Main Menu

New high score

Tes has been busy, I see, updating the Birther Scorecard. The number of birther cases is up to 226, with zero wins, 220 losses and 6 pending. In addition, birthers have lost over 90 appeals, plus at least 25 losses at the Supreme Court. I’d make that 221 losses and 5 pending with the dismissal of Taitz v. Hawaii Memorial Park Mortuary.

The pending cases are:

, ,

500 Responses to New high score

  1. avatar
    Curious George January 19, 2014 at 9:32 pm #

    This will be a very rocky legal road for the birther quest.

  2. avatar
    Curious George January 19, 2014 at 9:40 pm #

    What’s the latest on the Alabama appeal?

  3. avatar
    Jim January 19, 2014 at 9:53 pm #

    Curious George:
    What’s the latest on the Alabama appeal?

    No news yet…

  4. avatar
    BillTheCat January 20, 2014 at 12:26 am #

    Apparently, Laitey stated on Twitter that he is about to petition SCOTUS, so we can add that loss for the birthers soon =)

  5. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 20, 2014 at 1:32 am #

    Jim: No news yet…

    Is there a theory on why Alabama is taking so long?

  6. avatar
    Bovril January 20, 2014 at 4:18 am #

    Considering the number of appeals, en-banc hearings etc in the various cases, we must be up to something like 900 odd judges at every level of the judicial system, upto and including the SCOTUS, who have unanimously and outright rejected this crap.

    Still looking for that “one honest judge”…… 8-)

  7. avatar
    Jim F January 20, 2014 at 7:06 am #

    A bit off topic but relevent, nonetheless. I am not as clued in as most of you on the libel/slander laws in the US but I saw something on birther report the other day which would have me going to the courts no matter what country I lived in. A photo of the inside of the plane was shown with a man sitting behind a woman who is claimed to be Ms Fuddy. The man, who is identifiable, has his hand on the back of the seat in front of him, probably bracing for the crash. The claim by Falcon is that here is the murderer caught in the act of strangling the lady. I do not know if it is still up but Falcon and Birther Report would appear to have stepped well beyond the usual invective and left themselves very vulnerable to a massive lawsuit.
    Did any one else see it?

  8. avatar
    Bovril January 20, 2014 at 8:27 am #

    Yep, saw it and it first turned up, AFAIK on Free Republic either via Butterdezillion, Fred Nerks or one of the other mouth breathers over there.

    The insanity is getting waist deep over there, BZ is no positing that not only were all the other people on the flight “in on it” but that on a 9 seater plane there was a 10th unidentified person AND a manikin/dummy……

    There is one person “hoosierman” who I can’t make up mind as to whether he is trolling BZ or just fecking insane…..

    It’s all from about here……

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3110483/posts?page=663#663

  9. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 20, 2014 at 8:35 am #

    Laity claims he’s filing an action with the Supreme Court tomorrow. Not sure exactly how he could do that without a real lawyer.

  10. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 20, 2014 at 8:53 am #

    Curious George:
    This will be a very rocky legal road for the birther quest.

    Ah yes, Birther Quest!
    The only video game in history, where you’re greeted with an instant “Game Over” screen, after you insert the cartridge, and turn the power on.

  11. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 20, 2014 at 11:16 am #

    Jim F: Did any one else see it?

    Yes. I saw it and thought the same thing. Here is the thread. Picture is in the second or third post from *FALCON*…………….

    http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/01/dr-grace-vuoto-release-full-fuddy-autopsy.html

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 20, 2014 at 11:40 am #

    Probably just normal backlog. It’s not an important case.

    CarlOrcas: Is there a theory on why Alabama is taking so long?

  13. avatar
    Rickey January 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

    Jim F:
    The claim byFalcon is that here is the murderer caught in the act of strangling the lady.

    The “murderer” bungled his job, then, because Fuddy was alive and talking to Keith Yamamoto while they were in the water.

  14. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 20, 2014 at 2:34 pm #

    Rickey: The “murderer” bungled his job, then, because Fuddy was alive and talking to Keith Yamamoto while they were in the water.

    Apparently Fuddy had a delayed reaction to her strangling.

  15. avatar
    Rickey January 20, 2014 at 2:35 pm #

    The Strunk case may be dismissed soon. Nobody showed up for the last court appearance on October 28 and another appearance is scheduled for January 27.

  16. avatar
    Daniel January 20, 2014 at 3:17 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Apparently Fuddy had a delayed reaction to her strangling.

    Politicians have the innate ability to continue talking long after they are dead.

  17. avatar
    Sef January 20, 2014 at 3:21 pm #

    Daniel: Politicians have the innate ability to continue talking long after they are dead.

    Especially if they are from “The Garden State”.

  18. avatar
    justlw January 20, 2014 at 6:45 pm #

    Bovril: BZ is no positing that not only were all the other people on the flight “in on it” but that on a 9 seater plane there was a 10th unidentified person AND a manikin/dummy……

    So are The Grand Conspirators now being scored on difficulty factor or something?

    “OK, guys, you got Breitbart with a magic dart while he was walking down the street. Cheez, my Aunt Mable could’ve done that. Next time, you’re going to have to involve a plane full of people, a mannikin, and, and, let’s see… a leper colony! Oh, and someone has to record it with a GoPro.”

  19. avatar
    Keith January 21, 2014 at 12:13 am #

    Bovril: BZ is no positing that not only were all the other people on the flight “in on it” but that on a 9 seater plane there was a 10th unidentified person

    The Pilot?

    AND a manikin/dummy

    The Steward(ess)?

  20. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 21, 2014 at 6:06 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Not sure exactly how he could do that without a real lawyer.

    Here’s his tweet from Dec 17th:

    I hired the Prestigious Cockle Legal Briefs to prepare my Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Laity v State of NY.

    Whatever that means in the real world.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2014 at 7:57 am #

    There are companies that will take your material and format it according to Supreme Court technical formatting requirements. The Cockle Legal Briefs web site says:

    At Cockle Legal Briefs, we’re industry leaders in the production of legal briefs. We’re here to manage the entire process of brief preparation – from consultation to filing. Our services include:

    Interpreting Court requirements
    Navigating complex filing rules
    Proofreading
    Printing and binding
    Same-day filing

    Our clients include several Am Law 100 firms, state Attorneys General, Supreme Court clinics at some of the nation’s premier law schools, national public interest organizations, and solo practitioners. We also maintain an excellent working relationship with the Clerk’s Office at the U.S. Supreme Court.

    But as you can see, they don’t offer legal advice.

    The Magic M (not logged in): “I hired the Prestigious Cockle Legal Briefs to prepare my Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Laity v State of NY.”

    Whatever that means in the real world.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2014 at 8:03 am #

    The inflatable auto-pilot?

    Keith: The Steward(ess)?

  23. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 21, 2014 at 8:48 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: But as you can see, they don’t offer legal advice.

    Still I can see Laity spinning it as “they approved of my filing” or something like that.

    He’s one of the “fraud invalidates an election, so Boehner is the legal President” crowd BTW. I’ve tried in vain to elicit some well-founded rationale for this claim from him on Twitter, he repeats only variants of “it is because it is”.

  24. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 21, 2014 at 10:39 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Still I can see Laity spinning it as “they approved of my filing” or something like that. He’s one of the “fraud invalidates an election, so Boehner is the legal President” crowd BTW. I’ve tried in vain to elicit some well-founded rationale for this claim from him on Twitter, he repeats only variants of “it is because it is”.

    Yep I’ve been asking him the same on twitter. He pops up every few days to respond only to run again. He doesn’t seem to get that the presidential succession act deals with death, removal, and incapacitation of the president and not with his fantasy “he never was the president claims”. There is nothing in the constitution or our laws dealing with his fantasy scenario. Besides if he was never actually elected wouldn’t the speaker in place at the time be the President using laity logic?

  25. avatar
    Rickey January 21, 2014 at 12:38 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Still I can see Laity spinning it as “they approved of my filing” or something like that.

    He’s one of the “fraud invalidates an election, so Boehner is the legal President” crowd BTW. I’ve tried in vain to elicit some well-founded rationale for this claim from him on Twitter, he repeats only variants of “it is because it is”.

    Of course, even Obama were proven to be ineligible, Biden was eligible so he was legally elected and he would be first in succession.The birthers don’t seem to realize that the Electors cast separate ballots for President and Vice-President. Here is a link to an example of an actual Electoral College Certificate of Vote, this one being from New York State:

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-new-york.pdf

  26. avatar
    Roadscholar January 21, 2014 at 12:55 pm #

    “Do you like movies about gladiators, Billy?” –Robert Laity

  27. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 21, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    Roadscholar:
    “Do you like movies about gladiators, Billy?”–Robert Laity

    I had a good laugh at that one.

  28. avatar
    Crustacean January 21, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The inflatable auto-pilot?

    Surely you can’t be serious…

  29. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm #

    Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.

  30. avatar
    Northland10 January 21, 2014 at 8:00 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: But as you can see, they don’t offer legal advice.

    Laity wouldn’t listen to it anyway. He is right and that is that.

  31. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 22, 2014 at 5:25 am #

    Rickey: The birthers don’t seem to realize that the Electors cast separate ballots for President and Vice-President.

    Laity keeps parroting his “fraud = entire Obama/Biden ticket invalid” claim but when I pressed him on it, all he could do was quote the legal definition of fraud, then go back to “it is so because I say it is so”.

    He’s one of the “my interpretation of ordinary law trumps the Constitution” crowd, along with those who claim “failure to register for Selective Service makes you ineligible for the presidency” as if an ordinary law could set additional restrictions on the presidency on top of those in the Constitution.

    Seems every birther faction has at least one theory that totally contradicts/ignores the letter, meaning and supremacy of the Constitution. But they call themselves “patriots”. Go figure.

  32. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 22, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Laity keeps parroting his “fraud = entire Obama/Biden ticket invalid” claim but when I pressed him on it, all he could do was quote the legal definition of fraud, then go back to “it is so because I say it is so”.He’s one of the “my interpretation of ordinary law trumps the Constitution” crowd, along with those who claim “failure to register for Selective Service makes you ineligible for the presidency” as if an ordinary law could set additional restrictions on the presidency on top of those in the Constitution.Seems every birther faction has at least one theory that totally contradicts/ignores the letter, meaning and supremacy of the Constitution. But they call themselves “patriots”. Go figure.

    Indeed they’re such strict constitutionalists yet they keep trying to go to the courts which cannot give the remedy they seek. The courts have no power under the constitution to remove a sitting president. Their idea of presidential line of succession is also extra-constitutional. There is nothing in the Presidential succession act that allows for them to skip over Biden if the President is removed from office. Also notice that the actual text states that the Speaker of the House if it came to him would “Act as President” sounds like a dispute would arise over whether he would be Acting President or be President. This would cause the same dispute that John Tyler went through.

  33. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 22, 2014 at 11:48 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Also notice that the actual text states that the Speaker of the House if it came to him would “Act as President” sounds like a dispute would arise over whether he would be Acting President or be President.

    That distinction would be academic as to his actual powers (either way he would have full authority of the office). So the only issue would be whether in such case the Speaker would only serve until an election could be held or if he’d serve out the entire current term:

    shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified

    I would posit the former (that an election should be held as soon as possible) because otherwise the Constitution would, for example, read “shall serve out the current term” or “until the next Presidential elections” or something like that.

    Dang, I wish the people who wrote this stuff were more like current lawyers, then we wouldn’t have ambiguities that some parties might, under the right circumstances, blow up to “constitutional crisis” proportions (imagine Boehner wanting to serve out the term while Democrats want new elections, of course SCOTUS would decide quickly, but whatever the result, it would look bad).

  34. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): That distinction would be academic as to his actual powers (either way he would have full authority of the office). So the only issue would be whether in such case the Speaker would only serve until an election could be held or if he’d serve out the entire current term:“shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified”I would posit the former (that an election should be held as soon as possible) because otherwise the Constitution would, for example, read “shall serve out the current term” or “until the next Presidential elections” or something like that.Dang, I wish the people who wrote this stuff were more like current lawyers, then we wouldn’t have ambiguities that some parties might, under the right circumstances, blow up to “constitutional crisis” proportions (imagine Boehner wanting to serve out the term while Democrats want new elections, of course SCOTUS would decide quickly, but whatever the result, it would look bad).

    There is a lot of ambiguity in the Presidential Succession Act would the speaker serve until a new VP is put in place? There hasn’t been a case where this has been put to the test so I doubt we’ll get an answer anytime soon.

  35. avatar
    Keith January 23, 2014 at 12:04 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I would posit the former (that an election should be held as soon as possible) because otherwise the Constitution would, for example, read “shall serve out the current term” or “until the next Presidential elections” or something like that.

    The Constitution is already quite explicit about when elections are held. Why would it need any further qualification?

  36. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 23, 2014 at 10:29 am #

    Keith: The Constitution is already quite explicit about when elections are held.

    Thanks for pointing that out again, I was missing the forest for the trees. :)

  37. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 24, 2014 at 12:04 am #

    BillTheCat:
    Apparently, Laitey stated on Twitter that he is about to petition SCOTUS, so we can add that loss for the birthers soon =)

    Don’t count on it. The Petition is on SCRIBD. Check it out.

  38. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 24, 2014 at 12:06 am #

    Roadscholar:
    “Do you like movies about gladiators, Billy?”–Robert Laity

    Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

  39. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 24, 2014 at 12:20 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    Yeah. How is that working out for you so far?
    Birthers can’t even talk a good game anymore. Why? Because at this point its all recycled material. But feel free to keep pinning your hopes and dreams on con artists like Zullo and child molesters like Klayman. You got a good three more years to continue making a collective ass out of yourselves. You can look back on inauguration day 2017 and lament the eight years of your life that was wasted on the attempting to unseat a legally elected president.

  40. avatar
    Thinker January 24, 2014 at 3:30 am #

    Well, judging from how he fubarred his petition on his scribd page, I certainly don’t doubt that Mr. Laity is a birfer. Each page is a separate file and all the text is sideways. I didn’t read the whole thing, but it appears to be a case against the State of New York based on the definition of natural born citizen. Even if, in the wildest of birfer dreams, SCOTUS ruled in his favor, I don’t see how he would get from his lawsuit to executing any usurpers.

  41. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 24, 2014 at 3:53 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Don’t count on it.

    I bet $5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (my weekly allowance by our beloved Alien Overlords) you will lose (“cert denied”). Dare to put up $500 against that?

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    Nobody is interested in what you j*** off to.

    Thinker: Each page is a separate file and all the text is sideways.

    Probably he found a case where cert was granted that was published like this on Scribd and now believes this is the magic mojo that will bring him success. ;)

  42. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 24, 2014 at 8:19 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    Since Obama isn’t a usurper he won’t be convicted.

  43. avatar
    sfjeff January 24, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    I am not sure whether the reference to “Airplane” just flew right over Bob’s head, or whether Bob thinks that there are actual movies of executions of ursurpers that he thinks we may have watched.

    But either way- frickin hilarious.

  44. avatar
    JPotter January 24, 2014 at 11:21 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Since Obama isn’t a usurper he won’t be convicted.

    You forgot to address whether he will be executed. ;)

  45. avatar
    Bovril January 24, 2014 at 11:21 am #

    Nahhhhh for me the execution of seditious scum who demand the violation of the Constitution is the thing. After all due process of law of course.

  46. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm #

    JPotter: You forgot to address whether he will be executed.

    Yes Bobby seems to think his small lynch mob of pitchfork carriers would be enough to carry out his threats.

  47. avatar
    RanTalbott January 24, 2014 at 12:32 pm #

    Thinker: Each page is a separate file and all the text is sideways.

    That’s because it was scanned in “Presidential LFBC Mode”.

    Roxie’s just doing her bit to keep the conspiracy secret: she knows that, when the SCOTUS sees the multiple files, they’ll think it’s a forgery, and discard it. So Laity will be denied the Official Supreme Court Subpoenas he needs to find the S3kr1t Forging R00m in the mansion Fuddy bought with her payoff money, and get the BCs that Obama’s was cut-and-pasted from.

    See? It’s all part of the plan…

  48. avatar
    Crustacean January 24, 2014 at 12:36 pm #

    I love offering wagers to birthers. Sadly, no takers yet. I wonder why that is.

    Since I can’t count that high, M, I had to look the number up. It’s (short-scale definition) FIVE SEXTILLION!! So you’re giving Laity TEN QUINTILLION-TO-ONE odds. How could he pass that up?

    By the way: applying birther logic, since your offered bet includes “sex” in the name, you are obviously a pervert. Shame on you!

    The Magic M (not logged in): I bet $5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (my weekly allowance by our beloved Alien Overlords) you will lose (“cert denied”). Dare to put up $500 against that?

  49. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 24, 2014 at 6:27 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    I see that, despite your disproven legal theories and repeated court losses, you’re still repeating the birther mantra of “any day now” in hopes that your wet dream about the President of the United States being executed somehow comes true.

    Based on your track record, I’d say that your chances of that particular fantasy coming true are pretty much nil.

  50. avatar
    Northland10 January 24, 2014 at 6:35 pm #

    They way I see it, the only real question is whether it whether it is on the dead list for the Feb 28 conference or the March 7 conference. Maybe New York will waive it’s right to respond earlier and it will be earlier yet.

  51. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 25, 2014 at 12:41 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    When has that happened, Bob? When has ANYONE, in ANY COUNTRY, in say the last 300 years, gotten elected to the highest office in the land, and then it was later discovered he wasn’t really who he claimed to be. Huh? I can tell you: zero. It didn’t happen here either. You have set yourself up for being bitter and seeming psychotic for the rest of your days by believing utter nonsense about the Constitutionally-elected brilliant Moderate President that millions of us voted for, twice.

    He won’t ever be discovered or proven to be a “usurper” because it ain’t so. Much less executed. End of story.

    But you will be remembered as a bitter, delusional crank, if you are remembered at all.

    And having met quite a few of the commenters on this site, I must say I doubt that you have contributed to this country 1/100 as much as any single one of them.

    If you were a man of honor, you’d accept and respect the President the people elected, even if you don’t like him. That’s what our loyal members of our armed forces do. Guys who voted for Romney. Guys who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat with a gun pointed at their heads. But they serve the elected President to the fullest of their abilities.

    Why? Because they are better people than you, Bob. They are loyal and true.

    You shame them by breathing American air.

  52. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 3:19 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Don’t count on it. The Petition is on SCRIBD. Check it out.

    Boring… Nothing legally relevant… 220+ cases dismissed, can’t wait to have yours added to it. Please oh please do file, things have gotten a bit too boring recently.

  53. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 5:56 am #

    nbc: Boring… Nothing legally relevant… 220+ cases dismissed, can’t wait to have yours added to it. Please oh please do file, things have gotten a bit too boring recently.

    It was filed on 1/22/14.

  54. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:09 am #

    Thomas Brown: When has that happened, Bob?When has ANYONE, in ANY COUNTRY, in say the last 300 years, gotten elected to the highest office in the land, and then it was later discovered he wasn’t really who he claimed to be.Huh?I can tell you: zero.It didn’t happen here either.You have set yourself up for being bitter and seeming psychotic for the rest of your days by believing utter nonsense about the Constitutionally-elected brilliant Moderate President that millions of us voted for, twice.

    He won’t ever be discovered or proven to be a “usurper” because it ain’t so.Much less executed.End of story.

    But you will be remembered as a bitter, delusional crank, if you are remembered at all.

    And having met quite a few of the commenters on this site, I must say I doubt that you have contributed to this country 1/100 as much as any single one of them.

    If you were a man of honor, you’d accept and respect the President the people elected, even if you don’t like him.That’s what our loyal members of our armed forces do.Guys who voted for Romney.Guys who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat with a gun pointed at their heads.But they serve the elected President to the fullest of their abilities.

    Why?Because they are better people than you, Bob. They are loyal and true.

    You shame them by breathing American air.

    Chester Arthur was determined to have been a Usurper. He,like Obama, was born with British Citizenshp, which no one can deny,the founders would not have acquiesced to. They specifically did NOT want anyone with a taint of British loyalties to be the President of OUR Sovereign nation. Currently, BOTH parties are now proffering candidates that are NOT “Natural-Born” Citizens. Neither Cruz,Rubio,Obama,Swarzenegger,McCain OR Jindahl are “Natural-Born Citizen[s}. The Congress has for some reason,decided to try to legislate Article II,Sec. I away. They have FAILED to do so over SIX times since 2001. We either obey the Constitution or we don’t. The latter is anarchy. The “Natural-Born Citizen” requirement CAN’T be changed by legislation. That can only be changed by an Article V Amendment. Why are BOTH parties pushing disqualified candidates? Obama and Arthur’s usurpations are NOT Precedents to do it again, You’ve heard what happens after Three Strikes, We’re OUT. I am trying to stop this flagrant disregard to the Constitution. BOTH Bushes,Obama,Biden and BOTH Clintons have all publicly supported the “New World Order”. You can see it for yourself on youtube.
    Kerry just signed the UN Small Arms treaty. I am a loyal American and the USA is a SOVEREIGN Nation where the rule of law applies. Obama is a traitor and a spy,a usurper and a fraud.

  55. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:17 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater:
    Laity claims he’s filing an action with the Supreme Court tomorrow.Not sure exactly how he could do that without a real lawyer.

    This is my SECOND case which I filed at SCOTUS. I sued the U.S. Government in 1994 for whistleblower retaliation. Both my cases were filed “in my own behalf”.
    I wrote my own legal brief.

  56. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:20 am #

    Northland10:
    They way I see it, the only real question is whether it whether it is on the dead list for the Feb 28 conference or the March 7 conference.Maybe New York will waive it’s right to respond earlier and it will be earlier yet.

    NY has done NOTHING since 2011 to even defend itself. The Courts below should have granted me a default judgement on that ground alone. Why expect them to respond now?

  57. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:26 am #

    Patrick McKinnion: I see that, despite your disproven legal theories and repeated court losses, you’re still repeating the birther mantra of “any day now” in hopes that your wet dream about the President of the United States being executed somehow comes true.

    Based on your track record, I’d say that your chances of that particular fantasy coming true are pretty much nil.

    It is either we respect the Constitution or we don’t. If Americans want people who are not 100% American to be President then that will be the result of a properly amended Constitution. I cannot countenance the wholesale disregard for our Laws. “Freedom is not free”. THOUSANDS of Americans have died to preserve our Liberties. I WILL NOT sit idly by an allow a known fraud,usurper and spy named Obama,to micturate on those hero’s graves and to use our Constitution to wipe his ass.

  58. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:32 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I bet $5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (my weekly allowance by our beloved Alien Overlords) you will lose (“cert denied”). Dare to put up $500 against that?

    Nobody is interested in what you j*** off to.

    Probably he found a case where cert was granted that was published like this on Scribd and now believes this is the magic mojo that will bring him success.

    You make such a ludicrously impossible wager that you could not possible pay off if I win. Make a reasonable wager,IN WRITING, and signed. I have put my money where my mouth is, as the saying goes. Your “alien overlords”? Obama is an illegal “alien” overlord.,the leader of the Muslim world.

    My legal brief for the Case is in the appropriate Supreme Court “Booklet” format.

  59. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:39 am #

    RanTalbott: That’s because it was scanned in “Presidential LFBC Mode”.

    Roxie’s just doing her bit to keep the conspiracy secret: she knows that, when the SCOTUS sees the multiple files, they’ll think it’s a forgery, and discard it. So Laity will be denied the Official Supreme Court Subpoenas he needs to find the S3kr1t Forging R00m in the mansion Fuddy bought with her payoff money, and get the BCs that Obama’s was cut-and-pasted from.

    See? It’s all part of the plan…

    It’s in “Booklet” format strictly compliant with SCOTUS rules.

  60. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:44 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Yes Bobby seems to think his small lynch mob of pitchfork carriers would be enough to carry out his threats.

    If Obama is convicted of all the Charges he stands accused of, I would expect that he would be executed by a properly convened Military firing squad or other suitable means of execution pursuant to his conviction. I have made no “Threats”. Being a spy and a traitor carries the death penalty. State execution of spies is an acceptable act of societal self defense.

  61. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:46 am #

    Bovril:
    Nahhhhh for me the execution of seditious scum who demand the violation of the Constitution is the thing. After all due process of law of course.

    Google: “There is NO ‘President’ Obama” by Me.

  62. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:49 am #

    JPotter: You forgot to address whether he will be executed.

    Obama is NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. He presented himself as Constitutionally qualified to be President with the help of Nancy Pelosi. He obtained the Office of the Presidency by fraud. THAT is usurpation. He did so during “Time of war”. THAT makes Obama a spy.

  63. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    sfjeff: I am not sure whether the reference to “Airplane” just flew right over Bob’s head, or whether Bob thinks that there are actual movies of executions of ursurpers that he thinks we may have watched.

    But either way- frickin hilarious.

    There are films and videos of persons being executed. I would trust that Obama’s execution, if convicted, will be televised worldwide.

  64. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 6:59 am #

    Thinker:
    Well, judging from how he fubarred his petition on his scribd page, I certainly don’t doubt that Mr. Laity is a birfer. Each page is a separate file and all the text is sideways. I didn’t read the whole thing, but it appears to be a case against the State of New York based on the definition of natural born citizen. Even if, in the wildest of birfer dreams, SCOTUS ruled in his favor, I don’t see how he would get from his lawsuit to executing any usurpers.

    That’s because you are slow on the uptake.

  65. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:01 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Yeah. How is that working out for you so far?
    Birthers can’t even talk a good game anymore. Why? Because at this point its all recycled material. But feel free to keep pinning your hopes and dreams on con artists like Zullo and child molesters like Klayman. You got a good three more years to continue making a collective ass out of yourselves. You can look back on inauguration day 2017 and lament the eight years of your life that was wasted on the attempting to unseat a legally elected president.

    My time is spent the way I want to spend it. Obama will be brought to Justice. History will not be kind to the usurper and spy. This is a matter of grave national security risk and you call it a “Game”?

  66. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 7:03 am #

    oh no the darkie
    won the race
    we wont fergit
    that aint his place
    burma shave

  67. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:05 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Do you like to watch the execution of usurpers who are convicted?

    No. I don’t. I do however, want to see Obama convicted. He is a usurper and spy.

  68. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:07 am #

    aarrgghh:
    oh no the darkie
    won the race
    we wont fergit
    that aint his place
    burma shave

    Really? That damn “Race Card” again? Obama is Mullato. He is Caucasian,Negroid and Arab. ALL of his constituent racial parts are equally treasonous. His race does not give him a license to commit treason and to hide behind it. Throw that ratty race card away. Obama is being judged by his character and not the color of his skin.

  69. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 7:09 am #

    one honest judge
    will heed our voice
    and overthrow
    the people’s choice
    burma shave

  70. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:13 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: There is a lot of ambiguity in the Presidential Succession Act would the speaker serve until a new VP is put in place?There hasn’t been a case where this has been put to the test so I doubt we’ll get an answer anytime soon.

    When Nixon and Agnew left office before their term ended,Gerald Ford,Speaker of the House,became President of the United States.

  71. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:21 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Indeed they’re such strict constitutionalists yet they keep trying to go to the courts which cannot give the remedy they seek.The courts have no power under the constitution to remove a sitting president.Their idea of presidential line of succession is also extra-constitutional.There is nothing in the Presidential succession act that allows for them to skip over Biden if the President is removed from office.Also notice that the actual text states that the Speaker of the House if it came to him would “Act as President” sounds like a dispute would arise over whether he would be Acting President or be President.This would cause the same dispute that John Tyler went through.

    Gerald Ford, Speaker of the House, entered the Presidency under the provisions of the 25th Amendment after Agnew resigned and then became President when Nixon Resigned. His VP was Nelson Rockefeller.

  72. avatar
    welsh dragon January 25, 2014 at 7:29 am #

    Robert C. Laity: When Nixon and Agnew left office before their term ended,Gerald Ford,Speaker of the House,became President of the United States

    Tut tut, history is obviously not your strong point! Let me spell it out –

    When Agnew resigned in 1973 Nixon nominated Ford as Vice President.

    Ford was not Speaker of the House, he was House MINORITY Leader.

    When Nixon resigned in 1974 Vice President Ford became President.

    Got it?

    Jeez, I’m not even American but even I know this!

  73. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:33 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Laity keeps parroting his “fraud = entire Obama/Biden ticket invalid” claim but when I pressed him on it, all he could do was quote the legal definition of fraud, then go back to “it is so because I say it is so”.

    He’s one of the “my interpretation of ordinary law trumps the Constitution” crowd, along with those who claim “failure to register for Selective Service makes you ineligible for the presidency” as if an ordinary law could set additional restrictions on the presidency on top of those in the Constitution.

    Seems every birther faction has at least one theory that totally contradicts/ignores the letter, meaning and supremacy of the Constitution. But they call themselves “patriots”. Go figure.

    I have never made such statements as “Because I say it is so” nor that the Statutory Law trumps the Constitution. Obama’s selective service card is a forgery. The basis for my case is not that the fact he produced a forged ID document (His BC is also forged). It is that Obama is constitutionally disqualified to be President. He is simply NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. I can cite an “Ordinary Law” that does set a restriction on the President. 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381 being guilty of treason prohibits him from holding “any office under the United States…”

  74. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:36 am #

    welsh dragon: Tut tut, history is obviously not your strong point! Let me spell it out –

    When Agnew resigned in 1973 Nixon nominated Ford as Vice President.

    Ford was not Speaker of the House, he was House MINORITY Leader.

    When Nixon resigned in 1974 Vice President Ford became President.

    Got it?

    Jeez, I’m not even American but even I know this!

    I stand corrected.

  75. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 7:42 am #

    welsh dragon: Tut tut, history is obviously not your strong point! Let me spell it out –

    When Agnew resigned in 1973 Nixon nominated Ford as Vice President.

    Ford was not Speaker of the House, he was House MINORITY Leader.

    When Nixon resigned in 1974 Vice President Ford became President.

    Got it?

    Jeez, I’m not even American but even I know this!

    Yes. Most likely after having googled it.

  76. avatar
    welsh dragon January 25, 2014 at 7:43 am #

    Robert C. Laity: He was Speaker of the House.

    Prove it!

    “Because the Republicans did not attain a majority in the House, Ford was unable to reach his ultimate political goal–to be Speaker of the House. Ironically, he did become president of the Senate. When Spiro Agnew resigned the office of Vice President of the United States late in 1973, after pleading no contest to a charge of income tax evasion, President Nixon was empowered by the 25th Amendment to appoint a new vice president. Presumably, he needed someone who could work with Congress, survive close scrutiny of his political career and private life, and be confirmed quickly. He chose Gerald R. Ford. Following the most thorough background investigation in the history of the FBI, Ford was confirmed and sworn in on December 6, 1973″

    http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/fordbiop.asp

  77. avatar
    welsh dragon January 25, 2014 at 7:59 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Yes. Most likely after having googled it

    No actually – as an 18 year old I was fascinated by the Watergate scandal and remember the coverage well.

  78. avatar
    American Mzungu January 25, 2014 at 8:22 am #

    Robert C. Laity: He is Caucasian,Negroid and Arab. ALL of his constituent racial parts are equally treasonous.

    Arab? How does Obama get an Arab background?

    Is Arab even a race?

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2014 at 8:51 am #

    I bet you watch Fox News.

    Robert C. Laity: Throw that ratty race card away. Obama is being judged by his character and not the color of his skin.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2014 at 8:57 am #

    Don’t be silly.

    Robert C. Laity: Obama’s selective service card is a forgery.

  81. avatar
    The European January 25, 2014 at 9:05 am #

    American Mzungu: Arab?How does Obama get an Arab background?

    Is Arab even a race?

    Depends. In the proper biological sense there are no human races, we are all members of the same Human Race Homo Sapiens Sapiens

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_classification%29

    If you use “race” in a wider sense for a group whos members share a lot of features which make them distinct from other groups I would say yes, there is an “Arab” race. Part of that race are a lot of, but not all, Jews. They even share grosso modo the same religion. Berber people and Iranians are not Arabs.

  82. avatar
    The European January 25, 2014 at 9:10 am #

    The comment editor did not work for me, so I add this here:

    Sometimes it is hard to accept that all “people” belong to the same race as I do. Some – a few of them do post here – do not merit to be classified as “Sapiens Sapiens”

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2014 at 9:11 am #

    It was a race in the 1962 Kenyan Census form.

    American Mzungu: Is Arab even a race?

  84. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 25, 2014 at 9:18 am #

    Robert C. Laity: My timeis spent the way I want to spend it. Obama will be brought to Justice. History will not be kind to the usurper and spy. This is a matter of grave national security risk and you call it a “Game”?

    History will be far kinder to Obama, than it will be to birthers. You’re all a bunch of kooks, and that’s what history is going to say about you. Well the teeny-tiny footnote about you. It’ll have a spot right next to the crazies who think the moon landing was faked, and the loons who swear Elvis is still alive.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2014 at 9:23 am #

    What troubles me a little is that you nut jobs say stuff like this with impunity, and will never be held accountable. It insults my sense of justice. I mean just look at yourself, arrogantly posting on an article about 221 straight birther losses in court.

    Robert C. Laity: Obama will be brought to Justice. History will not be kind to the usurper and spy.

  86. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 10:04 am #

    Doc. You don’t understand birther logic. They have actually won all those lawsuits. It’s just the corrupt court system that makes them look like they lost. And look at Mario Apuzzo. He has NEVER lost – as long as he’s debating someone in an online forum….

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    What troubles me a little is that you nut jobs say stuff like this with impunity, and will never be held accountable. It insults my sense of justice. I mean just look at yourself, arrogantly posting on an article about 221 straight birther losses in court.

  87. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 10:07 am #

    Don’t expect a birther to be able to understand our laws and constitution.

    welsh dragon: Prove it!

    “Because the Republicans did not attain a majority in the House, Ford was unable to reach his ultimate political goal–to be Speaker of the House. Ironically, he did become president of the Senate. When Spiro Agnew resigned the office of Vice President of the United States late in 1973, after pleading no contest to a charge of income tax evasion, President Nixon was empowered by the 25th Amendment to appoint a new vice president. Presumably, he needed someone who could work with Congress, survive close scrutiny of his political career and private life, and be confirmed quickly. He chose Gerald R. Ford. Following the most thorough background investigation in the history of the FBI, Ford was confirmed and sworn in on December 6, 1973″

    http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/fordbiop.asp

  88. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 10:31 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy (to rc laity): I mean just look at yourself, arrogantly posting on an article about 221 straight birther losses in court.

    if at first
    you don’t succeed
    just file another
    birfer screed
    burma shave

  89. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:47 am #

    Robert C. Laity: This is my SECOND case which I filed at SCOTUS. I suedthe U.S. Government in 1994 for whistleblower retaliation. Both my cases were filed “in my own behalf”.
    I wrote my own legal brief.

    How did your last case go with Scotus Laity? I remember something about you being called a total layman

  90. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:50 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Chester Arthur was determined to have been a Usurper. He,like Obama, was born with British Citizenshp, which no one can deny,the founders would not have acquiesced to. They specifically did NOT want anyone with a taint of British loyalties to be the President of OUR Sovereign nation. Currently, BOTH parties are now proffering candidates that are NOT “Natural-Born” Citizens. Neither Cruz,Rubio,Obama,Swarzenegger,McCain OR Jindahl are “Natural-Born Citizen[s}. The Congress has for some reason,decided to try to legislate Article II,Sec. I away. They have FAILED to do so over SIX times since 2001. We either obey the Constitution or we don’t. The latter is anarchy. The “Natural-Born Citizen” requirement CAN’T be changed by legislation. That can only be changed by an Article V Amendment. Why are BOTH parties pushing disqualified candidates? Obama and Arthur’s usurpations are NOT Precedents to do it again, You’ve heard what happens after Three Strikes, We’re OUT. I am trying to stop this flagrant disregard to the Constitution. BOTH Bushes,Obama,Biden and BOTH Clintons have all publicly supported the “New World Order”. You can see it for yourself onyoutube.
    Kerry just signed the UN Small Arms treaty. I am a loyal American and the USA is a SOVEREIGN Nation where the rule of law applies. Obama is a traitor and a spy,a usurper and a fraud.

    It was never “determined” that Chester A Arthur was a usurper. You guys have claimed it but it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. It was known that Chester’s father wasn’t naturalized when he was born which is why the democrats tried to claim he was born in Canada because parental status does not matter. Taint of british loyalty? Are you joking? Many of the founding fathers were british. How about the taint of French Loyalty? Jefferson acquired french citizenship as an adult and if anyone had split loyalties it was jefferson when he resigned as Secretary of State to get involved in french affairs.

  91. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:51 am #

    Robert C. Laity: NY has done NOTHING since 2011 to even defend itself.The Courts below should have granted me a default judgement on that ground alone. Why expect them to respond now?

    Why would they grant you a default when you have no standing and no merit?

  92. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:52 am #

    Robert C. Laity: If Obama is convicted of all the Charges he stands accused of, I would expect that he would be executed by a properly convened Military firing squad or other suitable means of execution pursuant to his conviction. I have made no “Threats”. Being a spy and a traitor carries the death penalty. State execution of spies is an acceptable act of societal self defense.

    He hasn’t been indicted on any of the charges you’ve made up. He won’t ever be convicted except in your own mind. Sorry Laity but there will be no lynch mob for Obama like you want.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:54 am #

    Robert C. Laity: It is either we respect the Constitution or we don’t. If Americans want people who are not 100% American to be President then that will be the result of a properly amended Constitution. I cannot countenance the wholesale disregard for our Laws. “Freedom is not free”. THOUSANDS of Americans have died to preserve our Liberties. I WILL NOT sit idly by an allow a known fraud,usurper and spy named Obama,to micturate on those hero’s graves and to use our Constitution to wipe his ass.

    But you don’t respect the constitution laity. You don’t even understand it. Well then since we don’t have a usurper, fraud or spy in the white house. you can simply sit back down now.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:55 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You make such a ludicrously impossible wager that you could not possible pay off if I win. Make a reasonable wager,IN WRITING, and signed.I have put my money where my mouth is, as the saying goes. Your “alien overlords”?Obama is an illegal “alien” overlord.,the leader of the Muslim world.

    My legal brief for the Case is in the appropriate Supreme Court “Booklet” format.

    Laity you won’t accept any wagers every time you’ve had a bet put to you you rebuff it. You’re never willing to put your money where your mouth is since you know your cases are losers.

  95. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:56 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. He presented himself as Constitutionally qualified to be President with the help of Nancy Pelosi. He obtained the Office of the Presidency by fraud. THAT is usurpation. He did so during “Time of war”. THAT makes Obama a spy.

    He is a natural born citizen. He was constitutionally qualified to be President. He obtained the office legitimately and lawfully. There was no usurpation. The United States hasn’t been in a declared state of war since WW2.

  96. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:57 am #

    Robert C. Laity: No. I don’t.I do however, want to see Obama convicted. He is a usurper and spy.

    You have some rather strange fetishes Bobby you might want to get a psych eval.

  97. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:58 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Really? That damn “Race Card” again? Obama is Mullato. He is Caucasian,Negroid and Arab. ALL of his constituent racial parts are equally treasonous. His race does not give him a license to commit treason and to hide behind it. Throw that ratty race card away. Obama is being judged by his character and not the color of his skin.

    Who the hell uses the term Mullato anymore but bigots? Come join us in the 21st century Bobby. And no he’s not “arab”

  98. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 11:00 am #

    Robert C. Laity: When Nixon and Agnew left office before their term ended,Gerald Ford,Speaker of the House,became President of the United States.

    Gerald Ford was never speaker of the house dumbass he was house minority leader at the time. This is why we can’t even trust you on anything since you can’t even get simple details right. Carl Albert a democrat was speaker of the house from 1971 to 1977 Ford became VP in 1973. Ford became VP through the 25th amendment and had to be confirmed by the senate.

    But like I said before the Presidential Succession Act doesn’t allow for your fantasy scenario.

  99. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 11:02 am #

    true patriots
    just need one thing
    my birfer law
    decoder ring
    burma shave

  100. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 11:05 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Gerald Ford, Speaker of the House, entered the Presidency under the provisions of the 25th Amendment after Agnew resigned and then became President when Nixon Resigned. His VP was Nelson Rockefeller.

    Gerald Ford was never speaker of the house. Are you always this stupid? Carl Albert was Speaker of the House from 1971 to 1977. Gerald Ford became VP in 1973. According to your logic when Nixon stepped down Ford should have become President from VP and Carl Albert should have became VP. It just shows how little you understand the constitution.

  101. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 11:07 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have never made such statements as “Because I say it is so” nor that the Statutory Law trumps the Constitution. Obama’s selective service card is a forgery. The basis for my case is not that the fact he produced a forged ID document (His BC is also forged). It is that Obama is constitutionally disqualified to be President. He is simply NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. I can cite an “Ordinary Law” that does set a restriction on the President. 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381 being guilty oftreason prohibits him from holding “any office under the United States…”

    Again you say its not because you say so while at the same time making comments because you say so. There is no proof that the Selective Service was forged in fact Selective Service verified the document. There is no proof the BC is forged. No proof to support this guilt of treason accusation. He is a natural born citizen.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 11:08 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Yes. Most likely after having googled it.

    No most likely having a functioning brain unlike you bobby. Again a lot of your “because I say so” idioms seem to be based on lack of knowledge.

  103. avatar
    Reality Check January 25, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    Jeez will you quit confusing Laity with facts. He has a nice fantasy going.

  104. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 11:12 am #

    Robert C. Laity: No. I don’t.I do however, want to see Obama convicted. He is a usurper and spy.

    Lol wtf? Laity asked himself a question and then responded to his own question. Somebody has MPD

  105. avatar
    Steve January 25, 2014 at 11:38 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. He presented himself as Constitutionally qualified to be President with the help of Nancy Pelosi. He obtained the Office of the Presidency by fraud. THAT is usurpation. He did so during “Time of war”. THAT makes Obama a spy.

    He is the duly-elected President of the United States. He won the election. Therefore, by definition, he cannot be a usurper.
    Usurping would be if he didn’t win the election and took the office anyway.

  106. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm #

    It’s ironic that what birthers want to do to get Obama out is to actually usurp the presidency through a coup d’état.

    Steve: He is the duly-elected President of the United States. He won the election. Therefore, by definition, he cannot be a usurper.
    Usurping would be if he didn’t win the election and took the office anyway.

  107. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:20 pm #

    DaveH:
    It’s ironic that what birthers want to do to get Obama out is to actually usurp the presidency through a coup d’état.

    Usurpation is the attainment of an office by violent overthrow OR fraud. Obama was not and is NOT constitutionally qualified to be President. He has never been the “President”. He is not bona-fide.

  108. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:22 pm #

    Steve: He is the duly-elected President of the United States. He won the election. Therefore, by definition, he cannot be a usurper.
    Usurping would be if he didn’t win the election and took the office anyway.

    Obama was not even qualified to be IN any election for President.

  109. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:23 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Lol wtf?Laity asked himself a question and then responded to his own question.Somebody has MPD

    It was Rhetorical.

  110. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:25 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Usurpation is the attainment of an office by violent overthrow OR fraud. Obama was not and is NOT constitutionally qualified to be President. He has never been the “President”. He is not bona-fide.

    There was no “violent overthrow” or “fraud” involved. He was legally and lawfully elected. He was constitutionally qualified to be President. He is the President.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:25 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: “No. I don’t” wasa response. You twit.

    You responded to your own question like a fool

  112. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama was not even qualified to be IN any election for President.

    Yes he was qualified in both 2008 and 2012. He won’t be qualified to run in 2016 for President.

  113. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:26 pm #

    DaveH:
    It’s ironic that what birthers want to do to get Obama out is to actually usurp the presidency through a coup d’état.

    It just goes to show that it was never about the constitution to these fools.

  114. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:31 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No most likely having a functioning brain unlike you bobby.Again a lot of your “because I say so” idioms seem to be based on lack of knowledge.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Again you say its not because you say so while at the same time making comments because you say so.There is no proof that the Selective Service was forged in fact Selective Service verified the document.There is no proof the BC is forged.No proof to support this guilt of treason accusation.He is a natural born citizen.

    “No Proof”. Just because YOU say so??

  115. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Gerald Ford was never speaker of the house.Are you always this stupid?Carl Albert was Speaker of the House from 1971 to 1977.Gerald Ford became VP in 1973.According to your logic when Nixon stepped down Ford should have become President from VP and Carl Albert should have became VP.It just shows how little you understand the constitution.

    Ford DID become President after Nixon resigned. I realy don’t give a rat’s ass what the law as applied to Ford was forty years ago. I care what the Law is today. Biden was chosen to run with Obama,by Obama. As a disqualified Candidate Obama had no authority to choose anyone as a running mate. He wasn;t qualified himself. Obama AND Biden attained their offices by fraud.

  116. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 12:35 pm #

    I must have missed the part where Congress didn’t certified the electoral votes and there were objections.

    Robert C. Laity: Usurpation is the attainment of an office by violent overthrow OR fraud. Obama was not and is NOT constitutionally qualified to be President. He has never been the “President”. He is not bona-fide.

  117. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:37 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yes he was qualified in both 2008 and 2012.He won’t be qualified to run in 2016 for President.

    Obama’s Father was a British Citizen/subject. Obama is therefore NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen” as REQUIRED by Article II,Sec.1.

  118. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:38 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: You responded to your own question like a fool

    Rhetorical response.

  119. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 12:40 pm #

    The fraud is made out of whole clothe in birfer minds. And yes, I refer to you as a birfer because you deserve to be ridiculed for your objective stupidity.

    President Obama was born in Hawaii. The state of Hawaii says he was born there. Anyone born in the United States regardless of whether or not their parents were or are citizens is a NBC. Even anchor babies. The only exception would be if one or both of the president’s parents were part of an invading army or diplomats. I don’t see any evidence of either of those situations.

    Robert C. Laity: Ford DID become President after Nixon resigned. I realy don’t give a rat’s ass what the law as applied to Ford was forty years ago. I care what the Law is today. Biden was chosen to run with Obama,by Obama. As a disqualified Candidate Obama had no authority to choose anyone as a running mate. He wasn;t qualified himself. Obama AND Biden attained their offices by fraud.

  120. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm #

    Robert C. Laity:
    “No Proof”. Just because YOU say so??

    No proof because to date no one has provided proof that could override the verifications by the authorities responsible for the documents ie Hawaii Department of Health, Selective Service System.

  121. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:43 pm #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Here’s his tweet from Dec 17th:

    I hired the Prestigious Cockle Legal Briefs to prepare my Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Laity v State of NY.

    Whatever that means in the real world.

    It means that I was giving them a plug.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Ford DID become President after Nixon resigned. I realy don’t give a rat’s ass what the law as applied to Ford was forty years ago. I care what the Law is today. Biden was chosen to run with Obama,by Obama. As a disqualified Candidate Obama had no authority to choose anyone as a running mate. He wasn;t qualified himself. Obama AND Biden attained their offices by fraud.

    Except once again you got the whole thing wrong. Ford became President because the President resigned and he was next in line. Contrary to your claims he was never speaker. Yes we know you don’t give a rat’s ass about what the law actually says. The same law in place for Ford 40 years ago is the same law in place today. Your problem though is that the American people chose Biden as VP as Biden is on a separate ballot from the President and the electors also gave Biden his electoral votes as VP. So no your backwards claim of trying to disqualify Obama does not disqualify Biden. Neither attained their office through fraud.

  123. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: No proof because to date no one has provided proof that could override the verifications by the authorities responsible for the documents ie Hawaii Department of Health, Selective Service System.

    The BC and SS cards are forged. That has been incontrovertibly established. Obama is going down.

  124. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama’s Father was a British Citizen/subject. Obama is therefore NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen” as REQUIRED by Article II,Sec.1.

    Which has absolutely no bearing on Natural Born Citizenship. Parental status does not matter. Under Article II, Sec 1 Obama was qualified to be President.

  125. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Except once again you got the whole thing wrong.Ford became President because the President resigned and he was next in line.Contrary to your claims he was never speaker.Yes we know you don’t give a rat’s ass about what the law actually says.The same law in place for Ford 40 years ago is the same law in place today.Your problem though is that the American people chose Biden as VP as Biden is on a separate ballot from the President and the electors also gave Biden his electoral

    Several comments earlier, is stated that I stood corrected on Ford’s status as House Minority leader. I said that I don’t care about what happened forty years ago. Biden would not have been able to have electoral college votes applied to him had it not been for Biden being chosen by the usurper Obama.Obama was disqualified. Disqualified candidates don’t get running mates.

  126. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Rhetorical response.

    A response based on your MPD

  127. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: It means that I was giving them a plug.

    I don’t think they need your help advertising their services considering the case is based on incompetence by you.

  128. avatar
    Northland10 January 25, 2014 at 12:49 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Ford DID become President after Nixon resigned. I realy don’t give a rat’s ass what the law as applied to Ford was forty years ago. I care what the Law is today. Biden was chosen to run with Obama,by Obama. As a disqualified Candidate Obama had no authority to choose anyone as a running mate. He wasn;t qualified himself. Obama AND Biden attained their offices by fraud.

    You did not even know that Ford was selected as Vice President (and later became President) according to the provisions of the Constitution, yet you claim that the law is a certain way about Obama. If you cannot understand the history of the Presidency that you lived through, how can you possibly know that actual laws? You have aptly demonstrated you do not actually know or care about our laws or history.

    Let me make this simple for you. You are wrong. You will continue to lose in court because of that. I should pity you, but your hateful and vile statements makes that difficult.

  129. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    Established by some clowns that think that an image is a real BC and have absolutely no clue on how SS cards were issued when the president’s was issued. All that matters is that the state of Hawaii has said that the president was born there.

    But keep telling yourself that he’s going down. I find it amusing. I hope your blood pressure goes off the charts with your anger. Stomp your feet. Stand on your soap box. One thing for certain is that President Obama will not leave office until January 2017. I look forward to one day visiting his presidential library. Don’t you?

    Robert C. Laity: The BC and SS cards are forged. That has been incontrovertibly established.Obama is going down.

  130. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Which has absolutely no bearing on Natural Born Citizenship.Parental status does not matter.Under Article II, Sec 1 Obama was qualified to be President.

    A “Natural-Born citizen” is “One born IN a Country” (jus soli) IN ADDITION TO having been born “of Parents who are both citizens”. That was affirmed in Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS.

  131. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:52 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: The BC and SS cards are forged. That has been incontrovertibly established.Obama is going down.

    No proof to support either of those claims. I don’t think you know what incontrovertibly established actually means.

    Issuing authority verified the BC. The information contained on the BC is further backed up by the William Woods memo in Barack Obama’s August 1961 INS records and further backed up by the 1967 State Department Memo from W.L. Mix. The selective service card was verified by the Selective Service System as being legit. He was properly registered in 1980.

  132. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:54 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Several comments earlier, is stated that I stood corrected on Ford’s status as House Minority leader. I said that I don’t care about what happened forty years ago. Biden would not have been able to have electoral college votes applied to him had it not been for Biden being chosen by the usurper Obama.Obama was disqualified. Disqualified candidates don’t getrunning mates.

    Yes I know you don’t give a rat’s ass about what the law was when Ford entered office. The same law today is what it was 40 years ago. Incorrect Biden would have had electoral votes applied to him as we cast ballots for both President and Vice President separately. Obama wasn’t a usurper and thus there was no disqualification.

    Spiro Agnew’s father was greek, Spiro Agnew had dual greek and american citizenship I notice you haven’t said anything about that.

  133. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 12:56 pm #

    DaveH:
    Established by some clowns that think that an image is a real BC and have absolutely no clue on how SS cards were issued when the president’s was issued. All that matters is that the state of Hawaii has said that the president was born there.

    But keep telling yourself that he’s going down. I find it amusing. I hope your blood pressure goes off the charts with your anger. Stomp your feet. Stand on your soap box. One thing for certain is that President Obama will not leave office until January 2017. I look forward to one day visiting his presidential library. Don’t you?

    I am quite calm. Birth in the Lincoln bedroom wouldn’t help Obama. He does not have a Mother and a Father who are both American citizens. Matter of fact,Hawaii may not even be a State (See: “The Apology” signed by President Bill Clinton).

    The only Library Obama will see is the Prison library at Ft. Leavenworth.

  134. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: A “Natural-Born citizen” is “One born IN a Country” (jus soli) IN ADDITION TO having been born “of Parents who are both citizens”. That was affirmed in Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS.

    No that has never been the case. Minor V Happersett was a voter’s rights case that had nothing to do with citizenship. The laws that kept Minor from voting were overturned by constitutional amendment. The dicta statement only said that it surely one born of citizen parents on us soil would be a natural born citizen. Nowhere in the case did they say that it was exclusionary and only those born of citizen parents on US soil would be natural born citizens. The very nature of the meaning of Natural born citizen is One who is born a citizen. Obama being born on US soil was born a citizen of the United States thus a Natural Born Citizen.

  135. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm #

    200 plus years of law and The United States v Wong Kim Ark say you’re wrong.

    Keep misquoting SCOTUS cases. It’s funny.

    Robert C. Laity: A “Natural-Born citizen” is “One born IN a Country” (jus soli) IN ADDITION TO having been born “of Parents who are both citizens”. That was affirmed in Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS.

  136. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I am quite calm. Birth in the Lincoln bedroom wouldn’t help Obama. He does not have a Mother and a Father who are both American citizens. Matter of fact,Hawaii may not even be a State (See: “The Apology” signed by President Bill Clinton).

    The only Library Obama will see is the Prison library at Ft. Leavenworth.

    There never was a requirement for both parents to be American Citizens at birth. Oh here we go trying to claim Hawaii isn’t a state. Sorry Bobby but Hawaii is a state. Come join us in reality.

  137. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I am quite calm. Birth in the Lincoln bedroom wouldn’t help Obama. He does not have a Mother and a Father who are both American citizens. Matter of fact,Hawaii may not even be a State (See: “The Apology” signed by President Bill Clinton).

    The only Library Obama will see is the Prison library at Ft. Leavenworth.

    Only in your dreams. :)

  138. avatar
    American Mzungu January 25, 2014 at 12:59 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is Mullato. He is Caucasian,Negroid and Arab. ALL of his constituent racial parts are equally treasonous.

    You may have missed my post up-thread asking two questions about your quote.

    1) Why do you claim there is “Arab” in Obama’s racial background?

    2) Also, what kind of racial classification scheme do you use, specifically, do you use the old caucasoid-negroid-mongoloid divisions?

  139. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm #

    DaveH:
    200 plus years of law and The United States v Wong Kim Ark say you’re wrong.

    Keep misquoting SCOTUS cases. It’s funny.

    He’s not misquoting, He’s lying about it. It has been pointed out to him many times that his claim is in error but as birthers are wont to do they ignore reality and keep lying about it.

  140. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 1:02 pm #

    I’m done with this. It’s one of the reasons I quit debating birfers. There is no debate.

    All it ends up is like the Monty Python skit where the guy goes in for an argument.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: He’s not misquoting, He’s lying about it.It has been pointed out to him many times that his claim is in error but as birthers are wont to do they ignore reality and keep lying about it.

  141. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm #

    I am quite calm. Birth in the Lincoln bedroom wouldn’t help Obama. He does not have a Mother and a Father who are both American citizens

    We already know that such is not a requirement for being a natural born citizen. What now? The courts have decided in US v Wong Kim Ark and more recently, that mere birth in a country is sufficient to make one natural born.

    Poor Robert is going to have to wait a long long time before his foolish dreams ever were to come true as there is just no foundation to support his claims.

    Good luck Robert in your quixotic quest. Don’t forget: we told you so…

  142. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 1:07 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: It was filed on 1/22/14.

    Excellent, the score sheet can use another losing case.

  143. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 1:08 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Yes I know you don’t give a rat’s ass about what the law was when Ford entered office.The same law today is what it was 40 years ago.Incorrect Biden would have had electoral votes applied to him as we cast ballots for both President and Vice President separately.Obama wasn’t a usurper and thus there was no disqualification.

    Spiro Agnew’s father was greek, Spiro Agnew had dual greek and american citizenship I notice you haven’t said anything about that.

    I never felt that Ford should have been placed as Nixon’s VP. Since the PSA was in effect. It should have been the Speaker of the House that stepped up and not Ford.
    I had mistakenly thought Ford was the Speaker of the House or I probably would have disputed his becoming VP. Obama IS a Usurper. Agnew was never President.
    Point is our government is extremely sloppy in adhering to the Constitution.

  144. avatar
    sfjeff January 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What troubles me a little is that you nut jobs say stuff like this with impunity, and will never be held accountable. It insults my sense of justice. I mean just look at yourself, arrogantly posting on an article about 221 straight birther losses in court.

    Well put Doc.

    Bob either will not or cannot accept that when everyone disagrees with him, it probably means he is wrong.

    No one- starting with in my case my conservative, ex-marine civic teacher- agrees with Bob’s definition of NBC.

    It is not a case of anyone ‘ignoring’ anything- we all disagree with Bob and the paltry few Birthers who decided after Obama was elected on a new definition of NBC.

    Voters knew Obama was eligible. Congress knew Obama was eligible.

    And don’t get me started on Bob’s rather unique definitions of ‘spy’ and ‘treason’

  145. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm #

    nbc: We already know that such is not a requirement for being a natural born citizen. What now? The courts have decided in US v Wong Kim Ark and more recently, that mere birth in a country is sufficient to make one natural born.

    Poor Robert is going to have to wait a long long time before his foolish dreams ever were to come true as there is just no foundation to support his claims.

    Good luck Robert in your quixotic quest. Don’t forget: we told you so…

    The Courts have NOT ruled that mere birth in a country is enough to make one a “Natural-Born citizen”. Cite that case.

    Ark did not address natural-born citizenship.

  146. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I never felt that Ford should have been placed as Nixon’s VP. Since the PSA was in effect. It should have been the Speaker of the House that stepped up and not Ford.
    I had mistakenly thought Ford was the Speaker of the House or I probably would have disputed his becoming VP.Obama IS a Usurper. Agnew was never President.
    Point is our government is extremely sloppy in adhering to the Constitution.

    It doesn’t matter that Agnew was never President you do know that constitution requires the Vice President in order to be Vice President must qualify to be President as well. The Vice President is under the same requirements as the President is. Yes you got sloppy you made assumptions based on your lack of US History. So using Laity logic Speaker of the House Carl Albert (Democrat) should have become VP instead of Ford and ascended to the Presidency upon Nixon’s resignation. Obama is not a usurper He is the President.

  147. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I am a loyal American and the USA is a SOVEREIGN Nation where the rule of law applies. Obama is a traitor and a spy,a usurper and a fraud.

    That is hilarious.. I guess Robert is not too familiar with our Constitution. Of course as a sovereign nation our nation can enter into international agreements. Just hilarious. President Obama is by no logical argument a usurper, as to being a traitor, spy or fraud, you are free to believe whatever you want but that hardly makes it so. 3 more years and you can worry about our next president ;-)

    The UN Small Arms treaty is about regulating international trade. Have you been misled into believing that it is something more… Hilarious…

    The treaty begins with a preamble that “reaffirms the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional system.” This statement isn’t buried in some footnote; it’s found at the very beginning of the text. Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this mean that our government, and not the United Nations, gets to figure out how guns will be handled within the United States?

    Educate Yourself

    Another quixotic quest based on ignorance, hatred and fear. And as to President Obama, I doubt that you will let the facts change your unsupportable position.

    Good luck, we will soon see a ‘cert denied’ and can congratulate you on adding to the already impressive list of failures.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: The Courts have NOT ruled that mere birth in a country is enough to make one a “Natural-Born citizen”. Cite that case.

    Ark did not address natural-born citizenship.

    Really Ark didn’t address natural born citizenship? Have you bothered to even read the case? There’s an entire section dedicated to the history and meaning of Natural born citizenship in the case.

    That’s not a single case that says that Natural born citizenship is exclusively those born of two citizen parents on US soil.

  149. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:17 pm #

    nbc:

    Another quixotic quest based on ignorance, hatred and fear.

    We’ve been listening to these guys for 5 plus years; by now should you expect anything different from a birther?

  150. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm #

    sfjeff: Well put Doc.

    Bob either will not or cannot accept that when everyone disagrees with him, it probably means he is wrong.

    No one- starting with in my case my conservative, ex-marine civic teacher- agrees with Bob’s definition of NBC.

    It is not a case of anyone ‘ignoring’ anything- we all disagree with Bob and the paltry few Birthers who decided after Obama was elected on a new definition of NBC.

    Voters knew Obama was eligible. Congress knew Obama was eligible.

    And don’t get me started on Bob’s rather unique definitions of ‘spy’ and ‘treason’

    I don’t care if I am the only one saying it,which BTW I am not. The founders wanted a President 100% American. They certainly did NOT want anyone with a taint of divided loyalty who is from Britain. Obama WAS born with dual British citizenship. It is not a “new definition”.It is the definition the founders relied on and it has served the US for 237 years.

    One has to be born in the United States (jus soli)

    One has to have Parents who are both Americans at the time of a President’s birth (100% Jus Sanquinis).

    The absence of one negates the other.

  151. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm #

    It is clear by the dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark written by Chief Justice Fuller that he did not agree with the majority decision because it would allow Wong Kim Ark to one day be president if he ran and were elected.

    One day, it would be nice if just one birther would actually read that case.

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Really Ark didn’t address natural born citizenship?Have you bothered to even read the case?There’s an entire section dedicated to the history and meaning of Natural born citizenship in the case.

  152. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t care if I am the only one saying it,which BTW I am not. The founders wanted a President 100% American. They certainly did NOT want anyone with a taint of divided loyalty to Britain. Obama WAS born with dual British citizenship. It is not a “new definition”.It is the definition the founders relied on and it has served the US for 237 years.

    One has to be born in the United States (jus soli)

    One has to have Parents who are both Americans at the time of a President’s birth (100% Jus Sanquinis).

    The absence of one negates the other.

    They wanted one born on US soil that was the requirement. They themselves weren’t American. Obama had no divided loyalty, He was born an American. He never lived on british soil he never fell under their laws. There is no requirement for citizen parents.

  153. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t care if I am the only one saying it,which BTW I am not. The founders wanted a President 100% American. They certainly did NOT want anyone with a taint of divided loyalty to Britain. Obama WAS born with dual British citizenship. It is not a “new definition”.It is the definition the founders relied on and it has served the US for 237 years.

    One has to be born in the United States (jus soli)

    One has to have Parents who are both Americans at the time of a President’s birth (100% Jus Sanquinis).

    The absence of one negates the other.

    You are 100% wrong. However, you are free to believe what you want to believe. If you’re trying to sway any opinions here, you have been 100% ineffective.

  154. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm #

    DaveH:
    It is clear by the dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark written by Chief Justice Fuller that he did not agree with the majority decision because it would allow Wong Kim Ark to one day be president if he ran and were elected.

    One day, it would be nice if just one birther would actually read that case.

    It’s not just that but if one reads the appellate briefs they could see how clearly the government knew if they lost their case what exactly it would mean.

  155. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 25, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is going down.

    Yes, indeed. He’s going downstairs to the Oval Office to work at President of the United States and he’ll do that – your fantasies notwithstanding – until January 20, 2017.

    That’s another 1091 days for you to twist in the wind.

  156. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

    DaveH: You are 100% wrong. However, you are free to believe what you want to believe. If you’re trying to sway any opinions here, you have been 100% ineffective.

    Obviously he doesn’t actually truly believe what he says since there is a total conflict. Why focus on claiming the BC and SS is fake if you believe in this two citizen parent nonsense? The whole two citizen parent bs was invented as a fallback plan for birthers when they couldn’t get around the issuing authority backing up the BC.

  157. avatar
    sfjeff January 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t care if I am the only one saying it,which BTW I am not. The founders wanted a President 100% American. They certainly did NOT want anyone with a taint of divided loyalty who is from Britain. Obama WAS born with dual British citizenship. It is not a “new definition”.It is the definition the founders relied on and it has served the US for 237 years.

    One has to be born in the United States (jus soli)

    One has to have Parents who are both Americans at the time of a President’s birth (100% Jus Sanquinis).

    The absence of one negates the other.

    Really- where does it say that in the Constitution?

    Show me where the ‘Founders'(I love this term as if the writers of the Constitution- or the other ‘Founding Fathers’ of our country were a monolithic group who agreed on everything) used your definition?

    Frankly you just jumped on the Birther train with this definition ANYONE born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President.

    That was the golden difference between the United States and the Europe we left behind- our parents status has no relevance in what we can achieve in America.

    Bob- this is a loony claim and that is the reason that everyone disagrees with you.

  158. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 1:29 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Obviously he doesn’t actually truly believe what he says since there is a total conflict.Why focus on claiming the BC and SS is fake if you believe in this two citizen parent nonsense?The whole two citizen parent bs was invented as a fallback plan for birthers when they couldn’t get around the issuing authority backing up the BC.

    You are right and you are wrong on this. He’s trying to prove fraud by claiming the BC and SS is fake. And he’s also trying to prove fraud because of his two citizen parent theory. It seems the two citizen theory came before the BC and SS.

    He is simply saying that President Obama got into office because of fraud. Fraud with his identification and fraud because of who his parents were.

    Who cares. Birthers lost back in 2012. But I do enjoy the smell of burning birthers in the morning (or any time of the day for that matter).

  159. avatar
    DaveH January 25, 2014 at 1:31 pm #

    sfjeff: Really- where does it say that in the Constitution?

    Show me where the ‘Founders’(I love this term as if the writers of the Constitution- or the other ‘Founding Fathers’ of our country were a monolithic group who agreed on everything) used your definition?

    Frankly you just jumped on the Birther train with this definition ANYONE born in the United States could aspire to grow up and be elected President.

    That was the golden difference between the United States and the Europe we left behind- our parents status has no relevance in what we can achieve in America.

    Bob- this is a loony claim and that is the reason that everyone disagrees with you.

    It would do Bobby good to study up on the term of American Exceptionalism.

  160. avatar
    The European January 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Rhetorical response.

    A fool aswered a fool. No, not “sapiens sapiens”.

  161. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 1:46 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: The Courts have NOT ruled that mere birth in a country is enough to make one a “Natural-Born citizen”. Cite that case.

    Ark did not address natural-born citizenship.

    Yes it did. So let me help you out here:

    First of all, the lower court’s ruling was appealed “did the court err in declaring Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born?”,[1] the dissenting Judge observed that the majority rule meant that Wong Kim Ark could run for the office of the president while children born abroad to US citizens could not.[2] Now, both are mere indicators and not legally binding but it shows how poorly informed these arguments are.

    The case itself is quite straightforward, in order to establish if Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, it observed that the constitution recognizes two forms: natural born and naturalized citizenship. The court observed that Wong Kim Ark could not be a naturalized citizen because of the anti-chinese laws.

    Since the Constitution nowhere defines the terms natural born, its meaning has to be found in common law.

    The court then explores the common law in the US before, during and after the revolution and observes that it meant: birth on soil, regardless of the status of the parents. It rejects the concept that common law jus soli had been replaced with jus sanguini. Mirroring Vattel

    There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

    Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.

    The court observes that the only time jus sanguini is relevant is when children are born outside the US, in statutes, which thus make such children naturalized citizen.

    The court then turns to the 14th amendment

    In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

    Note: Reaffirmed…

    The Court then addresses the term ‘subject to jurisdiction’, ‘owing allegiance’ and other terms and note that this merely refers to exclude those who are born otherwise such as children of invading military and children of certain foreign dignitaries. In the US this also included children born to Indians not paying taxes.

    The 14th merely reaffirmed the common law of birth on soil.

    2. 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.

    3. Various rulings have cited Ankeny now, affirming its conclusions.

    Purpura v Obama for example

    “The second objection involves the meaning of the Constitutional phrase, “natural born Citizen.” Discussion and consideration of this issue is of course relevant only on the understanding that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. This issue has been the subject of litigation concerning Mr. Obama’s candidacy in several jurisdictions. No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue. As the court therein noted, and as the petitioners here have contended, the thrust of the argument against Obama’s status as natural born is that there is a “clear distinction between being a ‘citizen of the United states’ and a ‘natural born Citizen.” Id. at 685. The decision notes that the petitioner therein, as here, cites to an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” and to various early sources for support for their argument that one who is the child of a non-citizen cannot be natural born even if born in the United States. But the Ankeny court, relying upon the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890 (1898), rejected that position.2 In Wong Kim Ark, Justice Gray wrote at great length about the understanding of the term “natural born” and its common law meaning, probing English authorities and concluding that the “law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, . . . every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” This position as to the common law meaning is in accord with Justice Joseph Story’s statement, concurring in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 99,7 L. Ed. 617 (1830), “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country, while the parents reside there under the protection of the government, and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.” See Wong Kim Ark, 160 U.S. at 660, 18 S. Ct. at 461. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court also cited Justice Swayne’s comment in United States v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 26,40, 41 (1860) “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all person born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.” The Wong Kim Ark Court then stated “We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions [children of ambassadors, etc.], since as before the Revolution. [Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 169 U.S. 662-663, 18 S. Ct. at462]. The Georgia Secretary of State recently denied a similar challenge to Mr. Obama’s status as a natural born citizen in Farrar, et al. v. Obama, OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MAHIHI, where Georgia State Administrative Law Judge Mahili relied upon Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark for his ruling that the President was indeed a natural born Citizen.”

    [1] Brief of the appellant in US v Wong Kim Ark

    [2] Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

  162. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Really Ark didn’t address natural born citizenship? Have you bothered to even read the case? There’s an entire section dedicated to the history and meaning of Natural born citizenship in the case.

    Indeed, but the birther is quick to ignore the ratio decidendi and jump to a flawed understanding. But even the dissenting judge understood it, even the recent courts understood it.

  163. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 1:54 pm #

    Given Laity’s unfamiliarity with the legal precedent, it would be sufficient for the Supreme Court to deny cert, but there are so many other failures here that it is easy to predict the outcome.

  164. avatar
    justlw January 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I never felt that Ford should have been placed as Nixon’s VP. Since the PSA was in effect. It should have been the Speaker of the House that stepped up and not Ford.

    The only problem with that is it’s just wrong. The Presidential Succession Act was not in effect, since the elected president (Richard Nixon; you can Google it) was still in office.

    The Presidential Succession Act specifies what is to happen if there is a “vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President”. Again, just to recap what I said in the previous paragraph., this was not the case. Because there was no vacancy in the office of the President. Nixon was still president. Keep this point in mind; it’s important. Nixon: still in office.

    That means the 25th Amendment (that’s the US Constitution; you can Google it) was in effect. If you were to read it (you could use Bing, too!), you would find it says:

    Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

    So this explains what might have confused you at the time: why did Congress allow Nixon to nominate a Vice President, instead of following the Presidential Succession Act?

    Answer: Nixon was… c’mon, you can do this! YES! Still in office! No vacancy! PSA? Nope. 25th Amendment? Yep!

    Then, both houses of Congress confirmed his pick, which was Gerald Ford, who happened to be in the House, just like the Speaker, but not the Speaker, so: PSA, not so much. Nixon picked him, Congress confirmed. Both houses. And no one said a peep about the PSA. Because… Nixon. Still in office.

    I mean, isn’t it weird how Congress went off and did this, and you still think they got it wrong? None of the 535 of them said, “Well, what about that there PSA?” Don’t you think that would have happened back then if you were right?

    It’s kind of almost like how no one in Congress raises a peep about this usurpin’ you’re so worried about. It’s like they know how the Constitution and stuff actually works.

  165. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 2:15 pm #

    What is truly fascinating is that the case Laity is appealing simply ruled ” motion for leave of appeal dismissed upon the ground that it no lie (see CPLR 5602)”

    Let’s take a look at the disaster…

    LAITY v. STATE OF NEW YORK, # 2012-039-319, Claim No. 120982, Motion No. M-81370

    Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. This claim primarily challenges the Board’s determination with respect to claimant’s objections and seeks equitable or declaratory relief in the form of an order directing the Board to accept his objections. Although claimant states that he is seeking, in part, money damages, any monetary relief granted would be incidental to the primary purpose of the claim, which is to obtain acceptance of claimant’s objections. Indeed, claimant acknowledges in his opposition to this motion that he is “not interested so much in money damages but do not waive those that are allowed by Law” (Motion in Opposition, p. 4). Moreover, as the Court reads it, the gravamen of this claim is that the Board’s actions with respect to claimant’s objections violated his rights. The Court finds that it cannot ascertain claimant’s entitlement to relief without reviewing the underlying administrative determination (see Matter of Salahuddin v Connell, 53 AD3d at 899-900). As such, the claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.(3)

    Laity v. State of New York , No. 005003 – 2012, Nov. 7, 2012 Order (N.Y. Albany County Supr. Ct.)

    (denying mandamus/motion for injunction in special election proceeding); Nov. 28, 2012 Order (denying motion for injunction).

    What a mess…

  166. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm #

    Ah finally, yes Laity is appealing the 2013 decision that the appeal does not lie. Wow… In other words, the Supreme Court is asked to rule as to whether or not the court erred. Good luck with that one. But anything related to President Obama and ‘usurping’ is not really something before the Supreme Court.

    Fail.

  167. avatar
    Steve January 25, 2014 at 2:23 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama was not even qualified to be IN any election for President.

    He won the election, therefore he is President. By definition, he cannot be a usurper.

  168. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 2:24 pm #

    judges, scholars
    think they know
    but he ain’t prez
    cause i said so
    burma shave

  169. avatar
    Joey January 25, 2014 at 2:41 pm #

    Judicial and state elections commission rulings finding that Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen (No court has ever ruled that he is not a Natural Born Citizen):
    1) Allen v. Obama (Arizona)
    2) Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
    3) Fair v. Obama (Maryland)
    4) Farrar v. Obama (Georgia)
    5) Freeman v. Obama (Illinois)
    6) Galasso v. Obama (New Jersey)
    7) Jackson v. Obama (Illinois)
    8) Jordan v. Obama (Washington)
    9) Judd v. Obama (California)
    10) Kesler v. Obama (Indiana)
    11) Martin v. Obama (Illinois)
    12) Paige v. Obama (Vermont)
    13) Powell v. Obama (Georgia)
    14) Purpura, et. al. v. Obama (New Jersey)
    15) Strunk v. New York State Board of Elections (NY)
    16) Swensson v. Obama (Georgia)
    17) Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia)
    18) Voeltz v. Obama, et. al. (Florida)
    19) Welden v. Obama (Georgia)

    One succinct example of the above:
    Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon: “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”–Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint

  170. avatar
    American Mzungu January 25, 2014 at 2:44 pm #

    aarrgghh: judges, scholars
    think they know
    but he ain’t prez
    cause i said so
    burma shave

    You’ve been “on”. Robert C. Laity brings out the best in you.

  171. avatar
    Northland10 January 25, 2014 at 2:54 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: The founders wanted a President 100% American. They certainly did NOT want anyone with a taint of divided loyalty who is from Britain.

    Now that’s funny. Your “monolithic” founders who you think agreed on everything (they didn’t) apparently hated anything from Britain (they didn’t). The revolution was fought against the arrogance of the Crown and Parliament, not Britain as a whole. The colonists were denied a seat in Parliament, and had no say when Parliament decided to heavily tax the colonies to pay for their various wars with France and others. Many of the leaders of the colonies would have been fine to stay with England were it not for the arrogance which left them with little alternative.

    The fear that caused them to insert the Natural Born clause was the potential of a continental Europe prince (including those related to the House of Hanover, which was actually German) sending a member of their family to the United States to work his way into the highest levels of government. They were not concerned with the children born in the colonies.

    You need to do a better job of reading about history.

  172. avatar
    Joey January 25, 2014 at 2:58 pm #

    Steve: He won the election, therefore he is President. By definition, he cannot be a usurper.

    The 12th Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.” Those electoral votes for Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012 were certified unanimously by both Houses of Congress, without a single objection.
    Barack Obama is the duly elected 44th President of the United States. Congress sends him bills to sign into law and the Senate confirms his nominees. The Supreme Court rules on his policy initiatives.

  173. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 3:07 pm #

    Oh the irony…

    Laity: Laugh all you want. I am going to have the last laugh.

    And yet the entertainment continues with us doing all the laughing. Well, it keeps him busy and feeling useful, so who am I to object to him filing foolish cases?

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 25, 2014 at 3:07 pm #

    I don’t care if you are saying it either. If a judge were saying it, or a resolution passed by Congress, or a noted constitutional scholar were saying it, then that would be something I would care about. A birther crying in the wilderness, not so much.

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t care if I am the only one saying it,which BTW I am not.

  175. avatar
    Rickey January 25, 2014 at 3:50 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: This is my SECOND case which I filed at SCOTUS. I suedthe U.S. Government in 1994 for whistleblower retaliation. Both my cases were filed “in my own behalf”.
    I wrote my own legal brief.

    And how did that other one work out for you?

    Nov 10 2008 Petition DENIED.

  176. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 3:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: A birther crying in the wilderness, not so much.

    Especially when the cries go against common sense, legal precedent… But it gives Robert something to keep him occupied.

  177. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm #

    Then again rationality does not seem to be Laity’s strongest point, calling Obama a gay, a muslim and more unsupported accusations.

    No wonder noone is taking him seriously. But at least we are giving him a little bit of attention.

  178. avatar
    Rickey January 25, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It’s not just that but if one reads the appellate briefs they could see how clearly the government knew if they lost their case what exactly it would mean.

    It isn’t just the appellate briefs. In its SCOTUS brief the U.S. government conceded that the Appellate Court had ruled that Ark was a natural-born citizen and that he would be eligible to be President if he won his case, which of course he did.

  179. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 4:07 pm #

    Rickey: I wrote my own legal brief.

    Yes, that’s quite self evident. You do know what they say about pro se’s?

    See also

    5 F.3d 1504: Robert C. Laity, Petitioner, v. Department of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

    On January 17, 1991, Mr. Laity received a written reprimand from his superior because of Mr. Laity’s use of profane language on January 2, 1991, in the presence of several other employees in violation of DVA regulations regarding appropriate employee work attitudes and behavior. On March 17, 1991, he filed a complaint with the MSPB Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging that his reprimand was effected in violation of the Whistle Blower Protection Act of 1989, Pub.L. No. 101-12, Sec. 3(a)(13), 103 Stat. 16 (1989). After Mr. Laity’s complaint was denied by the OSC, he filed an individual right of action appeal to the MSPB pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 1221 (Supp. III 1991).

    Educating Laity on the law

    Mr. Laity is a layman who represents himself. He may not be aware that Congress has not authorized this court to retry cases appealed from the MSPB. Our standard of review is limited. A decision of the MSPB must be affirmed, unless it is found to be unsupported by substantial evidence, or that it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c) (1988); Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1537 (Fed.Cir.1984). After a careful review of the record, we conclude that Mr. Laity has not established any ground for reversing the decision of the MSPB.

    And even more funny

    Mr. Laity next argues that the MSPB decision should be set aside on the ground of legal error. He argues that even if it is assumed that he used profanity on January 2, 1991, his remarks were the “protected activities of a union steward.” However, the record shows that Mr. Laity was not a union steward when he was reprimanded for his conduct. He was indefinitely suspended from his position as union steward on May 20, 1990, for intemperate words and actions during a union meeting. See Laity v. Beatty, 766 F.Supp. 92, 95 (W.D.N.Y.1991).

  180. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 4:26 pm #

    in Re: Wong Kim Ark

    This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports (1 Sandf. Ch. 583). In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York, in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.

    Ouch…

    No courts… ROTFL

  181. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

    nbc: It isn’t just the appellate briefs. In its SCOTUS brief the U.S. government conceded that the Appellate Court had ruled that Ark was a natural-born citizen and that he would be eligible to be President if he won his case, which of course he did.

    The US Government did conceded the former, but I do not believe it mentions eligibility for president. The lower court does mention that Wong Kim Ark argues that he is natural born and explains why he is correct.

    The court also reject US v Minor

    In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question. Nor was there any definition, in the constitution or in the acts of congress, of what constituted citizenship, until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment.

    Does Robert not know that this was all litigated some time ago and settled ?

  182. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 25, 2014 at 4:31 pm #

    Joey: Steve: He won the election, therefore he is President. By definition, he cannot be a usurper.

    The 12th Amendment states that whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electors “SHALL BE THE PRESIDENT.” Those electoral votes for Barack Obama in 2008 and in 2012 were certified unanimously by both Houses of Congress, without a single objection.
    Barack Obama is the duly elected 44th President of the United States.

    Birthers are too stupid to realize that even if Obama had been ineligible to the Presidency under the eligibility requirements of the Constitution as originally ratified, (an accusation with which neither Congress nor any court agrees), the imperative “shall be the President” language of the more recent Constitution’s ratified 12th Amendment, absolutely makes any candidate who is certified as having gotten the majority of elector’s votes, the duly elected President of the United States, even if he or she were later found to have not satisfied the original Article 2 Constitutional Presidential eligibility requirements.

    The associated Presidency and all business conducted by anyone so holding that office, would be 100% legitimate and Constitutional, until and if, there came a time when the House of Representatives decided to impeach such a President for having materially deceived the country about Constitutional eligibility before the election, and if additionally then the Senate convicted such a President of the charges brought by the House.

    The 12th Amendment does not report who “will be the President”; it commands who “shall be the President” and spells out the one previous-language-subsuming requirement to Constitutionally be President upon the ratification of that Amendment. And ratification of that Amendment did indeed take place.

    We all agree it would take a Constitutional Amendment to impact the original Article 2 Presidential eligibility requirements. Well, there was one! Not that Obama needed recourse to its language to be a legitimate President. Only insane Birthers think he was ever truly Constitutionally ineligible to the Presidency. Of course, NOW that he has been successfully reelected to a second 4 year term as President of the United States, he is ineligible to run again.

  183. avatar
    Rickey January 25, 2014 at 4:35 pm #

    Here is what will happen to Laity’s case.

    Sometime between now and February 24 the State of New York will waive its right to file a response.

    Not a single Supreme Court justice will call for a response from New York.

    The case will then be scheduled for a conference by the full Court, but that is a mere formality. Because no justice will have called for a response, the case will be put on the “dead list,” which means that it won’t even be discussed at the conference.

    The following Tuesday his petition will be formally denied.

    You can take this prediction to the bank.

    Since Laity has argued that Obama didn’t have the authority to choose Biden as Vice-President, I’m surprised that he hasn’t demanded that Justices Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves!

  184. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

    American Mzungu: You’ve been “on”. Robert C. Laity brings out the best in you.

    it has yet to rub off. robert c laity only brings out the worst in robert c laity.

  185. avatar
    The European January 25, 2014 at 5:49 pm #

    Just another Fitzpatrick, without the action.

  186. avatar
    Reality Check January 25, 2014 at 9:28 pm #

    I would be willing to wager $1000 thatRobert Laity’s writ to SCOTUS is denied. If Laity agrees I will send the money to Doc C. to hold in escrow. Laity must agree do the same. I agree that Doc is the final arbiter on the wager. If Laity accepts we both have two weeks to send the money to Doc C via any means – wire, PayPal, or check. If either party fails to deposit the money the wager is off and Doc will return the money to the party who compiled with the terms.

    I have not discussed this with Doc but trust that he will agree to act as the arbiter.

  187. avatar
    Reality Check January 25, 2014 at 10:00 pm #

    Complied …

  188. avatar
    nbc January 25, 2014 at 10:15 pm #

    The European: Just another Fitzpatrick, without the action.

    ROTFL, yes, the basic ingredients are all there.

  189. avatar
    aarrgghh January 25, 2014 at 10:17 pm #

    Reality Check: I would be willing to wager $1000

    obama’s toast
    sound the alarm!
    (though i wouldn’t
    bet the farm)
    burma shave

  190. avatar
    Rickey January 25, 2014 at 10:32 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I wouldbe willing to wager $1000 thatRobertLaity’s writ to SCOTUS is denied.If Laity agrees I will send the money to Doc C. to hold in escrow. Laity must agree do the same.I agree that Doc is the final arbiter on the wager.If Laity accepts we both have two weeks to send the money to Doc C via any means – wire, PayPal, or check. If either party fails to deposit the money the wager is off and Doc will return the money to the party who compiled with the terms.

    I have not discussed this with Doc but trust that he will agree to act as the arbiter.

    Over at Birther Report, Laity is posting as “Dr. Robert C. Laity.” I didn’t know that it is possible to get a Ph.D in Birthering.

  191. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 25, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    Rickey: Over at Birther Report, Laity is posting as “Dr. Robert C. Laity.” I didn’t know that it is possible to get a Ph.D in Birthering.

    Well according to Laity’s linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-christopher-laity/37/1b4/61b

    He’s got a JD from his made up American Justice Foundation

  192. avatar
    Keith January 25, 2014 at 11:27 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Kerry just signed the UN Small Arms treaty.

    He did?!?!?!?!? COOL. I missed that altogether!

    Way to fkn GO!

    That is a very important step to getting control of the international gun running rackets. The world really really really needs to slow down the movement of weapons into these cheesy little pirate militias and terrorist clubs wreaking havoc all over the place.

  193. avatar
    Steve January 26, 2014 at 12:24 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is a traitor and a spy,a usurper and a fraud.

    One more time, Robert, President Obama won the election, twice. Congress certified the results. Therefore, he is not a usurper. He can’t be. By definition, he is not a usurper.

  194. avatar
    Benji Franklin January 26, 2014 at 1:48 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama was not and is NOT constitutionally qualified to be President.

    Well, those of us who want the Constitution adhered to are fortunate that YOU, Citizen Bobby, are not Constitutionally qualified to declare whether or not Obama is Constitutionally eligible to the Presidency. In attempting to do so, it is YOU who are usurping the power delegated to the Judiciary. And when they say that you’re wrong, you’ll probably say they’re wrong. You are not a good Constitution supporting citizen; you’re a whining anarchist who thinks he gets to interpret the Constitution. The Founders would have spit all over you and your amusing little legal tantrums.

  195. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 2:39 am #

    Robert C. Laity: The founders wanted a President 100% American.

    Wherever did you get this silly notion? In a fortune cookie? Your are simply ill-informed.

    For your edification, three US presidents were also French dual citizens: Washington, Jefferson and Madison.

    In Washington’s case, this is arguably irrelevant since happened after he was President and played no role in his career; in fact we don’t have evidence he even accepted.

    Not so with James Madison who was granted French citizenship (which he enthusiastically accepted in writing) before he ran for President.

    So potential dual citizenship ought not to be an obstacle to one’s political career in America.

  196. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 2:50 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: Jefferson acquired french citizenship as an adult

    FYI I’m still not 100% behind this. I’ve seen it written in a few places, but I have been unable to locate a “primary source”. It may well be true; it’s just that I can’t find a proper document authenticating it.

    Madison, OTOH, is 100% verified. I once posted here a link to the official French archives’ decree of naturalization, and his letter of acceptance.

    More interestingly, all this happened BEFORE he campaigned for and won the presidency. It was a (reasonably) well-known fact, which his opponents used, but did not disqualify him nor cost him the election.

    With James Madison, the so-called “father” of your Constitution, we have an unambiguous, clear-cut case of a dual-citizen president.

    The few times I had to point this out to a birther here, the result was sputtering and crickets.

  197. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 2:53 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is a traitor and a spy,a usurper and a fraud.

    So says the man who claims to be “Dr. Robert C Laity” because he has an honorary JD from a Florida flim flam operation that sells a mail order course that claims to teach (for just $249) the average schmo how to handle their own legal affairs. (Please see definition of “fool for a client”.)

  198. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 2:54 am #

    Lupin: The few times I had to point this out to a birther here, the result was sputtering and crickets.

    The last case I recall was Lawrence Sellin who, on the one hand, when confronted with overwhelming evidence, reluctantly agreed that Vattel only “provides useful historical perspectives” (actual quote) but, on the other hand, thought that Apuzzo’s “relevant arguments are based on Constitutional law and Supreme Court holdings, not Vattel.” Which of course is rubbish.

  199. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 3:01 am #

    CarlOrcas: So says the man who claims to be “Dr. Robert C Laity” because he has an honorary JD from a Florida flim flam operation that sells a mail order course that claims to teach (for just $249) the average schmo how to handle their own legal affairs. (Please see definition of “fool for a client”.)

    I have publicly stated previously that it is an Honorary Degree. I would advise you not to refer to the American Justice Foundation as a “flim flam operation…claims to teach” unless you want to be sued for libel.

  200. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 3:04 am #

    Lupin: The last case I recall was Lawrence Sellin who, on the one hand, when confronted with overwhelming evidence, reluctantly agreed that Vattel only “provides useful historical perspectives” (actual quote) but, on the other hand, thought that Apuzzo’s “relevant arguments are based on Constitutional law and Supreme Court holdings, not Vattel.” Which of course is rubbish.

    British common Law is what “provides historical perspective”. However,it is NOT “useful”. We no longer have ANY connection whatsoever to British common law. We are a sovereign and separate nation from the U.K.

  201. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 3:11 am #

    Lupin: FYI I’m still not 100% behind this. I’ve seen it written in a few places, but I have been unable to locate a “primary source”. It may well be true; it’s just that I can’t find a proper document authenticating it.

    Madison, OTOH, is 100% verified. I once posted here a link to the official French archives’ decree of naturalization, and his letter of acceptance.

    More interestingly, all this happened BEFORE he campaigned for and won the presidency. It was a (reasonably) well-known fact, which his opponents used, but did not disqualify him nor cost him the election.

    With James Madison, the so-called “father” of your Constitution, we have an unambiguous, clear-cut case of a dual-citizen president.

    The few times I had to point this out to a birther here, the result was sputtering and crickets.

    A person’s eligibility to be President is his status AT BIRTH. Was the person born IN the United States and were both his Parents American Citizens themselves? Expatriation is a right of all Americans later on in Life. As I said this nation is sloppy in it’s adherence to what the founders wanted. Dual citizens are ineligible to be President.

  202. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 3:38 am #

    The European:
    Just another Fitzpatrick, without the action.

    Which “Fitzpatrick” are you referring to?

  203. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 3:47 am #

    Lupin: Wherever did you get this silly notion? In a fortune cookie? Your are simply ill-informed.

    For your edification, three US presidents were also French dual citizens: Washington, Jefferson and Madison.

    In Washington’s case, this is arguably irrelevant since happened after he was President and played no role in his career; in fact we don’t have evidence he even accepted.

    Not so with James Madison who was granted French citizenship (which he enthusiastically accepted in writing) before he ran for President.

    So potential dual citizenship ought not to be an obstacle to one’s political career in America.

    Not a “silly notion”. A 100% American is what a “Natural-Born Citizen” is. Those who were citizens of the U.S.A. at the time of the Signing of the Constitution were grandfathered in with all their citizen status problems. After they all died the “Natural-Born Citizen” requirement kicked in. A person must be born IN the United States and must have Parents who were both American Citizens themselves at the time of said person’s birth to be categorized as a “Natural-Born Citizen”. One must be an NBC to BE President. That several of the founders chose to expatriate does not serve as a precedent for others to skate past the Constitutional requirements to be President. Those who expatriated should NOT have been allowed to enter OUR Presidency. One hundred percent allegiance,jus soli and jus sanquinis to the U.S. or you do NOT become President.

  204. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 4:15 am #

    Robert C. Laity: British common Law is what “provides historical perspective”. However,it is NOT “useful”. We no longer have ANY connection whatsoever to British common law. We are a sovereign and separate nation from the U.K.

    You response has nothing to do whatsoever with what I was writing.

    I suspect you did NOT understand what i was referring to.

  205. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 4:16 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Dual citizens are ineligible to be President.

    That is totally incorrect, with Madison being evidence to the contrary. You are simply wrong.

  206. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 4:22 am #

    Robert C. Laity: That several of the founders chose to expatriate does not serve as a precedent for others to skate past the Constitutional requirements to be President. Those who expatriated should NOT have been allowed to enter OUR Presidency. One hundred percent allegiance,jus soli and jus sanquinis to the U.S. or you do NOT become President.

    Madison did not “expatriate”. Where did you ever get that idea?

    The French Republic offered him French citizenship, which he accepted. Therefore he became a dual citizen of France and the United States.

    After that, he ran for, and was legitimately elected President, becoming the first unambiguous dual citizen to hold that post.

    This is well known amongst historians, and nobody has ever questioned Madison’s legitimacy.

    Besides, as the “father” of your Constitution, he certainly understood the document’s meanings better than you.

    Because, frankly, between your indisputable errors of facts, and your, shall we say, rather eccentric interpretations, you are spouting utter nonsense.

    You can continue ranting and raving about things that are simply not true, but that won’t change the facts.

  207. avatar
    Greenfinches January 26, 2014 at 4:42 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Dual citizens are ineligible to be President.

    And your legal authority for this proposition is….?

    Doesn’t it bother you that you risk allowing other states to decide who is and isn’t eligible to run for President, by allowing their nationality laws to be relevant to your candidates? Why is it not better to say that only US citizenship is relevant?

  208. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:27 am #

    Greenfinches: And your legal authority for this proposition is….?

    Doesn’t it bother you that you risk allowing other states to decide who is and isn’t eligible to run for President, by allowing their nationality laws to be relevant to your candidates?Why is it not better to say that only US citizenship is relevant?

    Our President must be born in the United States and have parents who were both American when the candidate seeking the Presidency was born. Our nationality laws apply and our ratified treaties. Mere citizenship is not “relevant” to being President. That would make EVERY anchor baby regardless of parentage eligible to be OUR President. I do not think that we should give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. We are setting ourselves up for disaster. BTW, the British Nationality Act does apply to Obama. His father was a Brit. visiting here on a student visa. Obama was born a British subject and if one wants to apply British common law as several have here. That makes Obama a “Natural-Born Subject” of the Queen of England. One can’t have his cake and eat it too.
    “Let them eat cake”-attributed to Marie Antoinette

  209. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:36 am #

    Lupin: Madison did not “expatriate”. Where did you ever get that idea?

    The French Republic offered him French citizenship, which he accepted. Therefore he became a dual citizen of France and the United States.

    After that, he ran for, and was legitimately elected President, becoming the first unambiguous dual citizen to hold that post.

    This is well known amongst historians, and nobody has ever questioned Madison’s legitimacy.

    Besides, as the “father” of your Constitution, he certainly understood the document’s meanings better than you.

    Because, frankly, between your indisputable errors of facts, and your, shall we say, rather eccentric interpretations, you are spouting utter nonsense.

    You can continue ranting and raving about things that are simply not true, but that won’t change the facts.

    Madison gave allegiance to a foreign nation. That’s expatriation. As I said, after all the grandfathered founders with their weird citizenship idiosyncrasies died,the “Natural-Born Citizen” requirement took effect. Unless you are saying that Obama was alive back then,he is ineligible.

  210. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:38 am #

    Lupin: That is totally incorrect, with Madison being evidence to the contrary. You are simply wrong.

    I am right.

  211. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:39 am #

    Lupin: You response has nothing to do whatsoever with what I was writing.

    I suspect you did NOT understand what i was referring to.

    You suspect wrong. You just don’t like my answer.

  212. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 5:45 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Madison gave allegiance to a foreign nation. That’s expatriation.

    No it’s not. In any way, shape or form. You’re wrong.

    Robert C. Laity: As I said, after all the grandfathered founders with their weird citizenship idiosyncrasies died,the “Natural-Born Citizen” requirement took effect. Unless you are saying that Obama was alive back then,he is ineligible.

    No, it didn’t. That is also not true. The Constitution (as far as the presidential requirements are concerned) then applied to Madison in the same way at it applies to Obama today. You’re making up sh*t. There isn’t an ounce of academic / historical support for your weird made up revisionist history.

    You’re simply wrong about your facts.

  213. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 5:46 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I am right.

    No you’re not. I have history + the weight of 200 years of scholarship on my side. You, at best, have a bottle of gin.

  214. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 5:47 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You suspect wrong. You just don’t like my answer.

    No I didn’t. I specifically talked about Vattel, and you replied mentioning UK Common Law.

    Your answer was completely beside the point.

  215. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:50 am #

    Lupin: No I didn’t. I specifically talked about Vattel, and you replied mentioning UK Common Law.

    Your answer was completely beside the point.

    I said several of the people referenced BRITISH common law. Vattel’s definition is what the founder’s relied on.

  216. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:51 am #

    Lupin: No you’re not. I have history + the weight of 200 years of scholarship on my side. You, at best, have a bottle of gin.

    I don’t drink. I also have scholarship on my side.

  217. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 5:53 am #

    Robert C. Laity: That would make EVERY anchor baby regardless of parentage eligible to be OUR President. I do not think that we should give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

    Once the faux-academic surface of his arguments has been scratched, surface Mr. Laity’s racist agenda now comes to the fore for all to see.

    The ugly truth is out.

    BTW, I’ve been saying for a long time that THIS is specifically why Mario Apuzzo is being bankrolled by some right-wing parties: this is not just about Obama, but about creating a new class of second-rate “citizens” — or rather infecting the zeitgeist with the notion that brown people ARE second-class citizens already.

    Laity is obviously a disciple of that KKK-inspired “thesis”.

  218. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 5:54 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t drink. I also have scholarship on my side.

    Please quote any reputable scholars / historians who agree with you, starting with ANYONE questioning Madison’s legitimacy.

    You won’t find any because there are none.

  219. avatar
    Lupin January 26, 2014 at 5:57 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I said several of the people referenced BRITISH common law.Vattel’s definition is what the founder’s relied on.

    But Vattel’s definition (which has nothing to do with British common law, making your comment nonsensical) states clearly that only one parent (the father) is enough to transfer citizenship. (The mother if the child is born out of wedlock.) The notion that you need to have TWO parents who are citizens in order to be a citizen is nowhere found in Vattel — or any serious scholarship. It just is NOT there.

    Again. you’re making up sh*t to fit your bizarre racist agenda.

  220. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 5:58 am #

    Lupin: No it’s not. In any way, shape or form. You’re wrong.

    No, it didn’t. That is also not true. The Constitution (as far as the presidential requirements are concerned) then applied to Madison in the same way at it applies to Obama today. You’re making up sh*t. There isn’t an ounce of academic / historical support for your weird made up revisionist history.

    You’re simply wrong about your facts.

    “No person except a Natural born citizen,or a citizen of the United States at the TIME OF ADAPTION of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of President…” Art II,Sec.1 USConst.

    All those who were “citizen[s] of the United States at the time of adaption of this Constitution” are DEAD! The standard now is that one MUST be a “Natural-Born Citizen”.

  221. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 6:08 am #

    Lupin: But Vattel’s definition (which has nothing to do with British common law, making your comment nonsensical) states clearly that only one parent (the father) is enough to transfer citizenship. (The mother if the child is born out of wedlock.) The notion that you need to have TWO parents who are citizens in order to be a citizen is nowhere found in Vattel — or any serious scholarship. It just is NOT there.

    Again. you’re making up sh*t to fit your bizarre racist agenda.

    “One born in a country of Parents who are Citizens”. The fact that Vattel said that one’s Father transfers citizenship makes Obama a British Subject. The founders spoke French. It was the contemporaneous language of diplomacy. Ben Franklin brought back from France a copy of Vattel’s work. As I say in my brief,the English translation of Vattel’s statement ” Les Natureles,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes de le pays, de parents citoyens. means The Natural Born are those born in a Country of Parents (Plural) who are citizens (Plural). Citoyens is plural as is Parents. It does NOT say that an NBC is one born in a country of a parent who is a citizen. Be careful, you might just make my case for me.

  222. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 6:13 am #

    Lupin: But Vattel’s definition (which has nothing to do with British common law, making your comment nonsensical) states clearly that only one parent (the father) is enough to transfer citizenship. (The mother if the child is born out of wedlock.) The notion that you need to have TWO parents who are citizens in order to be a citizen is nowhere found in Vattel — or any serious scholarship. It just is NOT there.

    Again. you’re making up sh*t to fit your bizarre racist agenda.

    I said before. Obama cannot hide behind his race. He is not immune from criticism just because he happens to be part Black. That ratty race card again? Every one who criticizes Obama is not racist or prejudiced. I have made my judgements on his character and NOT his race.

  223. avatar
    Greenfinches January 26, 2014 at 7:17 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama [is] a British Subject.

    And even if this were true, why would it matter to the US on the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President? Why on earth does the British law of nationality make any difference at all to US citizens?

    The only question should surely be (apart from the votes…..) whether or not Obama is a US citizen – and having been born in Hawaii, he is just that.

  224. avatar
    Northland10 January 26, 2014 at 8:19 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t drink. I also have scholarship on my side.

    Scholarship would involve knowing Gerald Ford’s position in Congress and that he was appointed as Vice President after Agnew resigned but while Nixon was still in office. That is history 101. You do not have scholarship. You only have fear of “anchor babies.” Your “scholarship” is only finding “proof” to assuage your fear so you skip the actual history and laws of our country.

    BTW, some time ago, I asked why the organization who gave you that honorary degree has a primer about the Constitution that mentions you only need to be born in this country to be NBC. You never responded.

  225. avatar
    DaveH January 26, 2014 at 8:32 am #

    The founding fathers were knowledgeable in English common law. And yet, you prefer to make them legal scholars in based on a book that was written in French written by a man from Switzerland that dealt more with international law – hence the title Law of Nations.

    All you have to do is read the decision in Wong Kim Ark in addition to all arguments by the US Government to know that they used English Common Law to determine who is a natural born citizen.

    Robert C. Laity: “One born in a country of Parents who are Citizens”. The fact that Vattel said that one’s Father transfers citizenship makes Obama a British Subject. The founders spoke French. It was the contemporaneous language of diplomacy. Ben Franklin brought back from France a copy of Vattel’s work. As I say in my brief,the English translation of Vattel’s statement ” Les Natureles,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes de le pays, de parents citoyens. means The Natural Born are those born in a Country of Parents (Plural) who are citizens (Plural). Citoyens is plural as is Parents. It does NOT say that an NBC is one born in a country of a parent who is a citizen. Be careful, you might just make my case for me.

  226. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2014 at 8:47 am #

    Some did, and some did not. You make up facts to suit yourself, which is why your arguments are worthless.

    Robert C. Laity: The founders spoke French.

  227. avatar
    American Mzungu January 26, 2014 at 8:51 am #

    Robert C. Laity: He is not immune from criticism just because he happens to be part Black.

    Earlier you had said he was part “Negroid”. Why suddenly change to “Black”? I’m still interested in what racial classification scheme you use.

    I’m also still interested in why you claimed Obama was part “Arab”.

  228. avatar
    DaveH January 26, 2014 at 8:52 am #

    What is funny about Robert Laity’s claims of his honorary degree from the American Justice Foundation is I just read their catechism on the Constitution and when it comes to the part where they discuss the requirement of being president it reads none may be chosen except those born in the United States, being 35 years of age, and having lived in the United States for 14 years. No where in that document does it state that the president must have been born to two citizens.

  229. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2014 at 8:54 am #

    There is no support whatever in the historical record to support the notion that American ideas of citizenship derived from Vattel. Kettner in his book on the history of American citizenship only mentions Vattel once, and that only in a list of books that one person read on another subject.

    Many of the Framers were lawyers, and some trained in England. The Common Law was in effect in all of the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. The idea that Common Law definitions determined the understanding of terms in the Constitution is well established by the Supreme Court by such decisions as Smith v. Alabama and Ex Parte: Grossman.

    Your historical notion of citizenship is something dreamed up in 2008 by a part-time lawyer and professional poker player named Donofrio.

    You sir, are a crank.

    Robert C. Laity: I said several of the people referenced BRITISH common law. Vattel’s definition is what the founder’s relied on.

  230. avatar
    Thinker January 26, 2014 at 8:59 am #

    I would find Mr. Laity’s statements that his opinion about President Obama is driven by the President’s character and not his race more compelling if he were wasting his life on frivolous lawsuits about the President’s character instead of wasting his life on frivolous lawsuits about the President’s heritage.

  231. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 26, 2014 at 9:05 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I said before. Obama cannot hide behind his race. He is not immune from criticism just because he happens to be part Black. That ratty race card again? Every onewho criticizes Obama is not racist or prejudiced. I have made my judgements on his character and NOT his race.

    What you birthers do,isn’t criticism as far as I can tell.
    You call his mother a whore.
    You claim his wife to be a mtf transsexual.
    You claim he has people murdered on a regular basis.
    You call him every nasty thing in the book, and even inventing a few new ones.
    You refer to the White House as “The White Hut”.
    You make ridiculous claims about his parentage.
    You even go after his CHILDREN.

    Come on Laity. Step up to the mic, and explain to me how any of that stuff counts as “criticism”?

  232. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 9:10 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have publicly stated previously that it is an Honorary Degree. I would advise you not to refer to the American Justice Foundation as a “flim flam operation…claims to teach” unless you want to be sued for libel.

    Its considered poor form to use an honorary title (let alone one that cost $249) as though it meant something.

    As far as your legal advise is concerned I will give it the consideration it deserves.

  233. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 26, 2014 at 9:13 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I am right.

    And yet, not single judge has ruled in your favor.

  234. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 10:43 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “One born in a country of Parents who are Citizens”. The fact that Vattel said that one’s Father transfers citizenship makes Obama a British Subject. The founders spoke French. It was the contemporaneous language of diplomacy. Ben Franklin brought back from France a copy of Vattel’s work. As I say in my brief,the English translation of Vattel’s statement ” Les Natureles,ou indigenes,sont ceux qui sont nes de le pays, de parents citoyens. means The Natural Born are those born in a Country of Parents (Plural) who are citizens (Plural). Citoyens is plural as is Parents. It does NOT say that an NBC is one born in a country of a parent who is a citizen. Be careful, you might just make my case for me.

    You do know Lupin is a french jurist and has studied vattel more than just the one sentence you birthers rely on in the book. I’d say he knows more about this subject than you.

    Yes you see those double plurals? It’s the equivalent of saying Children of club members can use the pool. One doesn’t need more than one parent to be a member nor multiple children in order to use the pool. You also miss the part where Vattel states that other countries do it differently and their laws should be respected. American is one of the countries that did it differently.

    Besides there is no proof the founders looked to Vattel on citizenship. He’s not even brought up during the debates on the constitution.

  235. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 10:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    There is no support whatever in the historical record to support the notion that American ideas of citizenship derived from Vattel. Kettner in his book on the history of American citizenship only mentions Vattel once, and that only in a list of books that one person read on another subject.

    Many of the Framers were lawyers, and some trained in England. The Common Law was in effect in all of the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. The idea that Common Law definitions determined the understanding of terms in the Constitution is well established by the Supreme Court by such decisions as Smith v. Alabama and Ex Parte: Grossman.

    Your historical notion of citizenship is something dreamed up in 2008 by a part-time lawyer and professional poker player named Donofrio.

    You sir, are a crank.

    I think Bobby is one of the people who believes that Vattel didn’t write the law of nations and the book was simply his translation of Christian Wolff’s book into French.

  236. avatar
    Kate January 26, 2014 at 10:58 am #

    Steve: He is the duly-elected President of the United States. He won the election. Therefore, by definition, he cannot be a usurper.
    Usurping would be if he didn’t win the election and took the office anyway.

    Birthers conveniently ignore the fact that it was in 2004 that then Senator Barack Obama, after making a speech at the Democratic National Convention, was added to a list of possible Presidential candidates for the 2008 election. The Republican Party was well aware of just who he was after his stirring speech and set out to find all the dirt they could on him before the ’08 primaries, in case he did become a candidate. There was an article in ’08 that detailed what they found as far as derogatory material goes in Obama’s past. It spoke of how very disappointed the RNC was because they couldn’t find anything to go after a possible candidate with during a primary. It speaks volumes that there was no hiding of Senator Obama’s history, he often spoke of how he was so fortunate to be living the American dream, growing up the child of a single mother for most of his life. He attended prestigious schools with the help of scholarships and student loans from the federal gov’t, topping it off with the fact that at the time his parents met, married and he was born, the idea of a black President was a dream and a distant one at that. Senator Obama never hid the fact that his father was from Kenya and except for a few articles that mistakenly wrote that he had been born in Kenya rather than the truth that it was his father who was born there, there has never been ANY effort to hide the fact. Why is that? Because anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and familiarity with our history as a nation, along with knowledge of our laws, knows that in order to be a natural born citizen, you need only be born on U.S. soil with the parent’s citizenship not coming into affecting the same unless they were diplomats from a foreign country or members of an invading military.

    In the history of birthers, it’s noted that the idea that President Obama’s father was not a citizen wasn’t even mentioned initially until someone decided to try to use that against him, too, changing the laws of the U.S. to suit themselves and to attack a legally elected President. It’s ironic that Orly Taitz, the so-called queen of the birthers, has 3 children born on U.S. soil and claims 2 of them are not eligible to become President because they were not born to 2 citizen parents yet when asked when they were naturalized, she ignores or deletes the question. Why is that? You’d think that if citizenship is so important to her that she would have made arrangements for her children to be naturalized as soon as possible although IIRC, nobody has been able to find any record of her actually becoming a U.S. citizen, either.

    Laity and others often mention Vattel and the intention of the founding fathers to use his Law of Nations and cite an improperly translated paragraph to mean that in order for anyone to be a natural born citizen, they must have 2 citizen parents. If the founding fathers had wanted to base the Constitution on Vattel, why do we have freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, both concepts with which Vattel was at odds with according to his writings. It’s because there is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that indicates that we need 2 citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen. If you don’t need them when born abroad, you certainly don’t need them when born on U.S. soil. The founders took the time to enumerate the conditions on which the Presidency was based by listing that he/she must be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and to have lived at least 14 years of their life within the United States. If they intended that a President have 2 U.S. citizen parents at birth, why wasn’t that included under the requirements or at least under the details of what a natural born citizen was? Furthermore, why is there no mention of a possible dual allegiance and forbidding of the
    same? We’ve had other presidential candidates with dual citizenship and never was a word said about that precluding them from holding the office of President.

    When you look at the history of Presidential elections and the sudden requirements made up by birthers, you can’t help but be cynical and equate them with the idea that the first U.S. President, no matter what portion of his genetic make-up is African-American, it certainly has had an effect on a minority of the population, turning them into raging lunatics who are willing to believe anything derogatory about the President no matter how far fetched the idea may be. Laity is definitely a leader among this group and although I’ve seen enough of his behavior and that of other birthers to know that the truth and other facts have no effect on their thought process, it would be interesting to see if they can come up with a coherent response for a change.

  237. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 11:02 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Still I can see Laity spinning it as “they approved of my filing” or something like that.

    He’s one of the “fraud invalidates an election, so Boehner is the legal President” crowd BTW. I’ve tried in vain to elicit some well-founded rationale for this claim from him on Twitter, he repeats only variants of “it is because it is”.

    If I get a ruling in my favor or not, I would have done my duty pursuant to my oath to uphold the Constitution. Obama got “elected” by use of fraudulent means. That constitutes Usurpation. Boehner is President in that while the Constitution provides that the VP and POTUS are elected separately, the sloppy process “in Practice” is now to elect them together. Obama and Biden are OUT.

  238. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 11:14 am #

    Robert C. Laity: If I get a ruling in my favor or not, I would have done my duty pursuant to my oath to uphold the Constitution. Obama got “elected” by use of fraudulent means. That constitutes Usurpation. Boehner is President in that while the Constitution provides that the VP and POTUS are elected separately, the sloppy process “in Practice” is now to elect them together. Obama and Biden are OUT.

    Continually stating he was elected through fraud doesn’t make it so. You’ve presented absolutely no proof to support this contention of yours. He was elected legitimately and lawfully. He was not a usurper. Boehner in no way is president as the law doesn’t allow for him to become President because you say so. No we actually elect them separately as they are on separate ballots and get separate electoral votes.

  239. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 11:24 am #

    [This comment was hung up in the spam filter. Doc.]

    Kate: Birthers conveniently ignore the fact that it was in 2004 that then Senator Barack Obama, after making a speech at the Democratic National Convention, was added to a list of possible Presidential candidates for the 2008 election.The Republican Party was well aware of just who he was after his stirring speech and set out to find all the dirt they could on him before the ’08 primaries, in case he did become a candidate.There was an article in ’08 that detailed what they found as far as derogatory material goes in Obama’s past.It spoke of how very disappointed the RNC was because they couldn’t find anything to go after a possible candidate with during a primary.It speaks volumes that there was no hiding of Senator Obama’s history, he often spoke of how he was so fortunate to be living the American dream, growing up the child of a single mother for most of his life.He attended prestigious schools with the help of scholarships and student loans from the federal gov’t, topping it off with the fact that at the time his parents met, married and he was born, the idea of a black President was a dream and a distant one at that.Senator Obama never hid the fact that his father was from Kenya and except for a few articles that mistakenly wrote that he had been born in Kenya rather than the truth that it was his father who was born there, there has never been ANY effort to hide the fact.Why is that?Because anyone with even a modicum of intelligence and familiarity with our history as a nation, along with knowledge of our laws, knows that in order to be a natural born citizen, you need only be born on U.S. soil with the parent’s citizenship not coming into affecting the same unless they were diplomats from a foreign country or members of an invading military.

    In the history of birthers, it’s noted that the idea that President Obama’s father was not a citizen wasn’t even mentioned initially until someone decided to try to use that against him, too, changing the laws of the U.S. to suit themselves and to attack a legally elected President.It’s ironic that Orly Taitz, the so-called queen of the birthers, has 3 children born on U.S. soil and claims 2 of them are not eligible to become President because they were not born to 2 citizen parents yet when asked when they were naturalized, she ignores or deletes the question.Why is that?You’d think that if citizenship is so important to her that she would have made arrangements for her children to be naturalized as soon as possible although IIRC, nobody has been able to find any record of her actually becoming a U.S. citizen, either.

    Laity and others often mention Vattel and the intention of the founding fathers to use his Law of Nations and cite an improperly translated paragraph to mean that in order for anyone to be a natural born citizen, they must have 2 citizen parents.If the founding fathers had wanted to base the Constitution on Vattel, why do we have freedom of religion and the right to bear arms, both concepts with which Vattel was at odds with according to his writings.It’s because there is nothing in the Constitution or anywhere else that indicates that we need 2 citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen.If you don’t need them when born abroad, you certainly don’t need them when born on U.S. soil.The founders took the time to enumerate the conditions on which the Presidency was based by listing that he/she must be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age and to have lived at least 14 years of their life within the United States.If they intended that a President have 2 U.S. citizen parents at birth, why wasn’t that included under the requirements or at least under the details of what a natural born citizen was?Furthermore, why is there no mention of a possible dual allegiance and forbidding of the
    same?We’ve had other presidential candidates with dual citizenship and never was a word said about that precluding them from holding the office of President.

    When you look at the history of Presidential elections and the sudden requirements made up by birthers, you can’t help but be cynical and equate them with the idea that the first U.S. President, no matter what portion of his genetic make-up is African-American, it certainly has had an effect on a minority of the population, turning them into raging lunatics who are willing to believe anything derogatory about the President no matter how far fetched the idea may be.Laity is definitely a leader among this group and although I’ve seen enough of his behavior and that of other birthers to know that the truth and other facts have no effect on their thought process, it would be interesting to see if they can come up with a coherent response for a change.

    Many of Obama’s background claims are now debunked. There has been proven that Obama did not attend Columbia, even though he had an ID card which BTW, listed him as a foreign student. Obama’s Mother was a member of an Indonesian cult named Sabud. Obama’s birth facts are gravely in dispute. There can be no doubt that the founders differentiated from the term “Citizen” and the term “Natural-Born Citizen”. Why if the major parties weren’t concerned with that purported interchangeabilty of the two separate terms have they tried over SIX times to change it by legislation since 2001? Because they ARE concerned about it. It is not true that a Citizen with only Jus soli can be President. One must also have 100% Jus Sanquinis. Orly Taitz is more loyal to America then you are,who would have any Tom,Dick or Harry regardless of his background be OUR President. The words ” Parents Citoyens” does mean Parents Citizens (Plural). It is not “improperly translated”. The translation from French to English is “of Parents who are citizens” it is not “Of a Parent who is a citizen”. As a matter of fact, Children born abroad of two American Parents are NOT “Natural-Born” Americans. They are American citizens with dual citizenship. BTW, U.S. Bases on foreign land is NOT U.S. Soil. McCain iis also NOT an NBC.

  240. avatar
    donna January 26, 2014 at 12:14 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Boehner is President……

    last week, Boehner was asked by the host (Leno) whether he’d ever consider seeking the nation’s highest office.

    “No,” Boehner said immediately. “No?” Leno said. “No,” Boehner repeated.

    “Listen, I like to play golf,” Boehner said by way of explanation. “I like to cut my own grass. You know, I do drink red wine. I smoke cigarettes. And I’m not giving that up to be the President of the United States.”

    he didn’t mention that he “is president” already and that “Obama and Biden are OUT”

  241. avatar
    JPotter January 26, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

    donna: “Listen, I like to play golf,” Boehner said by way of explanation. “I like to cut my own grass. You know, I do drink red wine. I smoke cigarettes. And I’m not giving that up to be the President of the United States.”

    Logic never has been that man’s strong suit.

  242. avatar
    RanTalbott January 26, 2014 at 1:17 pm #

    JPotter: Logic never has been that man’s strong suit.

    Sounds pretty logical to me: the man knows that it’s important to him to have at least a little bit of normalcy in his life. And he knows, from watching from his ringside seat, that you never, ever get that as President. That the costs are huge, and the benefits are nowhere near as good as most people imagine them to be.

    It’s actually one of the most sensible things I’ve heard him say.

  243. avatar
    JD Sue January 26, 2014 at 1:32 pm #

    Mr. Laity,

    Would you please address this point raised by another commenter? The American Justice Foundation’s site provides a copy of Arthur J. Stansbury’s “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States. For the Use of Schools” (Boston, 1828). On pages 48-49, the catechism says the following:

    “Q: May any person be chosen President of the United States?
    A: Not every person; none may be chosen unless he has been born in the United States, or was a citizen when the Constitution was agreed to, nor can such one be chosen if he is less than thirty-five years old, or if he has not resided with the United States for four-teen years.”

    Given the above, what persuaded you that Arthur J. Stansbury and your honorary alma mater are wrong?

    DaveH: What is funny about Robert Laity’s claims of his honorary degree from the American Justice Foundation is I just read their catechism on the Constitution and when it comes to the part where they discuss the requirement of being president it reads none may be chosen except those born in the United States, being 35 years of age, and having lived in the United States for 14 years. No where in that document does it state that the president must have been born to two citizens.

  244. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:19 pm #

    Robert C. Laity:

    If I get a ruling in my favor or not, I would have done my duty pursuant to my oath to uphold the Constitution. Obama got “elected” by use of fraudulent means.

    Nothing in your ‘oath’ requires you to do what you have done. You believe, erroneously, that our President is not eligible and want to have him removed. Nothing in the Constitution covers that foolish scenario.

    You may continue to hold your foolish beliefs, that’s your personal choice, but do not pretend that they are founded in logic, reason, fact or precedents in law, as they are not.

    So in the end, you are just a sore loser who laments that our Nation has elected President Obama. A combination of fear, ignorance and hatred makes for a recipe for embarrassment..

    I wish you good luck in your pursuit of the truth…

  245. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:21 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I am right.

    And yet the courts have continuously disagreed with you. I guess the whole world is wrong and you are right :-)

    Funny..

  246. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:23 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Our President must be born in the United States and have parents who were both American when the candidate seeking the Presidency was born.

    So you claim, in contradiction to fact, legal precedent, logic and reason. Not bad..

    Our nationality laws apply and our ratified treaties. Mere citizenship is not “relevant” to being President. That would make EVERY anchor baby regardless of parentage eligible to be OUR President.

    Ah, that’s your fear? But that’s indeed what the Constitution leads to. Even the dissenting judge in US v WKA observed this to be the case under the majority ruling.

    I do not think that we should give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

    Then change our Constitution. But instead you try to undermine our Constitution with foolish logic which is at odds with reason and legal precedent.

    That my friends is ironic.

  247. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 2:24 pm #

    nbc: And yet the courts have continuously disagreed with you. I guess the whole world is wrong and you are right

    Funny..

    But you know it’s not that he’s wrong but as Bobby claims the courts are all being malfeasant

  248. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:25 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: One hundred percent allegiance,jus soli and jus sanquinis to the U.S. or you do NOT become President.

    And yet, your beliefs are not supported by legal precedent, logic or reason. It was litigated in US v Wong Kim Ark and clearly rejected. Have you ever read the legal briefs in that case? I doubt it.

  249. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:27 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: British common Law is what “provides historical perspective”. However,it is NOT “useful”. We no longer have ANY connection whatsoever to British common law. We are a sovereign and separate nation from the U.K.

    You still do not understand that it was British Common Law which existed in our states before, during and after the revolution and thus the legal meaning of natural born is to be found in said common law, as explained by the Supreme Court in US v Wong Kim Ark and Minor v Happersett.

    I am glad you accept that we are a sovereign nation however, which undermines your claims that UK nationality laws can subvert a person’s US birthright citizenship.

    Well done my friend.

  250. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:30 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Which “Fitzpatrick” are you referring to?

    Walter I bel

    Robert C. Laity: If Obama is convicted of all the Charges he stands accused of, I would expect that he would be executed by a properly convened Military firing squad or other suitable means of execution pursuant to his conviction. I have made no “Threats”. Being a spy and a traitor carries the death penalty. State execution of spies is an acceptable act of societal self defense.

    Of course there is no foundation for your charges so therefore, your ‘beliefs’ have no relevance to reality.

    Of course, you will continue to hold to your beliefs, as is your right and the courts will continue to prove you wrong.

    Quite entertaining really…

  251. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:31 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Google: “There is NO ‘President’ Obama” by Me.

    Google ‘US v Wong Kim Ark” , “ankeny v Daniels”….

    Facts beats fiction anytime my friend.

  252. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:33 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”. He presented himself as Constitutionally qualified to be President with the help of Nancy Pelosi. He obtained the Office of the Presidency by fraud. THAT is usurpation. He did so during “Time of war”. THAT makes Obama a spy.

    False premise, false conclusion…

    He is constitutionally qualified, as the courts have observed… Now what?… Revise your conclusions? I bet that you cannot allow for this… Which explains why, you continue to hold to your beliefs, even though they have been rejected by logic, reason and legal precedent.

    Fascinating…

  253. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:38 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: My time is spent the way I want to spend it. Obama will be brought to Justice. History will not be kind to the usurper and spy. This is a matter of grave national security risk and you call it a “Game”?

    A foolish belief? Better…

    It seems to me that you are trying to rationalize your actions by appeal to something ‘noble’ even though there is no foundation for your claims? That’s fine, I guess, we all need something to believe in and hope for, even though deep down we know that it is not going to happen.

    The problem with your ‘argument’ is that you have presumed our President to be guilty, based on your belief that nbc requires both parents to be US citizens. This is at odds with history, logic, reason and legal precedent. Especially the latter destroys your claims quite effectively. Need I remind you of the foundation: US v Wong Kim Ark, in Re: Wong Kim Ark, Ankeny v Daniels and those cases adopting Ankeny’s reasoning?

    So if there is no foundation for your beliefs, then what does this mean for your actions?…

    Good luck my friend, I predict that the Court will quickly deny cert as explained above. So what then?

  254. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: No. I don’t. I do however, want to see Obama convicted. He is a usurper and spy.

    You have the right to believe this but that hardly makes it a fact. Yes, I understand that you want Obama to be convicted, that’s quite clear. Of course your beliefs that he is an usurper or a spy are somewhat poorly developed.

  255. avatar
    sfjeff January 26, 2014 at 2:40 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: That would make EVERY anchor baby regardless of parentage eligible to be OUR President. I do not think that we should give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. We are setting ourselves up for disaster

    And i think that this is may be the crux of Bob’s obsession.

    Fear of aliens.
    Fear of Mulatto’s

    Bob is obsessed and immune to facts or logic.

    As such he is just another Birther

  256. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 2:42 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: But you know it’s not that he’s wrong but as Bobby claims the courts are all being malfeasant

    Yes, that is even more funny… Everyone is wrong but Robert… Yes, I can see that… Of course, the more logical conclusion is that the courts disagree with Robert’s notions. Oh wait, they have…

  257. avatar
    sfjeff January 26, 2014 at 3:29 pm #

    Who does Bob imagine Obama is a spy for?

    i don’t expect a serious reply- because like so many Birther claims it is just another charge- like ‘muslim’ or ‘homosexual’ or whatever else they think might stick.

    But to be a spy against the United States would mean that Bobbie thinks that Obama is spying for some other country- does he imagine that it is the UK? kenya? Hawaii?

    We should thank Bobbie- Birtherism has been rather dull lately, and he has renewed our faith in the basic craziness behind Birtherism.

  258. avatar
    aarrgghh January 26, 2014 at 3:42 pm #

    oval office
    not for nigger
    laity gonna
    pull the trigger
    burma shave

  259. avatar
    dunstvangeet January 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm #

    Hey Bob…

    Which Body said this…

    “The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    I’ll give you a hint. It’s the same body that you think will overturn a century of constitutional case law and rule in your favor…

  260. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2014 at 3:56 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I have publicly stated previously that it is an Honorary Degree. I would advise you not to refer to the American Justice Foundation as a “flim flam operation…claims to teach” unless you want to be sued for libel.

    An honorary degree gives you the title of Doctor?

    As for the American Justice Foundation, did you know that Frederick Graves was suspended by the Florida Bar for six months in 1989 because of “numerous instances of misconduct by Graves in his representation of three clients…The referee found Graves guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility.”?

    Graves also was reprimanded for trust account violations.

    Because what could be more honorable than buying an honorary degree from an attorney with a history of ethics violations?

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/70859/op-70859.pdf

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/69274/69274ror.pdf

  261. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2014 at 4:05 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t drink. I also have scholarship on my side.

    Seriously?

    Scholarship involves the ability to provide citations and sources. Please cite a single history text, civics text, Constitutional law text, or even a school syllabus which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents at birth.

    I should warn you that I have asking this of birthers for the past five years and not one of them has been able to provide an answer.

  262. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm #

    Rickey: Seriously?

    Scholarship involves the ability to provide citations and sources. Please cite a single history text, civics text, Constitutional law text, or even a school syllabus which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents at birth.

    I should warn you that I have asking this of birthers for the past five years and not one of them has been able to provide an answer.

    I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

  263. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

    Rickey: An honorary degree gives you the title of Doctor?

    As for the American Justice Foundation, did you know that Frederick Graves was suspended by the Florida Bar for six months in 1989 because of “numerous instances of misconduct by Graves in his representation of three clients…The referee found Graves guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility.”?

    Graves also was reprimanded for trust account violations.

    Because what could be more honorable than buying an honorary degree from an attorney with a history of ethics violations?

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/70859/op-70859.pdf

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/69274/69274ror.pdf

    I took the properly structured course and I attained the Score of 90% required to receive the Honorary Degree.

  264. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:19 pm #

    dunstvangeet:
    Hey Bob…

    Which Body said this…

    “The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    I’ll give you a hint.It’s the same body that you think will overturn a century of constitutional case law and rule in your favor…

    Was such a statement made into law by sending it to the Senate and having it signed by the President? If not, it is not mandatory to do so nor is English common law precedent in OUR Sovereign system of Law.

  265. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm #

    Rickey: An honorary degree gives you the title of Doctor?

    As for the American Justice Foundation, did you know that Frederick Graves was suspended by the Florida Bar for six months in 1989 because of “numerous instances of misconduct by Graves in his representation of three clients…The referee found Graves guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility.”?

    Graves also was reprimanded for trust account violations.

    Because what could be more honorable than buying an honorary degree from an attorney with a history of ethics violations?

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/70859/op-70859.pdf

    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/69274/69274ror.pdf

    Yes. I have the Honorary Title of “Doctor”.As long as I place the term “Honoris Causis” after the type of degree it is I can use the Title. BTW, I have other degrees earned in traditional Universities such as The University of the State NY at Albany in Psychology,Anatomy and Physiology.

  266. avatar
    JPotter January 26, 2014 at 4:25 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

    Hmmm …. “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

    Oh my … this is a new level of loony! Is Laity seriously attempting to portray this usage as the Constitutional Convention’s way of adopting Vattel … when it is in now way a reference to Vattel? … much less having anything to do with citizenship?

    Is being born to parents of differing citizenship an offense against international law / norms? If so, I’d like to hear Laity affirm his respect for the authority of the ICJ, and the supremacy of the UN in general.

  267. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:30 pm #

    aarrgghh:
    oval office
    not for nigger
    laity gonna
    pull the trigger
    burma shave

    You are a Racist. You use of the derogatory racial epithet should shame you. I am not going to “pull” any “trigger”. I will leave that to a Military firing squad in the event that Obama get’s convicted of treason and/or being a spy.

  268. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:45 pm #

    JPotter: Hmmm …. “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”

    Oh my … this is a new level of loony! Is Laity seriously attempting to portray this usage as the Constitutional Convention’s way of adopting Vattel … when it is in now way a reference to Vattel? … much less having anything to do with citizenship?

    Is being born to parents of differing citizenship an offense against international law / norms?If so, I’d like to hear Laity affirm his respect for the authority of the ICJ, and the supremacy of the UN in general.

    We live in a world of multiple Nations and not as Obama would have it, a “Global” system. International Law is just that. The United States, contrary to it’s own constitution, has allowed a known terrorist to usurp its Presidency. Obama has committed crimes against Humanity as well as Crimes against America. The Law of Nations was in ubiquitous usage in both British and U.S. Courts in the 18th century, enough so that the founders made reference to it in OUR constitution. It was and is the norm that nations rely on International Law for defining issues that affect them. A “Natural-Born Citizen” is accepted internationally as being “one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”. The U.N. has no authority over OUR sovereign nation other than what the U.S. agrees to by treaty and which is ratified by the Senate. Said treaty must not abrogate any rights secured by our Constitution.

  269. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 4:46 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Yes. I have the Honorary Title of “Doctor”.As long as I place the term “Honoris Causis” after the type of degree it is I can use the Title.BTW, I have other degrees earned in traditional Universities such as The University of the State NY at Albany in Psychology,Anatomy and Physiology.

    You mean Honoris Causa which has to do with a college or university giving an honorary degree. A bullshit organization such as the “American Justice Foundation” which is unaccredited handing out fake degrees for a few hundred bucks doesn’t qualify as honoris causa. It is disingenuous for you to claim it’s anything but fake. Just as James David Manning using the “Doctor” title despite not getting a real doctorate.

  270. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 4:48 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

    The law of Nations is about international law. No international law affects a country’s ability and sovereignty to define who are its citizens. My goodness sakes, you object to Kerry signing the UN argreement about weapons and yet you insist that the US follows International Law when it comes to national citizenship.

    Even Vattel accepted that each nation gets to define who are its citizens… Geez…

  271. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

    Article 1 section 8 says nothing about needing two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. The reference to law of nations is a generic reference to the term that existed long before Vattel and Wolf. In fact that section is a better reference to Sir William Blackstone as a chapter in his book was dedicated to “Offenses against the law of nations.” In fact that was the title of the chapter. Several of the things mentioned inside the chapter included you know offenses such as Piracy and other crimes on the high seas.

    Further Article 1 Section 8 deals with the powers of congress and not the presidency. You fail again Bobby.

  272. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: We live in a world of multiple Nations and not as Obama would have it, a “Global” system. International Law is just that. The United States has allowed a known terrorist to usurp it’s. Presidency.

    And yet you want to have the laws of the UK affect the sovereign laws of the US. You are hilariously inconsistent. There is NO evidence that our President is a terrorist or whatever else you wish him to be. Look my friend, you are all over the place with your ‘arguments’, ignoring the fact that you are contradicting your own position.

    Lack of internal consistency is quite telling.

    As to laws of nation, the Court in US v Wong Kim Ark and the Lower Court, rejected this. Why do you want to re-litigate a settled issue?

  273. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 4:52 pm #

    Rickey: An honorary degree gives you the title of Doctor?

    As for the American Justice Foundation, did you know that Frederick Graves was suspended by the Florida Bar for six months in 1989 because of “numerous instances of misconduct by Graves in his representation of three clients…The referee found Graves guilty of numerous violations of the Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility.”?

    Graves also was reprimanded for trust account violations.

    Because what could be more honorable than buying an honorary degree from an attorney with a history of ethics violations?

    I think you may have the wrong Frederick Graves.

    Frederick D. Graves is the the fellow who runs the American Justice Foundation and sells the jurisdictionary.com course that Mr. Laity took.

    According to the Florida Bar our Graves is in good standing but lists his occupation as “retired”.

    A check of the Florida corporation records at the Department of State indicates that the foundation and jurisdictionary are both inactive corporations having been administratively dissolved for failing to file annual reports anywhere from three to a dozen years ago.

    This is my first time checking Florida corporation records so there may be more than I couldn’t find but even double checking by Graves name that’s how they come up. I couldn’t find any currently active registrations with his name attached to them.

    All that said I stand by my description of the operation.

  274. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 4:54 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Which Body said this…

    “The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    I’ll give you a hint.It’s the same body that you think will overturn a century of constitutional case law and rule in your favor…

    Was such a statement made into law by sending it to the Senate and having it signed by the President? If not, it is not mandatory to do so nor is English common law precedent in OUR Sovereign system of Law.

    You are hilarious… Do you even understand how our legal system works and how common law arises? Obviously, you have a bit of a lack of understanding here…

    It is in fact legal precedent in our system of law because that is what the courts have ruled…

    My goodness sakes, this is just too embarrassing…

  275. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 4:55 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Which Body said this…

    “The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

    I’ll give you a hint.It’s the same body that you think will overturn a century of constitutional case law and rule in your favor…

    Was such a statement made into law by sending it to the Senate and having it signed by the President? If not, it is not mandatory to do so nor is English common law precedent in OUR Sovereign system of Law.

    You are hilarious… Do you even understand how our legal system works and how common law arises? Obviously, you have a bit of a lack of understanding here…

    It is in fact legal precedent in our system of law because that is what the courts have ruled…

    My goodness sakes, this is just too embarrassing… Is it too late to get a refund?

  276. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 4:55 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I took the properly structured course and I attained the Score of 90% required to receive the Honorary Degree.

    When did you “graduate” and what did they tell you the degree meant?

  277. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Was such a statement made into law by sending it to the Senate and having it signed by the President?

    This is interesting. Are you saying a court decision can be “made into law” by “sending it to the Senate and having it signed by the President.”?

    Can you give us some examples of how that has worked in the past?

  278. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 26, 2014 at 4:58 pm #

    sfjeff:
    Who does Bob imagine Obama is a spy for?

    i don’t expect a serious reply- because like so many Birther claims it is just another charge- like ‘muslim’ or ‘homosexual’ or whatever else they think might stick.

    But to be a spy against the United States would mean that Bobbie thinks that Obama is spying for some other country- does he imagine that it is the UK? kenya? Hawaii?

    We should thank Bobbie- Birtherism has been rather dull lately, and he has renewed our faith in the basic craziness behind Birtherism.

    You should brush up on the U.C.M.J. and 18 U.S.C., et seq.

    1. Obama is a Fraud, a Usurper.
    2. Obama is not the Bona-fide President
    3. Obama has no “lawful authority” as President
    4. We are in a Time of War.
    5. Obama is a Private Citizen and not a duly authorized President
    6. Obama has no lawfully granted security clearance
    7. Every time Obama enters into restricted government areas requiring said clearance Obama breaks the Law with regard to access to America’s secrets.
    8. That makes Obama a Spy under UCMJ S906,A106.
    9. It applies to “ANY person found lurking” in such restricted areas during time of war.
    See: U.S. v Averette.
    10.Obama is a Spy.

  279. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 5:01 pm #

    CarlOrcas: This is interesting. Are you saying a court decision can be “made into law” by “sending it to the Senate and having it signed by the President.”?

    Well, court decisions can be made into law to make it more widely applicable. However, a Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for all our courts and there is no need to put it into law, although it could still be done, to avoid the supreme court rescinding its decision at a later time.

  280. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 5:02 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: A “Natural-Born Citizen” is accepted internationally as being “one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”.

    That was rejected in Wong Kim Ark… Keep trying ‘Dr’…

  281. avatar
    DaveH January 26, 2014 at 5:02 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: You should brush up on the U.C.M.J. and 18 U.S.C., et seq.

    1. Obama is a Fraud, a Usurper.
    2. Obama is not the Bona-fide President
    3. Obama has no “lawful authority” as President
    4. We are in a Time of War.
    5. Obama is a Private Citizen
    6. Obama has no security clearance as a Private Citizen
    7. Every time Obama enters into restricted government areas requiring saidclearance Obama breaks the Law with regard to access to America’s secrets.
    8. That makes Obama a Spy under UCMJ S906,A106.
    9. It applies to “ANY person found lurking”in such restricted areas during time of war.
    See: U.S. v Averette.
    10.Obama is a Spy.

    You’re becoming a huge bore. Why don’t you go back to the Birther Report. They probably enjoy reading your delusional thoughts.

  282. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 5:03 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: BTW, I have other degrees earned in traditional Universities such as The University of the State NY at Albany in Psychology,Anatomy and Physiology.

    Interesting. Your public LinkedIn profile says those degrees came from Excelsior College….the one in Florida, I assume.

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-christopher-laity/37/1b4/61b

    Not a mention of New York anywhere.

    So…..which is it?

  283. avatar
    DaveH January 26, 2014 at 5:05 pm #

    CarlOrcas: Interesting. Your public LinkedIn profile says those degrees came from Excelsior College….the one in Florida, I assume.

    http://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-christopher-laity/37/1b4/61b

    Not a mention of New York anywhere.

    So…..which is it?

    Robert should have to prove that he has these so called degrees. He should scan them and post them for our review so we can determine if they’re forgeries or not.

  284. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 5:05 pm #

    nbc: Well, court decisions can be made into law to make it more widely applicable. However, a Supreme Court decision is binding precedent for all our courts and there is no need to put it into law, although it could still be done, to avoid the supreme court rescinding its decision at a later time.

    Yes, I understand that’s how it is done in the real world.

    I’m just kind of interested in the process that Dr. Laity talks about.

  285. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 5:06 pm #

    DaveH: Robert should have to prove that he has these so called degrees. He should scan them and post them for our review so we can determine if they’re forgeries or not.

    I’m more interested in his kindergarten records.

  286. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: 6. Obama has no lawfully granted security clearance

    Who grants the Commander in Chief a security clearance?

  287. avatar
    DaveH January 26, 2014 at 5:09 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I’m more interested in his kindergarten records.

    Robert seems to be hiding something. We know absolutely nothing about his past or his education. Where is his birth certificate? Is he even an American citizen?

  288. avatar
    aarrgghh January 26, 2014 at 5:14 pm #

    can’t pull trigger
    laity’s crying
    can’t say not for
    lack of trying
    burma shave

  289. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 5:18 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: . Obama is a Private Citizen and not a duly authorized President

    If that is true then how is he covered by the UCMJ?

    But since he is the lawful President I wonder if you understand that he isn’t covered by the UCMJ anway?

  290. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

    CarlOrcas: If that is true then how is he covered by the UCMJ?

    ROTFL… Internal consistency is never really something that birthers care about.

  291. avatar
    JPotter January 26, 2014 at 5:29 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: We live in a world of multiple Nations and not as Obama would have it, a “Global” system. International Law is just that. The United States, contrary to it’s own constitution, has allowed a known terrorist to usurp its Presidency. Obama has committed crimes against Humanity as well as Crimes against America. The Law of Nations was in ubiquitous usage in both British and U.S. Courts in the 18th century, enough so that the founders made reference to it in OUR constitution. It was and is the norm that nations rely on International Law for defining issues that affect them. A “Natural-Born Citizen” is accepted internationally as being “one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”. The U.N. has no authority over OUR sovereign nation other than what the U.S. agrees to by treaty and which is ratified by the Senate. Said treaty must not abrogate any rights secured by our Constitution.

    So, yes, you are silly enough to believe that Art. I Sect 8 is a reference to Vattel, and yea verily, silly enough to believe that the Framers adopted that work wholesale, in the form of a passing reference regarding piracy. And that, yes, you’re trying to have it both ways in regards to the interplay between sovereignty and international law. Thanks for confirming!

    So, tell me, when writers made use of the term “Law of Nations” prior to 1758, were they referring without fail to a book not yet written? :P

    A “Natural-Born Citizen” is accepted internationally as being “one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”.

    By who, when, and where? Please list as many specific examples as your bandwidth will allow. ;)

  292. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 5:36 pm #

    DaveH: Robert seems to be hiding something. We know absolutely nothing about his past or his education. Where is his birth certificate? Is he even an American citizen?

    Have we ever seen an official birth certificate from Birtherstan?

  293. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 5:47 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: You should brush up on the U.C.M.J. and 18 U.S.C., et seq.

    1. Obama is a Fraud, a Usurper.

    No evidence of that. Since he was elected through a real election, verified and certified by congress and since he was properly sworn in, he cannot be a usurper. As to being a fraud, that is poorly pled.

    2. Obama is not the Bona-fide President

    Conclusion, does not follow from evidence.

    3. Obama has no “lawful authority” as President

    Educate yourself about the “de facto officer” doctrine. Even if you were right, he would still be lawful until properly removed from office.

    4. We are in a Time of War.

    Legally speaking?

    5. Obama is a Private Citizen and not a duly authorized President

    Then the UCMJ has no relevance. But again, you are forgetting the “de facto officer” doctrine.

    6. Obama has no lawfully granted security clearance

    Huh?

    7. Every time Obama enters into restricted government areas requiring said clearance Obama breaks the Law with regard to access to America’s secrets.

    Undeveloped assertion.

    8. That makes Obama a Spy under UCMJ S906,A106.

    UCMJ does not apply to Obama per your own admissions.

    Let’s look at UCMJ Article 106

    Elements:

    (1) That the accused was found in, about, or in and about a certain place, vessel, or aircraft within the control or jurisdiction of an armed force of the United States, or a shipyard, manufacturing or industrial plant, or other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere;

    (2) That the accused was lurking, acting clandestinely or under false pretenses;

    (3) That the accused was collecting or attempting to collect certain information;

    (4) That the accused did so with the intent to convey this information to the enemy; and

    (5) That this was done in time of war.

    Uhoh… How is time of war defined by the military courts?

    Since 11 September there has been neither a declaration of war from Congress, nor a special finding by the President that UCMJ “Time of War” exists.

    Doh… what a fail…

    9. It applies to “ANY person found lurking” in such restricted areas during time of war.
    See: U.S. v Averette.
    10.Obama is a Spy.

    Even assuming that he were a spy, which you have yet to explain. there is no time of war in the legal sense of the word. As to US v Averette

    The court construed the application of the UCMJ to civilians “in times of war” to be restricted to “a war formally declared by Congress

    Ouch double ouch…

    Reading Averette could have helped. Understanding would even be more effective

    “In 1970, the Court of Military Appeals held that civilian employees of the military overseas could not be subjected to court-martial (United States v. Averette, 19 U.S.C.M.A 363).”

    Oh boy what a mess

  294. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 6:06 pm #

    As to the need for a security clearance, see EXECUTIVE ORDER #12968

    “The president is the one who established the security clearance system by executive order,” said Steven Aftergood, a national security and intelligence specialist with the Federation of American Scientists. “Therefore it is nonsensical to speak of clearances higher than what the president has. As head of the executive branch and commander in chief of the armed forces, there is no information in government that could be denied to the president for security reasons if he determined he needed access to that information.”

  295. avatar
    Keith January 26, 2014 at 6:15 pm #

    Northland10: BTW, some time ago, I asked why the organization who gave you that honorary degree has a primer about the Constitution that mentions you only need to be born in this country to be NBC. You never responded.

    That was the 10% of the ‘test’ that he failed.

  296. avatar
    aarrgghh January 26, 2014 at 6:21 pm #

    i ain’t racist
    i hates treason
    it’s the white house
    for a reason
    burma shave

  297. avatar
    Joey January 26, 2014 at 6:31 pm #

    nbc: No evidence of that. Since he was elected through a real election, verified and certified by congress and since he was properly sworn in, he cannot be a usurper. As to being a fraud, that is poorly pled.

    Conclusion, does not follow from evidence.

    Educate yourself about the “de facto officer” doctrine. Even if you were right, he would still be lawful until properly removed from office.

    Legally speaking?

    Then the UCMJ has no relevance. But again, you are forgetting the “de facto officer” doctrine.

    Huh?

    Undeveloped assertion.

    UCMJ does not apply to Obama per your own admissions.

    Let’s look at UCMJ Article 106

    Elements:

    Uhoh… How is time of war defined by the military courts?

    Doh… what a fail…

    Even assuming that he were a spy, which you have yet to explain. there is no time of war in the legal sense of the word. As to US v Averette

    Ouch double ouch…

    Reading Averette could have helped. Understanding would even be more effective

    “In 1970, the Court of Military Appeals held that civilian employees of the military overseas could not be subjected to court-martial (United States v. Averette, 19 U.S.C.M.A 363).”

    Oh boy what a mess

    NBC, I think it is now time for you to remove your rhetorical foot from Robert C. Laity’s rhetorical anus.

  298. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2014 at 6:35 pm #

    I ran a query on the comment database here:

    select count(*) from comments where
    (comment_content like ‘%vattel%’) or
    (comment_content like ‘%natural born citizen%’) or
    (comment_content like ‘%law of nations%’)

    There were 14,265. This topic has been discussed at length, and all you are doing is repeating old talking points that lost the first dozen times around.

    That said, only the stupidest of the proponents of your view go so far as to claim that “Offenses against the Law of Nations” in the Constitution refers to Vattel.

    Robert C. Laity: I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

  299. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 6:40 pm #

    nbc:

    Oh boy what a mess

    Yup Bobby has lots of faulty conclusions based on faulty premises.

  300. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 26, 2014 at 6:42 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

    You sure it doesn’t reference this? http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-405.htm

  301. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 6:50 pm #

    Joey: NBC, I think it is now time for you to remove your rhetorical foot from Robert C. Laity’s rhetorical anus.

    I live to expose ignorance :-)

  302. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 7:21 pm #

    aarrgghh: it’s the white house
    for a reason

    There you are. The heart of the matter for birthers. There’s a black man living in the White House and they just can’t deal with it.

  303. avatar
    Joey January 26, 2014 at 7:26 pm #

    CarlOrcas: There you are. The heart of the matter for birthers. There’s a black man living in the White House and they just can’t deal with it.

    And that’s why, in their racist minds, it has become “The White Hut.”

  304. avatar
    JPotter January 26, 2014 at 7:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That said, only the stupidest of the proponents of your view go so far as to claim that “Offenses against the Law of Nations” in the Constitution refers to Vattel.

    Doc, you seem to be saying that Laity isn’t the first to do so. Please say it isn’t so. ;)

    I can imagine how this brilliance was “discovered” …. “Let’s see … pull up the text of the Constitution … run a trusty CTRL+F search for “Law of Nations” …. oh look! A hit! A hit! And …. yes! It’s capitalized! That makes it a proper noun! It can only be a reference to Vattel! I win, I win, I win!”

    Silly birfers … if it was a reference to a title, it would be italicized. :P

    Of course, the real clincher is the footnote to Art. I, Sect 8, clause 10 (* And, by “Law of Nations”, we mean the 1760 English edition of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations, which is hereby adopted in its entirety). This footnote, being invisible, has often been overlooked throughout our nation’s history. Particularly by the Senate, and by SCOTUS.

  305. avatar
    Keith January 26, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: That would make EVERY anchor baby regardless of parentage eligible to be OUR President. I do not think that we should give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

    You betray yourself sir.

    There is no such thing as an ‘anchor baby’. There are only ‘natural born citizens’, ‘naturalized citizens’, and ‘not citizens’. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that ‘

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    That says ALL persons, Mr. Honorary Doctor. Not ‘some persons’.

    The concept of an ‘Anchor Baby’ is merely the fevered imagination of a racist hater of the American Constitution.

    But that is nothing new. Racists have hated the Constitution from the very beginning. They hated that the Government could (that is, Congress could pass a law if it wanted to) charge an import duty on slaves. They hated that the Government could (that is, Congress could pass a law if it wanted to) stop the importation of slaves after 1808. They hated that they could only count their slaves as 3/5 of a person, so they could only maintain their gerrymandered control of Congress and the Presidency for 40 years instead of forever. They hated that their ‘States Rights’ to maintain slavery didn’t trump other ‘States Rights’ to abolish slavery. They hated that the 1st amendment meant that abolitionists could argue against slavery right there in their OWN state. They even hated that the 1st amendment meant that they couldn’t impose their own religion on everyone else, once they had perverted enough of the Christian adherents to claim self justification.

    The racist’s hate towards the Constitution is just as strong today as it ever was. Only today its directed more towards the 13th, 14th, and 17th amendments. Actually, probably no one cares about the 13th anymore, economic slavery is actually better for the Capitalist, because most of the slaves, a large majority can actually be convinced they like it and that the slave owners have their best interest at heart.

    The 14th though: equal protection under the law? That is total crap to racists, and has to go. And racists hated that amendment when they found out that it even applied to children born to Chinese parents when the parents could not themselves become citizens, and Wong Kim Ark could even be President (elected is another matter).

    And the 17th? It isn’t good enough that slaves can have their vote dictated to them via captive media outlets like Faux. Racists want to appoint their own Senators too so they don’t have to mess with the whole checks and balance thingy.

    And yes, I call these controlling overlords racists. Pure and simple. Because their so-called ‘policies’, while superficially applicable to ‘all’ are, in fact, applied predominately to one group. Proof? (Sydney Morning Herald summary of New York Times)

    Black Americans were nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010, even though the two groups used the drug at similar rates, according to new data.

    That is racism hidden in a seemingly innocuous, even beneficial, law, and is only one of thousands of instances.

    So just get out of here with your ‘Anchor Baby’ racist dog whistle. The Constitution is the Constitution and it says that anyone born in America is a citizen without regard to the status of their parents (unless the parents are foreign diplomats – thats the ‘under the jurisdiction’ bit). A baby is a baby is a baby and doesn’t deserve to be pigeon-holed as some kind of evil infiltrator to suit your racist mental illness.

    America is and always has been an INCLUSIVE society, not an EXCLUSIVE one, though the exclusivisionists (I think I just invented a word) have had to be fought tooth and nail.

    It has been my contention for years that the birth attack on Obama is less an attack him than it is on the Constitution. Every time someone brings up this racist ‘Anchor Baby’ crap proves my case. ‘They’ think that by hammering the President for having ‘only’ one citizen parent, they soften peoples thoughts about citizens who have zero citizen parents and ‘they’ are a little bit closer to their racist nirvana. It just doesn’t wash.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside

    .

    ALL PERSONS BORN… IN THE UNITED STATES… ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    There is NOTHING in that phrase about parental citizenship status, skin color, political persuasion, education level, property ownership, baseball or soccer. ALL PERSONS BORN.

  306. avatar
    American Mzungu January 26, 2014 at 7:36 pm #

    nbc: I live to expose ignorance

    You have a lot to live for. :)

  307. avatar
    JD Sue January 26, 2014 at 7:43 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Yes. I have the Honorary Title of “Doctor”.As long as I place the term “Honoris Causis” after the type of degree it is I can use the Title.

    —-
    Actually, you don’t. Even real lawyers who have a Juris Doctor degree from an accredited 3-year law degree program don’t use the title “Doctor”.

    And what you have is a certificate of completion of an internet course entitled “How to Win in Court”. Congratulations. How’s it working for you?

    Regardless, my hunch is someone advised you that using “honoris causis” may provide you and the internet “law school” with some protection against allegations of fraud if you ever try to hold yourself out as a Juris Doctor or as “Doctor” or “Scholar” or whatever title you adopt. Good luck with that. But it doesn’t make it legit.

  308. avatar
    Keith January 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I took the properly structured course and I attained the Score of 90% required to receive the Honorary Degree.

    If you take a course and attain a score of 90% then you have ‘earned’ whatever ‘privileges’ that course bestows. It is not ‘honorary’ it is ‘earned by coursework’. Since the organization you paid is not authorized to give ‘real’ doctorates, they have given you a ‘certificate of achievement’, (which is all they could possibly do) and given it the trumped up title of ‘Honorary Doctor’.

    I’ve got a ‘Certificate of Ordination’ from the Church of the Latter-day Dude. Please refer to be as Pope Keith from now on. Thank you.

  309. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2014 at 8:04 pm #

    CarlOrcas: I think you may have the wrong Frederick Graves.

    Thanks, it looks like I goofed.

    I did a search on “Frederick Graves” at the Florida Bar’s website and found only one. The website lists both present and past members.

    I went back and checked again. This time I just searched by the surname. The other Frederick Graves is listed on the website as “Fred Graves,” which is why I missed him the first time around.

    Of course that still doesn’t change my opinion of Frederick D. Graves, who is listed as “retired” and sells fake honorary degrees to suckers such as Laity.

  310. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 8:07 pm #

    Joey: And that’s why, in their racist minds, it has become “The White Hut.”

    The fantasy that sustains them is that if somehow they can get Obama out of the “White Hut” they can then turn back the clock and claim America has never had a black president.

  311. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 26, 2014 at 8:14 pm #

    Rickey: Of course that still doesn’t change my opinion of Frederick D. Graves, who is listed as “retired” and sells fake honorary degrees to suckers such as Laity.

    Watch out now. The good Doctor Laity will also be threatening you with a libel suit. I wonder if he handles those pro bono for lawyer Graves?

  312. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2014 at 8:15 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I cited the Law of Nations which is referenced in Art. 1,Sec.8 USConst

    That’s a joke, right?

  313. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2014 at 8:19 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: I took the properly structured course and I attained the Score of 90% required to receive the Honorary Degree.

    I have a B.A. in History and I have been a member of Phi Alpha Theta (the History honor society) for 40 years, but I don’t claim to be an historian. Your “honorary degree” and a dollar will get you hamburger at McDonald’s.

  314. avatar
    JD Sue January 26, 2014 at 8:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I ran a query on the comment database here:
    select count(*) from comments where
    (comment_content like ‘%vattel%’) or
    (comment_content like ‘%natural born citizen%’) or
    (comment_content like ‘%law of nations%’)
    There were 14,265. This topic has been discussed at length, and all you are doing is repeating old talking points that lost the first dozen times around.
    That said, only the stupidest of the proponents of your view go so far as to claim that “Offenses against the Law of Nations” in the Constitution refers to Vattel.


    Doc, you read my mind! I was just wondering if I could do a query and then direct Mr. Laity to the comprehensive (and wonderful) discussions on this topic. My heart went out to Lupin today for his patient response to Mr. Laity’s so-called-scholarly treatment of Vattel.

    I must say, I was floored by the suggestion that Article 1 section 8 governed Article II section 1, and that Vattel’s book is incorporated by reference in the U.S. constitution. Amazing stuff!

  315. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 8:43 pm #

    Wow. I see I’ve been missing all the fun here.

    Robert C. Laity: Gerald Ford, Speaker of the House, entered the Presidency under the provisions of the 25th Amendment after Agnew resigned and then became President when Nixon Resigned. His VP was Nelson Rockefeller.

  316. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 8:46 pm #

    As opposed to what, making up utter nonsense like you did?

    Robert C. Laity: Yes. Most likely after having googled it.

  317. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 8:55 pm #

    Geez, don’t ever do me any favors like that.

    Robert C. Laity: “I hired the Prestigious Cockle Legal Briefs to prepare my Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Laity v State of NY.”

    Whatever that means in the real world.

    It means that I was giving them a plug.

  318. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 8:58 pm #

    I will confine myself here to noting that you’re the one who brought up “what happened forty years ago” in the first place.

    Robert C. Laity: Several comments earlier, is stated that I stood corrected on Ford’s status as House Minority leader. I said that I don’t care about what happened forty years ago. Biden would not have been able to have electoral college votes applied to him had it not been for Biden being chosen by the usurper Obama.Obama was disqualified. Disqualified candidates don’t getrunning mates.

  319. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 9:05 pm #

    American Mzungu: You have a lot to live for.

    true, especially with my choices in whom I would like to educate.

  320. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 9:15 pm #

    Well, that’s because you’re an idiot. Talk about being “extremely sloppy in adhering to the Constitution.” I suggest you read Section 2 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which is the law that actually applied:
    “Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.”
    The Presidential Succession Act applies in the case of vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President, not in a vacancy of the office of Vice President alone.

    Robert C. Laity: I never felt that Ford should have been placed as Nixon’s VP. Since the PSA was in effect. It should have been the Speaker of the House that stepped up and not Ford.
    I had mistakenly thought Ford was the Speaker of the House or I probably would have disputed his becoming VP.Obama IS a Usurper. Agnew was never President.
    Point is our government is extremely sloppy in adhering to the Constitution.

  321. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 9:35 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Yes. Most likely after having googled it.

    You should give it a try… You’d learn a lot…

  322. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm #

    “There is no common law of the United States in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” –Justice Matthews, writing for the US Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama – 124 U.S. 465 (1888); cited by Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
    No, that wouldn’t be at all useful.

    Robert C. Laity: British common Law is what “provides historical perspective”. However,it is NOT “useful”.

  323. avatar
    Thinker January 26, 2014 at 9:36 pm #

    That “you googled it” comment is precious, isn’t it? First, because Mr. Laity seems to doubt that other people know facts that he doesn’t. And also because he seems to be implying that researching something before making statements about it is somehow dishonest. It’s that whole teabagger “education is for snobs” thing. LOL.

    Dave B.:
    As opposed to what, making up utter nonsense like you did?

  324. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 9:37 pm #

    So far, Laity’s foundation for his claims of treason, spying etc have been shown to be without any merit. Combined with his failed understanding of how our legal system works and how precedent has defined NBC to mean born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents, it is safe to conclude that he has wasted many hours of time.

    That’s what blind hatred can do for you.

  325. avatar
    Keith January 26, 2014 at 9:45 pm #

    Dave B.: The Presidential Succession Act applies in the case of vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President, not in a vacancy of the office of Vice President alone.

    The 25th Amendment was triggered in response to the problems created by the assassination of President Kennedy. There were many issues over the years caused by a vacancy in the Vice Presidency, but there weren’t global consequences quite so glaring as nuclear Armageddon hanging around back then.

    When President Johnson assumed office, there was no Vice President. Speaker of the House McCormack was then first in line, but President Pro-Tem Carl Hayden of Arizona was second in line and he was 85 years old. The holes in the succession process were just too glaring to ignore given the modern global reality.

  326. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2014 at 9:47 pm #

    I think that there is a hierarchy of expertise, starting from the high end:

    – Recognized authority
    – Formal education and/or certification
    – Well-read in the literature
    – Wikipedia
    – Googled it

    and ending at the lowest rung where the birthers sit

    – Making stuff up

    Thinker: That “you googled it” comment is precious, isn’t it?

  327. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 9:54 pm #

    The ones who were “grandfathered in” were NATURALIZED citizens among the original citizens. The original citizens clause was included in the Constitution for the specific purpose of making foreign-born citizens who had adhered to the American cause in the Revolution eligible for the Presidency. I have seen no indication that the founders considered persons born in the colonies that became the United States (and who then adhered to the Revolutionary cause) to be anything but natural born citizens. While he wasn’t one of the Founders himself, Justice Story certainly held that view. From Shanks v. Dupont:
    “It is the doctrine of the American court that the issue of the Revolutionary War settled the point, that the American states were free and independent on 4 July, 1776. On that day, Mrs. Shanks was found under allegiance to the State of South Carolina as a natural born citizen to a community, one of whose fundamental principles was that natural allegiance was unalienable, and this principle was at no time relaxed by that state by any express provision, while it retained the undivided control over the rights and liabilities of its citizens.”
    They considered that the Revolution had effected a transfer of allegiance from the Crown to the States.

    Robert C. Laity: Lupin: Wherever did you get this silly notion? In a fortune cookie? Your are simply ill-informed.

    For your edification, three US presidents were also French dual citizens: Washington, Jefferson and Madison.

    In Washington’s case, this is arguably irrelevant since happened after he was President and played no role in his career; in fact we don’t have evidence he even accepted.

    Not so with James Madison who was granted French citizenship (which he enthusiastically accepted in writing) before he ran for President.

    So potential dual citizenship ought not to be an obstacle to one’s political career in America.

    Not a “silly notion”. A 100% American is what a “Natural-Born Citizen” is. Those who were citizens of the U.S.A. at the time of the Signing of the Constitution were grandfathered in with all their citizen status problems. After they all died the “Natural-Born Citizen” requirement kicked in. A person must be born IN the United States and must have Parents who were both American Citizens themselves at the time of said person’s birth to be categorized as a “Natural-Born Citizen”. One must be an NBC to BE President. That several of the founders chose to expatriate does not serve as a precedent for others to skate past the Constitutional requirements to be President. Those who expatriated should NOT have been allowed to enter OUR Presidency. One hundred percent allegiance,jus soli and jus sanquinis to the U.S. or you do NOT become President.

  328. avatar
    Dave B. January 26, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

    Robert C. Laity: Our President must be born in the United States and have parents who were both American when the candidate seeking the Presidency was born. Our nationality laws apply and our ratified treaties.

    Robert C. Laity: BTW, the British Nationality Act does apply to Obama. His father was a Brit. visiting here on a student visa. Obama was born a British subject and if one wants to apply British common law as several have here. That makes Obama a “Natural-Born Subject” of the Queen of England.

    Robert C. Laity: One can’t have his cake and eat it too.

  329. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 10:25 pm #

    Laity’s claims get worse the more I dig deeper

    Obama supports terrorism and Sharia in Kenya. Obama is a Muslim Supremacist who has usurped the Presidency during time of war. That makes Obama a spy and a traitor under U.S. Law. Odinga has claimed that Barack Obama,Sr. is his Paternal Uncle. Obama and Odinga are cousins. Odinga is associated with those who bombed the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The BBC documented Obama,Jr’s efforts to campaign for and give aid and comfort to Raila Odinga,who,in 2006,was considered an enemy of the United States.

    So many unsupported claims… Fascinating…

  330. avatar
    Rickey January 26, 2014 at 11:00 pm #

    Dave B.:
    I will confine myself here to noting that you’re the one who brought up “what happened forty years ago” in the first place.

    And it’s not as if Laity was an infant when Ford became President. He was only a month or so shy of his 23rd birthday when Nixon resigned. It’s rather amazing that he didn’t know that Ford became Nixon’s VP after Agnew resigned.

  331. avatar
    sfjeff January 26, 2014 at 11:08 pm #

    nbc: 1. Obama is a Fraud, a Usurper.

    No evidence of that. Since he was elected through a real election, verified and certified by congress and since he was properly sworn in, he cannot be a usurper. As to being a fraud, that is poorly pled.

    2. Obama is not the Bona-fide President

    Conclusion, does not follow from evidence.

    3. Obama has no “lawful authority” as President

    Educate yourself about the “de facto officer” doctrine. Even if you were right, he would still be lawful until properly removed from office.

    4. We are in a Time of War.

    Legally speaking?

    5. Obama is a Private Citizen and not a duly authorized President

    Then the UCMJ has no relevance. But again, you are forgetting the “de facto officer” doctrine.

    6. Obama has no lawfully granted security clearance

    Huh?

    7. Every time Obama enters into restricted government areas requiring said clearance Obama breaks the Law with regard to access to America’s secrets.

    Undeveloped assertion.

    8. That makes Obama a Spy under UCMJ S906,A106.

    UCMJ does not apply to Obama per your own admissions.

    Let’s look at UCMJ Article 106

    Elements:

    (1) That the accused was found in, about, or in and about a certain place, vessel, or aircraft within the control or jurisdiction of an armed force of the United States, or a shipyard, manufacturing or industrial plant, or other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere;

    (2) That the accused was lurking, acting clandestinely or under false pretenses;

    (3) That the accused was collecting or attempting to collect certain information;

    (4) That the accused did so with the intent to convey this information to the enemy; and

    (5) That this was done in time of war.

    Uhoh… How is time of war defined by the military courts?

    Since 11 September there has been neither a declaration of war from Congress, nor a special finding by the President that UCMJ “Time of War” exists.

    Doh… what a fail…

    9. It applies to “ANY person found lurking” in such restricted areas during time of war.
    See: U.S. v Averette.
    10.Obama is a Spy.

    Even assuming that he were a spy, which you have yet to explain. there is no time of war in the legal sense of the word. As to US v Averette

    The court construed the application of the UCMJ to civilians “in times of war” to be restricted to “a war formally declared by Congress

    Ouch double ouch…

    Reading Averette could have helped. Understanding would even be more effective

    “In 1970, the Court of Military Appeals held that civilian employees of the military overseas could not be subjected to court-martial (United States v. Averette, 19 U.S.C.M.A 363).”

    Oh boy what a mess

    Hmmm what NBC said.

    I started to look it up but then i thought to see what other posters has responded with.

    Once again another example of Bob’s delusions.

  332. avatar
    nbc January 26, 2014 at 11:11 pm #

    sfjeff: Once again another example of Bob’s delusions.

    it’s worse than delusions in some sense. There are plenty of resources for one to look up the elements of UCMJ 106 or Averette, and yet, Laity showed no familiarity with them.

    The whole ‘logic’ falls apart almost the same instant one starts to look at the components: Such as “in time of war”. Laity mentioned Averette but did not really understand its findings. I wonder if he has even read the decision…

  333. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 12:49 am #

    Where the hell did you get that idea?

    Robert C. Laity: A “Natural-Born Citizen” is accepted internationally as being “one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”.

  334. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 12:59 am #

    Dave B.: Where the hell did you get that idea?

    Well, who needs facts… If he had only read Wong Kim Ark…

  335. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 1:30 am #

    nbc: Well, who needs facts… If he had only read Wong Kim Ark…

    I have read both the opinion and the dissent. No where did the court conclude that WKA was a “Natural-Born Citizen” but a “Citizen”. Not the same.

  336. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 1:36 am #

    nbc: it’s worse than delusions in some sense. There are plenty of resources for one to look up the elements of UCMJ 106 or Averette, and yet, Laity showed no familiarity with them.

    The whole ‘logic’ falls apart almost the same instant one starts to look at the components: Such as “in time of war”. Laity mentioned Averette but did not really understand its findings. I wonder if he has even read the decision…

    I consulted a Military J.A.G. on this issue. The Congress has authorized funds for the conduct of the war we are fighting in Afghanistan and the war we fought in Iraq. The Constitution does NOT require that the words “Declaration of war” be used. The U.S. IS Making war. We are IN a “time of war”. Several months ago Obama saw fit to connote the entire parameters of the U.S. as a war zone. Dispute that.

  337. avatar
    justlw January 27, 2014 at 1:39 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Many of Obama’s background claims are now debunked. There has been proven that Obama did not attend Columbia, even though he had an ID card which BTW, listed him as a foreign student.

    Just in case you were worried no one was going to call you on this one:

    AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  338. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 1:39 am #

    I think birthers’ attachment to Minor is pointedly emblematic of their refusal to accept President Obama as “one of us,” in that Chief Justice Waite’s remarks on citizenship can’t be understood in the absence of an understanding of the position of the United States towards race in regards to citizenship, which remained unresolved all the way up to the middle of the twentieth century.
    We’ve been told, ad nauseam, that
    “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners,”
    with the omission of the succeeding sentences,
    “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
    But the thing is, Chief Justice Waite IDENTIFIES those doubts– he says
    “Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”
    So those doubts arose for persons who were NOT considered to be part of the people; that distinction was ALWAYS based upon race– whether for Native Americans, for slaves and persons of African descent, or for Asians, who couldn’t be made “part of the people” by naturalization until well into the twentieth century. And the language with which Chief Justice Waite chose to frame that distinction was hardly original. I won’t belabor the point here with extensive further citations, although I’ve got ‘em and then some; I’ve done that often enough already. But just go to Scott v. Sandford, a decision with which Chief Justice Waite was without doubt quite familiar, and search for the phrase “part of the people.” If you’ve got the stomach for it.
    To me, those “doubts” are inseparable from the racial attitudes that shaped law and policy throughout too much of our history. Even putting aside all the reasons Minor is of no avail to birthers, I’ll be damned if I’d dive into an argument with that much chain wrapped around me.

    Robert C. Laity: A “Natural-Born citizen” is “One born IN a Country” (jus soli) IN ADDITION TO having been born “of Parents who are both citizens”. That was affirmed in Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS.

  339. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 1:46 am #

    I just didn’t know where to begin with that one.

    justlw: Robert C. Laity: Many of Obama’s background claims are now debunked. There has been proven that Obama did not attend Columbia, even though he had an ID card which BTW, listed him as a foreign student.

    Just in case you were worried no one was going to call you on this one:

    AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  340. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 1:46 am #

    sfjeff: Hmmm what NBC said.

    I started to look it up but then i thought to see what other posters has responded with.

    Once again another example of Bob’s delusions.

    See: The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act

  341. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 1:48 am #

    Dave B.:
    I just didn’t know where to begin with that one.

    See: The Obama Columbia Atlah Trial

  342. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 1:51 am #

    Okay, so you’re an idiot. We already knew that. But where, exactly, did you get the idea that a “Natural-Born Citizen” is accepted internationally as being “one born in a country of parents who are both citizens”?

    Robert C. Laity: nbc: Well, who needs facts… If he had only read Wong Kim Ark…

    I have read both the opinion and the dissent. No where did the court conclude that WKA was a “Natural-Born Citizen” but a “Citizen”. Not the same.

  343. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 1:52 am #

    ATLAH???

    Robert C. Laity: See: The Obama Columbia Atlah Trial

  344. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 1:55 am #

    Oh, and Laity, that “Sabud” business REALLY cracked me up.

  345. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 1:57 am #

    Rickey: And it’s not as if Laity was an infant when Ford became President. He was only a month or so shy of his 23rd birthday when Nixon resigned. It’s rather amazing that he didn’t know that Ford became Nixon’s VP after Agnew resigned.

    Perhaps I didn’t pay as much attention to politics back then as I do now.

  346. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 1:58 am #

    Dave B.:
    Oh, and Laity, that “Sabud” business REALLY cracked me up.

    Laughter is good medicine.

  347. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 27, 2014 at 2:03 am #

    Dave B.:
    ATLAH???

    Reverend James Manning. Get out your hip boots.

    http://atlah.org/the-cia-columbia-obama-sedition-and-treason-trial-transcripts/

  348. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 2:03 am #

    Yeah, I can’t figure out if you’re for real.

    Robert C. Laity: Laughter is good medicine.

  349. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 27, 2014 at 2:08 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Laughter is good medicine.

    Indeed. I dare say you’ve extended our collective lives by several decades. Keep it up.

  350. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:09 am #

    Rickey: I have a B.A. in History and I have been a member of Phi Alpha Theta (the History honor society) for 40 years, but I don’t claim to be an historian. Your “honorary degree” and a dollar will get you hamburger at McDonald’s.

    I have forty years of experience in Administrative Law representing Federal employees before the E.E.O.C.,M.S.P.B.,O.S.C. and other federal statutory appeals forums with several other degrees including a B.S. in Psychology, Anatomy and Physiology and I am a 100% Disabled Vietnam War Veteran. I have earned bragging rights.

  351. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:10 am #

    CarlOrcas: Indeed. I dare say you’ve extended our collective lives by several decades. Keep it up.

    Don’t you love the thrill of debate?

  352. avatar
    The European January 27, 2014 at 2:12 am #

    This false “Dr.Laity” deserves not the electrons wasted in this discussion. Even dumber than the Putz. But the same illness – Logorrhoe. The only way to heal this: stop discussing.

  353. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:13 am #

    nbc:
    Laity’s claims get worse the more I dig deeper

    So many unsupported claims… Fascinating…

    The Obama/Muslim terrorist/sharia/Odinga connection is ALL a matter of Public record documented by the BBC.

  354. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:16 am #

    The European:
    This false “Dr.Laity” deserves not the electrons wasted in this discussion. Even dumber than the Putz. But the same illness – Logorrhoe. The only way to heal this: stop discussing.

    Obama is “false”. Giving up? Throwing in the Towel?

  355. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:20 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have read both the opinion and the dissent. No where did the court conclude that WKA was a “Natural-Born Citizen” but a “Citizen”. Not the same.

    You must have totally missed the relevant parts. Hint: In order to show that WKA was a citizen, they had to find that he was a natural born citizen. In order to understand the meaning of natural born, they looked at common law since it was left undefined.

    They found that in our colonies/states it meant: Birth on soil regardless of the status of the parents. They also showed that the 14th was merely declaratory of what the Constitution already provided for and found WKA a citizen.

    You did read the dissenting judge and the government brief? Did you read the lower court’s ruling?

    No worries, I have and I can help you work you way through the mess you have created.

  356. avatar
    justlw January 27, 2014 at 2:20 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Perhaps I didn’t pay as much attention to politics back then as I do now.

    So now you’re paying attention to politics, and still think, for example, that the Presidential Succession Act has any relevance when the president is not, in fact, being succeeded. Not to mention, well, everything else you’re opining.

  357. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:20 am #

    Robert C. Laity: See: The Obama Columbia Atlah Trial

    A meaningless event.

  358. avatar
    Lupin January 27, 2014 at 2:22 am #

    As Doc C has pointed out, the b*llsh*t that Laity expounds about Vattel has been demonstrably proven wrong here (including by myself) several times here, So I won’t comment on it.

    One of the many things Laity is wrong about which no one has commented upon is the notion that by accepting French citizenship, James Madison was becoming de facto ineligible to be President because it meant he had “expatriated”

    The definitions “expatriate” are:
    1. To send into exile. (ie: banish).
    2. To remove (oneself) from residence in one’s native land; to give up residence in one’s homeland and take up residence in a foreign country.
    3. To renounce allegiance to one’s homeland.

    Clearly none of these apply to Madison who, being one of the Founders, surely knew (better than Laity in any event) what the Constitution actually meant.

    AFAIK no scholar or legal expert on both sides of the Atlantic in 200+ years of history has ever suggested that (a) Madison had somehow renounced his allegiance to the US by accepting French citizenship, and (b) was in any event ineligible after he did so.

    This is a small but important item where Laity is clearly and demonstrably wrong.

    And yet the man, bolstered by his racist theories that thew children of undocumented immigrants (presumably brown-skinned) must be prevented from enjoying their full constitutional rights, persists in his twisted views denying a fact carved into history for 200+ years.

    As Dr C stated the man is a crank and a hopeless crank.

  359. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:22 am #

    Robert C. Laity: See: The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act

    Robert keeps on moving the goal posts. Why did he refer to Averette… But again, this only applies to military contractors.
    My oh my, what a mess we have created for ourselves…

  360. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:24 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I consulted a Military J.A.G. on this issue. The Congress has authorized funds for the conduct of the war we are fighting in Afghanistan and the war we fought in Iraq. The Constitution does NOT require that the words “Declaration of war” be used. The U.S. IS Making war. We are IN a “time of war”. Several months ago Obama saw fit to connote the entire parameters of the U.S. as a war zone. Dispute that.

    You claimed Averette as a standard, they found that time of war requires an actual war declared by Congress.

    A little research can do miracles. And yes, the JAG is correct that the term depends on context. For civilian (contracters) this requires a war declared by Congress.

    Have you really read Averette? Be honest..

  361. avatar
    Lupin January 27, 2014 at 2:25 am #

    Robert C. Laity: and I am a 100% Disabled Vietnam War Veteran.

    This probably explains your delusions. You likely need medical attention.

  362. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:25 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Laughter is good medicine.

    Well, your claims certainly make for excellent medicine.

  363. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:26 am #

    nbc:
    So far, Laity’s foundation for his claims of treason, spying etc have been shown to be without any merit. Combined with his failed understanding of how our legal system works and how precedent has defined NBC to mean born on soil, regardless of the status of the parents, it is safe to conclude that he has wasted many hours of time.

    That’s what blind hatred can do for you.

    There are NO Precedents that would abrogate the Constitution. Being an NBC requires MORE than being “Born” here. In any event, the Supreme Court has a duty to settle the dispute once and for all instead of sitting on their fat asses making statements such as:

    “We are evading the issue”-Clarence Thomas

  364. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:27 am #

    nbc: Well, your claims certainly make for excellent medicine.

    I also have a medical background.

  365. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:27 am #

    Robert C. Laity: The Obama/Muslim terrorist/sharia/Odinga connection is ALL a matter of Public record documented by the BBC.

    ROTFL. You are so funny but there is NO evidence of Obama and the muslim terrorist, Sharia Odinga connection. I am not even sure you know what the public record is. Make your case my friend…

    Entertain us…

  366. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:30 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I also have a medical background.

    Sure… Hope it is more successful than your ‘legal’

  367. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:30 am #

    Dave B.:
    “There is no common law of the United States in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes…The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”–Justice Matthews, writing for the US Supreme Court in Smith v. Alabama – 124 U.S. 465 (1888); cited by Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
    No, that wouldn’t be at all useful.

    We are in the 21st Century, 237 years separated from English Law. It’s time we honored our own Laws.

  368. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:33 am #

    Robert C. Laity: There are NO Precedents that would abrogate the Constitution. Being an NBC requires MORE than being “Born” here. In any event, the Supreme Court has a duty to settle the dispute once and for all instead of sitting on their fat asses making statements such as:

    “We are evading the issue”-Clarence Thomas

    There is that blindness again. He was talking about the status of Puerto Rico and eligibility to run for president.

    The Supreme Court has already settled the matters. Your claim that it requires more than being born here runs counter to the findings by the courts.

    The Supreme Court is not going to satisfy your needs to hear it once again. Sorry Robert, but they have better things to do that respond to foolish conspiracy theories.

    Legally speaking the issue is well established, as far as President Obama is concerned. I have argued that a case could be made that those born abroad to US citizen parents may not be natural born, but I doubt that such a case would ever make it past the Constitutional standing requirements.

  369. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:35 am #

    Robert C. Laity: We are in the 21st Century, 237 years separated from English Law. It’s time we honored our own Laws.

    We do, that’s why the Supreme Court, looked at the term natural born as used in common law, since it was not defined in the Constitution and reached its conclusions. To understand the common meaning of the word, the court followed precedent.

    So yes, let’s honor our own laws and not allow other countries to define who are our natural born citizens.

    I fully support you and am glad that you have seen the light, or the inconsistencies in your position. Either way, fine with me.

  370. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:37 am #

    nbc: ROTFL. You are so funny but there is NO evidence of Obama and the muslim terrorist, Sharia Odinga connection. I am not even sure you know what the public record is. Make your case my friend…

    Entertain us…

    It was once considered that Obama be charged with a Logan Act violation for campaigning in Kenya for a known enemy of the United States, Raila Odinga against ally Mwai Kibaki. Odinga’s campaign motto was “Change”. Odinga publicly stated that Obama was his “Paternal Cousin”. The Obama’s are Muslim terrorists. Obama’s half-brother Malik is in the Muslim Brotherhood as is Barack. Odinga and Muslim terrorists signed an agreement to introduce sharia law into Kenya which Barack Obama was instrumental in helping to effect. Odinga is connected to the terrorists who bombed two U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

  371. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 2:37 am #

    No kidding.

    Robert C. Laity: We are in the 21st Century, 237 years separated from English Law. It’s time we honored our own Laws.

  372. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 2:39 am #

    And you’re an astronaut too, I would presume.

    Robert C. Laity: I also have a medical background.

  373. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:40 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have earned bragging rights.

    Well you can brag all you want but in the end it’s your conclusions with which I disagree. How has you success been in pursuing a legal resolution of your claims?

    The ‘whistle blower’ suit made it to the Supreme Court but nothing
    The lawsuit against the secretary of veterans claims made it to the court of appeals where it failed “because Laity’s arguments rest on factual determinations outside this court’s
    subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.”

    Your Obama related filings have failed to impress the courts as well and I predict a quick denials by the Supreme Court.

    Cole v Veterans affairs

    Are those ‘bragging rights’?

  374. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:41 am #

    nbc: We do, that’s why the Supreme Court, looked at the term natural born as used in common law, since it was not defined in the Constitution and reached its conclusions. To understand the common meaning of the word, the court followed precedent.

    So yes, let’s honor our own laws and not allow other countries to define who are our natural born citizens.

    I fully support you and am glad that you have seen the light, or the inconsistencies in your position. Either way, fine with me.

    Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS affirmed the definition I use. Natural-Born Citizens are those born in the U.S. of parents who are American citizens themselves. They said there was NO doubt and that as to others there IS doubt.

  375. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:47 am #

    Robert C. Laity: It was once considered that Obama be charged with a Logan Act violation for campaigning in Kenya for a known enemy of the United States,

    It was never considered, nor did he campaign for Odinga nor is Odinga a ‘known enemy of the United States’. Perhaps you should google more?

  376. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:48 am #

    nbc: Well you can brag all you want but in the end it’s your conclusions with which I disagree. How has you success been in pursuing a legal resolution of your claims?

    The ‘whistle blower’ suit made it to the Supreme Court but nothing
    The lawsuit against the secretary of veterans claims made it to the court of appeals where it failed “becauseLaity’s arguments rest on factual determinations outside this court’s
    subject matter jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.”

    Your Obama related filings have failed to impress the courts as well and I predict a quick denials by the Supreme Court.

    Are those ‘bragging rights’?

    I don’t give up. No crime in being tenacious. We learn from our mistakes.

    “…Try and try again”.

  377. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:50 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Odinga publicly stated that Obama was his “Paternal Cousin”. The Obama’s are Muslim terrorists.

    Odinga provided no evidence and Obama denied this. Obama Jr is not a muslim nor a terrorist.

    Obama’s half-brother Malik is in the Muslim Brotherhood as is Barack

    More unsupported claims

    Odinga and Muslim terrorists signed an agreement to introduce sharia law into Kenya which Barack Obama was instrumental in helping to effect. Odinga is connected to the terrorists who bombed two U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.

    No evidence again… My goodness sakes, you are so easily manipulated by rumor that you do not engage yourself in verification of said claims.

    Insinuation, hand waving… Not much to brag about really.

  378. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:52 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS affirmed the definition I use. Natural-Born Citizens are those born in the U.S. of parents who are American citizens themselves. They said there was NO doubt and that as to others there IS doubt.

    The lower court in WKA found that Minor did not address the issue, and the Supreme Court never accepted Minor as relevant, for obvious reasons.

    Yes, they said there was doubt, and the doubt was resolved in US v Wong Kim Ark.

    You do understand how our legal system works, now do you?

    My goodness sakes… This is just fascinating…

    It was in Minor where the court found that the meaning of terms not defined should be found in common law…

    Here is the Minor quote

    At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    What a mess…

  379. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:54 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Don’t be silly.

    Those kinds of Alinsky comments don’t effect me.

  380. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:54 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I don’t give up. No crime in being tenacious. We learn from our mistakes.

    So far I have seen little evidence of such. Words are cheap my friend, report back to us when the Supreme Court denies cert. We can have a good laugh about it and plan your next attempt…

    Tenacity is good, repeating something that is doomed to failure, time after time is not very smart though.

  381. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2014 at 2:56 am #

    Robert C. Laity: 7. Every time Obama enters into restricted government areas requiring said clearance Obama breaks the Law with regard to access to America’s secrets.
    8. That makes Obama a Spy under UCMJ S906,A106.

    Someone else answered this more fully but Bob- you don’t mind me calling you Bob do you?- Bob, I am always suspicious when someone tells us about something- but doesn’t provide the quote.

    Because, especially when it comes to Birthers, quoting would prove the persons claim to be false.

    So lets quote 106

    Text. “Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.”

    Elements.

    (1) That the accused was found in, about, or in and about a certain place, vessel, or aircraft within the control or jurisdiction of an armed force of the United States, or a shipyard, manufacturing or industrial plant, or other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere;

    (2) That the accused was lurking, acting clandestinely or under false pretenses;

    (3) That the accused was collecting or attempting to collect certain information;

    (4) That the accused did so with the intent to convey this information to the enemy; and

    (5) That this was done in time of war.

    Bob- 106 doesn’t say what you claim it says.

    Bob- you lied.

  382. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2014 at 2:57 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Those kinds of Alinsky comments don’t effect me.

    By Alinsky you mean accurately portraying your posts?

  383. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:58 am #

    nbc: The lower court in WKA found that Minor did not address the issue, and the Supreme Court never accepted Minor as relevant, for obvious reasons.

    Yes, they said there was doubt, and the doubt was resolved in US v Wong Kim Ark.

    You do understand how our legal system works, now do you?

    My goodness sakes… This is just fascinating…

    It was in Minor where the court found that the meaning of terms not defined should be found in common law…

    Here is the Minor quote

    What a mess…

    WKA decided who is a CITIZEN and NOT who is a “Natural-Born” Citizen. Minor decided who is a “Natural-Born Citizen”. The term “Citizen”,”Born a Citizen” and “Natural-Born Citizen” are NOT interchangeable.

  384. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 2:58 am #

    From in Re Wong Kim Ark

    In the case of Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 168, the court expressly declined to pass upon that question. Nor was there any definition, in the constitution or in the acts of congress, of what constituted citizenship, until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment.

  385. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 2:59 am #

    sfjeff: By Alinsky you mean accurately portraying your posts?

    Using such tactics as disparaging one’s adversaries.

  386. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:00 am #

    nbc:
    From in Re Wong Kim Ark

    “What constitutes citizenship” NOT what constitutes “Natural-Born” “Citizenship”.

  387. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:02 am #

    Robert C. Laity: WKA decided who is a CITIZEN and NOT who is a “Natural-Born” Citizen. Minor decided who is a “Natural-Born Citizen”. The term “Citizen”,”Born a Citizen” and “Natural-Born Citizen” are NOT interchangeable.

    Nope, Minor never decided who was a natural born citizen. Indeed the terms are not interchangeable Citizen: Natural-born or Naturalized “born a citizen” includes those who are born US citizens abroad, who are likely naturalized as it requires statute.

    In US v WKA, the court had to find WKA to be natural born in order for him to be a citizen, as he could not have been naturalized under the laws of our nation. Simple logic.

    Note that Minor explicitly did not rule on the question, so it cannot be argued to be conclusive. That was what the lower court already had determined.

    Has it been a long time since you last read these cases?

  388. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:03 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Using such tactics as disparaging one’s adversaries.

    Like calling someone a spy or a muslim? I see…

  389. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:04 am #

    sfjeff: Someone else answered this more fully but Bob- you don’t mind me calling you Bob do you?- Bob, I am always suspicious when someone tells us about something- but doesn’t provide the quote.

    Because, especially when it comes to Birthers, quoting would prove the persons claim to be false.

    So lets quote 106

    Text. “Any person who in time of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft, within the control or jurisdiction of any of the armed forces, or in or about any shipyard, any manufacturing or industrial plant, or any other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general court-martial or by a military commission and on conviction shall be punished by death.”

    Elements.

    (1) That the accused was found in, about, or in and about a certain place, vessel, or aircraft within the control or jurisdiction of an armed force of the United States, or a shipyard, manufacturing or industrial plant, or other place or institution engaged in work in aid of the prosecution of the war by the United States, or elsewhere;

    (2) That the accused was lurking, acting clandestinely or under false pretenses;

    (3) That the accused was collecting or attempting to collect certain information;

    (4) That the accused did so with the intent to convey this information to the enemy; and

    (5) That this was done in time of war.

    Bob- 106 doesn’t say what you claim it says.

    Bob- you lied.

    Obama is a usurper by fraud. He has lurked in and around military bases without lawful authority,Obama has collected and has conveyed information to America’s enemies. We are at war. Not a mendacity. FACT!

  390. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2014 at 3:05 am #

    nbc: Legally speaking the issue is well established, as far as President Obama is concerned. I have argued that a case could be made that those born abroad to US citizen parents may not be natural born, but I doubt that such a case would ever make it past the Constitutional standing requirements.

    I think that a person who is born in the United States is a natural born citizen is as well established as is the fact that slavery is not legal in the United States.

    Arguing that someone who was born in the United States is not a natural born citizen is as nutty in the eyes of most Americans as arguing that slavery is still legal.

    The term “natural born citizen” is well understood by all Americans.

    Bob wants to make the term “Natural Born American” to become something else- something less American.

  391. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:06 am #

    nbc: Like calling someone a spy or a muslim? I see…

    No. Not like that at all.

    “I am a Muslim”-Barack Obama

    Obama IS a Spy.

  392. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:07 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “What constitutes citizenship” NOT what constitutes “Natural-Born” “Citizenship”.

    Missing the point again. The Government appealed the decision, calling it an error that the court had found WKA to be natural born. Everyone understood, the dissenting judge, the attorneys for the government.

    From in Re: Wong Kim Ark

    “The petitioner belongs to the Chinese race, but he was born in Mendocino, in the state of California, in 1870. In 1879 he went to China, and returned to the port of San Francisco during the present month (September, 1884), and now seeks to land, claiming the right to do so as a natural-born citizen of the United States.

    Looking for precedents

    This subject was elaborately considered by Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford in Lynch v. Clarke, found in the first volume of his reports (1 Sandf. Ch. 583). In that case one Julia Lynch, born in New York, in 1819, of alien parents, during their temporary sojourn in that city, returned with them the same year to their native country, and always resided there afterwards. It was held that she was a citizen of the United States. After an exhaustive examination of the law, the vice chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen; and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.

    Ouch

    Next

    The authority of In re Look Tin Sing is not referred to by the court, nor, in fact, are any authorities cited, or a discussion of the question indulged in; but it is safe to assume that Mr. Justice Field’s decision was considered and followed. In 1888, Judge Deady, sitting in the circuit court for the district of Oregon, reached the same conclusion in the case of In re Chin King, 13 Sawy. 333, 35 Fed. 354. He cites In re Look Tin Sing, supra, and Lynch v. Clarke, supra, and holds that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment is but declaratory of the common-law doctrine.

    Double ouch

    You do realize that the government’s arguments were that Law of Nations guided the citizenship status, a claim the court rejected?

  393. avatar
    RanTalbott January 27, 2014 at 3:07 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS affirmed the definition I use

    Liar: the Court said explicitly that it was NOT resolving the doubts about exactly who was an NBC.

    Robert C. Laity: We learn from our mistakes.

    Obviously not, because you keep repeating them.

  394. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:09 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “I am a Muslim”-Barack Obama

    Obama IS a Spy.

    Sure, so you claim but Obama never claimed to be a Muslim, and Obama is no spy by any standard.

    I thought you hoped to learn from your mistakes. Too bad that you have not.

    I am quite impressed by your response to my in depth destruction of your claims by “And yet he still is”…

    Wow Robert… Bragging rights indeed.

  395. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2014 at 3:09 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is a usurper by fraud. He has lurked in and around military bases without lawful authority,Obama has collected and has conveyed information to America’s enemies. We are at war. Not a mendacity. FACT!

    That is frankly all delusional.

    President Obama was legally and constitutionally elected as President by the electors of the Electoral College, confirmed by the U.S. Congress and sworn in now three times by Chief Justice Roberts. He is our legal and lawful President.

    We are not at war- not as the Constitution provides for.

    And your delusions about Obama providing information to anyone are just that delusions.

    Meanwhile, Obama has ordered the attacks on hundreds of Islamist terrorist leaders, while you are here trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

  396. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:10 am #

    sfjeff: I think that a person who is born in the United States is a natural born citizen is as well established as is the fact that slavery is not legal in the United States.

    Arguing that someone who was born in the United States is not a natural born citizen is as nutty in the eyes of most Americans as arguing that slavery is still legal.

    The term “natural born citizen” is well understood by all Americans.

    Bob wants to make the term “Natural Born American” to become something else- something less American.

    What an NBC is,is certainly NOT “understood” by YOU. Persons born overseas,even to a Mother and Father who are both Americans is NOT a Natural-Born Citizen. The Child is a “Citizen” but NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”.

  397. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:10 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama is a usurper by fraud. He has lurked in and around military bases without lawful authority,Obama has collected and has conveyed information to America’s enemies. We are at war. Not a mendacity. FACT!

    Nope, I have shown that he cannot be a usurper. He has lawful authority to be around the bases, he has not conveyed data with our enemies and we are not at war (see averette).

    Sorry my friend, you start with flawed foundations. I have explained in detail why you were wrong and all you can say… He is too…

    Come on, defend yourself my friend…

  398. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:11 am #

    Obama “I am a Muslim”

    False

    Understanding and context make such a big difference. Same applies to US v Wong Kim Ark and other law suits.

  399. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2014 at 3:13 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “I am a Muslim”-Barack Obama

    Obama IS a Spy

    Actually Obama is a Christian- not that it really matters

    GG:
    What do you believe?

    OBAMA:
    I am a Christian.
    So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.

    And only someone deeply delusional would conclude that President Barack Obama is a spy.

  400. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 3:14 am #

    Yeah, and those doubts were based on race. It is, like you said, the twenty-first century. We’ve got past that.

    Robert C. Laity: Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS affirmed the definition I use. Natural-Born Citizens are those born in the U.S. of parents who are American citizens themselves. They said there was NO doubt and that as to others there IS doubt.

  401. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:14 am #

    Robert C. Laity: What an NBC is,is certainly NOT “understood” by YOU. Persons born overseas,even to a Mother and Father who are both Americans is NOT a Natural-Born Citizen. The Child is a “Citizen” but NOT a “Natural-Born Citizen”.

    There is a case to be made hat since they are citizens by statute, they are not natural born as they were not born on US soil. Jus sanguinis never has been part of our common law, that’s what the court found in US v Wong Kim Ark. But even though the case could be made, a lawsuit will be hard under the standing doctrine. Perhaps if a challenger objects, a court could make a decision. But it will likely be left to Congress under the political question doctrine.

    But this is not really relevant with President Obama. So why raise it. President Obama is by all legal standards born in the United States. Are you now moving your goalposts? I udnerstand you have a lot of ‘arguments’… None particularly relevant.

  402. avatar
    sfjeff January 27, 2014 at 3:15 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I think that a person who is born in the United States is a natural born citizen is as well established as is the fact that slavery is not legal in the United States.

    Arguing that someone who was born in the United States is not a natural born citizen is as nutty in the eyes of most Americans as arguing that slavery is still legal.

    The term “natural born citizen” is well understood by all Americans.

    Bob wants to make the term “Natural Born American” to become something else- something less American.

    Bob- we- meaning all American- know that anyone born in the United States is a natural Born citizen.

    You suddenly decided after Obama was elected that that definition was not acceptable to you.

    I think that a person who is born in the United States is a natural born citizen is as well established as is the fact that slavery is not legal in the United States.

    Arguing that someone who was born in the United States is not a natural born citizen is as nutty in the eyes of most Americans as arguing that slavery is still legal.

    The term “natural born citizen” is well understood by all Americans.

    Bob wants to make the term “Natural Born American” to become something else- something less American.

  403. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:16 am #

    sfjeff: That is frankly all delusional.

    President Obama was legally and constitutionally elected as President by the electors of the Electoral College, confirmed by the U.S. Congress and sworn in now three times by Chief Justice Roberts. He is our legal and lawful President.

    We are not at war- not as the Constitution provides for.

    And your delusions about Obama providing information to anyone are just that delusions.

    Meanwhile, Obama has ordered the attacks on hundreds of Islamist terrorist leaders, while you are here trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

    Obama was “elected” under fraudulent circumstances. We are at war. Obama is a Muslim. I assure you, he hates the fact that he has to kill other muslims. As the purported “President” he has to put on a good show. Obama practices Islam. He sees those “hundreds of islamists terrorists” as Islamic Martyrs for the cause of Dar-el-Salam, Islamic world conquest. Obama and both Bushes for that matter have all preached “New World Order” in Public and Obama was once nominated by Pakistani legislator to be “Caliph”. Obama is a dangerous criminal fraud and traitor.

  404. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 27, 2014 at 3:17 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I also have a medical background.

    I guess we’ll have to start addressing you as Doctor Doctor Laity.

  405. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:17 am #

    sfjeff: Meanwhile, Obama has ordered the attacks on hundreds of Islamist terrorist leaders, while you are here trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

    Internal consistency is rarely of concern to birthers I believe

  406. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:18 am #

    As to Obama’s brother being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood

    Malik told the Anatolia news agency in a telephone interview, “I know about those allegations, which spread on the Internet, but they are sheer nonsense.”

    In response to a question about whether he’s traveled to Egypt or plans to soon, Malik said, “I’ve never traveled to Egypt,” adding, “I am a Muslim, yes, but I do not encourage hatred and violence and I’ve not been linked to any extremist groups in my life,” pointing out that if these allegations were credible to the press, why hadn’t Kenyan and international press picked up the story before all of this?”

  407. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:21 am #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: How did your last case go with Scotus Laity?I remember something about you being called a total layman

    Is that a crime,being a layman?

  408. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:23 am #

    nbc:
    As to Obama’s brother being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood

    You’ll have to ask them. The Obama’s in Kenya are Muslim thugs.

  409. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 3:24 am #

    Laity, you’re an open book. Nobody has to disparage you. Nobody COULD do a number on you like you’ve done to yourself.

    Robert C. Laity: Dr. Conspiracy:
    Don’t be silly.

    Those kinds of Alinsky comments don’t effect me.

    Robert C. Laity: sfjeff: By Alinsky you mean accurately portraying your posts?

    Using such tactics as disparaging one’s adversaries.

  410. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:25 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama was “elected” under fraudulent circumstances.

    No evidence of fraud has been presented but even if there were, he would be at best a de facto president, not a usurper. You really need to read the legal precedents on de facto officer doctrin.

    We are at war.

    Not in any manner relevant to the issue. See Averette which requires Congress to declare war before civilians could be brought under the UCMJ

    Obama is a Muslim. I assure you, he hates the fact that he has to kill other muslims. As the purported “President” he has to put on a good show. Obama practices Islam.

    There is just no evidence to support your beliefs here. Sorry my friend.

    He sees those “hundreds of islamists terrorists” as Islamic Martyrs for the cause of Dar-el-Salam, Islamic world conquest. Obama and both Bushes for that matter have all preached “New World Order” in Public and Obama was once nominated by Pakistani legislator to be “Caliph”. Obama is a dangerous criminal fraud and traitor.

    I understand your emotions that lead you to such foolish conclusions but again, there is the fact of lacking evidence, lacking foundations. So let us know when you have something that has legal relevance… Surely you have had enough time to gather some real evidence? Have you? Or is WND and Corsi all you have…

    There is no evidence of fraud, criminal fraud or treason beyond your unsupported claims.

    Try a bit harder please.

  411. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:27 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Is that a crime,being a layman?

    No, it helps understanding your failures.

  412. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:27 am #

    Dave B.:
    Yeah, and those doubts were based on race.It is, like you said, the twenty-first century.We’ve got past that.

    That ratty race card again? We aren’t past the fact that an NBC must meet both Jus soli and 100% Jus sanquinis. Race has nothing to do with that. Black as night or white as flour if one is born to American parents in the US and meets all other requirements he/she can be POTUS.

  413. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:28 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You’ll have to ask them. The Obama’s in Kenya are Muslim thugs.

    They asked him and he denied it. As to the Obama’s in Kenya… How is that relevant my friend…

    President Obama is neither a Muslim nor a thug, assuming that you are even correct about your claims about Obama’s relatives…

    There is no crime in being a muslim, but to claim that President Obama is one, is just well, poorly supported. So why insist on it?

    Is it that Alinsky thing? ;-)

  414. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:30 am #

    nbc: No, it helps understanding your failures.

    Everyone fails. It is the one’s that get up and “keep truckin” who are to be commended.

  415. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:30 am #

    Robert C. Laity: We aren’t past the fact that an NBC must meet both Jus soli and 100% Jus sanquinis

    It’s not a fact my friend. Not historically, not legally, not logically…

    Good luck my friend but until then you need to do a bit better. I suggest to start re-reading WKA and Minor, including the briefs filed and the lower Court ruling.

    Just trying to be helpful in educating you. After all you claim to learn from your mistakes. Let’s see…

  416. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:33 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Everyone fails. It is the one’s that get up and “keep truckin” who are to be commended.

    Sure, unless they insist on making the same mistakes time after time after time. Failures can be learning experiences, but often people do not show that they have really learned much.

    So, in your legal cases, how well have you done so far? Most of the cases failed on simple procedural grounds, if I am correct?

    This is why it is advisable to hire a lawyer who understands the legal concepts, rules, etc.

  417. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:35 am #

    nbc: They asked him and he denied it. As to the Obama’s in Kenya… How is that relevant my friend…

    President Obama is neither a Muslim nor a thug, assuming that you are even correct about your claims about Obama’s relatives…

    There is no crime in being a muslim, but to claim that President Obama is one, is just well, poorly supported. So why insist on it?

    Is it that Alinsky thing?

    “I am Muslim”-Barack Obama
    “The Muslim call to Prayer is the Prettiest sound on Earth”-Barack Obama
    “My Muslim Faith”-Barack Obama
    “I will stand with Muslims…”-Barack Obama
    “Allahu Akbar”-Barack Obama

    Obama mocks the Bible,hides Crosses,has ordered troops to handle the Q’uran with white gloves,has had Bibles burned in the military,stands with muslims, acts to advance Islam, has helped inculcate Sharia into Kenya,attempting to do so here.

    He is NOT an Atheist,Christian or Jew, He is a Muslim.

  418. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:35 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Everyone fails. It is the one’s that get up and “keep truckin” who are to be commended.

    Well, that’s the case with birthers, they have all failed. But the funny part is that the defendants have yet to fail. See, not everyone has to fail, as long as you set off with a solid foundation and understanding of law

  419. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:37 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “I am Muslim”-Barack Obama
    “The Muslim call to Prayer is the Prettiest sound on Earth”-Barack Obama
    “My Muslim Faith”-Barack Obama
    “I will stand with Muslims…”-Barack Obama
    “Allahu Akbar”-Barack Obama

    That’s the best you have? My Muslim Faith in context is quite clear. The muslim call to prayer being a pretty sound does not make him a muslim. Obama never stated he was a Muslim. Standing with Muslims, in context, also does not make one a Muslim.

    Allahu Akbar is a common greeting.

    Is that the best you have to offer?

    Obama is by any evidence a Christian, not that I hold that against him either. He seems quite mature in his understanding of religions and faith.

    Obama mocks the Bikble,hides Crosses,has ordered troops to handle the Q’uran with white gloves,has had Bibles burned in the military,stands with muslims, acts to advance Islam, has helped inculcate Sharia into Kenya,attempting to do so here.

    Unsupported claims my friend. And yes, he does understand that religion and government need to remain separate.

    You really should do some research before you make such claims. Start with your claims, provide us links to evidence, then we can decide if there is something.

    you seem to like rumor and innuendo… Let’s take it to the next level my friend. So far, the research I have done does not support you very much.

    Even if he were a Muslim, so what? But things do not look to well for your claims. Whatever you want to believe but of little relevance to his eligibility. You just do not like him, right?

  420. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:41 am #

    nbc: Sure, unless they insist on making the same mistakes time after time after time. Failures can be learning experiences, but often people do not show that they have really learned much.

    So, in your legal cases, how well have you done so far? Most of the cases failed on simple procedural grounds, if I am correct?

    This is why it is advisable to hire a lawyer who understands the legal concepts, rules, etc.

    I have participated in cases before administrative forums which have recovered over $237,000. I frequently consult legal experts. That is why I know I am on the right track.
    I am not the bungler that you would have people believe that I am.

  421. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:44 am #

    nbc: That’s the best you have? My Muslim Faith in context is quite clear. The muslim call to prayer being a pretty sound does not make him a muslim. Obama never stated he was a Muslim. Standing with Muslims, in context, also does not make one a Muslim.

    Allahu Akbar is a common greeting.

    Is that the best you have to offer?

    Obama is by any evidence a Christian, not that I hold that against him either. He seems quite mature in his understanding of religions and faith.

    Unsupported claims my friend. And yes, he does understand that religion and government need to remain separate.

    You really should do some research before you make such claims. Start with your claims, provide us links to evidence, then we can decide if there is something.

    you seem to like rumor and innuendo… Let’s take it to the next level my friend. So far, the research I have done does not support you very much.

    Don’t say you weren’t warned about Obama’s sinister Islamic idiosyncracies. You have been.

  422. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:44 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have participated in cases before administrative forums which have recovered over $237,000. I frequently consult legal experts. That is why I know I am on the right track.
    I am not the bungler that you would have people believe that I am.

    I am merely looking at your ‘successes’ in the recent filings against Obama. They do not really show you as being on the right track. Furthermore, your ‘legal claims’ lack in precedent, history, and evidence, so again, I am not impressed. As to ‘having participated’, sure, I have participated as well. And consulting legal experts does not make you one. That’s determined by how you deal with the legal issues.

    I am letting the facts speak for themselves and wish you the best. Remember that I predicted a quick denial of cert. What then?

  423. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:45 am #

    Dave B.:
    And you’re an astronaut too, I would presume.

    Nope. Never did that.

  424. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:46 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Don’t say you weren’t warned about Obama’s sinister Islamic idiosyncracies. You have been.

    ROTFL, sinister idiosyncracies… Only to the eye of someone who has made up his mind. I find it fascinating how you can insinuate and yet when asked to support them, you fail to do so.

    Not much to brag about i’d say

  425. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:48 am #

    nbc: It was never considered, nor did he campaign for Odinga nor is Odinga a ‘known enemy of the United States’. Perhaps you should google more?

    You can’t erase History. I have been investigating Obama for over five years now.

  426. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:49 am #

    For Robert’s education

    I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

    This statement is a rewording of a passage from page 261 of The Audacity of Hope, in which Barack Obama spoke of the importance of not allowing inflamed public opinion to result in innocent members of immigrant groups being stripped of their rights, denied their due as American citizens, or placed into confinement, as was done with Japanese-Americans during World War II. The original contains no specific mention of “Muslims”:

    In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp#vWsCOuD7rbkVzcyY.99

    Simple Google search could have helped you out understanding what he means.

  427. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:50 am #

    nbc: ROTFL, sinister idiosyncracies… Only to the eye of someone who has made up his mind. I find it fascinating how you can insinuate and yet when asked to support them, you fail to do so.

    Not much to brag about i’d say

    I have supported my claims for five years on TOPIX and Facebook and Twitter and any other forum I could blog on. Google: Robert Laity or Robert C. Laity to see them all.

  428. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:51 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You can’t erase History. I have been investigating Obama for over five years now.

    And this is all you have to show for it? Innuendo?… My goodness sakes, you should get your money back…

    I understand your ‘fascination’ with our President but your arguments are not very well developed, certainly not from a legal perspective.

    You really should look at the story in more depth rather than let your believes guide you in what you accept as ‘truth’ and ‘fiction’. There is nothing of relevance to support your claims so far with a few minor exceptions, such as the status of children born abroad to citizen parents.

    I am not very impressed.

    If you have real evidence, then please do share and explain the relevance of your claims.

    Looking forward to see what 5 years of ‘research’ has resulted in.

  429. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:54 am #

    nbc:
    For Robert’s education

    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp#vWsCOuD7rbkVzcyY.99

    Simple Google search could have helped you out understanding what he means.

    Muslims are not innocent. The Japanese Americans were. Snopes? Don’t make ME laugh. I am for the complete and utter ban of ANY immigration of Muslims into this nation. Islam is bizarre and satanic. Muslims are a clear and present danger. See: “What Islam is Not” and “FITNA”. Obama is a clear and present danger to America.

  430. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:55 am #

    The internet keeps on giving

    LAITY v. BEATTY 766 F.Supp. 92 (1991)

    On April 24, 1990, Laity attended a general membership meeting (the “April meeting”) of the BVAMC. The parties, however, have characterized Laity’s conduct at the April 24 meeting differently. Defendants contend that at the April 24 meeting, Laity “… stood up and began to shout in a loud and abusive manner, walked towards the Division’s chief steward in a threatening manner, making a vulgar remark to her.” (Beatty memo, p. 2; Beatty exh. A). Laity does not deny he used profane language at the April meeting and argues that others at the meeting used such language as well. (Laity Notice, 7; See, Pickering, 10). Laity, however, vehemently denies making any physical threats or hostile approaches toward anyone at the April 24 meeting. (Laity Notice, 7; See, Pickering, 18; Baton 25).

    On May 20, 1990, Local 200-C’s Executive Board indefinitely suspended Laity from his position as Steward. By certified letter dated May 29, 1990, the Board notified Laity of the suspension and informed him that the basis for the suspension was Laity’s “… conduct at the April 24, 1990 … meeting … and [Laity’s] subsequent refusal to meet with Local Union President/Thomas Beatty to discuss the matter.” (Laity Supp. Notice, exh. F).

  431. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:56 am #

    nbc: And this is all you have to show for it? Innuendo?… My goodness sakes, you should get your money back…

    I understand your ‘fascination’ with our President but your arguments are not very well developed, certainly not from a legal perspective.

    You really should look at the story in more depth rather than let your believes guide you in what you accept as ‘truth’ and ‘fiction’. There is nothing of relevance to support yourclaims so far with a few minor exceptions, such as the status of children born abroad to citizen parents.

    I am not very impressed.

    If you have real evidence, then please do share and explain the relevance of your claims.

    Looking forward to see what 5 years of ‘research’ has resulted in.

    I am not here to “Impress” you. Obama has never been “President”.

  432. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 3:57 am #

    nbc:
    The internet keeps on giving

    LAITY v. BEATTY 766 F.Supp. 92 (1991)

    And?

  433. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 3:58 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Muslims are not innocent. The Japanese Americans were. Snopes? Don’t make ME laugh. I am for the complete and utter ban of ANY immigration of Muslims into this nation. Islam is bizarre and satanic. Muslims are a clear and present danger. See: “What Islam is Not” and “FITNA”. Obama is a clear and present danger to America.

    Again, this is what Obama was worried about. The unreasonable actions of a scared populace against people of faith. Like the Japanese Americans, some people are proposing that we do the same to those of Muslim faith. Sure, it may seem bizarre and satanic to you but so is Christianity. Your fears drive you to emotional rather than logically informed actions.

    But the issue was that the statement you quoted was taken out of context. Somehow you still have a hard time learning from your ‘mistakes’?

    Will keep on encouraging you.

    And yes, some muslims are clear danger to us, just like some Christians are a clear danger to us. The issue is that President Obama has learned from our mistakes. Others, not so much.

  434. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 4:02 am #

    Robert C. Laity: And?

    I love to read more about your legal acumen.

  435. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 4:03 am #

    I’m not the one bring up “that ratty race card.” I’m stating a historical fact. I reckon I’ll explain it yet again.
    Chief Justice Waite specifically identified the “doubts” to which he referred. He said,

    “Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen—a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.”

    So what “certain classes of persons” were not considered to be “part of the people”? Persons not free and white. Chief Justice Waite’s use of the phrase “part of the people isn’t original to Minor. From Scott v. Sandford (and with my emphasis):
    Chief Justice Taney:

    “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that NEITHER THE CLASS OF PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN IMPORTED AS SLAVES, NOR THEIR DESCENDANTS, WHETHER THEY HAD BECOME FREE OR NOT, WERE THEN ACKNOWLEDGED AS A PART OF THE PEOPLE, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”

    “It (the Declaration of Independence) It then proceeds to say: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’
    The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and FORMED NO PART OF THE PEOPLE who framed and adopted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.”

    “We need not refer, on this point, particularly to the laws of the present slaveholding States. Their statute books are full of provisions in relation to this class, in the same spirit with the Maryland law which we have before quoted. They have continued to treat them as an inferior class, and to subject them to strict police regulations, drawing a broad line of distinction between the citizen and the slave races, and legislating in relation to them upon the same principle which prevailed at the time of the Declaration of Independence. As relates to these States, it is too plain for argument, that they have NEVER BEEN REGARDED AS PART OF THE PEOPLE or citizens of the State, nor supposed to possess any political rights which the dominant race might not withhold or grant at their pleasure. And as long ago as 1822, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that free negroes and mulattoes were not citizens within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States; and the correctness of this decision is recognized, and the same doctrine affirmed, in 1 Meigs’s Tenn. Reports, 331.”

    In his concurrence in that same case, Justice Daniel refers to Vattel:

    “By this same writer it is also said: ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.’ (Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.)
    From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow, that with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact; that one thus situated could be no party to, or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.”

    You’re relying on your perverted idea of natural law in the very same way Justice Daniel did.
    But those weren’t the only such doubts. There were also doubts about persons of Asian descent, which remained unsettled until Wong Kim Ark. There were doubts about Native Americans which remained unsettled until passage of the Snyder Act in 1924. The doubt about whether persons of Asian birth could be naturalized lingered on into the 1950’s.
    And as Justice Gray said in Wong Kim Ark,

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

    So when you cling to those doubts, YOU’RE the one playing “that ratty race card.”

    Robert C. Laity: That ratty race card again?We aren’t past the fact that an NBC must meet both Jus soli and 100% Jus sanquinis. Race has nothing to do with that.Black as night or white as flour if one is born to American parents in the US and meets all other requirements he/she can be POTUS.

  436. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:03 am #

    CarlOrcas: So says the man who claims to be “Dr. Robert C Laity” because he has an honorary JD from a Florida flim flam operation that sells a mail order course that claims to teach (for just $249) the average schmo how to handle their own legal affairs. (Please see definition of “fool for a client”.)

    I have (4) decades of experience as a federal statutory appeals specialist.

  437. avatar
    Dave B. January 27, 2014 at 4:05 am #

    That hasn’t stopped you from aggrandizing your other accomplishments, has it?

    Robert C. Laity: Dave B.:
    And you’re an astronaut too, I would presume.

    Nope. Never did that.

  438. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:05 am #

    nbc:
    Given Laity’s unfamiliarity with the legal precedent, it would be sufficient for the Supreme Court to deny cert, but there are so many other failures here that it is easy to predict the outcome.

    I’m familiar with legal precedent. There is no “legal” precedent for usurpation.

  439. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 4:07 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I am not here to “Impress” you. Obama has never been “President”.

    You have achieved your goal for sure. As to Obama being our President, he is at a minimum a de facto president. You really should read up on the de facto officer doctrine.

    He was elected, certified by Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice and thus cannot be a Usurper, legally speaking.

    Glad to be of assistance here my friend. PS: Under the de facto officer doctrine, all the laws passed and signed by him etc will remain on the books, even if he were removed. That of course is at best a pipe dream as there is no foundation for such actions.

    So what now? I am still awaiting some real evidence. The claims I did research do not give me much hope.

  440. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 4:11 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I’m familiar with legal precedent. There is no “legal” precedent for usurpation.

    You should try to look at the precedent for de facto officer and what makes someone a usurper. It’s not that hard, although you have to know what to look for.

    Try to make your case that President Obama would be a usurper, if he were found to be ineligible. You can’t, for the simple reason that under our laws and constitution he is at a minimum de facto President as he gained office through the color of law (election, certification, sworn in etc).

    Good luck, it’s an exciting topic but rather poorly understood. Have you tried to look at Vattel ;-)

  441. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 4:18 am #

    Helping out Robert again

    A de facto officer may be defined as one whose title is not good in law, but who is in fact in the unobstructed possession of an office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper. When a person is found thus openly in the occupation of a public office, and discharging its duties, third persons having occasion to deal with him in his capacity as such officer are not required to investigate his title, but may safely act upon the assumption that he is a rightful officer.

    Source: Waite v. Santa Cruz, 184 US 302 – Supreme Court 1902

  442. avatar
    RanTalbott January 27, 2014 at 4:21 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Is that a crime,being a layman?

    It might be, if you present yourself as not being one. Have you asked for donations to support you in your legal snipe hunt?

  443. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 4:23 am #

    Obama and Odinga

    Campaigning claim taken from Mark Hyman column described as “lies and innuendo.” The source for McCarthy’s claim that Obama campaigned with Odinga is an October 12, 2008, Washington Times column by Mark Hyman in which he asserted: “Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies.” In an October 17, 2008, letter to the editor, J. Scott Gration, a retired Air Force major general who accompanied Obama on his trip, responded:

    Mark Hyman’s “Obama’s Kenya ghosts,” (Commentary, Sunday), was a disgraceful smear on Sen. Barack Obama. Because I accompanied Mr. Obama on his trip to Kenya, I can say unequivocally that Mr. Hyman’s piece was filled with lies and innuendo.

    Mr. Obama’s 2006 trip to Kenya was authorized by the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who congratulated Mr. Obama on a successful trip when he returned.

    Mr. Obama did not “campaign” on behalf of Raila Odinga, has never endorsed him, and was not “nearly inseparable” from Mr. Odinga during his time in Kenya. Mr. Obama met with a wide range of Kenyan and American officials, including a Nobel Prize winner, human-rights defenders, and President Mwai Kibaki. He did not have a single scheduled meeting with Mr. Odinga.

    […]

    Mr. Hyman’s piece concludes with an astonishing attempt to tie Mr. Odinga, the sitting prime minister of Kenya, and, by absurd association, Mr. Obama to acts of terrorism committed against the United States of America. This false and outrageous charge says a lot more about Mark Hyman than it says about Barack Obama.

    source

    What we can confirm is that Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics, and did not support Odinga during his trip. Odinga attended some of Obama’s events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama “openly supported” Odinga.

    […]

    For this statement, we decided to scour the public record for evidence that Obama supported Odinga. We looked to contemporary accounts of the 2006 trip and found a transcript from an interview Obama gave to a Kenyan newspaper that directly contradicts Corsi’s allegation.

    Question: “As you prepared to travel to Kenya you were obviously conscious of two things. One was about being drawn into local politics. The other was the high expectations of what you could do for Kenya now that you are a senator. How did you handle both?”

    Obama: “One of the things we try to do is meet with all parties. I met President Kibaki, I met Uhuru Kenyatta, I was with Raila Odinga. We met the government, met the opposition and met other groups such as human rights activists. What I try to do is give a consistent message on what I think U.S.-Kenya relations should be, but not to suggest somehow that I think one party is better than the other. That’s for the Kenyan people to decide.”

    […]

    Corsi states that Obama “openly supported” Raila Odinga. We found public statements from Obama during the trip saying the exact opposite. We found no other evidence to support Corsi’s statement, so we rate his statement False.

    Such are the facts… Now you have a real opportunity to present your case and address the facts as claimed here.

    Good luck

  444. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 4:25 am #

    RanTalbott: Have you asked for donations to support you in your legal snipe hunt?

    I have seen nothing that leads to such a conclusion.

  445. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:33 am #

    CarlOrcas: Watch out now. The good Doctor Laity will also be threatening you with a libel suit. I wonder if he handles those pro bono for lawyer Graves?

    The Course was extremely informative and well worth the price I paid for it. It is a reputable product which Dr. Graves has a right to receive remuneration. It has a cut-off score of 90% which must be attained before the Honorary degree is granted. It wasn’t long ago when an individual could study Law under the supervision of an Attorney and enter Practice as an Attorney in NY. There are currently qualified and accredited Law Degree programs ONLINE from California which would qualify a person to practice Law in California in addition to the Federal Courts and representing Federal Agencies or Employees. Right up MY alley. I have been representing Federal employees for forty years.

  446. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:36 am #

    RanTalbott: It might be, if you present yourself as not being one. Have you asked for donations to support you in your legal snipe hunt?

    I have not proffered myself as a Licensed Attorney. Everything I am engaged in is paid for by yours truly. Everything. Try again.

  447. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 27, 2014 at 4:38 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “The Muslim call to Prayer is the Prettiest sound on Earth”-Barack Obama
    […]
    “I will stand with Muslims…”-Barack Obama

    I hope you great “legal expert” don’t misquote and mischaracterize anything in your own filings, or you might find yourself on the sharp end of a long stick (aka sanctions).

    Apart from the second quote being entirely incorrect, the first quote leaves out “at sunset” (which also significantly alters its meaning/scope).
    It’s like saying my favourite food is old bread because I just said “Old bread is the best thing I’ve eaten today” and you quote me without the “today” part. *facepalm*

  448. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:40 am #

    nbc:
    Obama and Odinga

    source

    Such are the facts… Now you have a real opportunity to present your case and address the facts as claimed here.

    Good luck

    The BBC has a different view of the facts. Obama Campaigning actively for Odinga was documented by the BBC. Of course Obama and his cabalists will deny it.

  449. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 4:41 am #

    Ole Booby here keeps on saying that the President is a “spy”. in which case EXACTLY who is he “spying” for..?

    Also, how can one be “spying” if according to the law, the individual (that would be the President) is entitled not only with access to the information but is the ultimate arbiter of whether such information is or should be treated as secret.?

    It seems ……..illogical

  450. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 4:43 am #

    Oh and Booby, care to share the link to the BBC that apparently shows Obama “actively campaigning” for Odinga..?

  451. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:43 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I hope you great “legal expert” don’t misquote and mischaracterize anything in your own filings, or you might find yourself on the sharp end of a long stick (aka sanctions).

    Apart from the second quote being entirely incorrect, the first quote leaves out “at sunset” (which also significantly alters its meaning/scope).
    It’s like saying my favourite food is old bread because I just said “Old bread is the best thing I’ve eaten today” and you quote me without the “today” part. *facepalm*

    The point is Obama is a Muslim. I am a Catholic. Obama is no Christian.

  452. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:43 am #

    Bovril:
    Oh and Booby, care to share the link to the BBC that apparently shows Obama “actively campaigning” for Odinga..?

    You can easily google it.

  453. avatar
    RanTalbott January 27, 2014 at 4:47 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have forty years of experience in Administrative Law representing Federal employees before the E.E.O.C.,M.S.P.B.,O.S.C. and other federal statutory appeals forums

    Robert C. Laity: I have participated in cases before administrative forums which have recovered over $237,000

    That averages out to less than $6000 per year.

    As a Catholic, you have a moral obligation to change your first name to “Jude”.

  454. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:48 am #

    nbc:
    The internet keeps on giving

    LAITY v. BEATTY 766 F.Supp. 92 (1991)

    My duty was to the Bargaining unit employees. I was pissed because the Union Officers were not performing THEIR “Duty of Fair representation”. Whether it is a Union or Management that was doing wrong, I went after either. That Union,S.E.I.U. V.A. Division in Buffalo,NY is still in League with Management and I retired in 2003.

  455. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:51 am #

    RanTalbott:
    That averages out to less than $6000 per year.

    If you’re a Catholic, you have a moral obligation to change your first name to “Jude”.

    That’s St. Jude. Are you inferring that my case is hopeless?

  456. avatar
    aarrgghh January 27, 2014 at 4:51 am #

    laity goes
    on and on
    trying to explain
    but he ain’t
    learning or
    sounding less insane
    burma shave

  457. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:55 am #

    CarlOrcas: I guess we’ll have to start addressing you as Doctor Doctor Laity.

    I wanted to answer your question about Excelsior College. I graduated from Excelsior College when it was known as the University of the State of New York. There was a name change to Excelsior. It IS my alma mater.

  458. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 4:56 am #

    aarrgghh:
    laity goes
    on and on
    trying to explain
    but he ain’t
    learning or
    sounding less insane
    burma shave

    That’s YOUR opinion.

  459. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 5:03 am #

    Orcas, Presidents may enter restricted areas but Obama is NOT “President”. That makes Obama a spy every time he enters such places during time of war. As a usurper, he isn’t cleared. It is extremely foolish of this nation NOT to do extreme background checks on Presidents. The FBI has already claimed that they don’t. Obama couldn’t pass a National Security Check in any event. I did. Obama wouldn’t be able to.

  460. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 5:07 am #

    Orcas, One does not have to be in the military to be court-martialed for being a spy. The Section refers to “ANY Person…” and NOT to “Anyone covered by this Act…”. In any Event I cited the Civilian version of that in my brief.

  461. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 5:15 am #

    Come along Booby, two simple questions, simple enough for a Birffon to grasp

    1. Ole Booby here keeps on saying that the President is a “spy”. in which case EXACTLY who is he “spying” for..?

    Also, how can one be “spying” if according to the law, the individual (that would be the President) is entitled not only with access to the information but is the ultimate arbiter of whether such information is or should be treated as secret.?

    2. Booby, care to share the link to the BBC that apparently shows Obama “actively campaigning” for Odinga..?

    I mean you DO know who the President is supposed to be “spying” on, surely?

    And surely you have the BBC link you keep on pimping..?

    Or, as with all Birfoons, you’re simply chanting debunked nonsense in the vain hope that some magical incantation of words will suddenly take and the scary black man in the White House will vanbish in a puff of sulpherous smoke.

  462. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:34 am #

    Robert C. Laity: The BBC has a different view of the facts. Obama Campaigning actively for Odinga was documented by the BBC. Of course Obama and his cabalists will deny it.

    What link to this documentary do you have. Those who were there disagree with your assertion.

    Are you not interested in the truth? Or are you simply using ad hominems to avoid having to address these issues?

    Poor Robert.

  463. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:35 am #

    Robert C. Laity: That’s St. Jude. Are you inferring that my case is hopeless?

    Without legal merit I’d say

  464. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:35 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You can easily google it.

    So far no hits. Perhaps you can support your claims with better references?

  465. avatar
    aarrgghh January 27, 2014 at 5:36 am #

    laity only
    deals in fact
    all else is
    opinion
    he warned alice
    i’m the queen
    over this
    dominion!
    burma shave

  466. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:37 am #

    Robert C. Laity: One does not have to be in the military to be court-martialed for being a spy. The Section refers to “ANY Person

    In time of war, Averette addressed that this means war declared by Congress…

    You referred to Averette and yet you do not know its findings? Amazing.

  467. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:38 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Presidents may enter restricted areas but Obama is NOT “President”.

    Again, begging the question and failing to understand the de facto officer doctrine.

    Garbage In Garbage out

  468. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:40 am #

    Robert C. Laity: The FBI has already claimed that they don’t. Obama couldn’t pass a National Security Check in any event.

    That is true, there is no reason to have the executive who sets the rules pass a background check. As to Obama not being able to pass a background check, there is no support for such a claim

    Nice pattern.

  469. avatar
    RanTalbott January 27, 2014 at 5:40 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You can easily google it.

    Um, no:

    No results found for obama “actively campaigning” odinga site:bbc.co.uk

    No results found for obama “actively campaigned” odinga site:bbc.co.uk.

    And a search for

    obama campaign odinga site:bbc.co.uk

    returns about 38,800 results. Narrowing it to the second half of 2008, when the alleged “campaigning” would have taken place, turns up four, of which none are relevant.

    So, pending you doing your job, and presenting the evidence to back your claim, we’ll just chalk this one up as more of your BS.

  470. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:41 am #

    Robert C. Laity: The point is Obama is a Muslim. I am a Catholic. Obama is no Christian.

    I am a Christian and Obama clearly is a Christian. Of course, Catholics may differ as to what makes a Christian :-) To some, they are not Christian either. There is however no Evidence that Obama is a Muslim.

  471. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 5:42 am #

    The so called documentary is a news report where Odinga reports that

    He said Mr Obama had on Monday taken time out of campaigning for the New Hampshire primary to call him twice, to express his concern, and to say that he would also be calling Mr Kibaki.

    Really Robert, that’s it?

    Please tell me it is not so… My goodness sakes, if that;s the case you are extremely sloppy, just as in your citations of him being a muslim.

  472. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 5:46 am #

    Now Bobby dear, want to know the ONLY BBC article from 2008 that mentions Odinga and Obama..?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm

    Oh and look, Odinga was in Kenya, Obama was in the US campaigning FOR HIMSELF and ne’er the twain did meet.

    “He said Mr Obama had on Monday taken time out of campaigning for the New Hampshire primary to call him twice, to express his concern, and to say that he would also be calling Mr Kibaki. ”

    Damn, yet another piece of Birther ass fluff blown out of the water.

    Care to comment, oh and still waiting on a coherent response around the whole “spying” thing.

  473. avatar
    roadburner January 27, 2014 at 6:13 am #

    Robert C. Laity: “I am Muslim”-Barack Obama“The Muslim call to Prayer is the Prettiest sound on Earth”-Barack Obama“My Muslim Faith”-Barack Obama“I will stand with Muslims…”-Barack Obama“Allahu Akbar”-Barack ObamaObama mocks the Bible,hides Crosses,has ordered troops to handle the Q’uran with white gloves,has had Bibles burned in the military,stands with muslims, acts to advance Islam, has helped inculcate Sharia into Kenya,attempting to do so here.He is NOT an Atheist,Christian or Jew, He is a Muslim.

    so what if he is a muslim?

    you do realise that the constitution forbids any test of faith for an elected post dont you?

    probably not, or more to the point its another part of the constitution that you and your sychophants that allege to be `patriots over at BR like to piss on with great regularity when it gets in your way. and if you are a veteran like you claim, that is most shameful.

    your presidents actions show that your claims are a lie. your president has been seen publicly…

    eating pork – forbidden to muslims

    drinking alcohol – forbidden to muslims

    not observing muslim fasts – obligatory for muslims

    not praying at the times designated for prayer during the day – obligatory for muslims

    bowing to foreign dignatories – a sin under islam, as a muslim only bows before allah

    now your next reply to this will be `ah! but taqyyia!

    sorry, but taqyyia allows a muslim to deny their faith under threat of persecution or physical threat. it does NOT allow muslims to engage in practicing anything forbidden by their faith.

    the call to prayer? well, if you hear it enough times it kinda grows on you. i spent some time in istanbul at a place about 1 block away from a mosque. after about 10 days i could kinda sing along, although my pronunciation would have made the average imam wince. it sounded very foreign at first, but later became part of the familiar background soundtrack there.

    personally, id have loved the president to have been a muslim, just to see the heads explode of raving bigots like you.

    but alas, its not the case, so well have to wait for the future to see any explosions of skull, brains (very little of), and tinfoil.

  474. avatar
    RanTalbott January 27, 2014 at 6:18 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Are you inferring that my case is hopeless?

    That, too. But what I’m implying is that, if that’s all you’ve got to show for 40 years of effort, your “background in law” is one of abject failure.

  475. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 6:32 am #

    Bovril: Now Bobby dear, want to know the ONLY BBC article from 2008 that mentions Odinga and Obama..?

    Yeah, that’s what I found as well. No wonder Robert is not very cooperative…

    What a mess.

  476. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 6:43 am #

    It’s as iff Bobby’s only sources of information are birther blogs and the voices in his head.

    The leaps of imagination are the same as seen by Screaming Queen Blue Falcon over at Birfoon Report

    Fuddy was (apparently) a member of a semir-religious group called “Subud”

    “Subud” originated in Indonesia

    Stanley Ann Dunham used to live in Indonesia

    Therefore Stanley Add Dunham was impregnated by the leader of Subud and Fuddy faked the BC.

    Logic, reasoning and structured thought a are definitely all part of a far away country for Birthers

  477. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 6:50 am #

    Bovril: It’s as iff Bobby’s only sources of information are birther blogs and the voices in his head.

    5 years of research… What a mess… What a failure.

  478. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 6:53 am #

    In fact (giggle)….based on Birfoon logic

    On Friday, for work purposes I am flying

    London -> Dubai -> Jakarta -> Madras -> New Delhi -> Frankfurt -> Orlando -> New York -> London

    Via BitterDelusional logic and the Power of Vattel that means I am

    Getting my marching Orders from Queen Elizabeth and the Reptilian NWO

    To get my Scary Mooslem Sharia on,

    Then parting with the Soetoros’ whilst being baptized into the demonic “Subud” cult,

    Followed by asset stripping the USA by outsourcing our Obot/NSA spy technology to India

    Then updating the Nazi Brown Shirts before

    Resurrecting Walt Disney

    To lead to the Bankster Jewish “run on the banks” before

    Returning to sup on Ebil Socialist Commie healthcare

    Or something….. 8-)

  479. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 27, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Obama couldn’t pass a National Security Check in any event.

    That’s the good thing: security clearance comes with the job. Otherwise you’d have the absurd situation where the people elect a President who is then denied access to the nuclear football or even the most basic military institution because some “super-president” or “council of guardians” (Iran!) decided “he may be Prez but no access here!”.

  480. avatar
    nbc January 27, 2014 at 7:10 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Otherwise you’d have the absurd situation where the people elect a President who is then denied access to the nuclear football or even the most basic military institution because some “super-president” or “council of guardians” (Iran!) decided “he may be Prez but no access here!”.

    Exactly. So any claims that Obama must be a spy because he is not authorized is just, well, plain foolish.

  481. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 7:18 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): That’s the good thing: security clearance comes with the job. Otherwise you’d have the absurd situation where the people elect a President who is then denied access to the nuclear football or even the most basic military institution because some “super-president” or “council of guardians” (Iran!) decided “he may be Prez but no access here!”.

    I did not say that a President should not have access to the Nations secrets. That is one major reason why Presidents MUST be 100% loyal to America. In Obama’s case, Obama has never BEEN the bona-fides President due to his usurpation of the Presidency,by fraud. This Nation should START doing background checks on ALL Candidates for President or VP. In Obama’s case we have a usurper and fraud WITH access to the “Nuclear football”. THAT is a matter of intense and extreme national security risk.

  482. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 7:22 am #

    nbc: Exactly. So any claims that Obama must be a spy because he is not authorized is just, well, plain foolish.

    Obama IS a Spy because he is NOT the bona-fide President. Never has been President. Obama is therefore NOT entitled to any access, even to the White House lawn. Except if he were on a structured TOUR or invited.

  483. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 7:25 am #

    nbc: 5 years of research… What a mess… What a failure.

    You Obamatoids are “a mess”.

  484. avatar
    Robert C. Laity January 27, 2014 at 7:27 am #

    I have had fun debating you airheaded Obama trolls. Got to go. You guys stew in your own sludge. Get you noses out of Obama’s ass. You will breathe better.

  485. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 7:30 am #

    So Bobby dear, you are saying that your PERSONAL opinion is worth more than the majority of the popular vote, the vast majority of the Electoral College votes, the defined will of the American people and the US Constitution.?

    And

    EXACTLY who is Obama “spying” FOR, still waiting on a reponse

    How can the man, who by the will of the voting American People, has all the clearance required and who by Constitutiuon and law can waive any and all clearance as he deems fit be a spy..?

    Come on Bobby, answer the questions, you’re certainly loquacious about any number of other matters.

  486. avatar
    roadburner January 27, 2014 at 7:40 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I did not say that a President should not have access to the Nations secrets. That is one major reason why Presidents MUST be 100% loyal to America. In Obama’s case, Obama has never BEEN the bona-fides President due to his usurpation of the Presidency,by fraud. This Nation should START doing background checks on ALL Candidates for President or VP. In Obama’s case we have a usurper and fraud WITH access to the “Nuclear football”. THAT is a matter of intense and extreme national security risk.

    what you seem to forget (or probably conveniently ignore) is that your president had a full background security check while he was a senator under the GW bush administration.

    yes, i know that background security checks arent obligatory for senators…..

    BUT….

    your president sat on the committe for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, a position for which a background security check is obligatory

    feel free to consider your bonfire well and truly pissed on.

  487. avatar
    Bovril January 27, 2014 at 7:41 am #

    Oh sad, looks like Brave Sir Bobby done run away………No fair, chew toy burst. 8-(

  488. avatar
    roadburner January 27, 2014 at 7:44 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have had fun debating you airheaded Obama trolls. Got to go. You guys stew in your own sludge. Get you noses out of Obama’s ass. You will breathe better.

    sorry bobby-boy, you didnt spend any time here debating.

    getting slapped around like a red-headed stepchild without doubt, but debating, certainly not

  489. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:02 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I have read both the opinion and the dissent. No where did the court conclude that WKA was a “Natural-Born Citizen” but a “Citizen”. Not the same.

    You obviously didn’t read that. Even the dissent who believed as you did and thought the majority was making WKA eligible to be President. You obviously didn’t read the appellate briefs either.

  490. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:04 am #

    Robert C. Laity: I consulted a Military J.A.G. on this issue. The Congress has authorized funds for the conduct of the war we are fighting in Afghanistan and the war we fought in Iraq. The Constitution does NOT require that the words “Declaration of war” be used. The U.S. ISMaking war. We are IN a “time of war”. Several months ago Obama saw fit to connote the entire parameters of the U.S. as a war zone. Dispute that.

    No federal law just requires it. We are not in a time of war. There is no declared war. You lost on this one again.

  491. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:06 am #

    Robert C. Laity: See: The Obama Columbia Atlah Trial

    Lol that “trial” has as much legitimacy and authority as the mock trials you used to have in high school which is to say none.

  492. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:07 am #

    Doc can you create a new thread for laity? We’re close to 500

  493. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:16 am #

    On behalf of our sponsors, Luminosity I would like to welcome the members of ObamaConspiracy to another edition of Short Attention Span Theatre. Tonight’s guest is one Robert Christopher Laity who is on a quixotic quest of making just one accurate statement. Thus far he’s failed entirely. When we last left Mr. Laity he was getting slapped around by NBC on civil and military law. Let’s see if he’s learned anything….

    Robert C. Laity: There are NO Precedents that would abrogate the Constitution. Being an NBC requires MORE than being “Born” here. In any event, the Supreme Court has a duty to settle the dispute once and for all instead of sitting on their fat asses making statements such as:

    “We are evading the issue”-Clarence Thomas

    Oh it looks like he’s failed again. This is why people can’t take you seriously Bobby when you show an inability to get historical things right and then lie about recent events.

    You’ve been called on this Justice Thomas lie before:

    It’s a LONG-running joke between Rep. Serrano and Justice Thomas — 12 years long. Rep. Serrano has opened his remarks for the past few years with the joke.
    Examples:
    April 2009 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/285453-1 about 1:20
    March 2008 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/204419-1 , at about 2:30.
    March 2007 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/197007-1 , at about 2:20 – 3:05

    The issue that Thomas said he was evading was if Rep. Serrano could be President based on his birth in Puerto Rico. It had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. You lied again.

  494. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2014 at 8:19 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS affirmed the definition I use. Natural-Born Citizens are those born in the U.S. of parents who are American citizens themselves. They said there was NO doubt and that as to others there IS doubt.

    Yes, Robert. The court in Minor v Happersett did indeed say that there was no doubt that those born in the U.S. with two Citizens parents were NBC.

    The court in Minor v Happersett was SILENT on the status of those born in the U.S. with one Citizen parent and those born in the U.S. with zero Citizen parents. All it could say is that there was, at that time, conflicting opinion on the matter; that is, legal ‘doubt’. It was not necessary to clear those doubts in the Minor v Happersett case because Ms. Minor had two citizen parents.

    The only take-away from the Minor case that is relevant to you is the specific finding that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization”. There are only two kinds of citizens: natural born and naturalized. Period. There is no 3rd class sort of somewhere in between.

    If you are a citizen at all, you are either natural born or you are naturalized. The number of citizen parents does not come into it. End of story.

  495. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:23 am #

    Robert C. Laity: You can’t erase History. I have been investigating Obama for over five years now.

    Yes as we’ve shown you you can’t erase history which is why you have consistently gotten history wrong here.

  496. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 8:28 am #

    Robert C. Laity:
    I have had fun debating you airheaded Obama trolls. Got to go. You guys stew in your own sludge. Get you noses out of Obama’s ass. You will breathe better.

    So after getting beaten down on every claim you have made you’re just going to take your toys and go home? It’s obvious you don’t have a leg to stand on. NBC and others kicked you up and down the street on every claim you made. So much that you started flailing, changing the subject and repeating the same nonsense. Run away Bobby boy back to the safety of the short attention span birthers who won’t question a thing you say and might even agree with your claim that Gerald Ford was Speaker of the House.

  497. avatar
    Keith January 27, 2014 at 8:34 am #

    Poop, I ran out of editing time. So this is more to my previous post.

    The legal ‘doubt’ mentioned in Minor v Happersett was in fact, central to the Wong Kim Ark case, and was definitively cleared up in that case. There was no doubt that Wong was born in the U.S. and had ZERO citizen parents, parents that were not even eligible to become citizens. The WKA ruling put all doubts to rest: Wong was a citizen – it says so plain as day in the 14th Amendment – which was itself a restatement of the long understood ‘common law’ definition.

    Since Minor v Happersett found that there are only two kinds of citizen, Natural Born and Naturalized; and Wong could not possibly be naturalized, he must be a natural born citizen. There is no other possibility.

    Wong was a natural born citizen; Wong had ZERO citizen parents. Look Robert, the first ever ‘anchor baby’.

  498. avatar
    Reality Check January 27, 2014 at 9:03 am #

    I noticed “Dr.” LOL Laity avoided my offer to wager on the outcome of his doomed stupid petition before SCOTUS. He knows as well as I do that it is a pile of crap that will be denied. That is why he refuses to put his money where his mouth is.

  499. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 27, 2014 at 9:34 am #

    Robert C. Laity: Many of Obama’s background claims are now debunked. There has been proven that Obama did not attend Columbia, even though he had an ID card which BTW, listed him as a foreign student

    Laity doesn’t see the contradiction in his own claim. “He never went there but had a student ID card while attending there.”

    Yes it’s been proven he attended:
    http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner
    https://www.college.columbia.edu/news/barack-obama-83-becomes-first-college-alumnus-to-win-presidency

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

    Further the student ID you refer to is a crude photoshop. Here is the original ID of Thomas Lugert
    http://www.lugert-online.de/Columbia_University/studentID.jpg

    The photo of Obama on the ID you mentioned was not from 1983 but rather from the 90s and appeared on his state senate website.

  500. avatar
    Lupin January 27, 2014 at 9:48 am #

    I think the statement by Mr Laity that he is a 100% disabled Vietnam Vet (if true) is a possible explanation for his behavior, beliefs and statements made here.

    This is not an issue of logic, history, politics or law, none of which are correctly grasped by Mr. Laity, but a medical situation. Without knowing more about his personal situation, one is reduced to suppositions, but the term “off his meds” comes to mind.