Main Menu

Editorial support for Abercrombie grows

More newspapers are taking up the cause of Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie, and lauding his efforts to do what can be done to shut the birthers up. The latest is the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Seattle Times in its recent editorial, Hurrah for Hawaii governor’s anti-birther crusade.

I particularly appreciated the closing remark:

A wise man once said that a lie harms three: the speaker, the spoken of and the listener. This lie harms more than that. It demeans our country because it is aimed at undercutting with falsehoods the person we elected to be our leader.

98 Responses to Editorial support for Abercrombie grows

  1. avatar
    TomC January 1, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    your poll is irrelevant due to the fact that Orly, like Obama, is ineligible. Neither are natural born citizens, therefore cannot be president according to the Constitution.

  2. avatar
    Rickey January 1, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    The last time I looked, Obama is the president, and he has been for nearly two years. Get used to it.

  3. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    TomC: your poll is irrelevant due to the fact that Orly, like Obama, is ineligible.Neither are natural born citizens, therefore cannot be president according to the Constitution.

    I’m not really sure that the Constitution says Orly Taitz cannot run for president. She cannot BE president, but why can’t she RUN? Actually, I think it makes huge good sense from Orly Taitz’s position to run for president; it is a win, win for her.

    1. If she is denied a position on the California ballot by Secretary Bowen, she can scream “foul” claiming favoritism by Bowen for Obama over her.

    2. If she is left on the California ballot, she can cry “foul” pointing out that the eligibility screen by the states is a charade.

  4. avatar
    TomC January 1, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    If we had people doing their job of vetting candidates then Taitz and Obama would not make the ballot. Your suggestion sounds like a fun game but there are no winners; surely, not the voters.

    I prefer sticking with realities. Eligible candidates whom voters can be assured are eligible.

    But, I must admit the thought your scenario is intriguing.

    And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you. But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.” In fact, I guess, it only strengthen the idea, since he could not be a usurper unless elected! “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    TomC: If we had people doing their job of vetting candidates then Taitz and Obama would not make the ballot.

    Why in heaven’s name would Obama not make the ballot? You’re not talking sense.

  6. avatar
    Martin Kraus January 1, 2011 at 10:53 pm #

    Sorry. There is no such thing as an elected “usurper”. Go to the dictionary please.

    Why this obsession with “Vetting” candidates before they can get in front of the voters? It just takes the choice away from the people when you make it impossible to get on to the ballot.

    Let a bunch of candidates run. Then let the voters decide who is best.

  7. avatar
    G January 1, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    TomC: And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you. But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.” In fact, I guess, it only strengthen the idea, since he could not be a usurper unless elected! “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

    Yeah, sounds like the only one fooled is tools like you. What a joke!

    And learn to use English. Elected ursurper? Really? Well that’s a fictional oxymoron. You sound like just a moron when you say such contradictory nonsense like that. Why don’t you look up the definition of usurper and see how your sentence is backwards.

    It should read, one who is elected cannot be an usurper.

    There, fixed for you. Now go off and play with your tinfoil.

  8. avatar
    TomC January 1, 2011 at 11:13 pm #

    Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen. He is at best a citizen.

    Martin Kraus, my statement was not a legal definition but a statement of today’s situation. Obsession with “Vetting?” I guess it is silly of me to want qualified candidates on the ballot to vote for. “It just takes the choice away from the people when you make it impossible to get on the ballot,” is exactly my point…just because the people are duped into voting for someone does not qualify them, nor does an election trump the qualifications of the Constitution. An election is not just based on who is best but who qualified (eligible). There is a process to change the Constitution if you don’t like it but you cannot just ignore it. Before you say it, I will agree that there are many who may be best candidate but cannot qualify. Under the Constitution there are places for them to serve their country and if need be at some point the Constitution can be amended (although, at this point, I am not in favor of that).

  9. avatar
    nbc January 1, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    TomC: Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen. He is at best a citizen.

    Since he was not naturalized, he is at best a natural born citizen. Jus soli, everyone knows this.

  10. avatar
    nbc January 1, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    TomC: And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you. But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.” In fact, I guess, it only strengthen the idea, since he could not be a usurper unless elected!

    Actually, the term usurper refers to someone who lacks the color of title to the office. Obama clearly has the color of title, even if found ineligible at a later time.

    Just to get the facts straight.

  11. avatar
    G January 1, 2011 at 11:29 pm #

    TomC: Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen. He is at best a citizen.

    Only in your own pathetic mind. Too bad no serious person, nor court nor government official agrees with you.

    Hate to tell ya but Honolulu, HI is part of the US and all actual evidence has already told us he was born there.

    Therefore, he’s NBC and why he’s been serving as US president for over two years now without any problems in government or the world recognizing him as such.

    Go back to your make believe pretend world where you think someone else is president. Obviously, you have difficulty dealing with reality.

  12. avatar
    Stanislaw January 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm #

    TomC: If we had people doing their job of vetting candidates then Taitz and Obama would not make the ballot.Your suggestion sounds like a fun game but there are no winners; surely, not the voters.I prefer sticking with realities.Eligible candidates whom voters can be assured are eligible.But, I must admit the thought your scenario is intriguing.And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you.But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.”In fact, I guess, it only strengthen the idea, since he could not be a usurper unless elected!“You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

    If you really believe that someone legitimately elected is a “usurper,” I’d say that you’re the type of person that’s fooled all the time. Not only does what you said make absolutely no sense, it’s completely contradictory.

  13. avatar
    Stanislaw January 1, 2011 at 11:39 pm #

    Martin Kraus: Sorry.There is no such thing as an elected “usurper”.Go to the dictionary please.Why this obsession with “Vetting” candidates before they can get in front of the voters?It just takes the choice away from the people when you make it impossible to get on to the ballot.Let a bunch of candidates run.Then let the voters decide who is best.

    I get the feeling that among the birthers “vetting” means “keeping Black guys out of the White House.”

  14. avatar
    TomC January 1, 2011 at 11:44 pm #

    nbc; just because he is not a naturalized citizen makes him a natural born citizen is not correct. Those are just two citizenship categories. What about “citizen,” born to at least one citizen parent on U.S. soil (Hawaii)? Natural born citizen is a birthright citizenship; one who is born of two U. S. citizen parents on U. S. soil.

    Also, thanks for the heads up on definition. I’m speaking of situational facts that I see happening and I see a person who is exercising authority unconstitutionally (not qualified under Article 2, Section 1. And I’m sorry if these do not lend to the correct definitions, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned natural born citizen who loves his country and the constitution. That is why I think we can have a civil discussion with out the gutter name calling, please.

  15. avatar
    nbc January 1, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    TomC: Those are just two citizenship categories. What about “citizen,” born to at least one citizen parent on U.S. soil (Hawaii)? Natural born citizen is a birthright citizenship; one who is born of two U. S. citizen parents on U. S. soil.

    Citizenship does not depend on one’s parents. Natural born is simply: Born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents. This was established in such cases as US v Wong Kim Ark and more recently reaffirmed by the Court in Ankeny v Daniels. The court explicitly addressed the two citizen parent argument and rejected it based on the Supreme Court precedent US v Wong Kim Ark.

  16. avatar
    nbc January 1, 2011 at 11:49 pm #

    Ankeny v Daniels

    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 [] natural-born citizens.”15

  17. avatar
    nbc January 1, 2011 at 11:58 pm #

    Tom: I’m speaking of situational facts that I see happening and I see a person who is exercising authority unconstitutionally (not qualified under Article 2, Section 1. And I’m sorry if these do not lend to the correct definitions, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned natural born citizen who loves his country and the constitution.

    As I pointed out, one can love its country and the Constitution and still be wrong about its meaning. As I have shown, your understanding of citizenship is somewhat affected by myths and flawed understandings which Dr C and others, such as myself at nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com have since long debunked.

    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with some of the facts? For the love of our Country perhaps?

  18. avatar
    Stanislaw January 2, 2011 at 12:02 am #

    TomC: nbc; just because he is not a naturalized citizen makes him a natural born citizen is not correct.Those are just two citizenship categories.What about “citizen,” born to at least one citizen parent on U.S. soil (Hawaii)?Natural born citizen is a birthright citizenship; one who is born of two U. S. citizen parents on U. S. soil.Also, thanks for the heads up on definition.I’m speaking of situational facts that I see happening and I see a person who is exercising authority unconstitutionally (not qualified under Article 2, Section 1.And I’m sorry if these do not lend to the correct definitions, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned natural born citizen who loves his country and the constitution.That is why I think we can have a civil discussion with out the gutter name calling, please.

    So you admit that you’re not a lawyer…that may explain why you have absolutely no knowledge of the history of common law and it’s influence on American law. If you knew even the first thing about American law you’d know that Swiss philosophy has no place in our nation’s legal tradition. You’d also know that there is no Supreme Court case, Court of Appeals case, federal statute or federal regulation that states that a natural-born citizen can only be one who is born to two citizen parents on the soil of the country he purports to be a citizen of.

    Not being a lawyer is no excuse for making up your own laws as you go along, it’s no excuse for gross ignorance, and it’s no excuse for lying to people that know more than you. If you don’t want people to engage in gutter name calling then don’t say things that lead them to call you names.

  19. avatar
    TomC January 2, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    G; how do you know no court agrees with me, not one of them has issued a statement or finding on the merits? Where in my discussion did I say Obama was not born in Hawaii? If you want to challenge my “pathetic mind” please don’t question things I did not say. Just because he was born in Hawaii does not make him natural born, it makes him a citizen to one citizen parent, his other parent was not a citizen. I know who is president, I just don’t agree what he is eligible under the constitution and he will serve until the end of his term or until removed. That is reality and I do not have trouble dealing with it, that is appearently your problem because you won’t face facts! Please, also, let’s dispense with the childish name calling and converse like adults!

    Stanislaw: I am not the one being fooled. I also am not looking up everything I say in the dictionary or law book to see if correct in terminology. I am stating what I see happening and if you want you can set me straight on the correct terminoly for someone who is in the office of president who does not qualify under the constitution. He has been elected, he is not qualified and he knew it and still does is why he won’t release any of his records, not only his BC. So, appearently you are more versed in terminology but I am just an American, natural born citizen, speaking his mind.

    Now, to your ignorant statement “I get the feeling that among the birthers ‘vetting’ means “keeping Black guys out of the White House.” Please point to one thing that I have said that indicates that is my intent. In fact I was just discussing with my wife yesterday that I hope LTC Allen West (a Black guy) runs for president in 2012, for he is the best candidate I see at this point. Yes, I would support and vote for him.

    So, if you want to make this racial please count me out of that type ignorant discussions!

  20. avatar
    nbc January 2, 2011 at 12:23 am #

    TomC: G; how do you know no court agrees with me, not one of them has issued a statement or finding on the merits?

    Because we have various court rulings which have defined the meaning of natural born. And in fact, as I pointed out the Court in Ankeny v Daniels issued a finding on the merits of the two citizen parent, which they rejected based on US v Wong Kim Ark, a US Supreme Court ruling.

    As I said, inform yourself.

  21. avatar
    Stanislaw January 2, 2011 at 12:24 am #

    Stanislaw: I am not the one being fooled. I also am not looking up everything I say in the dictionary or law book to see if correct in terminology.

    Well, maybe you should be looking things up; your ignorance is embarrassing. This isn’t about terminology, this is about “reality” versus “birtherism.” In reality, Barack Obama is the duly elected President of the United States, and he is as eligible as George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and every other President that came before him. The fact that your ignorance of law leads you disagree with his eligibility is irrelevant. Birthers have the right to believe whatever makes them happy but those beliefs will never trump reality.

    And I hate to break it to you, but birtherism is driven by a heaping helping of racism, ignorance, and delusion. As for which one of those is the strongest I have no idea, but I do find it extremely convenient that the birther movement didn’t rear its head until the skinny guy with the funny name came into the picture.

  22. avatar
    nbc January 2, 2011 at 12:28 am #

    Tom, you may be just speaking your mind but you are repeating much of the myths and flawed arguments which people have long since rebutted.

    It starts with a confusion about the meaning of citizen and natural-born citizen. People referred to Marshall to argue that there must be a difference, and of course there is. The former includes natural-born and naturalized while natural-born refers to the citizenship acquired by birth on soil regardless of the citizenship of the parents

    There are only two kinds of citizens, or perhaps a third kind citizen but not 14th amendment citizen but the latter category is the outcome of the use born on or naturalized in the United States, which means that those naturalized outside the US are not 14th Amendment citizens.

    Then your claim that no courts have discussed the merits, which is almost correct were it not for Ankeny v Daniels, and the fact that courts, while not having ruled explicitly on eligibility, have clearly defined the meaning of natural born.

  23. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) January 2, 2011 at 12:51 am #

    TomC: Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen.He is at best a citizen.Martin Kraus, my statement was not a legal definition but a statement of today’s situation.Obsession with “Vetting?”I guess it is silly of me to want qualified candidates on the ballot to vote for.“It just takes the choice away from the people when you make it impossible to get on the ballot,” is exactly my point…just because the people are duped into voting for someone does not qualify them, nor does an election trump the qualifications of the Constitution.An election is not just based on who is best but who qualified (eligible).There is a process to change the Constitution if you don’t like it but you cannot just ignore it.Before you say it, I will agree that there are many who may be best candidate but cannot qualify.Under the Constitution there are places for them to serve their country and if need be at some point the Constitution can be amended (although, at this point, I am not in favor of that).

    Nice try Tom but Minor V Happersett concluded that there are only two ways citizens are made in this country whether being born a citizen – Natural Born or being naturalized. Obama couldn’t be naturalized as he was born a citizen. There is no such thing as just a “plain citizen”. You are either Natural Born or Naturalized its that simple.

  24. avatar
    G January 2, 2011 at 12:53 am #

    TomC: G; how do you know no court agrees with me, not one of them has issued a statement or finding on the merits?

    Wrong again. Re-read this thread and see the other posts about the Ankeny case.

    Also, try reading the extensive blogs on that topic in the archives and the commentary, in which actual lawyers cite a lot of prior case law, which pretty much shows that although there isn’t a “formal definition”, this issues of what the meaning of citizenship is and how it applies in this country have been discussed and addressed in many other court cases and the majority opinions pretty much address how the interpretation is applied.

    Simply put, being born here makes you an NBC. The citizenship of your parents is completely immaterial. There are very few exceptions carved out, which apply only to children of ambassadors and foreign diplomats.

    There is NO 3rd class of citizenship – you are either NBC or a naturalized citizen. Anything beyond that is not supported by actual law or cdurt and only exists in minds and writings of folks who make such notions up for their own reasons and to try to trick the gullible.

    HINT: Why do you think the issue of “anchor babies” was always such a hot topic? Because if they are born on US soil, they automatically are NBC and only a Constitutional Amendment could change that. Yes, even an “anchor baby” can not be denied their US citizenship and could grow up and run for President themselves once they turn 35.

  25. avatar
    nbc January 2, 2011 at 12:54 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): There is no such thing as just a “plain citizen”. You are either Natural Born or Naturalized its that simple.

    Citizen is the set-theoretic union of the disjoint sets of natural-born and natural-ized

  26. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) January 2, 2011 at 12:55 am #

    TomC: nbc; just because he is not a naturalized citizen makes him a natural born citizen is not correct.Those are just two citizenship categories.What about “citizen,” born to at least one citizen parent on U.S. soil (Hawaii)?Natural born citizen is a birthright citizenship; one who is born of two U. S. citizen parents on U. S. soil.Also, thanks for the heads up on definition.I’m speaking of situational facts that I see happening and I see a person who is exercising authority unconstitutionally (not qualified under Article 2, Section 1.And I’m sorry if these do not lend to the correct definitions, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned natural born citizen who loves his country and the constitution.That is why I think we can have a civil discussion with out the gutter name calling, please.

    Nice try but the supreme court disagrees with you Minor V Happersett. There are only 2 types of citizens Naturalized and Natural Born there is no 3rd type which is neither Naturalized or Natural Born. You’re right you’re not a lawyer because you obviously don’t understand our constitution. Obama exercises the power given to him Legally under the constitution. He is natural born.

  27. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) January 2, 2011 at 12:59 am #

    TomC: G; how do you know no court agrees with me, not one of them has issued a statement or finding on the merits?Where in my discussion did I say Obama was not born in Hawaii?If you want to challenge my “pathetic mind” please don’t question things I did not say.Just because he was born in Hawaii does not make him natural born, it makes him a citizen to one citizen parent, his other parent was not a citizen.I know who is president, I just don’t agree what he is eligible under the constitution and he will serve until the end of his term or until removed.That is reality and I do not have trouble dealing with it, that is appearently your problem because you won’t face facts!Please, also, let’s dispense with the childish name calling and converse like adults!Stanislaw: I am not the one being fooled.I also am not looking up everything I say in the dictionary or law book to see if correct in terminology.I am stating what I see happening and if you want you can set me straight on the correct terminoly for someone who is in the office of president who does not qualify under the constitution.He has been elected, he is not qualified and he knew it and still does is why he won’t release any of his records, not only his BC.So, appearently you are more versed in terminology but I am just an American, natural born citizen, speaking his mind.Now, to your ignorant statement “I get the feeling that among the birthers β€˜vetting’ means “keeping Black guys out of the White House.” Please point to one thing that I have said that indicates that is my intent.In fact I was just discussing with my wife yesterday that I hope LTC Allen West (a Black guy) runs for president in 2012, for he is the best candidate I see at this point.Yes, I would support and vote for him.So, if you want to make this racial please count me out of that type ignorant discussions!

    Tom if having one citizen parent doesn’t mate one a natural born citizen then how did Chester A. Arthur become President? How did Spiro Agnew become VP? How did Woodrow Wilson? Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan. Each of these presidents had one foreign born parent

  28. avatar
    nbc January 2, 2011 at 1:00 am #

    Let me explain Tom:

    The Constitution recognizes two forms of citizens: The natural-born and the naturalized

    Natus and Datus (born and granted). The natural-born gains citizenship by virtue of his birth on soil, regardless of the status of his parents. The natural-ized is granted citizenship by act of Congress.

    The definition of Natural-Born is not found in the Constitution, and thus has to be found in Common Law. The Common Law of those days was based on English Common Law which defined natural-born to mean: birth on soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    The 14th Amendment re-iterated the Constitutional definitions, however it limited naturalization to on US soil only. This means that children naturalized abroad, such as children born to one or more US citizens while abroad, are not 14th Amendment citizens but still naturalized at birth.

    There are a few minor alternatives of gaining citizenship such as through honorary citizenship or grants of citizenship, furthermore, treaties can extend citizenship.

    But in general there are only two kinds of citizens: Natural Born and Natural-ized

    The history and legislative as well as legal debates all point to this single truth.

  29. avatar
    gorefan January 2, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    TomC: That is why I think we can have a civil discussion with out the gutter name calling, please.

    That is a nice sentiment.

    TomC: What about “citizen,” born to at least one citizen parent on U.S. soil (Hawaii)?

    So, how do you explain the folowing statements made by members of the founding generation:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other. ” James Madison, 1789

    “The children of aliens born in this state are considerded as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, 1795

    “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” William Rawle, 1829.

    Rawle’s also explains the difference between Citizen of the United States and natural born Citizen.

    “The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. The rights which appertained to them as citizens of those respective commonwealths, accompanied them in the formation of the great, compound commonwealth which ensued. They became citizens of the latter, without ceasing to be citizens of the former, and he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States….Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

    Even at the time the Constitution was adopted there were only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized (by state laws or constitutions).

  30. avatar
    nbc January 2, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    Tom if having one citizen parent doesn’t mate one a natural born citizen then how did Chester A. Arthur become President?How did Spiro Agnew become VP?How did Woodrow Wilson?Herbert Hoover, James Buchanan.Each of these presidents had one foreign born parent

    Where they still citizens of their respective countries or had they gained US citizenship at the time of the birth of their offspring. I am aware of Chester A Arthur whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth but not the others.

  31. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) January 2, 2011 at 1:20 am #

    nbc:
    Where they still citizens of their respective countries or had they gained US citizenship at the time of the birth of their offspring. I am aware of Chester A Arthur whose father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth but not the others.

    I’m basing this on Tom’s belief. Agnew was VP and in order for him to be VP he had to qualify for President. Agnew’s father was listed as an alien in 1920. http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/politics-other-controversies/62093d1272603917-eligibility-thread-imagesa.jpg

    Agnew was born in 1918. The above is a census form listing him as an alien.

  32. avatar
    nbc January 2, 2011 at 1:21 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross):
    I’m basing this on Tom’s belief.Agnew was VP and in order for him to be VP he had to qualify for President.Agnew’s father was listed as an alien in 1920. http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/politics-other-controversies/62093d1272603917-eligibility-thread-imagesa.jpgAgnew was born in 1918.The above is a census form listing him as an alien.

    Yep, another example… Excellent…

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    TomC: how do you know no court agrees with me, not one of them has issued a statement or finding on the merits?

    Tom, I see that a number of the commenters here have taken the trouble to answer your crank theory about presidential eligibility. The folks here, myself included, have been looking at this thing for over a year now, and have combed volumes of material in the historical and legal record. You are simply deluded, and have selectively assembled bits and pieces to create a false conclusion while ignoring the main stream of information to the contrary.

    Others have pointed out to you the recent case of Ankeny v Daniels. In that case the Illinois appeals court looked at the same historical and legal record and came to the same conclusion that I did: there is no parental requirement for US Presidents. If, time after time, the specialists in the subject say something that agrees with me, I gain confidence that I’m right. If I see my opponents’ position absent from the historical record except for some unwashed Obama haters and a few racists through history, then I conclude again that they are wrong.

    After a lengthy review of the historical and legal record (and you would be dishonest to press your point without reading this entire case), the Chancery Court of New York concluded:

    … 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.

    Lynch v. Clarke

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    TomC: Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen. He is at best a citizen.

    Why in the world do you think Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen? Have you been listening to those rabid Obama-haters on the Internet who will say anything rather than to admit that a black man deserves to be President? You really can’t trust what unqualified and deeply prejudiced people say on the Internet. I can give you some books if you want.

  35. avatar
    dch January 2, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen. He is at best a citizen.

    Simple questions:
    Why did EVERY Republican lawyer miss this in 2008?

    Have you filed a case? After all you claim to have a iron clad consututional case?

    Why have NO law scholars come out in agreement?

    Why don’t you file a case? What is stopping you? Why won’t any responsible lawyer take this up? Why is every birther case filed by cranks? Thier is a pattern here.

  36. avatar
    Gunther Haavarsteed January 2, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    TomC: Obama would not make the ballot because he is not a natural born citizen.He is at best a citizen.Martin Kraus, my statement was not a legal definition but a statement of today’s situation.Obsession with “Vetting?”I guess it is silly of me to want qualified candidates on the ballot to vote for.“It just takes the choice away from the people when you make it impossible to get on the ballot,” is exactly my point…just because the people are duped into voting for someone does not qualify them, nor does an election trump the qualifications of the Constitution.An election is not just based on who is best but who qualified (eligible).There is a process to change the Constitution if you don’t like it but you cannot just ignore it.Before you say it, I will agree that there are many who may be best candidate but cannot qualify.Under the Constitution there are places for them to serve their country and if need be at some point the Constitution can be amended (although, at this point, I am not in favor of that).

    A look a Obama’s Form SS-5, Application for Social Security Number will show Obama was a Legal Resident and not a U.S. Citizen at the time of filing. So, we have a native born person who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen serving as POTUS.

  37. avatar
    Stanislaw January 2, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    Gunther Haavarsteed: A look a Obama’s Form SS-5, Application for Social Security Number will show Obama was a Legal Resident and not a U.S. Citizen at the time of filing. So, we have a native born person who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen serving as POTUS.

    More complete nonsense. The President was born in Hawaii, and if you seriously believe that a person born on US soil is a naturalized citizen then I have a bridge to sell you because you’re somehow even less tuned into reality than the other birthers. You probably also believe that the President “renounced” his citizenship as a small child once he was “adopted” by someone from Indonesia.

    Ignorant, delusional, and slow is no way to go through life, son.

  38. avatar
    Bovril January 2, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    Hi Sven……

    Still looking for non existent made stuff for the next installment of your tub thumping yarn…..”Barry and the Pirates” I see.

  39. avatar
    Daniel January 2, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    Gunther Haavarsteed: So, we have a native born person who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen serving as POTUS.

    Do you even bother to read what you write, before you hit the “submit” button?

    A person who is born on US soil is a natural born citizen. You cannot naturalize a person who is already a natural born citizen.

    Instead of taking a conclusion and trying to find convoluted and ridiculous ways to create evidence to make it fit, why not just try using the facts at hand, and THEN drawing a conclusion that already fits?

  40. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    TomC: nbc; just because he is not a naturalized citizen makes him a natural born citizen is not correct. Those are just two citizenship categories. What about “citizen,” born to at least one citizen parent on U.S. soil (Hawaii)? Natural born citizen is a birthright citizenship; one who is born of two U. S. citizen parents on U. S. soil.Also, thanks for the heads up on definition. I’m speaking of situational facts that I see happening and I see a person who is exercising authority unconstitutionally (not qualified under Article 2, Section 1. And I’m sorry if these do not lend to the correct definitions, I am not a lawyer, just a concerned natural born citizen who loves his country and the constitution. That is why I think we can have a civil discussion with out the gutter name calling, please.

    Can you point me to any law ever passed by Congress or any decision by the US Supreme Court that affirms that two citizen parents are required in order to be a natural born citizen?

    Since the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1865, there are only two classifications of citizens: Born-citizens and naturalized citizens. There is no distinction in the law of the land between a “born citizen” and a “natural born citizen.”
    Who qualifies as a “born citizen” is very specfically defined in the US Code, the law of the land.

  41. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Tom, I see that a number of the commenters here have taken the trouble to answer your crank theory about presidential eligibility. The folks here, myself included, have been looking at this thing for over a year now, and have combed volumes of material in the historical and legal record. You are simply deluded, and have selectively assembled bits and pieces to create a false conclusion while ignoring the main stream of information to the contrary.Others have pointed out to you the recent case of Ankeny v Daniels. In that case the Illinois appeals court looked at the same historical and legal record and came to the same conclusion that I did: there is no parental requirement for US Presidents. If, time after time, the specialists in the subject say something that agrees with me, I gain confidence that I’m right. If I see my opponents’ position absent from the historical record except for some unwashed Obama haters and a few racists through history, then I conclude again that they are wrong.After a lengthy review of the historical and legal record (and you would be dishonest to press your point without reading this entire case), the Chancery Court of New York concluded:

    Ankeny v Daniels was an Indiana case, Doc (just in case Tom wants to look it up). It was the REPUBLICAN Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels (George W. Bush’s former Budget Director) and the REPUBLICAN Attorney General of Indiana, Gary Zoeller who defended Barack Hussein Obama in that lawsuit which tried to have Obama’s Indiana Electoral votes disqualified because Obama’s father was not born in the US.
    The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled: “Based on the language of Article II, Section I, Clause 4, and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark (The US Supreme Court’s 1898 decision) 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.”–
    Indiana Court of Appeals, November 12, 2009

  42. avatar
    DP January 2, 2011 at 3:18 pm #

    The two-parent citizen crap again. The last refuge of the prideful fool.

    Isn’t it time to start calling that what it is? The whole idea that a child is somehow a less special breed of American because one of his parents wasn’t a citizen is simple xenophobia at best, and rank racism at worst. It’s the panacea for self-limited minds terrified of the fact that this country is becoming less WASP with each passing day. Read the trash on Free Republic and it’s as clear as day.

    Obama as President is unacceptable to them for the obvious reason. And it deserves no respect from decent people.

  43. avatar
    Keith January 2, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Gunther Haavarsteed: A look a Obama’s Form SS-5, Application for Social Security Number will show Obama was a Legal Resident and not a U.S. Citizen at the time of filing. So, we have a native born person who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen serving as POTUS.

    I’m not sure I understand your point here.

    Are you contending that “Legal Resident” and “U.S. Citizen” are mutually exclusive terms? So a “legal resident” cannot be a “U.S. Citizen” and a “U.S. Citizen” cannot be a “legal resident”?

    If you think about it a little bit, I am sure you will realize this is silly and that a “U.S. Citizen” is most definitely a “legal resident” of the United States.

    And I’m sure you aware that Social Security is not restricted to “U.S. Citizens”. So all the Admin really needs to know is are you legally entitled to work in the U.S., which is basically what is meant by “Legal Resident”.

    Here is a bit of a binary tree that can explain it maybe:

    Person In U.S — Transient (tourist, diplomat, etc)
    |
    |
    Resident — Illegal Resident (cannot legally work or join Social Security)
    |
    |
    Legal Resident — Alien — Work visa (Green Card or Temp Worker)
    | |
    | (Other non-work visa)
    |
    Citizen — Naturalized
    |
    |
    Natural Born.

    I hope my poor attempt at formatting this tree worked OK .

  44. avatar
    Keith January 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    It didn’t.

    The line “(Other non-work visa)” should be a branch off “Legal Resident — Alien”

  45. avatar
    Sean January 2, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    TomC: usurper.

    No. You’re concerned with a Black man being in office. If two citizen parents were required, Constitutional scholars would be all over Obama and Bill Richardson.

  46. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 3:54 pm #

    Sean: No. You’re concerned with a Black man being in office. If two citizen parents were required, Constitutional scholars would be all over Obama and Bill Richardson.

    A scholar of the Constitution like Chief Justice John Roberts would NEVER have agreed to administer the Oath of Office to a usurper [TWICE!!!] and there is no way on earth that the entire US intelligence community would hand over the launch codes to every nuclear missile in our arsenal to a usurper.

  47. avatar
    Sean January 2, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    Joey:
    A scholar of the Constitution like Chief Justice John Roberts would NEVER have agreed to administer the Oath of Office to a usurper[TWICE!!!] and there is no way on earth that the entire US intelligence community would hand over the launch codes to every nuclear missile in our arsenal to a usurper.

    But Obama is not a usurper. Her was elected legally by a majority of voters, Congress and 50 attorney generals.

  48. avatar
    Stanislaw January 2, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    Sean:
    But Obama is not a usurper. Her was elected legally by a majority of voters, Congress and 50 attorney generals.

    I think Joey was just using an example of the birthers’ own logic (and I use that term as loosely as possible) against them, not calling Obama an actual usurper.

  49. avatar
    obsolete January 2, 2011 at 4:30 pm #

    Gunther Haavarsteed: A look a Obama’s Form SS-5, Application for Social Security Number will show Obama was a Legal Resident and not a U.S. Citizen at the time of filing.

    Since Sven (aka Gunther) obviously has it lying around somewhere, should I hold my breath waiting for him to actually post Obama’s Form SS-5 ?

  50. avatar
    Rickey January 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    TomC: And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you.But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.”

    You said that Obama “cannot” be president. But he is, Tom, he is.

    Obama announced his candidacy for president on February 10, 2007. At the time it was widely known that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Yet in the ensuing 20 months not a single one of his political opponents – Republican or Democrat – raised the bogus “two citizen parent” requirement. How do you explain that?

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    DP: Isn’t it time to start calling that what it is? The whole idea that a child is somehow a less special breed of American because one of his parents wasn’t a citizen is simple xenophobia at best, and rank racism at worst

    I think you have done a good job of calling it what it is.

  52. avatar
    Sean January 2, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Rickey:
    You said that Obama “cannot” be president. But he is, Tom, he is.
    Obama announced his candidacy for president on February 10, 2007. At the time it was widely known that his father was never a U.S. citizen. Yet in the ensuing 20 months not a single one of his political opponents – Republican or Democrat – raised the bogus “two citizen parent” requirement. How do you explain that?

    I hate to beat a dead horse but the same is true of Bill Richardson. Not a word.

  53. avatar
    Joey January 2, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Stanislaw: I think Joey was just using an example of the birthers’ own logic (and I use that term as loosely as possible) against them, not calling Obama an actual usurper.

    Exactly right.

  54. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett January 2, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    Happy New Year! Here come da trolls.

  55. avatar
    Martin Kraus January 3, 2011 at 2:36 am #

    There are certain objects that are not exactly like anti-matter, but they share some characteristics. These things can be thought about, and discussed, but they cannot actually exist in our world, because they are impossible.

    In this category I would place the “Elected Usurper”, “Scentless Odor”, “Congressional Ethics”, “Colorless Dye”, “Military Intelligence”, and the “Knowledgeable Birther”.

  56. avatar
    ellid January 3, 2011 at 7:11 am #

    TomC: If we had people doing their job of vetting candidates then Taitz and Obama would not make the ballot.Your suggestion sounds like a fun game but there are no winners; surely, not the voters.I prefer sticking with realities.Eligible candidates whom voters can be assured are eligible.But, I must admit the thought your scenario is intriguing.And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you.But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.”In fact, I guess, it only strengthen the idea, since he could not be a usurper unless elected!“You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

    Sorry, but birth on American soil makes a natural born citizen. Obama was legally elected, certified by Congress, and duly sworn in almost two years ago. He’s the President, not a “usurper,” and you are respectfully encouraged to find a hobby instead of making a fool of yourself parroting discredited nonsense.

  57. avatar
    ellid January 3, 2011 at 7:14 am #

    Gunther Haavarsteed:
    A look a Obama’s Form SS-5, Application for Social Security Number will show Obama was a Legal Resident and not a U.S. Citizen at the time of filing. So, we have a native born person who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen serving as POTUS.

    Utter nonsense. Why are you posting untruths?

  58. avatar
    Black Lion January 3, 2011 at 9:56 am #

    Great post….

    An excerpt from FactCheck.org:

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    “We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: ‘It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over.’

    In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.

    The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama “likely” was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

    Of course, it’s distantly possible that Obama’s grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

  59. avatar
    Black Lion January 3, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    Unfortunately old friend and serial misinformer BZ is still at it regarding her usual nonsense….she as usual is all over the article posted above trying to spread crap….The best line had to be indirectly confirmed…..How exactly does one do that?

    “ftg, Out in Ballard, JimPD, you can call me racist all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 3 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and the HDOH has known it all along. They have also indirectly confirmed that Obama amended his BC in 2006 and Hawaii has no legally-valid BC for Obama.

    You keep acting as if the “birthers” are ignoring facts, but these are the facts I’ve given. I’ve got them documented on my blog at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com . And not one person here has said anything to refute the facts of what the HDOH has admitted against their own interest (which is one of the strongest forms of evidence there is).

    I think most reasonable people see no reason not to take me at face value: I’m interested in this for the reasons I’ve stated: rules and laws are being broken and the very rule of law in this nation is at stake. I’ve given the factual reasons I believe this; I’ve been saying this was all about the rule of law since I first started my blog about a year ago.

    The claims of racism are so old and so obviously an attempt to steer the discussion away from the evidence we have from the HDOH itself: that Obama posted a forged COLB because his genuine one would show it is not legally valid.

    Anybody who cares about the Constitutional requirements should care that a man without a valid US birth certificate holds the nuclear football.

    For those of you who say there were no concerns about John McCain’s eligibility, you obviously haven’t read up on any of Leo Donofrio’s work. I believe that McCain’s eligibility should have been taken up in a court case heard on the merits just like Obama’s and Roger Calero’s (who was born in Nicaragua, I believe) should have been, and Donofrio’s case challenged the eligibility of ALL THREE – one Black, one white, and one hispanic. This has nothing to do with color of a person’s skin; it has everything to do with the Constitution and the rule of law.

    This isn’t about politics either. The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is REQUIRED to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.” So if Obama was ruled to have “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009, Biden would “act as President until a President shall have qualified.” In that event Congress or SCOTUS would most likely decide how a qualifying President would be chosen. I have been fighting on this issue since last January – when democrats controlled both houses of Congress. I was pushing for the rule of law even when it would have been the least respected Congress in history that would have ended up deciding who the President would be. Don’t anybody DARE tell me this is about politics.

    It’s about facts and about the rule of law. And right now the facts say that laws, rules, and the Constitution are being violated at every turn on this issue.”

    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2013808421&offset=80

  60. avatar
    Black Lion January 3, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    Black Lion: Unfortunately old friend and serial misinformer BZ is still at it regarding her usual nonsense….she as usual is all over the article posted above trying to spread crap….The best line had to be indirectly confirmed…..How exactly does one do that? “ftg, Out in Ballard, JimPD, you can call me racist all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the HDOH has indirectly confirmed in 3 different ways that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery and the HDOH has known it all along. They have also indirectly confirmed that Obama amended his BC in 2006 and Hawaii has no legally-valid BC for Obama. You keep acting as if the “birthers” are ignoring facts, but these are the facts I’ve given. I’ve got them documented on my blog at http://www.butterdezillion.wordpress.com . And not one person here has said anything to refute the facts of what the HDOH has admitted against their own interest (which is one of the strongest forms of evidence there is). I think most reasonable people see no reason not to take me at face value: I’m interested in this for the reasons I’ve stated: rules and laws are being broken and the very rule of law in this nation is at stake. I’ve given the factual reasons I believe this; I’ve been saying this was all about the rule of law since I first started my blog about a year ago. The claims of racism are so old and so obviously an attempt to steer the discussion away from the evidence we have from the HDOH itself: that Obama posted a forged COLB because his genuine one would show it is not legally valid. Anybody who cares about the Constitutional requirements should care that a man without a valid US birth certificate holds the nuclear football. For those of you who say there were no concerns about John McCain’s eligibility, you obviously haven’t read up on any of Leo Donofrio’s work. I believe that McCain’s eligibility should have been taken up in a court case heard on the merits just like Obama’s and Roger Calero’s (who was born in Nicaragua, I believe) should have been, and Donofrio’s case challenged the eligibility of ALL THREE – one Black, one white, and one hispanic. This has nothing to do with color of a person’s skin; it has everything to do with the Constitution and the rule of law. This isn’t about politics either. The 20th Amendment says that if a President elect has “failed to qualify” by Jan 20th the Vice President elect is REQUIRED to “act as President until a President shall have qualified.” So if Obama was ruled to have “failed to qualify” by Jan 20, 2009, Biden would “act as President until a President shall have qualified.” In that event Congress or SCOTUS would most likely decide how a qualifying President would be chosen. I have been fighting on this issue since last January – when democrats controlled both houses of Congress. I was pushing for the rule of law even when it would have been the least respected Congress in history that would have ended up deciding who the President would be. Don’t anybody DARE tell me this is about politics. It’s about facts and about the rule of law. And right now the facts say that laws, rules, and the Constitution are being violated at every turn on this issue.”http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/reader_feedback/public/display.php?source_name=mbase&source_id=2013808421&offset=80

    “Willard McBain, “indirectly confirmed” means that they have stated a fact which, when combined with other facts, ends up confirming something else.

    For instance, if somebody directly confirms that the light is not on, they also indirectly confirm that the light is off.

    FOIA law, the OIP Booklet, etc all say that an agency can only deny access to records which actually exist. So the first step in responding to any FOIA (or UIPA, which is Hawaii’s version of FOIA) is always to see if the record even exists. If it doesn’t exist it can’t be denied. At that point if the existence or non-existence of the record is discloseable, the agency would tell the requestor that there are no records responsive to their request. If the existence or non-existence of the record has to remain secret, then the agency uses a Glomarized response – “the records, if any, are not discloseable”

    Keeping that in mind, the HDOH denied a requestor access to the receipts and invoices for transactions involved in amending Obama’s BC.

    That is an indirect confirmation that those records exist, which would only be the case if his BC was actually amended.

    So the HDOH’s denial of access to the records of Obama’s amendment to his BC were an indirect confirmaton that Obama’s BC has been amended.

    The HDOH will never come right out and say that Obama’s BC is amended. They will always say that they don’t have to answer questions. That’s what they did when WND followed up on Fukino’s July 2009 statement. WND asked if that meant something specific (can’t remember exactly what; maybe whether the HDOH itself was verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii). The HDOH’s response was that their statement was all they were going to say, and they don’t have to answer any clarifying questions.

    The requestor who was denied access to Obama’s amendment receipts asked Fukino if she could confirm that they have Obama’s AMENDED birth certificate “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures” – taking the exact quote from Fukino’s October 2008 announcement but inserting the word that would reveal the LEGAL STATUS of the BC. Fukino’s office would never answer that question; they issued the July 20009 statement the same day and would never answer questions about what that statement means in a legal sense, in regards to the LEGAL STATUS of Obama’s BC which “verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii”.

    The requestor also asked both the HDOH and OIP for clarification as to whether she was understanding their denial of access and what records were being denied. The HDOH said all the records she had requested were being denied, and the OIP said they didn’t have time to answer whether MT’s understanding that the existence of records for Obama’s BC amendment had been indirectly confirmed. But the OIP attorney had previously told the requestor I think 3 different times (in the process of appealing the HDOH response) that the HDOH was required to tell her if the records did not exist.

    So anyway, that is what is meant by “indirectly confirmed”

  61. avatar
    The Magic M January 3, 2011 at 10:20 am #

    > The whole idea that a child is somehow a less special breed of American because one of his parents wasn’t a citizen is simple xenophobia at best, and rank racism at worst

    And outright illogical, as I’ve tried to explain to the birthers many times (and super-nutjob Jedi Pauly in particular).

    The two-citizen-parent theory assumes there is something inherently different between

    (a) father and mother are Kenyan citizens who naturalize one day before the child’s birth in the US, then renounce their citizenship the day after and

    (b) same as (a) without the one-day citizenship switch.

    In birtherland, (a) would make the child an NBC, (b) would make it a Kenyan.

    If this one-day switch has any (biological? political?) influence on the child and its allegiance to the US, f*** me sideways and call me Sally.

    Of course, the same could be said about whether a child is born 1cm this or the other side of the border, but I digress… πŸ˜‰

  62. avatar
    Black Lion January 3, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    Old friend Citizen Wells is not too happy with Gov Abercrombie…

    Megyn Kelly Neil Abercrombie panel biased and uninformed, Fox News fair & Balanced?, Fox biased, Boobs on news shows
    Posted on January 2, 2011
    by citizenwells|

    I held off of letting Megyn Kelly have it until yesterday even though she had made some stupid, uninformed comments about the Obama eligibility issues. She was undoubtedly influenced by the pontificating, bloviator Bill O’Reilly. She crossed the line a few days ago when she interviewed two biased and uninformed panelists regarding the Governor Neil Abercrombie remarks about Obama’s birth and birth certificate.

    First of all, Fox News touts being “fair and balanced.” This show was one of the most unfair and unbalanced that I have viewed. It almost gave MSNBC credibility. The guests were:

    Dan Gerstein, president of Gotham Ghostwriters, a Democrat Strategist and clearly a Orwellian spin meister for Obama.

    Rich Lowry, editor of the National review. All he did was regurgitate the standard lines from the left.

    Not only did Megyn Kelly not ask probing journalistic questions such as:

    Why has Obama, for over 2 years, employed numerous private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?

    Isn’t Obama ineligible due to not being a natural born citizen? His father was Kenyan/British. The founding fathers had to be grandfathered in to be eligible. Senate resolution 511 stated that McCain had 2 US Citizen parents.

    The Certification of Live birth, COLB, placed on the internet. Do we have proof it was issued by the state of Hawaii? Isn’t the COLB, as Lou Dobbs stated, just a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper? Is it possible to get a COLB and not be born in Hawaii?

    There are obviously more questions that could be asked. Not only did Megyn Kelly not ask real questions, she joined in the “feeding frenzy” and lent credence to comments made by her biased panelists. This was one of the more disgusting displays I have ever witnessed on TV!

    And Megyn Kelly is a law school graduate. She referred to comments made by FactCheck.org and to birth announcements in newspapers as evidence.

    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/02/megyn-kelly-neil-abercrombie-panel-biased-and-uninformed-fox-news-fair-balanced-fox-biased-boobs-on-news-shows/#comment-175059

  63. avatar
    Black Lion January 3, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    And Megyn Kelly gets the ire of the birhter nation….

    From the Post and Fail….

    “Six out of ten Americans do not believe that Mr. Obama meets the qualifications to be the President and Commander-in-Chief of our great nation. What gives you the authority to doubt the majority of Americans? Hundreds of thousands of hours of investigative work has been done by thousands of American Patriots working for free on their own time to do such research. What gives you the right to dispel and ridicule those people when you have failed to complete even a fraction of the work which others have done? Your excoriation of Lt. Colonel Dr. Terrence Lakin was disgusting. Col. Lakin has more integrity in his little finger than you and your buddy Bill will have in your entire lifetimes combined.

    You will not question the eligibility of the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama who has also gone by many other names: Barry Soetoro, Barack Steve Obama, and Steve Dunham, just to name a few. He has used several different social security numbers, which has been documented by two highly regarded investigators. No, you will not question the Fraud-in-Chief of our nation because that would be too risky to your career. You might risk losing your job if you were to do any research into the supposed “News” that you repeat on air. Truth is of no value to you.

    Of course, you might also watch your ratings go sky high if you were to speak the truth about Mr. Obama, but then you wouldn’t want to be the recipient of threats from the “Regime” or to put your precious job at risk because you obviously do not have the sense of Patriotism and Duty to the Constitution that Dr. Lakin has. “Fair and Balanced” is nothing more than a joke. We all hoped that Fox News would report the real news. Unfortunately, it’s just another entertainment channel.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/01/01/megyn-there-is-a-difference-between-fact-and-fiction/

  64. avatar
    Judge Mental January 3, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    The claims of racism are so old and so obviously an attempt to steer the discussion away from the evidence we have from the HDOH itself: that Obama posted a forged COLB because his genuine one would show it is not legally valid…..

    Without going into the finer details of her logic gymnastics, BDZ doesn’t express herself in a manner which would inspire a belief in her possession of any adequate capacity to realise what she herself is saying, let alone fully comprehend others, as the above section demonstrates.

    Forgetting Obama or any specifics, how on earth can anyone at all’s “GENUINE” colb show itself to be “not legally valid”. If it’s genuine then it’s automatically “legally valid”, no matter what’s on it.

    Does she mean that its content would prove that one or more circumstances of Obama’s birth render him ineligible for Presidency?

  65. avatar
    Black Lion January 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm #

    Known birther Jerome Corsi reacts….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQqZtduDoQM&feature=player_embedded#at=1287

    WND attacks Abercrombie…..

    Hawaii guv suddenly mum’ on Obama birth certificate’
    After blizzard of attacks on birthers,’ Abercrombie now avoids interviews

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=244797

    And best of all is this comment from the Dr Kate blog on why the birthers will never accept any sort of evidence that proves that the President was born in the US and is a NBC…

    usapatriots-shout
    December 30, 2010 at 12:16 am
    With so much information floating around these days it is getting hard for me to keep track of it all. So I may be wrong or simply confused but here goes.

    I remember reading last month that every member of Congress received a copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate complete with the baby foot print and seal on it from Mombasa, Kenya. It was sent via certified mail with a demand for a signature receipt. If it is true that a new born baby’s footprint will be identical to the adult’s, then wouldn’t it be great if Congress (cowards that they are) would simply ask for Obama’s footprint to be compared to the one on the Kenyan birth certificate?

    I also heard that there is a team working to create a new long form birth certificate for Obama from Hawaii. If such a document should suddenly come forward I wonder if it would be complete with an Obama baby foot print.

    It may come to pass that in the heat of his enthusiasm to please the usurper, Abercrummy will have in fact, done we challenger’s a great favor. If Abercrummy had simply remained silent–there would have been no media coverage–which we patriots have desperately needed. Do you get the feeling this is starting to snowball out of control for the great pretender?

    Best of all, the issues over the imposter’s eligibility is that the challenge DOES NOT BEGIN AND END WITH THE LOCATION OF BARRY’S BIRTH PLACE. IT ALSO DOESN’T END WITH ONLY THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. THERE IS A LIFE TIME OF CONCEALED DOCUMENTS,HUNDREDS OF FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERSS,AND HIDDEN PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE OBAMA’S THAT MUST ALSO ACOUNTED FOR.

    The wolves have surrounded Barry and they can almost taste the blood. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men are not going to be able to put this lying fraud back together again.

  66. avatar
    Izzybella January 3, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    The footprint thing is absurd. I have a copy of my original “long form” birth certificate, and my footprint is not anywhere on it. My husbad also has his original, and there is not footprint. My teenage child has a certificate issued by the hospital that does have her footprint, and it cleary states that it is not an official document, but a “memento” of the birth. Her state-issued certificate has a little less info than Obama’s, no footprint, and we easily used it to register her for school, sports, and to obtain a passport.

  67. avatar
    Northland10 January 3, 2011 at 7:32 pm #

    Izzybella: The footprint thing is absurd.

    Black Lion quoting usapatriots-shout: DOES NOT BEGIN AND END WITH THE LOCATION OF BARRY’S BIRTH PLACE. IT ALSO DOESN’T END WITH ONLY THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE. THERE IS A LIFE TIME OF CONCEALED DOCUMENTS,HUNDREDS OF FALSE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERSS,AND HIDDEN PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE OBAMA’S THAT MUST ALSO ACOUNTED FOR.

    And this is why it is extremely difficult to take most birthers seriously. They look for things that are never on a birth certificate (footprints, religion, etc), and then add to that by moving the goalposts at the speed of silly (hidden properties? that’s a new one). In addition, they end their sentences with a preposition.

    Isn’t there something in the constitution about using all caps?

  68. avatar
    sarina January 3, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    TomC: If we had people doing their job of vetting candidates then Taitz and Obama would not make the ballot. Your suggestion sounds like a fun game but there are no winners; surely, not the voters.I prefer sticking with realities. Eligible candidates whom voters can be assured are eligible.But, I must admit the thought your scenario is intriguing.And, to Rickey, Obama was elected, that I grant you. But, that still does not mean he is not a “usurper.” In fact, I guess, it only strengthen the idea, since he could not be a usurper unless elected! “You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

    Exactly where is the law word for word stating that Obama is not eligible?
    If you go to Constitutional topic: Citizenship and read the 8 topics, you can see all the requirements to be president or vicepresident. Nothing about “parent’s citizenship”.

  69. avatar
    Keith January 3, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    Black Lion: At that point if the existence or non-existence of the record is discloseable, the agency would tell the requestor that there are no records responsive to their request. If the existence or non-existence of the record has to remain secret, then the agency uses a Glomarized response – “the records, if any, are not discloseable”

    The phrase “there are no records responsive to the request” is more neutral than “the records, if any, are not discloseable”.

    In my opinion of course, and you know what that will buy.

  70. avatar
    Daniel January 3, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    Keith: In my opinion of course, and you know what that will buy.

    A letter from Santa, a kiss from the Easter Bunny, and a hundred million Birthers?

    πŸ˜‰

  71. avatar
    James M January 3, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    Izzybella: The footprint thing is absurd.

    If they had a footprint they would be demanding a current footprint to compare it to, and even if he acquiesced to this demand, footprint experts would come out of the woodwork explaining how they don’t match.

  72. avatar
    brygenon January 4, 2011 at 2:09 am #

    According to NBC:

    nbcNatural born is simply: Born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents. This was established in such cases as US v Wong Kim Ark and more recently reaffirmed by the Court in Ankeny v Daniels. The court explicitly addressed the two citizen parent argument and rejected it based on the Supreme Court precedent US v Wong Kim Ark.

    Not true. The Court in Ankey v. Daniels recognized that birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to make one a natural-born citizen, but they did not hold that it is necessary. The Court declined to address the plaintiffs’s arguments that John S. McCain is not a natural-born citizen for being born in Panama, but cited the Senate resolution holding that McCain is a natural-born citizen, and wrote: “the supposed authority cited by the Plaintiffs to support their claim as to the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution does not support the argument that John McCain is not a natural born citizen.”

    I know of one Court that looked into the issue: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California examined it to rule on a motion for preliminary injunction in the case of Robinson v. Bowen. The Court opined that in all probability John McCain was a citizen from the time of birth, possibly by retroactive grant, and therefor a natural-born citizen. The ruling is particularly interesting because the Congressional Research Service cited it in their paper on the birther matter.

    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/11/congressional-research-service-punctures-birther-balloon/

    The predominant view of the American legal community was well expressed by renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar, writing for a lay audience like ourselves in Slate:

    “The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2183588/

  73. avatar
    kimba January 4, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    Izzybella: My husbad also has his original, and there is not footprint.

    No one has their original. He might have a copy issued when his birth was registered, but it’s not an original. One of the major misconceptions stoked by the birther instigators is that a copy of one’s birth certificate issued close to the time of one;s birth is better than, more official than copies issued later. Untrue. Every certified copy is equal no matter when it was issued. You can get as many copies of your birth certificate as you like. You aren’t asked to account for prior issued copies before a new one is issued. I think the reason they are able to convince people their “originals” are better is that so many people in the prime birther age group – 45-60 – seem to have one that was given to them by their mother when they reached adulthood and were told “keep this in a safe place, this is precious” . They think it’s special or an original.

  74. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    James M:
    If they had a footprint they would be demanding a current footprint to compare it to, and even if he acquiesced to this demand, footprint experts would come out of the woodwork explaining how they don’t match.

    Please note that the sample footprint provided to us by Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama is that of an adult male, while the footprint on the alleged Birth Certificate is that of an infant. This discrepancy has not been addressed, which leads our footprint experts to conclude that this is an obvious forgery.

    πŸ˜‰

  75. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    brygenon: Not true. The Court in Ankey v. Daniels recognized that birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to make one a natural-born citizen, but they did not hold that it is necessary.

    Perhaps you should read Ankeny where the plaintiffs insists that it is birth on soil to two us citizen parents.
    You are confusing the Vattel argument with the status of those not born on soil which is, as we discussed before, is far from clear.

  76. avatar
    BatGuano January 4, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    interesting that tomc hasn’t returned since being shown that the courts have ruled on NBC and the birthers are going nuts that they actually might get the original BC. truth is their kryptonite.

  77. avatar
    Nbc January 4, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    The predominant view of the American legal community was well expressed by renowned constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar, writing for a lay audience like ourselves in Slate:

    brygenon: “The Constitution’s rule that the president be a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.”

    Still hurting since our discussion on the issues I notice.

  78. avatar
    Nbc January 4, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    brygenon: I know of one Court that looked into the issue: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California examined it to rule on a motion for preliminary injunction in the case of Robinson v. Bowen. The Court opined that in all probability John McCain was a citizen from the time of birth, possibly by retroactive grant, and therefor a natural-born citizen.

    For the purpose of the preliminary injunction…

    retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already. This order finds it highly probable, for the purposes of this motion for provisional relief, that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the likelihood of success on the merits necessary to warrant the drastic remedy he seeks.

    So let’s not oversell one’s favorite pet theory πŸ™‚

  79. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    BatGuano: interesting that tomc hasn’t returned since being shown that the courts have ruled on NBC and the birthers are going nuts that they actually might get the original BC. truth is their kryptonite.

    TomC was likely misled by ‘arguments’ that we have shown to be flawed if not false.

  80. avatar
    Rickey January 4, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    kimba:
    No one has their original.He might have a copy issued when his birth was registered, but it’s not an original.One of the major misconceptions stoked by the birther instigators is that a copy of one’s birth certificate issued close to the time of one;s birth is better than, more official than copies issued later.Untrue.Every certified copy is equal no matter when it was issued.You can get as many copies of your birth certificate as you like. You aren’t asked to account for prior issued copies before a new one is issued. I think the reason they are able to convince people their “originals” are better is that so many people in the prime birther age group – 45-60 – seem to have one that was given to them by their mother when they reached adulthood and were told “keep this in a safe place, this is precious” .They think it’s special or an original.

    Case in point: I have my New York State birth certificate which was issued a week after I was born. It has the signature of a registrar, but no seal, raised or otherwise.

    I also have one which was provided to me when I was 40 years old. This one is signed by a registrar and it has a raised seal.

    I doubt that I could get a passport with my “original” birth certificate, since it is lacking a seal.

  81. avatar
    Joey January 4, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    Nbc: For the purpose of the preliminary injunction…So let’s not oversell one’s favorite pet theory

    My favorite “anti-birther” lawsuit is “Hollander v McCain” which was heard in the US District Court in New Hampshire. Hollander sued McCain and the Republican National Committee for putting an ineligible candidate on the ballot who was not a native born citizen because he was born in Panama.
    Both McCain’s personal attorneys and the Republican National Committee argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed FOR LACK OF STANDING!!!! πŸ˜‰
    McCain and the RNC prevailed and Hollander was dismissed.

  82. avatar
    Scientist January 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    Nbc: So let’s not oversell one’s favorite pet theory

    Let’s not oversell yours. If McCain had won the election he’d be sitting in the White House today (unless Palin engineered a coup using senile dementia as her justification to remove Grandpa). Any challenge, even by a rival with clear standing, would have had a chance well under 10% of succeeding. That is the reality, whether you believe the interpretation is “correct” under some abstract theory or not; let’s not pretend otherwise.

    The vast majority of those scholars who have expressed an opinion believe that the children of US citizens born abroad are eligible, as does the entire US Senate. While, in principle, the Supreme Court could disagree with such a broad consensus, I doubt you could find an actual case where they ever did. Judge Ginsburg’s statements regarding her grandchild born in Paris suggest she at least would not.

  83. avatar
    nbc January 4, 2011 at 1:14 pm #

    Both McCain’s personal attorneys and the Republican National Committee argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed FOR LACK OF STANDING!!!!

    That is somewhat ironic, arguing the same as the lawyers for President Obama did… And now some of them claimed that they wanted to have hearings. I’d love to subpoena the RNC πŸ™‚

  84. avatar
    Daniel January 4, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Joey: Both McCain’s personal attorneys and the Republican National Committee argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed FOR LACK OF STANDING!!!!

    What the birthers don’t seem to get, is that the standing issue is not an attack on the “truth” aimed especially at them to avoid dealing with something.

    Standing is almost always the first thing dealt with in any court case, as it’s the easiest thing for a defence lawyer to argue and the least time-consuming for the courts. It would be horribly inefficient for the courts to go through the entire trial, only to fiond out afterwards that the plaintiff lacked standing all along.

    Thus standing is established first, and if the plaintiff lacks standing, then the case simply goes no further. That the birthers consistently fail to meet the requirements for standing is a testament to their stupidity, and is not the fault of the courts.

  85. avatar
    Joey January 4, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    Daniel: What the birthers don’t seem to get, is that the standing issue is not an attack on the “truth” aimed especially at them to avoid dealing with something.Standing is almost always the first thing dealt with in any court case, as it’s the easiest thing for a defence lawyer to argue and the least time-consuming for the courts. It would be horribly inefficient for the courts to go through the entire trial, only to fiond out afterwards that the plaintiff lacked standing all along.Thus standing is established first, and if the plaintiff lacks standing, then the case simply goes no further. That the birthers consistently fail to meet the requirements for standing is a testament to their stupidity, and is not the fault of the courts.

    You are right on the money, Daniel. Yet the birthers always try to use dismissal for lack of standing as some sort of excuse that Obama’s lawyers have used to avoid getting to their holy grail which is “DISCOVERY” and their nirvana, which is a “trial on the merits.”

    Every time that they poo-poo standing as a legal concept, I remind them that the full legal term is “Article III Standing” and I tell them to simply present the right plaintiff and they will be granted standing.

  86. avatar
    Black Lion January 4, 2011 at 3:02 pm #

    Does WND Think Presidential Death Threats Are Funny?
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    A Jan. 3 WorldNetDaily article by Drew Zahn is largely sympathetic to a Florida sheriff’s office employee who “left a Bible behind on a co-worker’s desk with a note designating Psalm 109 as ‘the Obama prayer.'” This is a verse that begins, “May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.” But it continues:

    May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation.

    Zahn uncritically repeats the employee’s contention that the “Obama prayer” was supposed to be “funny,” and Zahn himself refers to “‘the Obama prayer’ joke.” The implication here is that Zahn thinks threatening the president’s life, even implied, is a joke as well.

    This is not the first time Psalm 109 has been invoked at WND. As we noted, editor and CEO Joseph Farah himself cited it in a November 2009 column headlined “How to make Obama nightmare go away,” repeating only the introductory verse and not mentioning the apparent death wish the subsequent verses imply. Farah concluded: “Pray! It works. It’s a promise.”

    Are Zahn and Farah praying for Obama’s death. They need to clarify their positions. After all, given Farah and WND’s obsessive hatred for Obama, the idea that they wish him dead — as well as the idea that think his death would be a total laugh riot — is not exactly a stretch.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  87. avatar
    Black Lion January 4, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Another Year, Another Lame WND List of ‘Underreported’ Stories
    Topic: WorldNetDaily

    It’s the start of a new year, and you know what that means — another year-end list from WorldNetDaily of all the right-wing stories they think are “underreported” that ignores the facts to show they were rightly ignored.

    At the top of this year’s list is — surprise! — a birther story. This is the one involving for Hawaii elections temp worker Tim Adams claiming that there is no Hawaiian birth certificate for President Obama. As it did when it first reported Adams’ dubious story, WND ignores the fact that Adams first made his claim on the radio show of a self-described “pro-white” radio host that was broadcasting from a conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a decendent of the openly racist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s that the Anti-Defamation League describes as having a “white supremacy, white separatism” ideology. WND also ignores that the “senior elections clerk” position Adams claimed was described by his boss as a low-level data entry position, and that Adams would not have had access to any of Obama’s election and related records since he is not registered to vote in Hawaii.

    Another entry on WND’s list is “the dark possibility of the manipulation of elections” as exemplied by, among other things, ‘a formalized refusal by some states to follow election law regarding ballots for the military.” WND asserted that “during the 2010 election some states simply disregarded – or demanded an exemption to – requirements that they get ballots to members of the military, who vote more conservatively than the general population, on time for them to be returned and counted.” What WND didn’t note is that claims about intentional efforts to prevent military members from receiving ballots are largely overblown, and states that failed to meet federal deadlines to send out military ballots reached settlements with the Justice Department to extend the deadline for their return to ensure those ballots were counted.

    WND must have been running short on actual fake underreported news, so it had to come up wiht filler entries, like this one: “The push in the U.S. courts by homosexual advocates to demand the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ as well as through Congress to formally adopt the policy of allowing open homosexual behavior in the U.S. military.” WND seems to concede it’s not actually underreported, but it insisted that the issue “remains beyond the reach of most traditional reporting staffs.” That seems to be code for saying that the media doesn’t despise gays as much as WND does.

    WND even threw in an “honorable mention” for its so-called “pink slip” campaign. If you’ll recall, that was the right-wing screed that contained numerous factual errors. WND touted that the campaign “dispatched nearly 10 million warnings to members of Congress to return to the values of their constituents or face being removed from office in November,” but if you divide 10 million by the 535 “pink slips” each participant generated,you have less than 18,690 people paying WND the princely sum of $29.95 to send out those slips — hardly a massive outpouring (though WND grossed a cool $500,000-plus on the fleecing of its readers).

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/

  88. avatar
    G January 4, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    Joey: My favorite “anti-birther” lawsuit is “Hollander v McCain” which was heard in the US District Court in New Hampshire. Hollander sued McCain and the Republican National Committee for putting an ineligible candidate on the ballot who was not a native born citizen because he was born in Panama.

    I would consider that to be a birther lawsuit.

    I don’t understand your “anti-birther” classification of this case or what you mean by that. Please explain.

  89. avatar
    brygenon January 5, 2011 at 4:00 am #

    NBC wrote:

    nbc: Perhaps you should read Ankeny where the plaintiffs insists that it is birth on soil to two us citizen parents.

    NBC, I have taken your advice to re-read the Court of Appeals of Indiana’s opinion on Ankeny v. Daniels (A.K.A. Ankeny v Governor of Indiana). I find that my reporting was entirely correct: The Court held that birth on soil is *sufficient* for natural-born citizenship (with the familiar, limited exceptions of children of foreign ambassadors or hostile occupying forces), and — contrary to your reporting — the Court did not hold that “Natural born is simply: Born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents.” The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that John McCain III was ineligible for being born in Panama, and declined to examine that issue.

    Now, NBC, I suggest you take your advice, and read the opinion. You’ll find my reporting entirely correct; yours, not so much.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

    You are confusing the Vattel argument with the status of those not born on soil which is, as we discussed before, is far from clear.

    No; there I was correcting your false claim. Check it out.

  90. avatar
    brygenon January 5, 2011 at 4:49 am #

    NBC wrote, in one of his several responses to my comment:

    Nbc: Still hurting since our discussion on the issues I notice.

    Still laughing, actually…

    I mean come on, NBC: When I cited my sources and you responded: “that merely could mean that these people are all confused about the historical and legal precedents,” and ‘these people’ were renowned constitutional scholars at Yale and Harvard — Akhil Reed Amar and Lawrence Tribe — that’s a howler.

    Plus, NBC, remember that response where you opened, “I am citing my own opinions”? To your credit you were telling the truth there, unlike your current claim claim about the final opinion on Ankeny. You were doing as you claimed: citing your own opinion. Good for you.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/apuzzo-writ-somethin/

  91. avatar
    The Magic M January 5, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    > WND also ignores that the “senior elections clerk” position Adams claimed was described by his boss as a low-level data entry position

    Some people on the P&E have been calling Adams “the (!) Hawaii elections supervisor” as well.

    Somehow this incestuous bunch regurgitates the same memes on every site; P&E had its recent share of jabs at the “gay issue” (repeal of DADT, even a rehash of Iowa’s failed attempt to ban gay marriage) as well.

    Obviously they realize they won’t keep people busy with just the birth certificate for another 6 years.

  92. avatar
    Greg January 5, 2011 at 11:29 am #

    Before the birthers decided to pick up the “mere citizen” argument to apply to those born to foreign parents, the argument had a long and losing history in the courts. Tax evaders, militia members, sovereign citizens and white supremacists have been arguing that there are “real,” natural-born (or preamble) citizens and lesser, 14th Amendment, citizens. You can tell how well it has been received by googling “ADL idiot legal arguments” (without the quotes).

  93. avatar
    Joey January 5, 2011 at 12:33 pm #

    G: I would consider that to be a birther lawsuit. I don’t understand your “anti-birther” classification of this case or what you mean by that. Please explain.

    I meant that when I reference that lawsuit when I’m debating birthers, I use the fact that McCain and the Republican Party used standing as the grounds for dismissal.
    You are correct that the original lawsuit was a birther suit. I use it for anti-birther arguments. Sorry for the confusion.

  94. avatar
    ellid January 5, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    The Magic M: P&E had its recent share of jabs at the “gay issue” (repeal of DADT, even a rehash of Iowa’s failed attempt to ban gay marriage) as well.

    Why am I not surprised that Sharon Rondeau is a homophobe as well as a bigot?

  95. avatar
    Black Lion January 6, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    Hilarious posts over at the cesspool known as “Dr Kate”….The conspiracy theories mixed with the outright treason is amazing….You have to wonder if these people are clinically insane…..

    bdwilcox
    January 4, 2011 at 3:39 pm
    The question that always bothers me about revolution is: “Would the federal government go so far as sacrificing a quarter of the country in order to protect it’s own hide?”

    As an example, an OTM (other than Mexican) sneaks over the southern border and carries out a suicide bombing in a crowded shopping mall. The people of that state, realizing the federal government is no longer protecting them but is instead endangering their safety, decide that they have had enough and begin to rebel. They invoke their right to cast off a government that no longer serves their interest and refuse to obey anything from Washington. Soon, the states around it announce the same as they too have been made vulnerable by the Feds.

    The Federal government threatens the rebellious states, going so far as to hint at federal invasion if the states don’t cooperate. The rebellious states call up their militias and threaten that if one Federale steps foot on their sovereign soil they will be shot. The Feds send in some negotiators who are turned back at the state border. The Feds then send military convoys that blockade the roads leading in and out of the rebellious states. The states around the blockaded states sense the threat from the Feds on their soil and request the military to disband; the feds refuse. First, the military blockade is harassed and attacked by residents of those states they are squatting in. To end the harassment and attacks, the Feds send in more troops and threaten those states. Sensing their safety is now threatened, those states call up their militias and seize the military convoys.

    The Feds now announce that the states are in full rebellion and announce they will be sending in full operationally ready detachments to quell the rebellion. The troops are repelled as more states join those already in rebellion. Rebellion is beginning to ripple across the country state by state and the Feds realize that if they allow it to continue it will soon reach DC. So, the feds now have one of three choices: capitulate, fight the rebellious states from a position of increasing weakness as more states join the rebellion or completely destroy those states that are in rebellion in order to stop the revolt in its tracks and use them as an example.

    If that last option sounds unrealistic, consider that a wounded animal is the most dangerous. Obama’s spiritual and political mentor and benefactor, Bill Ayers, was ready to murder 20 million Americans to affect his Communist takeover of the U.S. You can watch Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who infiltrated Ayer’s Weather Underground, tell us this in his own words here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

    So my question is, would Obama and his cadre wage total war on rebellious states in order to stifle a revolt?

    Rich T
    January 4, 2011 at 4:17 pm
    The call to initate this will not be Obama’s, but whoever is incharge of the NWO group at the time.

    Just remember the math, as Kerodin say’s.

    http://www.kerodin.com/iii_reloads_to_liberty.htm

    The arithmetic:

    For the sake of this discussion let us accept that the III Community, those who would actually follow in the footsteps of our Countrymen who met at Lexington and Concord with the arms of the Militiaman, is comprised of 3 million Patriots. (I am not sanguine the real number is anywhere close to 3 million)

    Quantifying the number of OpFor is trickier, but we can paint with a broad brush and get close enough for Government work.

    There are about 225 million adults over 18 in the country.

    As of April 2010, Gallup says 28% support the Tea Party.

    So, for the sake of our discussion, 72% of our Countrymen do not support the ideals of the Tea Party, which are Constitutional ideals, so I think we can lump all 72% of our adults into the OpFor category.

    That’s 162 million.

    162,000,000

    III = 3 million (at most)

    The quota per III Patriot works out to 54.

    If III Patriots choose violence as a means of Restoration, or have no means left to them but violence, the arithmetic is simple. If the workload is spread evenly (it won’t be) then every III needs to take the fight out of 50+ people who stand in opposition to the Constitutional ideals of the republic.

    Bob77
    January 4, 2011 at 10:48 pm
    ~ Rich T – Your arithematic may be correct but you disregard a couple of key factors. First and foremost is the number who will support the Constitution who are armed citizens. We vastly out-number that 72% who you indicate are not supporters.

    Likewise, of that 72%, just because many do not subscribe to the Tea Party, does not mean that they are not willing to support and defend the Constitution. If it came to it, I can think of plenty of well armed, God-fearing Americans who are registered Democrats who would fight on the right side.

    Finally, of those who do NOT believe in our Constitution, one good redneck could “take the fight out of” far more than just 50 Progressives

    drkate
    January 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm
    Yes.

    That is why our troops are out of the country, they can’t be here to protect us. So the more foreign troops he has here, the easier to shoot Americans. His boy ayers is probably in on the whole thing.

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/did-anyone-ask-this-question/#comment-18748

  96. avatar
    Black Lion January 6, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    And of course the overt racism displayed by the idiots over at the Dr Kate Klan rally….

    AttilasDaughter
    January 4, 2011 at 4:21 pm
    Blacks are maybe tired to defend him, like this lady at the staged “townhall”.
    They support him out of habit, because he is black.

    I don’t think it is that kind of support that causes riots. After all he is very arrogant and busy playing golf, not quite a Rodney King character.
    And really, who wants to see this finger pointing while lecturing of a guy who was never qualified in the first place.

    Hillary had more votes, he got the nomination.

    All because of race.

    No riots, not for him. He had his chance.

    True Patriot
    January 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm
    Everyone needs to know Obama is not mostly black. This is the propaganda that has been thrown out to get this illegal communist muslim usurping fraud elected.

    Barack Hussein Obama is 50% white, 43% Saudi Arabian and 7% black.

    His real name is Saudi Arabian. When he was young and in Indonesia his Mother had it changed to his stepfather’s Soetoro changing his first name to Barry.

    The Communists have been grooming this fraud for years to infiltrate American politics and now the White House.

    Barack Hussein Obama can be found in Arabic names. You know like Saddam Hussein.

    To get his elected part of the major propaganda was to present him as the first black President. The Communist knew liberals would vote for him just because, and then of course we have the traitor and fraud Oprah campaigning for him.

    Oprah knows he is not mostly black.

    At this point I don’t care if he is the color purple, he is dangerous and he is ineligible to serve.

    Time for O to be unseated and sooner than later to save this country!

  97. avatar
    The Magic M January 6, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    > And of course the overt racism displayed by the idiots over at the Dr Kate Klan rally

    If racism wasn’t so extremely unfunny, it would be funny to see all the racist stereotypes covered in just a handful of postings:

    “White people voted for him because he was black”
    “Black people stand behind him because he is black even if they despise his politics”
    “Obama/his wife is a racist” (white racists love nothing more than calling a black person racist – not that there are no black racists, but you know what I mean)
    “Everyone is scared of the black community”
    “No-one dares to critize him for fear of being labeled a racist”
    “He isn’t even black, only x% of him are”

    and of course the ever-popular “he has a foreign sounding Mooslim name, oooh, scary”… *sigh*

    But I am not surprized; being a conspiracy wingnut and being racist and/or white supremacist usually go hand in hand, regardless whether you can be put on the left or the right political wing. E.g. in Germany, anti-semitism is equally popular among the Neo-Nazi groups as well as the communist movement, both being decidedly anti-NWO (in Germany, NWO means “USA + Israel”, whereas in the US it appears to mean “the UN”) and pro-Palestinian (as a vehicle for being anti-Israel, not for genuine support of the Palestinian people).

  98. avatar
    Rickey January 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm #

    Black Lion: drkate
    January 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm
    Yes.That is why our troops are out of the country, they can’t be here to protect us. So the more foreign troops he has here, the easier to shoot Americans.

    As usual, Dr. Kate doesn’t know what she is talking about. There are approximately 1.4 active duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and at any given moment approximately 1 million of them are stationed in the United States. Even at the height of the Iraq war only about 27% of our armed forces were stationed overseas.