Main Menu

The ephemeral nature of the birther movement

It should be obvious that I’m largely out of things to blog about. I mean, look at the attention I’m giving Cody Judy, the kind of coverage that would have been reserved for someone like Orly Taitz just a few years ago. About the only thing going on is the Arpaio trial(s) in Arizona that give a little hope for some birther content.

If the 612 broken hyperlinks (still!) on this web site are any indication, and I think they are, a great deal of Internet birther content now exists only on the Wayback Machine. Birther Report is still going strong, but that’s about it. Orly Taitz hardly mentions birther stuff any more. I can’t remember when the last birther lawsuit was filed. Come my retirement in 2017, we’ll see if there is anything left.

127 Responses to The ephemeral nature of the birther movement

  1. avatar
    Jim June 24, 2015 at 4:25 pm #

    Doc: “Come my retirement in 2017, we’ll see if there is anything left.”

    We’ll announce in 2017 that you’ve been holding back the one piece of indisputable evidence that proves Obama was ineligible this whole time and you’d be willing to release it now that Obama’s out of office…for a price. Add a paypal button, post at all the birther sites, and voila! birther paid for retirement party.

    You can fool some of the people some of the time, but birthers are always ripe.

  2. avatar
    Smirk 4 Food June 24, 2015 at 4:40 pm #

    Jim:

    You can fool some of the people some of the time, but birthers are always ripe.

    And here I had presumed you had a young apprentice in training to document the legal wranglings involving President Ted Cruz…

  3. avatar
    bob June 24, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

    Taitz’s recently filed a lawsuit in Texas (her third*); there was some birfering it.

    * Her second one was transferred to California (and it did not birf).

  4. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG June 24, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

    Yeah, you can poke a corpse with a stick for only so long, before it becomes really boring.

  5. avatar
    Pete June 24, 2015 at 7:27 pm #

    About all that’s left is the mild enjoyment of watching the few remaining birthers slowly slink down the way of dusty death.

  6. avatar
    Dave June 24, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    I didn’t notice any birther stuff in there — what did I miss?

    bob:
    Taitz’s recently filed a lawsuit in Texas (her third*); there was some birfering it.

    * Her second one was transferred to California (and it did not birf).

  7. avatar
    Keith June 24, 2015 at 10:16 pm #

    What I want to know is: are you going to stick around to report on the Birther Victory Parties that are scheduled for 21 January 2017?

  8. avatar
    Paul June 24, 2015 at 10:19 pm #

    …Not with a bang but with a whimper…

  9. avatar
    bob June 24, 2015 at 11:44 pm #

    Dave:
    I didn’t notice any birther stuff in there — what did I miss?

    Same ole, same ole — absolutely nothing.

    The case is funny, tho, because Taitz filed it in Texas hoping that it would get assigned to Hanen. It wasn’t, so she requested that it be transferred to him. Hanen denied her request.

  10. avatar
    RanTalbott June 25, 2015 at 12:23 am #

    Birther Report is still going strong

    Well that’s somewhat debatable, but however strong it’s going, it’s not doing so as Birther Report: it’s become something more like “ODS Report”, with the majority of the content being, at best, tangentially relevant to (in)eligibility. And the user comments are even less birther-related (though also not as gerbil-related these days).

    It’s like the farm team for the Obama Division of the Alex Jones League of Extraordinary Loons.

    Rather than “ephemeral”, I’d call it “transient”, like the spike from switching power on or off, that may begin with a significant surge of energy, but then decays until there’s nothing but a little random noise.

  11. avatar
    Lupin June 25, 2015 at 8:43 am #

    RanTalbott: It’s like the farm team for the Obama Division of the Alex Jones League of Extraordinary Loons.

    Actually, to me, most of BR now reads (mostly) like collected dispatches from ill-educated sailors from the USS Joseph Goebbels.

  12. avatar
    CRJ June 25, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

    It’s iconic most of your attention went to what and who mattered the least. But that is the nature of watching the chicken go up in flames you just put on the BBQ.

    I am way to fond of Doc to put him out to pasture in 2017. Maybe.., he should be in charge of an elite training program meant to weed out the sissies in the Marines. (?)

    He has been great! Hat Tip Doc.. That’s what I needed.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2015 at 1:51 pm #

    I don’t how I merit that. I must confess that I have not always acted in your best interests: I made a couple of comments at Birther Report encouraging them to contribute towards funding your Supreme Court fees rather than just talking about it. My sincere belief is that your getting such funding would be one of the worst things for you.

    You got into jail (as I see it) as the result of an irrational view of your own importance. Maybe you have learned not to act in ways that are against the law, but your lawsuits and presidential campaigns seem to indicate that you still have an irrational view of your own importance.

    Because of your felony conviction, you will probably have a difficult time the rest of your life, no matter what you do. I suggest you would be better off focusing your attention on your family and rebuilding your life, not chasing after rainbows at the Supreme Court.

    CRJ: He has been great! Hat Tip Doc.. That’s what I needed.

  14. avatar
    Crustacean June 25, 2015 at 3:51 pm #

    True, but on the really, really, REALLY off-chance that it comes to life and tries to eat your brain, you’ve got one helluva story to tell.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG:
    Yeah, you can poke a corpse with a stick for only so long, before it becomes really boring.

  15. avatar
    CRJ2016 June 25, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

    Well, that’s because your ‘rational view’ does not understand the ‘irrational views’ that those of different ‘religions’ have of one another. . each stating the others ‘nuts’. Yet, under our rational Constitution we allow religions free sentiment and expression and protest.

    Now “why” you would believe on one hand ‘free speech’ and ‘protest’ and ‘beliefs’ are tolerated under our Constitution, (I have never really seen a post of yours coming out against the rights of persons to worship how, what, or who they may), yet not consider the facts of said ‘felony conviction’ twenty two years ago a rail road job, with the State Government in an illegal Union with not just owning the Media that is often referred to even now, but the Union of a particular Church in a Government Trial of Person, in the convenient action of ‘forbidding evidence’ to me that was used in a Court of Law, I can’t explain myself.

    That is indeed a perplexing stand you have there I can’t understand either. I really believe you have “used” the ‘illegal UNION of Church and State’ as a subject against me, simply because you either didn’t want the details of corruption, or the convenient representation of ‘male factor’ you didn’t see any responsibility to accept to ‘pass on’.

    You know what Doc,.. I was the same dog gone way before it all happened to me. So I totally understand it. It often does not bear investigation until it affects you and the ‘trust’ in Government is just what people give, rather then see to.

    I also believe in your own mind, that you just don’t understand why someone would ‘care that much’ and you attribute it to ‘Grand Standing’, which is really a cheap zirconium of the diamond that exist underneath as far as precious principle. You know the kind of ‘trust’ you like to have when you walk into the Banks and hope your money is still there. Yeah, pretty much everyone wants that kind of principle in their lives as a consideration.

    So.. I bear the shame.. without your investigation? I’m betting you never have read my book either, ‘TAKING A STAND The Conservative Independent Voice”? Of course you haven’t the facts so stipulated have fit your agenda..no motivation.. yet.

    As I said, I understand that very well.

    For your other ‘fatherly advice’ there is a proverb that states that a man should take chastisement well if there is no wickedness in him. Those whom the Lord loves, he will also chastise”. You advice is wonderful Doc!

    Its just that .. that’s what I have been doing all this time. You see a man only gets one life time and it goes by like a dream as you and I are seeing go by faster and faster as if our life was just a dream that is quickly fading.

    What if our Founders and Framers of this Nation had assumed their family was simply the ones under their roof and not considered us as their family also? This Nation would never have been born. Your thoughts might as well also be considered upon Pres. George Washington before he was Pres. George Washington, or upon anyone before their history or lifetimes were finished.

    Indeed there are always those who, they exist in everyone’s family who say, “Oh that’s just my brother who is the Carpenter who lives down the street there. He fixed my chair and built my table. He’s no one.. just my brother. ”

    History unfolds a bigger picture and hindsight is always 20/20 Let’s see The Bible is what number in the ranks of best selling books? Oh, the carpenter..I was referring to yes, The Christ and his book, its Number 1. Awesome! Who would have guessed he was important when he was fixing your chair or cooking your BBQ Chicken?

  16. avatar
    Crustacean June 25, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

    You just blew it, Doc. I’m pretty sure CRJ was *this* close to adding you to his ticket. Vice President Dr. Conspiracy has a nice ring to it. But now that ship has sailed away…

    Dr. Conspiracy: I must confess that I have not always acted in your best interests

  17. avatar
    CRJ2016 June 25, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

    Might be just a tiny bit late to offer advice that I not chase after rainbows in the SCOTUS with Cases all ready there 12-5276, 14-9396, little hard to take back. It does kind of seem like merging the two Records of mine, you talk about the U.S. Supreme Court Record, and the ’96 U.S. Supreme Court Record in the same comment. Can you possible imagine a Court of Law stating to you that evidence used against you cannot be retrieved by the Court because of the fact that it does not affect that many people? In other words, Constitutional Rights of evidence are void unless it happens in mass quantities. That’s a little cold on the individuals who get screwed.

    That reflect that it doesn’t really matter what Record I present to your consideration, even the Records I sing, ..they are all bad to you. lol Well.. my BBQ Chicken Rocks, you should try that someday!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A-6RO5r8J0

  18. avatar
    OllieOxenFree June 25, 2015 at 4:31 pm #

    CRJ2016: The Bible is what number in the ranks of best selling books? Oh, the carpenter..I was referring to yes, The Christ and his book, its Number 1.

    Not exactly, because it would be hard to make any honest determination of specific sales numbers, considering that it can be printed and produced by many different and unrelated publishers, under their own translations, etc over centuries. Also, these books are often not sold, but produced and handed out at no cost to followers and in public places. Lastly, the book is required reading for one of the worlds largest religions, while other books people choose to read on their own. Perhaps the most published of all time, but “best selling,” would be hard to quantify.

  19. avatar
    Crustacean June 25, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    Wait, what?!! Did CRJ just compare himself to Jesus Christ?! Holy smoker!!

    (By the way, by far the best BBQ chicken I have ever tasted was made by an Iranian man of the Baha’i faith. I believe Jesus would’ve loved it, too!)

    CRJ2016: The Christ and his book, its Number 1. Awesome! Who would have guessed he was important when he was fixing your chair or cooking your BBQ Chicken?

    CRJ2016: Well.. my BBQ Chicken Rocks, you should try that someday!

  20. avatar
    bob June 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm #

    My question for Judy: Why is your presidential campaign paying for meals at McDonald’s and renting movies?

  21. avatar
    Voice of Reason June 25, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

    CRJ2016:
    I can’t explain myself.

    Pretty much

  22. avatar
    bgansel9 June 25, 2015 at 8:42 pm #

    Doc, I’m in it til the end. I want to see the scorecard when Obama leaves office (or soon after) when all of the lawsuits are closed, and read the list: “Dismissed, Dismissed, Dismissed, Rejected, Dismissed…” Denied”….

    LOL

    I want to see the total failure of these fools.

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 25, 2015 at 11:28 pm #

    Your right to worship in your own way ends when you walk into a convocation of my church. If that means something to you fine, and if not, never mind.

    Birtherism is a lie, and there is nothing noble, heroic or virtuous in pushing a lie.

    CRJ2016: I have never really seen a post of yours coming out against the rights of persons to worship how, what, or who they may

  24. avatar
    Pete June 26, 2015 at 2:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Birtherism is a lie, and there is nothing noble, heroic or virtuous in pushing a lie.

    Well said.

  25. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 26, 2015 at 7:39 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Your right to worship in your own way ends when you walk into a convocation of my church. If that means something to you fine, and if not, never mind.

    Birtherism is a lie, and there is nothing noble, heroic or virtuous in pushing a lie.

    Not true. Obama admitted to being a dual citizen at birth:

    Mario Apuzzo explained:

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. [ http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm ] That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:

    British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): ‘Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.’

    In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.

    Obama’s British citizenship was short-lived. On Dec. 12, 1963, Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    ‘1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

    2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.’

    As a citizen of the UKC who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UKC status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), it follows that Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship after 1963.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obamas-kenyan-citizenship/ . Todd Leventhal, the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State, has accepted as true this description of Obama’s birth circumstances and so stated on a State Department web page, http://blogs.america.gov/rumors/2009/08/21/the-obama-birth-controversy/ , This site now reads: “This site has been archived or suspended.”

    Factcheck, in its attempt to show that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” added: “[T]he Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 23, Kenyan citizens who possesses [sic] citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya.

    As a dual US/Kenyan citizen during his minority, Obama lost his natural born citizenship status when he moved out of the US to reside in Indonesia pursuant to Perkins v. Elg. Dual US-born citizens maintain their natural born citizenship status until they move out of the US and reside in a foreign country. President Madison maintained his natural born citizenship status even though he was a dual US/French citizen because he did not move out of the US and reside in a foreign land.

    Obama renounced his Kenyan citizenship and swore an oath of allegiance to the US at age 22 when he naturalized as a US citizen on Sept. 16, 1983.

  26. avatar
    Kate June 26, 2015 at 8:33 am #

    Sven lies again: As a dual US/Kenyan citizen during his minority, Obama lost his natural born citizenship status when he moved out of the US to reside in Indonesia pursuant to Perkins v. Elg. Dual US-born citizens maintain their natural born citizenship status until they move out of the US and reside in a foreign country. President Madison maintained his natural born citizenship status even though he was a dual US/French citizen because he did not move out of the US and reside in a foreign land.

    Obama renounced his Kenyan citizenship and swore an oath of allegiance to the US at age 22 when he naturalized as a US citizen on Sept. 16, 1983.

    ==========================================================

    There is absolutely no statute under U.S. law that states a natural born citizen who holds dual citizenship loses their NBC if they move out of the U.S., unless you care to point this out for us. How would you explain Thomas Jefferson living in France, complete with U.S. and French citizenship, prior to becoming the President of the U.S.?

    There is no record available that proves President Obama ever lost his U.S. citizenship nor would he have been able to do so upon his moving to Indonesia, as he was still a minor child. There is also no record of his having naturalized in the U.S. on 9/16/83 because he never lost his citizenship. Have you bothered to call the Indonesian embassy and verify the fact that he never had Indonesian citizenship?

    The frequency of your claims to Barack Obama having naturalized as a U.S. citizen does not add to their lack of veracity. Just like your whistleblowers, this event exists only in your imagination or you would have provided proof of the same as has been repeatedly requested.

  27. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 26, 2015 at 9:02 am #

    Svenksi, even you, this is a whole boatload of stupid. No one has ever questioned that Obama would have had dual citizenship at birth, by virtue of the laws of Great Britain and later Kenya, none of which affected what US was and is. He was a natural born citizen AT BIRTH.

    His having spent time in Indonesia during a very small portion of his minority would have had no effect on his citizenship. Elk doesn’t say what you claim it does in any event, and now you are misinterpreting it even beyond your initial level of lie, but since the US had no treaties with Indonesia it would be further irrelevant.

    Obama returned to the US, on his US passport, well in advance of his majority and there remained, he did not elect at his majority to become a Kenyan citizen at which point his dual nationality expired and he remained simply a natural born US citizen.

    So lying and wrong yet again.

  28. avatar
    Lupin June 26, 2015 at 9:08 am #

    Kate: How would you explain Thomas Jefferson living in France, complete with U.S. and French citizenship,

    For the sake of accuracy, while I saw Jefferson’s alleged French citizenship mentioned one book (can’t remember which one now) I could never find irrefutable evidence of it. So for the time being I’d be inclined to believe he was not a dual citizen; his letter in response to Madison’s request also tends to indicate that he viewed Madison’s situation from the outside (as it were) and his reply would have been different had he himself been a naturalized French citizen.

    Since Washington and Hamilton never responded to the offer, the only strong, irrefutable case we really have is Madison’s. That said, Sven has a point here. As long as Madison remained outside of France’s territorial jurisdiction, his French citizenship remained more virtual than effective.

    Still, it is rather nonsensical to imagine that every time a US dual citizen returns home from abroad he or she is being “naturalized”!

  29. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 26, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    Kate:

    Jefferson was appointed Minister to France 1785 – 1789 to represent the United States. As a diplomat representing the United States, he maintained his allegiance to the United States while living in France.

    There’s no statute defining the term natural born citizen, but we know naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens because SCOTUS told us that. We know dual citizens are natural born citizens in the United States through the SCOTUS opinion in Perkins v. Elg. Unlike Elg, Obama did not declare his intent to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months after he reached the age of majority. Consequently, he remained a foreign national living in the US until he naturalized in 1983.

    Proof is available for any tribunal where the US federal government is willing to abide by the final ruling. I and several others have paid hundreds of dollars, some have spent thousands, to respectfully request a full and fair hearing for a determination of the merits of the allegation Obama is not a natural born citizen. To date, the US federal government will not accept the results of a fair, unbiased determination of the facts.

    What is the government afraid of?

  30. avatar
    Pete June 26, 2015 at 10:11 am #

    Sven, that is prima facie idiotic.

    All one has to do is take the wikipedia summary of Perkins v. Elg to show how stupid-on-its-face your claim is:

    Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child’s natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents’ origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship “and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

    A natural born citizen doesn’t lose his or her natural born citizenship just by going and spending a few years of his or her childhood in Indonesia.

  31. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 26, 2015 at 10:22 am #

    Lupin:

    There are many U.S. citizens who are not natural born citizens. Naturalized US citizens are not natural born citizens. Dual US-born citizens are not natural born citizens if they move out of the US and establish themselves as resident in a foreign nation. US citizens who move out of the US, renounce their US citizenship to naturalize as a foreign national are US citizens until a CLN is issued, but are not natural born citizens once they naturalize in a foreign nation.

    Until 1939, the year Perkins v. Elg was decided, foreign born persons with a father who was a US citizen at the time of birth were natural born citizens until 6 months past their age of majority if they did not move back to the US to establish themselves as a full-time US resident. Perkins v. Elg ended this because SCOTUS ruled dual citizens who were not a resident of the US were not natural born citizens.

  32. avatar
    gorefan June 26, 2015 at 10:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen: As a dual US/Kenyan citizen during his minority, Obama lost his natural born citizenship status when he moved out of the US to reside in Indonesia pursuant to Perkins v. Elg.

    No Sven as usual you are wrong. But let me indulging your little fantasy for a moment.

    The President would have still been a US natural born citizen while in Indonesia. Your legal theory requires that he be removed to “the country of his parents’ origin” during minority and that “on attaining majority he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.”

    President Obama was never removed to “the country of his parents’ origin” and he had returned to the US long before attaining the age of majority.

    Now had he moved to Kenya at age six, you might have something. Just kidding – you don’t have anything.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 26, 2015 at 10:53 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Until 1939, the year Perkins v. Elg was decided, foreign born persons with a father who was a US citizen at the time of birth were natural born citizens until 6 months past their age of majority if they did not move back to the US to establish themselves as a full-time US resident. Perkins v. Elg ended this because SCOTUS ruled dual citizens who were not a resident of the US were not natural born citizens

    1. Obama was born in America so it has no application
    2. Obama was born in 1961 so it had no relevance
    3. No case supports your claim that somehow he would have lost his natural born citizenship.

    Besides I’m not sure it would have mattered anyway since not long after Obama reached the age of Majority, Vance V Terrazas was decided saying that US Citizenship cannot be forcefully removed from a dual citizen at birth unless there is a clear action and intention to renounce one’s citizenship.

  34. avatar
    Pete June 26, 2015 at 11:00 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Unlike Elg, Obama did not declare his intent to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months after he reached the age of majority. Consequently, he remained a foreign national living in the US until he naturalized in 1983.

    That’s total bullsh*t, Swen. Obama returned to the United States AT AGE TEN!

    He GREW UP IN THE UNITED STATES.

    A US citizen doesn’t have to formally notify the United States government that they intend to continue being a US citizen. All they have to do is act like one.

    I’ve heard some stupid stuff, but this about takes the cake.

  35. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 26, 2015 at 11:01 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Unlike Elg, Obama did not declare his intent to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months after he reached the age of majority. Consequently, he remained a foreign national living in the US until he naturalized in 1983.

    He didn’t have to since there was no need for him to “recapture” US citizenship which was never lost. He was born in the US, his citizenship could not be forcefully removed from him. He didn’t naturalize in 1983 as he was already a citizen of the US since birth.

  36. avatar
    Reality Check June 26, 2015 at 11:21 am #

    😆

    SvenMagnussen: Obama renounced his Kenyan citizenship and swore an oath of allegiance to the US at age 22 when he naturalized as a US citizen on Sept. 16, 1983.

  37. avatar
    Lupin June 26, 2015 at 11:23 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Naturalized US citizens are not natural born citizens. Dual US-born citizens are not natural born citizens if they move out of the US and establish themselves as resident in a foreign nation.

    Not true. My wife (b. Philadelphia, naturalized French, moved to France) is precisely in that case and she is still & remains a US natural-born citizen, or so say the US Consulate in Marseilles and the US Embassy in Paris.

  38. avatar
    Lupin June 26, 2015 at 11:45 am #

    SvenMagnussen: [Obama] swore an oath of allegiance to the US at age 22 when he naturalized as a US citizen on Sept. 16, 1983.

    We have already — and repeatedly — established in the past that this is a lie. Obama had a US passport as early as the summer of 1981.

    You’re not going to get anywhere by continuing to repeat the same lies.

  39. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 26, 2015 at 12:14 pm #

    People, People, People:

    All controversies have opposing argument and antagonistic evidence contrary to the allegations. That’s why we have discovery and, if necessary, rebuttal. If discovery were allowed, the evidence would show Obama naturalized in 1983.

    We’ve seen Stanley Ann’s 1968 passport renewal where it was amended to exclude Obama. Why can’t we see her 1967 passport application? And no, I don’t believe it was destroyed or lost.

    Besides, I heard a rumor there is a copy available for rebuttal if we could get a trial. My whistleblowers have been clear; they are not going public until there is a trial date set. State Dept. whistleblowers aren’t fired. They disappear. I requested an order of protection in my lawsuit and the judge didn’t even acknowledge it.

  40. avatar
    roadburner June 26, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    the evidence would show Obama naturalized in 1983.

    but as has been pointed out (but which you have chosen to ignore), your president had a u.s. passport in 1981

    and also, your refusal to show us the so-called naturalisation records of your president leads us to believe that they simply exist in your fevered imagination.

    well, unless you bought them off I, lucas smith.

  41. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 26, 2015 at 12:51 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: All controversies have opposing argument and antagonistic evidence contrary to the allegations. That’s why we have discovery and, if necessary, rebuttal. If discovery were allowed, the evidence would show Obama naturalized in 1983.

    There is no evidence to show he naturalized in 1983. You claimed before that you’ve personally seen the document so simply show us here. Every time you’ve been asked you balked. You don’t get discovery for some non-existent documents.

    SvenMagnussen: We’ve seen Stanley Ann’s 1968 passport renewal where it was amended to exclude Obama. Why can’t we see her 1967 passport application? And no, I don’t believe it was destroyed or lost.

    Because I said so.

    SvenMagnussen: Besides, I heard a rumor there is a copy available for rebuttal if we could get a trial. My whistleblowers have been clear; they are not going public until there is a trial date set. State Dept. whistleblowers aren’t fired. They disappear. I requested an order of protection in my lawsuit and the judge didn’t even acknowledge it.

    You heard a rumor? You mean you just made up the “rumor”. Your whistleblowers are non-existent just like the naturalization. Cody Robert Judy blew them up. They aren’t going to go public ever since they don’t exist.

  42. avatar
    gorefan June 26, 2015 at 12:54 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: All controversies have opposing argument and antagonistic evidence contrary to the allegations.

    Sven, Sven, Sven

    Your problem is that all of your evidence is hidden, imaginary, no one has seen it and it is dependent on the word of imaginary whistleblowers and rumors of rebuttal evidence.

    All of the evidence antagonistic to your fantasies is public information from real, reliable sources.

    The imaginary judge in your imaginary lawsuit ignored your request for an order of protection because your whistleblowers are imaginary and therefore need no protection.

  43. avatar
    Joey June 26, 2015 at 1:21 pm #

    Purpura & Moran v Obama: New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin: “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 petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” April 10, 2012
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/88936737/2012-04-10-NJ-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Initial-Decision-of-ALJ-Masin-Apuzzo

  44. avatar
    Jim June 26, 2015 at 2:17 pm #

    Folks, folks, folks…quit picking on Sven. I saw his whistle blower on TV last night, and I gotta say he’s VERY believable!

    That is if you believe in a talking teddy bear.
    https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HS.280191390572&pid=15.1&P=0

  45. avatar
    Kate June 26, 2015 at 6:14 pm #

    Lupin: For the sake of accuracy, while I saw Jefferson’s alleged French citizenship mentioned one book (can’t remember which one now) I could never find irrefutable evidence of it. So for the time being I’d be inclined to believe he was not a dual citizen; his letter in response to Madison’s request also tends to indicate that he viewed Madison’s situation from the outside (as it were) and his reply would have been different had he himself been a naturalized French citizen.

    Since Washington and Hamilton never responded to the offer, the only strong, irrefutable case we really have is Madison’s. That said, Sven has a point here. As long as Madison remained outside of France’s territorial jurisdiction, his French citizenship remained more virtual than effective.

    Still, it is rather nonsensical to imagine that every time a US dual citizen returns home from abroad he or she is being “naturalized”!

    Thanks, Lupin. I must admit I’m going by memory, which I’ll confess as time has been known to be faulty, but I’d also defer to your knowlege of all things French over anything I believe that I may remember.

    SvenMagnussen: There’s no statute defining the term natural born citizen, but we know naturalized citizens are not natural born citizens because SCOTUS told us that. We know dual citizens are natural born citizens in the United States through the SCOTUS opinion in Perkins v. Elg. Unlike Elg, Obama did not declare his intent to recapture his US citizenship within 6 months after he reached the age of majority. Consequently, he remained a foreign national living in the US until he naturalized in 1983.

    Sven, in order for there to be a need to recapture U.S. citizenship at any age, Barack Obama would have had to lose his NBC at some time while in Indonesia. WHY DO YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE INDONESIAN EMBASSY STATES HE WAS NEVER A CITIZEN? Would you like us to believe that birthers are willing to accept the word of anyone in a foreign country as long as it is derogatory regarding Obama but not in favor of his retaining NBC?

    You continue to claim that you need discovery to prove Obama naturalized in 1983 yet say you have proof of the same. Why are you unwilling to provide the alleged proof? Judges are not going to allow fishing expeditions and if you are actually an attorney as you have claimed, you would know that is true.

    We have evidence to the contrary of what you claim in the form of U.S. law regarding the loss of citizenship for minor children. Do you agree or not that children could not lose their citizenship while still a minor and that parents could not do it for them?

  46. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 26, 2015 at 6:19 pm #

    Joey:

    Pursuant to Article VI, all federal and state judges, including Administrative Law Judges, are required to swear an oath to support the Constitution. Only the people of the United States are authorized to not support the Constitution and void it by electing an ineligible President.

    The Electoral College is a check on the vote of the nationwide majority. In Obama’s case, the Electoral College chose to vote in favor of the majority to install an ineligible President to void the Constitution.

    ALJ Jeff S. Masin has a vested interest in the outcome of an eligibility challenge. Of course he’s going to rule Obama is eligible to save his career, his benefits and his retirement plan.

  47. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 26, 2015 at 6:22 pm #

    Kate:

    Controversies are resolved at trial. I presented my allegations that Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and naturalized in 1983.

    There are defenses that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and children are not permitted to be issued a CLN during their minority.

    These are controversies that are resolved at trial after discovery is completed. If the government denies Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and denies Obama naturalized in 1983, I have witnesses for rebuttal.

    A jury decides the outcome. Why aren’t you comfortable with that? I am.

  48. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2015 at 6:27 pm #

    Didn’t Sven claim that he has a photograph or video of Obama at a naturalization ceremony on 9/16/83?

    Of course we know that Sven picked that date because it was the date that Schwarzenegger naturalized.

  49. avatar
    Dave B. June 26, 2015 at 6:34 pm #

    Some drunk slobbering from his barstool does not a judicial controversy make; nor does some crackpot repeating inanities ad nauseam on the internet. And you heard a rumor, you say? Oh my.

    SvenMagnussen:
    People, People, People:

    All controversies have opposing argument and antagonistic evidence contrary to the allegations. That’s why we have discovery and, if necessary, rebuttal. If discovery were allowed, the evidence would show Obama naturalized in 1983.

    We’ve seen Stanley Ann’s 1968 passport renewal where it was amended to exclude Obama. Why can’t we see her 1967 passport application? And no, I don’t believe it was destroyed or lost.

    Besides, I heard a rumor there is a copy available for rebuttal if we could get a trial. My whistleblowers have been clear; they are not going public until there is a trial date set. State Dept. whistleblowers aren’t fired. They disappear. I requested an order of protection in my lawsuit and the judge didn’t even acknowledge it.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 26, 2015 at 6:44 pm #

    The issuance of a CLN to a minor is not a matter that would be resolved at trial. That is a matter of law that would be decided by a judge.

    So what is your magic recipe for getting standing to file a suit in the first place? You seem to be unaware that pleading mere speculation is insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, presuming the court didn’t dismiss it sua sponte.

    SvenMagnussen: There are defenses that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and children are not permitted to be issued a CLN during their minority.

    These are controversies that are resolved at trial after discovery is completed.

  51. avatar
    Kate June 26, 2015 at 7:09 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    Kate:

    Controversies are resolved at trial. I presented my allegations that Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and naturalized in 1983.

    There are defenses that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and children arenot permitted to be issued a CLN during their minority.

    These are controversies that are resolved at trial after discovery is completed. If the government denies Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and denies Obama naturalized in 1983, I have witnesses for rebuttal.

    A jury decides the outcome. Why aren’t you comfortable with that? I am.

    As Doc said above, minorities are not granted CLN’s so there would be no issue to be resolved at trial in regards to a CLN.

    As for Barack Obama using a U.S. passport in 1981, you claim to have a witness for rebuttal. If that were true, why would you need discovery as you’ve alleged prior to this post?

    You need proof PRIOR to trial in order to file suit, you can’t initiate a suit by claiming you need to be granted discovery so you can go on a fishing expedition to prove your claims. Since you have said you have rebuttal witnesses and have also said youxis “know” that Barack Obama naturalized in 1983, why the need for discovery?

    When was the suit filed in which you asked for an order of protection, need the date, please?

    You are dodging these questions repeatedly because you can’t answer them. Either you have proof and can provide it or you have nothing. You’ve been claiming to have proof for a few years in the form of your whistleblowers, so why haven’t they come forth? Easy answer–they do not exist except in your wildest imagination. You and Nancy could keep each other entertained for hours with the stories you could tell each other. It would be your own little version of “Can You Top This?”

  52. avatar
    gorefan June 26, 2015 at 7:26 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: ALJ Jeff S. Masin has a vested interest in the outcome of an eligibility challenge. Of course he’s going to rule Obama is eligible to save his career, his benefits and his retirement plan.

    All of which are governed by the state of New Jersey. None of which are dependent on whether President Obama is eligible or not. So he has no vested interest in the outcome. Neither do Federal judges who have lifetime appointments. this is especially true for those who were appointed prior to January, 2009.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater June 26, 2015 at 9:33 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: Controversies are resolved at trial. I presented my allegations that Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and naturalized in 1983.

    There are defenses that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and children are not permitted to be issued a CLN during their minority.

    These are controversies that are resolved at trial after discovery is completed. If the government denies Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and denies Obama naturalized in 1983, I have witnesses for rebuttal.

    A jury decides the outcome. Why aren’t you comfortable with that? I am.

    There is no controversy to be resolved. Allegations aren’t enough to bring something to trial. You must provide proof of your allegations. Thus far you’ve provided nothing. There’s no proof Obama had a CLN in 1983. There are no controversies to be resolved. You simply made up your claim. You have no witnesses.

  54. avatar
    Rickey June 26, 2015 at 10:19 pm #

    gorefan: All of which are governed by the state of New Jersey.None of which are dependent on whether President Obama is eligible or not.So he has no vested interest in the outcome.

    Apparently Sven is unaware of the fact that ALJ Masin is an employee of the State of New Jersey. He also happens to be 68 years old, so I suspect that he is fully vested in his retirement plan.

  55. avatar
    Pete June 27, 2015 at 12:05 am #

    I’ll grant that there was a controversy over whether President Obama was eligible.

    That controversy has been resolved in court, at least 220 times over. Birthers have lost every single case.

    Any remaining cases that are pending (anyone know how many there still are out there?) will also be lost by birthers. There is no “there” there.

    I’ll add that controversies are generally resolved through ONE court case, or at least that case plus its appeals, until exhausted.

    In addition to the court cases, every single birther claim, as far as I’m aware (and there have been dozens and dozens) has been tried in the court of public discussion and either outright disproven or shown to be an accusation with no proof to back it up.

    I am aware of no other issue that has been so thoroughly beaten to death.

    And yet birthers continue to drag bones out of graves in which the corpses how now lain rotting for years, and insist that the subject is still alive; he only needs an injection of adrenaline.

  56. avatar
    John Reilly June 27, 2015 at 1:30 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Controversies are resolved at trial. I presented my allegations that Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and naturalized in 1983.

    Sven, one of our resident bigots, simply refuses to understand that when the proponent of an argument presents allegations, whether in a debating society or in court, the proponent loses. Proponents have the burden of proof. Sven needs to present his evidence before the defense goes forward. You know what evidence is, don’t you Sven? It’s that stuff you swore you had but refuse to show anyone.

  57. avatar
    Lupin June 27, 2015 at 3:39 am #

    SvenMagnussen: Controversies are resolved at trial. I presented my allegations that Obama was issued a CLN in 1968 and naturalized in 1983.

    There are defenses that Obama used a US passport in 1981 and children are not permitted to be issued a CLN during their minority.

    No that is not true, and you’re simply lying again.

    I say you’re a pedophile ’cause sikrit gnomes told me. Prove to me that you’re not.

    Whether in a court of law or in a civilized conversation, no one bothers refuting transparent lies.

    Come up with something tangible, then you’ll get a fair hearing. But not before.

  58. avatar
    Lupin June 27, 2015 at 3:42 am #

    Rickey:
    Didn’t Sven claim that he has a photograph or video of Obama at a naturalization ceremony on 9/16/83?

    Of course we know that Sven picked that date because it was the date that Schwarzenegger naturalized.

    My bet is that Sven saw a black dude somewhere in the background on a press photo of Ahnuld taking the oath and since all black men look alike to him, shazam! instant Obama.

  59. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 27, 2015 at 5:37 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:

    The issuance of a CLN is background to explain how a person born in the United States forfeits their natural born citizenship status during their lifetime. Most dismissals of eligibility cases include commentary concerning Obama’s status as a native born person to imply the status of being a natural born citizen is obtained at birth and held in perpetuity.

    As long as the US Constitution is valid, executive officers of the federal government are authorized to represent the United States with respect to the sovereignty delegated by the people. Standing is derived from the fact that an ineligible President voids the US Constitution and the ability of executive officers of the federal government, other than the President and the Vice President, to represent the United States. The President and Vice President remain in office because they were elected by a majority of the people to represent and lead the United States. My direct and particular harm is that I’m subjected to adverse decisions by individuals who have lost the authority to represent the United States after the Constitution is voided. Contrary to what most lawyers will tell you, the FRCP is US law legislated by Congress and implemented into law by the President. The FRCP and court precedent citing the FRCP is used to deny challengers their day in court and dismiss their case a frivolous. Prior to 2009, all challenges to the US federal government’s delegated sovereignty were resolved before any other FRCP cites were entertained. Without delegated sovereignty, the courts are unable to use US law to dismiss a case as frivolous.

    Since all federal and state judges are required to swear an oath to support the Constitution pursuant to Article VI, it is unethical for a federal and state judges to preside over a tribunal or issue public statements as a person with authority that could have a direct impact on their jobs, reputations and pensions. At a minimum, all federal and state judges should issue statements that a finding of ineligibility would have a direct impact on their career and it is unethical for them to preside or attempt to influence a tribunal to determine the facts with respect to the eligibility challenge.

  60. avatar
    roadburner June 27, 2015 at 6:16 am #

    sven, please show us the alleged cetificate of naturalization you claim to have seen, or STFU about it.

    it either exists in reality, so you can show it (or any other proof of your claims for that matter) or it exists only in your fevered imagination, and will be unable to show us or link to it.

    the ball is in your court.

  61. avatar
    Lupin June 27, 2015 at 8:23 am #

    SvenMagnussen: The issuance of a CLN is background to explain how a person born in the United States forfeits their natural born citizenship status during their lifetime. Most dismissals of eligibility cases include commentary concerning Obama’s status as a native born person to imply the status of being a natural born citizen is obtained at birth and held in perpetuity.

    Again, show us a CLN with Obama’s name on it, or continue to be branded a liar.

    Since citizens who receive a CLN must surrender their United States passport, and we know Obama was traveling under such a passport in 1981, your claim is easily disproved.

    Your fanciful allegations have no more reality behind them than Nancy’s

  62. avatar
    bovril June 27, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    It has been repeatedly shown to Sven the mechanism to request and be provided a copy of any CLN and any documents associated with said document.

    Ditto regarding naturalization documents

    Sven has never availed himself of said opportunities.

    Sven is, ergo a LSOS

  63. avatar
    gorefan June 27, 2015 at 11:27 am #

    SvenMagnussen:

    Since all federal and state judges are required to swear an oath to support the Constitution pursuant to Article VI, it is unethical for a federal and state judges to preside over a tribunal or issue public statements as a person with authority that could have a direct impact on their jobs, reputations and pensions. At a minimum, all federal and state judges should issue statements that a finding of ineligibility would have a direct impact on their career and it is unethical for them to preside or attempt to influence a tribunal to determine the facts with respect to the eligibility challenge.

    New Jeresy Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin was appointed to his position by the governor of New Jersey. He is an employee of the Executive Branch of the New Jersey state government. His job, salary and pension are governed by the laws of New Jersey.

    Please explain how his pension is directly impacted by President Obama’s eligibility.

  64. avatar
    Keith June 27, 2015 at 12:35 pm #

    bovril: Sven is, ergo a LSOS

    Really? The whole sack? Or just a piece of it?

  65. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 27, 2015 at 1:34 pm #

    gorefan

    14th Amendment:

    Section 4.

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    ALJ Masin aided and abetted rebellion against the United States after ruling on an eligibility case when he should have investigated and recused.

  66. avatar
    Rickey June 27, 2015 at 5:16 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:

    ALJ Masin aided and abetted rebellion against the United States after ruling on an eligibility case when he should have investigated and recused.

    That would be funny if you weren’t so pathetic.

  67. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2015 at 5:22 pm #

    Race war?

    gorefan: Please explain how his pension is directly impacted by President Obama’s eligibility.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2015 at 5:30 pm #

    So you are seeking new ground to bring a case that would be dismissed for a different crank theory, the CLN? In any case, you lack standing.

    SvenMagnussen: Most dismissals of eligibility cases include commentary concerning Obama’s status as a native born person to imply the status of being a natural born citizen is obtained at birth and held in perpetuity.

  69. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    The Birther Scorecard shows 6 pending cases pending at the level of original jurisdiction:

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

    It may not be 100% up to date.

    Pete: Any remaining cases that are pending (anyone know how many there still are out there?) will also be lost by birthers. There is no “there” there.

  70. avatar
    Dave B. June 27, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

    Okay, I can’t make up my mind– is Sven eat up with the dumbass or just nuts?

    SvenMagnussen:
    gorefan

    14th Amendment:

    Section 4.

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    ALJ Masin aided and abetted rebellion against the United States after ruling on an eligibility case when he should have investigated and recused.

  71. avatar
    bob June 27, 2015 at 6:44 pm #

    SvenMagnussen:
    ALJ Masin aided and abetted rebellion against the United States after ruling on an eligibility case when he should have investigated and recused.

    Under Sven’s “theory,” literally every judicial officer could not hear an eligibility case.

  72. avatar
    bob June 27, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Birther Scorecard shows 6 pending cases pending at the level of original jurisdiction:

    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

    It may not be 100% up to date.

    It is out of date. There are basically three pending original-proceedings birther cases: Strunk’s mess, a Judd case that seems to have gotten lost in the cracks, and Taitz’s second Texas case.

  73. avatar
    gorefan June 27, 2015 at 7:40 pm #

    SvenMagnussen: ALJ Masin aided and abetted rebellion against the United States after ruling on an eligibility case when he should have investigated and recused.

    Do you have a reading comprehension problem? And that is a serious question.

    “neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States”

    Judge Masin has been an administrative law judge in New Jersey since 1979. According to you he aided and abetted rebellion starting in 2012. That’s 33 years of not aiding and abetting rebellion. His pension is more than secure.

    Your working is getting sloppy – do your homework before putting out your ridiculous theories.

  74. avatar
    SvenMagnussen June 27, 2015 at 8:53 pm #

    The Reconstruction Acts (March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 428-430, c.153; March 23, 1867, 15 Stat. 2-5, c.6; July 19, 1867, 15 Stat. 14-16, c.30; and March 11, 1868, 15 Stat. 41, c.25), aka the Military Reconstruction Act, applied to all the ex-Confederate states in the South, except Tennessee who had already ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and split the states into five military districts, each under the control of a Northern General whose responsibility it was to protect life and property. Each ex-Confederate state was to elect new state delegates and ratify new constitutions, ratify the Fourteenth amendment, and the provisions of equal rights for each citizen, except ex-Confederates.

    The Military Commanders were to register qualified voters who had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States, supervise the election of delegates to state constitutional conventions, and the transmit to the President certified copies of the constitutions adopted.

    An act of July 19, 1867 (12 Stat. 14) defined the powers of the district commander to suspend or remove from office persons occupying positions in the civil government of the state concerned; the provisional governments established by the President were thus made subject to the military commanders. A joint resolution of February 18, 1869 (15 Stat. 344), provided for the removal from office of persons holding civil offices in the “provisional governments” of Virginia, Texas, and Mississippi who could not take the oath of allegiance and directed the district commanders to fill the resulting vacancies by the appointment of persons who could take the oath.

    Post commanders were immediately responsible for seeing that people within their jurisdiction obeyed all existing laws and orders. To bring about more efficient administration of justice and to give greater security to life and property, the sheriffs and other officers of municipal organizations with the District were put under the immediate control of a military officer–the provost marshal general. Sheriffs, chiefs of police, city marshals, chiefs of detectives, and town marshals in North and South Carolina were ordered to report to him.

    Goodness. I hope Obots will find redemption when they are tied to the whipping post.

  75. avatar
    Pete June 27, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

    Dave B.: Okay, I can’t make up my mind– is Sven eat up with the dumbass or just nuts?

    Who said it was either/ or?

  76. avatar
    gorefan June 27, 2015 at 9:32 pm #

    The inauguration of the president of the United States is a ceremonial event marking the commencement of a new four-year term of a president of the United States. The day a presidential inauguration occurs is known as “Inauguration Day” and occurs on January 20 (or 21st if the 20th is a Sunday). (Prior to the Twentieth Amendment, the date was March 4, the day of the year on which the Constitution of the United States first took effect in 1789; the last inauguration to take place on the older date was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first one on March 4, 1933.) The most recent public presidential inauguration ceremony, the swearing in of President Barack Obama to begin his second four-year term in office, took place on Monday, January 21, 2013.

    The only inauguration element mandated by the United States Constitution is that the president make an oath or affirmation before that person can “enter on the Execution” of the office of the presidency. However, over the years, various traditions have arisen that have expanded the inauguration from a simple oath-taking ceremony to a day-long event, including parades, speeches, and balls.

    From the presidency of Andrew Jackson through that of Jimmy Carter, the primary Inauguration Day ceremony took place on the Capitol’s East Portico.[1] Since the 1981 inauguration of Ronald Reagan, the ceremony has been held at the Capitol’s West Front. The inaugurations of William Howard Taft in 1909 and Reagan in 1985 were moved indoors at the Capitol because of cold weather. The War of 1812 and World War II caused two inaugurations to be held at other locations in Washington, D.C.

    When George Washington was inaugurated, the oath was administered by Robert Livingston, Chancellor of New York State, in 1789, and by William Cushing, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1793. Since Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth swore in President John Adams, no chief justice has missed an Inauguration Day. When Inauguration Day has fallen on a Sunday, the chief justice has administered the oath to the president on the Sunday privately and then again the next day publicly.

    When a new president takes over mid-term due to the death or resignation of a president, the oath of office is administered but formal, public inauguration events have not been held.

    Holy Cow, I hope there are no mass suicides of birthers on January 20, 2017.

  77. avatar
    Pete June 27, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

    bob: It is out of date. There are basically three pending original-proceedings birther cases: Strunk’s mess, a Judd case that seems to have gotten lost in the cracks, and Taitz’s second Texas case.

    One wonders whether those may be the Final Three.

  78. avatar
    Dave B. June 27, 2015 at 9:38 pm #

    Oh yeah, that’s a good point.

    Pete: Who said it was either/ or?

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 27, 2015 at 9:58 pm #

    I think we have had enough from Sven.

    You are banned.

    SvenMagnussen: Goodness. I hope Obots will find redemption when they are tied to the whipping post.

  80. avatar
    Crustacean June 27, 2015 at 10:41 pm #

    Well deserved. But I never got to challenge Sven to prove that the Constitution has been voided. The only void he’s demonstrated to exist is the one in his cranium.

    OK, that’s a cheap shot, since he cannot reply. (Heheheh).

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think we have had enough from Sven.

    You are banned.

  81. avatar
    RanTalbott June 27, 2015 at 10:55 pm #

    Pete: One wonders whether those may be the Final Three.

    Isn’t there still some procedural jockeying going on in Orly’s Mississippi case? I do hope the possibility of sanctions hasn’t gone away.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 28, 2015 at 12:28 am #

    There was a motion to reconsider, but it was denied March 31, 2015. That’s the last thing on the docket.

    RanTalbott: Isn’t there still some procedural jockeying going on in Orly’s Mississippi case? I do hope the possibility of sanctions hasn’t gone away.

  83. avatar
    Pete June 28, 2015 at 12:31 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: SvenMagnussen: Goodness. I hope Obots will find redemption when they are tied to the whipping post.

    Spoken like a true birther.

  84. avatar
    Dave B. June 28, 2015 at 12:32 am #

    You know, Doc, I really admire your patience, but I gotta tell you, I’ve got to hand it to you for having a limit to it, too.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think we have had enough from Sven.

    You are banned.

  85. avatar
    Keith June 28, 2015 at 12:44 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I think we have had enough from Sven.

    You are banned.

    What? You don’t like the Allman Brothers?

    Whipping Post – The FiIlmore East Version

  86. avatar
    RanTalbott June 28, 2015 at 1:45 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That’s the last thing on the docket.

    Damn: I was really hoping we’d get to watch Orly beg her flying monkeys to cancel their vacations so they could chip in to help her pay the cost of her birfering.

  87. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2015 at 2:22 am #

    Dave B.:
    You know, Doc, I really admire your patience, but I gotta tell you, I’ve got to hand it to you for having a limit to it, too.

    Hear hear!

  88. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 28, 2015 at 5:03 am #

    Buh bye Svenski, it HASN’T been fun!

  89. avatar
    CRJ June 28, 2015 at 10:22 am #

    @bob I knew it. Rather than realize the reality of “informa Pauperis” , you decidedly investigate why I don’t starve the help, or nix the brain storming sessions of the next political commercial.

    If you are a Democrat , your an embarrassment to evan the poor, and that is saying something.

    😎 Ok, all these talk of grave yards and bones, and coming ressurecting Lazuraus made me think of this video (smile).

    Had this haunt dream last night about going up in an attic where the stair well had been narrowed to a point over head that you could not get to the attic. I broke through.

    Looked around to see old bones, dusty abandoned solitary old attic. Nothing strange about it.

    Then, holy Yikesies , a haunt streamed across the ceiling and you didn’t want one of these bastards after ya. I sailed down and got out alive. You guys all believe in Ghost right? I know I’m preaching to a choir of Patriots here who love the Constitution right? Wouldn’t want to do anything to see it destroyed Right?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vy2hBICrUC8

  90. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 28, 2015 at 10:49 am #

    Amazing 177 words, none of them having any real connection with each other or any sense at all. A new personal best for Judy.

  91. avatar
    CRJ June 28, 2015 at 11:09 am #

    @Notify Re-sent Notorial Decent
    My you give exclamation to “Pendantic” I think it was 176.

  92. avatar
    Lupin June 28, 2015 at 11:28 am #

    CRJ:

    Then, holy Yikesies , a haunt streamed across the ceiling and you didn’t want one of these bastards after ya. I sailed down and got out alive. You guys all believe in Ghost right? I know I’m preaching to a choir of Patriots here who love the Constitution right? Wouldn’t want to do anything to see it destroyed Right?

    My I recommend:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M68GeL8PafE

  93. avatar
    CRJ June 28, 2015 at 11:54 am #

    @Lupey – I knew it! Monty Python- you are a foreigner aren’t you? Please prove here and now your not. British Intelligence right?

  94. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 28, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

    I always assumed Lupin was David Thewlis, and that’s mighty British indeed.

  95. avatar
    Northland10 June 28, 2015 at 1:07 pm #

    Cody, what does Supreme Court Rule 39.8 say?

  96. avatar
    Rickey June 28, 2015 at 2:58 pm #

    Northland10:
    Cody,what does Supreme Court Rule 39.8 say?

    He is in denial. He has convinced himself that he was denied IFP status because SCOTUS isn’t satisfied that he can’t afford to pay his own way.

    He hasn’t come to grips with the fact that SCOTUS denied him IFP status because of Rule 39.8.

  97. avatar
    bob June 28, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

    CRJ:
    @bob I knew it. Rather than realize the reality of “informa Pauperis” , you decidedly investigate why I don’t starve the help, or nix the brain storming sessions of the next political commercial.

    I know the realities of IFP.

    The reality is your “campaign” is paying you to eat at McDonald’s; you have no staff.

    The reality is you rent movies and call that “research.”

  98. avatar
    bob June 28, 2015 at 8:21 pm #

    RanTalbott: Damn: I was really hoping we’d get to watch Orly beg her flying monkeys to cancel their vacations so they could chip in to help her pay the cost of her birfering.

    Taitz has a birther case in the 9th Circuit. If it is granted oral argument (which I doubt will happen), it will likely be held in San Francisco.

    Taitz has two cases in Texas (one of which birfs). I doubt either will be granted a live hearing.

    But, in theory, there are still opportunities for Taitz to fleece monkeys for her travel expenses.

  99. avatar
    Bonsall Obot June 28, 2015 at 9:43 pm #

    Convict Judy, have you considered scalding the living hell out of yourself with hot coffee during one of those McDonald’s trips? You could sue for thousands of dollars, Convict!

  100. avatar
    Arthur June 29, 2015 at 9:40 pm #

    CRJ:
    @Notify Re-sent Notorial DecentMy you give exclamation to “Pendantic” I think it was 176.

    The word is “pedantic.”

  101. avatar
    CRJ June 30, 2015 at 12:31 am #

    @Rickey-tickey-tembo Listen,You asked: I know you have a lot of stock in this theory of yours. However, I’m not in “denial” of the facts you have not shared.

    Denial of Informs Pauperis under those circumstances is not a guessing game. When that is done and the Court does it , they specifically cite the denial “pursuant” of Rule 38.5
    ZATKO v. CALIFORNIA, (1991)[To discourage abusive tactics that actually hinder us from providing equal access to justice for all, we therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases, pursuant to Rule 39.8. Accordingly, petitioners are allowed until November 25, 1991, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. Future similar filings from these petitioners will merit additional measures. ]-

    Just ask yourself, Why would a Court make a Rule and then hide it under the couch with that rule being it’s “reason”?

    I don’t see it on the Docket or on my LTR Dated JUNE 22 from the Court. (???)

    39.8 was innitiated first in 1991 against 2 petitioners one who had filed like 72 Cases 34 if which came to the Court in 2 years: the other guy like 34 and 15 in two years.

    Still the Justices descending really were upset in the appearance of discouraging the poor from their rightful claims.

    [Our longstanding tradition of leaving our door open to all classes of litigants is a proud and decent one worth maintaining. See Talamini v. Allstate Ins. Co., 470 U.S. 1067, 1070 (1985) (STEVENS, J., concurring). In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ.).]

    [ And with each barrier that it places in the way of indigent litigants, . . . the Court can only reinforce in the hearts and minds of our society’s less fortunate members the unsettling message that their pleas are not welcome here. In re Demos, 500 U.S. 16, 19 (1991) (Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ.). [502 U.S. 16, 21]

    I’m not sure I’d bet Doc against me on this one?

    Had the sweetest Dream last night.I saw All the Justices were sitting in chairs in a circle. They were all reading the same thing.

    What was strange about it was they weren’t reading my Writ.. They were reading my Book “Taking A Stand- The Conservative Independent Voice.”

    I thought that was REALLY nice of them! Don’t ask me what that meant. 😎 I was sleeping. ’

  102. avatar
    CRJ June 30, 2015 at 12:53 am #

    @arthur Yes, Yes, Yes.. Pedantic. You ‘all putting a lot of expectations on the convicted for spelling everything correctly like I’m some kind of newspaper journalist.

    Check check I’m a Politician and there ain’t none that can spell real good. Some can’t even drive themselves and wouldn’t know how much a Happy Meal cost or what’s on the dollar menu if their election depended upon it. I do know that.

    Ya’all starting to sound like yr undies are crawling up yr camels. Chill out.. McDonalds started putting the sweet N Low and creamer in the coffee so ‘all ya all wouldn’t have to when your driving that way you don’t burn yrself.

    Thought it was real nice of them. I love 💘 McDs and I’d never sue them .. Now who ever makes “spell-checks” programs I’m coming for ya!

  103. avatar
    Rickey June 30, 2015 at 2:38 am #

    CRJ:
    @Rickey-tickey-tembo Listen,You asked: I know you have a lot of stock in this theory of yours. However, I’m not in “denial” of the facts you have not shared.

    Denial of Informs Pauperis under those circumstances is not a guessing game. When that is done and the Court does it , they specifically cite the denial “pursuant” of Rule 38.5
    ZATKO v. CALIFORNIA, (1991)[To discourage abusive tactics that actually hinder us from providing equal access to justice for all, we therefore deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis in these cases, pursuant to Rule 39.8. Accordingly, petitioners are allowed until November 25, 1991, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33 of the Rules of this Court. Future similar filings from these petitioners will merit additional measures. ]-

    Just ask yourself, Why would a Court make a Rule and then hide it under the couch with that rule being it’s “reason”?

    Citing a single case from 24 years ago does not make it binding procedural precedent. That was a very different Supreme Court with a different Chief Justice.

    Try using a little common sense. You obviously cannot afford to pay the filing fee and pay for 40 bound copies of your petition. There are only two reasons why SCOTUS would deny your cert petition. Either they believe that you can afford to pay, or they have decided that your petition is frivolous. Do you really believe that they have concluded that you can afford to pay?

    I don’t see it on the Docket or on my LTR Dated JUNE 22 from the Court. (???)

    I haven’t seen that letter. Are you going to post it on Scribd? It doesn’t appear to be on your blog, either.

  104. avatar
    Arthur June 30, 2015 at 9:03 am #

    @codyjudy

    Rather than bemoan a correction, download a spellchecker application. I don’t know what’s worse: your spelling or your singing.

  105. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) June 30, 2015 at 9:08 am #

    It’s one thing to occasionally mis-spell words; it’s another, to consistently say “informa pauperis” (instead of the correct “in forma pauperis” – Latin for “in the form/appearance of a poor person”) despite being repeatedly told how it’s written.

    And no, Cloudy Rainfall Judy, no spellchecker can fix some of your rants that read like you’re trying some dangerous combination of meth and LSD.

  106. avatar
    Dave B. June 30, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    You know, all birthers get old after a while, but some of them get old a lot quicker than others.

  107. avatar
    Notorial Dissent June 30, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    Actually, the only real positive fix for Judy’s rants or whatever you want to classify the impenetrable gibberish he insists on posting is the delete key. There are some things there is just no other cure for, and since he apparently has nothing comprehensible to say, I would put the options at extremely minimal, basically the delete key or ignore function depending on the board.

  108. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG July 1, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

    I swung by BR today, and the atmosphere was very tired.
    I was reminded of an old episode of Family Guy, where Stewie gains a bunch of weight and very unenthusiastically tells someone off. “Uh…damn you…and…such…”.
    Its like they’re just going through the motions over there, and a bunch of them can’t even be bothered to put much oomph into it anymore.

  109. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater July 1, 2015 at 3:28 pm #

    CRJ: Check check I’m a Politician and there ain’t none that can spell real good. Some can’t even drive themselves and wouldn’t know how much a Happy Meal cost or what’s on the dollar menu if their election depended upon it. I do know that.

    Speaking of happy meals you seem to be a few fries short of one. You’re not a politician. You’re a fraud the only thing you’ve actually been is a convicted terrorist. Wander off to your bad photoshopping skills.

  110. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    Blue Falcon has been quiet for over a week. He is probably still in denial over the big wins for the good guys in the Supreme Court last week.

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Its like they’re just going through the motions over there, and a bunch of them can’t even be bothered to put much oomph into it anymore.

  111. avatar
    Jim July 1, 2015 at 3:50 pm #

    Andrew Vrba: “Its like they’re just going through the motions over there, and a bunch of them can’t even be bothered to put much oomph into it anymore.”

    Yep, it’s a shame when the team that’s getting blown out just goes ahead and packs it in…of course, their loss is epic!

    They’ll go down as the most lopsided losers in court history. Right along with…

    Cumberland loses to GT 222-0 in most lopsided college football game in history
    Miami Heat loses 148-80 to Cleveland in most lopsided NBA game in history
    Medger Evers loses to LIU 179-62 in most lopsided college basketball game in history
    Redskins lose to Bears 73-0 in most lopsided NFL game in history
    Orioles lose to Rangers 30-3 in most lopsided MLB game in the modern era history

    How close are the birthers to besting Cumberland’s futility?

  112. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2015 at 3:55 pm #

    I have been following the exchange between Doc and Steven L. Craig at BR concerning Hawaii vital records laws. Craig sure lives to quote from the ruling in the Dummett case in Tennessee. It is taken out of context of course. Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation had their case dismissed and I believe that sanctions were awarded to the Defendants.

    If you want to annoy Craig ask him how the real estate business is going.

  113. avatar
    Dave B. July 1, 2015 at 3:59 pm #

    Craig doesn’t understand…well, shoot. What the heck DOES he understand?

    Reality Check:
    I have been following the exchange between Doc and Steven L. Craig at BR concerning Hawaii vital records laws. Craig sure lives to quote from the ruling in the Dummett case in Tennessee. It is taken out of context of course. Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation had their case dismissed and I believe that sanctions were awarded to the Defendants.

    If you want to annoy Craig ask him how the real estate business is going.

  114. avatar
    RanTalbott July 1, 2015 at 4:08 pm #

    Jim: Medger Evers loses to LIU 179-62 in most lopsided college basketball game in history

    Well, 5 against one is hardly fair. It’s amazing he managed to score as much as he did.

    Jim: How close are the birthers to besting Cumberland’s futility?

    I believe that, if you include lost appeals, the birthers are well past 220-0 in court cases.’

    But wait! There’s more: if you add in the 212 certified forensic experts, and more than 500 Congresscritters, who refused to join Zullo’s snipe hunt, they’re over 1000.

  115. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

    Craig’s quote is the following:

    Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

    “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
    And;
    “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

    What he doesn’t say is that it is taken from Judge Anderson’s denial of of Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case back to Tennessee state courts where it had been originally filed.

    Judge Anderson was not passing on the merits of the claim but only that by the test under Grable and Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering and Manufacturing which Judge Anderson quoted earlier.

    In Grable and Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering and Manufacturing, the Supreme Court held that a substantial federal question is implicated, for example, where “the interpretation of a federal statute [] actually is in dispute in the litigation and is so important that it sensibly belongs in federal court. “The relevant inquiry in cases of this type9is whether “a state-law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.

    Anderson said that the claims made by the plaintiffs met the criteria and the remand was denied.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-tnwd-2_12-cv-02143/pdf/USCOURTS-tnwd-2_12-cv-02143-0.pdf

    I wanted to document this because Craig makes this silly claim over and over.

  116. avatar
    Dave B. July 1, 2015 at 4:39 pm #

    Ad nauseam. And he is, of course, impervious to explanation of how federal jurisdiction is established. Or of anything else.

    Reality Check: I wanted to document this because Craig makes this silly claim over and over.

  117. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

    Speaking of obnoxious Birthers, has anyone heard from Adrien Nash and Hermitian lately?

    Dave B.:
    Ad nauseam.And he is, of course, impervious to explanation of how federal jurisdiction is established.Or of anything else.

  118. avatar
    Dave B. July 1, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

    Adrien responded to one of my Disqus comments about a month ago, foaming at the mouth about E-Verify. Seems like he’s staying pretty close to home. Perhaps the string they tied to his mailbox so he could go get the mail without getting lost broke.

    Reality Check:
    Speaking of obnoxious Birthers, has anyone heard from Adrien Nash and Hermitian lately?

  119. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm #

    No, but scott e, after I demanded he answer a simple question before allowing him to continue to comment, left a comment something to the effect that he didn’t believe I would let him comment after answering the question. So he went away for a few days. Today he left 2 or 3 comments, but I deleted them, as he had not answered the question.

    I should probably just ban scott e because all he does is try to aggravate people and start off-topic arguments.

    Reality Check: Speaking of obnoxious Birthers, has anyone heard from Adrien Nash and Hermitian lately?

  120. avatar
    Pete July 1, 2015 at 5:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I should probably just ban scott e because all he does is try to aggravate people and start off-topic arguments.

    I don’t suppose you could both ban him and provide a way to virtually punch the little troll in the face?

  121. avatar
    Reality Check July 1, 2015 at 5:58 pm #

    It’s funny that Steve Craig would latch on to a few words taken out of context in a ruling on a losing motion to remand. I suppose when you have lost over 220 cases and won nothing you have to go dumpster diving in the rulings for any little rotten scrap of meat you can find.

  122. avatar
    Pete July 1, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

    (Sorry, I formerly hoped scott might turn out to be a human being, but that proved not to be the case.)

  123. avatar
    Dave B. July 1, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    Use the Force, Doc.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxUp9XvzNk

    Dr. Conspiracy: I should probably just ban scott e because all he does is try to aggravate people and start off-topic arguments.

  124. avatar
    Arthur B. July 1, 2015 at 9:08 pm #

    Reality Check: Speaking of obnoxious Birthers, has anyone heard from Adrien Nash and Hermitian lately?

    My favorite obnoxious birther was Dean Haskins. He would start out very blustery, but he was so full of hot air that he would deflate under the slightest pin prick.

    For a while, I was sure I could spot all his sock puppets — they were the ones who truly believed that “Fogblow!” was a can’t-miss response to any challenge.

  125. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund July 1, 2015 at 11:34 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Speaking of obnoxious Birthers, has anyone heard from Adrien Nash and Hermitian lately?

    Hermit Crab briefly poked out of his post-Wingate shell a month ago here on OCT to whine about how Obama only showed one copy of his LFBC, but otherwise hasn’t been seen since February.

  126. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 2, 2015 at 6:42 am #

    Arthur B.: they were the ones who truly believed that “Fogblow!” was a can’t-miss response to any challenge

    If such a thing as an Alinskyite actually exists, he is certainly a birther.

  127. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) July 2, 2015 at 6:46 am #

    Jim: Cumberland loses to GT 222-0 in most lopsided college football game in history

    The most lopsided soccer game in history was 137-1 in the second (?) Romanian league. Though it later turned out the game was manipulated because the winner needed to brush up on goal difference to beat a rival in the relegation. Said rival won its game 78-0 the same day, also manipulated of course.

    Then there’s a 140-0 (?) result in Swedish school basketball (all points scored by the same player), though I suspect that one was rigged as well.

    (Of course I don’t want to imply the birther score is rigged. Just that I’m pretty suspicious about sports results whereas a legal result of a clear-cut issue would be suspicious if it were *not* 200-0.)

    I once beat a friend 6-0 6-0 6-0 in tennis, scoring 72 points while only giving up 3. (And no, the guy wasn’t a beginner.)