his name?

    “Obama, it would seem not if Israeli Insider is right.”

    See, I didn’t even go there. I don’t know who they are, but assume its a blog, which is not exactly a credible source in and of itself- do they cite a public reference to something that says otherwise?

    Because I don’t know how much more specific President Obama can be- here he is what he said when being interviewed by Christianity Today:

    “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn’t ‘fall out in church’ as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn’t want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

    I don’t know how much more clearly someone could declare his faith. I challenge to you to find a quote by Ronald Reagan that is so clear and unequivocal.

    Even more strongly- I challenge you- as the good Christian that you claim to be- are you really willing to accept Obama as your Christian brother?

  465. avatar
    Benji Franklin March 1, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Dear Slamdunk,

    You posted:”So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?”

    No, we can agree the founders leaned on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, only when they cited him for a particular idea. For example, his declaration that it’s okay for one nation to kidnap women from another nation, if women are in short supply in the first nation, doesn’t let me claim that, since the Framers “leaned heavily on Vattel’s Law of Nations”, I can smuggle a bound Mexican woman into this country with The Constitution’s blessing, “in order to form a more perfect Union”.

    Or were you thinking that the Framers were only “leaning heavily on Vattel’s Law of Nations” for the part where he wrote:

    Vattel’s Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 3
    Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of the Nation in this respect:

    “§32. It may reform the government.If any nation is dissatisfied with the public administration, it may apply the necessary remedies, and reform the government. But observe that I say “the nation”; for I am very far from meaning to authorise a few malcontents or incendiaries to give disturbance to their governors by exciting murmurs and seditions. None but the body of a nation have a right to check those at the helm when they abuse their power. ….. it is not the business of a small number of citizens to put the state in danger, under the pretence of reforming it.

    §36. It (the whole nation) is the judge of all disputes relating to the government.”if any disputes arise in a state respecting the fundamental laws, …(constitution) … it belongs to the nation alone to judge and determine them conformably to its political constitution.”

    Hmmmmm. I guess We the People DO FINALLY interpret what “Natural Born Citizen” means, WHEN WE VOTE! And, Slamdunk, if Vattel’s wisdom is magisterially applicable to the contemplation of the Constitutionality of Obama’s Presidency and your protestations about it, it sounds like Mario and Your Kind are what Vattel describes as enemies of We the People, as you are obviously one of a “few malcontents” determined to endanger the Nation! Can we at least agree on that?

    BenjiFranklin

  466. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    “Give me a man who fears God, is capable, moral and ethical and you have, IMV, the ideal president. The founders wrote much about the importance of virtue and religion in government and society”

    Adams of course was very devout, but Jefferson was not a “god fearing” man, nor much of a fan of religion. Does that mean that we should judge Jefferson to be less virtuous than Adams?

  467. avatar
    SFJeff March 1, 2010 at 6:08 pm #

    “Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?”

    Interesting point- can you make a list of people who believe that Vattel’s Law of Nation of Nations has anything to do with the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizens? You don’t have to list them all- maybe the top 10 or so.

    Better yet, find me 10 people who said- prior to 2008- that Vattel had anything to do with the definition of NBC.

    Becaues I can find lots more than 10 people on record defining NBC without any reference to Vattel.

    Was Vattel influential in matters of International law- I don’t know- I leave that to the experts- but I haven’t seen a credible source saying Vattel has anything to do with NBC.

  468. avatar
    nbc March 1, 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?

    The Founders, when discussing issues of International Law such as neutrality, relied on many sources, including Vattel.

    However there is no evidence that the Founders relied on Vattel for citizenship.

    So given your statement ‘heavily relied’, I believe one should reject your premise.

  469. avatar
    misha March 1, 2010 at 6:35 pm #

    What’s all this Mattel talk? I think toys are an important part of growing up, and here people are somehow saying that even as adults we should still be using Mattel. I left Mattel behind in the 12th grade. I mean, Obama’s children are still using Mattel, but I’m sure his parents aren’t.

    Miss Emily Latella

  470. avatar
    Rickey March 1, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?

    No, we can’t.

    As I have posted before, the Library of America’s two-volume, 2000+ pages “Debate on the Constitution” mentions Vattel ZERO times. Blackstone, on the other hand, is mentioned SIXTEEN times. This strongly suggests that the founders “leaned heavily” on Blackstone, and that they leaned on Vattel not at all.

    If the founders had felt that Vattel’s writings were significant and germane, wouldn’t you expect his name to come up at least once during the debates on the Constitution?

  471. avatar
    misha March 2, 2010 at 1:24 am #

    @Scientist: Jews were better off in the Ottoman Empire, than in Europe. They did not live in fear, like the Inquisition and pogroms.

    When Jews were expelled from Spain, they were welcomed in Constantinople. They arrived penniless. The Christians of Europe felt confiscating everything was their duty.

  472. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2010 at 8:03 am #

    Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical liberal, a matter of great embarrassment to the host of fundamentalists who are just the opposite.

    (Mat 5:39-42 NASB) “But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. {40} “And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. {41} “And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. {42} “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.:

  473. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2010 at 8:32 am #

    Not fascinating to me. It’s what is to be expected.

  474. avatar
    Rickey March 2, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    My favorite is Matthew 19:21:

    Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

    Possibly the most disregarded verse in the New Testament.

  475. avatar
    Slamdunk March 2, 2010 at 5:16 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2010 at 8:03 am (Quote)

    Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical liberal, a matter of great embarrassment to the host of fundamentalists who are just the opposite.

    [SD] What is your definition of liberal?

  476. avatar
    SFJeff March 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    From the OED:
    adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform

    As opposed to Conservative:
    adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas

    I am not sure whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative really is material to your doubts about President Obama’s eligibility.

    Please feel free to respond to our dialogue about why you accept Shuhubia’s word but not President Obama’s.

  477. avatar
    Slamdunk March 2, 2010 at 7:07 pm #

    SFJeff says:
    March 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm (Quote)

    From the OED:
    adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform

    As opposed to Conservative:
    adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas

    I am not sure whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative really is material to your doubts about President Obama’s eligibility.

    Please feel free to respond to our dialogue about why you accept Shuhubia’s word but not President Obama’s.

    1. Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.

    2. He goes to jail if the case is heard and he is found guilty of lying in his affidavit.

    3. He is in the ministry and calls himself a servant of God.

  478. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm #

    Slamdunk: Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.

    Since you don’t even know his name, how do you know nothing unethical has come up about his past?

  479. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2010 at 7:22 pm #

    I intend to pursue that thesis in another forum.

  480. avatar
    Slamdunk March 2, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    Scientist says:
    March 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: it appears that the Democratic National Party ignored the constitution when they nominated a candidate who may be admirable, but who does not meet the definition of natural born citizen.

    I know this will come as a surprize to you (SD:I don’t know the law), but the DNC has lawyers whose knowledge in this area surpasses that of the Dentist, the losing poker player and the ambulance chaser. But show us your legal bona fides and cite published law review articles or the writings of those who regularly teach and practice constitutional law to back up your position.

    [SD] This is not a matter of knowing the law, rather it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC and understanding that the Supreme Court has upheld Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. I guess you think we need a dozen over paid lawyers to settle this matter.

  481. avatar
    SFJeff March 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    “1. Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.”

    Neither has President Obama. You really have this wierd circular logic. The only suggestions about Obama having any kind of a unethical past have all been unsubstantiated rumors- the kinds of things I wouldn’t take seriously even if they were whispered about Cheney or Limbaugh. The rumors are all circulated by people who are against President Obama. President Obama has never been shown to have been arrested, sanctioned, cited or having done any ‘unethical’ behaviour.

    “2. He goes to jail if the case is heard and he is found guilty of lying in his affidavit.”

    No he doesn’t. I don’t know why you have such faith in the power of an affidavit. First of all- you have already accepted that he has lied on the affidavit- he swore that this was his name and that all the facts were true- so he lied about his name. Secondly- we wouldn’t even know who to arrest. Third- and you keep seeming to dance around this- he- if he exists- is in Kenya and beyond the reach of our justice system.

    Meanwhile, since you put such faith in people making sworn statements, President Obama swore that he was eligible to be President.

    “3. He is in the ministry and calls himself a servant of God.”

    So you assume that a minister is more honest just because he is a minister- even though you really don’t know he is a minister, and even though he lied about his name?

    Lets talk some more about Shuhubia’s affidavit- in it he states:

    “But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

    But the complete tape clearly shows that Grandma Obama did change her reply. So isn’t that clear evidence that Shuhubia is indeed lieing?

    By the way I want to leave you with these words of Bishop McCrae- I assume you feel the same way?

    “Christianity throughout the United States and even the world is a religion of shallow beliefs encompassed into a reactionary mind set way of thinking, that has no more to do with Biblical doctrine or the very Life of Jesus Christ, than does darkness have to do with Light (2 Corinthians 4:6/ 6:14). Christianity today in its most accepted denominations is nothing more than the illegitimate bastard daughters of that infamous “mother of harlots” (Revelation 17:5) which sits upon the seven hills of Vatican City (17:9). And whether that daughter of whoredom be reformed, orthodox or fundamental, Lutheran or Protestant, Anglican or Methodist, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, Southern Baptists or Independent Baptists, Calvinists or Armenian, Mennonite or Amish, Satan hath corrupted all their minds (2 Corinthians 11:3) into thinking that they can be baptized into Jesus Christ, without being baptized into his death (Romans 6:3). Since the very first beating of Christian ministers in Acts 5:40, there has been a manifest flight from the sufferings of Christ by every major leader of Christianity that has loved a positional relationship with Christ rather than a devotional one.”

    Or these:
    “We need no ruling of Court howsoever high, to clearly see and know that the present government of these United States murdered its own people in mass at New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001.”

    This is the minister that you are putting your faith in- one who believes all mainstream Christians are going to hell and that the United States government destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11.

  482. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- March 3, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    Confirmation Bias Gone Wild!

  483. avatar
    SFJeff March 3, 2010 at 1:37 am #

    The more I read about “Bishop” McRae, the more I wonder whether any of these people who give him such credibility have really read his website.

    He not only believes that President Obama is not legitimate but believes that Bush and Cheney plotted 9/11, and that pretty much every Christian who isn’t a Anabaptist is going to hell. Don’t get him started about Catholics or Mormons.

    There is no indication of how he was appointed ‘Bishop’ but I suspect he founded his church and appointed himself. There appears to be a ‘mainstream’ Anabaptist church- and then his. There is no indication of whether he has 1 member or 100 members of his church. Oh and his websites has some sections for members only.

    Let me put this another way- we know more about President Obama’s background than we do Ron McCrae’s. Other than his website and articles related to the Grannie interview I only found a couple of references to him on the web- one him protesting the Pennsylvania 9/11 site- the symbol was too muslim for him, and another mentioning that he was known for picketing Catholic and Mormon events.

  484. avatar
    Saint James March 3, 2010 at 2:46 am #

    If you listened to his phone conversation with Obama’s grandmother, did you feel as if this so called “bishop” was trying to set up that old woman to give him the answer that he wanted to hear? I felt that way! This person is yet another one of those self proclaimed holy man like manning.

  485. avatar
    misha March 3, 2010 at 3:08 am #

    I felt the same way when I talked with my former mother-in-law.

  486. avatar
    Slamdunk March 3, 2010 at 7:38 am #

    SFJeff says:
    March 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm (Quote)

    I am not sure whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative really is material to your doubts about President Obama’s eligibility.

    Please feel free to respond to our dialogue about why you accept Shuhubia’s word but not President Obama’s.

    [SD] Nothing has come up in Shuhubia’s past that suggests he is dishonest, he goes to jail if he is guilty of lying in his affidavit and he is a minister. These things speak well of his integrity.

    I don’t believe Obama because he is hiding his past life. He is not the transparent president that he claimed he would be. He promised open debates on Cspan and only had them because the pressure was put on him. He didn’t keep his word.

    It’s hard to believe him when he says he was born in the Kapi’olani hospital and then no one in Hawaii or his administration will affirm it.

    It’s hard to believe him about capitalism and the American way of life when he appoints tax cheats to his cabinet and communist and socialist czars. One of his czars is founder of GLSEN which loves to teach kiddies that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle.

    It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution and the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It’s hard to believe him when he isn’t sure that he’s a Christian. It’s hard to believe him when he demonstrates A preference of Islam over Christianity. (see Israeli Insider). The National Day of Prayer is a day to encourage people to pray or meditate about God. One of the speakers at the breakfast was an agnostic.

    These are reasons why I believe Shuhubia over Obama.

  487. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2010 at 8:06 am #

    Slamdunk: It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution and the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It’s hard to believe him when he isn’t sure that he’s a Christian.

    Many Christians believe that the best way to reduce abortion is to remove the barriers to birth control, and to support potential mothers through training and health care. I daresay MOST Christians to not believe the Bible is a literal account of creation, but believe that evolution happened. You can hardly fault Obama for not being a fundamentalist. And when did you ever hear Obama say the Bible was not the inspired word of God?

    You seem to be writing largely based on uninformed prejudice. (As is this hasn’t been obvious from the start.)

  488. avatar
    Slamdunk March 3, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2010 at 8:03 am (Quote)

    Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical liberal, a matter of great embarrassment to the host of fundamentalists who are just the opposite.

    [SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?

    What is the definition of liberal?

  489. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 3, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    Slamdunk: it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC

    To call Obama “non-transparent” based on the long-form birth certificate that has nothing interesting on it not already disclosed, and ignore his autobiography which is remarkably candid, is nothing more than prejudiced nonsense.

  490. avatar
    G March 3, 2010 at 9:48 am #

    Slamdunk: March 3
    [SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?

    Well SD, folks can argue passages all they want about sex before marriage, abortion and homosexuality, but the bible is pretty silent about “wet T-shirt contests” and “gun control”. LOL!

    Obviously these are some of the many, many, many issues that get your little panties twisted in a bunch, so I’ve got a simple solution for you – AND IT REALLY IS THIS SIMPLE:

    If you have such a personal problem with these things then you yourself should:

    a) not have pre-martial sex
    b) stop participating and/or attending wet t-shirt contests
    c) you must be some sort of self-loathing gay person, otherwise, why would you even care about homosexuality, as it would have no real impact on your life otherwise. Seek counseling if you can’t deal with your own sexuality.
    d) don’t have an abortion or involve yourself in one.
    e) obtain, maintain and utilize whatever guns you have, in full accordance with the law.

    Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

  491. avatar
    G March 3, 2010 at 9:56 am #

    Slamdunk: [SD] This is not a matter of knowing the law, rather it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC and understanding that the Supreme Court has upheld Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. I guess you think we need a dozen over paid lawyers to settle this matter.

    Yes, it is a simple matter of having some basic understanding of the law. Any grade school kid can figure out that the Constitution says nothing about “long form BCs” or “transparency” and could easily look at the facts objectively and realize that no other president in history had to provide any sort of BC ever.

    So, no, you don’t need a bunch of overpaid lawyers. And since no one was making any Vattel claims on the NBC clause in the Constitution prior to 2 years ago and the only ones who are now are a small band of prejudiced hack-laywers with no actual Constitutional Law background… (not to mention that not a single real Constitutional Laywer seems to ever make those claims or agree with your birther laywer idiots and won’t touch the birther cases with a ten foot pole)…well gee, looks like any sane person could easily come up to the conclusion that your birther laywers are nothing but a bunch of hack kooks trying to make stuff up and that people like you are nothing but gullible fools eagerly looking to buy into any BS to justify the petty hatred and fears of your own little dark heart.

  492. avatar
    G March 3, 2010 at 10:29 am #

    I agree completely with you on this Dr. C.

    Also, I find it interesting that SD stated: “The National Day of Prayer is a day to encourage people to pray or meditate about God. One of the speakers at the breakfast was an agnostic.”

    It seems that SD is nothing but a narrow-minded fundamentalist zealot, who in the same breath that he keeps trying to claim he’s all-about-the-Constitution, wants to wipe his *ss on that document in regards to what that document says right at the *very* beginning of the *very first* amendment in the bill of rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    If SD can’t even get that far in the document and get that right, why does SD think he/she has any credibility whatsoever at all in regards to anything else SD says, particularly about the Constitution or otherwise? Just completely laughable!

    Try actually reading the Constitution, SD instead of just shooting your mouth off. There IS no set religion of the US, PER that very document, you zealot fool!

    Therefore, a “National Day of Prayer” can have and respect any and every faith or perspective out there that it wants and there is nothing wrong with that. Lots of different religions pray, you idiot, not just whatever close-minded tiny little corner of Christianity that you claim title to.

    Lots of folks who only consider themselves more generalist or just simply “spiritual” int their beliefs (i.e. those that have some sort of faith but don’t feel they need to confine themselves to any particular church) pray too.

    And obviously, SD doesn’t even seem to understand a simple term such as “agnostic”, which simply means someone who has doubts in their belief. Agnostics could have come from any faith out there and they can still pray too.

    If SD can’t even comprehend simple concepts or words like agnostic, then how can we take SD seriously about any of the tripe SD mumbles in regards to Vattel, etc, which obviously would require a much better language and reading comprehension ability than looking up the simple definition of a *common* 8-letter word that has been around for ages under the exact same definition and which most children and adults should know what it means offhand? I mean, really, how can we infer anything other than the fact that SD is nothing but a simpleton idiot, but this example alone?

    Finally, back to SD’s quote,where this whole thread of conversation has diverted to lately and the 1st Amendment, which again, expressly and clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

    So let’s be serious here. There is NO need nor requirement to even have a “National Day of Prayer” and some would even say that Constitutionally, even having such is wrong. So to hold up such an event or a politician’s personal religious views or attendance as some sort of “litmus test” for qualifying or evaluating that person’s ability to hold that office is *wrong*, *wrong*, *wrong*!

    Of everything that has been discussed on here, that is also probably the ONLY thing that can actually be declared as Unconstitutional.

    Once you get past that nonsense, SD’s post from which I’ve quoted is nothing but petty whines that this or that campaign promise by Obama hasn’t been fulfilled 100% so far.

    To which I say, gee… what politician ever has or can ever live up to that standard? No president or politician in the past, that’s for sure. So to make these petty attacks as somehow the current president is beneath the “moral character” of a President or whatever is simply disingenuous and creates a false standard that no other President in history ever met or lived up to either.

    One can fairly be disappointed by such things, of course. That is purely rational and a legitimate matter of opinion. Taking it beyond that is just hot-air hyperbole from sour grapes losers that didn’t get the candidate that they voted for.

  493. avatar
    SFJeff March 3, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Slam- I am going to respond in a 2 parter because there are two points I wish to address. First is Shuhubia. Lets take each of your statements about Shuhubia and examine them:

    “Nothing has come up in Shuhubia’s past that suggests he is dishonest”

    Actually, yes there is. He used a false name on the affidavit- which is a lie:
    “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord. ~Proverbs 12:22”. You said that he lied because he feared for his safety, but I don’t remember the Bible saying “Lying is bad, unless you are scared”. So already know that this person- whoever he is- is willing to lie for his own safety.

    “he goes to jail if he is guilty of lying in his affidavit”

    I have pointed out twice already that this is not true. Who would go to jail? We don’t even know his name. And since this person is supposedly in Africa(we don’t even know if he is Kenyan), he does not fall under the U.S. legal system. The person who signed that affidavit, if truly an African Minister is under no risk of going to jail for lying.

    “and he is a minister.”

    First of all- how do you know he is a minister? You only have his word for this, and you don’t know who he is.

    Secondly- you say he is a minister and therefore he should be given greater credence. Have you read Ron McCrae’s Anabaptist position? Shuhubia’s church was set up by McCrae, so he subscribes to the same principles. Do you agree the Anabaptist creed?

    Do you agree that a Christian should turn away from Television, radio and theater? Turn away from fictitious writings? Condemn the Christmas and Easter holidays?

    Do you believe that a good Christian mut wear the proper apparel? That women must wear loose fitting dresses down to their feet and must not plait their hair.

    Do you believe that anyone who calls themselves a Christian who doesn’t follow the Anabaptist creed is going to hell?

    Do you believe that the U.S. government plotted to have the planes hit the Twin Towers?

    These are the beliefs of the unknown person that you put such great faith in- a person who lies about his name, and believes in such a narrow interpretation of Christianity that it excludes everyone but a few hundred followers.

    “These things speak well of his integrity”

    No- they don’t.

  494. avatar
    SFJeff March 3, 2010 at 1:03 pm #

    “I don’t believe Obama because he is hiding his past life.”

    As I have said before- and you dance around- we know more about President Obama’s past life than we do any previous President.

    “He is not the transparent president that he claimed he would be. He promised open debates on Cspan and only had them because the pressure was put on him. He didn’t keep his word.”

    Do I wish President Obama had been more transparent in his government? Yes. Does this shock me? No. Do I feel like he hasn’t kept his word? In this matter I do feel disappointed, but there is a difference about not fulfilling he stated goals and say lieing about something as fundamental as his name such as Shuhubia did. President Obama hasn’t shut down Guantanomo yet either, but I suspect you aren’t as upset by the omission. Politicians sometimes lie- Bush did, Clinton did, Reagan did. I try to hold Obama to the same standard as our other Presidents.

    “It’s hard to believe him when he says he was born in the Kapi’olani hospital and then no one in Hawaii or his administration will affirm it.”

    Why do you care? No one in Hawaii can affirm it, and no one in his administration would know- unless you think they were there when he was born. This is such a silly argument- we have seen his certfied BC copy, Janet Okubo has verified he was born in Hawaii, there are birth announcments in Hawaii from when he was born- that is more proof than we have for any previous president.

    “It’s hard to believe him about capitalism and the American way of life when he appoints tax cheats to his cabinet and communist and socialist czars.”

    Is it illegal to be a communist or socialist in the United States? When President Obama appoints 100 hard core capitalists and one former communist does that show a lack of commitment to capitalism? I think its fine that you have a political objection to his appointments. But I think it says nothing about his ‘honesty’

    “It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution
    If you chose to exclude as who you believe is a Christian anyone who is willing to allow a woman to decide on whether to have an abortion or not or anyone who believes in the scientific consensus about evolution, that is your right.

    “…and the Bible as the inspired Word of God…It’s hard to believe him when he isn’t sure that he’s a Christian.”

    You really must just read what you want to believe. I posted a very complete declaration by Obama regarding his Christian faith. You can chose not to believe his words, but I don’t know how you can honestly write that he is not sure he is a Christian when he flat out says “I am a devout Christian”

    “It’s hard to believe him when he demonstrates A preference of Islam over Christianity. (see Israeli Insider).”

    I haven’t seen such a preference and not about to go muck about some blog to see why they think he is. Regardless- he goes to church- not a mosque, no matter how much people want to paint him as a muslim.

    “The National Day of Prayer is a day to encourage people to pray or meditate about God. One of the speakers at the breakfast was an agnostic”

    Oh that certainly is proof that President Obama is not a Christian- he let an agnostic speak at an interfaith event.

  495. avatar
    SFJeff March 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm #

    “SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?”

    Well I am fairly certain Jesus wouldn’t approve of wet T-Shirt contests- on matters of modesty as I recall he tended towards the old Testament. Same thing about sex before marriage- Jesus is pretty clear about his views on adultery.

    Oddly enough, there is not a single quote from Jesus condemning homosexuality or abortion. You would think that being such hot topics for Conservatives that Jesus would have spent a lot of time in the New Testament warning against those big issues. He also was strangely quiet about gun control.

    Now Jesus was pretty clear about Divorce(wrong), remarriage after divorce(adultery), acquiring wealth(it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”- and he was pretty clear about how enemies should be treated- “But I say to you, love your enemies! pray for those who persecute you”.

    And of course this:
    “โ€˜You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: โ€˜Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)”

    Do you really love the homosexual as yourself when you don’t think they should be treated as you would have yourself treated?

    I find that Christians tend to cherry pick what they find is important in the New Testament. Why are conservatives so concerned about homosexuality when Jesus so clearly condemns divorce and the rich?

    Just a pet peeve of mine. We don’t see conservatives picketing outside of divorce courts or the homes of the wealthy- how come?

  496. avatar
    Rickey March 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Nothing has come up in Shuhubia’s past that suggests he is dishonest, he goes to jail if he is guilty of lying in his affidavit and he is a minister. These things speak well of his integrity.

    Are you serious? You don’t even know his real name, so how could you know anything about his past?

    One of his czars is founder of GLSEN which loves to teach kiddies that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle.

    One of the saddest things about you birthers is that you never have an original thought and never do any of your own research. Kevin Jennings is not a “czar.” He is an Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education and heads the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. He is in charge of developing policies to keep schools safe and free of drugs. Do you have a problem with that? And what do you know about GLSEN, other than what you have heard from Michelle Malkin? In fact, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is an American organization comprising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and allied individuals who wish to put an end to discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay,_Lesbian_and_Straight_Education_Network

    Are you in favor of discrimination, harassment, and bullying in schools?

    It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution and the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

    Funny thing – I don’t recall Christ ever saying anything about abortion or evolution. Are you sure we are talking about the same Bible?

    And this is from Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope”:

    When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations.

    Of course, Obama’s view of the Bible has nothing at all to do with his eligibility to be president. Perhaps you have heard of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution?

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

  497. avatar
    G March 3, 2010 at 3:05 pm #

    Rickey:
    Of course, Obama’s view of the Bible has nothing at all to do with his eligibility to be president. Perhaps you have heard of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution?The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    I agree with you completely Rickey. The only thing that is apparently and painfully obvious is that SD has no understanding or respect for the Constitution that SD always claims to be what he/she is “really” fighting for here.

    SD gets it wrong so much on even basic principals of that document that I seriously question whether SD has ever read it at all.

    Just about everything SD seems to say or do is at best, a contraction of the Constitution and more likely a total disrespect and affront to said document. It is as if SD likes to figuratively wipe their *ss with the Constitution at every opportunity. SD’s utter disrespect for the document is quite offensive to any of us who do care about this country and respect for its laws.

  498. avatar
    Rickey March 3, 2010 at 4:44 pm #

    Precisely. That’s why the birthers keep bringing up “issues” su