The return of the Taitz

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

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

You can read it for yourself here.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Lawsuits, Orly Taitz and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

665 Responses to The return of the Taitz

  1. Saint James says:

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

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

  2. NBc says:

    The Court will likely take the following steps:

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

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

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

  3. Expelliarmus says:

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

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

    If not, then the court summarily denies the writ.

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

  4. NBc says:

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

  5. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

    Orly is asking for leave to prosecute the presentments.

  6. Scientist says:

    I

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

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

  7. NBc says:

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

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

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

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

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

  8. NBc says:

    First response of Judge Lamberth:

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

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

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

  9. NBc says:

    Why Judge Lamberth denied standing

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

    Concluding

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

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

  10. Scientist says:

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

  11. NBc says:

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

  12. misha says:

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

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

  13. misha says:

    For a landsman, she sure acts like a putz.

  14. richCares says:

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

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

  15. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

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

  16. richCares says:

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

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

    answering an idiot is a waste of time!

  17. Black Lion says:

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

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

    -Phil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  18. richCares says:

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

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

  19. aarrgghh says:

    richcares observes:

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

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

    flagrant lying also works wonders.

  20. misha says:

    “Orly is thinking outside of the box.”

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

  21. Dave says:

    I think you must be referring to this:

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

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

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

  22. misha says:

    “why in the world would Obama resign?”

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

  23. NBc says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  24. NBc says:

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

    Obama has no reason to resign.

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

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

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

  25. NBc says:

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

    ‘Patriots’ of the finest kind…

  26. Rickey says:

    SvenMagnussen says:

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

    Wrong, as usual.

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

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

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

  27. NBc says:

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

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

    Guaranteed…

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

  28. chufho says:

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

  29. Lupin says:

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

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

  30. NBc says:

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

  31. chufho says:

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

  32. SvenMagnussen says:

    Leo ‘splains it for us …

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

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

    – Leo Donofrio
    April 2, 2009

    Thank you, NBc. Your site is terrific.

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

  34. richCares says:

    chufho, is this what you mean by fastest car?

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

  35. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

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

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

  37. richCares says:

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

  38. thisoldhippie says:

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

  39. NbC says:

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

    What 5th Amendment have you in mind here?

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

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

  40. NBc says:

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

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

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

  41. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

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

  42. Dave says:

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

  43. NBc says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hope this may clarify your confusions?

  44. NBc says:

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

  45. richCares says:

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

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

  46. NBc says:

    Let me explain your logical fallacy here:

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

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

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

  47. NBc says:

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

  48. Scientist says:

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

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

  49. NBc says:

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

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

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

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

  50. Scientist says:

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

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

  51. racosta says:

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

  52. Saint James says:

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

  53. NBc says:

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

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

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

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

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

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

    Continued here

  54. Black Lion says:

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

  55. Rickey says:

    SvenMagnussen says:

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

    Poor, deluded Sven.

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

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

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

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

  56. NBc says:

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

  57. racosta says:

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

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

  58. misha says:

    “The Super American Grand Jury has indicted others”

    You mean the Super Duper American Mini Jury.

  59. misha says:

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

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

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

  60. Ballantine says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  61. Ballantine says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  62. SvenMagnussen says:

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

    I relied on Judge Lamberth’s jurisprudence.

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

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

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

    But that’s just me.

  63. Expelliarmus says:

    What part of this sentence don’t you understand?

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

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

  64. racosta says:

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

  65. Rickey says:

    SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

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

    Now do you understand?

  66. Black Lion says:

    Interesting article…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  67. Black Lion says:

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

  68. SvenMagnussen says:

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

    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.

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

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

  69. Greg says:

    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.

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

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

    And, surprise, they WERE dismissed.

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

  70. NBc says:

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

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

    Poor Sven

  71. NBc says:

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

    The filing was accepted, case dismissed…

    What part do you not comprehend Sven?

    You’re dreaming again…

  72. racosta says:

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

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

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

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

  73. NBc says:

    Orly is asking for leave to prosecute the presentments.

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

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

  74. John says:

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

  75. NBc says:

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

  76. Black Lion says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Exerpts from Vattel’s Law of Nations

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

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

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

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

  77. NBc says:

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

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

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

    I guess these posters are willing to abandon state rights over US supremacy 🙂

  78. Expelliarmus says:

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

  79. Scientist says:

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

    Do you get it now?

  80. ballantine says:

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

  81. Rickey says:

    SvenMagnussen says:

    Yes, I saw that ORDER from Judge Lamberth.

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

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

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

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

  82. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

  83. Expelliarmus says:

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

  84. Black Lion says:

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

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

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

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

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

  85. Scientist says:

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

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

  86. Montana says:

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

  87. NbC says:

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

    Do you even realize how non sequitur this is?

  88. NbC says:

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

  89. Whatever4 says:

    Jack Ryan is amazing.

  90. kimba says:

    65, I think.

  91. NbC says:

    I believe it was Tes who remembered to check the docket

  92. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

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

  93. NbC says:

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

    Novel interpretation of the facts.

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

  94. SvenMagnussen says:

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

    Leo is correct …

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

    Maybe I’ll prosecute the case.

  95. Scientist says:

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

  96. NbC says:

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

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

    let me help educate yourself

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

    followed by

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

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

    You fool…

    Failed again.

  97. NbC says:

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

  98. Rickey says:

    SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

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

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

    As for Holder:

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

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

  99. Greg says:

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

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

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

  100. NbC says:

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

  101. NBc says:

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

    read here

  102. G says:

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

  103. G says:

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

  104. misha says:

    “Maybe I’ll prosecute the case.”

    Be my guest.

  105. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

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

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

  106. SvenMagnussen says:

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

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

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

  107. Greg says:

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

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

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

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

  108. SvenMagnussen says:

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

    Your argument would be much stronger without the name calling.

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

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

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

  109. misha says:

    “you should initally contact the Super American Grand Jury”

    What basement do they meet in?

  110. misha says:

    “Republicans have lost any respect for the Constitution…”

    Just ask GWB and Cheney.

  111. misha says:

    “Orly disagrees and is offering to prosecute the case”

    Is that between teeth cleaning, and washing dishes?

  112. NbC says:

    I guess poor Sven does not understand the precedents.

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

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

  113. NBc says:

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

  114. G says:

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

    Let me put it in simple terms for you:

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

    It is really that simple.

  115. Greg says:

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

    Conditional acceptance?

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

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

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

  116. SFJeff says:

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

  117. NBc says:

    Seems simple enough terms. Will poor Sven comprehend?

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

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

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

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

  118. NBc says:

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

  119. G says:

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

    As in super silly?

  120. NBc says:

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

  121. GeorgetownJD says:

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

  122. thisoldhippie says:

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

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

  123. NBc says:

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

  124. Mary Brown says:

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

  125. misha says:

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

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

  126. sponson says:

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

  127. Saint James says:

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

  128. Well he said:

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

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

  129. misha says:

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

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

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

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

    He also joins a slew of others.

  130. NBc says:

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

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

    Lots of the usual ramblings

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

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

  131. G says:

    Wow…that is just beyond nutty!

  132. Mark says:

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

  133. Saint James says:

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

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

  134. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

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

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

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

  135. NbC says:

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

    What now dear Mark?

  136. misha says:

    “the instant Cleavon Little strode into Rock Ridge.”

    You mean like this?

    Incredible parallels, no?

  137. G says:

    It is this simple, Mark:

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

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

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

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

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

  138. SFJeff says:

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

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

  139. Slamdunk says:

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

  140. Slamdunk says:

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

  141. Slamdunk says:

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

  142. kimba says:

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

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

  143. misha says:

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

  144. misha says:

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

    This couple may be able to help you.
    .

  145. G says:

    Slamdunk says: “Do patriots subvert the constitution?”

    Real patriots wouldn’t subvert the Constitution.

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

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

  146. G says:

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

    Based on what?

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

  147. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: has usurped the presidency

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

  148. Mike says:

    Misha-le:

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

  149. Slamdunk says:

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

  150. Slamdunk says:

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

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

  151. Slamdunk says:

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

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

  152. Scientist says:

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

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

  153. Scientist says:

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

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

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

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

  155. Slamdunk says:

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

  156. Slamdunk says:

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

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

  157. NBC says:

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

    Liar… Present your affidavits and their professional requirements.

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

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

  158. nbC says:

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

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

    I bet you did not know this…

  159. Scientist says:

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

    Didn’t think so….

  160. nbC says:

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

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

    The alternatives are just too disruptive to ponder…

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

  161. kimba says:

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

  162. G says:

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

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

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

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

  163. kimba says:

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

  164. nbC says:

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

  165. G says:

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

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

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

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

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

    Therefore, there is no “ursurper”.

    Therefore, there is no Constitutional crisis.

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

  166. Greg says:

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

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

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

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

  167. SFJeff says:

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

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

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

    I particularly support you going this month.

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

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

  169. misha says:

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

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

    Best of luck!

  170. Slamdunk says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  171. Slamdunk says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  172. Slamdunk says:

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

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

  173. Slamdunk says:

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

  174. Slamdunk says:

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

  175. Slamdunk says:

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

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

  176. Scientist says:

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

  177. Black Lion says:

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

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

  178. Slamdunk says:

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

  179. Black Lion says:

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

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

  180. Scientist says:

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

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

  181. Black Lion says:

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

    “It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

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

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

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

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

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

  182. kimba says:

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

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

  183. Whatever4 says:

    Deja vu.

  184. Greg says:

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

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

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

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

  185. Greg says:

    Obama has knowingly usurped it.

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

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

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

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

  186. ballantine says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  187. ballantine says:

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

  188. Greg says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  189. Greg says:

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

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

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

  190. Greg says:

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

  191. Slamdunk says:

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

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

    [Slamdunk]

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

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

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

    I wonder why the majority was silent.

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

    [Slamdunk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Art. 1 Section 8:

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

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

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

    MORE PROBLEMS FOR THE USURPER:

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

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

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

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

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

  192. nbC says:

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

    Very creative editing….

  193. ballantine says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Again, try educating yourself on this:

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

  194. Scientist says:

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

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

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

  195. thisoldhippie says:

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

  196. SFJeff says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You have no shame.

  197. SFJeff says:

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

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

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

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

  198. Greg says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  199. Whatever4 says:

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

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

  200. Slamdunk says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  201. SFJeff says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The answer is because it doesn’t exist.

  202. SFJeff says:

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

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

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

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

  203. nbC says:

    Seems to me that Slamdunk wasn’t

  204. Greg says:

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

    Wong Kim Ark.

    Here’s what the government argued:

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

    Wong analyzed this proposition and rejected it:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  205. Scientist says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I believe this is a “bada bing” moment. 🙄

  207. Black Lion says:

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

  208. misha says:

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

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

  209. SFJeff says:

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

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

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

  210. chufho says:

    lie

  211. chufho says:

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

  212. chufho says:

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

  213. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Two things I’m waiting on:

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

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

  214. Slamdunk says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    11 The President has released the relevant documents- which by the way are as many as any previous President. Other than that, perhaps he feels that his kindergarten records are not your business?

    [SD] What he feels isn’t relevant. He is the transparent president who won’t release the only document that would put this whole matter to rest – His 1961 long form BC which would clearly show whether or not he was born in Hawaii. He has no valid reason not to release it, esp. since he wrote in a letter to Kapi’olani Hospital that he was born there. How do you explain that? I would think that you would want him to release it and make fools of the birthers. No? Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history.

    12 AG Holder doesn’t owe Orly zip, let alone a courtious response. Orly is abusive and discourtious to the President.

    [SD] Holder is a public servant and accountable to the people. Taitz has not been abusive, rather calling it as she sees it.

    14. Because he has real things to deal with? Really- we have troops at war in two countries and we are recovering from the worst Recession in 60 years. Why should the President waste 5 seconds of his time to try to appease a few nutcases who can’t even understand what a Natural Born citizen is? If he were to release it, I wouldn’t care, but considering the piggishness of many of the birthers, I say give them squat.

    [SD] This is totally lacking in substance and merely wishful thinking on your part. He could settle this whole thing and save money by releasing his 1961 BC. It is not us “nut cases” who don’t understand what a NBC citizen, but you and the others here. Vattel, Bingham, Happersett, VENUS, Act of 1790 all stand as recorded.

    MR. OBAMA, TEAR DOWN YOUR WALL AND BE THE TRANSPARENT PRESIDENT YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE:)

  215. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history

    Would you be so kind as to point me to a birth certificate for either one? No “vault copy” necessary, just a simple state-issued form will do. Thanks in advance…

  216. Slamdunk says:

    We birthers are real nut jobs, so we are told. I would think that all of you would want to see just one of the cases filed against the Usurper be heard so the world could see that he was born in Hawaii and what a bunch of idiots we birthers are. Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?

  217. nbc says:

    We birthers are real nut jobs, so we are told. I would think that all of you would want to see just one of the cases filed against the Usurper be heard so the world could see that he was born in Hawaii and what a bunch of idiots we birthers are. Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?

    It would be hilarious but we believe in the US Constitution which requires one to show actual standing before having one’s case heard in front of the Court.
    So far, the continuous failures continue to amuse us.

    And you are aware that the Indiana Appeal’s Court declared President Obama a natural born Citizen?

    Ankeny v Daniels…

    Not really Nirvana but still pretty close..

  218. SFJeff says:

    Well Slamdunk- you are back
    1) “so what? It is written clearly in law of nations.”

    No it is not. Do you read French? I don’t, but Lupin does and he has clearly demonstrated that Vattel in France refers to a singular parent being a citizen- he never, ever refers to requiring both parents.

    2) You don’t get it- Marshall references Vattel but does not rely upon him to define NBC. The case is about citizenship- and he his reference to Law of nations refers to three classes of residents- not one of them a class of citizen.

    “You can’t be serious. Look at Vattel’s definition in 212 ”

    I missed the part in the Constitution which says “refer to Vattel when it comes to defining a citizen”. Had you ever heard of Vattel 2 years ago? And I never rely upon anything ‘plastered all over the internet’- thats what got you into this mess

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

    Well I guess that settles it then- wonder why the Chief Justice didn’t mention his name when he was swearing the President in?

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

    Wong Ark definetively shows that a NBC is anyone born in the United States- period.

    “They must have been aware of it because they used Law of Nations in forming the Republic”

    Only Mario asserts this- and I don’t rely upon anything from his site- he still believes it was illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan for gods sake! I have wandered once through his site of lies and that was enough.

    “Her affidavit can be found on line”

    Oh my god- you birthers keep saying that Obama’s BC is not legitimate because its only an online document, but you believe her online affidavit- which isn’t verified by anyone? Talk about cherry picking.

    “Whether they are required to rule on Vattel isn’t the point. No SCOTUS case has ever overturned NBC as defined by Vattel”

    How can the Supreme Court rule on how NBC is defined by Vattel when virtually no one but you and Mario believe that definition? Saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Vattel is like saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Santa Claus- its meaningless.

    “A non-Hawaiian Obama birth would just be icing on the cake. I base his ineligibility on what is known”

    So you admit there is no reason to ask for his birth certificate, only that it would be ‘icing on the cake’

    “And Vattel is not “nonsense.”

    Vattel himself, and his writings are not nonsense. Its really a shame how his writings have been manipulated by a few birthers. But in context of defining NBC- saying Vattel defines U.S. NBC status is nonsense- bordering on insane.

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

    But it isn’t public knowledge- the hospital is no more allowed to release that information than our hospital can release my daughters birth information.

    “But there is a lot of evidence he was born in Kenya.”
    No there isn’t. Really.

    “Since no court will rule on merit, those evidences aren’t made known through legal procedure, except on the internet.”

    You really have to start being more critical of what you read on the internet- you do realize not all of it is true?

    “He is the transparent president who won’t release the only document that would put this whole matter to rest”

    But you say that per Vattell he can’t be a NBC no matter what his BC says- so it wouldn’t put anything to rest would it?

    “Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history.”

    Neither of them ever released their birth certificates, nor did any hospital confirm their births. How are they open books?

    “Taitz has not been abusive, rather calling it as she sees it.”

    Taitz has been clearly abusive- she has called the President- and many judges traitors, communists, fascists, thugs- she tells her minions to harass other citizens- she respects no ones privacy- and has said that the Presidents grandmother probably committed fraud. If the President wasn’t a public figure she would be lucky not to get sued for libel. She is a bully and a charlatan.

    Slam- nothing you have brought forth has any substance- you recite Mario’s talking points as if they had any meaning- but here is the real situation:

    President Obama is the President- voted into office, confirmed by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice. None of those people mentioned “hey what about Vattel”

    Mario’s cases have gone nowhere- because he has no standing but even more so- no substance.

    Like I said- go stand with your sign in front of the White House- please.

  219. SFJeff: Vattel in France refers to a singular parent being a citizen- he never, ever refers to requiring both parents.

    An admission preference to the Blood and Guts Military Academy for boys will be given to children whose parents are alumni.

    “I am sorry young Mr. Kerchner, but your mother did not graduate from our school.”

  220. G says:

    We birthers are real nut jobs, so we are told. I would think that all of you would want to see just one of the cases filed against the Usurper be heard so the world could see that he was born in Hawaii and what a bunch of idiots we birthers are. Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?
    Slamdunk: February 19

    Just a few quick points:

    1. Yes, you birthers are real nut jobs. Plain and simple as that.

    2. Why would we be in support of frivolous court cases?

    As a taxpayer, I don’t want my money wasted on wild goose chases and utter nonsense.

    Nor do I want real justice to be slowed down any further than normal by having our courts waste time on frivolity.

    3. Trust me, among the world’s population that is even aware of the birthers, an overwhelming majority already knows you are idiots. They don’t require the courts to further demonstrate that which is so abundantly clear.

  221. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: Wouldn’t this be nirvana for you guys?

    Sorry, Kurt Cobain is dead. And so are your “lawsuits”.

    I don’t know why this is so hard for you guys to understand, but surely you’ve heard the expression “time is of the essence”? To give an example that maybe even you will understand, suppose you crash your car into mine in front of 20 witnesses and you are 100% at fault. Let’s even say you’re drunk. So on the merits, you’re toast. But instead of suing you, I sit on my ass for 5 years and then file in the wrong court. What do you think will happen? I will be out of luck. As are you.

    I have absolutely no objection to a court hearing your “case” as long as your “attorneys” can actually follow the rules for a change and file a proper ballot challenge at the proper time (BEFORE the election) in a proper venue. That window will re-open in 2012 for limited business. I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were you, though, because your “attorneys” show few signs of learning to follow rules. Even if they do file a proper case at the right time, you will need actual admissible evidence (look the word up) to counter the strong presumption in favor of valid state birth documents. So far, you haven’t even gotten in shouting range, but you have a little over 2 years to try.

  222. Greg says:

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

    John Bingham drafted the 14th Amendment, but his version did not contain the citizenship clause. Your quote is about the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

    Senator Howard amended the 14th Amendment with the citizenship clause.

    He introduced his amendment this way:

    This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

    Opponents of birthright citizenship think this excludes foreigners and aliens, but they ignore the next phrase. If Howard had intended to exclude the children of aliens and foreigners, there would be no reason to mention ambassadors or foreign ministers.

    It was about this amendment that Senator Cowan stood to speak, saying that Howard’s change to the 14th Amendment would make Chinese people citizens. These Chinese people weren’t divided in their loyalty, according to Cowan, they were completely alien:

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

  223. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 19, 2010 at 9:02 pm (Quote)

    Well Slamdunk- you are back
    1) “so what? It is written clearly in law of nations.”

    No it is not. Do you read French? I don’t, but Lupin does and he has clearly demonstrated that Vattel in France refers to a singular parent being a citizen- he never, ever refers to requiring both parents.

    [SD] Thank you for your considered responses. Please visit here for Vattel on natural born citizen in english and french – http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    Don’t be frightened by the “birther” website, it will only educate you:)

    2) You don’t get it- Marshall references Vattel but does not rely upon him to define NBC.

    [SD] Where does Marshall say he doesn’t rely on Vattel?

    “You can’t be serious. Look at Vattel’s definition in 212 ”

    I missed the part in the Constitution which says “refer to Vattel when it comes to defining a citizen”. Had you ever heard of Vattel 2 years ago? And I never rely upon anything plastered all over the internet’- thats what got you into this mess.

    [SD] Having read the “birther” website, I’m confident you now have a new perspective on NBC. That no one heard of Vattel until two years ago in no way diminishes him as the authority on NBC.

    Wong Ark definetively shows that a NBC is anyone born in the United States- period.

    [SD] Here’s an opposing view to yours:
    http://countusout.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/why-us-v-wong-kim-ark-can-never-be-considered-settled-birthright-law/

    “They must have been aware of it because they used Law of Nations in forming the Republic”

    Only Mario asserts this- and I don’t rely upon anything from his site- he still believes it was illegal for Americans to travel to Pakistan for gods sake! I have wandered once through his site of lies and that was enough.

    [SD] Of course you don’t accept Puzzo, Donofrio, or anything that supports Vattel who clearly defines NBC as one whose parents are both citizens in french. So

    Oh my god- you birthers keep saying that Obama’s BC is not legitimate because its only an online document, but you believe her online affidavit- which isn’t verified by anyone? Talk about cherry picking.

    [SD] Big difference between a sworn statement subject to law and an on line reproduction of a BC that doesn’t reveal the birth hospital or attending physician. So answer me this please: Why won’t the Hawaii DOH or Kapi’olani hospital affirm Obama’s birth there, esp. after he said he was in his Jan. 24, 2009 letter to the hospital? Go ahead, call them and see if they will tell you.

    “Whether they are required to rule on Vattel isn’t the point. No SCOTUS case has ever overturned NBC as defined by Vattel”

    How can the Supreme Court rule on how NBC is defined by Vattel when virtually no one but you and Mario believe that definition?

    [SD] Just me an Puzzo? I wear that as a badge of honor to be included with him:) Polls now show that at least 50% of Americans want more proof than the on line BC to show he is eligible. The “birther” movement keeps on gaining more birthers.

    Saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Vattel is like saying the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on Santa Claus- its meaningless.

    [SD] There is no legal ruling that has overturned or diluted “born of U.S. citizen parents” according to Vattel, Happersett, Bingham, VENUS, Nat. Act of 1790 and other casesU. Wong Kim has it wong…..Ooops! I mean wrong.

    “A non-Hawaiian Obama birth would just be icing on the cake. I base his ineligibility on what is known”

    So you admit there is no reason to ask for his birth certificate, only that it would be icing on the cake’

    Sure I think it’s OK to ask for a BC, even though it will probably never be released due to the courts and AG being in the Usurper’s hip pocket. It’s just that the parent thing is a “known.”

    Vattel himself, and his writings are not nonsense. Its really a shame how his writings have been manipulated by a few birthers.

    [SD]How do you manipulate, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens?”

    But in context of defining NBC- saying Vattel defines U.S. NBC status is nonsense- bordering on insane.

    [SD] It’s insane not to understand what is clearly written.

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

    But it isn’t public knowledge- the hospital is no more allowed to release that information than our hospital can release my daughters birth information.

    [SD] It is public information because the Usurper has stated it publicly that he was born there. Why would you object to a simple yes or no assertion from the hospital where your daughter was born if you had already made it public knowledge?

    “But there is a lot of evidence he was born in Kenya.”
    No there isn’t. Really.

    [SD] Yes, there is, really. AAMOF, it’s overwhelming. There are gag orders in Kenya against official statements concerning Usurper’s birth there. Why? The Kenyan National Assembly, following his election, commented that he was a “son of the soil.” That is a common statement referring to national birth. Ambassador Ogego admitted that Obama’s birthplace “already was an attraction.” Then there is the 6-27-2004 Headline in the Kenya Sunday Standard headline: “KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKE HISTORY.”
    And don’t forget grandma’s statement that she was in the delivery room when he was born. If just one of these are true, Usurper is out.

    You really have to start being more critical of what you read on the internet- you do realize not all of it is true?

    [SD] Of course, but much of it is, esp. where things are officially documented. You use the net for the same purposes.

    “He is the transparent president who won’t release the only document that would put this whole matter to rest”

    But you say that per Vattell he can’t be a NBC no matter what his BC says- so it wouldn’t put anything to rest would it?

    [SD] Only if it’s never released does Usurper have the upper hand since the courts and media are supporting him. But if it were released, it would settle everything, wouldn’t it? This is where non-birther logic falls. There is no good reason for President Usurper not to release his 1961 BC. He is not bound by any law not to. Here is his great opportunity to be transparent. Polls show that most Americans want him to do this. Why not you? I would think you would want that because if he produced hsi 1961 long BC, it make fools of us birthers. Wouldn’t you like that?

    “Clinton and Bush were open books on their past history.”

    Neither of them ever released their birth certificates, nor did any hospital confirm their births. How are they open books?

    [SD] The point is that they would not have refused to release their BCs had they been asked. They are natural born citizens, unlike the Usurper who wants to hide that he isn’t.

    “Taitz has not been abusive, rather calling it as she sees it.”

    Taitz has been clearly abusive- she has called the President- and many judges traitors, communists, fascists, thugs- she tells her minions to harass other citizens- she respects no ones privacy- and has said that the Presidents grandmother probably committed fraud. If the President wasn’t a public figure she would be lucky not to get sued for libel. She is a bully and a charlatan.

    [SD] OK, I’ll give you that her language has been harsh. But she has also had death threats and other forms of harrassment. But she’s probably right about her accusations characterizing some of those in the Usurper’s camp. We know she is right about “communists and fascists.” (Who was that guy who claimed to be a communist and had to step down?) And you just have to wonder how accurate her information is of the Usurper’s use of a social security number that was never issued to him. All it will take is discovery in ONE court case. But none will hear it. There is no good reason not to.

    Slam- nothing you have brought forth has any substance- you recite Mario’s talking points as if they had any meaning- but here is the real situation:

    President Obama is the President- voted into office, confirmed by the Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice.

    [SD] And therein lies the great mystery. McCain was vetted as to citizenship, but not Obama. The vast majority of Republicans have remained silent. They are either ignorant, or fearful of addressing the issue. I know that many are ignorant because I have spoken with their staff members. Only one Republican Rep. has asked Obama to release his 1961 BC – Nathan Deal of Georgia. Obama has not responded. Why not at least a cordial refusal? It is a legitimate question to be asked since so many people want to know. There is a bill (HR 1503) that would require presidential candidates to produce their official long form BCs. Democrats oppose it, and it is gaining Republican support. Now why would anyone oppose producing a birth certificate which is required for so many other things?

    Mario’s cases have gone nowhere- because he has no standing but even more so- no substance.

    Like I said- go stand with your sign in front of the White House- please.

    [SD] WE have a local Tea Party group that stands at a major intersection, and have been for almost a year. It has been on the news. We have many signs that include the Usurper. You should see the scorn and hear the language from opposers when they see OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE signs. Something’s working because the Usurper’s numbers are falling.

    Puzo and Donfrio, IMV, have the right handle on the BC/citizenship issues, and the Usurper knows it. Otherwise, he would be quick to produce his 1961 BC.

  224. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    ‘Puzo and Donfrio’ still have yet to win a case. They have yet to bring an argument that hasn’t been laughed out of court. Meanwhile, the ‘Usurper’ is still our legal and constitutional President.

    But if you want to spend your life getting posterized over and over as a racist asshat, then be my guest. Our great nation continues to move ahead without you.

  225. Greg says:

    If Apuzzo and Donofrio are right, that it does not matter whether Obama was born in the United States, he can never be a citizen because his father is Kenyan, why would it matter if he allowed Hawaii to release his birth certificate?

    If they are right about Vattel and NBC, wouldn’t it be more likely that Obama would allow Hawaii to release his birth certificate? Clearly, 99.9999% of Americans believe that it doesn’t matter if your father was a non-citizen, and so the release of a birth certificate saying Obama was born in the US would satisfy those folks.

    How would it satisfy Apuzzo and Donofrio?

    How, in fact, would it satisfy you?

    Is Obama’s birth certificate on the back of a draft copy of the Constitution that proves that Vattel was the inspiration for the natural born citizen clause?

    Or, maybe you doubt that Obama Sr. is Barack’s father, maybe you think he was lying in his book, and in his DNC keynote address, lying in such a way to make himself ineligible for the Presidency.

  226. So therefore, Obama’s “refusal” to release his long-form birth certificate is proof that he is fully convinced his constitutional eligibility is certain. Works for me.

  227. Slamdunk: Please visit here for Vattel on natural born citizen in english and french – http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    The problem with that page, and its footnote explaining the translation, is that it lacks any authority for the assertion that one translation is wrong and another right. The footnote is more of an appeal than an argument, and I didn’t pick up any hint that led me to think that the writer actually knew any French, much less had any expertise in 18th century French. It all sounded rather smooth and scholarly, except that there was no real content. While one can be misled, it is usually possible to tell the difference between someone who really knows his stuff and some totally clueless person with good writing skills who is spinning a yarn.

    Slamdunk: Puzo and Donfrio, IMV, have the right handle on the BC/citizenship issues, and the Usurper knows it. Otherwise, he would be quick to produce his 1961 BC.

    I don’t follow the reasoning there. If President Obama really believed that US Presidents must have two citizen parents, then why did he post prominently on his campaign web site that his father was a citizen of the UK and Colonies and he himself was born with dual citizenship? I can’t think of anything on the long form certificate that would go any further as to proving the President’s father was a British citizen than the COLB already published.

    http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

  228. Greg says:

    Please visit here for Vattel on natural born citizen in english and french – http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

    The same old tired, undersourced argument that boils down to, we’re American and “natural born” is British, so clearly we must have meant to incorporate the Swiss guy.

    I especially like the complete misreading of Virginia’s constitution. They think this means that citizenship follows only the parents’ citizenship:

    Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

    Sorry, guys, it means the same as the standard definition of NBC:

    1. Those born here are citizens regardless of parental citizenship.

    2. Those born abroad (or in other states) are citizens if their parents were citizens.

    Here’s the thing. The founders did have a debate about the meaning of citizenship. Specifically, what did it mean to be citizens of England. Could they revolt? Were they full citizens, like those back in the homeland and therefore, entitled to representation.

    In this debate about citizenship and its meanings, the founders cited British authorities, like Calvin’s Case and Blackstone. I can’t find any evidence that the founders cited Vattel once in this debate.

    If the founders had really adopted Vattel over English Common Law, the birthers could find tons of material from these debates. They could look at the footnotes of Kettner’s treatise on the development of American citizenship and quote-mine to their hearts’ desire.

  229. Scientist says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: I can’t think of anything on the long form certificate that would go any further as to proving the President’s father was a British citizen than the COLB already published.

    Actually, this is an interesting point that I’m not sure anyone has commented on. The birthers are demanding an above and beyond standard for Obama to prove his birth in the US. The normal documents that anybody else has are insufficient. They certainly wouldn’t accept that Obama was born in Hawaii simply because he says he was. Yet the only proof that Obama Sr was a Kenyan/British citizen is his son’s say so. Woefully insufficient! I demand to see a document that proves Obama Sr. was not a US citizen. I will sue and scream and hold my breath until you birthers show me one.

    Until you have something beyond Obama’s say so, Obama was born in Hawaii of 2 US citizen parents. Even by your own (silly) standard, he is cool…

  230. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

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

    This is from “American Government and Economics in Christian Perspective,” a right-wing history text for home schooled students published by Pensacola Christian College in 1984:

    Anyone born within the fifty states or American-held territories (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Distict of Columbia) is considered a native-born citizen. This principle follows the ancient English law of jus soli, “law of the soil.”

    p. 96

    So you see, even conservatives used to teach that anyone born in the United States (with a few narrow exceptions) is a natural born citizen. Of course, that was before a black man with a foreign-sounding name was elected president.

  231. nbC says:

    Nice, guess that even the home-schoolers get to know the fact. Quite unusual

  232. Slamdunk says:

    Thanks Chufo. Yes, I realize that the folks here are sold out for the Usurper and are not in possession of key truths.

    SFJeff says:
    February 19, 2010 at 12:36 am (Quote)

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

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

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

    [SD] We have a Tea Party group here in Ft. Lauderale that assembles every Saturday between 12-3PM. Various signs, including eligibility, are part of the display. I have a foot problem so I have to use a chair. My sign says, “OBAMA INELIGIBLE,” and I briefly explain why. I also have pocket size flyers I pass out with the same information. I have canvassed the beach with them along the most crowded areas. I’ll send you one if you give me your address:)

    As far as advocating an overthrow, I suggest the courts and Congress get involved and decide what to do with someone who is not constitutionally qualified.

    MR. OBAMA, PRODUCE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

  233. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    MR. OBAMA, PRODUCE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Why do you need to see his long form birth certificate? Obama freely admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen. According to you, that fact alone makes him ineligible to be president, so what difference does it make to you where he was born?

  234. NBC says:

    Thanks Chufo. Yes, I realize that the folks here are sold out for the Usurper and are not in possession of key truths.

    Like the fact that he was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen?

    You’re pathetic.

  235. Greg says:

    these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies

    If Obama paid us to spread these lies, we wouldn’t be posting them all on a single website.

  236. misha says:

    “these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies”

    Have you been looking at my mail?

    “Obama freely admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen. According to you, that fact alone makes him ineligible to be president, so what difference does it make to you where he was born?”

    They can’t decide what to do.

  237. nbC says:

    these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies

    Twice wrong in a single sentence. Have you no self-respect?…

    Pathetic… Is that the best you can do, accusing contributors her of spreading lies even though I doubt you can point to any non-trivial statement that should be considered a lie.

    Who is paying you to post this kind of nonsense? It’s hard to believe you would do it for free…

  238. Slamdunk says:

    Rickey says:
    February 20, 2010 at 8:28 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk says:

    MR. OBAMA, PRODUCE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Why do you need to see his long form birth certificate? Obama freely admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen. According to you, that fact alone makes him ineligible to be president, so what difference does it make to you where he was born?

    The Usurper’s place of birth is the flip side of the coin that defines natural born citizen – Born in the U.S. of parents who are both U.S. citizens. If he was born in Hawaii, then he satisfies one side. If his parents, or even just one, weren’t U.S. citizens, he fails the other side and is ineligible for the presidency.

    So even if he produces his 1961 long form BC, he still isn’t eligible. Who the Usurper is, and who his parents were, far exceed the place of his birth when it comes to eligibility for the U.S. presidency. This was the founder’s major concern. Character matters and this Usurper has rubbed elbows with Marxists, communists, socialists and God only knows what else.

    Obama was a British subject at birth. The law changed and he became Kenyan. He then became Indonesian when his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro. (While in Indonesia, he listed his faith as Muslim). What is he now? He has never said what he is. I doubt that he was ever naturalized in the U.S. Why do you think he doesn’t want his personal records revealed? Use your Common sense. Why is he spending so much money to fight all these cases against him? Why wasn’t his citizenship vetted like McCain’s? Why won’t the Hawaii Dept. of Health and Kapi’olani hospital affirm his birth there in light of the fact that he said so in his 1-24-09 letter to the hospital. These are legitimate questions and the transparent president is short on answers. Can’t you see through this Usurper?

  239. misha says:

    “Use your Common sense. Can’t you see through this Usurper?”

    The better question is, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    Can’t you crawl back under your rock?

  240. Slamdunk says:

    nbC says:
    February 21, 2010 at 1:03 am (Quote)

    these kooks work for obama he pays them to spread these lies

    Twice wrong in a single sentence. Have you no self-respect?…

    Pathetic… Is that the best you can do, accusing contributors her of spreading lies even though I doubt you can point to any non-trivial statement that should be considered a lie.

    [SD] When applying for the Illinois Bar the application asked if he ever went by any other name. He said no. His former name was Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He lied.

  241. misha says:

    @Slamdunk: do you think coyotes can make good pets?

  242. Slamdunk says:

    NBC says:
    February 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Thanks Chufo. Yes, I realize that the folks here are sold out for the Usurper and are not in possession of key truths.

    Like the fact that he was born in Hawaii and thus a natural born citizen?

    You’re pathetic.

    [SD] Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

  243. Slamdunk says:

    misha says:
    February 21, 2010 at 9:41 am (Quote)

    “Use your Common sense. Can’t you see through this Usurper?”

    The better question is, did Glenn Beck rape and murder a girl in 1990?

    Can’t you crawl back under your rock?

    [SD] That’s probably a lie, but who cares what Beck did? He’s not the president.

  244. misha says:

    @Slamdunk: what is the incidence of urban squirrel rabies?

  245. Slamdunk says:

    RICKEY SAYS; Why do you need to see his long form birth certificate?

    It’s not that I, or anyone, need it. By asking Obama to produce it, and he doesn’t, should be enough to show you that he doesn’t have one. It would just make him a liar because he said he was born there. I don’t know about you, but if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

  246. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: I don’t know about you, but if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

    If someone threw one tenth of the names at me that you morons have thrown at the President, I would tell them to go F themseleves. Got it?

  247. G says:

    Slamdunk: February 21
    It’s not that I, or anyone, need it. By asking Obama to produce it, and he doesn’t, should be enough to show you that he doesn’t have one. It would just make him a liar because he said he was born there. I don’t know about you, but if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

    Well, Slamdunk, lets try turning this around on you. Why don’t you show your naturalization papers, your kindergarten records and proof of your name change? Why can’t you provide your foreign documents? I want to see your Kenayn birth certificate! If you can’t produce those or claim you don’t have them, or ignore this request, then well, gee, by your own “logic”, that must be proof of your being an illegal alien and that you have something to hide.

    So there, I’m accusing you of being an illegal alien until you can proof here otherwise and demand that you be deported immediately!

  248. G says:

    Slamdunk: [SD] When applying for the Illinois Bar the application asked if he ever went by any other name. He said no. His former name was Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He lied.

    And your proof of any LEGAL name change to Barry Soetoro is…oh sorry, you have none? Just some school admission form filled out by a step-father trying to enroll his kid, which has no legal basis? That is what I thought. Thanks for playing.

  249. G says:

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

    1. Those of us living in reality are completely satisfied with the BC from HI, stating his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI which he did produce, which was backed up repeatedly by the state of HI and for which 2 corroborating birth announcements in the local paper were found. For those of us in reality, that is more than sufficient.

    2. We don’t need to prove you birthers are idiots. You do that quite well on your own every time you speak or write your stupid bogus conspiracy drivel or parrot birther pseudo-lawyer’s crazy novelty interpretations of law.

    3. As I mentioned before, I’m against frivolous lawsuits and support reasonable tort reform. Therefore, as a taxpayer, I don’t want my courts wasting their time on frivolous or incorrectly filed claims that can’t go anywhere and are meaningless. I want them tossed as quickly as possible.

    Furthermore, I want junk lawyers who can’t seem to understand the rules in the legal process, who are abusive to the courts, and/or who are serial filers of frivolity to be heavily sanctioned and disbarred.

    4. We’re not afraid of any legit legal cases going forward. But none of the birther cases to date are legit.

    Cases that can’t even meet the standards of judiciability and cannot meet basic standing requirements are frivolous on their face.

    So far, with 65+ cases, the birthers are batting a total goose-egg and can’t even come up with anything to meet the minimum standards of those basic hurdles.

    5. You keep using the term “usurper”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To ursurp, means to seize and hold power by force or illegal means.

    Here in this country, we have a little something called the election process and a legal means of casting votes, having them counted and also having them certified, which results in the winner being sworn into office.

    Obama did all of these things and was overwhelmingly elected by a significant margin and majority of the voters and his selection ballots were recorded and certified as an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes.

    Why do you wish to overthrow the will of the majority of the people of the US and overthrow a legitimate election? What you birthers wish to do is USURP the presidency, not the other way around.

  250. nbC says:

    Slamdunk, misrepresents the facts

    [SD] When applying for the Illinois Bar the application asked if he ever went by any other name. He said no. His former name was Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. He lied.

    He was asked if he had ever practiced law by any other name.

    And again SD is caught lying for others. Has he no self respect, has he no sense of shame

  251. nbC says:

    SD lies again since the question is about having used aliases while practicing law.

  252. nbC says:

    And of course, this still does not address the simple fact that President Obama has been shown to be born on US soil and thus a natural born citizen.

    What a fool this SD.

  253. SD: By asking Obama to produce it, and he doesn’t, should be enough to show you that he doesn’t have one.

    And Obama producing his BC and putting a copy on his web site in June of 2008 proves? That he has nothing to hide on this point.

  254. Slamdunk: (While in Indonesia, he listed his faith as Muslim).

    He who? Are you saying that little kid Obama filled out the school registration forms? Not very likely.

  255. It’s been a year and a half and I’m still waiting for my first check.

  256. Greg says:

    if I was suspected of lying, and had the proof to show that I wasn’t, I would produce it. Wouldn’t you?

    Personally, if I could get my political opponents to argue about an issue that made them look like morons and lose all credibility, I think I’d withhold the proof.

    Especially if releasing the “proof” wouldn’t actually get them to stop calling me a liar.

    I noticed you haven’t answered my question – What on Barack Obama’s birth certificate would convince you that Vattel wasn’t the source of the natural born clause.

  257. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Facts : SlamDunk :: Vince Carter : Frederic Weis

  258. misha says:

    “if I could get my political opponents to argue about an issue that made them look like morons and lose all credibility, I think I’d withhold the proof.”

    The more noise Denialists make, the worse it gets for conservatives. Have fun.

    I’m waiting for Glenn Beck’s major breakdown, and from the looks of it, here it comes.

  259. aarrgghh says:

    facts : slamdunk :: air : cold harsh black endless vacuum of intergalactic space

  260. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    If his parents, or even just one, weren’t U.S. citizens, he fails the other side and is ineligible for the presidency.

    I repeat: Why then do you care if his long form birth certificate is released? One of his parents wasn’t a U.S. citizen, and release of his original birth certificate isn’t going to change that.

    He then became Indonesian when his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro.

    Wrong. His mother’s marriage to Soetoro had absolutely no effect upon Obama’s citizenship.

    (While in Indonesia, he listed his faith as Muslim).

    Wrong again. Obama was six years old when he moved to Indonesia. He didn’t list anything. It was listed by someone else, most likely his stepfather.

    What is he now? He has never said what he is.

    He says that he is a Christian, but what difference does it make? There is no religious test for the office of president.

    I doubt that he was ever naturalized in the U.S.

    I doubt it, too. Why would he be naturalized, since he was a citizen at birth?

    Why do you think he doesn’t want his personal records revealed?

    Hmmm…the same reason that John McCain didn’t what his personal records revealed?

    Why is he spending so much money to fight all these cases against him?

    Define “so much money.” And please provide documentation about how much money Obama has spent. Documentation, not speculation.

    Finally, Vattel. The best document we have regarding the identity of the legal thinkers who influenced the founders is the two-volume set “Debate on the Constitution,” published by the Library of America.

    The number of references to Blackstone: 17
    The number of references to Vattel: 0

    The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68

    Why do you have an issue with Hamilton?

  261. nbC says:

    Slamdunk If his parents, or even just one, weren’t U.S. citizens, he fails the other side and is ineligible for the presidency.

    Not according to Vattel nor the Supreme Court rulings on the topic of (natural born) citizenship.

    Are you making things up again? Or have you allowed yourself to be fooled to present your foolish position?
    Either way…
    Pathetic

  262. nbC says:

    Don’t expect Slamdunk to be in any way or form interested in correctly representing the facts.

    He is just mindlessly repeating the lies of other, allowing them to make himself look quite foolish.

    I would be quite upset if I came to such a realization. Slamdunk may be a different kind of person though.

  263. Slamdunk says:

    G says:
    February 21, 2010 at 1:03 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

    1. Those of us living in reality are completely satisfied with the BC from HI, stating his place of birth as HONOLULU, HI which he did produce, which was backed up repeatedly by the state of HI and for which 2 corroborating birth announcements in the local paper were found. For those of us in reality, that is more than sufficient.

    [SD Now please answer my questions.

    2. We don’t need to prove you birthers are idiots. You do that quite well on your own every time you speak or write your stupid bogus conspiracy drivel or parrot birther pseudo-lawyer’s crazy novelty interpretations of law.

    [SD] Again, would you like to see Pres. Usurper produce his 1961 long form BC to prove once and for all his on line BC is genuine? Would you sign a petition for him to do this?

    4. We’re not afraid of any legit legal cases going forward. But none of the birther cases to date are legit.

    [SD] So you wouldn’t oppose any of them to be judged on merit.

    Cases that can’t even meet the standards of judiciability and cannot meet basic standing requirements are frivolous on their face.

    [SD] This case is anything but frivoulous and you know it. Obama has the DC legal community in his pocket. 50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility. That’s not frivoulous.

    So far, with 65+ cases, the birthers are batting a total goose-egg and can’t even come up with anything to meet the minimum standards of those basic hurdles.

    [SD] Here’s an amazing thing. The evidence is strong that Obama was not born in Hawaii, is not a natural born citizen, and no court will hear the evidence. Denmark isn’t the only place that is rotten.

    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.” Those two little words, “So what” show that he ment it didn’t matter for a Senate race, but being a NBC would for the presidency.

    5. You keep using the term “usurper”. I don’t think it means what you think it means. To ursurp, means to seize and hold power by force or illegal means.

    [SD] Nice try. He is not a legal president according to U.S. HISTORICAL and SCOTUS DEFINITIONS of NBC (Founders, Vattel, Nat. Act of 1790, Happersett, John Bingham and VENUS. Also, he was born in Kenya if the above are true. If just one Judge would hear one case on merit, all the facts on Obama’s BC, citizenship and the charges against him on social security and selective service fraud would come out, and the Obots know it. Why do you think there have been death threats against Taitz and Polarik? People don’t act like this if your just a fringe looney trying to get the President fired.

    MR. PRESIDENT! PROVE US WRONG AND RELEASE YOUR 1961 LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    Here in this country, we have a little something called the election process and a legal means of casting votes, having them counted and also having them certified, which results in the winner being sworn into office.

    Obama did all of these things and was overwhelmingly elected by a significant margin and majority of the voters and his selection ballots were recorded and certified as an overwhelming majority of the electoral college votes.

    [SD] An election process, the legal means of casting votes and having them certified presumes the candidate was constitutionally qualified. If Hip-pocket Holder does his job he would proceed with Quo Warranto. He would have to prove he is natural born ACCORDING TO U.S. LAW, NOT BRITISH COMMON LAW. Wouldn’t you like that since you so firmly believe Obama is eligible?

    Why do you wish to overthrow the will of the majority of the people of the US and overthrow a legitimate election? What you birthers wish to do is USURP the presidency, not the other way around.

    [SD] While I admit I’m not an Obama fan, I do uphold our constitution. Why don’t you, at least in this matter? If Obama had to step down, Biden would step in. (O my goodness, bring back Obama:) How is it that you say we wish to usurp the presidency?

  264. Greg says:

    Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    You’re doing a great job of proving that already!

    That’s why Obama will never release anything else.

    When your enemies are digging them a hole, you get out of the way!

    50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility.

    Where’s this poll? Show me.

    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    Then you’re not looking.

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.”

    Never happened.

    He is not a legal president according to U.S. HISTORICAL and SCOTUS DEFINITIONS of NBC (Founders, Vattel, Nat. Act of 1790, Happersett, John Bingham and VENUS.

    According to Wong Kim Ark, Lynch v. Clarke, Munroe v. Merchant, US v. Rhodes, AG Bates, Perkins v. Elg, Town of Hartford v. Town of Canaan, In re Look Ting Sing, Elk v. Wilkins, Morrison v. California, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Schneider v. Rusk, Rogers v. Bellei, Plyler v. Doe, INS v. Rios-Pineda, Blackstone, Tucker, Rawle, Kent, Story, Hurd, Paschal, McClane, Wright, he is a natural born citizen.

    You can also see the following law review articles:

    Minor, Address on the Citizenship of Individuals …, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW (1910).

    Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 Cornell.Q. 357, 364 (1950).

    L. Freedman, An Idea Whose Time Has Come–The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, and Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency, 52 St. Louis U. L.J. 137, 143 (2007) (location of birth).

    Duggin & Mary Beth Collins, ‘Natural Born’ in the USA: The Striking Unfairness and Dangerous Ambiguity of the Constitution’s Presidential Qualifications Clause and Why We Need to Fix It, 85 B.U. L. Rev. 53, 90-91 (2005).

    Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonz. L. Rev. 349, 359-63 (2000-01).

    Smith, CIVIC IDEALS: CONFLICTING VISIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IN U.S. HISTORY (1999).

    Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881(1988).

    Medina, The Presidential Qualification Clause in this Bicentennial Year: The Need to Eliminate the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, 12 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 253, 258-261 (1987).

    Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, at 7-8 (1968).

    McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 Cong. Rec. 15,875 at 15,876 (1967).

    — James C. Ho, Defining “American”: Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment, 9:4 The Green Bag, 366 (2006).

    — John W. Dean, A Fresh, Powerful Case for Amending the U.S. Constitution to Remove the “Natural Born” Qualification For the Presidency, FindLaw (2005).

    — Malinda L.Seymore, The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 917, at 934-94 (2005).

    — John W. Dean, The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents, FindLaw (2004).

    — John Yinger, No Americans Should Be Second-Class Citizens: Prepared Statement by John Yinger (Professor of Economics and Public Administration, Center for Policy Research, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University) Before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 24, 2000.

    — “Christopher L. Eisgruber, Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution, 72 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 54, at 177 (1997)] (acknowledging that everyone born in the United States receives citizenship automatically).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197] .

    — “Peter H. Schuck, The Re-evaluation of American Citizenship, 12 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 1, 4 (1997) (confirming that citizenship is extended to essentially all individuals born on United States soil).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197] .

    — “Robert J. Shulman, Children of a Lesser God: Should the Fourteenth Amendment be Altered or Repealed to Deny Automatic Citizenship Rights and Privileges to American Born Children of Illegal Aliens?, 22 Pepp. L. Rev. 669, 674 (1995) (stating that Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to all people born in the United States).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197].

    — “Note, The Birthright Citizenship Amendment: A Threat to Equality, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 1026, 1026 (1994) (stating that Fourteenth Amendment provides that all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction are citizens).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197].

    — “David S. Schwartz, The Amorality of Consent, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 2143 (1986) (disagreeing with Schuck and Smith [cited below] on political and moral theory grounds).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197]

    — “Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity 4 at 6-7 (1985)] (conceding that all people born in the US are citizens but arguing that some categories of people should not be).” [as cited in Duggin & Collins, at 90-91 and n.197].

    Thanks to Tes.

    There’s a reason, SD, why no judge or law professor has EVER concluded that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents.

  265. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk keeps asking whether we “want a judge to hear it”. I want judges to follow the law. If one of you birther numbskulls had bothered to follow the rules and gotten plaintiffs with standing to file before the election it would have been heard. The fact that you didn’t is YOUR fault not ours or Obama’s.

    You will have another chance in 2012. Until then, you aren’t special and have to wait your turn and follow the laws like everybody else.

  266. SFJeff says:

    Oh Chufho, I really do wish that I was getting some of this mythical payoff money from the Obama campaign, but sadly it doesn’t exist- basically like every other ‘fact’ you spout.

    Since you have no facts, I figure you just make stuff up and then convince yourself its true and then write long run on sentences to convince others.

    Anyway- I am tired of being polite about this- you are an idiot- you have no facts, just slanderous statements.

    You would make Joe McCarthy proud

  267. SFJeff says:

    “I suggest the courts and Congress get involved and decide what to do with someone who is not constitutionally qualified. ”

    Simple enough- just show the evidence to Congress and have them impeach the President. Surely if Vattel is so commonly accepted as you think, you should be able to get the entire Republican side of the House to move for impeachment.

  268. SFJeff says:

    “Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?”

    Well you prove yourself idiots with pretty much every post. Releasing another Birth Certificate wouldn’t change that. And who is this Ursurper guy? Never heard of him.

    “Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you”

    Well, that has happened like 60 times so far.

  269. nbc says:

    SlamdunkWouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools?

    You already look like fools. What more do you want?

  270. misha says:

    “You already look like fools. What more do you want?”

    Keep it up, birthers. You are dragging down the entire conservative movement. Popcorn…

    Signed,
    A Progressive

  271. G says:

    Slamdunk: February 21
    SD Now please answer my questions.

    Um, your reading comprehension must really be poor, because I *did* completely answer your questions.

    What this really comes down to is you just don’t like the answers I gave, so you pretend to ignore them and go back to regurgitating the same crap over and over again.

    Let me try breaking it down for you one more time, bit-by-bit since you seem to be so reading-impaired. Therefore, here is each piece of your original question *again* with very, very, straight to the point answers. See my previous response again for further explanation.

    Q.) Would I like to see the Usurper…

    A.) For one thing, there is no “Usurper” except in your head. Obama was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected after being vetted by the public in a brutal two-year campaign. He won by commandingly decisive margins in both the popular vote and even more so in the all-important Electoral College vote. His election was certified without contention and he was duly sworn in, according to our Constitution. The proper title is President. The only fools trying to Usurp our Constitutional processes are you unpatriotic, hate-based birthers.

    Q.) …release his 1961 BC…?

    A.) If you mean President Obama’s 1961 BC, I’m completely satisfied by the documentation he already provided, along with supporting statements from HI officials and corroborating evidence announcing the birth in the paper, so why do I need to see anything else? Simple answer, Obama has released his 1961 BC. I’m satisfied *completely* by it and you aren’t. Tough cookies for you. Before you go off all crazy, whining about “long forms” and “baby footprints” and other stuff, let me just stop you right there. This so-called Hawaiian “long form” you want to rant about is not what HI produces anymore and it is NOT the document that even a license bureau would ask for to give you a driver’s license. They would ask to see the same type of document format that matches what Obama already provided.

    Q.) …and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    A.) Birthers prove themselves to be idiots every time they spouts off their wild & crazy unsubstantiated conspiracy crap. I don’t need you to do anything else to prove such; you’re doing a fine job of it all by yourself.

    Q.) Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you?

    A.) Not afraid of any of these cases. I never thought they had anything to them in the first place and I don’t see any on the horizon that do either. So far, over 65+ cases from birthers have gone to court and been fairly quickly tossed out. I see that as complete vindication that they are nothing but stupid, frivolous cases. Reading the opinions of many of the judges dismissals confirms that quite strongly.

  272. G says:

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] This case is anything but frivoulous and you know it.

    NO. I think these birther cases are 100% BUNK. That means frivolous. I think they have NO merit to them whatsoever.

    I don’t see any credible evidence that supports ANY of their various throw-spaghetti-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks claims. I think some of the birther theories out there are some of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. I think all of you are completely out of your rational minds.

    I think that any judge who receives crazy frivolous crap is going to toss it out and there is nothing of value in those cases to be heard.

    So far, the entire court record on these cases and the judges’ opinions in such seem to support my contentions and not yours.

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Obama has the DC legal community in his pocket.

    Proof? Evidence? I didn’t think so.

    You really sound like a silly child or a total “vast conspiracy” flake when you make dumb statements like this. You know what I hear? I hear a sore loser trying to come up with lame excuses to blame the world and everyone else for his failings.

    Gee… somehow every single judge is wrong and the birthers are right? LMAO! Sorry, but the simple, straightforward explanation is simply that our nation’s laws don’t agree with the birthers and no reasonable person or judge is going to buy your made-up crap.

    All we have here is a few people who are upset and can’t handle that Obama was elected, for whatever your petty personal reasons on this issue are. So you birthers come up with all these ludicrous excuses to try to explain away the election and whine and pout and try to convince themselves that it didn’t really happen because your poor, fragile little minds obviously can’t handle the truth.

    Slamdunk: February 21
    50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility. That’s not frivoulous.

    Gee, where is your evidence to support that statistic? Yeah, didn’t think so.

    You just pulled 50% out of your butt, like everything else you say. You have an extremely over-inflated sense of the size or importance of the “birther” movement, just like the pathetic PUMAs did in 2008. Oh, and it is spelled “frivolous”.

    Maybe you can get away with making stuff up and lying to yourself or your fellow birthers to try to make your sore-loser selves feel better…

    …But we’re not stupid enough to buy into your pathetic BS just to make you feel better.

  273. G says:

    Slamdunk: February 21
    [SD] Here’s an amazing thing. The evidence is strong that Obama was not born in Hawaii, is not a natural born citizen, and no court will hear the evidence. Denmark isn’t the only place that is rotten.

    Um, and just what “evidence” is that? I haven’t seen ANY. I think you are all delusional and full of total nonsense BS.

    Remember, rumor, innuendo, pure hypothetical speculation, misinformation, misunderstanding of law, and flat-out-lies do not count as evidence.

    There is nothing for the courts to hear, because after over 20 months of trying, you birthers cannot produce ONE SINGLE piece of EVIDENCE that could STAND UP IN COURT.

    The only thing rotten is your diseased minds and souls.

    Slamdunk: February 21
    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    Then you haven’t looked very far at all. I think you are referring to the AP article that was misattributed in one of its local printings.

    If so, those types of issues has already been looked at and covered in detail right here, so here are just a few links for you to read up on it:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/category/birth-location/

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/newspapers-vary-on-obamas-birthplace/

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.” Those two little words, “So what” show that he ment it didn’t matter for a Senate race, but being a NBC would for the presidency.
    Slamdunk: February 21

    Prove it. Can’t? Didn’t think so.

    Of course, that because this is just another birther myth and lie. NEVER HAPPENED.

    You can’t find any such statement on the tapes or transcripts from that meeting.

  274. G says:

    [SD] An election process, the legal means of casting votes and having them certified presumes the candidate was constitutionally qualified. If Hip-pocket Holder does his job he would proceed with Quo Warranto. He would have to prove he is natural born ACCORDING TO U.S. LAW, NOT BRITISH COMMON LAW. Wouldn’t you like that since you so firmly believe Obama is eligible?
    Slamdunk: February 21

    Sorry. You fail, try again. Quo Warranto doesn’t work the way your silly pseudo-laywer birther leaders tell you. There is no basis for their claims and no basis for Quo Warranto in this situation either. I want Holder to focus on real matters at hand, of which there are plenty. I do not see the birther issues as anything other than made-up and silly, so NO, I don’t want anyone to waste serious time on non-serious matters.

    You crack me up with your BRITISH LAW crud! Um, *hello* but this is the USA! Our US laws on citizenship TRUMP any other countries in regards to our own citizens. The fact that you birthers suddenly want every other nation’s laws to somehow supercede governance over our own is one of the most un-American and unpatriotic themes I’ve ever heard!

    I find it particularly ironic that your handle is “Slamdunk”. The last time I head that phrase used was when George Tenet tried to claim that the evidence of WMDs in Iraq was a “slam dunk”.

    By that measure, your handle is completely apt and apropo, since your statements are just as wrong and unsupported by the evidence and facts on the ground.

  275. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 21, 2010 at 10:58 pm (Quote)

    “Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?”

    Well you prove yourself idiots with pretty much every post. Releasing another Birth Certificate wouldn’t change that. And who is this Ursurper guy? Never heard of him.

    “Or how about one of the cases filed against? Wouldn’t you want a Judge to hear it so the Usurper could be vindicated and we made to look like fools? You’re not afraid of any of these cases going to court, are you”

    Well, that has happened like 60 times so far.

    [SD] No, it hasn’t happened. No case has been heard on merit, which if it were, would expose the Usurper. It would be a double hit. First, it would show that Obama was not born in Hawaii, and the on line BC exposed as the forgery that it is, and second, it would show he isn’t natural born. It would be lose-lose.

  276. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk keeps asking whether we “want a judge to hear it”. I want judges to follow the law. If one of you birther numbskulls had bothered to follow the rules and gotten plaintiffs with standing to file before the election it would have been heard. The fact that you didn’t is YOUR fault not ours or Obama’s.

    [SD] So do I take this to mean that you would look forward to one case being heard if it passes standing?

    You will have another chance in 2012. Until then, you aren’t special and have to wait your turn and follow the laws like everybody else.

    [SD] By then, the Usurper will have EO’d (executive ordered) his European styled socialist, unAmerican, unconstitutional agenda into place. Why are you people so blind? Or, are just one of the sheep?

  277. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 21, 2010 at 10:58 pm (Quote)

    “Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?”

    Well you prove yourself idiots with pretty much every post. Releasing another Birth Certificate wouldn’t change that. And who is this Ursurper guy? Never heard of him.

    [SD] No, not just another BC like the on line phony, but his original 1961 long form BC which would show what hospital he was born in. This is obviously what the Usurper fears, that a court would force that BC into the court room. How absolutely telling it is that he is fighting the release of this BC.

  278. Slamdunk says:

    misha says:
    February 22, 2010 at 12:04 am (Quote)

    “You already look like fools. What more do you want?”

    Keep it up, birthers. You are dragging down the entire conservative movement. Popcorn…

    [SD] Wrong Misha. There is mounting pressure for Usurper to release his original BC. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) asked Obama to settle the issue by releasing his original BC. Of course, the Usurper hasn’t even responded.

    What is wrong with you people? Can’t you see that Obama is clearly hiding something he doesn’t want Americans to see? Or are you in step with his socialist/anti-capitalist/ agenda?

  279. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: [SD] So do I take this to mean that you would look forward to one case being heard if it passes standing?

    If there were a case that met the normal standards of standing, justiciability and political question doctrine that apply to any and all cases, it should and would be heard. Such a case would of course have to proceed under normal rules of evidence, meaning no conjecture, speculation or fishing expeditions allowed. Would I look forward to it? Probably not, because since you guys have nothing that would be admissible in court, the case would be over before it started and would lack entertainment value.

    I don’t see any possible case that could surmount those barriers, because the determination of presidential eligibility is a matter for Congress and hence a political question. Congress has already determined this president to be eligible, whether you agree or not. A ballot access challenge in state court in 2012 might be allowed. But, again, under the rules of evidence you will have to come up with actual admissible evidence to have the slightest chance.

    Slamdunk: [SD] By then, the Usurper will have EO’d (executive ordered) his European styled socialist, unAmerican, unconstitutional agenda into place.

    You’ve certainly tipped your hat as to what drives the birther agenda. The order of the day for you guys: (1) We oppose Obama; (2) Any non-right-winger in White House is by definition illigitimate; (3) Let’s look for a reason to call him illigitimate.

    With Clinton, you tried Vince Foster and draft dodging, with Obama it’s this nonsense. Contrast this with the left and Bush. Even though he won a very much contested election, the vast majority of those on the left moved on to oppose him on actual policy. You guys lack the maturity to do that. You are truly still in diapers.

  280. Slamdunk says:

    Greg says:
    February 21, 2010 at 9:29 pm (Quote)

    Would you like to see the Usurper release his 1961 BC and prove us birthers to be idiots?

    You’re doing a great job of proving that already!

    That’s why Obama will never release anything else.

    [SD] He won’t release it because it doesn’t exist. Just one court case heard will reveal that.

    50% of Americans want more proof of Obama’s eligibility.

    Where’s this poll? Show me.

    [SD] http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105023

    I have yet to see one website, except Snopes, that disagrees with the 6-27-2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard’s headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY.

    Then you’re not looking.

    [SD] It’s possible I didn’t look far enough, that’s why I’m asking you, the expert, to show me. There should be hundreds of sites if that headline isn’t true.

    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.”

    Never happened.

    [SD] FOLKS. LISTEN UP. HERE IS CLASSIC DENIAL. THE DEBATE DID HAPPEN AND KEYES BOLDLY NAILED OBAMA.

  281. Greg says:

    AOL polls, where only those interested enough to click on the link are polled, are classically flawed. They aren’t randomly selected polls, for one.

    As for the Keyes allegation, even Keyes’ campaign manager says it never happened.

    Charles,

    Your instincts are right. That exchange never happened. It was the invention of somebody on the internet, one which seems to have sort of taken on a life of its own.

    Thanks for your diligence in getting at the truth.

    Tom Hoefling
    Chairman, America’s Independent Party
    Chairman, Alan Keyes for President 2008
    http://www.selfgovernment.us
    http://www.AIPNEWS.com
    http://www.AlanKeyes.com

    If it did happen, SD, why don’t you provide proof? It seems that even Keyes was unaware that such an exchange happened, or that he “nailed” Obama!

  282. Greg says:

    Rep. Deal followed up by saying that he had no doubts that Obama was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President, he simply wanted to have somewhere to point his constituents.

    We’ll know that the birthers are really gaining traction when a Congressman demands Obama’s birth certificate without having to walk back his demands.

    Oh, and if you knew anything about real socialism, you wouldn’t call Obama a socialist.

    Obama is to socialism as Republicans are to Nazism.

  283. Greg says:

    No, not just another BC like the on line phony, but his original 1961 long form BC which would show what hospital he was born in.

    The one he showed has the signature of the Registrar of the State of Hawaii saying that it is an accurate copy or abstract of the records they have on file.

    Therefore, you can be confident that Obama was born in Hawaii. The hospital he was born in? Unless he was born in the Russian embassy, this won’t make a difference. He was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

    It is telling that Obama is fighting these cases at the filing stage. It tells that he has sense.

    If these cases are heard on the merits, it means that similar cases can be heard on the merits in the future. Cases that are so completely lacking in merit that at least two attorneys have been sanctioned for bringing them!

    Remember, SD, bad cases make bad law. I’m sure Democrats can manufacture a case against the next Republican nominee just as frivolous as these suits. In 2000, for example, one guy sued Bush to deny him the Texas electors because Bush and Cheney were both residents of that state. Cheney quickly moved to register to vote in Wyoming.

    We’ve also determined that you guys won’t be satisfied with any amount of information. Not the long form, not a court ruling saying that Vattel is meaningless in Constitutional interpretation. Until the Supreme Court says that Vattel is meaningless, and Obama ALSO proves dozens of negatives: that he never renounced his citizenship as a kindergartener; that he never received financial aid as a foreigner; that he never traveled on a foreign passport; that he never beat his wife; that he never ate human flesh; that he never ate at Taco Bell; that he never said never; etc; you won’t be satisfied!

    Plus, there are tangible benefits to letting you guys bang your heads against this wall of stupid:

    1. Every candidate who has touched this issue has had to scramble to walk it back, unless it hurt them. Scott Brown, Nathan Deal, JD Hayworth have all had to distance themselves from birther comments they’ve made.

    2. Every minute and dollar you spend on this issue is one you can’t spend on something real. I can say with metaphysical certainty that there is nothing to the birther allegations. Rezko, however? Well, the Clintons will tell you that there doesn’t have to be anything there for a special prosecutor to spend $54 million to investigate it.

    3. You discredit the legal strategies of others attempting to sue the President. Judicial Watch was a thorn in Clinton’s side for 8 years, but their attempt to have Hillary barred from being Secretary of State foundered on the shoals of standing – and your cases made it easily understandable to anyone paying attention. Of course JW doesn’t have standing, the birthers don’t have standing!

    4. You’re pulling people entirely from the Republican base. And when Republicans have to distance themselves from birther nonsense, it annoys only those Republican basers who were never going to vote Democratic any way.

    Democrats have taken a pounding in the polls recently. But, the birthers might save them. In generic match-ups, the Democrats and Republicans are about tied. Add a “tea-party” candidate into the mix, however, and the Republicans lose 15% of their support to that TP’er, while Democrats only lose 1%.

  284. Scientist says:

    I’m glad the name of Rep Deal has come up, because I find him to present a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Pehaps, Mr “Slamdunk” you can shed some light on why, as a member of Congress on January 2009, if he had concerns about the President’s eligibility, he didn’t raise an objection at the time and place designated in the Constitution and the law?

    It seems his behavior is quite typical of the birthers-do nothing when the law allows or requires you to do something, then come in months later and scream foul when everyone ignores you.

  285. nbc says:

    Slamdunk[SD] Wrong Misha. There is mounting pressure for Usurper to release his original BC. Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.) asked Obama to settle the issue by releasing his original BC. Of course, the Usurper hasn’t even responded.

    The foolish birthers: The gift that keeps on giving..

    Thanks for the laugh SD

  286. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk- who is this Ursurper person anyway that you keep talking about?

  287. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk,

    It is amusing to disagree with you, but really its pointless- you keep on spouting Mario’s talking points as if they are facts, when in truth they are discredited.

    Its fine if you disagree with Obama- I don’t care if you think Obama is a closet Socialist/Marxist/Muslim.

    But I am irritated that you continue to try to invalidate the legal votes of American voters. I think there is nothing much more un-American than disenfrachising peoples votes. It is a typical neo-fascist move- have stage votes, and if by horrors the election doesn’t go your way- try to rig up some excuse to deny the election results.

    Luckily we have a Constitution and a legal system to protect us from- at least for now- from you and your fellow neo-fascists.

  288. G says:

    Slamdunk: February 22
    In a 2004 debate, Alan Keyes said to Obama, “You are not a natural born citizen.” Obama quickly replied, “So what! I’m running for the Senate not President.”

    Never happened.

    [SD] FOLKS. LISTEN UP. HERE IS CLASSIC DENIAL. THE DEBATE DID HAPPEN AND KEYES BOLDLY NAILED OBAMA.

    Then PROVE IT you LIAR! Provide a link from that interview that states what you claim it does. You can’t because it never happened.

  289. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says – But I am irritated that you continue to try to invalidate the legal votes of American voters. I think there is nothing much more un-American than disenfrachising peoples votes. It is a typical neo-fascist move- have stage votes, and if by horrors the election doesn’t go your way- try to rig up some excuse to deny the election results.

    It’s not a legal victory if a Usurper takes the presidency. It amazes me how you people simply ignore the constitution on this matter. Obama should be required tostep down, the country would be strong enough to handle it and let Biden assume the presidency. That would be the right thing to do.

  290. Greg says:

    We’re not ignoring the Constitution, he’s not a Usurper.

    The Constitution allows for only a limited number of ways for the President to be removed from office – impeachment, incapacity as determined by his cabinet.

    Quo Warranto is not mentioned in the Constitution. The effects of a quo warranto ruling, therefore, are also not in the Constitution. Assuming, for a moment, that quo warranto is a possibility, is it like an impeachment (what you’re implying) or is it like the election never happened. Orly seems to think it is the latter and that we’d have to have a special election.

    Why do you accuse people of “ignoring” the Constitution when you don’t seem to be aware of what is in it (impeachment) versus what is not (quo warranto).

    It is interesting to think that the birthers are relying on an English Common Law writ to enforce their belief that English Common Law doesn’t define a Constitutional Term.

    By golly, if Obama would just release his long form birth certificate, this all would go away! /sarcasm.

  291. Lupin says:

    Before I take your constitutional bullsh*t seriously, you must show me links to any blog posts, articles, etc. you wrote prior to 2008 where you complained (or even cared) about the Bush/Cheney’s semi-permanent trampling of the constitution.

    If you haven’t written any such posts, then it’s clear you’re only upset now because your President is black.

  292. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 22, 2010 at 11:53 am (Quote)

    I’m glad the name of Rep Deal has come up, because I find him to present a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes. Pehaps, Mr “Slamdunk” you can shed some light on why, as a member of Congress on January 2009, if he had concerns about the President’s eligibility, he didn’t raise an objection at the time and place designated in the Constitution and the law?

    [SD] Perhaps some time after the no-call for objections, he felt that he had acted cowardly like the rest, and decided to do something about it. Or, maybe when it came time for objections, the natural born thing hadn’t been fully addressed. Now that it is, he is more comfortable asking Usurper for his original BC. It is a perfectly legitimate question that most limp-kneed Republicans are afraid to ask.

  293. Scientist says:

    The “no-call for objections”? Bogus!!! The objections are required to be in writing signed by at least 1 member of each house. There was a real objection made to the 2004 election. Here is how it’s done:

    http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/index.html

    You guys continually fail to follow the rules, whether in the courts or Congress, then whine like babies when you don’t get your way.

    As for Deal, there have been no new facts (the birthers have never had any) nor any new law since January 2009. Deal has as much credibility as a football coach who didn’t object to a call during the game, then goes to a bar afterward and wants to complain. Again, you guys are babies. Go cry somewhere else.

  294. SFJeff says:

    “It’s not a legal victory if a Usurper takes the presidency.”

    Slamdunk- you assert that Natural Born Citizen is defined by Vattel as born in the U.S. of two citizen parents and that therefore President Obama was inelibable. Yet, the voters knew that Barrack Obama’s father was not a citizen and still overwhelmingly voted him into office.
    Therefore it seems to me that either the majority of the voters ‘ignored’ the constitution or the obvious- the majority of voters disagree with your novel interpretation of the definition of NBC.

    “It amazes me how you people simply ignore the constitution on this matter.”

    We ignore nothing. President Obama fulfilled all the requirements to be legally elected President. He was confirmed to be eligible for the ballot by the individual secretaries of state, he was overwhelmingly voted in, the Electoral College voted him in, Congress confirmed him, and the Chief Justice swore him in- all as per the Constitution. Sure sounds to me like you are the one ignoring the Constitution.

    “Obama should be required to step down,”

    Why? He was legally elected by the majority of voters and you want ‘someone’ to require him to step down?

    “That would be the right thing to do.”

    No the right thing to do would be to realize you have absolutely no evidence or legal argument regarding why the President should step down.

    Nobody- nobody of any stature agrees with your whacky Vattel argument- when not even that Obama hating loon Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh agrees with you, you should take a moment and re-evaluate why you and 5 others are the only ones who know the ‘truth’.

    You are like the folks who are convinced that the Income Tax is Unconstitutional- even though every court always rules against them.

    Get some real evidence or give it up.

  295. Slamdunk says:

    Lupin said, If you haven’t written any such posts, then it’s clear you’re only upset now because your President is black.

    [SD] He isn’t black. He is half white.

  296. Slamdunk says:

    QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    On your last point, I don’t think Usurper can release his original 1961 BC because he wasn’t born in Hawaii. And I think whoever put up his on line BC forged it, as claimed by document specialists. That makes sense to me since Usurper won’t release the 1961 original long form BC. So, the only evidence we’re supposed to believe is a computer generated document. Has Hawaii DOH ever said that they have his “1961 long form BC” on record?” It seems to me all they have said is that they have his original BC on record. Since Hawaii recognizes foreign births, they could be saying that it is his Kenyan BC. There’s too much secrecy over whether or not he was born there. If he was then that information alone should be made available on request, especially since Obama affirmed in a letter to Kapi’olani hospital that he was born there. And yet, no one will affirm his affirmation. Why? Don’t you think he is hiding something? Doesn’t his lack of transparency suggest a problem?

    Right after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly recognized Obama’s victory and noted he was “a son of the soil” and has “Kenyan roots.” Today, in Kenya, there is a gag order on Obama’s BC. Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history,” and the 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder. Then there is grandma Sarah’s claim that she was in the hospital delivery room when he was born and the Kenyan BC obtained by Lucas Smith who claims it is genuine. Finally, Kweli Shahudi, present at the recording of Sarah’s statement, went to the Mombasa Hospital and spoke with an official who affirmed Obama’s birth there. This is in his sworn affidavit. So the courts should hear at least one of these cases to determine whether or not these stories are true.

  297. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: So the courts should hear at least one of these cases to determine whether or not these stories are true

    Courts are not a blog; they are bound by rules of evidence as to what they can and cannot hear. Let’s go through your list and see if any of it is admissible:

    Slamdunk: Right after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly recognized Obama’s victory and noted he was “a son of the soil” and has “Kenyan roots.”

    Kennedy had Irish roots, Eisenhower had German roots. No member of the Kenyan National Assembly has first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nothing a court can take notice of.

    Slamdunk: Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history,”

    Alleged. Where is the actual newspaper? What reporter supposedly wrote the story? What did he base it on? Inadmissible.

    Slamdunk: 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder.

    A Keyes spokeperson has denied the story. Find the tape. Otherwise- Inadmissible.

    Slamdunk: Then there is grandma Sarah’s claim that she was in the hospital delivery room when he was born

    She didn’t say that if you hear the whole interview. Testimony from the “translator” is hearsay. You would have to subpoena her and since she is in Kenya, a US subpoena would have no force. If she felt like coming, your side would be in real trouble because she says Obama was born in America. Nothing there for you.

    Slamdunk: the Kenyan BC obtained by Lucas Smith who claims it is genuine.

    Never been validated by forensic analysis or confirmed by a public statement by Kenyan authorities. In fact debunked. Smith says he bribed a Kenyan official to obtain it which is a felony under US law (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and kentan law as well. So your pal is either guilty of fraud or bribery] and is a felon in 2 countries. Either way, it’s inadmissible.

    So you got bupkis.

  298. ballantine says:

    Slamdunk: QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    Still making stuff up I see. Show any case stating quo warranto is a ninth amendment right. The ninth amendment has never been seen by the courts as a source of additional rights and quo warranto was never an individual right. Congress has no obligation to pay any attention to any such action or conclusion of any court, if any court was stupid enought to assert jurisdiction, as the Constituion makes clear it alone has the power to remive the president.

    You just keep making stuff like all your posts here. Still claiming that one justice quoting Vattel on the domicile of a citizen in the time of war means the court adopted Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship when such words appear nowhere in the decision? Still claiming the 1790 naturalization act defined natural born when it only bestowed such status on the foreign born and was copying English law in doing so? Do you think the president has to be foreign born? Still claiming Minor is precedent when it declined to address the only question relevant to Obama’s status? Seriously, I hope you are not a lawyer as your legal statements are simply not serious.

  299. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    Since Hawaii recognizes foreign births, they could be saying that it is his Kenyan BC.

    Wrong. The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. If he had been born elsewhere, his COLB would say that. But it doesn’t – it says that he was born in Honolulu, which, the last time I checked, is in Hawaii.

    If he was then that information alone should be made available on request, especially since Obama affirmed in a letter to Kapi’olani hospital that he was born there. And yet, no one will affirm his affirmation. Why?

    Easy. Privacy statutes prohibit the hospital from releasing any information about Obama.

    Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history”

    A story which was debunked on this very blog when it was discovered that the original A.P. story made no such assertion. It was added to the A.P. story (unsourced, of course) by someone at the Standard, which a few days later published an editorial admonishing Kenyans that they should not refer to Obama as “Kenyan-born” because he was not born there.

    And I think whoever put up his on line BC forged it, as claimed by document specialists.

    Wrong again. The only “document specialist” who has claimed that the online COLB is a forgery is “Ron Polarik,” who has been exposed as an unqualified fraud. Even Orly doesn’t rely upon Polarik. Sandra Lines, who apparently is real document expert, has never claimed that the online COLB is a forgery. She only says that she can’t make a determination without examining the actual document.

    Today, in Kenya, there is a gag order on Obama’s BC.

    How can there be a gag order on a document which does not exist?

    The stories about Keyes and Obama’s step-grandmother have already been debunked by others, so I won’t take the time to comment on them.

  300. Greg says:

    The document that was posted online was stamped with the Seal of Hawaii and signed by the Registrar of the State of Hawaii, Alvin Onaka. His signature was under the statement, “This is a true and accurate copy or abstract of the records on file at the Department of Health.”

    The files, therefore, say that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. Not Kenya. Not Indonesia.

    Honolulu, Hawaii!

    As for QW being a 9th Amendment right to challenge the Presidency, I’d ask you to cite cases using quo warranto to that effect.

    A single case where the President’s eligibility was challenged with QW.

    and the 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder.

    It’s still a lie. Alan Keyes doesn’t remember it. His campaign manager doesn’t remember it. The person with the camcorder hasn’t posted the video.

    There’s a reason why hearsay is considered unreliable evidence – a friend of a friend knew someone with a camcorder who heard Slamdunk say that he buggered horses.

  301. SFJeff says:

    Wow Slamdunk- a whole lot of nothing. There is not one thing you list which wouldn’t be laughed out of court. Seriously- you don’t believe this stuff do you?

    Really its like you will accept anything bad about Barrack Obama just because you want something bad- no matter what complete dreck it is.

    You don’t accept statements from Hawaiin officials that he was born in Hawaii, you don’t accept the certified copy of the BC he posted on line and you don’t accept the contemporary birth announcments, but you do find a supposed conversation, unverified, undocumented, unfilmed, between Keyes and Obama- which has been denied by Keyes campaign- to have merit.

  302. SFJeff says:

    “[SD] He isn’t black. He is half white.”

    Okay- then obviously you are upset because he is only half white.

  303. BatGuano says:

    Slamdunk:
    On your last point, I don’t think Usurper can release his original 1961 BC because he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    as a graphic artist and printer i find it funny that you hold out for the 1961 BC as the absolute proof. a document that would be EASIER to forge than a COLB.

    oh well. carry on.

  304. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 23, 2010 at 1:48 pm (Quote)

    “It’s not a legal victory if a Usurper takes the presidency.”

    Slamdunk- you assert that Natural Born Citizen is defined by Vattel as born in the U.S. of two citizen parents and that therefore President Obama was inelibable. Yet, the voters knew that Barrack Obama’s father was not a citizen and still overwhelmingly voted him into office.
    Therefore it seems to me that either the majority of the voters ignored’ the constitution or the obvious- the majority of voters disagree with your novel interpretation of the definition of NBC.

    [SD] Without exception, every Democrat I speak with on this issue think that you only have to be born in the U.S. to be qualified to be president. They may have heard about Obama’s father being born in Kenya, but they didn’t connect that with Obama not being a natural born citizen because of that fact. The NBC issue did not get any publicity from the dupes of the MSM apart from the vetting of McCain on NBC. You had to rely on Keyes, Donofrio, Taitz, Greep and other conservative blogs.

    “It amazes me how you people simply ignore the constitution on this matter.”

    We ignore nothing. President Obama fulfilled all the requirements to be legally elected President. He was confirmed to be eligible for the ballot by the individual secretaries of state, he was overwhelmingly voted in, the Electoral College voted him in, Congress confirmed him, and the Chief Justice swore him in- all as per the Constitution. Sure sounds to me like you are the one ignoring the Constitution.

    [SD] When I say you ignore the constitution, I should qualify that. You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens. I don’t dispute that Obama was duly elected and all the other trimmings. I’m just saying he doesn’t meet the “two parent” clause of the traditional definition of NBC to which the founders obviously subscribed.

    “Obama should be required to step down,”

    Why? He was legally elected by the majority of voters and you want ’someone’ to require him to step down?

    [SD] In any contest, a player who doesn’t play by the rules is disqualified. Why should Obama be any different. Campaigning for the presidency is also a contest.

    “That would be the right thing to do.”

    No the right thing to do would be to realize you have absolutely no evidence or legal argument regarding why the President should step down.

    [SD] Father was not a citizen and that alone should have disqualified him.

    Nobody- nobody of any stature agrees with your whacky Vattel argument- when not even that Obama hating loon Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh agrees with you, you should take a moment and re-evaluate why you and 5 others are the only ones who know the truth’.

    Whether anyone agrees or not, the traditionally accepted definition of natural born citizen is U.S. birth, U.S. parent citizenship.

    I’m beginning to think that determining his birthplace might be better to pursue more vigorously because I can envision a long drawn out process to determine if Vattel et al are right about the meaning of NBC. You and others think British common places a big role in this, while others don’t. You also view some court cases supporting him. So it would be a long and involved debate between the courts and lawyers. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, that’s it, the debate is over. If he would just produce his 1961 long form BC, the matter would be settled, assuming of course, that he clears the two parent clause of NBC.

    You are like the folks who are convinced that the Income Tax is Unconstitutional- even though every court always rules against them.

    Get some real evidence or give it up.

    [SD] I have presented very strong evidence. Do you want me to post it all over again?
    The only hurdle to clear is just getting one case to court for discovery. So far, none are willing to go that far and that helps Obama sleep at night.

  305. Slamdunk says:

    BatGuano says:
    February 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk:
    On your last point, I don’t think Usurper can release his original 1961 BC because he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

    as a graphic artist and printer i find it funny that you hold out for the 1961 BC as the absolute proof. a document that would be EASIER to forge than a COLB.

    [SD] I’ll yield to your expertise on that, but I still wouldn’t put it past Obama to have that one forged too. The man not only has the eligibility matter hanging over his head, but investigators have come up with social security fraud in that he has been using a number not issued to him. This is one of the major claims in the court case of Taitz. There is also evidence that his selective service form has been altered.

    oh well. carry on.

  306. Black Lion says:

    [SD] When I say you ignore the constitution, I should qualify that. You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens. I don’t dispute that Obama was duly elected and all the other trimmings. I’m just saying he doesn’t meet the “two parent” clause of the traditional definition of NBC to which the founders obviously subscribed.

    Where exactly does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen is? Because the last time I checked, it did not. So for your to say that we “reject” the part of the Constitution that says that means you are not being truthful. All of your so called evidence has been debunked. You prefer to believe in unsubstantiated lies and innuendo rather than statements from the state of HI declaring that President Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. It is amazing. Since that statement has come out the birthers have done everthing from claim that born doesn’t necessairly mean his mother gave birth to him in HI to stating that because Dr. Fukino used the term natural born citizen then her entire statement is nullified. You want to know why? Because deep down we all know that once Dr. Fukino released the statement that the President was born in HI. That was it. You have nothing. So you rely on hearsay and forged documents or make believe charges from a soon to be disbarred dentist in CA to pin your hopes on. But the real world doesn’t work that way. Evidence is necessary. And unfortunately for you the birthers have none. The President was born in the US to an American mother. He is a natural born citizen. And most of all he is President of the United States.

  307. Greg says:

    You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens.

    Here’s what the Constitution says:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    I don’t see anything about parents in there. Do you?

    This site details the dozens of sources showing, decisively, that the U.S. operates under jus soli as compared to the three equivocal sources that suggest that the U.S. doesn’t.

    Here’s the funny thing, not only is it almost universally understood today that citizenship requires only that you be born here, it was universally understood in 1844, as detailed in Lynch v. Clarke:

    Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question. None was found by the counsel who argued this cause, and so far as I have been able to ascertain, it never has been expressly decided in any of the courts of the respective states, or of the United States. This circumstance itself, in regard to a point which must have occurred so often in the administration of justice, furnishes a strong inference that there has never been any doubt but that the common law rule was the law of the land. This inference is confirmed, and the position made morally certain, by such legislative, judicial and legal expositions as bear upon the question. Before referring to those, I am bound to say that the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind, so far as I have had the opportunity of knowing it, is that birth in this country does of itself constitute citizenship. Thus when at an election, the inquiry is made whether a person offering to vote is a citizen or an alien, if he answers that he is a native of this country, it is received as conclusive that he is a citizen. No one inquires farther. No one asks whether his parents were citizens or were foreigners. It is enough that he was born here, whatever were the status of his parents. I know that common consent is sometimes only a common error, and that public opinion is not any authority on a point of law. But this is a question which is more important and more deeply felt in reference to political rights, than to rights of property. The universality of the public sentiment in this instance, is a part of the historical evidence of the state and progress of the law on the subject. It indicates the strength and depth of the common law principle, and confirms the position that the adoption of the Federal Constitution wrought no change in that principle.

    It also seems to have been universally understood in 1807. In that year, the British seized the Chesapeake and here’s what Lynch says:

    It was alleged that three of the seamen taken from the Chesapeake, were American citizens. Not that their national character made any difference in the principle involved in that affair, but it aggravated the atrocity of the conduct of the British commander. The proofs of the fact of citizenship which were reported by the committee of the House of Representatives, and which were furnished to the British government, consisted of evidence of the birth and subsequent lives of the seamen, one of whom was born in 1784. Nothing was stated in regard to the condition or allegiance of their parents, in any of the reports or correspondence on the subject. It was evidently taken for granted that birth in one of the states, without regard to parentage, constituted those seamen, citizens of the U.S.

    Of course, since St. Tucker was writing in 1803 that natural born citizens were those born here…

    And, of course, there’s not a single word from the Founding Fathers that they intended to disturb the universally understood meaning of “natural born.”

    In short, you’ve got nothing. Your “evidence” is less than worthless.

  308. Greg says:

    Can you concede, then, that you won’t shut up if Obama allows the State of Hawaii to release his original 1961 birth certificate?

    So, when you stated earlier that all of this would just go away if Obama would release it, you were lying, right?

  309. nbc says:

    Hahaha… Seems that some birthers have failed to even read the Constitution which clearly does not define the meaning of the term natural born.
    As Court rulings have pointed out, the meaning has to be found in common law which defines natural born citizen to be any child born on US soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

  310. nbc says:

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

    It’s not as much what is ok with me but what the Constitution prescribes.
    Of course, it’s a mere hypothetical…

  311. nbc says:

    SD is not going to concede anything as he is convinced that regardless of Obama’s eligibility he should be removed.
    That he believes the fake SSN story shows the level of despair…

    Fascinating…

  312. SFJeff says:

    “[SD] Without exception, every Democrat I speak with on this issue think that you only have to be born in the U.S. to be qualified to be president”

    Considering that there are more registered voters in the United States than any other party, I would take that as strong evidence that the commonly accepted definition of NBC is someone born in the United States. By the way- this is what I was taught in Junior High School, by my very conservative Republican civics teacher.

    “You had to rely on Keyes, Donofrio, Taitz, Greep and other conservative blogs.”

    And this is where you start down the road to crazyville. No one should ever rely upon anyone’s blogs- not good ones like this one, or blogs by whacko’s so far out of mainstream thought that they are ridiculed by both Conservatives and Liberals. My god- Taitz can’t even keep her blog virus free- not only does she post total lies, your risk your computer every time you visit that blog.

    But more importantly- basically there are about 5 blogs that support your multitude of reasons all centered around finding some reason why President Obama can’t really be President. None of these sites are looking for truth- only for dirt to embaress the President.

    SD: “When I say you ignore the constitution, I should qualify that. You reject that part of the definition of natural born citizen that says both parents must be U.S. citizens.”

    This is not defined anywhere in the Constitution and virtually no one but yourself and a few other duped by Mario believe this.

    “I don’t dispute that Obama was duly elected and all the other trimmings. I’m just saying he doesn’t meet the “two parent” clause of the traditional definition of NBC to which the founders obviously subscribed”

    If this was the traditional definition which the founders obviously subscribed- how come- as you have admitted- no Democrat- and really no Republican- has heard of it before now. Show me a textbook which has this definition. Please.

  313. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 23, 2010 at 4:01 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: So the courts should hear at least one of these cases to determine whether or not these stories are true

    Courts are not a blog; they are bound by rules of evidence as to what they can and cannot hear.

    [SD] At this point, the issue is standing, not evidence. That would be heard if just one case could get pass standing, jurisdiction, etc. Judge Carter was pumped up to hear Taitz’ case but then suddenly decided he didn’t have jurisdiction. Yeah, right.

    Let’s go through your list and see if any of it is admissible:

    Slamdunk: Right after the election, the Kenyan National Assembly recognized Obama’s victory and noted he was “a son of the soil” and has “Kenyan roots.”

    Kennedy had Irish roots, Eisenhower had German roots. No member of the Kenyan National Assembly has first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nothing a court can take notice of.

    [SD] Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was. They are Kenyans and certainly know from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there. You have to come up with something better than they didn’t have first hand knowledge. On top of that, reports I read say that it is common knowledge in Kenya that he was born there.

    Slamdunk: Then there is the alledged 2004 Kenyan Sunday Standard headline that said, “Kenyan-born Obama makes history,”

    Alleged. Where is the actual newspaper? What reporter supposedly wrote the story? What did he base it on? Inadmissible.

    [SD] Some here say “Kenyan-born” was added by someone at the newspaper. I am asking from anyone here for reliable source information from the AP or Kenyan Sunday Standard. There are many sites about this story and perhaps one shows the reporter.

    Slamdunk: 2004 statement of Alan Keyes who told Obama he is not a natural born citizen, to which he replied, “So what? I’m running for the Senate, not the presidency.” This was made off the set and reportedly recorded by someone with a camcorder.

    A Keyes spokeperson has denied the story. Find the tape. Otherwise- Inadmissible.

    [SD] Two witnesses have come forward explaining they were there when the film clip was recorded. You’ll have to google “second witness Keyes obama camcorder” or other key words. It is true that Keyes said he can’t remember the incident.

    Slamdunk: Then there is grandma Sarah’s claim that she was in the hospital delivery room when he was born

    She didn’t say that if you hear the whole interview. Testimony from the “translator” is hearsay. You would have to subpoena her and since she is in Kenya, a US subpoena would have no force. If she felt like coming, your side would be in real trouble because she says Obama was born in America. Nothing there for you.

    [SD] Please direct me to a site where grandma Sarah says she was not in the delivery room. She was asked twice by Bishop MacRae if she was present and twice she said yes. There were some agitators there who tried to interrupt by saying Obama was born in Hawaii. According to Bishop MacRae and Kweli Shuhubia, his interpreter, she held firm that she was present when Obama was born. This is in both the MacRae and Shuhubia affidavits. Where are affidavits claiming otherwise? Let them stand up and be heard.

    Also, and this is important,in Shuhubia’s affidavit he swears that he went to the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa and spoke with the Registrar’s office who said that Obama was born in that hospital but that his records are closed. He makes this statement under oath. You can Look up his affidavit on line.

    Slamdunk: the Kenyan BC obtained by Lucas Smith who claims it is genuine.

    Never been validated by forensic analysis or confirmed by a public statement by Kenyan authorities.

    [SD] Of course Kenyan authorities wouldn’t confirm it. A cousin of Obama is socialist Raela Odinga, Prime minister of Kenya and you can be sure he has his finger on this pulse.

    In fact debunked. Smith says he bribed a Kenyan official to obtain it which is a felony under US law (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) and kentan law as well. So your pal is either guilty of fraud or bribery] and is a felon in 2 countries. Either way, it’s inadmissible.

    [SD] So the BC could be genuine. Obama’s worst nightmare, if it is, would be for that document to show up in court, or by some other method as valid. The Smith affidavit and BC are with the Santa Ana District Court. Somehow, Smith was able to pay the guard “to look the other way” as he made a copy of the BC. The BC may not be admissable, but the affidavit is. The only thing not “admissable,” probably, is the BC, everything else I cited is. You got bupkis:)

    So you got bupkis.

  314. SFJeff says:

    No Slamdunk you got bupkis. As was pointed out repeatedly to you- not one of the items that you cite would be admissable in a court of law. Never mind standing- Not one of the items you cited is admissable in a Court of law. Not one. Nada.

    “Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was. They are Kenyans”

    Was Kennedy born in Ireland because he had Irish roots? No- the Kenyan assembly never said or implied that President Obama was born in Kenya. Wouldn’t stand up in court.

    “On top of that, reports I read say that it is common knowledge in Kenya that he was born there”

    “Do you even realize how silly this statement is? You really have to stop believing what you read on blogs. However I do encourage you to go to Kenya and ask several thousand Kenyans about this common knowledge.

    “I am asking from anyone here for reliable source information from the AP or Kenyan Sunday Standard. There are many sites about this story and perhaps one shows the reporter”

    So you admit you don’t actually have any accurate information about this? If you bother to look around on this site, it was discussed at length. Still nothing admissable in court.

    “Two witnesses have come forward explaining they were there when the film clip was recorded”

    Two unnamed ‘supposed’ witnesses who supposedly recorded this- but oddly the film isn’t availible either- and neither of the participants remembers it happening. Need I say- not admissable in court.

    “Please direct me to a site where grandma Sarah says she was not in the delivery room”

    Doc has the whole thing posted here- you go find it. Point being Grandma says very clearly in the entire transcripts that she was present when obama sr. was born. Anyway- again none of this is admissable in court.

    “So the BC could be genuine”

    And Obama could be from the planet Krypton. There is a difference between ‘could be possible’ and ‘a reasonable possibility’.

    But no Lucas document is not admissable either- how does he prove that he obtained it from an official source? How does he prove that it is authentic? Why do you put such faith on a convicted felon who hasn’t even proven he went to Kenya. My suspicion is that he never even went there.

    “The only thing not “admissable,” probably, is the BC”

    Nope- I am not even a lawyer and I can say that all this crap would be laughed out of court and frankly by any reasonable persons who looked at the source material.

    Really this stuff is pretty desperate.

  315. [SD] Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was.

    The point is that they didn’t say that Obama was literally born in Kenya.

    [SD ] Some here say “Kenyan-born” was added by someone at the newspaper. I am asking from anyone here for reliable source information from the AP or Kenyan Sunday Standard. There are many sites about this story and perhaps one shows the reporter.

    The newspaper corrected their mistake here:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.eastandard.net/intelligence/intel03070417.htm

    [SD] Please direct me to a site where grandma Sarah says she was not in the delivery room. She was asked twice by Bishop McRae if she was present and twice she said yes. There were some agitators there who tried to interrupt by saying Obama was born in Hawaii. According to Bishop McRae and Kweli Shuhubia, his interpreter, she held firm that she was present when Obama was born. This is in both the McRae and Shuhubia affidavits. Where are affidavits claiming otherwise? Let them stand up and be heard.

    First, McRae was on the US side of the phone conversation and he heard what is in the recording. He has nothing to add that we cannot hear for ourselves. His affidavit is just his opinion. Shuhudia “lied” in his affidavit by giving a false name so “under oath” is a fiction. One cannot swear under oath under a false name and be bound by it. An African newspaperman and native speaker of Swahili and Luo (Mr. Omolo) who knew the Obama family listened to the transcript and confirmed that Sarah Obama was indeed present in Mombasa when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This email interview was published by the Post & Email blog. The true transcript of the English in the recording was prepared by Greg Doudna and is published on this site. It is clear that Mrs. Obama vehemently denies that her step grandson was born in Kenya, and it is equally clear that McRae even apologizes for his mistake in a clearly audible portion of the tape.

    MCRAE: Oh, OK, fine. I mean, I–I just, I misunderstood what she was
    saying. I thought you said she was present when he was born.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/10/a-most-curious-article-at-the-post-and-email/

    [SD] Of course Kenyan authorities wouldn’t confirm it. A cousin of Obama is socialist Raela Odinga, Prime minister of Kenya and you can be sure he has his finger on this pulse.

    Odinga is not Obama’s cousin.

    [SD] So the BC could be genuine. Obama’s worst nightmare, if it is, would be for that document to show up in court, or by some other method as valid. The Smith affidavit and BC are with the Santa Ana District Court. Somehow, Smith was able to pay the guard “to look the other way” as he made a copy of the BC.

    It has been verified that the Smith certificate is not of the form used in Kenya in 1961. Even WorldNetDaily (no friend of Obama) say so, after having compared it to a real period certificate. Giving any credibility to a professional con man is rather silly, wouldn’t you say?

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=107678

    Your comment is but a collection of humbug.

  316. SFJeff: No one should ever rely upon anyone’s blogs- not good ones like this one,

    I got an email once from a college professor telling me that one of his students used my web site (not this one) as a reference on a term paper. It provided a “teaching moment” for the student.

    What you will find, I hope, on this blog and in many of the comments are links to authoritative sources that you can rely on.

  317. Slamdunk says:

    ballantine says:
    February 23, 2010 at 4:34 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    Still making stuff up I see. Show any case stating quo warranto is a ninth amendment right.

    [SD] I just quoted a source I think is highly credible.

    The ninth amendment has never been seen by the courts as a source of additional rights and quo warranto was never an individual right.

    [SD] Not an individual right? See “a third person interest” http://obamarecords.com/?p=106

    9th Am: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    I’ll let you argue this one with Donofrio or Apuzzo. From what I understand, QW has rarely, if ever, been used at the federal level. So it could fall under the 9th Am. Who are you to say it couldn’t?

    You just keep making stuff like all your posts here. Still claiming that one justice quoting Vattel on the domicile of a citizen in the time of war means the court adopted Vattel’s definition of natural born citizenship when such words appear nowhere in the decision?

    [SD] Show me where the Judge, or any justice in VENUS, rejected Vattel.

    Still claiming the 1790 naturalization act defined natural born when it only bestowed such status on the foreign born and was copying English law in doing so?

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it, which is consistent with Vattel, et al? George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights, said English common law was not part of U.S.
    federal law. He’s not the only one.

    Do you think the president has to be foreign born? Still claiming Minor is precedent when it declined to address the only question relevant to Obama’s status?

    [SD] Minor defines NBC and is consistent with others I have mentioned. Obama does not meet that definition being born of a father who was a British subject. There is no room for dual citizenship in the presidency. That is, assuming he was born in Hawaii which I doubt. Has anyone shown if he was even naturalized? Is he still Indonesian? British? Kenyan? Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about and who won’t release any of his personal records? That should tell you he’s hiding things he doesn’t want Americans to know. To say that he just wants his personal life private is one huge crock of you know what. Never has there been a president whose past is so shrouded in mystery, while under the pretense of being the transparent president. BS!!!!

    Seriously, I hope you are not a lawyer as your legal statements are simply not serious.

    [SD] If just one case is ever heard, people would see that my points would swallow yours. It would be like Moses’ serpents swallowing the serpents of Pharoahs’ magicians (I.e. truth always, sooner or late, swallows the lie).

  318. Black Lion: Where exactly does the Constitution define what a natural born citizen is?

    The courts have in some sense teased out a definition. The Constitution provides two, and exactly two references to specific classes of citizen. They are the “natural born citizen” in the Presidential eligibility clause, and the “naturalized” citizen referring to the power of Congress to create a uniform rule of naturalization.

    From this, one may infer that natural born citizens are those citizens who have not been naturalized, and in particular, those who were born as citizens.

    Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’ and that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.


    Minor v. Happersett
    (1874)

  319. Slamdunk says:

    Greg: Can you concede, then, that you won’t shut up if Obama allows the State of Hawaii to release his original 1961 birth certificate?
    So, when you stated earlier that all of this would just go away if Obama would release it, you were lying, right?

    Yeah, all the issues surrounding his place of birth. I have stated several times that he still has the parent citizenship thing hanging over his head.

  320. Slamdunk says:

    nbc: SD is not going to concede anything as he is convinced that regardless of Obama’s eligibility he should be removed.
    That he believes the fake SSN story shows the level of despair…Fascinating…

    [SD] Do you have any evidence that Obama is not using, or has not used, a Social Security number that wasn’t assigned to him? You should cite such evidence when making a statement like this.

  321. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: [SD] Do you have any evidence that Obama is not using, or has not used, a Social Security number that wasn’t assigned to him?

    Do you have any evidence that YOU, Slamdunk, did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. In the absence of such evidence, we have to assume you are guilty.

  322. If either one of us turned up on a list of persons with our name, our SSN and addresses where we never lived, the obvious conclusion would be that somebody else was responsible. How is Obama any different?

  323. Slamdunk: I have stated several times that he still has the parent citizenship thing hanging over his head.

    I think more accurately the “parent citizenship thing” is a bit of fog hanging over your own head. It’s certainly nothing in the law or the constitution.

  324. [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it,

    That’s bizarre. Are you arguing that only persons born overseas to American citizen fathers who have had at some time lived in the United States may be President? That’s who the 1790 Act calls natural born citizens.

  325. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:29 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] Do you have any evidence that Obama is not using, or has not used, a Social Security number that wasn’t assigned to him?

    Do you have any evidence that YOU, Slamdunk, did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990. In the absence of such evidence, we have to assume you are guilty.

    [SD] How does a woman rape a woman? Orly Taitz claims she has the evidence of social security fraud. All she needs is one Judge to hear her case. I’m sure you would love to hear that evidence.

  326. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: [SD] How does a woman rape a woman?

    You truly are a fool…

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/14/earlyshow/main4943228.shtml

  327. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: No member of the Kenyan National Assembly has first-hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nothing a court can take notice of.
    [SD] Why do you assume that just because none of them were there when Obama was born that they are wrong in saying that he was. They are Kenyans and certainly know from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there

    The US Congress passed a resolution declaring Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. They are Americans and certainly knew from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there.

    Furthermore, the Kenyan National Assembly never said Obama was born in Kenya, just that he had family ties there. But the US Congress is on record as saying Obama was born in Hawaii-once implicitly when they found him qualified to be President and then by an explicit resolution.

    Man, you are just dumber than a post.

  328. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it,

    That’s bizarre. Are you arguing that only persons born overseas to American citizen fathers who have had at some time lived in the United States may be President? That’s who the 1790 Act calls natural born citizens.

    [SD] Now why would the Act contradict its own definition?

  329. milspec says:

    Ick. Just Ick.

  330. Well I’m not sure what your idea of a definition in the Act of 1790 is.

    It actually doesn’t define natural born citizen. What is says, if you understand the legal context, is that persons born to US Fathers overseas are born citizens of the United States (provided that the father was at one time resident in the United States). This additional clause was to prevent a colony of Americans to exist overseas, none of whom had ever been in the United States. It was the general understanding at the time that “natural born citizen” was equivalent in meaning to being born a citizen (both here in the Constitution).

    A careless reading of the Act might leave one to believe that the citizen father applied to citizens in general; however, that is not what it means. It only applies to persons born overseas. And in any case the 1790 Act was repealed in 1795, and so has no effect today. However, it certainly puts de Vattel’s definition in the crapper.

  331. Greg says:

    Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about

    It’s not like he wrote two autobiographies. In one of them, he admits cocaine use. It doesn’t seem like he’s hiding much.

    By contrast, we learned of Bush’s DUI on the eve of the 2000 election.

    Show me where the Judge, or any justice in VENUS, rejected Vattel.

    Have you read Venus? All of it, or just the one paragraph? Do you know what it is about?

    Chief Justice Marshall was dissenting in the section of the case that discussed Vattel:

    I entirely concur in so much of the opinion delivered in this case as attaches a hostile character to the property of an American citizen continuing, after the declaration of war, to reside and trade in the country of the enemy, and I subscribe implicitly to the reasoning urged in its support. But from so much of that opinion as subjects to confiscation the property of a citizen shipped before a knowledge of the war, and which disallows the defense founded on an intention to change his domicile and to return to the United States, manifested in a sufficient manner, and within a reasonable time after knowledge of the war, although it be subsequent to the capture, I feel myself compelled to dissent.

    Whenever birthers rely on Venus, it proves they cannot understand the process of the law.

    1. This is a dissenting opinion. Marshall lost this argument.

    2. Marshall is not making an argument about citizenship. He is making an argument about how you prove you intend to stay in a country permanently.

    3. Vattel’s definition, in this dissent, is dicta. Pure dicta, it is irrelevant to his argument.

    In both Lynch v. Clarke and Wong Kim Ark the side arguing against citizenship cited Vattel. In both cases, Vattel was soundly rejected.

    WKA said, explicitly, there was no such thing as an established law of nations at the time of the founding, therefore it is stupid to suggest that the Founders were pointing to some established law of nations in defining NBC.

    There’s a reason why you can only cite the dissent in Venus, the concurrence in Dred Scott, and a throw-away line in Minor v. Happersett and we can quote dozens and dozens of cases, statutes, articles and treatises.

    The snakes of truth have swallowed the lies, SD.

    You are a liar.

    If you were so convinced of your rightness, Slamdunk, you wouldn’t need to rely on courts that, because of the Constitution will never hear your case. If you were convinced of your rightness, you could present your case to the American people and force Congress to impeach the President, or vote him out in 2012.

  332. Greg says:

    Regarding the “camcorder” episode. Post and Email is the source of this rumor.

    One “witness” claims to have seen the exchange on C-Span back in 2005. The other claims to have seen it on YouTube after the election in 2008. Apparently, they’re talking about the same debate, but different videos.

    C-Span has an extensive archive. The internet is archived by Google and others.

    The birthers would love to play this clip on endless rotation.

    Despite these facts, there is currently no copy of the video.

    It took me two minutes to find the C-Span video of the Chicago debate in question as aired on C-Span. At least the one described by the “second” witness: “Both candidates were standing on the stage behind their respective podiums. The background was blue.”

    This first “witness” also claims that C-Span and the Obama campaign addressed the issue:

    At the end of the airing of the second debate, the C-Span host noted, as he read from a single sheet of paper, placed before him, that the Obama Campaign had contacted them and requested them to point out to their viewers that Obama’s response here should not be understood as a denial that he is a natural born citizen, only that Keyes’ accusation had nothing to do with the qualifications of office of a U.S. Senator.

    Despite the extensive records that C-Span keeps, there is no transcript of this correction. There is no transcript of the “unedited” debate that supposedly contains this exchange.

    You would think that an exchange that so shook the Obama campaign that they would issue a correction would have been remembered by the Keyes campaign. You would think that someone in the Illinois Republican party would have taped the debate and taken note of any good exchanges.

    Slamdunk, you don’t really want this to get to a trial. Let’s pretend, for a second, that you could get these “witnesses” on the stand (you couldn’t, their “testimony” is the most unreliable hearsay). Any half-way competent attorney would make these “witnesses” bleed during cross examination.

    C-Span has a record of every day they broadcast. Here, for example, is
    April 2, 2005. Here’s April 16, 2005. They even show the 3 minutes they spent broadcasting Bush’s statement about Timothy McVeigh’s execution. And everything on that schedule connects to a video. For example, if you click on the British Liberal Democrats Party Televised Message (bottom of the left-hand column, 3 minutes) you get a video of the British Liberal Democrats Party Televised Message?

    There was no rebroadcast of the Illinois Senatorial debate in April 2005, as the first “witness” claims.

    There is, however, on April 22, a 12 minute video of a tour of Chester Arthur’s grave, first broadcast in 2003. (2:15 starts a discussion of his citizenship – entirely about whether he was born on US soil.)

    Another interesting tidbit, you can click on “details” and find out every time it has aired.

    Each of the Obama/Keyes debates were shown on C-Span, and according to their air dates none were rebroadcast in 2005.

    Why would C-Span have gone to get the local station’s feed if they had their own?

  333. ballantine says:

    It’s hopeless Greg. He’s just going to keep repeating the same birther talking points. If he can’t understand that the citation to Vattel in The Venus has nothing to do with citizenship, he is hopeless. I only hope he isn’t a lawyer, although Mario keeps saying the same thing.

    They can keep spinning all they want but the fact is that no court, even in dicta, has ever said a natural born citizen requires citizen parents. The same can be said for any framer, early scholar or legislature. It is simply a fringe theory that would be ignored by any court that considers it, just like the Ankeny court.

  334. ballantine says:

    Your rely makes no sense at all. The act does not define natural born citizen, it bestows such status on certain foreign born just like Parliament had done. Duh.

  335. nbC says:

    The fact that the Founders found it necessary to enact the 1790 act to provide natural born citizenship status to children born abroad to US father (parents) totally undermines the concept that Vattel guided their thinking. Under Vattel’s interpretation such children would have been ‘naturals’.
    The existence of this act shows that the Founders were clearly working from the English Common Law definition of natural born.

    Oh well…

  336. dunstvangeet says:

    Exactly. And if their goal was to define “Natural Born Citizenship” then why did they limit the act to only those born overseas?

  337. ballantine says:

    dunstvangeet: Exactly.And if their goal was to define “Natural Born Citizenship” then why did they limit the act to only those born overseas?

    Of course, Congress had no power to define “natural born citizenship” with respect to the native born. Congress had a power over naturalization. The people of that generation understood that “naturalization,” by definition, applied only to the foreign born. For example:

    “The right of naturalization was therefore, with one accord, surrendered by the States, and confided to the Federal Government. And this power granted to Congress to establish an uniform rule of naturalization is, by the well-understood meaning of the word, confined to persons born in a foreign country, under a foreign Government. It is not a power to raise to the rank of a citizen any one born in the United States, who, from birth or parentage, by the laws of the country, belongs to an inferior and subordinate class.” Chief Justice Taney, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857)

    “But what is naturalization? It is the removal of the disabilities of alienage… Congress has power ” to establish an uniform rule of naturalization….An alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject…The power is applicable only to those of foreign birth. Alienage is an indispensable element in the process. To make one of domestic birth a citizen, is not naturalization, and cannot be brought within the exercise of that power. There is an universal agreement of opinion upon this subject.” George Washington Paschal, The Constitution of the United States defined and carefully annotated, note 274, (1968).

    I could go on and on with citations. It was repeatedly pointed out in early congressional debates that the power of naturalization was limited to the foreign born, as even James Madison pointed out. The primary argument against the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act was that making freed slaves citizens was not naturalization since they were not foreign born. For example:

    ” I maintain that a negro can not be made a citizen by Congress ; he can not be made a citizen by any naturalization laws, because the naturalization laws apply to foreigners alone. No man can shake the legal truth of that position. They apply to foreigners alone; and a negro, an Indian, or any other person born within the United States, not being a foreigner, can not be naturalized; therefore they can not be made citizens by the uniform rule established by Congress under the Constitution, and there is no other rule. Congress has no power, as I said before, to naturalize a citizen. They could not be made citizens by treaty. If they are made so at all, it is by their birth, and the locality of their birth, and the general operation and effect of our Constitution.” Sen. Davis, quoted in History of the thirty-ninth Congress of the United States, William Horatio Barnes, pg. 208, (1868)

    There is no mystery where this provision came from in the 1790 Act. Rep. Burke stated that they should provide for children of citizens born oversees just like Parliament had. Parliament had passed a number of naturalization statutes conferring natural born status on children of subjects born oversees and this act clearly was intended to do the same thing. The rights of the native born were, by definition, not determined by naturalization but, under both English and American law, were determined by the common law.

  338. SFJeff says:

    “Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about and who won’t release any of his personal records?”

    I realize you won’t listen or get this- but Barrack Obama has released more about his past than any previous President.

    As noted- he wrote two autobiographies detailing his life and his family. Which previous presidents opened up so much about his life prior to being elected? He released his BC- both for viewing at his HQ and online- show me any previous President who has done this?

    I- the 66 million voters who voted for him knew all we needed to know when we voted for him. We didn’t expect him- or Bush or Clinton to give us his Kindergarten records or copies of college papers.

    I really don’t know whether you are a dupe, and really believe this, or are just lieing hoping to suck people into this conspiracy theory for your own nefarious reasons.

    “That should tell you he’s hiding things he doesn’t want Americans to know. To say that he just wants his personal life private is one huge crock of you know what.”

    After the rumors of Bush’s cocaine use was circulated, did he ever release all of his medical records? Nope. Nor would I have expected him to. Was he required to prove he was not a cocaine fiend? No.

    Presidents do have a right to privacy about their private lives. The more that privacy erodes away, the smaller the pool of willing- and capable candidates becomes.

  339. nbC says:

    Slamdunk: QW is not an instrument of removal from office but is a right under under the 9th amendment It is designed to inquire by what authority someone holds office, or exercises power. If Usurper can’t show that he is constitutionally qualified, then it goes to Congress for whatever decision they make.

    As Congress showed when it tried to pass legislation allowing QW to be used to try the office of the Presidency, they realized that such was unconstitutional and abandoned these efforts.

    I bet you never even knew these details from our history?

    Pathetic.

  340. nbC says:

    “Who the h–l is this man whose past nobody knows anything about and who won’t release any of his personal records?”

    He is called our President, duly elected and duly found to be qualified.
    To claim that the President has not released any of his personal records is another lie.

    Why?

  341. Slamdunk says:

    nbc says:
    February 24, 2010 at 9:30 am (Quote)

    SD is not going to concede anything as he is convinced that regardless of Obama’s eligibility he should be removed.
    That he believes the fake SSN story shows the level of despair…

    Fascinating…

    [SD] Really! And what is your evidence that the story is fake?

    Neither are the following fake. Death threats made against people who either challenge the Usurper’s BC or want him to produce his original birth certificate:

    Ron Polarik (alias), who is a document specialist and claims the Usurper’s on line BC is a forgery.

    Kweli Shuhubia (alias) who gave an affidavit attesting to his visit to the Registrar’s office at Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa. He revealed that Obama was born there and that the birth records are sealed. He claism that it is common knowledge in Kenya that Usurper was born there. No president in the history of America has ever issued an executive order sealing all his personal records. What is he hiding?

    Orly Taitz who has incriminating social security fraud evidence against the Usurper. She has reported the death threats to the police. Her car has been tampered with and she receives other threats and harrassments on a regular basis.

    This is how the powers of darkness operate.

  342. Slamdunk says:

    The US Congress passed a resolution declaring Hawaii as Obama’s birthplace. They are Americans and certainly knew from Hospital sources whether or not he was born there.

    [SD] I don’t care what Congress has resolved. Usurper still isn’t a NBC and they are just as duped as you. Either that, or they don’t want to come forth and experience the wrath of the Usurper and the left-stream media. But there is a ground swell at states level for Obama to release his original BC.

    Furthermore, the Kenyan National Assembly never said Obama was born in Kenya, just that he had family ties there.

    [SD] They didn’t have to say he was born there. It is common knowledge in Kenya that he was. “Son of the soil” was once posted on the Kenyan Parliament website but has been scrubbed, just like Obama’s letter on the Kapi’olani hospital website. Gosh, I wonder why.

    Then there’s the recording of the Kenyan Ambassador admitting Obama was born in Kenya on the “Mike In The Morning” show on WRIF radio, in Detroit.

    The radio jocks called the Kenyan Embassy, and spoke to the Kenyan ambassador to the United States, Peter Ogego who admitted that it is a well known fact that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and plans are underway to build a memorial at the site of his birth.

    The ambassador of Kenya says that obama was born in Kenya and that his birth place has become a national shrine.

    The transcript reads:

    Radio Jockey: President elect Obama’s birth place over in Kenya — is that going to be a national spot where he was born

    Ambassador Peter Ogego: its already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.

    Radio Jockey: But his birth place…they’ll put up a marker there

    Ambassdor Peter Ogego: It would depend on the government. Its already well known.

    But the US Congress is on record as saying Obama was born in Hawaii-once implicitly when they found him qualified to be President and then by an explicit resolution.

    [SD] I have spoken with many Congressional staff members and it is appalling how ignorant they are of the facts that have come forth surrounding Obama. Like you, then depend on rumors, hearsay and the left-stream media. None of them even knew about all the historical evidence and court cases explaining what a natural born citizen is.

    The Usurper’s comrades are working full tilt to keep the truth hidden. And this is the kind of person you want in the White house?

  343. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 24, 2010 at 6:39 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] How does a woman rape a woman?

    You truly are a fool…

    [SD] Pray real hard that just one case does not make it to court. Your hopes are hanging by a thread.

  344. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:37 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: I have stated several times that he still has the parent citizenship thing hanging over his head.

    I think more accurately the “parent citizenship thing” is a bit of fog hanging over your own head. It’s certainly nothing in the law or the constitution.

    [SD] The Founders were well aware of Vattel and used his “law of nations” in their deliberations. They knew what a natural born citizen was unlike those dunces sitting in Congress.

    You people think that someone only needs to be born in the U.S. Well, if that’s the case, then McCain doesn’t qualify either. He was born in Colon which was not under U.S. jurisdiction even though it was part of Panama. Under the Panama Constitution he is Panamian. But the big question is, why did they vet him and not Obama on this issue?

    I would agree that to deny him a run for the presidency based on his military record and the fact that both of his parent were U.S. citizens, makes it very difficult to say he isn’t qualified. But if birth in the U.S., or its territories, is the standard, then he doesn’t qualify.

  345. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:35 pm (Quote)

    If either one of us turned up on a list of persons with our name, our SSN and addresses where we never lived, the obvious conclusion would be that somebody else was responsible. How is Obama any different?

    [SD] Suppositional or rhetorical questions don’t dismiss what Taitz has on file. I will continue to remind all of you to pray real hard that just one case doesn’t make it to court. The truth on Obama is being stone-walled at the highest levels, esp. at the AG’s office. It reminds me of the Bill and Hillary era and all their shenanigans.

  346. BlackLion says:

    Which were never proven. You already have your excuse ready by stating that President Obama is being protected “at the highest levels, esp at the AG’s office”. However you have never provided any proof. All of your so called evidence has been disproved or debunked. Yet you still back these discredited claims because of your extreme dislike of the President. Although there is no evidence, I would personally love to see these cases in front of a judge. However once the judge rules against you and laughs your so called evidence out of the courtroom you would then claim that the Judge was part of the coverup or conspiracy. Let us be honest. Obama could never be innocent in your eyes because of your extreme dislike of him. And just like Bill and Hillary, where the GOP spent millions of taxpayer dollars to find some sort of evidence of “shennigans”, nothing was found but you still think that something happened because of your dislike of the Clintons. While the Bush administration spit on the personal liberties of all Americans and there was not a peep out of you. Amazing…

  347. BlackLion says:

    So you are telling us you would prefer to believe a radio jockey and an ambassador that was not alive when the President was born and who’s first language is not English rather than the state of HI when the state that Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii. Amazing. There is no proof of a birth in Kenya. There has never been any proof that Obama’s mother ever visited the country. But you would belive in forged documents rather than statements by Americans from HI, a certified COLB from the state of HI, and the newspaper accounts from the state of HI. Just admit it. You hate the President so no matter what evidence is released, you will believe anything negative about him. So it is not really about evidence but hate.

  348. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:

    First, McRae was on the US side of the phone conversation and he heard what is in the recording. He has nothing to add that we cannot hear for ourselves. His affidavit is just his opinion.

    [SD] What is the source documenting that McRae misunderstood the interpreter’s (Shuhubia) statement about Sarah. Is there an audio of him saying this?

    Shuhudia “lied” in his affidavit by giving a false name so “under oath” is a fiction. One cannot swear under oath under a false name and be bound by it.

    [SD] He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    Of all the affidavits filed against Obama, this could be the most convincing since Shuhubia declares that he spoke with the Registrar’s office at Province Hospital in Mombasa where he learned that Obama was born there. That fact could be substantiated if a case goes to court. Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya. That he would “lie” would be outside his character. At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

  349. Slamdunk says:

    BlackLionsaid, So you are telling us you would prefer to believe a radio jockey and an ambassador that was not alive when the President was born and who’s first language is not English rather than the state of HI when the state that Barack Obama was BORN in Hawaii.Amazing.

    [SD] O the depths you people go to keep yourselves in denial.

    There is no proof of a birth in Kenya.There has never been any proof that Obama’s mother ever visited the country.

    [SD] As I have said in other postings, the interpreter for Sarah and McRae (Shuhubia) swears in his affidavit that he spoke with the Registrar’s Office at the Province Coast Hospital who said that Obama was born in that hospital and that the record is under
    seal, just like all his personal records. I appeal to your common sense to see that this president is obviously hiding things he doesn’t want the world to know.

    But you would belive in forged documents rather than statements by Americans from HI, a certified COLB from the state of HI, and the newspaper accounts from the state of HI.
    Just admit it.You hate the President so no matter what evidence is released, you will believe anything negative about him.So it is not really about evidence but hate.

    [SD] I don’t hate Obama, even though I call him a Usurper. Like millions of Americans, I want him to produce his original 1961 BC and explain natural born citizen.

  350. Scientist says:

    SD said:

    Slamdunk: I don’t know the law,

    Finally, we have something we can all agree on.

  351. NBC says:

    As I said, some vague assertions combined with a lack of any evidence. And then the misrepresentations and lies…

    You’re quite the gullible kind…

    That’s how the powers of ignorance operate my friend…

    My question to SD is simple: Why do you allow others to make you look so foolish when you make clearly erroneous claims?

  352. BatGuano says:

    Slamdunk: Like millions of Americans, I want him to produce his original 1961 BC and explain natural born citizen.

    you already dismissed the ’61 BC as a probable forgery when i brought up that it would be easier to fake than a modern COLB.

  353. SFJeff says:

    Of course there is absolutely no evidence that death threats were made against any of these people.

    And to blame the President or his agents for death threats would be like blaming Taitz for every death threat against the President.

    Really, you have to stop just accepting what whacko’s say on their blogs and look for some evidence- or at least rationality. Taitz refuses to provide either.

  354. SvenMagnussen says:

    SFJeff: Of course there is absolutely no evidence that death threats were made against any of these people.
    And to blame the President or his agents for death threats would be like blaming Taitz for every death threat against the President.Really, you have to stop just accepting what whacko’s say on their blogs and look for some evidence- or at least rationality. Taitz refuses to provide either.

    It cost me $100 to have a fuel line reconnected in my vehicle. Whomever or whatever is attacking Orly is attacking others from coast to coast in a coordinated effort.

    People should fear the government right now. It’s outta control.

  355. BatGuano says:

    SvenMagnussen:
    It cost me $100 to have a fuel line reconnected in my vehicle. Whomever or whatever is attacking Orly is attacking others from coast to coast in a coordinated effort.People should fear the government right now. It’s outta control.

    gremlins.

  356. I was wondering what your reasoning is here.

  357. A) Shuhubia was not the interpreter. The interpreter was Ogombe.

    B) “Shuhubia” is not even a real name.

    Has he ever even shown his face or given an interview?

  358. Yes, McRae’s admission is on the audio tape, posted in my original article. The fact you never listened to it tells me a lot.

  359. Benji Franklin says:

    Dear Ballantine,

    Just wanted to express appreciation for all the effort you put into your authoritative anti-birther brief! It is a great reference for citations related to debunking the required two citizen parent notion of Natural Born Citizenship. I consult it frequently. Thanks again!
    Sincerely,
    BenjiFranklin

  360. PaulG says:

    SvenMagnussen: It cost me $100 to have a fuel line reconnected in my vehicle. Whomever or whatever is attacking Orly is attacking others from coast to coast in a coordinated effort.People should fear the government right now. It’s outta control.

    Whomever or whatever? If we’re throwing the floor open to non-human agents, I think it’s most likely just a random embodiment of universal justice, frustrated beyond reason and called into existence by the inability of some people to learn to function in a modern world. Just a guess, of course.

  361. ballantine says:

    Thanks Benji. Maybe one day I’ll have the time to actually finish it. Nevertheless, it is clear that it will not change the mind of any birthers as they are beyond reasoning.

  362. nbC says:

    What we know is that a light came on in Orly’s car and when she took the car in, the mechanic found that a clip was missing.
    As far as I understand it, the clip was part of the system relevant for emissions control.

    It would be interesting to see if the car had been in for such an inspection some time earlier.

    There are just far simpler explanations than an attempt against Orly. After all, come on guys, she is her own worst enemy. Did you see today’s ruling in Cook v Good, denying Orly’s motion to reinstate the Appeal…

    So far Orly has failed to bring any credible ‘facts’ to the table that establish that the President was not born on US soil or ineligible to hold his position.

    The SSN is yet another hilarious example of using unreliable data sources to establish SSN ‘fraud’ where there is clearly no evidence that President Obama has ever used any other SSN than the one granted to him.
    Do you know how easy it used to be to get a SSN?
    As to the SSN having been assigned to someone born in 1890, there is no name, and the simplest explanation is that this is an error in these public databases, just like there were two entries for the actual birthday of Obama with the month and day switched

    Common sense and Occam’s razor.

  363. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Barry and the Pirates Chapter 46: On The Lookout For Jack Ruby

  364. Slamdunk: He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    Of all the affidavits filed against Obama, this could be the most convincing since Shuhubia declares that he spoke with the Registrar’s office at Province Hospital in Mombasa where he learned that Obama was born there. That fact could be substantiated if a case goes to court. Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya. That he would “lie” would be outside his character. At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

    Let’s look at this more carefully. You say “Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya.” Given that you don’t even know his real name, how can you know that he is “well-respected?” Can you understand how incredible that sounds? How can you know that the writer of that affidavit is even an African, much less a well-respected minister? How do you know that Ron Polarik didn’t write it? That is why it is completely useless in court.

    “Shuhubia” claims that he feared for his safety, yet his affidavit says: “It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya.” Now this is a remarkable statement on two accounts: first, I have never seen any African publication, nor any credible US publication confirm this rather important, and newsworthy claim. Think about it: astounding information of interest to the whole world and “common knowledge” in Kenya that has remained utterly silent. My second point is that if “Shuhubia” is telling the truth here, how is he concerned with his safety for saying what is common knowledge in the community?

    Further, there is nothing in the affidavit that says that the name Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym, and therefore, the statement at the end: “I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct “directly contradicts what is at the beginning: “I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action.” The affidavit is a lie. He could have said “I am not using my real name out of fear for my safety,” but he does not.

    I taught my children a little rule of thumb: if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. In this case, “Shuhubia” right after the interview hops in the car, toodles across the whole country and locates the official (whose name is also conveniently omitted) who confirms that he has the documentation that Obama was born in Mombasa. Look at what “Shuhubia” says: “The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret.” That is a self-documenting lie. If the information is “top secret” then “Shuhubia” wouldn’t have been told!

    Let me leave you with one other little curiosity. The “Shuhubia” affidavit says: “A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto as EXHIBIT ‘A'”. If the writer of this affidavit were REALLY in the room with Sarah Obama during the interview, how can we account for the fact that any time the recording made in the US is unintelligible, the affidavit “Shuhubia” supplies says “unintelligible?” If he were in the room, then he should know what was said. It is obvious that the transcript “Shuhubia” supplied was based on the US end of the recorded conversation, and I think that is the smoking gun. “Brother Tom” is the African minister on the other end of the phone according to the transcript (any version). I have no reason to believe that “Brother Tom” had anything to do with the affidavit. I think it more likely that Ron McRae made up the affidavit himself and edited the phone transcript to remove the parts damaging to his fiction. Indeed, it appears that the affidavit being under the name of a pseudonym was something added later, possibly to account for the fact that there was no Kweli Shuhubia.

    Now you may ask: why Ron McRae would lie? Why would Janet Porter of Faith2Action lie about the travel ban to Pakistan? Why would a Christian murder a doctor who performs abortions? This is not a hard question.

  365. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    The proper procedure would be to submit the affidavit with his real name, under seal, for an in camera review by the court. A court can’t accept an affidavit which doesn’t accurately identify the affiant. But a court would reject his affidavit in any event, because what he allegedly was told in Mombasa is hearsay.

    At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

    Everyone who has ever committed perjury has done basically the same thing.

  366. Slamdunk says:

    BatGuano says:
    February 26, 2010 at 12:44 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Like millions of Americans, I want him to produce his original 1961 BC and explain natural born citizen.

    you already dismissed the 61 BC as a probable forgery when i brought up that it would be easier to fake than a modern COLB.

    [SD] ??? Perhaps you misunderstood. I never agreed that the 61 BC only that you think it would be easier to forge due to your expertise. Let me be emphatic. That 1961 BC must be released to show whether or not the on line BC is genuine.

  367. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 26, 2010 at 1:44 pm (Quote)

    A) Shuhubia was not the interpreter. The interpreter was Ogombe.

    [SD] In both the McRae and Shuhubia affidavits, he is recorded as the interpreter. Of course, you are free not to beleive that fact. Ogombe was the Obot instigator who tried to say that grandma Sarah did not say she was in the Mombasa hossptial delivery room when Obama was born.

    B) “Shuhubia” is not even a real name.

    [SD] As noted earlier, he did not use his real name because of death threats. This is how serious some people are about keeping the truth hidden.

    Has he ever even shown his face or given an interview?

    [SD] Why not go to Kenya and try to get an interview? His affidavit is all the interview we need. As a godly man, like McRae, Shuhubia does not take lightly to speaking lies. He emphasizes that at the end of his affidavit where he says he is God’s servant and accountable to him. If you are a God-fearing person yourself, you will understand that.

  368. Slamdunk says:

    nbC says:
    February 26, 2010 at 4:29 pm (Quote)

    So far Orly has failed to bring any credible facts’ to the table that establish that the President was not born on US soil or ineligible to hold his position.

    [SD] Since none of the facts in Orly’s case have ever been ruled on merit, you cannot say that she has failed to bring them to the table. Denials of motions, standing and jurisdiction matters and justiciable issues have all prevented her facts from being revealed. Just let one case be heard and the facts come out and which would prove that the Usurper is ineligible.

    Did you read Apuzzo’s latest entry?

  369. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 26, 2010 at 12:45 pm (Quote)

    Of course there is absolutely no evidence that death threats were made against any of these people.

    SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails.

    And to blame the President or his agents for death threats would be like blaming Taitz for every death threat against the President.

    [SD] No one has blamed Obama or his Obites. They are most likely disgruntled Obama supporters who can’t handle truth.

    Really, you have to stop just accepting what whacko’s say on their blogs and look for some evidence- or at least rationality. Taitz refuses to provide either.

    [SD] As noted above, She has reported the threats to the authorities. I have no idea what Polarik and Shuhubia have done about the threats. We only have their word. I see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man and minister in Kenya. That may not be enough proof for you, but it sounds reasonable to me.

  370. Slamdunk says:

    NBC says:
    February 26, 2010 at 11:57 am (Quote)

    As I said, some vague assertions combined with a lack of any evidence. And then the misrepresentations and lies…

    You’re quite the gullible kind…

    That’s how the powers of ignorance operate my friend…

    My question to SD is simple: Why do you allow others to make you look so foolish when you make clearly erroneous claims?

    [SD] How is it you say that I make erroneous claims when most everything I have presented here are based on the claims and charges made in all the cases filed against the Usurper? Since none of the evidence in these cases have been ruled on merit, you cannot say that I have made erroneous claims.

  371. Slamdunk says:

    Rickey says:
    February 27, 2010 at 12:41 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk says:

    He didn’t “lie,” rather used an alias because of death threats, just like Polarik. I don’t know the law, but it would seem to me that any court would not reject his affidavit just because he was trying to protect himself.

    The proper procedure would be to submit the affidavit with his real name, under seal, for an in camera review by the court. A court can’t accept an affidavit which doesn’t accurately identify the affiant. But a court would reject his affidavit in any event, because what he allegedly was told in Mombasa is hearsay.

    [SD] He has sworn that he spoke with the Registrar who said Obama was born in that Mombasa hospital. If the case goes to trial and he is questioned, and found to have lied, he goes to jail. Not a fitting place for a God-fearing man and minister.

    At the end of his affidavit he swears before God that what he says is true.

    Everyone who has ever committed perjury has done basically the same thing.

    [SD] Right, and if he lied, he goes to jail.

  372. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: I don’t know the law

  373. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 22, 2010 at 8:52 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] So do I take this to mean that you would look forward to one case being heard if it passes standing?

    Would I look forward to it? Probably not, because since you guys have nothing that would be admissible in court, the case would be over before it started and would lack entertainment value.

    [SD] I’m just trying to see what your motives are. If you are interested in the truth, then you should have no objections to a case being heard. If you don’t want to see it being heard, then I must conclude that you think there are facts that would not bode well for Obama.

    I don’t see any possible case that could surmount those barriers, because the determination of presidential eligibility is a matter for Congress and hence a political question. Congress has already determined this president to be eligible, whether you agree or not. A ballot access challenge in state court in 2012 might be allowed. But, again, under the rules of evidence you will have to come up with actual admissible evidence to have the slightest chance.

    [SD] AGain, rules of procedure and evidence are not my point here. I want to see where your heart is. You want truth? Then you should have no objections to any of the cases moving forward to discovery.

    Slamdunk: [SD] By then, the Usurper will have EO’d (executive ordered) his European styled socialist, unAmerican, unconstitutional agenda into place.

    You’ve certainly tipped your hat as to what drives the birther agenda.

    [SD] I make no bones about my motives, on top of the facts that show Obama is ineligible. We live in a constitutional Republic, not a European style social democracy as concerns shown by Senate Minority leader McConnell and, of course, Limbaugh. In my view, they are right on the money. 53% of Democrats see no problems with socialism.

    The order of the day for you guys: (1) We oppose Obama; (2) Any non-right-winger in White House is by definition illigitimate;

    [SD] Not true. Obama is the only President in history who has ever been charged with not being constitutionally legitimate. Clinton became ineligible (i.e. unworthy to serve) when he lied to the American people, perjured himself and was impeached. There is no place for a President who cheats on his wife, commits adultery in the Oval office, lies to the American people about it, perjures himself before a Judge and is impeached. Only an equally immoral Democratic vote count saved him from removal.

    (3) Let’s look for a reason to call him illigitimate.

    With Clinton, you tried Vince Foster and draft dodging, with Obama it’s this nonsense. Contrast this with the left and Bush. Even though he won a very much contested election, the vast majority of those on the left moved on to oppose him on actual policy. You guys lack the maturity to do that. You are truly still in diapers.

    [SD] This is not about maturity or diapers. Obama has clearly usurped the Presidency and that should rile every American. It only goes to show how bound the Democrats are to abort the constitution and bring America to
    greater depths of socialism.

  374. Greg says:

    As noted earlier, he did not use his real name because of death threats.

    He didn’t mention that in his affidavit.

    I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows…

    I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct.

    Dated: October 30, 2008
    Kweli Shuhubia

    Anyway, none of this is admissible. You are completely ignorant of the law of evidence, specifically hearsay.

    Call Sarah as a witness, or depose her under oath. Call the registrar from Kenya or depose under oath. Call the officials from the hospital or depose under oath.

    Otherwise, you’ve just got inadmissible hearsay.

    At best, you can use the affidavits to impeach Sarah’s testimony on the theory that her prior statements were inconsistent. Oh, wait, you can only impeach with prior testimony, meaning it had to be under oath. Your affidavits have zero value in the legal system.

    You might as well submit blank sheets of paper and save the effort.

  375. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Seven more posts worth of gibberish from Frederic Weis, and yet that pesky uppity negro is still President.

    Slamdunk: I don’t know the law

  376. Slamdunk says:

    Let’s look at this more carefully. You say “Shuhubia is a well-respected minister who is held in high esteem in Kenya.” Given that you don’t even know his real name, how can you know that he is “well-respected?”

    [SD] I base that on his working relationship with the Baptists in Kenya and their different ministries in reaching out to Kenyans. As a rule, people who reach and minister to the needs of the needy are highly welcomed in such areas.

    Can you understand how incredible that sounds?

    [SD] Reason it out. Go into your own poor neighborhoods and see how welcome those are who come to minister to them and help meet their needs. I do some volunteer work for our Community Hope Center and can see how much the homeless, poor appreciate the people and relief they receive. I see no reason to suspect that Shuhubia is any less welcome, admired and appreciated.

    How can you know that the writer of that affidavit is even an African, much less a well-respected minister? How do you know that Ron Polarik didn’t write it? That is why it is completely useless in court.

    [SD] Of course, you are free to speculate about such things if you so desire. Whether it is useless in court would only be determined if a case is heard.

    “Shuhubia” claims that he feared for his safety, yet his affidavit says: “It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya.” Now this is a remarkable statement on two accounts: first, I have never seen any African publication, nor any credible US publication confirm this rather important, and newsworthy claim. Think about it: astounding information of interest to the whole world and “common knowledge” in Kenya that has remained utterly silent. My second point is that if “Shuhubia” is telling the truth here, how is he concerned with his safety for saying what is common knowledge in the community?

    [SD] Again, you can speculate about circumstances, etc. but Shuhubia still made the statement. What you may be overlooking is that, while it may be common knowledge in Kenya that Obama was born there, it isn’t in the U.S. So when someone attests that it is common knowledge, such a person could come under threats to prevent him from spreading such information. With a media gag order on matters involving Obama, it’s not surprising that little information reaches the U.S. I too am speculating on certain mattees, but I don’t think it is unreasonable.

    Further, there is nothing in the affidavit that says that the name Kweli Shuhubia is a pseudonym, and therefore, the statement at the end: “I declare under the penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is true and correct “directly contradicts what is at the beginning: “I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action.” The affidavit is a lie. He could have said “I am not using my real name out of fear for my safety,” but he does not.

    [SD] It was Bishop McRae who said that Shuhubia is an alias. Without knowing all the details, it seems to me that you are trying to think for Shuhubia and reason what he should do under the circumstances.

    I taught my children a little rule of thumb: if it’s too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. In this case, “Shuhubia” right after the interview hops in the car, toodles across the whole country and locates the official (whose name is also conveniently omitted) who confirms that he has the documentation that Obama was born in Mombasa. Look at what “Shuhubia” says: “The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. birth in Kenya is top secret.” That is a self-documenting lie. If the information is “top secret” then “Shuhubia” wouldn’t have been told!

    [SD] But if he lied, he will go to jail should he ever have to account for statements in his affidavit. But since you don’t know all the details, you can’t make a summary judgment. It’s easy to speculate.

    Let me leave you with one other little curiosity. The “Shuhubia” affidavit says: “A copy of the Tape transcript is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A’”. If the writer of this affidavit were REALLY in the room with Sarah Obama during the interview, how can we account for the fact that any time the recording made in the US is unintelligible, the affidavit “Shuhubia” supplies says “unintelligible?” If he were in the room, then he should know what was said. It is obvious that the transcript “Shuhubia” supplied was based on the US end of the recorded conversation, and I think that is the smoking gun. “Brother Tom” is the African minister on the other end of the phone according to the transcript (any version). I have no reason to believe that “Brother Tom” had anything to do with the affidavit. I think it more likely that Ron McRae made up the affidavit himself and edited the phone transcript to remove the parts damaging to his fiction.

    [SD] I would be the first to be critical of Bishop McRae, or Shuhubia, should it be found out that he has lied. He too would be subject to imprisonment if a court found him guilty. I can’t supply answers to some of your speculations, which may or may not have some merit.

    Indeed, it appears that the affidavit being under the name of a pseudonym was something added later, possibly to account for the fact that there was no Kweli Shuhubia.

    [SD] So it is a master plot to unseat obama.

    Now you may ask: why Ron McRae would lie? Why would Janet Porter of Faith2Action lie about the travel ban to Pakistan? Why would a Christian murder a doctor who performs abortions? This is not a hard question.

    [SD] I don’t know about the Pakistan trip or why a Christian would murder an abortion doctor. You can use them to convince yourself that McRae and Shuhubia are liars, but only a case heard on merits will reveal the truth. Wish hard that one case moves into a courtroom so we can learn the truth about everything.

  377. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 24, 2010 at 5:41 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Bestowing NBC on a foreign born in no way alters the Act’s definition of it,

    That’s bizarre. Are you arguing that only persons born overseas to American citizen fathers who have had at some time lived in the United States may be President? That’s who the 1790 Act calls natural born citizens.

    [SD] You may be confusing “native born subjects” with “natural born citizens,” which the founders viewed differently. It is my understanding that the founders did not rely on British common law when speaking of natural born citizens. Apuzzo goes into some detail about the Naturalization Act of 1790. I recommend that you visit his site. I do recall reading it, but can’t remember where its found in all his articles.I wish I could remember so I could share it with you.

  378. NBC says:

    [SD] How is it you say that I make erroneous claims when most everything I have presented here are based on the claims and charges made in all the cases filed against the Usurper? Since none of the evidence in these cases have been ruled on merit, you cannot say that I have made erroneous claims.

    Of course I can do so. Do you believe that these filings were without errors and omissions?

    You are the gullible kind indeed.

    Allowing others to make you look foolish… Have you no self respect my friend?

  379. NBC says:

    You may be confusing “native born subjects” with “natural born citizens,” which the founders viewed differently. It is my understanding that the founders did not rely on British common law when speaking of natural born citizens.

    It’s not your understanding, it’s what others have led you to believe… Apuzzo’s arguments have been consistently dismantled on this site.

    Natural born and Native born are for all practical purposes very similar concepts with minor exceptions.

    Have you read Wong Kim Ark? Have you read Ankeny v Gov of Indiana?

    SD, you are a victim of repeating arguments of which you have no full understanding. As such you have opened yourself up to ridicule.

    When you mindlessly repeat false information…

    Inform yourself, there are some great sites out there which look at the issue of natural born citizen, based on history, legal precedent and not based on wishful thinking.

    That you cannot even accurately present these wishful thoughts further outlines how much you rely on ignorance to further your ‘claims’. So my question is: Why do you make such strong claims about the eligibility of our President when you lack a coherent understanding of the arguments?

  380. SFJeff says:

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    How do you know any of this? Have the poiice and FBI confirmed that they have received any threats? Just because Orly says there have been threats and just because she says she has reported them doesn’t mean it has happened.

    ‘[SD] No one has blamed Obama or his Obites. They are most likely disgruntled Obama supporters who can’t handle truth. ”

    I think Orly has pretty clearly suggested that the Obama administration or campaign are behind the threats. But even assuming that Taitz is telling the truth(which is a big stretch considering her record) then as you said- it could be disgruntled Obama supporters- which direclty contradicts your first statement about death threats- which you said was evidence that Obama was hiding something.

    “She has reported the threats to the authorities.”
    Again- how do you know she has done this? All you have is her statement that she has.

    “I have no idea what Polarik and Shuhubia have done about the threats. We only have their word”

    Do you not realize how stupid this sounds? You reject the word of President Obama about where he was born, you reject the statements of Hawaiin officials, you reject the definitions of NBC given by consitutional authorities, but you somehow find credible two people you know nothing about.

    “I see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man and minister in Kenya.”

    How do you even know that either of those statements are true? And even assuming they are- how many ministers here in the United States have ended up fleecing their churches and ended up in prison? Or cheated on their wives? Or been shown to be liars.

    Your selective gullibility amazes me. President Obama declares himself a Christian, publicly attends a christian church- yet you assume he is a liar and probably a Muslim. Some complete unknown writes that he is a Christan minister and you automatically assume he must be truthfull.

    I hope a good Christian minister never tries to sell you a bridge

  381. nbC says:

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    And how seriously do these officials take these so called ‘threats’?

    Any idea?

  382. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    He has sworn that he spoke with the Registrar who said Obama was born in that Mombasa hospital. If the case goes to trial and he is questioned, and found to have lied, he goes to jail.

    Do you not understand what hearsay is? He would not be allowed to testify about what another person supposedly said to him. There is an exception for a declaration against interest, but that wouldn’t apply to a person who isn’t a party to the legal action.

    Right, and if he lied, he goes to jail.

    People lie under oath all the time, but very few of them go to jail.

  383. SFJeff says:

    “As a rule, people who reach and minister to the needs of the needy are highly welcomed in such areas”
    “Go into your own poor neighborhoods and see how welcome those are who come to minister to them and help meet their needs”
    “see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man”

    Excuse me are you speaking of Shuhubia(or whatever his real name is) or of Obama?

    Obama spent several years helping poor people meet their needs, and we have plenty of real evidence that President Obama is a practicing Christian- a god fearing man as you say.

    By your own standards, you should be accepting President Obama’s word over that of say Taitz or Mario- neither of which as far as we know has ever spent any time working with the poor, nor do we know their “godly” status.

  384. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk:”McConnell and, of course, Limbaugh. In my view, they are right on the money.”

    So you feel that McConnell and Limbaugh are ‘right on the money” when labelling Obama a Socialist…yet they are what? Too stupid to realize that President Obama wasn’t eligible? Or are they willing to call President Obama a socialist, yet are somehow to cowardly to mention this?

    Which is it- Is Limbaugh too stupid or too cowardly?

  385. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    I base that on his working relationship with the Baptists in Kenya and their different ministries in reaching out to Kenyans.

    How do you know that he has such a working relationship when you don’t even know what his name is? For all you know, he could be a total charlatan.

    It’s easy to speculate.

    As you have demonstrated time and again.

  386. Slamdunk: Apuzzo goes into some detail about the Naturalization Act of 1790. I recommend that you visit his site.

    With all the legal scholars writing in law journals, and Supreme Court cases available, why would anybody to go to some paid advocate’s web site for information? The kindest thing I can say about Apuzzo’s arguments is that they are “biased.” I have a nearly 400-page book published by a university on American citizenship here (Ketner’s book). Apuzzo is no authority.

  387. Slamdunk: With a media gag order on matters involving Obama, it’s not surprising that little information reaches the U.S.

    And exactly how do you know that? Read it on somebody’s blog? [sigh] As a matter fact, there are Kenyan political forums where people post comments just like you do here. They are in the Internet, and you can go read them. One favorite comment from Kenya is this:

    Gathoni, you are missing your chance to become rich and fame. McCain and Palin would really appreciate if you can pass to them the information that Obama was born in Mombassa. He was born in Hawaii. Gathoni, I respect your comments, but I think you are dead wrong on this. Convince me if you can, though.

    You seem to miss the essential point. How do you know that “Shuhubia” even exists? I could claim that I went to Kenya, found “Brother Tom” and produced an affidavit from him, paste an illegible signature onto it and say that Sarah Obama was adamant that Barack was born in Hawaii. What is the difference between mine and the one you believe? Nothing. Both would have nothing going for them except internal claims. What makes you think that if a trial happened that this Shuhubia could be found to testify?

    As for McRae, these are his own words:

    Even before the law (Matthew 2 is still under the law…see Luke 16:16), when governments sanctioned the killing of new born children (Exodus 1), God commended civil disobedience (Exodus 1:17, 21), and even moved His people to extreme measures in their civil disobedience (Exodus 2:1-3), but the disobedience was still civil, and never rose to the level of vengeance seen today in the matter of abortion, where professing Christians bloody the streets in killing abortion doctors in falsely so called “defensive action” for the sake of “the unborn”, thinking they do God a service.

    http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillRonMcRae.html

    McRae is in favor of “extreme measures” short of murder to prevent abortions. Do you think a fake affidavit might come under that category?

    The bottom line is that there is no person standing behind the Shuhubia affidavit; there is no Kenyan birth document; there is no evidence.

  388. Slamdunk: Obama is the only President in history who has ever been charged with not being constitutionally legitimate.

    Does it ever cross your mind that you should look stuff up instead of just imaging your world?

    Obama is not the only president whose eligibility has been questioned. The difference between what you said and what I said is that I have facts, and you just made that up.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

  389. misha says:

    “Apuzzo is no authority.”

    He’s an authority on ambulance chasing, and frivolous claims. Also, contributory negligence.

  390. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2010 at 9:56 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Obama is the only President in history who has ever been charged with not being constitutionally legitimate.

    Does it ever cross your mind that you should look stuff up instead of just imaging your world?

    Obama is not the only president whose eligibility has been questioned. The difference between what you said and what I said is that I have facts, and you just made that up.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

    [SD] Yes, I stand corrected. Arthur successfully skirted natural born citizen, just like Obama is trying to do.

  391. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 27, 2010 at 8:25 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk:”McConnell and, of course, Limbaugh. In my view, they are right on the money.”

    So you feel that McConnell and Limbaugh are right on the money” when labelling Obama a Socialist…yet they are what? Too stupid to realize that President Obama wasn’t eligible?

    [SD] It is a mystery to me why Limbaugh doesn’t talk more about this issue. Mr. Conservative’s silence is deafening.

    Or are they willing to call President Obama a socialist, yet are somehow to cowardly to mention this?

    [SD] Hannity and Limbaugh see Obama as a socialist. O’Reilly is not there yet, but getting closer. It’s not likely that Republicans in congress will call Democrats socialists, but 53% of them lean in that direction.

    Which is it- Is Limbaugh too stupid or too cowardly?

    [SD] Not stupid, but why he doesn’t do the “birther” thing is a mystery to me.

  392. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 27, 2010 at 9:47 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: With a media gag order on matters involving Obama, it’s not surprising that little information reaches the U.S.

    And exactly how do you know that? Read it on somebody’s blog? [sigh] As a matter fact, there are Kenyan political forums where people post comments just like you do here. They are in the Internet, and you can go read them. One favorite comment from Kenya is this:

    Gathoni, you are missing your chance to become rich and fame. McCain and Palin would really appreciate if you can pass to them the information that Obama was born in Mombassa. He was born in Hawaii. Gathoni, I respect your comments, but I think you are dead wrong on this. Convince me if you can, though.

    [SD] As I understand it, the gag order is on hospital and health department authorities. They are not permitted, like Hawaii, to release any information on Obama or make any statements about him being born in Kenya.

    You seem to miss the essential point. How do you know that “Shuhubia” even exists? I could claim that I went to Kenya, found “Brother Tom”

    [SD] “Tom” could be Shuhubia’s nick name. I agree, it’s curious why McCrae called him that.

    and produced an affidavit from him, paste an illegible signature onto it and say that Sarah Obama was adamant that Barack was born in Hawaii. What is the difference between mine and the one you believe? Nothing. Both would have nothing going for them except internal claims. What makes you think that if a trial happened that this Shuhubia could be found to testify?

    [SD] You’re speculating, and that’s fine. No one knows all the facts or circumstances. All I know is that if Shuhubia is a real person, even though that’s an alias, and is called to testify and is found lying, he goes to jail. The same with McRae.

    As for McRae, these are his own words:

    Even before the law (Matthew 2 is still under the law…see Luke 16:16), when governments sanctioned the killing of new born children (Exodus 1), God commended civil disobedience (Exodus 1:17, 21), and even moved His people to extreme measures in their civil disobedience (Exodus 2:1-3), but the disobedience was still civil, and never rose to the level of vengeance seen today in the matter of abortion, where professing Christians bloody the streets in killing abortion doctors in falsely so called “defensive action” for the sake of “the unborn”, thinking they do God a service.

    [SD] Other than the Tiller killer, who has killed a doctor or bombed a clinic and claimed to be a born again believer in Jesus Christ? Could it be that the TK was only a nominal Christian?

    http://www.armyofgod.com/PHillRonMcRae.html

    McRae is in favor of “extreme measures” short of murder to prevent abortions. Do you think a fake affidavit might come under that category?

    The bottom line is that there is no person standing behind the Shuhubia affidavit; there is no Kenyan birth document; there is no evidence.

    [SD] There’s evidence, all right, and Obama has it. Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?

    I think you’re groping to say Shuhubia is not the one making his affidavit. There’s now way Orly, or any other attorney, would accept an affidavit if they suspected the person wasn’t real.

  393. Slamdunk says:

    Go ahead, remain in denial. The man is real.

  394. Mike says:

    SlapMonkey: Or are they willing to call President Obama a socialist, yet are somehow to cowardly to mention this?

    Or maybe they’re not quite as stupid as you. Given that we’re talking about Limbaugh, that’s pretty damning.

  395. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 27, 2010 at 8:21 pm (Quote)

    “As a rule, people who reach and minister to the needs of the needy are highly welcomed in such areas”
    “Go into your own poor neighborhoods and see how welcome those are who come to minister to them and help meet their needs”
    “see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man”

    Excuse me are you speaking of Shuhubia(or whatever his real name is) or of Obama?

    [SD] Shuhubia

    Obama spent several years helping poor people meet their needs, and we have plenty of real evidence that President Obama is a practicing Christian- a god fearing man as you say.

    [SD] Do you think someone who has worked for the poor makes them a Christian? This may prove helpful.
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

  396. Slamdunk says:

    nbC says:
    February 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    And how seriously do these officials take these so called threats’?

    Any idea?

    [SD] So you accept the fact that she has received threats. What officials think about them is another matter.

  397. Slamdunk: As I understand it, the gag order is on hospital and health department authorities. They are not permitted, like Hawaii, to release any information on Obama or make any statements about him being born in Kenya.

    OK, but why do you think there is a “gag order” on hospital and health department authorities? If you think this is true, there ought t be a reason and a reason beyond somebody’s blog or a professional smear artist like Jerome (“The Obama Nation”) Corsi . I cited in another comment the law from Kenya that permits general public access to (at the very least) an alphabetic index by year of births.

    Slamdunk: “Tom” could be Shuhubia’s nick name

    From the transcript and the affidavit, it is clear that the writer of the affidavit claims to be the person identified as “Brother Tom” on the tape. We also “know” (and I use that term very loosely) that Shuhubia is not the real name of the person making the affidavit, so there is nothing odd about the names not matching. I rather let this one slide, but I believe the actual identity of “Brother Tom” was figured out long ago. I will follow it up. So the real question is whether the person on the tape identified as being in the room in Kenya during the interview wrote the affidavit, or whether it was written by someone else.

    We need not be so concerned about whether “Brother Tom” is a well-respected minister, or an opportunistic con man, until we first know whether he wrote the affidavit in the first place. I am somewhat of the opinion that he did not, primarily for the utter lack of details that one would expect from an eye witness (such as the name of anybody present) and the fact that the transcript is wholly based on the recording.

    Slamdunk: [SD] Other than the Tiller killer, who has killed a doctor or bombed a clinic and claimed to be a born again believer in Jesus Christ? Could it be that the TK was only a nominal Christian?

    Actually the text from McRae was about Paul Hill, another abortion doctor murderer. This about Hill:

    In a statement before his execution, Hill said that he felt no remorse for his actions, and that he expected “a great reward in Heaven”. Hill left behind a manuscript manifesto which his backers promised him they would publish. That manifesto and his address to the jury that convicted him echoed the words of John Brown, who had attempted to incite a violent insurrection to end slavery in the United States. Hill was not apologetic for the killings, and in his last words he encouraged others who believe abortion is an illegitimate use of lethal force to “do what you have to do to stop it”.

    slamdunk: I think you’re groping to say Shuhubia is not the one making his affidavit. There’s now way Orly, or any other attorney, would accept an affidavit if they suspected the person wasn’t real.

    I guess a better way to say it is that “Brother Tom” (nor anyone present in Kenya during the interview) may not be the one making the affidavit.

    It’s Phil Berg who put this affidavit in his filing in the original Berg v. Obama lawsuit. Now Phil Berg believes that the US Government was responsible for the 9/11 World Trade Center bombing. He also included reference to a birth certificate saying Obama was born in Canada, one signed by a cartoon character. There is no report that Berg went to Kenya or that “Brother Tom” came to the US. There’s no reason to believe that Phil Berg has any first-hand knowledge of who wrote the affidavit.

    From the form of the affidavit, it is fairly clear that it was written in the United States by Berg and/or McRae. “Brother Tom’s” command of English on the recording is not up to the highly literate affidavit. It is possible that the text was sent to “Brother Tom” and that he sent back a piece of paper with his signature on it, a signature that was cut and pasted onto the document Berg published. “Brother Tom” could have had input into the affidavit and he could have signed it. We just don’t have any evidence that he did.

    One other curious item is that neither the “Shuhubia” nor the McRae affidavits appear among the case documents on the court web site.

  398. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 27, 2010 at 2:50 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Taitz has reported the threats to the police and FBI. Some of the threats have been made by emails”

    How do you know any of this? Have the poiice and FBI confirmed that they have received any threats? Just because Orly says there have been threats and just because she says she has reported them doesn’t mean it has happened.

    I think Orly has pretty clearly suggested that the Obama administration or campaign are behind the threats.

    [SD] Please site anything she has said to this effect.

    But even assuming that Taitz is telling the truth(which is a big stretch considering her record) then as you said- it could be disgruntled Obama supporters- which direclty contradicts your first statement about death threats- which you said was evidence that Obama was hiding something.

    [SD] Please find where I said that.

    “She has reported the threats to the authorities.”

    Again- how do you know she has done this? All you have is her statement that she has.

    [SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    “I have no idea what Polarik and Shuhubia have done about the threats. We only have their word”

    Do you not realize how stupid this sounds? You reject the word of President Obama about where he was born, you reject the statements of Hawaiin officials, you reject the definitions of NBC given by consitutional authorities, but you somehow find credible two people you know nothing about.

    [SD] Again,they are subject to prison if they lied in their affidavits.

    “I see no reason not to believe Shuhubia because he is a God-fearing man and minister in Kenya.”

    How do you even know that either of those statements are true? And even assuming they are- how many ministers here in the United States have ended up fleecing their churches and ended up in prison? Or cheated on their wives? Or been shown to be liars.

    [SD] There you go again with the Liar thing. It’s absolutely essential for your case that they be found not credible or liars. Because if they are honest men with integrity, then their testimonies are true and Obama is the liar. I’m sure you really want just one case to be heard so the court will reveal that the birthers were the liars and fools.

    President Obama declares himself a Christian, publicly attends a christian church-

    [SD] Do you think just declaring yourself to be anything make you that? I’m not so sure that he attends church. If he does, not much is said about it. If he does, do you know which one? This site may prove helpful about his Christianity.
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

    yet you assume he is a liar

    [SD] He can prove me wrong by producing his 1961 LFBC.

  399. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk, when I went to research a few things you mentioned here, I was immediately struck by how you are using the exact verbage of dozens of websites. The whole idea- the first President to have his eligibility challenged blah blah is found word for word in a dozen websites. Everything you post is recycled from other websites. You don’t even bother to put it in your own words, which convinces me that you are not doing any of your own thinking, but just parroting what others are posting.

  400. SFJeff says:

    “[SD] Not stupid, but why he doesn’t do the “birther” thing is a mystery to me.”

    Well that only leaves cowardly- which personally I think Limbaugh is- or that he just recognizes there is no substance to the whole birther movement.

    You are the one that believes Limbaugh and McConnel are such great thinkers. They are either craven cowards or they don’t believe the whole Birther movement- well in Limbaughs case it probably is both.

    Come on Slamdunk- you are willing to make huge assumptions on why President Obama won’t release his kindergarten records, why no such assumptions on Limbaugh’s silence?

  401. SFJeff says:

    “SD] There’s evidence, all right, and Obama has it.”

    If Obama has the only evidence there is, then how do you know there is any evidence?

    “Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?”

    A) because he doesn’t have to- in the American Justice system it is up to the accuser to produce some credible evidence- not third hand rumors and speculations.
    B) because it wouldnt’ even settle it for you- because as you have said you think even if he was born in Hawaii he still isn’t a NBC. So the President shouldn’t waste anytime trying to placate a small group of denialist who make it clear they will not accept anything but will continue to be in denial.

  402. nbC says:

    [SD] So you accept the fact that she has received threats. What officials think about them is another matter.

    You need to read more carefully my dear foolish friend. I stated “threats”, indicating that I have yet to see evidence of real threats, although I can imagine that whatever they are/were, Orly believes somehow that they are threats.

    What officials think about them matters a lot since it provides or undermines the ‘credibility’ of what Orly believes to be ‘threats’.

  403. nbC says:

    SD: Go ahead, remain in denial. The man is real.

    Is this why you can provide no credible evidence to support your claim?

    Silly SD…

  404. SFJeff says:

    “[SD] Do you think someone who has worked for the poor makes them a Christian? This may prove helpful.”

    Of course not. But you of course parsed out my statement. President Obama has openly declared that he is a Christian- multiple times. He has publicly attended Christian churches for years- which has been clearly documented. As far as I am concerned he has led as Christian of a life as any politician serving in D.C.

    So I am baffled why you tell us that we should accept the affidavit of someone in Kenya who claims he is a man of god- and in the same document lies about his name- because he is a man of god and serves the poor- which is exactly what Obama is and does. I don’t even think those are relevant, but I think it is incredibly hypocritical for you to accept that this Kenyan person is a man of god when you have nothing other than his statement to base this on, while in the case of President Obama there is clear cut evidence that he is a practicising Christian who has worked with the poor to make their lives better.

    If you believe that a “god fearing” man who serves the poor should be given credibility, then by those standards you must accept the credibility of President Obama, or admit that your standards are really circumstantial- they only apply when you want them to apply

  405. SFJeff says:

    “SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart”

    You are the one that stated that the death threats to Orly were a sign that someone wanted to stop her. You were the one who mentioned the supposed death threats here. Do I think Orly is a liar- yes because she has clearly lied in the past. But to the specific point- just because she says in her blog that she has received death threats does not mean that she has received them. She might be lieing, she might be delusional or she may just be mistaken. In any case, there is no reason for me to accept her word for it. You won’t even accept the word of the Hawaiian state officials, why should I accept the word of Ortly Taitz?

    “Do you think just declaring yourself to be anything make you that? I’m not so sure that he attends church. If he does, not much is said about it. If he does, do you know which one?”

    Its funny you should mention that. Many Christians are all to ready to brand someone else not a ‘real Christian’- and that usually means they don’t believe in exactly the very narrow point of view they do.

    What does that leave us with? I watched in Baptist Church one time where a 6 year announced he was born again, and was welcomed into the church. So these folks were willing to accept a 6 year old’s statement at face value- but you aren’t willing to accept the President’s statement of faith?

    You really don’t do any original research of your own do you?

    Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html#ixzz0grm0WK9G

    this took me 3 seconds to find.

    Prior to that he was a member of Trinity Church in Chicago- which was well publicized.

    Or do you have some special litmus test that Christians must pass in order to be ‘real’ Christians?

    And-horrors- what if he were Jewish?

  406. SFJeff says:

    “[SD] You’re speculating, and that’s fine. No one knows all the facts or circumstances. All I know is that if Shuhubia is a real person, even though that’s an alias, and is called to testify and is found lying, he goes to jail. The same with McRae.”

    Exactly how will ‘Shuhubia’ be summoned to court? Nobody has his real name, he is in Kenya- so first of all no one knows who to subpoena and secondly the subpoena would have to be served on him in Kenya which if he was lieing he could just ignore. I don’t think he would have any realistic reason to worry about going to jail.

    McRae- maybe he is concerned. Of course if he believes he is doing gods work, maybe he is willing to bear false witness for the glory of god.

  407. Greg says:

    Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?

    Well, I guess by EVERYONE, you mean everyone but yourself, and, well, every other birther out there.

    You’ve admitted that the “LFBC” wouldn’t settle the matter for you. So, why do you continue to LIE and suggest that it would. That doesn’t seem very Christian to me.

    As to Obama being the only president whose eligibility could be questioned by your cockamamie theory, there have been several presidents and vice-presidents whose parents were naturalized citizens. No one has ever looked at any of them to see if their naturalization happened before or after their birth. That is just one clue, SD, about how much credence your two-citizen parent rule has. None.

  408. Greg says:

    Barackryphal does a good job of giving some examples of Presidents and Vice-Presidents and candidates for same that had parents who were immigrants.

    No one has ever asked for the naturalization papers for any of these candidates to prove that they were naturalized prior to their child’s birth.

  409. Awwwwwwwwk. Birther wanna cracker!

  410. thisoldhippie says:

    Why do these people continue to ask for the President’s birth records from the hospital? Most hospitals only keep medical records for 10 years and after that they are destroyed and if you send a request you will get a form letter stating that they do not have any records because they are too old. In fact, they often even don’t have a record of the person ever receiving medical treatment there. Of course, if a birther received this letter they would just scream conspiracy.

  411. nbC says:

    [SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    On the contrary, the case against Orly falls apart on a myriad of reasons such as lack of legal support, the lack of standing, the lack of merit.

    Her claims of ‘threats’ are just trying to hide the obvious…

  412. Slamdunk says:

    nbC says:
    February 28, 2010 at 6:03 pm (Quote)

    [SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    On the contrary, the case against Orly falls apart on a myriad of reasons such as lack of legal support, the lack of standing, the lack of merit.

    [SD] How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Her claims of threats’ are just trying to hide the obvious…

    [SD] It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed.

  413. Mary Brown says:

    It is very difficult for any modern President to attend church regularly, given the security concerns. I attend church weekly and work at my church. It would be impossible for us to accomodate these concerns. You never know who will be in attendance on a weekly basis. Members would have to pass security check points each week. I could go on. I notice they(the Obama’s) have attended on occasion. I also believe that God is the judge of each person’s heart. He alone has the right or power to judge belief.

  414. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    February 28, 2010 at 3:58 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart”

    You are the one that stated that the death threats to Orly were a sign that someone wanted to stop her. You were the one who mentioned the supposed death threats here. Do I think Orly is a liar- yes because she has clearly lied in the past. But to the specific point- just because she says in her blog that she has received death threats does not mean that she has received them. She might be lieing, she might be delusional or she may just be mistaken.

    [SD] How telling that you don’t consider she might be telling the truth. See what I mean? It’s crucial to your case to keep her cast as a liar, along with McRae, Shuhubia, Polarik, Lines, etc. So far the lie is winning because liars keep the truth from exposure.

    In any case, there is no reason for me to accept her word for it. You won’t even accept the word of the Hawaiian state officials, why should I accept the word of Ortly Taitz?

    [SD] Hint: Hawaii, like the MSM and AG Holder, is in the Usuper’s hip pocket. But things are happening at the HDOH that could prove interesting. Stay tuned.

    “Do you think just declaring yourself to be anything make you that? I’m not so sure that he attends church. If he does, not much is said about it. If he does, do you know which one?”

    Its funny you should mention that. Many Christians are all to ready to brand someone else not a real Christian’- and that usually means they don’t believe in exactly the very narrow point of view they do.

    What does that leave us with? I watched in Baptist Church one time where a 6 year announced he was born again, and was welcomed into the church. So these folks were willing to accept a 6 year old’s statement at face value- but you aren’t willing to accept the President’s statement of faith?

    [SD] What I say or think isn’t important. Does his life and words support his claim of being a Christian, that is, a born again believer in Jesus Christ? I know one thing; The scriptures say that Christians are supposed to know that there sins are washed away. Obama has said he wasn’t sure. Does that mean he isn’t a Christian? You can make you own call, but it does means that he doesn’t know, or has forgotten, what the scriptures teach about that.

    You really don’t do any original research of your own do you?

    Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush’s footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David.

    [SD] OK, thanks for sharing that. But does he attend a church in DC when he’s in town?

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907610,00.html#ixzz0grm0WK9G

    this took me 3 seconds to find.

    [SD] I’m impressed:)

    Prior to that he was a member of Trinity Church in Chicago- which was well publicized

    [SD] Yes, I knew that.

    Or do you have some special litmus test that Christians must pass in order to be real’ Christians?

    [SD] Isn’t a Christian the same as a “real” Christian. “By their fruits you shall know them.”

    And-horrors- what if he were Jewish?

    [SD] The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president, but his kingdom was not of this world. Imagine being without deceit, corruption, falsehood, greed, etc.

  415. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    Orly Taitz is an attorney not a witness and has no first-hand knowledge she could testify to. Therefore, her veracity is immaterial.

    Slamdunk: It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed

    First of all when you say “our case” you are not a palintiff, so it isn’t your case. Second there are no active cases; they’ve been dismissed with prejudice, which means they can’t be re-filed. As for “your case”, I am not a defendant, so it is not my case either.

    As far as McRae and “Shuhubia”, they have no first hand knowledge of where Obama was born, so it really doesn’t matter whether they are lying or telling the truth. Sarah Obama is the supposed “eyewitness” to the birth. It’s she that would have to testify. The tape stands by itself and neither McRae nor “Shuhubia” have anything useful to add. As far as what the Registrar supposedly told “Shuhubia”, it is immaterial. “Shuhubia” hasn’t seen the records. The actual records would have to be brought to court along with the Registrar to testify about how they are kept.

    As you admitted before, you don’t know the law. So one wonders why you continue to post and display your ignorance.

  416. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president,

    He wasn’t born in the US to 2 citizen parents, was he?

  417. bovril1 says:

    [SD] How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Last I checked, appearing in a court before a judge kinda demonstrates that a cases validity has been heard and judged on it merits (or lack thereof)

    [SD] It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed.

    Nooooooo, your ‘case’ is based on lies, fabrications, innuendo, supposition, forgery, suborned “witnesses”, frivolous lawsuits……you get the drift?

    I could continue but leave it as an exercise for the ignorant, stupid, malicious, purblind, prejudiced, hate mongering, oops, got locked in a thesaurus loop.

  418. Slamdunk says:

    Mary Brown says:
    February 28, 2010 at 8:45 pm (Quote)

    It is very difficult for any modern President to attend church regularly, given the security concerns.

    [SD] Perhaps the difficulty is lack of committment. Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority, assuming there isn’t a national crisis? I mean, security for him would be no different than for any other place he goes. If a President wants to go to church every Sunday, then security arrangements will be made. Clinton didn’t seem to have any difficulty attending church when he was in office.

    I attend church weekly and work at my church. It would be impossible for us to accomodate these concerns. You never know who will be in attendance on a weekly basis. Members would have to pass security check points each week. I could go on. I notice they(the Obama’s) have attended on occasion. I also believe that God is the judge of each person’s heart. He alone has the right or power to judge belief.

    [SD] Right.

  419. Slamdunk: How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Uhhh, you read the complaint?

  420. misha says:

    “The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president”

    Ben Gurion was born in Poland, and was a committed socialist. Sorry.

  421. chufho says:

    self described

  422. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 8:51 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president,

    He wasn’t born in the US to 2 citizen parents, was he?

    [SD] Well, his parents were both Jewish, and it’s his qualifications that are notable. I think if all public servants fit the Biblical definition for public service, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in (Exo. 18:21) Check it out.

  423. nbC says:

    I doubt that SD actually reads, he just cut and paste his talking points, allowing others to make him look foolish.

  424. Slamdunk says:

    misha says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm (Quote)

    “The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president”

    Ben Gurion was born in Poland, and was a committed socialist. Sorry.

    [SD] Jesus, silly 🙂

  425. Slamdunk says:

    nbC says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:19 pm (Quote)

    I doubt that SD actually reads, he just cut and paste his talking points, allowing others to make him look foolish.

    [SD] Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

  426. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:07 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: How do you know there is no merit unless a case is heard?

    Uhhh, you read the complaint?

    [SD] The idea is that the court will decide the merits. But first the evidence must be heard. Law 101.

  427. Slamdunk: I would be the first to be critical of Bishop McRae, or Shuhubia, should it be found out that he has lied

    Well here is your opportunity.

    Long before anyone had suggested that Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, the following appeared in the Chicago Tribune RedEye edition on March 27, 2007:

    Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband’s continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she “was so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S.”

    So Shuhubia, or whatever his name is, lied. Barack Obama was born in the US. Phil Berg was hoodwinked.

  428. misha says:

    @Slamdunk: Hercules is the son of Zeus and a human woman. Jesus and Mary is based on Isis and her son Horus. And Jewish people consider worshiping a human to be idolatry and the cult of personality. Sorry.

    So my nominations are:
    1. Ben Gurion
    2. Theodore Herzl
    3. Moshe Dayan

  429. Slamdunk: But first the evidence must be heard. Law 101.

    The “evidence” has already been presented to the public, and found (to put it kindly) without merit.

  430. misha says:

    “Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?”

    Yes, in college sociology class. Along with Sinclair’s “The Jungle.”

    Alinsky was a Jewish Communist, right?

  431. Scientist says:

    misha-You got something against Albert Einstein???

  432. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

    I haven’t. What about you?

  433. misha says:

    “You got something against Albert Einstein???”

    He never answered the question about a car’s headlights projecting a beam, if travelling at the speed of light. (bada-bing)

  434. Slamdunk: Have you read Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals?

    No, have you?

    I didn’t think so.

  435. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: Well, his parents were both Jewish, and it’s his qualifications that are notable

    Now you have me confused. I thought the President had to be born in the US to 2 citizen parents. As far as I know Jesus was born in Judea of Jewish parents living under Roman rule. If Mario knew, he’d have a fit.

  436. Slamdunk says:

    cientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 8:49 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Yes, of course. It’s very important to you that she be branded a liar. Without it, your case falls apart.

    Orly Taitz is an attorney not a witness and has no first-hand knowledge she could testify to. Therefore, her veracity is immaterial.

    [SD] So let’s make sure that whatever knowledge or evidence she has gets a fair hearing. Fair enough?

    Slamdunk: It’s very important for you people to hope that she, like McRae and Shuhubia, is lying. Without that hope you have no hope. Our case is based on truth that only needs to be revealed. Your case depends on keeping that truth concealed

    First of all when you say “our case” you are not a palintiff, so it isn’t your case. Second there are no active cases; they’ve been dismissed with prejudice, which means they can’t be re-filed. As for “your case”, I am not a defendant, so it is not my case either.

    [SD] I think you missed my point.

    As far as McRae and “Shuhubia”, they have no first hand knowledge of where Obama was born,

    [sd] Their affidavits claim that Obama was born in Kenya based Grandma Sarah. A court would determine whether or not they are telling the truth.

    so it really doesn’t matter whether they are lying or telling the truth. Sarah Obama is the supposed “eyewitness” to the birth. It’s she that would have to testify. The tape stands by itself and neither McRae nor “Shuhubia” have anything useful to add. As far as what the Registrar supposedly told “Shuhubia”, it is immaterial. “Shuhubia” hasn’t seen the records. The actual records would have to be brought to court along with the Registrar to testify about how they are kept.

    [SD] Yes, of course. Things like that happen every day, everywhere. You make such unwarranted statements that overlook the purpose of testimonies, affidavits and courts. They will determine who is telling the truth and who isn’t. So let’s agree that at least one case should be heard on its merits.

    As you admitted before, you don’t know the law. So one wonders why you continue to post and display your ignorance.

    [SD] I am not required to know the law. But I do understand the basic principle and workings of a fair trial. That’s all birthers have ever asked, after first asking the president to release his 1961 LFBC.

  437. misha says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:15 pm (Quote)

    “The greatest Jew that ever lived would have made the greatest president”

    Ben Gurion was born in Poland, and was a committed socialist. Sorry.

    [SD] Jesus, silly 🙂

    Jesus would be crucified by the Tea Party before his first term was out.

  438. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:38 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Well, his parents were both Jewish, and it’s his qualifications that are notable

    Now you have me confused. I thought the President had to be born in the US to 2 citizen parents. As far as I know Jesus was born in Judea of Jewish parents living under Roman rule. If Mario knew, he’d have a fit.

    [SD] Scientist? Having you been sipping some sauce? I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

  439. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: [sd] Their affidavits claim that Obama was born in Kenya based Grandma Sarah. A court would determine whether or not they are telling the truth.

    Why don’t you want to hear from Sarah Obama herself? Why is there no affidavit from HER? She’s is the one you believe was present at the actual event, or am I missing something?

  440. misha says:

    And don’t forget the Peoples’ Front of Judea, and the Judean Peoples’ Front.

  441. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

    So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?

  442. misha says:

    “So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?”

    Birthers can’t make up their minds about what they want.

  443. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Well, its obvious what they don’t want.

  444. SFJeff says:

    Really Slamdunk- you need to stop moving the goal posts. When I pointed out that there was more evidence that Obama was a god fearing man than there was that Shuhibia or whatever his real name is- you questioned whether the President even attended church.

    So I point out a new article exactly where President Obama does attend church and said where he attended church previously- and then you declare that attending church doesn’t even matter.

    “Does his life and words support his claim of being a Christian, that is, a born again believer in Jesus Christ?”

    Oh good I am glad we are narrowing this down. Apparently Catholics are not Christians, nor are Greek Orthodox or Presbyterians. Do you even know if Shuhibia- or whatever the good Christian’s name is- was born again?

    “The scriptures say that Christians are supposed to know that there sins are washed away. Obama has said he wasn’t sure. Does that mean he isn’t a Christian? ”

    First of all- do you have a real reference to that? Or are you just picking that up from a Birther blog? Secondly- if a person believes that Jesus Christ is his saviour but interpret the bible different than you do- does that make him not a Christian? If a Christian admits he struggles with his faith, does that make him not a Christian? It sure seems to me that this is a very slippery slope where only a very select few Christians meet your definition.

    And how do you know that Shahubia believes in the same way as you do? I mean I still find it incredible that you find this unknown person credible because you believe him a Christian- but don’t find the President credible even though there is evidence he is a Christian.

    Like I said before- your view of who a Christian is seems more motivated by whether that person is for or against the President rather than some actual definition

  445. SFJeff says:

    “I think if all public servants fit the Biblical definition for public service, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in (Exo. 18:21) Check it out.”

    So you believe that the United States would best be served if all our public servents were God-Fearing men?

    Because Exodus is pretty clear about the gender part there. Just glad we can clarify that you don’t believe women are qualified to be public servents. That really explains why you don’t trust Janet in Hawaii.

  446. SFJeff says:

    I was about to post some more about “what would Jesus do if he was President” when I realized that this road is one that will only result in religious conflagration.

    Lets just agree that whether or not Jesus would or would not be a good President is not relavant to whether President Obama was eligible when he was elected President.

  447. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    The idea is that the court will decide the merits. But first the evidence must be heard. Law 101.

    No, Law 101 teaches that merely filing a lawsuit does not entitle an attorney to a trial. Among other things, the attorney has to establish that the plaintiff has standing, that the plaintiff has an actual injury which can be traced to the defendant, that the court in which the lawsuit was filed has jurisdiction, and that a claim has been stated for which the court can provide relief.

    Filing a lawsuit does not give an attorney license to conduct a fishing expedition.

    Besides, Orly has already floated all of her “evidence” in her various court filings, and the only thing she has been able to demonstrate is her own incompetence.

  448. SFJeff says:

    “Perhaps the difficulty is lack of committment. Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority, assuming there isn’t a national crisis?”

    By that measurement, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were good Christian Presidents, while George Bush and Ronald Reagan, who rarely attended church in DC were not Christian Presidents?

    Just trying understand your thought process here.

  449. SFJeff says:

    “I am not required to know the law. But I do understand the basic principle and workings of a fair trial.

    No you do not understand the basic principle of a fair trial. Requiring standing protects all of us from frivolous lawsuits. And the burden of proof is on the accusers, not the accused. And evidence must be credible- not third hand speculation or affidavits of hearsay.

    “That’s all birthers have ever asked, after first asking the president to release his 1961 LFBC.””

    No, thats not what birthers have asked for. Birthers have asked for a fishing expedition hoping to find some evidence. Thats not how our legal system works. You need to prove you have a case before you can have discovery. Birthers have no evidence but keep hoping that they can fish around long enough to find something that will embaress the President.

  450. myson says:

    U mean SD actually thinks b4 writing ALL these rubbish !!!!
    “Thought process” u must not have slept well to assume there is one to understand !!!
    SFJ u need 2 sleep more

  451. JoZeppy says:

    “[sd] Their affidavits claim that Obama was born in Kenya based Grandma Sarah. A court would determine whether or not they are telling the truth.”

    Actually, a court wouldn’t. It would rule the statements inadmissable as hearsay.

    “[SD] Yes, of course. Things like that happen every day, everywhere. You make such unwarranted statements that overlook the purpose of testimonies, affidavits and courts. They will determine who is telling the truth and who isn’t. So let’s agree that at least one case should be heard on its merits.”

    Court do not let people with no personal knowledge to testify in order to “determine who is telling the truth and who isn’t.” McRae and “Shuhubia” were not present when Obama was born, and even if Sara Obama told them she personally delivered President Obama, they could not testify to what she said, because that would be hearsay. There is nothing to hear on the merits, because there are no merits. They don’t have standing, therefor, there is no basis in the Constitution for the case to be heard.

    “[SD] I am not required to know the law. But I do understand the basic principle and workings of a fair trial. That’s all birthers have ever asked, after first asking the president to release his 1961 LFBC.”

    You may want to brush up on that “basic principle and workings of a fair trial.” They include things like standing, who has the burden of proof, and the rules of evidence.

  452. nbC says:

    Fascinating how ill informed SD is about the legal system and how the courts function…

  453. SFJeff says:

    “Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities”

    One more comment- Jimmy Carter was considered one of the most ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ Presidents during his term. He is clearly the most open and consistant regarding his faith of any Presidents going back as far as I can remember- yet is generally considered to have done a fairly mediocre job as President, so I am not sure that ‘moral and ethical’ are the only qualities a President should have.

    President Nixon was neither moral or ethical yet achieved some serious good for the United States internationally before he almost destroyed the Presidency because of his lack of ethics.

  454. nbC says:

    What makes a person a leader in one area does not necessarily translate to other areas. Although I believe Jesus would have made for a great liberal.

  455. Scientist says:

    Putting religion aside, as a secular leader I’d have to take Mohammed over Jesus. He lived to die in bed in his 60s and conquered the entire Arabian peninsula. His successor conquered everything from Egypt to Persia with a decade or so of his death. Jesus remained unknown in his brief lifetime. It took well over a century for his followers to gain any influence at all and really until the Roman Emperor Constantine converted for Christianity to become a major force in the world.

  456. Slamdunk says:

    NBC says:
    March 1, 2010 at 1:14 pm (Quote)

    What makes a person a leader in one area does not necessarily translate to other areas. Although I believe Jesus would have made for a great liberal.

    [SD] Interesting. What is your definition of liberal?

  457. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 1, 2010 at 1:14 am (Quote)

    “Perhaps the difficulty is lack of committment. Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority, assuming there isn’t a national crisis?”

    By that measurement, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were good Christian Presidents, while George Bush and Ronald Reagan, who rarely attended church in DC were not Christian Presidents?

    [SD] Carter has said that he is born again and Bush claimed the same thing. Not sure about Clinton. I believe Reagan was a strong Christian, even though he didn’t attend church as much as others.

    Just trying understand your thought process here.

    [SD] I think attending a church where the Bible is taught and preached is good for anyone. But not all churches do that.

    I have to question Bush’s faith. When asked if he thought the Bible was the Word of God, he said, “Probably not.” IMV, no Christian would ever say that. While Reagan didn’t attend church in DC, he believed the Bible is the word of God. Carter also. Clinton, I don’t know. Obama, it would seem not if Israeli Insider is right.

  458. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm (Quote)

    “Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities”

    …so I am not sure that moral and ethical’ are the only qualities a President should have.

    [SD] Assuming that any candidate is capable, has intelligence and education, morality and ethics are icing on the cake. Taking it one step higher, I would say that fear of God is the cherry on top of the icing. Give me a man who fears God, is capable, moral and ethical and you have, IMV, the ideal president. The founders wrote much about the importance of virtue and religion in government and society.

    President Nixon was neither moral or ethical yet achieved some serious good for the United States internationally before he almost destroyed the Presidency because of his lack of ethics.

    [SD] Right. Had he feared God, he would have been far more ethical. The reason I inject fear of God is because someone who does that recognizes his or her accountability to him, as strongly as they do civil law. If you esteem God’s laws, you will respect and obey civil law.

  459. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    February 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

    So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?

    [SD] I’m not, but it appears that the Democratic National Party ignored the constitution when they nominated a candidate who may be admirable, but who does not meet the definition of natural born citizen.

  460. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 1, 2010 at 12:57 am (Quote)

    I was about to post some more about “what would Jesus do if he was President” when I realized that this road is one that will only result in religious conflagration.

    Lets just agree that whether or not Jesus would or would not be a good President is not relavant to whether President Obama was eligible when he was elected President.

    [SD] I just think that if presidents and politicians emulated his character, morality and ethics, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. King David was a great king until he stumbled badly in his morality.

    So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?

  461. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk: it appears that the Democratic National Party ignored the constitution when they nominated a candidate who may be admirable, but who does not meet the definition of natural born citizen.

    I know this will come as a surprize to you (SD:I don’t know the law), but the DNC has lawyers whose knowledge in this area surpasses that of the Dentist, the losing poker player and the ambulance chaser. But show us your legal bona fides and cite published law review articles or the writings of those who regularly teach and practice constitutional law to back up your position.

  462. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk- you original response:
    “Don’t you think that any president who claims to be a Christan, and is in town on Sunday morning, would have that as his highest priority,”

    When I point out that Bush and Reagan rarely attended church on Sundays, your response?

    “Bush claimed the same thing. Not sure about Clinton. I believe Reagan was a strong Christian, even though he didn’t attend church as much as others.”

    Would you stop moving your goalposts please?

    You say that a good Christian President would have as a priority attending Church every Sunday- yet you believe Reagan was a ‘strong Christian’ even though he only attended church a couple times a year.

    So how come you don’t use the same rules for President Obama as you did for President Reagan?

    Really- how hard is this? What exactly is your litmus test for what a ‘real’ Christian is? And are you willing to concede in advance that if President Obama meets those conditions you will stop waffling about whether or not President Obama is a ‘good’ Christian.

    And if you finally will accept Obama is a good Christian- and he has certainly worked with the poor- will you then concede that he should be considered at least as credible as the person who signed Shuhubia falsely as his name?

    “Obama, it would seem not if Israeli Insider is right.”

    See, I didn’t even go there. I don’t know who they are, but assume its a blog, which is not exactly a credible source in and of itself- do they cite a public reference to something that says otherwise?

    Because I don’t know how much more specific President Obama can be- here he is what he said when being interviewed by Christianity Today:

    “I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn’t ‘fall out in church’ as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn’t want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

    I don’t know how much more clearly someone could declare his faith. I challenge to you to find a quote by Ronald Reagan that is so clear and unequivocal.

    Even more strongly- I challenge you- as the good Christian that you claim to be- are you really willing to accept Obama as your Christian brother?

  463. Benji Franklin says:

    Dear Slamdunk,

    You posted:”So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?”

    No, we can agree the founders leaned on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, only when they cited him for a particular idea. For example, his declaration that it’s okay for one nation to kidnap women from another nation, if women are in short supply in the first nation, doesn’t let me claim that, since the Framers “leaned heavily on Vattel’s Law of Nations”, I can smuggle a bound Mexican woman into this country with The Constitution’s blessing, “in order to form a more perfect Union”.

    Or were you thinking that the Framers were only “leaning heavily on Vattel’s Law of Nations” for the part where he wrote:

    Vattel’s Law of Nations Book 1 Chapter 3
    Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of the Nation in this respect:

    “§32. It may reform the government.If any nation is dissatisfied with the public administration, it may apply the necessary remedies, and reform the government. But observe that I say “the nation”; for I am very far from meaning to authorise a few malcontents or incendiaries to give disturbance to their governors by exciting murmurs and seditions. None but the body of a nation have a right to check those at the helm when they abuse their power. ….. it is not the business of a small number of citizens to put the state in danger, under the pretence of reforming it.

    §36. It (the whole nation) is the judge of all disputes relating to the government.”if any disputes arise in a state respecting the fundamental laws, …(constitution) … it belongs to the nation alone to judge and determine them conformably to its political constitution.”

    Hmmmmm. I guess We the People DO FINALLY interpret what “Natural Born Citizen” means, WHEN WE VOTE! And, Slamdunk, if Vattel’s wisdom is magisterially applicable to the contemplation of the Constitutionality of Obama’s Presidency and your protestations about it, it sounds like Mario and Your Kind are what Vattel describes as enemies of We the People, as you are obviously one of a “few malcontents” determined to endanger the Nation! Can we at least agree on that?

    BenjiFranklin

  464. SFJeff says:

    “Give me a man who fears God, is capable, moral and ethical and you have, IMV, the ideal president. The founders wrote much about the importance of virtue and religion in government and society”

    Adams of course was very devout, but Jefferson was not a “god fearing” man, nor much of a fan of religion. Does that mean that we should judge Jefferson to be less virtuous than Adams?

  465. SFJeff says:

    “Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?”

    Interesting point- can you make a list of people who believe that Vattel’s Law of Nation of Nations has anything to do with the Constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizens? You don’t have to list them all- maybe the top 10 or so.

    Better yet, find me 10 people who said- prior to 2008- that Vattel had anything to do with the definition of NBC.

    Becaues I can find lots more than 10 people on record defining NBC without any reference to Vattel.

    Was Vattel influential in matters of International law- I don’t know- I leave that to the experts- but I haven’t seen a credible source saying Vattel has anything to do with NBC.

  466. nbc says:

    So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?

    The Founders, when discussing issues of International Law such as neutrality, relied on many sources, including Vattel.

    However there is no evidence that the Founders relied on Vattel for citizenship.

    So given your statement ‘heavily relied’, I believe one should reject your premise.

  467. misha says:

    What’s all this Mattel talk? I think toys are an important part of growing up, and here people are somehow saying that even as adults we should still be using Mattel. I left Mattel behind in the 12th grade. I mean, Obama’s children are still using Mattel, but I’m sure his parents aren’t.

    Miss Emily Latella

  468. Rickey says:

    So let’s get back to eligibility. Can we agree that the founders leaned heavily on Emmerich Vattel’s Law of Nations?

    No, we can’t.

    As I have posted before, the Library of America’s two-volume, 2000+ pages “Debate on the Constitution” mentions Vattel ZERO times. Blackstone, on the other hand, is mentioned SIXTEEN times. This strongly suggests that the founders “leaned heavily” on Blackstone, and that they leaned on Vattel not at all.

    If the founders had felt that Vattel’s writings were significant and germane, wouldn’t you expect his name to come up at least once during the debates on the Constitution?

  469. misha says:

    @Scientist: Jews were better off in the Ottoman Empire, than in Europe. They did not live in fear, like the Inquisition and pogroms.

    When Jews were expelled from Spain, they were welcomed in Constantinople. They arrived penniless. The Christians of Europe felt confiscating everything was their duty.

  470. Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical liberal, a matter of great embarrassment to the host of fundamentalists who are just the opposite.

    (Mat 5:39-42 NASB) “But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. {40} “And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. {41} “And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. {42} “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.:

  471. Not fascinating to me. It’s what is to be expected.

  472. Rickey says:

    My favorite is Matthew 19:21:

    Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

    Possibly the most disregarded verse in the New Testament.

  473. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2010 at 8:03 am (Quote)

    Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical liberal, a matter of great embarrassment to the host of fundamentalists who are just the opposite.

    [SD] What is your definition of liberal?

  474. SFJeff says:

    From the OED:
    adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform

    As opposed to Conservative:
    adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas

    I am not sure whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative really is material to your doubts about President Obama’s eligibility.

    Please feel free to respond to our dialogue about why you accept Shuhubia’s word but not President Obama’s.

  475. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm (Quote)

    From the OED:
    adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform

    As opposed to Conservative:
    adjective 1 averse to change and holding traditional values. 2 (in a political context) favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas

    I am not sure whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative really is material to your doubts about President Obama’s eligibility.

    Please feel free to respond to our dialogue about why you accept Shuhubia’s word but not President Obama’s.

    1. Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.

    2. He goes to jail if the case is heard and he is found guilty of lying in his affidavit.

    3. He is in the ministry and calls himself a servant of God.

  476. Slamdunk: Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.

    Since you don’t even know his name, how do you know nothing unethical has come up about his past?

  477. I intend to pursue that thesis in another forum.

  478. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    March 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: it appears that the Democratic National Party ignored the constitution when they nominated a candidate who may be admirable, but who does not meet the definition of natural born citizen.

    I know this will come as a surprize to you (SD:I don’t know the law), but the DNC has lawyers whose knowledge in this area surpasses that of the Dentist, the losing poker player and the ambulance chaser. But show us your legal bona fides and cite published law review articles or the writings of those who regularly teach and practice constitutional law to back up your position.

    [SD] This is not a matter of knowing the law, rather it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC and understanding that the Supreme Court has upheld Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. I guess you think we need a dozen over paid lawyers to settle this matter.

  479. SFJeff says:

    “1. Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.”

    Neither has President Obama. You really have this wierd circular logic. The only suggestions about Obama having any kind of a unethical past have all been unsubstantiated rumors- the kinds of things I wouldn’t take seriously even if they were whispered about Cheney or Limbaugh. The rumors are all circulated by people who are against President Obama. President Obama has never been shown to have been arrested, sanctioned, cited or having done any ‘unethical’ behaviour.

    “2. He goes to jail if the case is heard and he is found guilty of lying in his affidavit.”

    No he doesn’t. I don’t know why you have such faith in the power of an affidavit. First of all- you have already accepted that he has lied on the affidavit- he swore that this was his name and that all the facts were true- so he lied about his name. Secondly- we wouldn’t even know who to arrest. Third- and you keep seeming to dance around this- he- if he exists- is in Kenya and beyond the reach of our justice system.

    Meanwhile, since you put such faith in people making sworn statements, President Obama swore that he was eligible to be President.

    “3. He is in the ministry and calls himself a servant of God.”

    So you assume that a minister is more honest just because he is a minister- even though you really don’t know he is a minister, and even though he lied about his name?

    Lets talk some more about Shuhubia’s affidavit- in it he states:

    “But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

    But the complete tape clearly shows that Grandma Obama did change her reply. So isn’t that clear evidence that Shuhubia is indeed lieing?

    By the way I want to leave you with these words of Bishop McCrae- I assume you feel the same way?

    “Christianity throughout the United States and even the world is a religion of shallow beliefs encompassed into a reactionary mind set way of thinking, that has no more to do with Biblical doctrine or the very Life of Jesus Christ, than does darkness have to do with Light (2 Corinthians 4:6/ 6:14). Christianity today in its most accepted denominations is nothing more than the illegitimate bastard daughters of that infamous “mother of harlots” (Revelation 17:5) which sits upon the seven hills of Vatican City (17:9). And whether that daughter of whoredom be reformed, orthodox or fundamental, Lutheran or Protestant, Anglican or Methodist, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, Southern Baptists or Independent Baptists, Calvinists or Armenian, Mennonite or Amish, Satan hath corrupted all their minds (2 Corinthians 11:3) into thinking that they can be baptized into Jesus Christ, without being baptized into his death (Romans 6:3). Since the very first beating of Christian ministers in Acts 5:40, there has been a manifest flight from the sufferings of Christ by every major leader of Christianity that has loved a positional relationship with Christ rather than a devotional one.”

    Or these:
    “We need no ruling of Court howsoever high, to clearly see and know that the present government of these United States murdered its own people in mass at New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001.”

    This is the minister that you are putting your faith in- one who believes all mainstream Christians are going to hell and that the United States government destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11.

  480. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Confirmation Bias Gone Wild!

  481. SFJeff says:

    The more I read about “Bishop” McRae, the more I wonder whether any of these people who give him such credibility have really read his website.

    He not only believes that President Obama is not legitimate but believes that Bush and Cheney plotted 9/11, and that pretty much every Christian who isn’t a Anabaptist is going to hell. Don’t get him started about Catholics or Mormons.

    There is no indication of how he was appointed ‘Bishop’ but I suspect he founded his church and appointed himself. There appears to be a ‘mainstream’ Anabaptist church- and then his. There is no indication of whether he has 1 member or 100 members of his church. Oh and his websites has some sections for members only.

    Let me put this another way- we know more about President Obama’s background than we do Ron McCrae’s. Other than his website and articles related to the Grannie interview I only found a couple of references to him on the web- one him protesting the Pennsylvania 9/11 site- the symbol was too muslim for him, and another mentioning that he was known for picketing Catholic and Mormon events.

  482. Saint James says:

    If you listened to his phone conversation with Obama’s grandmother, did you feel as if this so called “bishop” was trying to set up that old woman to give him the answer that he wanted to hear? I felt that way! This person is yet another one of those self proclaimed holy man like manning.

  483. misha says:

    I felt the same way when I talked with my former mother-in-law.

  484. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 2, 2010 at 5:39 pm (Quote)

    I am not sure whether Jesus was a liberal or a conservative really is material to your doubts about President Obama’s eligibility.

    Please feel free to respond to our dialogue about why you accept Shuhubia’s word but not President Obama’s.

    [SD] Nothing has come up in Shuhubia’s past that suggests he is dishonest, he goes to jail if he is guilty of lying in his affidavit and he is a minister. These things speak well of his integrity.

    I don’t believe Obama because he is hiding his past life. He is not the transparent president that he claimed he would be. He promised open debates on Cspan and only had them because the pressure was put on him. He didn’t keep his word.

    It’s hard to believe him when he says he was born in the Kapi’olani hospital and then no one in Hawaii or his administration will affirm it.

    It’s hard to believe him about capitalism and the American way of life when he appoints tax cheats to his cabinet and communist and socialist czars. One of his czars is founder of GLSEN which loves to teach kiddies that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle.

    It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution and the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It’s hard to believe him when he isn’t sure that he’s a Christian. It’s hard to believe him when he demonstrates A preference of Islam over Christianity. (see Israeli Insider). The National Day of Prayer is a day to encourage people to pray or meditate about God. One of the speakers at the breakfast was an agnostic.

    These are reasons why I believe Shuhubia over Obama.

  485. Slamdunk: It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution and the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It’s hard to believe him when he isn’t sure that he’s a Christian.

    Many Christians believe that the best way to reduce abortion is to remove the barriers to birth control, and to support potential mothers through training and health care. I daresay MOST Christians to not believe the Bible is a literal account of creation, but believe that evolution happened. You can hardly fault Obama for not being a fundamentalist. And when did you ever hear Obama say the Bible was not the inspired word of God?

    You seem to be writing largely based on uninformed prejudice. (As is this hasn’t been obvious from the start.)

  486. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2010 at 8:03 am (Quote)

    Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a radical liberal, a matter of great embarrassment to the host of fundamentalists who are just the opposite.

    [SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?

    What is the definition of liberal?

  487. Slamdunk: it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC

    To call Obama “non-transparent” based on the long-form birth certificate that has nothing interesting on it not already disclosed, and ignore his autobiography which is remarkably candid, is nothing more than prejudiced nonsense.

  488. G says:

    Slamdunk: March 3
    [SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?

    Well SD, folks can argue passages all they want about sex before marriage, abortion and homosexuality, but the bible is pretty silent about “wet T-shirt contests” and “gun control”. LOL!

    Obviously these are some of the many, many, many issues that get your little panties twisted in a bunch, so I’ve got a simple solution for you – AND IT REALLY IS THIS SIMPLE:

    If you have such a personal problem with these things then you yourself should:

    a) not have pre-martial sex
    b) stop participating and/or attending wet t-shirt contests
    c) you must be some sort of self-loathing gay person, otherwise, why would you even care about homosexuality, as it would have no real impact on your life otherwise. Seek counseling if you can’t deal with your own sexuality.
    d) don’t have an abortion or involve yourself in one.
    e) obtain, maintain and utilize whatever guns you have, in full accordance with the law.

    Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

  489. G says:

    Slamdunk: [SD] This is not a matter of knowing the law, rather it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC and understanding that the Supreme Court has upheld Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. I guess you think we need a dozen over paid lawyers to settle this matter.

    Yes, it is a simple matter of having some basic understanding of the law. Any grade school kid can figure out that the Constitution says nothing about “long form BCs” or “transparency” and could easily look at the facts objectively and realize that no other president in history had to provide any sort of BC ever.

    So, no, you don’t need a bunch of overpaid lawyers. And since no one was making any Vattel claims on the NBC clause in the Constitution prior to 2 years ago and the only ones who are now are a small band of prejudiced hack-laywers with no actual Constitutional Law background… (not to mention that not a single real Constitutional Laywer seems to ever make those claims or agree with your birther laywer idiots and won’t touch the birther cases with a ten foot pole)…well gee, looks like any sane person could easily come up to the conclusion that your birther laywers are nothing but a bunch of hack kooks trying to make stuff up and that people like you are nothing but gullible fools eagerly looking to buy into any BS to justify the petty hatred and fears of your own little dark heart.

  490. G says:

    I agree completely with you on this Dr. C.

    Also, I find it interesting that SD stated: “The National Day of Prayer is a day to encourage people to pray or meditate about God. One of the speakers at the breakfast was an agnostic.”

    It seems that SD is nothing but a narrow-minded fundamentalist zealot, who in the same breath that he keeps trying to claim he’s all-about-the-Constitution, wants to wipe his *ss on that document in regards to what that document says right at the *very* beginning of the *very first* amendment in the bill of rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    If SD can’t even get that far in the document and get that right, why does SD think he/she has any credibility whatsoever at all in regards to anything else SD says, particularly about the Constitution or otherwise? Just completely laughable!

    Try actually reading the Constitution, SD instead of just shooting your mouth off. There IS no set religion of the US, PER that very document, you zealot fool!

    Therefore, a “National Day of Prayer” can have and respect any and every faith or perspective out there that it wants and there is nothing wrong with that. Lots of different religions pray, you idiot, not just whatever close-minded tiny little corner of Christianity that you claim title to.

    Lots of folks who only consider themselves more generalist or just simply “spiritual” int their beliefs (i.e. those that have some sort of faith but don’t feel they need to confine themselves to any particular church) pray too.

    And obviously, SD doesn’t even seem to understand a simple term such as “agnostic”, which simply means someone who has doubts in their belief. Agnostics could have come from any faith out there and they can still pray too.

    If SD can’t even comprehend simple concepts or words like agnostic, then how can we take SD seriously about any of the tripe SD mumbles in regards to Vattel, etc, which obviously would require a much better language and reading comprehension ability than looking up the simple definition of a *common* 8-letter word that has been around for ages under the exact same definition and which most children and adults should know what it means offhand? I mean, really, how can we infer anything other than the fact that SD is nothing but a simpleton idiot, but this example alone?

    Finally, back to SD’s quote,where this whole thread of conversation has diverted to lately and the 1st Amendment, which again, expressly and clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

    So let’s be serious here. There is NO need nor requirement to even have a “National Day of Prayer” and some would even say that Constitutionally, even having such is wrong. So to hold up such an event or a politician’s personal religious views or attendance as some sort of “litmus test” for qualifying or evaluating that person’s ability to hold that office is *wrong*, *wrong*, *wrong*!

    Of everything that has been discussed on here, that is also probably the ONLY thing that can actually be declared as Unconstitutional.

    Once you get past that nonsense, SD’s post from which I’ve quoted is nothing but petty whines that this or that campaign promise by Obama hasn’t been fulfilled 100% so far.

    To which I say, gee… what politician ever has or can ever live up to that standard? No president or politician in the past, that’s for sure. So to make these petty attacks as somehow the current president is beneath the “moral character” of a President or whatever is simply disingenuous and creates a false standard that no other President in history ever met or lived up to either.

    One can fairly be disappointed by such things, of course. That is purely rational and a legitimate matter of opinion. Taking it beyond that is just hot-air hyperbole from sour grapes losers that didn’t get the candidate that they voted for.

  491. SFJeff says:

    Slam- I am going to respond in a 2 parter because there are two points I wish to address. First is Shuhubia. Lets take each of your statements about Shuhubia and examine them:

    “Nothing has come up in Shuhubia’s past that suggests he is dishonest”

    Actually, yes there is. He used a false name on the affidavit- which is a lie:
    “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord. ~Proverbs 12:22”. You said that he lied because he feared for his safety, but I don’t remember the Bible saying “Lying is bad, unless you are scared”. So already know that this person- whoever he is- is willing to lie for his own safety.

    “he goes to jail if he is guilty of lying in his affidavit”

    I have pointed out twice already that this is not true. Who would go to jail? We don’t even know his name. And since this person is supposedly in Africa(we don’t even know if he is Kenyan), he does not fall under the U.S. legal system. The person who signed that affidavit, if truly an African Minister is under no risk of going to jail for lying.

    “and he is a minister.”

    First of all- how do you know he is a minister? You only have his word for this, and you don’t know who he is.

    Secondly- you say he is a minister and therefore he should be given greater credence. Have you read Ron McCrae’s Anabaptist position? Shuhubia’s church was set up by McCrae, so he subscribes to the same principles. Do you agree the Anabaptist creed?

    Do you agree that a Christian should turn away from Television, radio and theater? Turn away from fictitious writings? Condemn the Christmas and Easter holidays?

    Do you believe that a good Christian mut wear the proper apparel? That women must wear loose fitting dresses down to their feet and must not plait their hair.

    Do you believe that anyone who calls themselves a Christian who doesn’t follow the Anabaptist creed is going to hell?

    Do you believe that the U.S. government plotted to have the planes hit the Twin Towers?

    These are the beliefs of the unknown person that you put such great faith in- a person who lies about his name, and believes in such a narrow interpretation of Christianity that it excludes everyone but a few hundred followers.

    “These things speak well of his integrity”

    No- they don’t.

  492. SFJeff says:

    “I don’t believe Obama because he is hiding his past life.”

    As I have said before- and you dance around- we know more about President Obama’s past life than we do any previous President.

    “He is not the transparent president that he claimed he would be. He promised open debates on Cspan and only had them because the pressure was put on him. He didn’t keep his word.”

    Do I wish President Obama had been more transparent in his government? Yes. Does this shock me? No. Do I feel like he hasn’t kept his word? In this matter I do feel disappointed, but there is a difference about not fulfilling he stated goals and say lieing about something as fundamental as his name such as Shuhubia did. President Obama hasn’t shut down Guantanomo yet either, but I suspect you aren’t as upset by the omission. Politicians sometimes lie- Bush did, Clinton did, Reagan did. I try to hold Obama to the same standard as our other Presidents.

    “It’s hard to believe him when he says he was born in the Kapi’olani hospital and then no one in Hawaii or his administration will affirm it.”

    Why do you care? No one in Hawaii can affirm it, and no one in his administration would know- unless you think they were there when he was born. This is such a silly argument- we have seen his certfied BC copy, Janet Okubo has verified he was born in Hawaii, there are birth announcments in Hawaii from when he was born- that is more proof than we have for any previous president.

    “It’s hard to believe him about capitalism and the American way of life when he appoints tax cheats to his cabinet and communist and socialist czars.”

    Is it illegal to be a communist or socialist in the United States? When President Obama appoints 100 hard core capitalists and one former communist does that show a lack of commitment to capitalism? I think its fine that you have a political objection to his appointments. But I think it says nothing about his ‘honesty’

    “It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution
    If you chose to exclude as who you believe is a Christian anyone who is willing to allow a woman to decide on whether to have an abortion or not or anyone who believes in the scientific consensus about evolution, that is your right.

    “…and the Bible as the inspired Word of God…It’s hard to believe him when he isn’t sure that he’s a Christian.”

    You really must just read what you want to believe. I posted a very complete declaration by Obama regarding his Christian faith. You can chose not to believe his words, but I don’t know how you can honestly write that he is not sure he is a Christian when he flat out says “I am a devout Christian”

    “It’s hard to believe him when he demonstrates A preference of Islam over Christianity. (see Israeli Insider).”

    I haven’t seen such a preference and not about to go muck about some blog to see why they think he is. Regardless- he goes to church- not a mosque, no matter how much people want to paint him as a muslim.

    “The National Day of Prayer is a day to encourage people to pray or meditate about God. One of the speakers at the breakfast was an agnostic”

    Oh that certainly is proof that President Obama is not a Christian- he let an agnostic speak at an interfaith event.

  493. SFJeff says:

    “SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?”

    Well I am fairly certain Jesus wouldn’t approve of wet T-Shirt contests- on matters of modesty as I recall he tended towards the old Testament. Same thing about sex before marriage- Jesus is pretty clear about his views on adultery.

    Oddly enough, there is not a single quote from Jesus condemning homosexuality or abortion. You would think that being such hot topics for Conservatives that Jesus would have spent a lot of time in the New Testament warning against those big issues. He also was strangely quiet about gun control.

    Now Jesus was pretty clear about Divorce(wrong), remarriage after divorce(adultery), acquiring wealth(it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”- and he was pretty clear about how enemies should be treated- “But I say to you, love your enemies! pray for those who persecute you”.

    And of course this:
    “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)”

    Do you really love the homosexual as yourself when you don’t think they should be treated as you would have yourself treated?

    I find that Christians tend to cherry pick what they find is important in the New Testament. Why are conservatives so concerned about homosexuality when Jesus so clearly condemns divorce and the rich?

    Just a pet peeve of mine. We don’t see conservatives picketing outside of divorce courts or the homes of the wealthy- how come?

  494. Rickey says:

    Nothing has come up in Shuhubia’s past that suggests he is dishonest, he goes to jail if he is guilty of lying in his affidavit and he is a minister. These things speak well of his integrity.

    Are you serious? You don’t even know his real name, so how could you know anything about his past?

    One of his czars is founder of GLSEN which loves to teach kiddies that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle.

    One of the saddest things about you birthers is that you never have an original thought and never do any of your own research. Kevin Jennings is not a “czar.” He is an Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education and heads the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. He is in charge of developing policies to keep schools safe and free of drugs. Do you have a problem with that? And what do you know about GLSEN, other than what you have heard from Michelle Malkin? In fact, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is an American organization comprising lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and allied individuals who wish to put an end to discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in K-12 schools.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay,_Lesbian_and_Straight_Education_Network

    Are you in favor of discrimination, harassment, and bullying in schools?

    It’s hard to believe him because he claims to be Christian, yet is “anti-Christ” in his beliefs on abortion, evolution and the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

    Funny thing – I don’t recall Christ ever saying anything about abortion or evolution. Are you sure we are talking about the same Bible?

    And this is from Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope”:

    When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations.

    Of course, Obama’s view of the Bible has nothing at all to do with his eligibility to be president. Perhaps you have heard of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution?

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

  495. G says:

    Rickey:
    Of course, Obama’s view of the Bible has nothing at all to do with his eligibility to be president. Perhaps you have heard of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution?The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

    I agree with you completely Rickey. The only thing that is apparently and painfully obvious is that SD has no understanding or respect for the Constitution that SD always claims to be what he/she is “really” fighting for here.

    SD gets it wrong so much on even basic principals of that document that I seriously question whether SD has ever read it at all.

    Just about everything SD seems to say or do is at best, a contraction of the Constitution and more likely a total disrespect and affront to said document. It is as if SD likes to figuratively wipe their *ss with the Constitution at every opportunity. SD’s utter disrespect for the document is quite offensive to any of us who do care about this country and respect for its laws.

  496. Rickey says:

    Precisely. That’s why the birthers keep bringing up “issues” such as whether Obama is really a Muslim, whether he was born out of wedlock, etc., things which have absolutely nothing to do with his eligibility.

    Imagine if Obama gave a speech and announced that he has decided to convert to Islam. The birthers would be screaming for him to be impeached, never mind that it doesn’t matter if he is Wiccan or agnostic or atheist – he is still eligible to be president.

  497. Scientist says:

    Rickey-It’s what’s called in poker a “tell”. If there were a real constitutional issue, then you would have at least some people who largely agreed with Obama on the issues, but had concerns about his eligibility. Yet, carry on a conversation with birthers, and you will find that 100% of them are not just opposed to Obama’s policies, but rabidly so (SD is a perfect example). They would oppose him if he proclaimed himself in favor of motherhood. He is persuing the war in Afghanistan much more vigorously than his predecessor (something many Obama supporters have issues with) yet they believe he is an agent of the Taliban.

    I have several times here issued the follwing challenge to the birthers right here on this site: Suppose I had video of Obama being born in Times Square in front of 20,000 people and incontrovertible evidence that his father was Wilt Chamberlain, a US citizen. Can you tell me with a straight face that you would then support him? Of course, they wouldn’t. So, it isn’t about the Constitution. After all they are willing to trample on the entire document in order to get rid of him. They seem to believe the Constitution is a 3 word document. Actually, those 3 words are among the least important words in the document and I can guarantee that if it were being written today they wouldn’t be in it.

  498. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 3, 2010 at 1:23 pm (Quote)

    “SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?”

    Oddly enough, there is not a single quote from Jesus condemning homosexuality or abortion. You would think that being such hot topics for Conservatives that Jesus would have spent a lot of time in the New Testament warning against those big issues. He also was strangely quiet about gun control.

    [SD] On homosexuality, do you think Jesus would disagree with God who gave the law concerning homosexuality (Lev. 18:1,22). Perhaps you will agree with some that this law was only given to the Israelites and is not applicable to gentiles. But in Mark 7:21-23, Jesus listed several “evils.” Among them is “fornication,” which is sexual activity other than that between husband and wife. So in essence, Jesus does condemn homosexuality.

    On gun purchases, in Jesus’ day, they would have been swords. In Luke, Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords. From his own experiences, he knew that they were headed for persecution and perhaps threats on their lives. But a sword would provide self-
    defense. (Luke 22:36). If this is what he ment, then I think he would support the purchase of guns as provided by the 2nd Amendment.

    Now Jesus was pretty clear about Divorce(wrong), remarriage after divorce(adultery), acquiring wealth(it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven”- and he was pretty clear about how enemies should be treated- “But I say to you, love your enemies! pray for those who persecute you”.

    And of course this:
    “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)”

    Do you really love the homosexual as yourself when you don’t think they should be treated as you would have yourself treated?

    [SD] Christians should love the homosexual as he would love the thief, drunkard, pornographer, adulterer, or any sinner. Jesus never condemned anyone, but as he told the woman caught in the act of adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.(John 8:11). So often, the above like to hear “neither do I condemn you,” but take offense when you say, “go and sin no more. ”

    I find that Christians tend to cherry pick what they find is important in the New Testament. Why are conservatives so concerned about homosexuality when Jesus so clearly condemns divorce and the rich?

    [SD] I don’t think you’ll find anywhere in scripture where Jesus condemned anyone. People condemn themselves (John 3:18). With him, sin is sin, and it has no preferences.

    Just a pet peeve of mine. We don’t see conservatives picketing outside of divorce courts or the homes of the wealthy- how come?

    [SD] Divorce is a sad thing, esp. when kids are involved. God hates it, but he allows it. I don’t think that’s something you picket. People seeking divorce should seek counseling, not be greeted with a picket line. Picket the wealthy? Not sure about that one. We need wealth for jobs. It’s not sinful to be wealthy. But, unfortunately, many who are wealthy are greedy and want more. As scripture says, many “pierce themselves through with many sorrows” because of it. (1 Tim. 6:10)

  499. Slamdunk says:

    G says:
    March 3, 2010 at 9:48 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk: March 3
    [SD] Do you think Jesus would approve of sex before marriage, wet T shirt contests, homosexuality, abortion, or gun control?

    Well SD, folks can argue passages all they want about sex before marriage, abortion and homosexuality, but the bible is pretty silent about “wet T-shirt contests” and “gun control”. LOL!

    [SD] Not so fast:) Jesus cautioned about “lusting.” (Matt. 5:28) But I suppose if someone can watch a buxom babe in a wet T shirt, and not lust, he has done well. On Gun control, in Luke, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword. Obviously, it was for self defense. (Luke 22:36)

    Obviously these are some of the many, many, many issues that get your little panties twisted in a bunch, so I’ve got a simple solution for you – AND IT REALLY IS THIS SIMPLE:

    If you have such a personal problem with these things then you yourself should:

    a) not have pre-martial sex
    b) stop participating and/or attending wet t-shirt contests
    c) you must be some sort of self-loathing gay person, otherwise, why would you even care about homosexuality, as it would have no real impact on your life otherwise. Seek counseling if you can’t deal with your own sexuality.
    d) don’t have an abortion or involve yourself in one.
    e) obtain, maintain and utilize whatever guns you have, in full accordance with the law.

    Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

    [SD] Can’t argue with that:)

  500. Slamdunk: On Gun control, in Luke, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword. Obviously, it was for self defense. (Luke 22:36)

    A very curious text for Jesus whose self-defense strategy was to turn the other cheek. But when one of his disciples try to defend him with a sword, Jesus said: (Mat 26:52 NASB) Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.”

  501. Slamdunk says:

    G says:
    March 3, 2010 at 9:56 am (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [SD] This is not a matter of knowing the law, rather it’s about a non-transparent president who won’t release his original long form BC and understanding that the Supreme Court has upheld Vattel’s definition of natural born citizen. I guess you think we need a dozen over paid lawyers to settle this matter.

    Yes, it is a simple matter of having some basic understanding of the law. Any grade school kid can figure out that the Constitution says nothing about “long form BCs” or “transparency” and could easily look at the facts objectively and realize that no other president in history had to provide any sort of BC ever.

    [SD] That’s right. The issue never came up until now. Chester Arthur got away with it by lying about his parents citizenship.

    So, no, you don’t need a bunch of overpaid lawyers. And since no one was making any Vattel claims on the NBC clause in the Constitution prior to 2 years ago and the only ones who are now are a small band of prejudiced hack-laywers with no actual Constitutional Law background… (not to mention that not a single real Constitutional Laywer seems to ever make those claims or agree with your birther laywer idiots and won’t touch the birther cases with a ten foot pole)…well gee, looks like any sane person could easily come up to the conclusion that your birther laywers are nothing but a bunch of hack kooks trying to make stuff up and that people like you are nothing but gullible fools eagerly looking to buy into any BS to justify the petty hatred and fears of your own little dark heart.

    [SD] There, betcha feel better now? I still think that you would want just one case to be heard on merit so the court would finally, and forever, confirm that birthers are the great fools you always thought but couldn’t be sure until a case was heard. I urge you to write ERic Holder and encourage him to process Quo Warranto.

  502. G says:

    SD – Actually, I thought your 3 posts tonight were pretty well reasoned and while I may differ in opinion on how you chose to interpret the Bible, I do give you credit for finally presenting a well-reasoned argument on your positions on those matters.

    The only response I have remaining at this time is to the question you posed:

    [SD] There, betcha feel better now? I still think that you would want just one case to be heard on merit so the court would finally, and forever, confirm that birthers are the great fools you always thought but couldn’t be sure until a case was heard. I urge you to write ERic Holder and encourage him to process Quo Warranto.
    March 3

    Look, I thought I’ve answered this at least 3 times to you already, but I’ll try yet one more time.

    Of course I’d love to have this whole silly issue put to bed – BUT that means there would have to be a LEGITIMATE case on the topic to bring before the courts.

    So far, there has been NONE that have been anything other than frivolous. As I’ve repeatedly stated I’m ALWAYS AGAINST frivolous cases – I think they are a complete waste of court time better spent on real matters as well as tax-payers money.

    Maybe you just really don’t understand the fundamentals of law enough to understand that a case with MERIT means more than just the content of the case itself, it *does* include the legitimacy of the case to qualify and be heard in the first place. That absolutely means that you MUST bring a case to the right venue to be heard and that you MUST have plaintiffs with standing and you MUST have a case that meets the minimum legal standards of INJURY.

    None of these birther cases to date have been able to do that at all. Based on that alone, they are FRIVOLOUS.

    The closest to meeting any of these standards is venue and so far, even that has been a tenuous argument at best, as so far all the rulings have supported both that the courts are not the proper venue to address such a purely “political issue” and that any issues of removing a sitting president fall solely within the purview of Congress.

    Furthermore, having wasted too much time reading most of the birther lawyer’s filings in these cases, I haven’t found any credible evidence amongst their arguments to support the content of their claims.

    So, based on the existing birther cases written to date, I feel the courts have completely did the right thing by dismissing them upfront and if you are asking me if the same repackaged crap should just be submitted over and over again from one venue to another, my answer is a resounding NO.

    If the birthers ever came up with a case that could meet the standards of standing, justifiability and injury that have been explained by me and others on here to you time and time again, THEN I would have no problem with such a case going forward. Without that – NO.

    But even if a case had “the right stuff” to move forward to the next stage, I think you would be very disappointed by the reality of what would happen.

    In such a scenario, here’s how I think it would play out:

    1. The birther lawyer would ask for their “discovery” and present their fishing expedition laundry list of items that we’ve all seen.

    2. The defense would get its chance to respond and explain why most of the items on that list are irrelevant to the issue at hand and move to block.

    3. The judge would probably rule that the only document relevant to discovery is a certified birth certificate.

    4. At that point, the defense would provide a paper copy of the exact same signed & sealed official document from HI that looks exactly like what Obama put on his website and which factcheck.org held, photocopied and wrote about and which Fukino in HI has validated.

    5. The document states right on it that it is prima facie evidence and the judge could therefore simply decide that was good enough and rule in favor of Obama on that alone and close the case at that point.

    6. If the judge allowed the defense to argue further that it wanted proof to back up that the document was real, the judge could decide to allow someone from the HI DOH to testify to its authenticity.

    7. As soon as they testify that the document came from them, that is sufficient and end of story. Case over.

    All of the other silly conspiracy theory crap, rumor, innuendo and crazy stuff about multiple SSNs that the prosecution would try to bring up would be countered by the defense as irrelevant to the issue at hand and unsubstantiated and the judge would most likely agree and render those issues moot and they would not get any further than that.

    So there. I’ve given you a very explicit and detailed explanation of how I see it and why I see these cases as nothing but a waste of time and why my simple answer to your question is a solid NO. Let’s not play Groundhog’s Day on this “would I want the courts to hear it” concern trolling again.

  503. SFJeff says:

    “[SD] On homosexuality, do you think Jesus would disagree with God who gave the law concerning homosexuality (Lev. 18:1,22).”

    I was hoping you wouldn’t drag Leviticus into this. Do you think that Jesus would also approve of stoning to death adulterers(Lev 20:10)? Do you think that anyone who curses his parents should be put to death? Should a husband who has sex with his wife while she is having her period be, should they be banished? Do we even want to go into the cleansing rituals in Leviticus? If you are going to point to Leviticus as the authority for Homosexuality being wrong, I do hope that you follow all the commandments of Leviticus.

    “But in Mark 7:21-23, Jesus listed several “evils.” Among them is “fornication,” which is sexual activity other than that between husband and wife. So in essence, Jesus does condemn homosexuality

    You asked ‘would Jesus approve of homosexuality”, not whether Jesus would approve of fornication. You singled out homosexuality, while Jesus did not. So while you are correct that homosexual sex would be considered fornification, so would a large part of the consensual sex in the world. If Jesus meant to say homosexuality he would have said homosexuality- you meant to say homosexuality but then try to twist Jesus words to mean that.

    Let look at what Jesus said in Mark:

    “7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
    7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
    7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness ”

    So fornication is among the evils- along with murder, evil thoughts, pride and foolishness.

    My point again is that Jesus made no specific injunction against homosexuality. Even Paul(who never even met Jesus) only mentions it a couple times. So why is it that you single out homosexuality rather than fornication, or pride or foolishness?

    The backlash against homosexuality is not because of what the Bible says but because you and the others find it ‘icky’. Otherwise you would spend no more time on homosexuality than you would on foolishness.

    “Christians should love the homosexual as he would love the thief, drunkard, pornographer, adulterer, or any sinner.”

    Did you miss what Christ said? He said to love your neighbor as you love your self- not as you would love a thief or pornographer. I really don’t think you have Jesus in your heart. You should love the homosexual as much as you love the minister Shuhubia, or Rush Limbaugh or your brother.

    [SD] Divorce is a sad thing, esp. when kids are involved. God hates it, but he allows it. I don’t think that’s something you picket. People seeking divorce should seek counseling, not be greeted with a picket line

    Thats not what Jesus said:
    “19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ”

    This to my mind means that Jesus clearly said Divorce was wrong, and marrying a divorced woman was clearly wrong. I point this out again because Jesus is clearly saying Divorce is wrong, but does not seem to find homosexuality important enough to specifically say it was wrong.

    You however feel that Jesus would find homosexuality wrong while divorce is something to be sad about- if kids are involved. So why would Christians picket about homosexuality but not divorce, when Jesus is so clearly against divorce?

    “Picket the wealthy? Not sure about that one. We need wealth for jobs. It’s not sinful to be wealthy. But, unfortunately, many who are wealthy are greedy and want more.”

    Jesus was very clear when he said that a rich man would hardly enter heaven. Perhaps Jesus didn’t condemn wealth, but he made it clear that a person who wanted eternal life- and live a life in a Christian manner- should sell his belongings and give the money to the poor. I don’t remember Jesus being concerned about the economy.

    I wonder how many millionaire Christians are quick to condemn the homosexual ‘agenda’ while contenting themselves that they are good Christians because they tithe 10 percent of their income?

    You are the one that claimed President Obama was not acting like a true Christian, and I am assuming that you mentioned homosexuality, abortion and gun rights(?) as some sort of check list against President Obama.

    But let he who is without sin throw the first stone. No divorced person should be throwing that stone. Nobody who hasn’t given away all of his wealth. Nobody who hasn’t turned the other cheek and hasn’t truly everyone around him with love.

    My opinion? Jesus would be telling his followers to stop worrying about such wordly things as who is the legally elected President and tell them to look to their own souls, and ask what they are doing for others.

  504. SFJeff says:

    Okay Slamdunk- so you interpret Jesus command to his followers to buy swords as evidence that he would be against gun control laws? Don’t even you see this as a stretch?

    First of all, Jesus made no comments that his followers should have the legal right to buy swords, only that they should go buy them.

    Secondly, even if you stretch that to laws, then clearly Jesus would be against sword control laws.

    I still am amazed how conservatives twist the bible to mean what they want it to mean. Gun control? Really? I don’t think even the founding fathers felt that gun ownership was a god given right.

  505. SFJeff says:

    Hey I just thought of it- Jesus made water into wine- therefore Jesus must be against laws controlling liquor sales!

  506. Lupin says:

    I don’t want to offend anyone’s beliefs, but:

    — as far as we know, Jesus left no writings

    — the gospels were cobbled together from various sources, long after Jesus died (if I recall correctly Marc might be the more reliable, John is basically a forgery)

    — quite a few other gospels, just as authentic, including Peter’s and Mary-Magdalen, I believe, were ruled out after a lot of back & forth haggling and negotiations involving then-local politics in Constantinople

    — the King James translation is extremely dubious in many respects.

    The Bible is certainly full of good sentiments (and some not so good) but quoting it literally reminds me of the Cargo Cults in the South Pacific.

  507. Lupin: – quite a few other gospels, just as authentic, including Peter’s and Mary-Magdalen, I believe, were ruled out after a lot of back & forth haggling and negotiations involving then-local politics in Constantinople

    With the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, none of the other non-canonical gospels are “old” nor thought by scholars to have any (as best I know) authentic witness to Jesus.

  508. Slamdunk: [SD] That’s right. The issue never came up until now. Chester Arthur got away with it by lying about his parents citizenship.

    There is not one word in the historical record that even hints that Chester Arthur lied about his parents’ citizenship. I have dug out the newspaper microfilm from the period, and read the definite biography of Arthur. You are a slanderer.

  509. The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    So FredericWeis is an old-school racist: He’s still against the Irish!

  510. thisoldhippie says:

    I wrote this a couple of years ago because of this backlash of the religious right. I hope you find it appropo for the direction this thread has taken:

    The Lord’s Prayer
    “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

    For many of us raised in a Christian church, of any denomination, those are words that we have oft repeated from cradle to grave.

    The first time this prayer is seen is in the Gospel of Matthew, the sixth chapter. Jesus has been speaking to the people in what is known as the Sermon on the Mount. During this sermon Jesus admonishes the people to not be proud in the practice of their faith, that it is not through the outward act of piety that they will receive eternal life. Jesus further explains how we should pray to the Father, not in public so that others will see us but in the privacy of our homes, with sincerity. Jesus then goes on to give us the actual words that we are to use and from that day forward Christians have been reciting those words.

    But somewhere along the way, as the words became rote, people forgot the importance of this line in the prayer. Not only did Jesus give us these words, in verses 14 and 15 Jesus explains them. If we forgive others, our sins will be forgiven – but if we do not forgive others, neither will the Father forgive us. What a concept. We have been instructed not only to forgive those who commit a sin against us, but have been told that we will only be forgiven to the extent that we forgive others.

    This concept is beyond so many people today who call themselves Christian. They claim to “love the sinner, but hate the sin,” or they practice “righteous indignation.” Both of these concepts are contrary to this very simple prayer that Jesus gave us and in reality they are not about forgiveness, but about forcing one’s beliefs on another. These people dwell on the passages in the Bible that promote anger in the name of God, but for every verse they use as a sword against their neighbor, there will be two in which Jesus commanded that we forgive those who have hurt us in some way. In fact, at which times in the New Testament do we find Jesus angry or judgmental? It is those times when he is rebuking the Pharisees, or cleansing the temple of those who make money in His name, or confronting those who, for whatever reason, think they are better than some lowly “sinner.” As Jesus was facing death on the cross He did not tell the Roman soldiers or the Jews who called for his death that they were going to hell, rather he prayed for them by saying, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” Therefore, who are we to pass judgment in the name of the Father and the Son?

    So, the next time you recite the Lord’s Prayer, put the emphasis where it is meant to be. “Forgive us our trespasses, AS we forgive those who trespass against us.”

  511. Greg says:

    That’s right. The issue never came up until now. Chester Arthur got away with it by lying about his parents citizenship.

    There is no evidence that anyone ever thought to ask about the citizenship of Arthur’s parents.

    Just like there is no evidence to suggest that anyone thought to ask about the citizenship of the parents of:

    Spiro Agnew
    Hubert Humphrey
    Charles Curtis

    Or:

    John Kerry
    Ralph Nader
    Michael Dukakis
    Geraldine Ferraro
    Jon Anderson
    George McGovern
    Ed Muskie

    Or:

    Mike Gravel
    Dennis Kucinich
    Bill Richardson
    Andy Martin
    Arlen Specter

    Each of these folks had a parent, or two, who were immigrants.

    No one even thought to check to see if they were naturalized before the birth of their future-candidate.

    That the issue has never come up, despite at least a dozen opportunities, is evidence that it is not an issue!

    Lynch v. Clarke’s judge said it as well – it is universally understood that if a candidate was born here, he is a natural born citizen – no one ever asks about his parents’ citizenship!

  512. Greg says:

    That’s right. The issue never came up until now. Chester Arthur got away with it by lying about his parents citizenship.

    In addition to all the times the issue could have come up, but didn’t, it is telling to look at the only times Presidential eligibility has been brought up:

    George Romney – born abroad
    Barry Goldwater – born in a territory
    Christian D. Herter – born abroad
    Franklin Roosevelt Jr. – born abroad
    John McCain – born abroad

    Charles Evan Hughes – born here to non-citizen parents before the 14th Amendment adopted (which was important to the author challenging his citizenship)

    There is some legitimate debate about whether the term “natural born” includes jus sanguinis, but there hasn’t been any real debate about jus sanguinis since the adoption of the 14th Amendment and the WKA decision.

    It is also evidence that everyone involved in WKA knew that Wong would be eligible for the Presidency if he was made a citizen – there were no half measures imagined by anyone. The government argued how terrible it would be if Wong were eligible for the Presidency. Wong’s side argued that it wouldn’t be so bad if Wong were eligible. The dissent argued that it was nonsense to make Wong eligible but not the children born abroad to citizen parents.

    With everyone talking about how Wong would be eligible if made a citizen, with no one talking about a half-way citizenship (citizen by birth but not eligible for the Presidency) it is unbelievable that Gray would create such a half-way citizen without explicitly saying so in the decision. It is unbelieveable that he would allow the dissent to claim that he’d made Wong eligible for the Presidency. It is unbelievable that Gray would allow everyone who wrote the briefs arguing that if Wong was a citizen he’d be Presidential material to walk away from the decision still believing that!

    If he wanted to make Wong ineligible for the Presidency, he would have said so.

    Explicitly.

    Clearly.

    And, without question.

    There is simply no informed debate that someone born here is not a citizen eligible for the Presidency.

    Mario is deliberately misreading Wong in an attempt to bamboozle the ignorant! Unfortunately for him, that is rarely a description of judges.

  513. Lupin says:

    I agree entirely. By “just as authentic”, I meant “no more authentic”.

  514. Scientist says:

    Plus, the idea that no court has ruled on the question of whether someone born here to a non-citizen parent is a natural born citizen is bovine excrement. The Indiana Court of Appeals did exactly that in Ankeny v. Daniels. And they said a resounding “YES” to that question. That it is a state, rather than a federal court is irrelevant; the Constitution leaves presidential elections in the hands of the states up until the Electoral College ballots are counted in Congress. Some may not like that, but that is a fact.

    Nor is the Indiana Court of Appeals a bunch of rubes or a group of flaming liberals. They are a middle-of-the-road-to-conservative court with no history of wacky or outrageous decisions. I understand the plaintiffs have appealed to the Indiana Sypreme Court, which will almost certainly decline to hear it. They are then free to appeal to the US Supreme Court, which will almost certainly do the same.

    This argument has thus had its day in court ON THE MERITS and been soundly rejected. That’s what it is entitled to- its DAY in court. Not its 4 years in every court in the land and in the UN, but its DAY in court. And it lost, as it deserved to. Game, set and match.

  515. SFJeff says:

    Beautifully said hippie

  516. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 4, 2010 at 3:15 am (Quote)

    “[SD] On homosexuality, do you think Jesus would disagree with God who gave the law concerning homosexuality (Lev. 18:1,22).”

    I was hoping you wouldn’t drag Leviticus into this. Do you think that Jesus would also approve of stoning to death adulterers(Lev 20:10)? Do you think that anyone who curses his parents should be put to death? Should a husband who has sex with his wife while she is having her period be, should they be banished? Do we even want to go into the cleansing rituals in Leviticus? If you are going to point to Leviticus as the authority for Homosexuality being wrong, I do hope that you follow all the commandments of Leviticus.

    [SD] While the law was given to Jews, and not to the gentiles, it would seem that observance of most of them just don’t fit. But for those who are trusting the law for Divine favor are obligated to keep the whole law (Jas. 2:10). It seems to me that some of the law is binding under NT dispensation. Certainly, the Ten Commandments apply to all people. Homosexuality is addressed in both testaments. An “abomination” in the OT and a non-inheritance of the kingdom of God who adopt that lifestyle (1 Cor. 6:9).

    You asked would Jesus approve of homosexuality”, not whether Jesus would approve of fornication. You singled out homosexuality, while Jesus did not.

    [SD] Do you think that homosexuality is behavior outside the marital bond between husband and wife?

    So while you are correct that homosexual sex would be considered fornification, so would a large part of the consensual sex in the world.

    [SD] That’s right. So this segment of the population is practicing sexual “evil.”

    If Jesus meant to say homosexuality he would have said homosexuality- you meant to say homosexuality but then try to twist Jesus words to mean that.

    [SD] Jesus never said anything about drug abuse, child molestation, rape or extortion either.

    Let look at what Jesus said in Mark:

    So fornication is among the evils- along with murder, evil thoughts, pride and foolishness.

    My point again is that Jesus made no specific injunction against homosexuality. Even Paul(who never even met Jesus) only mentions it a couple times. So why is it that you single out homosexuality rather than fornication, or pride or foolishness?

    [SD] I am only trying to show that homosexuality and single hetero-sexuality are evil by the definition of fornication. Of course, pride, foolishness have their place on the list of evils.

    The backlash against homosexuality is not because of what the Bible says but because you and the others find it icky’. Otherwise you would spend no more time on homosexuality than you would on foolishness.

    [SD] I have no prejudice against homosexuals, rather I view them as loved by God and in need of the same redemption as any other sinner. We are all guilty of sin and need the salvation God freely offers through His Son.

    “Christians should love the homosexual as he would love the thief, drunkard, pornographer, adulterer, or any sinner.”

    Did you miss what Christ said? He said to love your neighbor as you love your self- not as you would love a thief or pornographer. I really don’t think you have Jesus in your heart. You should love the homosexual as much as you love the minister Shuhubia, or Rush Limbaugh or your brother.

    [SD] Correct. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with behavior that scripture condemns. Christians do no favor to homosexuals by condoning the lifestyle. That is the other side of love that I don’t think they understand. Jesus would have been remiss had he not told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more.” Would he not say the same to a homosexual caught in the act?

    [SD] Divorce is a sad thing, esp. when kids are involved. God hates it, but he allows it. I don’t think that’s something you picket. People seeking divorce should seek counseling, not be greeted with a picket line

    Thats not what Jesus said:
    “19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. ”

    This to my mind means that Jesus clearly said Divorce was wrong, and marrying a divorced woman was clearly wrong. I point this out again because Jesus is clearly saying Divorce is wrong, but does not seem to find homosexuality important enough to specifically say it was wrong.

    [SD] My only point is that couples who are considering divorce might do well to consider counseling. Most seeking divorce don’t stop to think that God hates it and would prefer that they try to work it out.

    You however feel that Jesus would find homosexuality wrong while divorce is something to be sad about- if kids are involved. So why would Christians picket about homosexuality but not divorce, when Jesus is so clearly against divorce?

    [SD] The only people picketing homosexuals are the Phelps’ I have never seen a picket or protest of homosexuals in Ft. Lauderdale or Miami, two of the most populated areas of homosexuals. They are entitled to every constitutional right and every protection afforded by the civil law. I think a few bad apples have made homosexuals think that all Christians are prejudiced against them.

    “Picket the wealthy? Not sure about that one. We need wealth for jobs. It’s not sinful to be wealthy. But, unfortunately, many who are wealthy are greedy and want more.”

    Jesus was very clear when he said that a rich man would hardly enter heaven. Perhaps Jesus didn’t condemn wealth, but he made it clear that a person who wanted eternal life- and live a life in a Christian manner- should sell his belongings and give the money to the poor.

    [SD] Don’t forget, “and come, follow me.” No one achieves eternal life just by selling their belongings and give their money to the poor. Following Jesus means a lot more than that.

    I don’t remember Jesus being concerned about the economy.

    I wonder how many millionaire Christians are quick to condemn the homosexual agenda’ while contenting themselves that they are good Christians because they tithe 10 percent of their income?

    [SD] Condemning an agenda is not the same as condemning those with one. Jesus condemned no one and Christians should be like-minded. I know a few millionaire Christians whose giving exceeds their tithes with free will offerings. Paul said to give as you have prospered. That could be anything between the tithe and free will offering.

    You are the one that claimed President Obama was not acting like a true Christian, and I am assuming that you mentioned homosexuality, abortion and gun rights(?) as some sort of check list against President Obama.

    But let he who is without sin throw the first stone. No divorced person should be throwing that stone.

    [SD] Nor anyone who has not been divorced.

    Nobody who hasn’t given away all of his wealth.

    [SD] Nor those who have wealth.

    My opinion? Jesus would be telling his followers to stop worrying about such wordly things as who is the legally elected President

    [SD] Right, they shouldn’t “worry” about it, but God has ordained government as his minister (Rom. 13). It is the responsibility of everyone to select capable, honest, qualified and, ideally, men and women who fear God (Exo. 18:21).

  517. Rickey says:

    SFJeff says:

    You asked would Jesus approve of homosexuality”, not whether Jesus would approve of fornication. You singled out homosexuality, while Jesus did not. So while you are correct that homosexual sex would be considered fornification, so would a large part of the consensual sex in the world.

    Let me try to stir up a hornets’ nest.

    Actually, there are scholars who dispute what Jesus was referring to when he used the word “fornication.”

    The word fornication had a lowly beginning suitable to what has long been the low moral status of the word. The Latin word fornix, from which fornicatio, the ancestor of fornication, is derived, meant “a vault, an arch.” The term also referred to a vaulted cellar or similar place where prostitutes plied their trade. This sense of fornix in Late Latin yielded the verb fornicari, “to commit fornication,” from which is derived fornicatio, “whoredom, fornication.” Our word is first recored in Middle English, about 1303.

    Note that the Latin word “fornicatio” is synonymous with “whoredom.” It is important to keep this in mind as we analyze the use of the word “fornication” in the New Testament.

    Interestingly, the word “fornication” is found more frequently in the King James Version of the Bible than in Twentieth Century translations of the New Testament. In the King James Version, the word “fornication” is found in thirty New Testament verses and the word “fornicator” is found in five verses. Compare this with the New American Standard translation:

    Verse, King James to New American Standard

    Mt5:32 fornication became unchastity
    Mt15:19 fornications became fornications
    Mt19:9 fornication became immorality
    Mk7:21 fornications became fornications
    Jn8:41 fornication became fornication
    Acts15:20 fornication became fornication
    Acts15:29 fornication became fornication
    Acts21:25 fornication became fornication
    Rom1:29 fornication became (word omitted)
    1Cor5:1 fornication became immorality
    1Cor6:13 fornication became immorality
    1Cor6:18 fornication became immorality, immoral man
    1Cor7:2 fornication became immoralities
    1Cor10:8 fornication became immorally
    2Cor12:21 fornication became immorality
    Gal5:19 fornication became immorality
    1Thes4:3 fornication became sexual immorality
    Jude1:7 fornication became gross immorality
    Rv2:14 fornication became acts of immorality
    Rv2:20 fornication became acts of immorality
    Rv2:21 fornication became immorality
    Rv9:21 fornication became immorality
    Rv14:8 fornication became immorality
    Rv17:2 fornication became immorality
    Rv17:4 fornication became immorality
    Rv18:3 fornication became immorality
    Rv18:9 fornication became acts of immorality
    Rv19:2 fornication became immorality

    The word “fornicator” is found in five verses in the King James Version of the New Testament. In four of the five verses the word has been changed in the New American Standard translation:

    1Cor5:9 fornicators became immoral people
    1Cor5:10 fornicators became immoral people
    1Cor5:11 fornicator became immoral person
    1Cor6:9 fornicators became fornicators
    Heb12:16 fornicator became immoral person

    Curiously, there is at least one verse in the New American Standard translation (Hebrews 13:4) where the word “fornicators” appears when it does not appear in the King James Version. Here is the New American Standard translation:

    “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

    The same verse in the King James:

    “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”

    On twenty-four separate occasions the translators of the New American Standard Bible replaced the specific words “fornication” and “fornicators” with more general terms such as “immorality” and “immoral people.” This suggests that the translators recognized that the words did not then mean what they mean today.

    Today, the word “fornication” means just one thing: sexual relations between people who are not married to each other. The question is, what did it mean when the Bible was written?

    The answer to this can be deduced by examining the context in which the word appears, in conjunction with what we know about the etiological derivation of the word.

    The King James Version makes several references to specific examples of fornication:

    Rv:2:14: But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

    Rv:2:20: Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

    What was this fornication that was taught by Balaam and encouraged by Jezebel?

    Balaam, the son of Beor, sold himself to the Ammonites and Moabites, who hired him to curse the sons of Israel. Numbers 25 indicates that the Moabite women practiced prostitution, and many Israelites were lured into idolatry by the Moabites.

    Baal was a god of fertility, and the cult of Baal involved human sacrifice and temple prostitution. Jezebel married Ahab, who sold himself to do evil (practicing idolatry) because Jezebel incited him (1 Kings 21:25-26). In a sense, Jezebel encouraged Ahab to prostitute himself, but it had nothing to do with sexual relations.

    Heb12:16 Lest there be any fornicator or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

    This verse portrays Esau as a fornicator. The story of Esau is found in Genesis 25. Esau and Jacob, the sons of Isaac, were twin brothers, but Esau was born first, and therefore inherited the birthright. Esau’s act of fornication was selling his birthright to Jacob for a meal. He prostituted himself in the sense that he sold himself, but once again the act had nothing to do with sexual relations.

    What is to be made of this? The inescapable conclusion is that the New Testament prohibitions against fornication, in general, refer to the act of selling one’s self. The one example of fornication which does appear to have a sexual connotation refers to acts of prostitution.

    This conclusion is entirely consistent with what we know about the etiology of the word “fornication.” Even modern translators of the Bible have tacitly admitted this in the manner in which they have done their work.

    If those twenty-four verses in the King James Version that contain the words “fornication” and “fornicator” meant what the words mean today, why did modern translators change them? For one likely reason – the words did not mean what they mean today. Take another look at what the translators did to Hebrews 13:4. The word “whoremongers” in the King James was changed to “fornicators” in the New American Standard. It is ironic that in so many cases the modern translators found it necessary to change the word “fornication” to “immorality,” yet in Hebrews 13:4 they used the word “fornicators” in a context which preserves the word’s original meaning.

    A careful analysis of Scripture suggests that the traditional teachings on the subject of fornication represent a classic case of forming a doctrinal belief and then finding Scripture to support that belief. People were taught by the church that it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage. There are numerous references in the Bible condemning fornication. Therefore, “fornication” came to mean sexual relations between unmarried people – a significant revision of what the word originally meant.

    Fornicators, in the Biblical sense, are not unmarried people who have sexual relations. They are people who sell themselves. They are prostitutes and whoremongers.

  518. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk, We have gone far astray from from why you feel President Obama is not eligible.

    Once again- you believe Shuhubia because he said he is a Christian and says he has worked among the poor. This is even though Shuhubia lied about his name, and has provided absolutely no details about his background.

    You say that you doubt that President Obama is a Christian, even though he has very clearly and publicly stated his beliefs, and his church attendence has been publicized.

    I am still baffled why you would believe an unenforceable affidavit, signed with a false name, by someone who you know nothing about his background, but you do not believe an open Christian, whose background is well documented(we know where he was born, we know where his parents were born, we know he lived in Indonesia, where he went to elementary, high school, college, law school, where he worked with the poor).

  519. SFJeff says:

    Fascinating Ricky. That makes me curious about translations from Greek.

  520. The Greek word is porneia (which I presume is the root of our English word “pornography”). Not being an authority on New Testament Greek, I would not cobble stuff from a couple of web pages and call it something one could rely on. I do think that Rickey is on the right track associating the word with prostitution.

  521. Rickey says:

    To my thinking, the key passages are the KJV verses which use “fornication” and “fornicator” in contexts which clearly have no sexual connotation.

  522. NBC says:

    What!!! The Bible was not written in English?

    How could that be…

  523. G says:

    March 4

    Hilarious! That would make for a funny T-shirt slogan. 😉

  524. Lupin says:

    Living with Leviticus:

    1) ABOMINATIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN AND WHICH CANNOT BE CONDONED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE

    1. Homosexuality – Lev. 18:22.

    2. Touching the skin of a dead pig (e.g.: playing football, etc.) – Lev. 11:7-8.

    3. Eating shellfish – Lev. 11:10.

    4. Touching a menstruating woman and any furniture or clothing that has come in contact with menstruating women – Lev.15:19-21. (Good for Levitz Furniture)

    5. Planting two different crops in the same field – Lev. 19:19

    6. Wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (polyester blends definitely not recommended) – Lev. 19:19

    7. Getting one’s hair trimmed, especially around the temples – Lev. 19:27. (ouch that’s a tough one)

    8. Approaching the altar of the Lord if you have poor eyesight – Lev. 21:20. (let’s kill all the glasses-wearing priests)

    2) PERMISSIBLE BEHAVIORS:

    1. Burning bulls (screw the neighbors) – Lev. 1:9.

    2. Burning people who sleep with their in-laws – Lev. 20:14.

    3. Stoning blasphemers – Lev.24:14

    4. Owning slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations – Lev. 25:44. (my favorite: Mexicans and Canadians do make excellent slaves.)

  525. Scientist says:

    I think I found the perfect candidate for Slamdunk. He is unquestionably against homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion and wet T shirt contests. He absolutely believes in owning as many guns as possible, along with as many other kinds of weapons as he can get his hands on.

    Click below for an image:

    http://topnews.us/sites/default/files/Osama-bin-laden5.jpg

  526. I would point out that Christians decided not to follow the Law of Moses (recorded in Act Ch 15).

  527. Rickey says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:

    I would point out that Christians decided not to follow the Law of Moses (recorded in Act Ch 15).

    Precisely why it is so hypocritical of certain Christians who cherry-pick Mosaic law when it suits their agenda.

  528. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 4, 2010 at 7:37 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk, We have gone far astray from from why you feel President Obama is not eligible.

    [SD] Agreed:)

    Once again- you believe Shuhubia because he said he is a Christian and says he has worked among the poor. This is even though Shuhubia lied about his name, and has provided absolutely no details about his background.

    [SD] He didn’t lie as though he was trying to deceive or mislead. He used an alias because of death threats. Whether or not his affidavit is unacceptable remains to be seen. Are people required to provide details of their background when filing an affidavit?

    You say that you doubt that President Obama is a Christian, even though he has very clearly and publicly stated his beliefs, and his church attendence has been publicized.

    [SD] Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” not by what they say (Matt. 7:21). Obama stated once that he is a Christian, but isn’t sure if his “sins have been washed.” Redemption and Christianity are inseparable. If you have been redeemed through the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7), you are a Christian. I don’t think his position on abortion is Christian.

    I am still baffled why you would believe an unenforceable affidavit, signed with a false name, by someone who you know nothing about his background, but you do not believe an open Christian, whose background is well documented(we know where he was born, we know where his parents were born, we know he lived in Indonesia, where he went to elementary, high school, college, law school, where he worked with the poor).

    [SD] Yes, we know where he lived and what schools he attended. Why do you suppose he has sealed all his school and college records?

    You are spending a lot of time on Shuhubia but have no evidence that he is not trustworthy. You seem to be ignoring that if he is found guilty of lying in his affidavit, he goes to jail. When you couple that with his work in ministry, I say that bodes well for him. At this point in time, IMV, there is no reason to suspect that he is not telling the truth. Here is the beginning of his affidavit:

    “I, Kweli Shuhubia am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. If called to do so, I could and would competently testify under oath as follows I am an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist and translator for the Anabaptist churches in Kenya. I am the official Swahili translator for the annual Anabaptists Conference held each year in Africa, working with the American bishops sitting upon the Continental Presbytery of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa. I am fluent in Swahili and in English. I am a former teacher in Kenya, and travel extensively in the ministries of the Anabaptists Churches of Africa throughout Kenya, Uganda and the Sudan.

    It is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., the United States Presidential candidate, was born in Mombosa Kenya.”

  529. Slamdunk says:

    Jeff says,

    “Fornicators, in the Biblical sense, are not unmarried people who have sexual relations.

    [SD] Paul admonished the men and women to take a spouse because of sexual immorality (fornication). In 1 Cor. 7:1,2, Paul says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

    So anyone having sex outside the marital bond is committing sexual immorality, or fornication. (1 Cor. 7:1,2)

    They are people who sell themselves. They are prostitutes and whoremongers.”

    [SD] I don’t think this will fly. Please see the various definitions of the greek words for sexual immorality below.

    1. Webster’s Dictionaries are holding to the traditional church teaching on fornication, that is, sex between the unwed.

    2. The greek words for fornication and fornicator cover a broad spectrum of unlawful (unBiblical) sexual behavior such as, “Illicit sexual intercourse in general, adultery, to prostitute one’s body to the lust of another, to give one’s self to unlawful sexual intercourse, to commit fornication, any woman indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse, a man who indulges in unlawful intercourse, a fornicator.”

    These are the definitions as recorded by Thayers Greek English Lexicon, #4202-4205, pp 531, 532.

    The book of Proverbs warns of fornication in Prov. 6:23-29 and 7:6-23.

    Jesus warned that lust is adultery of the heart. If someone lusts in his heart after a woman, it is likely that he would be commit the act should it come his way.

    But even if fornication is found to be as you say, this by no means lets a man off the hook. What about his other sins which need the same forgiveness as fornication? When God forgives, he wipes the slate clean.

  530. Slamdunk: He didn’t lie as though he was trying to deceive or mislead. … Are people required to provide details of their background when filing an affidavit?

    I have no doubt that WHOEVER wrote the Shuhubia affidavit was a bald-faced liar with no intent other than to deceive. I say that because 1) its characterization of the tape recording contradicts the recording itself, and 2) all the evidence shows that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the writer could not have actually interviewed multiple Kenyan officials who said they had the documents he claims.

    So we start out with a complete and total fraud. Whether the perpetrator is “Brother Tom” from the tape, McRae, Berg, or Ron Polarik really doesn’t matter. We have an unwitnessed anonymous document that is obviously untrue.

  531. Greg says:

    Are people required to provide details of their background when filing an affidavit?

    You’re pretending that “Shuhubia” is trustworthy because of that alleged background.

    How do you know that Shuhubia is actually a minister, Slamdunk?

    You can’t check to see if he’s a minister because he didn’t tell anyone his real name.

    We can’t verify whether he actually used an alias because of death threats, because he never claimed any, someone else did.

    In fact, what evidence do we have that the tall-tales of death threats would have even been related if the lie about this man’s name hadn’t been called to light?

    There is a procedure you can follow if you are afraid that publishing your name will put you in danger. It’s called filing the affidavit under seal. You can also file a motion to allow the use of pseudonyms.

    Absent those things, signing an affidavit with a false name is, with no ifs ands or buts, a lie. We don’t need any other proof that the man is dishonest. He lied.

    HE LIED!

    At this point in time, IMV, there is no reason to suspect that he is not telling the truth.

    I can make your post significantly shorter:

    Here is the beginning of his affidavit:

    “I, Kweli Shuhubia

    Stop there. Right there. That is sufficient evidence to doubt that he’s telling the truth about anything.

    We cannot trust that he’s over 18. We cannot trust that he’s a minister. We cannot trust a single word that comes out of his mouth from this point on.

    Period.

    If you want to play at this law stuff, Slamdunk, you really should learn the rules.

    Let me repeat – if you don’t have the court’s permission to file under seal or use a pseudonym, then using a fake name makes your affidavit worthless.

    You can stop reading the affidavit once you get to the fake name, Slamdunk, because it isn’t worth the paper it’s falsified on.

  532. Greg says:

    Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” not by what they say (Matt. 7:21). Obama stated once that he is a Christian, but isn’t sure if his “sins have been washed.”

    Where? Here’s something Obama said about sins being washed away:

    I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.”

    That is not the same as not being sure that Christ redeems.

    (By the way, putting something in quotes is telling the reader that you’ve read what was said and are relating a truthful version of it. Can you show me anything Obama has ever said that would justify putting “sins have been washed away” in quotes? Otherwise, you’re lying about the quote!)

    It is whether we, as fallible humans, have fully accepted Christ and thus are truly saved. For many Christians, salvation is a process that does not end until we stand before Christ and are judged. “I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.”

    Redemption and Christianity are inseparable. If you have been redeemed through the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7), you are a Christian.

    This is what infuriates me about conservative Christians.

    You, Slamdunk, have a shallow understanding of your faith and how the theological debates have played out and how your denomination differs on fundamental issues of faith from other Christian denominations. Yet, you would presume to exclude someone from the community of Christ, based on a clear misreading of a statement of Obama’s that you obviously hadn’t read in the original context and had only seen parroted to you by other anti-Obama nuts.

    Religion isn’t politics, Slamdunk, and yet, you and other conservative “Christians” would subject it to the same shallow and inferior logic that you bring to the birther debate! I mean, with birtherism, we’re just talking about the man’s eligibility to lead the most powerful nation on the planet. I can forgive a person pulling a Vattel quote out of context or pretending that In re Venus talks about citizenship and not domicile – these are earthly matters.

    But, in issues of God, you should prayerfully approach these issue of eternal damnation – not simply parrot second-hand BS.

    For example, start with the assumption that Obama is being sincere about his religion and ask God to guide your study until you figure out how a fellow believer could sincerely say what he actually said (instead of what you have misquoted).

    God hates quote-mining. God hates shallow reasoning. God gave you a mind for a reason. God gave you the ability to empathize for a reason.

    I don’t think his position on abortion is Christian.

    Ask God to guide your study until you can figure out, first, what Obama’s position on abortion is (I am convinced you do not understand what his position is) and second, how many fellow believers can have read the same Bible as you and yet disagree with you.

  533. Slamdunk says:

    Greg says:
    March 6, 2010 at 3:12 pm (Quote)

    Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” not by what they say (Matt. 7:21). Obama stated once that he is a Christian, but isn’t sure if his “sins have been washed.”

    Where? Here’s something Obama said about sins being washed away:

    “I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.”

    [SD] Christians shouldn’t “hope” their sins are washed away. They know it based on Christ’s atonement and their repentance and faith in him. So if someone has been “redeemed,” his sins ARE washed away. There shouldn’t be any doubt about it.

    That is not the same as not being sure that Christ redeems.

    [SD] With redemption comes the washing. They are on flip sides of the coin of salvation.

    (By the way, putting something in quotes is telling the reader that you’ve read what was said and are relating a truthful version of it. Can you show me anything Obama has ever said that would justify putting “sins have been washed away” in quotes? Otherwise, you’re lying about the quote!)

    [SD] You just quoted it yourself???? I saw him being interviewed and telling the person interviewing him that he “hopes his sins have been washed away.” The interview was with Rick Warren on CNN:
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/17/se.01.html

    It is whether we, as fallible humans, have fully accepted Christ and thus are truly saved. For many Christians, salvation is a process that does not end until we stand before Christ and are judged. “I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved.”

    [SD] I disagree. You are saved if you have repented of your sins and turned to Jesus Christ for salvation. My Bible tells me that at the moment I repent of my sins and trust in him, my sins, past, present and future, are taken away. In 1 John 5:13 the Apostle writes, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you MAY KNOW that you have eternal life…” “May know” is present tense. I believe that Christians should know they are redeemed, pardoned, forgiven, justified, or sanctified. Positionally, Christians are perfect, seated with Christ in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). Also, Col. 3:1-3. Practically, Christians will sin, but they are still forgiven and cleansed continually through the blood of Christ through confession (1 John 1:9). Jesus is our Mediator when we sin. We have a mighty God who loves us and watches over us.

    Redemption and Christianity are inseparable. If you have been redeemed through the blood of Christ (Eph. 1:7), you are a Christian.

    This is what infuriates me about conservative Christians.

    You, Slamdunk, have a shallow understanding of your faith and how the theological debates have played out and how your denomination differs on fundamental issues of faith from other Christian denominations. Yet, you would presume to exclude someone from the community of Christ, based on a clear misreading of a statement of Obama’s that you obviously hadn’t read in the original context and had only seen parroted to you by other anti-Obama nuts.

    [SD] AGain, you quoted him perfectly. Please show me, by scripture, where my theology is wrong on what I have said about this. I have not excluded anyone. All I said was that Obama hopes that his sins have been washed away. Scripture tells us we don’t have to hope, rather we know. Perhaps it is your theology that is a bit shallow.

    Religion isn’t politics, Slamdunk, and yet, you and other conservative “Christians” would subject it to the same shallow and inferior logic that you bring to the birther debate! I mean, with birtherism, we’re just talking about the man’s eligibility to lead the most powerful nation on the planet. I can forgive a person pulling a Vattel quote out of context or pretending that In re Venus talks about citizenship and not domicile – these are earthly matters.

    But, in issues of God, you should prayerfully approach these issue of eternal damnation – not simply parrot second-hand BS.

    [SD] Just show me where I got it wrong based on scripture. And I have not said a word about eternal damnation.

    For example, start with the assumption that Obama is being sincere about his religion and ask God to guide your study until you figure out how a fellow believer could sincerely say what he actually said (instead of what you have misquoted).

    God hates quote-mining. God hates shallow reasoning. God gave you a mind for a reason. God gave you the ability to empathize for a reason.

    [SD] I presume you have already visited that website for the transcript of that interview where it talks about him hoping his sins are washed away, which you quoted perfectly, and will apologize to me for calling me a liar, quote miner, misquoting, etc.

    [SD] I will anticipate that you will show me where my theology is wrong about what I said, and, while you’re at it, admit that I didn’t quote mine

    I don’t think his position on abortion is Christian.

    Ask God to guide your study until you can figure out, first, what Obama’s position on abortion is (I am convinced you do not understand what his position is) and second, how many fellow believers can have read the same Bible as you and yet disagree with you.

    [SD] Again, I’m open to that I may be wrong and of course you’re free to disagree with me. But please just show me where I have it wrong based on what I said about Obama and his sins. On abortion and Obama, What more do I need to know that he is pro choice which means it’s OK with him if a woman chooses to have her unborn baby brutally destroyed, especially by partial birth abortion. Sucking out the brains of a fully born baby. What an inhumane and evil thing to do. God have mercy on this nation for the great evil of abortion. I have never met a pro-choice Christian. But if there are some out there, I suggest they repent of that evil thinking. They certainly don’t get any support from scripture on abortion. God creates every human being and they are all unique. He didn’t create them to be murdered. Read Ps. 139:13,14 and see how unique you are.

  534. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    March 5, 2010 at 7:36 am (Quote)

    I think I found the perfect candidate for Slamdunk. He is unquestionably against homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion and wet T shirt contests. He absolutely believes in owning as many guns as possible, along with as many other kinds of weapons as he can get his hands on.

    [SD] If Osama is a true muslim, then he believes the Quran which I don’t believe condones premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion.

  535. Slamdunk: Christians shouldn’t “hope” their sins are washed away.

    Wow, you’re even deny the Bible to trash Obama! I won’t dump the texts here; just search for “hope” in the New Testament. “If we confess our sins, God who is faithful and just, will forgive…” The confessional is always open here at Obama Conspiracy Theories.

  536. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 2, 2010 at 8:40 pm (Quote)

    “1. Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.”

    Neither has President Obama.

    [SD] Why is his past life such a secret? He is obviously hiding things he doesn’t want people to know.

    You really have this wierd circular logic. The only suggestions about Obama having any kind of a unethical past have all been unsubstantiated rumors-

    [SD]Then he ought to quench this rumor about him not being born in Hawaii. He can do that by releasing his 1961 long form BC. Why won’t he?

    the kinds of things I wouldn’t take seriously even if they were whispered about Cheney or Limbaugh. The rumors are all circulated by people who are against President Obama. President Obama has never been shown to have been arrested, sanctioned, cited or having done any unethical’ behaviour.

    [SD] He lied about being transparent. Remember when he said he would be an open book? And the health debates would be carried by CSPAN?

    “2. He goes to jail if the case is heard and he is found guilty of lying in his affidavit.”

    No he doesn’t. I don’t know why you have such faith in the power of an affidavit. First of all- you have already accepted that he has lied on the affidavit- he swore that this was his name and that all the facts were true- so he lied about his name. Secondly- we wouldn’t even know who to arrest. Third- and you keep seeming to dance around this- he- if he exists- is in Kenya and beyond the reach of our justice system.

    [SD] All I’m saying is that he has a sworn affidavit. What happens with that is anyone’s guess. If he is called to appear in court, they will find him because there are people who know where he is.

    Meanwhile, since you put such faith in people making sworn statements, President Obama swore that he was eligible to be President.

    [SD] And that is documented where?

    Lets talk some more about Shuhubia’s affidavit- in it he states:

    “But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”

    But the complete tape clearly shows that Grandma Obama did change her reply. So isn’t that clear evidence that Shuhubia is indeed lieing?

    [SD] Please cite where the audio of her saying this can be heard.

    By the way I want to leave you with these words of Bishop McCrae- I assume you feel the same way?

    “Christianity throughout the United States and even the world is a religion of shallow beliefs encompassed into a reactionary mind set way of thinking, that has no more to do with Biblical doctrine or the very Life of Jesus Christ, than does darkness have to do with Light (2 Corinthians 4:6/ 6:14). Christianity today in its most accepted denominations is nothing more than the illegitimate bastard daughters of that infamous “mother of harlots” (Revelation 17:5) which sits upon the seven hills of Vatican City (17:9). And whether that daughter of whoredom be reformed, orthodox or fundamental, Lutheran or Protestant, Anglican or Methodist, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, Southern Baptists or Independent Baptists, Calvinists or Armenian, Mennonite or Amish, Satan hath corrupted all their minds (2 Corinthians 11:3) into thinking that they can be baptized into Jesus Christ, without being baptized into his death (Romans 6:3). Since the very first beating of Christian ministers in Acts 5:40, there has been a manifest flight from the sufferings of Christ by every major leader of Christianity that has loved a positional relationship with Christ rather than a devotional one.”

    [SD] there’s some truth to what he’s saying, but it’s hard to reconcile others.

    Or these:
    “We need no ruling of Court howsoever high, to clearly see and know that the present government of these United States murdered its own people in mass at New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001.”

    [SD] Please show me where I can read these.

    This is the minister that you are putting your faith in- one who believes all mainstream Christians are going to hell and that the United States government destroyed the Twin Towers on 9/11.

    [SD] If he is telling the truth about grandma Obama, that’s all that matters. Pray for at least one case to be heard on merit so the truth can be known.

  537. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 2, 2010 at 7:18 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: Shuhubia has had nothing come up about his past to suggest he is unethical or that his affidavit should not be believed.

    Since you don’t even know his name, how do you know nothing unethical has come up about his past?

    [SD] Would it seem reasonable that the attorney’s for these different cases in which his affidavit is filed, know what his real name is and where he can be reached?

  538. Slamdunk says:

    Greg says:
    February 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm (Quote)

    Why won’t he just produce his 1961 LFBC and settle this whole matter for EVERYONE?

    Well, I guess by EVERYONE, you mean everyone but yourself, and, well, every other birther out there.

    You’ve admitted that the “LFBC” wouldn’t settle the matter for you. So, why do you continue to LIE and suggest that it would. That doesn’t seem very Christian to me.

    [SD] It would settle his place of birth, but not him being a natural born citizen. If he really was born in Hawaii, he still isn’t eligible. Get it?

    As to Obama being the only president whose eligibility could be questioned by your cockamamie theory, there have been several presidents and vice-presidents whose parents were naturalized citizens.

    [SD] Children of naturalized parents are natural born citizens.

    No one has ever looked at any of them to see if their naturalization happened before or after their birth. That is just one clue, SD, about how much credence your two-citizen parent rule has. None.

    [SD] My two-parent rule? See Vattel, Minor, Bingham, et al. Apuzzo has a new article listing more cases.

  539. misha says:

    @Slamdunk: КГБ, товарищ
    – да!

  540. Greg says:

    Pay close attention, Slamdunk, and you might understand something, for once.

    This:

    Obama stated once that he is a Christian, but isn’t sure if his “sins have been washed.”

    Is NOT THE SAME as:

    I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.”

    Do you think that someone can fall away from their Christian faith?

    That is where the doubt comes in. Hopefully, as a believer, we will be strong enough to stay with our faith though Satan will tempt us.

    admit that I didn’t quote mine

    I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him.

    Did you quote that part? Did you not think that had anything to do with whether Christ redeems us?

    Assuming for a second that he said what you put in quotes came out of Obama’s mouth, “forgetting” to put in a part of the quote that qualifies the meaning is a quote-mine.

    You quote mined. You lied by omission. You misrepresented the quote.

    However, what you put in quotes:

    “sins have been washed.”

    Does not appear in the interview.

    Here’s what he said about washing:

    And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.

    “have been” = past sins, past washing
    “will be washed” = future sins, future washing.

    I disagree.

    Slamdunk, the one true Christian.

    Go out and write a book so that the rest of humanity can be exposed to your wisdom. Apparently all of the rest of us Protestants
    aren’t receiving the true word of Slamdunk, I mean, God.

    For example, if the Methodists were to hear the true word of Slamdunk, they could reform their doctrine:

    Not every sin willingly committed after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after justification. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and, by the grace of God, rise again and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as long as they live here; or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.

    And I have not said a word about eternal damnation.

    Do you think there are other ways to salvation than through Christ? If you claim that Obama is not a Christian, and Christianity is the only way to save oneself from eternal damnation, what does that say about Obama’s soul?

    What more do I need to know that he is pro choice

    Exactly, why even inquire how half of the Christian community on the planet could come to a different conclusion than you? Why even ask? Why even investigate? Why even consider the possibility that you might be wrong? Or that there might be shades of gray?

  541. slamdunk: Would it seem reasonable that the attorney’s [sic] for these different cases in which his affidavit is filed, know what his real name is and where he can be reached?

    The attorney in question is Phil Berg. That’s the Phil Berg that cited a Canadian birth certificate for Obama in his original complaint in Berg v. Obama. That certificate was signed by Dudley Do Right, who can be reached c/o THE CARTOON CHANNEL. So no, I do not think that it reasonable that Phil Berg knows with any certainty the real name of the writer of the Shuhubia “affidavit” or where he can be reached. Orly Taitz filed a notorious fake birth certificate with her case. I don’t share your respect for birther attorneys and the care with which they select their evidence.

  542. Greg says:

    It would settle his place of birth, but not him being a natural born citizen. If he really was born in Hawaii, he still isn’t eligible. Get it?

    I totally get what you claim.

    What I don’t get is why you keep repeating the nonsense question about “why doesn’t Obama simply release his long form BC to settle all this?”

    You know it wouldn’t settle any of this.

    Children of naturalized parents are natural born citizens.

    And how do you know they were naturalized before their children were born?

    You don’t!

    Because no one has ever considered it an issue.

    My two-parent rule? See Vattel, Minor, Bingham, et al. Apuzzo has a new article listing more cases.

    Vattel – You can look at this website to find several articles explaining why Vattel doesn’t call for 2 citizen parents. Do you know how to search on the internet?

    Minor – Anyone who says that Minor requires 2 citizen parents is incapable of the most basic logic. Apuzzo, obviously, got into law school before they started testing logical reasoning by the LSAT, because this is the most basic of logical flaws.

    Let me try to explain it so that even you, Slamdunk, can understand:

    If I say: “If you study, you will get an A” does that mean that only those who study will get an A?

    No.

    You could have already taken the class. You could cheat. You could be naturally gifted. You could sleep with the professor.

    I’ll stop here for a second. Do you get that? Are you following along?

    Minor says two things:

    1. If you have citizen parents and are born here, you are a natural born citizen.

    2. We will not answer the question of what happens to the children of aliens.

    You simply cannot read a rule of 2-citizen parents into Minor.

    If you have two citizen parents is only one way that NBCs are created, Minor doesn’t speculate about any others. It even says so in the case!

    Bingham – More quote mining. Let’s just ignore the extensive debate about how neither the Civil Rights Act, nor the 14th Amendment were good ideas because they made the children of aliens into citizens.

    I mean, for crying out loud, the President vetoed the Civil Rights Act because it made citizens of those born to aliens!

    By the first section of the bill, all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. This provision comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks, people of color, negroes, mulattoes, and persons of African blood.

    No one thought to say to the President, “Hey, President Johnson, Chinese cannot be citizens under this bill because no Chinese person can be naturalized, so they won’t have 2 citizen parents?”

    Mario’s got a “new” article? Great. He’s up to 12 sources, which if you quote mine like a MF’er give equivocal support to his proposition. When he gets to 200, let me know, because then he’ll be getting close to the number of sources that clearly and unequivocally refute his proposition!

    Here’s a hint for your further research, Slamdunk. Read Calvin’s Case and how it defined allegiance and “natural born,” and then read how the Founders cited, over and over, Calvin’s Case to define our allegiance to the crown and how allegiance is reciprocal, etc.

    Let’s see, Calvin’s Case is directly, and only, about allegiance and citizenship and is cited dozens of times by the Founders on issues of citizenship and allegiance. Vattel is about international law and mentions, in passing, citizenship and is cited dozens of times by the founders on issues of international law and never once on the issue of citizenship or allegiance.

    (Oh, and at the time of the founding, Calvin’s case said “natural born,” and Vattel said, “indigenes.”)

    I get that you think Vattel is more influential, but why? Why go to such lengths to create this fantasy world where Vattel was of more value to the American Revolution than Bacon, Locke, Lord Coke and all the rest?

    If you look at real history, as opposed to your fantasy creation, you’ll find that the folks that defined “natural born” as born here regardless of parentage were incredibly influential in our revolution – and it was because of what they said about citizeship and allegiance, not what they said about something else (like Vattel):

    The state of mind produced by English conditions, no less than the actual chain of events, was of value to Americans. Its most prized historians were illustrious lawyers and philosophers who did not scruple to build eternal monuments to political right and wrong on the shifting sands of party politics. Bacon, Coke and Selden, Harrington, Locke and Sidney, are great names in the history of law and politics; their reputations need not suffer from an admission that they were not wholly disinterested spectators. It was these men and other whose dicta scattered through controvesial writings or embedded in weighty decisions, clutter up the pages of American pamphlets. Their value was greater because the authors were English: to the colonial pamphleteer there was absolution in quoting the political saints of England. Of the English authors, none occupied a higher place than Sir Edward Coke.

    It was Lord Coke that wrote Calvin’s Case.

    Do you want to compare Coke’s influence amongst the founders with Vattel’s?

    Six weeks studying only Lord Coke secured Patrick Henry admittance to the Virginia bar.

    Thomas Jefferson preferred Coke to the “honeyed Manfieldism” of Blackstone.

    John Adams called Coke “our judicial oracle.”

    Franklin recommended Coke to a friend having marital troubles.

    Of the cases collected two alone have real significance for the question of fundamental law. The first, Calvin’s Case, was used by colonial apologists more than any other. The reasons are not hard to discover. In this case Coke said more about natural law than in the whole remaining body of his writings. Although he had elsewhere admitted the existence of this law, he gave it little attention in his reasoning. Furthermore, the case treated a problem, that of allegiance, which brought its arguments home to the colonists.

    But, be that as may be, Coke continued as the chief guide of the older lawyers, and his thought was the very fibre of their controversial tracts down to the outbreak of the war. His contributions can be summaized briefly. Suffice it to say that the colonial pamphleteers, whether they sought releif from immediate burdens or argued in terms of a reorganise empire which endowed the colonists with either home rule or practical independence, found in Coke unqualified allegiance to the idea of a fundamental law controlling acts of Parliament. They made him responsible for the creed that this law guaranteed such rights as “no taxation without representation” and trial by jury.

    Pamphleteers who quoted Coke included Jeremiah Dummer, whose 1721 tract was highly regarded on the eve of war. Samuel Adams, found in Coke “an irreproachable authority for questioning parliamentary supremacy with especial reference to taxation.” James Otis, a Vindication of British Colonies. John Adams, John Dickinson, Richard Bland, William Henry Drayton, Charles Carroll and James Wilson all used Coke and Calvin’s case in making their arguments for the colonies.

    Lastly we turn to James Wilson, the most exhaustive colonial student of Coke, and to all intents possessed of the best legal mind in America. From Calvin’s Case Wislon derived the blanket defence of colonial claims, namely that the colonies were not bound by English statutes.

    All quotes come from Coke and the American Revolution, Economica, No. 38 (Nov. 1932) pp. 457-471.

    Calvin’s Case – Natural born means born on the nation’s soil without regard to parental citizenship. Allegiance is mutual and owed from birth. The seminal case defining “natural born” and explaining allegiance.

    For every single citation Mario can give you that he thinks quotes Vattel’s alleged 2-parent theory (you’ll note that several of his “sources” don’t quote Vattel, he simply asserts that they agree with Vattel) in the 200 years since the founding of the nation I can give you two founders citing the seminal case defining natural born as born on the soil regardless of parentage!

  543. Greg says:

    Would it seem reasonable that the attorney’s for these different cases in which his affidavit is filed, know what his real name is and where he can be reached?

    Was there a motion filed to allow the use of pseudonyms? Was there a motion to file the affidavit under seal? Was there even an affidavit submitted with the pseudonymous one attesting to the need for a pseudonym?

    If the lawyers cannot follow simple procedure to protect this guy’s identity, I don’t think we can make any assumption that presume a reasonable or competent attorney!

  544. G says:

    By the way SD, are you male or female? I only ask for clarification because I’m getting sick of trying to use impartial pronouns or he/she in trying to respond.

  545. G says:

    [Scientist] I think I found the perfect candidate for Slamdunk. He is unquestionably against homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion and wet T shirt contests. He absolutely believes in owning as many guns as possible, along with as many other kinds of weapons as he can get his hands on.

    [SD replies] If Osama is a true muslim, then he believes the Quran which I don’t believe condones premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion.

    Well, I think this is the most telling about SD and his/her ilk – their version of intolerant fundamentalist Christianity has more in common with the viewpoints of Muslim terrorists and extremists, like Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban than it does with mainstream society.

    Gee SD, what is most telling about your response to Scientist is that he identified Osama Bin Laden as a candidate that would be perfect from you and I noticed that you did not dispute that at all. All you did was reinforce that you and Islamic extremist terrorists share the same views.

    So, on one hand, we have President Obama, who has more aggressively gone after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (the true enemies of America) in Afghanistan and Pakistan with more success than Bush did in his last 6 years of office combined.

    On the other hand, we have SD, who only points out what SD has in common with Al-Qaeda and won’t even denounce wanting Osama Bin Laden as a desired candidate for office!

    I think that makes it perfectly clear who the true Patriot is (the President) and who the traitor to America is (SD).

  546. G says:

    [Dr. Conspiracy says]: Lets talk some more about Shuhubia’s affidavit- in it he states:
    “But during the conversation, Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama never changed her reply that she was in deed present when Senator Barack Obama was born in Kenya.”
    But the complete tape clearly shows that Grandma Obama did change her reply. So isn’t that clear evidence that Shuhubia is indeed lieing?
    [SD replies] Please cite where the audio of her saying this can be heard.

    SD, the people on this site have answered this and provided you with the full audio and links several times, so stop being a disingenuous fool, or at least stop ignoring the responses and actually read the links and listen to the full audio, or gee, stop being so lazy and actually do some research yourself instead of just parroting ignorant birther tripe.

    If you weren’t so lazy and dishonest, you could have found the answer for yourself right here on this site. Here is just one link that covers this issue and even provides the TRANSCRIPT of what Grandma Obama said:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/sex-lies-and-creatively-edited-interviews-with-sarah-obama/

    Here is the FULL audio, straight from a well-known birther blog, America’s Right. So why don’t you actually listen to the full tape yourself?

    http://s16v.com/americasright/8167169.wma

    There you go. Dr. Conspiracy is proven right and you are again proven wrong.

  547. G says:

    [SD] Why is his past life such a secret? He is obviously hiding things he doesn’t want people to know.
    You really have this wierd circular logic. The only suggestions about Obama having any kind of a unethical past have all been unsubstantiated rumors-

    SD – I’m calling you out on your fake concern troll BS again here, as it is so pathetically laughable when faced with even the most basic comparative analysis. His past life only seems to be a “secret” to intentionally ignorant fools such as yourself, who somehow choose to ignore everything that has been revealed about this president, including TWO best-selling detailed books he wrote and published about his life and a nearly 2-year campaign covering his life story which was one of the longest, most intensive and well-documented campaigns in history.

    My challenge to you: Provide evidence and proof of that prior Presidents have provided more evidence of themselves than the current one!

    I bet you can’t, because they haven’t. We know more about Obama than we do about *any* of them. Therefore, your argument falls apart on its face!

    Show me Bush’s kindergarten records (either of them). Provide copies of Clinton’s “long form birth certificate”. Show me Reagan or Carter’s passport records.

    Either shut up or put up!

    What, you can’t? I didn’t think so.

  548. G says:

    [SD] He lied about being transparent. Remember when he said he would be an open book? And the health debates would be carried by CSPAN?

    Wow…nothing but a weak disingenuous GOP talking point. *yawn*.

    The kind of thing that petty, small-minded people have to resort to when they have nothing real to complain about.

    The president campaigned on transparency stating that his administration would be MORE transparent then prior administrations. Some people (on all sides of the aisle) tend to read into that promise way more than anything he actually promised. There are many legitimate arguments of specific policy areas (such as issues under the Patriot act, etc) where there has been no increase in transparency so far and a lot of areas where nothing has changed so far from the prior administration’s policy. There are also instances (such as White House visitor logs and information provided & released on official government web sites) where there has been a noticeable increase in the timing, the manner and the amount of information released under Obama’s administration, compared to any other administration prior to that.

    Some can argue that those are small changes. So what. They are still actions of transparency that are more than what we have had to date. Incremental improvement is still improvement.

    And you cannot name or provide any areas in which transparency has DECREASED since the policies of the Bush administration. Therefore, this administration HAS succeeded already in providing more transparency then there was before – AND all within the very first year of his first term!

    All people campaigning for office make a number of promises. The realities of campaigning vs. the realities of governing usually mean that only some of those campaign promises ever get fulfilled. People have been complaining about such things forever. While it is very legitimate to complain and want to hold your elected officials accountable for not fulfilling a campaign promise, it is completely disingenuous to try to make it sound like this is anything unusual or hasn’t happened before.

    Let’s also remember that Obama has only been in office for a little over 1 year of a 4-year term. Most past presidents only address a fraction of the things they campaign on during their entire 4 or 8 years in office.

    Here is a site which actually tracks the progress of Obama’s campaign promises and his administration’s progress on them to date. When you review the actual record, its actually quite impressive how much progress HAS been made in only one year:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

    Furthermore, the “CSPAN” argument rings partially hollow too. For one thing, the initial health-care summits that Obama hosted at the start of the health care debate early last spring all *WERE* televised. As were many of his personal “town-hall” meeting stops discussing that issue.

    C-SPAN covers almost everything that happens on the floor of the House and Senate. Very few people actually watch these sessions, but they are there, and just about any of them can be accessed online from C-SPAN’s site. It is true that many of the sub-committee meetings don’t get covered, and congress-critters have always held their own little side-meetings here & there, but there is only so many things that C-SPAN can be focusing on, so can that be improved – YES, but it is totally disingenuous to try to pawn that off as a failure of transparency.

    And what has Obama done after all the criticism of “lack of transparency and TV coverage” in the first year? He’s taken a lot of steps to improve that even further and cover the issue on camera at both the GOP retreat and the televised HC conference last week as well as a whole slew of press conferences and televised town halls. No president in history has been as televised and on the record as this President has, so that is a whole heck of a lot more transparency that we’ve EVER had before on ANY issue!

    I find it ironic that the GOP and Obama’s other detractors cry wolf wanting “more transparency” and “more televised coverage” of HC, and then every time Obama moves to do so, they immediately start complaining that he’s on TV too much and is talking about the issue too much.

    I find it ironic that most of the people who claim they want to see more HC coverage televised really never bothered to watch anything that was covered on this issue on C-SPAN anyways (the TV and online ratings were really low), so again, it seems like people are just crying wolf and complaining for the sake of complaining. He could televise this stuff 24/7 and still these same whiners wouldn’t bother to watch it anyways.

    Such laughable hypocrisy! Go peddle your crocodile tears elsewhere.

  549. G says:

    [SD says] I have never met a pro-choice Christian.

    Obviously, you must not get out much. Or at best, you live a pretty sheltered life, only surrounding yourself with people who think and worship as you do.

    Pro-choice Christian’s are fairly numerous and are all around, throughout this great nation of ours and can be found within most denominations of the faith.

    You are entitled to your own religious views. However, you very intolerant and narrow-minded fundamentalist version of Christianity only represents some Christians, so stop trying to speak for the entire Christian community, which you can’t.

  550. SFJeff says:

    “SD] Again, I’m open to that I may be wrong and of course you’re free to disagree with me. But please just show me where I have it wrong based on what I said about Obama and his sins. On abortion and Obama, What more do I need to know that he is pro choice which means it’s OK with him if a woman chooses to have her unborn baby”

    I really had hoped we might skip the abortion debate but you keep coming back to it- apparently it is a litmus test for you. Apparently half the people who call themselves Christians in America aren’t really Christian. And what is funny is that you probably don’t think Catholics are Christians either, even though they officially agree with you on abortion.

    Was Jesus omniscient? I have always assumed he was. Then why didn’t he ever say “abortion is wrong”?

    Its not as if abortion was unknown in the ancient world, but carrying forward to now, why didn’t Jesus say “nations must pass laws requiring women who get pregnant- no matter what the reason- to carry that child to full term”

    Because Jesus did state very clearly that Men should not divorce their wives. He stated very clearly that the rich aren’t likely to be saved. So why didn’t he say that nations must pass laws requiring women to take a pregnancy to full term? I can’t imagine he just forgot.

    Anyway- I am not going to convince you of anything. You are convinced that Jesus would want women to be forced by law carry a pregnancy to term, even though Jesus never said such a thing, and yet you are not clamoring for divorce to be illegal, even though Jesus said divorce was the same thing as adultery.

    It really doesn’t matter whether President Obama is a Christian or not. What I find always so amazing is the number of so-called Christians who are so ready to dismiss other Christians because they don’t believe the exact same ‘orthodoxy’ as they do. By the way- your hero “Bishop” Mcrae probably doesn’t think you are a Christian. How about them apples?

  551. SFJeff says:

    “Would it seem reasonable that the attorney’s [sic] for these different cases in which his affidavit is filed, know what his real name is and where he can be reached?”

    Here you use the term “would it seem reasonable”? Here?
    It would seem reasonable that the birth certificate that is posted on line is a certified copy of the original
    It would seem reasonable that if there are two birth announcements placed in the papers of Obama’s birth that he was born there.
    It would seem reasonable that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    It would seem reasonable that being born in the United States is the sole requirement to be a natural born citizen.
    Since when have you accepted reasonable arguments?

    The person who signed the Shuhubia affidavit lied. It would be reasonable to assume that if that person is willing to lie about his name, he is willing to lie about other things.

    It would be unreasonable to assume he is scared of going to jail for lieing in an affidavit when he wasn’t scared of using a false name.

  552. Expelliarmus says:

    Any person who claims to be a “pro-life Christian” but opposes health care reform is a hypocrite. They are not “pro-life” — they are merely pro-fetus. They are perfectly happy to see babies die post-delivery.

    The US ranks 46th in the world in infant mortality rates; here are the latest numbers based on 2009 estimates:

    1 Singapore 2.31
    2 Bermuda 2.46
    3 Sweden 2.75
    4 Japan 2.79
    5 Hong Kong 2.92
    6 Macau 3.22
    7 Iceland 3.23
    8 France 3.33
    9 Finland 3.47
    10 Anguilla 3.52
    11 Norway 3.58
    12 Malta 3.75
    13 Andorra 3.76
    14 Czech Republic 3.79
    15 Germany 3.99
    16 Switzerland 4.18
    17 Spain 4.21
    18 Israel 4.22
    19 Slovenia 4.25
    20 Liechtenstein 4.25
    21 South Korea 4.26
    22 Denmark 4.34
    23 Austria 4.42
    24 Belgium 4.44
    25 Guernsey 4.47
    26 Luxembourg 4.56
    27 Netherlands 4.73
    28 Jersey 4.73
    29 Australia 4.75
    30 Portugal 4.78
    31 Gibraltar 4.83
    32 United Kingdom 4.85
    33 New Zealand 4.92
    34 Monaco 5.00
    35 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
    36 Canada 5.04
    37 Ireland 5.05
    38 Greece 5.16
    39 San Marino 5.34
    40 Taiwan 5.35
    41 Isle of Man 5.37
    42 Italy 5.51
    43 European Union 5.72
    44 Cuba 5.82
    45 Guam 6.05
    46 United States 6.26
    47 Faroe Islands 6.32
    48 Croatia 6.37
    49 Belarus 6.43
    50 Lithuania 6.47

    With the exception of Guam (which is a territory of the U.S.), every single country on the list above the U.S. (with better infant survival rates) has a system of universal health coverage in place for its citizens.

    73% of women surveyed who have had abortions cited financial reasons (unable to support a child) as a reason for an abortion. Under our current system, if an uninsured woman gets pregnant — she will not be able to get insurance because pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. Without insurance, she will not be able to afford prenatal care, and the child will not be insured at the time of birth.

    The typical cost of an early term abortion is $300-$400. The typical cost of a hospital birth, if all goes well, is about $10,000-$12,000 if you include costs of prenatal care. If there are any complications, then the costs will far exceed that.

    Anyone can do the math: our current government policies encourage abortion, which is cheap, by failing to guarantee medical care for mother and child, which is expensive.

  553. Ballantine says:

    Of course, most of Mario’s citations don’t actually support the two-parent theory.

  554. Slamdunk says:

    Greg says:
    March 6, 2010 at 2:31 pm (Quote)

    Are people required to provide details of their background when filing an affidavit?

    You’re pretending that “Shuhubia” is trustworthy because of that alleged background.

    [SD] I am saying that nothing in his background has been produced to show that he is not credible or unethical. You use the alias as though it was a capital crime.

    How do you know that Shuhubia is actually a minister, Slamdunk?

    [SD] Why would someone be so foolishly bold and lie about being something he isn’t, especially in an affidavit?

    You can’t check to see if he’s a minister because he didn’t tell anyone his real name.

    [SD] I’ll await an official position on the alias. If it’s true that he used it because of death threats, then he only “lied” for that reason. He wasn’t trying to deceive or mislead anyone.

    We can’t verify whether he actually used an alias because of death threats, because he never claimed any, someone else did.

    [SD] Right. So the jury is out because all the facts aren’t on the table. When someone tells me they are “an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and a native evangelist,” as he did, I take them serious. And it would be easy enough to confirm. If he is lying about that and it is found out, I will humbly admit I was wrong. But why would someone lie about something like that?

    In fact, what evidence do we have that the tall-tales of death threats would have even been related if the lie about this man’s name hadn’t been called to light?

    [SD] I find no reason to suspect he is lying for reasons other than the death threats. Do you?

    There is a procedure you can follow if you are afraid that publishing your name will put you in danger. It’s called filing the affidavit under seal. You can also file a motion to allow the use of pseudonyms.

    [SD] OK, so they amend his affidavit with his real name. Amended affidavits are allowable.

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:mtl1hu977HgJ:www.lawca.com/useful/files/F04294.rtf+affidavit+can+be+amended&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    I have to believe that Phil Berg, the first filer against Obama, knows what he’s doing as a former assistant State Attorney. He’s also a life long Democrat. Why wouldn’t he dump Shuhubia’s affidavit if it’s worthless?

    Absent those things, signing an affidavit with a false name is, with no ifs ands or buts, a lie. We don’t need any other proof that the man is dishonest. He lied.

    [SD] But if that is considered a lie, it was not for evil purposes. I’ll listen to a Judge’s decision on that.

    At this point in time, IMV, there is no reason to suspect that he is not telling the truth.

    I can make your post significantly shorter:

    Here is the beginning of his affidavit:

    “I, Kweli Shuhubia

    Stop there. Right there. That is sufficient evidence to doubt that he’s telling the truth about anything.

    We cannot trust that he’s over 18. We cannot trust that he’s a minister. We cannot trust a single word that comes out of his mouth from this point on.

    [SD] If his filing an alias is considered a lie by a Judge, and an amended affidavit is not allowed, then so be it. So let me ask you then: Why do you think he would file under an alias if it wasn’t for death threats?

    Period.

    If you want to play at this law stuff, Slamdunk, you really should learn the rules.

    [SD] It appears the law allows amended affidavits. Since Shuhubia’s would not be amended for anything other than a name change, I see no reason why a Judge would not accept that, esp. based on the reason for the alias.

    Let me repeat – if you don’t have the court’s permission to file under seal or use a pseudonym, then using a fake name makes your affidavit worthless.

    You can stop reading the affidavit once you get to the fake name, Slamdunk, because it isn’t worth the paper it’s falsified on.

    [SD] I would also like to hear Phil Berg’s position on the affidavit and the other attorneys who have filed Shuhubia’s affidavit. Why not email him and see what he says?

  555. SFJeff says:

    Slamdunk,
    Basically what I can take from your statements is that you believe Shuhubia because he is saying something you want to believe is true.

    I could point out- again- the fallacy of your belief. But really there is no point in repeating it all again.

    Go live your fantasy world in which Shuhubia is a honorable real person and President Obama is a Muslim.

    The rest of us will rest easy knowing we voted for an honorable, natural born citizen of the United States.

  556. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 6, 2010 at 1:26 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: He didn’t lie as though he was trying to deceive or mislead. … Are people required to provide details of their background when filing an affidavit?

    I have no doubt that WHOEVER wrote the Shuhubia affidavit was a bald-faced liar with no intent other than to deceive. I say that because 1) its characterization of the tape recording contradicts the recording itself,

    [SD] Based on the recording supplied with the affidavit, what is the contradiction?

    and 2) all the evidence shows that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and the writer could not have actually interviewed multiple Kenyan officials who said they had the documents he claims.

    [SD] All the evidence Obama has is a questionable (possibly forged) online BC and birth announcement. Abundant evidence points the other way.

    1. Obama won’t simply release his 1961 long form BC to resolve POB.
    2. Nobody in Hawaii, the Kapiolani hospital, or White House will affirm that he was born in Hawaii even though Obama already has.
    3. The transparent president is spending big bucks to keep his BC and all personal records under seal.
    4. Two document specialists say the online BC is not reliable. One comes right out and says it’s a forgery.
    5. The McRae/Shuhubia affidavits.
    6. There has been no ruling on the Kenyan BC produced by Lucas Smith.
    7. “Mike in the Morning” radio show interviewed Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego who said that Obama’s birthplace “already is an attraction.”
    8. The Kenyan National Assembly identified Obama as a “son of the soil,” with “Kenyan roots.”
    9. Shuhubia swears that Obama’s Kenyan birth is common knowledge.
    10. The neighbor living next door to the address published in the Sunday Advertiser, Beatrice Akaki, knew of no black child and white mother living there. This is included in an affidavit by Jorge Baro.
    11. Obama’s selective service form is questionable.

    So we start out with a complete and total fraud. Whether the perpetrator is “Brother Tom” from the tape, McRae, Berg, or Ron Polarik really doesn’t matter. We have an unwitnessed anonymous document that is obviously untrue.

    [SD] So you think McRae and Shuhubia plotted this whole thing. And you make such a charge not based on any factual information other than Shuhubia used an alias.

  557. nbc says:

    1. Obama won’t simply release his 1961 long form BC to resolve POB.

    He has released his short form

    2. Nobody in Hawaii, the Kapiolani hospital, or White House will affirm that he was born in Hawaii even though Obama already has.

    It’s been quite a while ago and the hospital is protected from revealing. The white house however did express its opinion in a letter.

    3. The transparent president is spending big bucks to keep his BC and all personal records under seal.

    Pure speculation

    4. Two document specialists say the online BC is not reliable. One comes right out and says it’s a forgery.

    It’s a lie that they are document specialists. The DOH in Hawaii has validated the document and the birth event in Hawaii.

    5. The McRae/Shuhubia affidavits.

    Totally misleading

    6. There has been no ruling on the Kenyan BC produced by Lucas Smith.

    Because it is not admissible.

    7. “Mike in the Morning” radio show interviewed Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego who said that Obama’s birthplace “already is an attraction.”

    A slip of the tongue. Perhaps he was referring to Obama Sr?

    8. The Kenyan National Assembly identified Obama as a “son of the soil,” with “Kenyan roots.”

    Again, nothing relevant here

    9. Shuhubia swears that Obama’s Kenyan birth is common knowledge.

    So what?

    10. The neighbor living next door to the address published in the Sunday Advertiser, Beatrice Akaki, knew of no black child and white mother living there. This is included in an affidavit by Jorge Baro.

    That issue has now been succesfully resolved.

    11. Obama’s selective service form is questionable.

    Not really

    You are just repeating empty talking points.

    Have you no pride?

  558. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 7, 2010 at 9:26 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk,
    Basically what I can take from your statements is that you believe Shuhubia because he is saying something you want to believe is true.

    I could point out- again- the fallacy of your belief. But really there is no point in repeating it all again.

    Go live your fantasy world in which Shuhubia is a honorable real person and President Obama is a Muslim.

    The rest of us will rest easy knowing we voted for an honorable, natural born citizen of the United States.

    [SD] I accept this reply totally lacking in substance and an admission of defeat. Thank you 🙂

  559. nbC says:

    [SD] I accept this reply totally lacking in substance and an admission of defeat. Thank you 🙂

    Your admission of defeat is thus similarly accepted.

  560. nbC says:

    And your sloppiness is showing it’s

    Beatrice Arakaki

  561. nbC says:

    As to the birth address, that one has been laid to rest already

    Birth announcement address confirmed

    Now, the diligence has been performed, and the results published in WorldNetDaily. The evidence, from contemporary directories, shows that Ann Dunham was living with her parents, who were renting the property at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. I am usually the last person to cite WorldNetDaily, but when they have documentation to go along with their stories, I accept it. Evidence is evidence

    You fool… Allowing yourself to be so manipulated and showing yourself to be nothing more than a mindless ‘repeater’…

    Shame on you SD

  562. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    “Mike in the Morning” radio show interviewed Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego who said that Obama’s birthplace “already is an attraction.”

    If that’s true, why has no one been able to find it? Where in Kenya, exactly, is this “attraction” located? What is it called? Do they charge for admission? Inquiring minds want to know.

  563. Greg says:

    It seems like your computer works, Slamdunk, so I look forward to Phil Berg’s response to your e-mail.

    Ask him why he allowed a witness to perjure himself with the very first sentence out of his mouth. Ask him why, if he knew his witness’ name, he didn’t insist on filing the affidavit under a legal name. Ask him why he risked Rule 11 sanction by filing a false affidavit. Ask him why he failed to file a motion to allow a pseudonymous affidavit or file the affidavit under seal.

    C’mon, Slamdunk, if I told you, “Hi, I’m Magic Johnson, and I’m a Kenyan minister,” would you believe the second part of the sentence despite the lie in the first part?

    You think there’s no reason to disbelieve him? There is no reason to believe a word out of his mouth. The lie started in the second word of the affidavit.

    It’s not a capital offense to commit perjury, but it impeaches the credibility of the witness on everything he says later.

  564. SFJeff says:

    “I accept this reply totally lacking in substance and an admission of defeat. Thank you”

    Accept whatever you want, I won’t argue with crazy anymore.

  565. Slamdunk says:

    nbc says:
    March 7, 2010 at 9:57 pm (Quote)

    1. Obama won’t simply release his 1961 long form BC to resolve POB.

    He has released his short form

    [SD] Why won’t he release the original and prove the birthers wrong?

    2. Nobody in Hawaii, the Kapiolani hospital, or White House will affirm that he was born in Hawaii even though Obama already has.

    It’s been quite a while ago and the hospital is protected from revealing. The white house however did express its opinion in a letter.

    [SD] Obama already admitted he was born at Kapiolani. So why won’t HDOH and Kapiolani just affirm what he made public?

    3. The transparent president is spending big bucks to keep his BC and all personal records under seal.

    Pure speculation

    [SD] You think his attornies are working pro bono?

    4. Two document specialists say the online BC is not reliable. One comes right out and says it’s a forgery.

    It’s a lie that they are document specialists. The DOH in Hawaii has validated the document and the birth event in Hawaii.

    [SD] HDOH, IMV, is being less than honest. Much has been written about the carefully worded statements of Fukino.

    5. The McRae/Shuhubia affidavits.

    Totally misleading

    [SD] So where are any affidavits or court challenges against theirs?

    6. There has been no ruling on the Kenyan BC produced by Lucas Smith.

    Because it is not admissible.

    [SD] If no case has been heard how could it be determined whether it is or isn’t?

    7. “Mike in the Morning” radio show interviewed Kenyan Ambassador Peter Ogego who said that Obama’s birthplace “already is an attraction.”

    A slip of the tongue. Perhaps he was referring to Obama Sr?

    [SD] The audio and transcript are available on the web. Ogego was talking about Obama Jr.

    8. The Kenyan National Assembly identified Obama as a “son of the soil,” with “Kenyan roots.”

    Again, nothing relevant here

    9. Shuhubia swears that Obama’s Kenyan birth is common knowledge.

    So what?

    [SD] So what? It means Kenyans know he was born there.

    10. The neighbor living next door to the address published in the Sunday Advertiser, Beatrice Arikaki, knew of no black child and white mother living there. This is included in an affidavit by Jorge Baro.

    That issue has now been succesfully resolved.

    [SD] Really. How so?

    11. Obama’s selective service form is questionable.

    Not really

    [SD] Just go on line and research it.

  566. Slamdunk says:

    nbC says:
    March 7, 2010 at 10:09 pm (Quote)

    As to the birth address, that one has been laid to rest already

    Birth announcement address confirmed

    Now, the diligence has been performed, and the results published in WorldNetDaily. The evidence, from contemporary directories, shows that Ann Dunham was living with her parents, who were renting the property at 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. I am usually the last person to cite WorldNetDaily, but when they have documentation to go along with their stories, I accept it. Evidence is evidence

    [SD] Please show me the WND article that confirms Obama and his mother lived at that address.

    You fool… Allowing yourself to be so manipulated and showing yourself to be nothing more than a mindless repeater’…

    [SD] Wouldn’t it be so easy if Obama would just show the world his 1961 original long form BC? Why do you think he won’t do that? Come on. He already admitted he was born at the Kapiolani hospital. Wouldn’t that be the reasonable thing to do? Polls (AOL online and WND) show 50% of Americans want him to produce it.

    There’s something brewing at the Hawaii Dept. of Health that could be interesting.
    See rightsideoflife.com

  567. The Mike in the Morning audio recording is/was on the radio station web site; however, it is being misinterpreted by the birthers. The ambassador’s aide later explained the misunderstanding. I don’t have a link handy, but I heard it myself from the WRIF web site.

  568. NBC says:

    [SD] Please show me the WND article that confirms Obama and his mother lived at that address.

    I provided you with the link to Dr Conspiracy’s page which shows how you were wrong.

    Are you now trying to stall for time…

    You made a foolish assertion and unaware of the facts you were shown to be nothing more than a mouth piece of talking points long since addressed as fallacious

    At least apologize for your errors…

    Surely you can do that?…

  569. Bovril says:

    Folks,

    Arguing with a muppet like SD is like wrestling with a pig, at the end you are both filthy and exhausted –and you know the pig was enjoying it.

    In other words….please…..don’t feed the troll….think of all those poor electrons wasted on points rebutted multiple times.

  570. BatGuano says:

    [SD] Wouldn’t it be so easy if Obama would just show the world his 1961 original long form BC?

    you’ve already claimed that you’d believe it a fake if it was produced.

  571. JoZeppy says:

    [SD] Why won’t he release the original and prove the birthers wrong?

    Perhaps because the State of Hawaii no longer gives them out and he lost his…and besides, birthers are doing a great job making themselves look like idiots, why stop them (and since they only screamed forgery for the first one, why should we assume they would do any less for another one? You ignore idiots, not answer them).

    [SD] Obama already admitted he was born at Kapiolani. So why won’t HDOH and Kapiolani just affirm what he made public?

    It’s called HIPPA. There would be civil and criminal penalties for releasing that information. Just because a person makes the information public does not clear a hospital (or a state under their laws) of their obligations under statute.

    [SD] You think his attornies are working pro bono?

    First off, his attorneys aren’t doing very much. Most of it is being done by DoJ filing motions to dismiss, which are promptly granted. Secondly, He’s not keeping his documents sealed. They are protected under law. He doesn’t have to do anything to maintain the status quo. There is no evidence that Obama has spent much of anything responding to birther nonesense…plus, since when is it a victom’s fault to respond to frivolous and harassing litigation? Do we blame a rape victom for the costs incurred prosecuting the rapist?

    [SD] HDOH, IMV, is being less than honest. Much has been written about the carefully worded statements of Fukino.

    Much as also been written about the moon landing being faked. Just because some birther nut writes something about a subject, doesn’t give it any weight.

    SD] So where are any affidavits or court challenges against theirs?

    Don’t need any. McRae had no independent knowledge about the events. There is nothing he could testify to that would be admissible in a court. Same with Shuhubia, plus he didn’t even sign his own name, therefor the document is meaningless, on top of being inadmissable.

    [SD] If no case has been heard how could it be determined whether it is or isn’t?

    By simply looking at the Federal Rules of Evidence. It’s not a court’s responsibility to determine whether a document is real or not. It is the job of the person offering it as evidence to provide a foundation for why the court should accept it. There is no such foundation, and the documents are worthless. Plus, it’s not the courts fault that birthers don’t have standing. If you can’t find a plaintiff with standing, that’s your problem and fault. Deal with it.

    [SD] The audio and transcript are available on the web. Ogego was talking about Obama Jr.
    [SD] So what? It means Kenyans know he was born there.

    Which is all irrelevant. None of them have independent knowledge of the event. Most Americans know Obama was born in Hawaii…And as previously stated, anything Shuhubia is meaningless, as he didn’t actually swear to anything…not to mention his “common knowledge” statement would be hard to support (how does a person determine what is “common knowledge” across an entire country?)

    Finally, both the “not living at the address” and the selective service registration have been totally debunked everywhere but birther blogs. Perhaps you should “go online and search it”?

  572. misha says:

    “Arguing with a muppet”

    Hey, lay off the Muppets. It’s “puppet.”

  573. JoZeppy: It’s called HIPPA.

    Correction: HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996)

  574. SFJeff says:

    “Why won’t he release the original and prove the birthers wrong?”

    There are many possible reasons. My current favorite is that President Obama, having realized that he is the only President in history being asked to provide it, feels insulted even being asked. Why does the black man have to do more to prove he is eligible than all those pasty white dudes before him?

    I am with him. Anything beyond what he has already provided just will encourage malcontents to continue with their demands for additional ridiculous ‘proof’.

  575. JoZeppy says:

    thanks…my bad.

  576. Scientist says:

    Wouldn’t it be so easy if Obama would just show the world his 1961 original long form BC?

    SD-No, it would be impossible, because OBAMA DOESN’T HAVE IT. How do I know? Because I HAVE IT. Would you like to see it? No problemo. Just wire $ 10,000,000 to:

    Cayman National Bank
    Grand Cayman
    Acct # 650A492

    As soon as the bank informs me that the money is there, I will send the Certificate to you by overnight delivery. Please provide a street address (no PO Box, please).

  577. misha says:

    “How do I know? Because I HAVE IT.”

    Wait – then what did I buy on eBay? Oh man, did I get taken. I also think I got taken yesterday in Chinatown. I bought the One True Cross from a street vendor. When I got home, I looked on the back and it said “Made in Israel China.”

  578. SFJeff says:

    Hey Slamdunk- since you are so willing to decide whether someone is a good Christian or not- Is Reverend Phelps? I think no Christian church is more against homosexuality than his Westboro Baptist Church- he is against all those things you listed as being against Gods laws.

    So is Obama a suspect Christian, but Rev Phelps considered an honorable man because he meets your litmus test of a ‘good’ Christian?

  579. Bovril says:

    Lower case “M” denoting mad puppet with a brain consistency akin to that of foam.

    I normally would have described him as raving fu%*wit with the mental symptoms of tertiary syphilis and none of the charming oozing pustules…..but feel a tad generous today, got tax refund…..8-)

  580. For those interested in Obama’s religious background and faith, I recommend this 2007 article from the New York Times.

  581. Slamdunk says:

    Did you enjoy the Farahkan, Phleger, Wright Special? The only one missing was Obama.

  582. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 8, 2010 at 1:35 pm (Quote)

    Hey Slamdunk- since you are so willing to decide whether someone is a good Christian or not- Is Reverend Phelps? I think no Christian church is more against homosexuality than his Westboro Baptist Church- he is against all those things you listed as being against Gods laws.

    So is Obama a suspect Christian, but Rev Phelps considered an honorable man because he meets your litmus test of a ‘good’ Christian?

    [SD] I only know about Phelps’ position on Homosexuals. I don’t agree with the way he handle speaks out against them.

  583. Slamdunk says:

    SFJeff says:
    March 8, 2010 at 11:56 am (Quote)

    “Why won’t he release the original and prove the birthers wrong?”

    There are many possible reasons. My current favorite is that President Obama, having realized that he is the only President in history being asked to provide it, feels insulted even being asked. Why does the black man have to do more to prove he is eligible than all those pasty white dudes before him?

    [SD] That is pretty limp IMV. So what if he’s the only one ever asked? He has given every reason FOR it to be asked. Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.

    I am with him. Anything beyond what he has already provided just will encourage malcontents to continue with their demands for additional ridiculous proof’.

    [SD] He is the one causing millions of people to want to see his long form BC. He is the one who is spending a lot of money to keep it, along with other personal information, hidden. He is clearly hiding things he doesn’t want us to know. IMV, These are things a President should not be doing. There is no burden on him to release something that would set the record straight.

  584. Slamdunk says:

    JoZeppy says:
    March 8, 2010 at 11:05 am (Quote)

    [SD] Why won’t he release the original and prove the birthers wrong?

    Perhaps because the State of Hawaii no longer gives them out and he lost his…

    [SD] He has not lost his BC. In his book, he mentions finding something that was with his BC. Besides, there is nothing to prevent him from volunteering the release of his BC from Hawaii. Just takes a phone call and ten dollars. IMV, this speaks volumes.

    and besides, birthers are doing a great job making themselves look like idiots, why stop them (and since they only screamed forgery for the first one, why should we assume they would do any less for another one? You ignore idiots, not answer them).

    [SD] The president should not ignore requests from people who oppose his views and policies.

    [SD] Obama already admitted he was born at Kapiolani. So why won’t HDOH and Kapiolani just affirm what he made public?

    It’s called HIPPA. There would be civil and criminal penalties for releasing that information.

    [SD] If they released it without Obama’s authroization, yes, it would criminal. But Obama is free to volunteer its release. Why won’t he simply do that?

    Just because a person makes the information public does not clear a hospital (or a state under their laws) of their obligations under statute.

    [SD] That’s not true. If Obama tells them it’s OK to release it, then there is no liability. On the other hand, if there is a law forbidding it, I would like to see it.

    [SD] You think his attornies are working pro bono?

    First off, his attorneys aren’t doing very much. Most of it is being done by DoJ filing motions to dismiss, which are promptly granted. Secondly, He’s not keeping his documents sealed. They are protected under law.

    [SD]It is my understanding that, aFter becoming President, he issued an executive order sealing all his personal records.

    He doesn’t have to do anything to maintain the status quo. There is no evidence that Obama has spent much of anything responding to birther nonesense…

    [SD] He also has private law firms handling the several cases filed against him. The reported sums of money is close to two million.

    plus, since when is it a victom’s fault to respond to frivolous and harassing litigation? Do we blame a rape victom for the costs incurred prosecuting the rapist?

    [SD] The question about his BC is legitimate since it involves the constitution and his qualifications.

    [SD] HDOH, IMV, is being less than honest. Much has been written about the carefully worded statements of Fukino.

    Much as also been written about the moon landing being faked. Just because some birther nut writes something about a subject, doesn’t give it any weight.

    [SD] The president’s behavior under the circumstances warrants at least suspicion. You don’t hide something that would clear up a matter.

    SD] So where are any affidavits or court challenges against theirs?

    Don’t need any. McRae had no independent knowledge about the events. There is nothing he could testify to that would be admissible in a court.

    [SD] He has a phone recording with Obama’s grandmother that would be admissable.

    Same with Shuhubia, plus he didn’t even sign his own name, therefor the document is meaningless, on top of being inadmissable.

    [SD] If any of the cases against would be heard, his affidavit could probably be amended to record his real name. That is a very minor issue in the pursuit of truth, don’t you think?

    [SD] If no case has been heard how could it be determined whether it is or isn’t?

    By simply looking at the Federal Rules of Evidence. It’s not a court’s responsibility to determine whether a document is real or not. It is the job of the person offering it as evidence to provide a foundation for why the court should accept it. There is no such foundation, and the documents are worthless. Plus, it’s not the courts fault that birthers don’t have standing. If you can’t find a plaintiff with standing, that’s your problem and fault. Deal with it.

    [SD] It is Congress that should address the matter of a President who does not meet the requirements of the constitution. IMV, the American people should have “the standing.” It is they who are being harmed by his unpopular policies.

    [SD] The audio and transcript are available on the web. Ogego was talking about Obama Jr.

    Which is all irrelevant. None of them have independent knowledge of the event. Most Americans know Obama was born in Hawaii…

    [SD] Americans have told he was born there. The only thing showing he was born in Hawaii is a computer generated document that has been challenged for authenticity. The birth announcement only shows that he was born and that the address of his parents was in Hawaii.

    And as previously stated, anything Shuhubia is meaningless, as he didn’t actually swear to anything…not to mention his “common knowledge” statement would be hard to support (how does a person determine what is “common knowledge” across an entire country?)

    Finally, both the “not living at the address” and the selective service registration have been totally debunked everywhere but birther blogs. Perhaps you should “go online and search it”?

    [SD] It has not been debunked, neither has Obama’s illegal use of a social security number not assigned to him. This is why a court must heard one of these cases. There’s more to this imposter than being unqualified to be president.

  585. JoZeppy says:

    [SD] He has not lost his BC. In his book, he mentions finding something that was with his BC. Besides, there is nothing to prevent him from volunteering the release of his BC from Hawaii. Just takes a phone call and ten dollars. IMV, this speaks volumes.

    Yes, but he said he found it many years ago. Just because he found it then, doesn’t mean it still exists now. And the phone call and ten dollars will produce exactly what you saw in the internet. So why bother. And again, you don’t respond to fringe idiots that will never be happy. It wastes your time, and I think he has more important to do than deal with fringe lunatics (I on the other hand…).

    [SD] The president should not ignore requests from people who oppose his views and policies.

    But he should, and is ignoring fringe conspiracy lunatics, that will rather believe a litany of bogus Kenyan Birth Certificates without any evidence from where they came from, but will parse every word from a Republican administration in Hawaii saying he was born in Hawaii, and the certificate is legit to find some bizzaro twist in their words to make it mean exactly opposite of what the actual words they spoke mean.

    [SD] If they released it without Obama’s authroization, yes, it would criminal. But Obama is free to volunteer its release. Why won’t he simply do that?

    Same as above. You ignore nuts who will never be happy.

    [SD]It is my understanding that, aFter becoming President, he issued an executive order sealing all his personal records.

    And your understanding is completely wrong. That is what you get for relying on birther blogs. He signed an executive order reversing the GW Bush administration’s restrictions on releasing presidential documents, and reverted to the more open Clinton policy. More reason to ignore the nuts…they don’t even bother to get the facts right, and ignore reality and fact in favor of the unsubstantiated rumour de jur so long as it supports their twisted view.

    [SD] He also has private law firms handling the several cases filed against him. The reported sums of money is close to two million.

    Again…all based on rumor and no facts. The Obama campaign had a firm on retainer, and in the last quarter of the campaign, spent around a million and a half, as was reported on the FEC disclosures. This is perfectly normal in the post Bush v. Gore world. John McCain spent just as much, and John Kerry spent even more. If Obama had personally retained the firm to fight this birther nonesense, you would have no idea how much he spent, as that is not public information. Not to mention, the DoJ has responded to every birther suit since Obama took office. There is not a single filing by any private firm in his defense since he became president. You have no facts whatsoever to support this contention.

    [SD] The question about his BC is legitimate since it involves the constitution and his qualifications.

    If you had a shred of evidence, you might have a point. But as every piece of admissible evidence points to him being born in Hawaii, there are no legitimate questions.

    [SD] The president’s behavior under the circumstances warrants at least suspicion. You don’t hide something that would clear up a matter.

    No it doesn’t. We don’t have witch hunts based on unsubstantiated suspicisions of a few nutbags. And not responding to fringe conspiracy theories doesn’t generate any suspicion. He isn’t hiding anything. In fact, he’s made public more than any other president in the past.

    [SD] If any of the cases against would be heard, his affidavit could probably be amended to record his real name. That is a very minor issue in the pursuit of truth, don’t you think?

    It’s actually a non-issue, since nothing he could say would be admissible in a court of law. He has no independent knowledge of Obama’s birth, so anything he could offer would be inadmissable hearsay.

    [SD] He has a phone recording with Obama’s grandmother that would be admissable.

    Yes, a phone call where she says he was born in Hawaii….your point?

    [SD] It is Congress that should address the matter of a President who does not meet the requirements of the constitution. IMV, the American people should have “the standing.” It is they who are being harmed by his unpopular policies.

    It is congress’ role to handle the matter…if there was anything to handle. Fact is there is no evidence to say he isn’t qualified, so nothing to address. And your view about who should have standing is irrelevant. Just because you don’t like our constitution, doesn’t give you the right to unilaterally try to change it. There is no such thing as tax payer standing. That is black letter law. Your recourse is the ballot box.

    [SD] Americans have told he was born there. The only thing showing he was born in Hawaii is a computer generated document that has been challenged for authenticity. The birth announcement only shows that he was born and that the address of his parents was in Hawaii.

    Challenged by people who have been shown not to have the qualifications to make the statements they have…which leaves you with nothing….so we have all this evidence for being born in Hawaii, and nothing supporting being born in Kenya….hmmmm…

    [SD] It has not been debunked, neither has Obama’s illegal use of a social security number not assigned to him. This is why a court must heard one of these cases. There’s more to this imposter than being unqualified to be president.

    There is no evidence of illegal use of social security numbers. You should not rely on the likes of a mail order catalog, soon to be disbarred attorney for your claims.

    Fact is, there is nothing to your claims of him being an imposter or unqualified.

  586. nbC says:

    [SD]It is my understanding that, aFter becoming President, he issued an executive order sealing all his personal records.

    It seems that once again you let others use you as their mouthpiece and spread lies.

    How does that make you feel.

    Check out the actual Executive Order. I assume you already did so, or were you so gullible that you accepted their statement at face value?

    Pathetic my loser friend, pathetic.

    You are now repeating a whole set of exposed untruths.

    WWJD?

  587. SFJeff says:

    “SD] That is pretty limp IMV. So what if he’s the only one ever asked?”

    Let me tell you a story I read about years ago in San Diego. There was an African American man who was an insomniac. He went out walking late at night in his predominantly white neighborhood. Almost every night he was stopped by police and questioned. He finally sued the police department, and proved that the police didn’t stop white folk who were walking in that neighborhood at night and ask them why they were out at night- only him. Obama’s situation is the same. Whether or not the reason behind the request is racist or not, he has every reason to be irritated by the appearance that this request is only because he is the first African American President. If every candidate was asked to provide this laundry list of proof, then you might have a point, but no- he is the first one ever.

    “He has given every reason FOR it to be asked.”

    No- he hasn’t. Saying his refusal to provide it is the reason he is being asked is kind of backwards don’t you think?

    “Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.”

    You can call him whatever you would like, I will call him by what the majority of American’s consider his ethnic identity, and indeed how he self identifies. If you would prefer though we could agree on African American, and my argument would still stand.

  588. Slamdunk: No president in the history of America has ever issued an executive order sealing all his personal records.

    That’s true. No president has ever done this. Not only has no president ever done this, no president COULD do it since US Presidents do not govern by fiat, but by law.

    Oh, you think Obama did this? Well as I tell birthers and denialists all the time, search this site and you will probably find the information you need to prevent embarrassing mistakes.

    In this case the article is Executive Order 13489 – Presidential Records.

    The key phrase is “Presidential Records” which is DEFINED as:

    § 2201 Definitions… 2) The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

    You have confused “presidential records” with “personal records.” Misunderstandings like this pervade the birther mythos.

  589. Slamdunk says:

    Scientist says:
    March 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm (Quote)

    Wouldn’t it be so easy if Obama would just show the world his 1961 original long form BC?

    SD-No, it would be impossible, because OBAMA DOESN’T HAVE IT. How do I know? Because I HAVE IT. Would you like to see it? No problemo. Just wire $ 10,000,000 to:

    Cayman National Bank
    Grand Cayman
    Acct # 650A492

    As soon as the bank informs me that the money is there, I will send the Certificate to you by overnight delivery. Please provide a street address (no PO Box, please).

    [SD] $10,000,000? Is that all? I’ll pay 20,000,000.

  590. Slamdunk says:

    Yeah, you’re right. It probably would be.

  591. Slamdunk says:

    February 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: I was only citing Jesus as a man who would make a great president based on his moral and ethical qualities, something sadly missing in the Capitol.

    So are you saying we should ignore the Constitution if the person is sufficiently admirable?

    [SD] If everyone was like Jesus we wouldn’t need laws or a constitution. It would be heaven on earth:)

  592. nbc says:

    [SD] If everyone was like Jesus we wouldn’t need laws or a constitution. It would be heaven on earth:)

    What nonsense…

  593. Jesus as president?

    You really want a president whose defense strategy is a soft answer and turning the other cheek? I didn’t think so. Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. Obama bows to a Saudi and conservatives have a cow! If we had a president even remotely like Jesus, the conservatives would hound him every minute.

    And I shudder at what the Conservatives would say about Jesus’ dual allegiance! And what about the BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    Hypocrits.

  594. misha says:

    @Slamdunk:

    I agree with you. Here is how I worship daily at dinnertime.

  595. Rickey says:

    This isn’t related to Obama’s eligibility, but it does involved Judge Lamberth:

    Filegate Suits Against Clinton White House Finally Dismissed

    Fourteen years after they began, a federal judge today dismissed the lawsuits over Filegate, closing the book on a scandal that became an ongoing thorn in the side of the Clinton White House and helped launch Larry Klayman into temporary national prominence.

    The plaintiffs sued the FBI, the Executive Office of the President, and a smattering of White House figures, including then first lady Hillary Clinton, in 1996 after the administration revealed that it had mistakenly ordered up the FBI files of more than 400 Bush I and Reagan administration officials. The case, spearheaded by Klayman and his conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, led to parade of high profile depositions, but seemed to sputter as the years dragged on. Hillary Clinton was dismissed as a defendant last year.

    Today, in a colorful 28-page opinion (it includes the phrase “bureaucratic babushka doll”), Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the plaintiffs had failed to provide any evidence that the files were sought as part of a White House conspiracy. Rather, he said, they had shown that the incident was little more than a “snafu.”

    “After years of litigation, endless depositions, the fictionalized portrayal of this lawsuit and its litigants on television, and innumerable histrionics, this Court is left to conclude that with this lawsuit, to quote Gertrude Stein, there’s no there there,’ ” Lamberth wrote.

    Upon being informed that the cases had been dismissed, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, who was also named in the suit, exclaimed, “No kidding.”

    “The judge said it best. There is no there, there. And there never was any there there,’ ” Nusbaum said. “It is sad that in that day and age, and in this day and age, the politics of personal destruction continues.”

    a .pdf file of the decision is here:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/lamberth_decision_filegate.pdf

  596. Rickey says:

    Slamdunk says:

    Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.

    Careful, your true colors are starting to show.

  597. Greg says:

    Filegate Suits Against Clinton White House Finally Dismissed

    Fourteen years after they began, a federal judge today dismissed the lawsuits over Filegate, closing the book on a scandal that became an ongoing thorn in the side of the Clinton White House and helped launch Larry Klayman into temporary national prominence.

    And people wonder why Obama doesn’t just cooperate with the birthers. Give them what they want…just let case get to discovery. If we get discovery, then we’ll get Obama out in 35 days.

    14 years, “endless depositions, the fictionalized portrayal of this lawsuit and its litigants on television, and innumerable histrionics…”

    Are you birthers so convinced of the correctness of your position that you’d agree to a “loser-pays” rule?

  598. Mike says:

    [SD] You may be confusing “native born subjects” with “natural born citizens,” which the founders viewed differently. It is my understanding that the founders did not rely on British common law when speaking of natural born citizens. Apuzzo goes into some detail about the Naturalization Act of 1790. I recommend that you visit his site. I do recall reading it, but can’t remember where its found in all his articles.I wish I could remember so I could share it with you.

    Don’t you ever get tired of lying?

  599. Greg says:

    He has not lost his BC. In his book, he mentions finding something that was with his BC.

    His book was published in 1995. It is 2010. In 1995, Seal’s Kiss from a Rose spent 8 weeks at the top of the charts. You realize it’s a different year now, right?

    neither has Obama’s illegal use of a social security number not assigned to him.

    You have evidence that Obama used a social security number not assigned to him?

    I’ll accept a document signed by Obama with an incorrect number. I won’t accept a database which has a clear warning that it might be inaccurate.

    Orly should have her investigator check Orly’s name using the same procedures she used for Obama – any name that sounds familiar counts as one of Obama’s Social Security numbers used. Brianna Obama, Burak Obama, Brack, Borak, Bob, Bo, Binlad, Bertrand, Benedicto, Barbara. Some of them are obviously hoaxes, and apparently, even they are included as SSNs that Obama has used.

  600. Greg says:

    Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.

    Does a “half white” loan applicant get halfway redlined? Does being “half white” mean that people only cross to the middle of the street on a dark night when you approach?

    Excuse me, Mr. Security Guard, you’ve been following me for 30 minutes in the store. I’m only going to be here for an hour, so you can stop now. I’m half-white.

    And why stop at half? I’m sure that if you did a detailed geneology, you’d find that he had more white in him than that. The British colonists were rather indiscriminate with their genes – maybe you could get him up to 55% white!

    And, since white slave owners were also indiscriminate with their genes, studies show that the average African-American is only about 82% black. What does that mean for your mathematics, Slamdunk?

  601. Greg: I’m sure that if you did a detailed genealogy, you’d find that he had more white in him than that. The British colonists were rather indiscriminate with their genes – maybe you could get him up to 55% white!

    White southern slaveholders were indiscriminate with their genes too, so it might tilt the other way.

  602. Greg says:

    White southern slaveholders were indiscriminate with their genes too, so it might tilt the other way.

    True, apparently, about 30 million white Americans have at least one black ancestor. However, the average admixture, according to the article I cited above, is only 0.7% for whites, meaning that of 128 ancestors, one would be black. By contrast, the average admixture the other way was 17-18%, or approximately 22 of the 128 ancestors being white.

  603. nbc says:

    Is the Pope Catholic?…
    Well, he can always blame it on his ‘understanding’, which, as history has shown is based on poor foundations, speculations and lack of supporting data and evidence.

    In this case he ‘remembers’ an article which he believes shows somehow that the Founders did not rely on British Common Law.

    Pathetic….

  604. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm (Quote)

    Jesus as president?

    You really want a president whose defense strategy is a soft answer and turning the other cheek? I didn’t think so.

    [SD] Jesus was not advocating a soft national defense, but for people not to be so preoccupied with themselves or predisposed to hitting back, getting even, or demanding their rights. The sermon on the mount was essentially a message of focusing less on self in favor of others.

    Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. Obama bows to a Saudi and conservatives have a cow! If we had a president even remotely like Jesus, the conservatives would hound him every minute.

    [SD] Jesus’ act of washing feet had nothing to do with peace or a weak defense. He was illustrating symbolically through foot washing what his humility would mean redemptively. As Christ willfully denied his life for sinners, so believers are to humble themselves and practice self and love for the brethren.

    Preincarnately, Jesus was the “Commander of the army of the Lord.” (Josh. 5:14) Jesus was far from a pacifist.

    And I shudder at what the Conservatives would say about Jesus’ dual allegiance! And what about the BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    [SD] Jesus dual allegiance???? He has already addressed the BC: “Thou shall not bear false witness.” (Exo. 20:16)

  605. Slamdunk says:

    nbc says:
    March 9, 2010 at 3:29 pm (Quote)

    [SD] If everyone was like Jesus we wouldn’t need laws or a constitution. It would be heaven on earth:)

    What nonsense…

    [SD] Think about it. If everyone obeyed the law like he did, there would be no need for jails. There would be no abortion clinics, no wars, no crime, no child abuse, no drug addiction, no alcoholics, etc.

  606. Slamdunk says:

    misha says:
    March 9, 2010 at 4:49 pm (Quote)

    @Slamdunk:

    I agree with you. Here is how I worship daily at dinnertime.

    [SD] Cute:) Watch those carbs.

  607. Slamdunk says:

    Greg says:
    March 10, 2010 at 8:05 am (Quote)

    Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.

    Does a “half white” loan applicant get halfway redlined? Does being “half white” mean that people only cross to the middle of the street on a dark night when you approach?

    Excuse me, Mr. Security Guard, you’ve been following me for 30 minutes in the store. I’m only going to be here for an hour, so you can stop now. I’m half-white.

    And why stop at half? I’m sure that if you did a detailed geneology, you’d find that he had more white in him than that. The British colonists were rather indiscriminate with their genes – maybe you could get him up to 55% white!

    And, since white slave owners were also indiscriminate with their genes, studies show that the average African-American is only about 82% black. What does that mean for your mathematics, Slamdunk?

    [SD] Gosh, all I’m saying is that Obama is always presented as the black president, never the white, or even half white president. Is he more black than white?

  608. Slamdunk says:

    Rickey says:
    March 9, 2010 at 5:49 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk says:

    Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.

    Careful, your true colors are starting to show.

    [SD] They are? I’m Black.

  609. Slamdunk says:

    ays:
    March 9, 2010 at 12:17 pm (Quote)

    “SD] That is pretty limp IMV. So what if he’s the only one ever asked?”

    Let me tell you a story I read about years ago in San Diego. There was an African American man who was an insomniac. He went out walking late at night in his predominantly white neighborhood. Almost every night he was stopped by police and questioned. He finally sued the police department, and proved that the police didn’t stop white folk who were walking in that neighborhood at night and ask them why they were out at night- only him. Obama’s situation is the same. Whether or not the reason behind the request is racist or not, he has every reason to be irritated by the appearance that this request is only because he is the first African American President. If every candidate was asked to provide this laundry list of proof, then you might have a point, but no- he is the first one ever.

    “He has given every reason FOR it to be asked.”

    No- he hasn’t. Saying his refusal to provide it is the reason he is being asked is kind of backwards don’t you think?

    [SD] He is being asked for two reasons: 1) There is enough evidence that he was born in Kenya, and 2) He is not a natural born citizen. His refusal just adds wood to the fire.

    “Also, he should not be referred to as the “black” president. He is the half white president.”

    You can call him whatever you would like, I will call him by what the majority of American’s consider his ethnic identity, and indeed how he self identifies. If you would prefer though we could agree on African American, and my argument would still stand.

    [SD] My only point is that the man is half white, or if you prefer, half black.

  610. G says:

    [SD] He is being asked for two reasons: 1) There is enough evidence that he was born in Kenya, and 2) He is not a natural born citizen. His refusal just adds wood to the fire.

    Well SD, those “two reasons” *only* exist in the imaginary world that you and the other birthers try to live in.

    You seem incapable of distinguishing pure speculation with actual facts.

    Back here in reality, we are still faced with:

    1) Absolutely NO actual credible evidence indicating or supporting that he was every born anywhere other than Honolulu, HI.

    2) As HI was a state of the US at the time of his birth, he is CLEARLY a NBC. No credible actual Constitutional lawyer nor any member of congress had any problem with his qualifications and he was easily voted in by a commanding majority, confirmed without dissent and sworn into office as President. Simple as that.

    The only people claiming otherwise have no real credibility nor actual background as Constitutional Laywers.

    These hack fools like Orly, etc. like to self-appoint themselves that, but that is all it is.

    Gee, you can tuck your arm in your shirt all you want and tell everyone you meet that you are Napoleon, but no matter how often you say it or how loud you shout, that doesn’t make it true.

    It only makes you come across as either a really bad con-artist or crazy and not at all credible. That pretty much sums up the qualifications and credibility of the whole Birther movement and the Fantasy Grand Jury folks right there.

    Nobody with any real responsibilities or background in dealing with any of the steps or issues in a presidential election process ever had a question or problem with Obama’s election at all.

  611. SFJeff says:

    “SD] He is being asked for two reasons: 1) There is enough evidence that he was born in Kenya,”

    And you keep coming back to this. I think that you and I have different definitions of evidence. And when President Obama was first being asked for his birth certificate, none of the Kenyan birth claims had even surfaced. So even on the face of it- since he was asked for his BC before the Kenyan stuff was spread around- ‘evidence of Kenyan’ birth wasn’t the reason

    “and 2) He is not a natural born citizen. His refusal just adds wood to the fire.”

    If he is not a natural born citizen then why do you keep asking for the BC?

    Oh well its all circular. Good luck with your quest. Nothing new in this argument.

  612. misha says:

    The better question is, if NBC requires both parents be citizens, why keep demanding a BC? I wish that crowd would make up its mind.

  613. thisoldhippie says:

    Um – Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding so that the party could continue, and you know what? He was drinking it as well, so I’d say there would probably still be alcoholics. Further, Jesus didn’t insist anyone follow him – he believed and taught free will.

  614. Slamdunk: Gosh, all I’m saying is that Obama is always presented as the black president, never the white, or even half white president. Is he more black than white?

    Let me give you a little research assignment.

    The so-called “long form” birth certificate from Hawaii is exemplified by the “Alan” certificate. If you look at the “Alan” certificate, you will see blocks for the race of the father and the race of the mother, but not the race of the child. However, US Government statistics from 1961 give Hawaiian birth totals by “color”. Now how do they figure out the color of a child from the birth certificate? Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to return with the answer: for 1961 official US government statistical purposes, what race is Barack Obama? Hint: there is a link to the answer on this web site.

  615. Slamdunk: [Jesus] was illustrating symbolically through foot washing what his humility would mean redemptively.

    Thank you for your revealing answer from which the preceding is excerpted. It’s clear that you didn’t comprehend what I was saying, for whatever reason. I guess my point is that conservatives have attacked Obama for anything that smacks of humility. You may want to separate personal humility from national humility, but the topic “Jesus as president” is one whose context is national leadership, not personal redemption.

    Your interpretation of Joshua 5:14 is quaint, but hardly scriptural. The archangel Michael is the commander of the army of the Lord (Rev. 12:7). Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would fight…” Nope, not commander in chief material.

  616. misha says:

    “Jesus turned water into wine”

    Actually, I think it was Buckfast.
    .

  617. DickWhitman says:

    The better question is, if NBC requires both parents be citizens, why keep demanding a BC? I wish that crowd would make up its mind.

    BC?

    I want to see his (or Barry Soetoro’s) Form DS-4083, Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States, and all of his SS-5’s, Application for Social Security Card(s).

  618. misha says:

    So go sue him. Please – get a lawyer and file.

    Personally, I want a Nikon D3s and a SEM Ciao. Also, a Shetland pony. But you don’t hear me whine about it, incessantly.

  619. SvenMagnussen says:

    Dick;

    Where have you been? It’s good to see you posting again.

    Now this is interesting.

    7 FAM 1240

    … copies of approved CLNs are distributed to:
    DoS Citizenship Files (CA/PPT)
    DHS/USCIS
    IRS
    FBI

  620. SvenMagnussen says:

    So go sue him. Please – get a lawyer and file.
    Personally, I want a Nikon D3s and a SEM Ciao. Also, a Shetland pony. But you don’t hear me whine about it, incessantly.

    It’s no wonder BHO II had to get a new SSN. After a CLN is approved and 5 signed and sealed copies of the CLN are distributed, the renunciant’s passport is confiscated.

    And if the renunciant fails to return the passport, it is entered into the CLASP system as lost/stolen.

    The paper trail on a CLN is extensive.

  621. Greg says:

    Gosh, all I’m saying is that Obama is always presented as the black president, never the white, or even half white president. Is he more black than white?

    Golly, all I’m saying is that it was a stupid, borderline racist thing to say.

    As an alleged black person, do you think it would make a difference to the cops pulling you over for driving in a white neighborhood, in a car too expensive for a black person, that you could point to the fact that the average black person is 17% white? Do you think it would matter if you could say that you were, in fact, 55% white?

    You still consider yourself black even though you are, in fact, probably at least 17% white? Do you ever refer to yourself as 83% black?

    If the police issued a description of you, as a suspect or as a missing person, would they describe you as the short/tall 83% black male/female?

    Obama is the “black” president because his outward appearance matches his self-description. It’s a conundrum each child of an interracial couple faces.

  622. Slamdunk says:

    Dr. Conspiracy says:
    March 10, 2010 at 11:00 pm (Quote)

    Slamdunk: [Jesus] was illustrating symbolically through foot washing what his humility would mean redemptively.

    Thank you for your revealing answer from which the preceding is excerpted. It’s clear that you didn’t comprehend what I was saying, for whatever reason. I guess my point is that conservatives have attacked Obama for anything that smacks of humility. You may want to separate personal humility from national humility, but the topic “Jesus as president” is one whose context is national leadership, not personal redemption.

    [SD] Understanding that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, My only point is that He would be eminently qualifed to be president. He is King of kings, Lord of lords, Teacher of teachers, Diplomat of diplomats. His resume is impeccable.

    Your interpretation of Joshua 5:14 is quaint, but hardly scriptural.

    [SD] Josh. 5:14 is one of several “Christophanies” (appearances of Jesus preincarnately) in the OT. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever(Heb. 13:8). Scripture records that He is the eternal God/man (John 1:1,14, 1 John 1:1), God in the flesh.

    The archangel Michael is the commander of the army of the Lord (Rev. 12:7). Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my followers would fight…” Nope, not commander in chief material.

    [SD] REv. 12:7 does not say Michael is commander of the Lord’s army. He and his angels fight against satan and his angels. The Son of God is Commander of the Lord’s army, the “Commander in Chief.”

    When Jesus comes, he will come in power and glory with the saints and destroy the nations that attacked Israel (Zech. 12:9, 14:3, Rev. 19:11-15).

  623. Greg says:

    copies of approved CLNs are distributed to:

    Since they are distributed so widely, yet still not available to you conspiracy nuts, that’s more evidence that they do not, in fact, exist.

    You’re right, that is interesting!

  624. Greg says:

    The paper trail on a CLN is extensive.

    And the fact that no such extensive paper trail has yet come to light is evidence of what?

    Why don’t you guys go grab a copy of a treatise on how to do cross examination? Then you can imagine the fun we would have if you birthers ever got into court with this sort of nonsense!

  625. Slamdunk says:

    DickWhitman says:
    March 11, 2010 at 7:22 am (Quote)

    The better question is, if NBC requires both parents be citizens, why keep demanding a BC? I wish that crowd would make up its mind.

    BC?

    I want to see his (or Barry Soetoro’s) Form DS-4083, Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States, and all of his SS-5’s, Application for Social Security Card(s).

    [SD] Yes, it would be interesting to see this info. According to one attorney, Obama has been using a SS number that was assigned to a resident of Connecticutt. If only one case could get a full hearing.

  626. Scientist says:

    Slamdunk-Please read this very carefully.

    Surely you are aware that in the 1980s, Obama (Codename:BlackSmoke) was a key CIA operative running the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, because of his knowledge of Farsi, which he learned in Indonesia. This fact has been disclosed by Pastor Manning, who is a Christian minister, and therefore, according to your own words, a speaker of the truth. Thus, to disclose any forms or any information at all would compromise CIA methods and operations and is therefore not permitted under the national security laws of the US. In the unlikely event that such a case ever came anywhere within sight of a trial, the Agency would step in and put a halt to the proceedings. This is not a matter of what you want or I want, but a simple matter of the law.

  627. Black Lion says:

    Sven/Dick is still pushing this so called theory regarding these magical CLN forms and reissued SS”‘s shows how pathetic his argument really is. As Greg pointed out in the year plus he has been posting here never once has he ever provided one piece of evidence to support his fantasies. However from his msot recent posts it seems like his fictionalized account of the “Young Barry Chronicles” has hit a snag. He continually requests non-existent documents. He is requiring the president to disprove a negative. But since Sven is not familar with the real world or law, that should not be a problem. In his book he can make up an alternate universe like in Star Trek where everyone is required to prove themselves innocent and you are guilty until proven innoncent. Only in this world would Sven’s so called theories get any kind of traction. But I hope he can move on because we are all waiting on the next chapter of the book. I am sure that will have to do with him attending school on non-existent “Indonesian refugee scholarships” paid for by some secret shadow organazation that specifically sponsered such scholarships…

  628. Whatever4 says:

    To paraphrase the A-Team: I love it when a conspiracy comes together.

  629. DickWhitman says:

    DickWhitman says:
    March 11, 2010 at 7:22 am (Quote)The better question is, if NBC requires both parents be citizens, why keep demanding a BC? I wish that crowd would make up its mind.BC?I want to see his (or Barry Soetoro’s) Form DS-4083, Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United States, and all of his SS-5’s, Application for Social Security Card(s).[SD] Yes, it would be interesting to see this info.According to one attorney, Obama has been using a SS number that was assigned to a resident of Connecticutt. If only one case could get a full hearing.

    You’re right, SD. I say we hammer him with the two citizen parents eligibility question.

    Has there ever been a native-born President with one parent not a U.S. citizen at the time of birth?

  630. Greg says:

    Has there ever been a native-born President with one parent not a U.S. citizen at the time of birth?

    We don’t know. There have been several Presidents whose parents were immigrants. No one ever thought to interrogate them about the exact date of their naturalization.

    Hmm. I wonder why, if two citizen parents is such a critical component of citizenship, no one thought to ask these folks when, exactly, their parents were naturalized?

  631. dunstvangeet says:

    Tell him Chester A. Arthur…

  632. Chester A Arthur’s father was not a US citizen when president Arthur was born.

  633. DickWhitman says:

    Chester AArthur’s father was not a US citizen when president Arthur was born.

    According to Leo, Arthur knew he was an usurper so he lied about his parent’s history, commissioned a friend to write a biography discrediting anyone who doubted him and burned all of his legal papers so he wouldn’t be caught.

  634. Greg says:

    According to Leo, Arthur knew he was an usurper so he lied about his parent’s history, commissioned a friend to write a biography discrediting anyone who doubted him and burned all of his legal papers so he wouldn’t be caught.

    What amazing stories we can tell if we aren’t constrained by the facts.

    And did you know that Arthur had a unicorn horn and angel’s wings?

  635. ballantine says:

    And I believe Leo actually claimed in his frivolous brief that Justice Gray, who was appointed by Arthur, was paying Arthur back with his opinion in Wong Kim Ark. I guess it was evil law clerks convincing the other five justices to agree with him and just happened to be good luck that all early American authority supported such position.

  636. G says:

    It’s no wonder BHO II had to get a new SSN. After a CLN is approved and 5 signed and sealed copies of the CLN are distributed, the renunciant’s passport is confiscated.

    And if the renunciant fails to return the passport, it is entered into the CLASP system as lost/stolen.

    The paper trail on a CLN is extensive.
    March 11

    LOL! Once again, you defeat yourself with your own words. You’re latest fantasy goose chase is this “mythical” CLN for him, which you yourself then clearly state in the same paragraph that it leaves an EXTENSIVE paper trail and requires lots of signatures, etc.

    Yet here we are, almost 2 years into the birther movement, with a bunch of rabid fanatics wasting all their time and energy searching for their “smoking gun” and yet single shred of evidence of a so-called CLN exists! Nary a footprint to follow of what you yourself state requires an “extensive” papertrail…

    …and yet here you are and you got NADA!

    ROTFL! The simple and true answer is because you are chasing after proof of fictional fantasy scenarios that don’t exist, except in your own imagination.

    Keep plucking that chicken and keep looking like utter fools!

    LMAO!

  637. G says:

    DickWhitman says

    According to Leo, Arthur knew he was an usurper so he lied about his parent’s history, commissioned a friend to write a biography discrediting anyone who doubted him and burned all of his legal papers so he wouldn’t be caught.
    March 11

    According to Leo? ROTFL! That is what makes you birthers such as easy joke to mock and laugh at! You are so silly and gullible and believe every dribble of crap that spews forth from your beloved “Birther Leaders”, who are all pretty kooky as all get out.

    Your dear Leo?

    http://theregulator.net/?p=725

    Don’t you mean Jet Schizo? Or is he Burnweed again? Or is it Paraclete this week? LOL!

    One of these days you’ll realize that you are just being played as this is all part of his latest Andy Kaufmenesque “psychological performances”.

    And you wonder why we constantly laugh and mock you birthers. You bring it on yourselves! Why don’t you start taking your next orders from the SNL Coneheads while you are at it. LOL!

  638. ballantine says:

    Or, of course, this Leo:

    “In the days leading up to Nov. 3, 2008… my cell phone and that of a family member were subjected to treachery that only somebody with serious power could have accomplished. Because of the dual attacks upon my sanity, I came to Washington D.C. with fear in my heart, but I was not about to stop. Nothing short of a bullet was going to stop me from filing that application on Nov. 3, 2008.

    On the Greyhound bus to DC, I had made a plan to pay for a tourist trolley ticket to take me one stop from Union Station to SCOTUS. I figured I would be safer blending in with tourists rather than being alone.

    Before leaving for DC the night before, I died my hair blond, shaved, put on rock and roll clothes and stuffed the copies of my application in a hole through the pockets of my jacket which hid the documents in my back.

    I looked nothing like the attorney who had been in the Hughes Justice complex all week in New Jersey.

    But I made one mistake.

    I had my electronic passport in my sneaker. I walked into Union Station to purchase a $35 trolley ticket and probably set off an RFID tracker.

    I waited outside of Union Station for the trolley. At approximately 2:45 PM, just after I had purchased my ticket inside the station, I was sitting next to a white homeless man with a grey beard in his 50’s. He had two shopping carts full of clothes, food, radio etc., apparently his life possessions. We were the only two people sitting on this stone circle just outside the station. Suddenly, the homeless man starts gibbering some kind of weird code. He sounded like this,

    “Echo one four two seven, target is in the building, repeat target is in the building…”

    Then he paused and I looked up and a big SUV had pulled up right next to us, and two BIG mofos in yellow gold shirts got out of the SUV, opened the back door and started putting on body armor and packing mega heat… all the while they are scouring the area for the “target”.

    The homeless man is talking to them through a device in his battered shirtsleeve,

    “No point in wasting time, I want to get paid for this, target is in the building… Ok, but I thought you might want to just get the target, repeat — target is in the building, target is in the building. Stop wasting time out here.”

    He was mixing in code talk with things I could understand.

    Finally, these Blackwater types in yellow who had no badges or official insignia head into Union Station carrying full weapons.

    I’m having a heart attack. They looked straight at me at least twice but I looked like such a clown. If they were looking for the brown haired bearded intellectual looking lawyer guy who was in court that week there’s no way they would recognize me with shocking platinum hair in my face, a dayglo blue jacket, flared jeans and trainers.

    I am a chameleon.

    I also had no visible paperwork with me. It was in the back of my jacket and my back was pressed against the stone circle.

    When they entered Union Station, the homeless guy turns towards me and hits a button on his cell device and suddenly he’s on speakerphone. The conversation is between him and some woman wherein he’s trying to get confirmation that his payment has been credited to his account. He gives me a sly look, and with that my trolley comes.

    I get on the trolley and open my tourist brochure to cover my face. Then I have to sit there for five excrutiating minutes while various people discuss with the dirver whether they should take the tour tonight or tomorrow. Honestly folks, I thought right then and there, “Your life aint worth shit, Leo. You are a walking dead man.”

    When I finally got to the steps of SCOTUS, I was prepared to have my head blown off walking up those steps. I was a ***** mess. Seriously. The paranoia was so intense. I even asked for official protection.

    I don’t know if they were just trying to scare me, really meant to take me down, or if it was all a coincidence. I’m sure there’s a video tape of it somehwhere. This is 100% true.

    After the case was filed, I was followed for weeks. I had choppers over my home every night for hours. It was the typical black helicopter story in spades. But my whole family witnessed the choppers night after night.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2178601/posts

    Makes one wonder if birtherism can be cured with lithium.

  639. ballantine: Makes one wonder if birtherism can be cured with lithium.

    It would be unethical for me to be specific, but the answer is “no.”

  640. Lynch v Clarke said in essence: “all New York lawyers believe that birth in the country alone is sufficient for natural born citizenship and presidential eligibility”. Chester A. Arthur was a New York Lawyer born in the United States. Therefore, he believed he was eligible. QED.

    I didn’t know about the horns, though.

  641. DickWhitman says:

    The usurper endorsed Senate Resolution 511, 2008 acknowledging the designation of natural-born citizen requires two US citizen parents.

    Then, the idiot files to run for President. There’s your lithium candidate.

  642. Mike says:

    The usurper endorsed Senate Resolution 511, 2008 acknowledging the designation of natural-born citizen requires two US citizen parents.Then, the idiot files to run for President. There’s your lithium candidate.

    BZZZZT! Oh, sorry, SvenDick. Actually, the answer we were looking for is “Sufficient is not the same as necessary”. While it is sufficient to have been born of two citizens parents to be considered a US citizen, it is not, in fact, necessary.

    Thanks for playing. Sadly, you leave here with nothing, but I’m sure we’ve all had a good time.

  643. Greg says:

    Dick, the resolution did not say that citizenship required 2 citizen parents, it said that if someone had 2 citizen parents, they are a citizen.

    Let’s try a test. Read these two statements:

    1. If a person is born in Kansas, they are a citizen.

    2. Therefore, only people born in Kansas are citizens.

    Do you think that number 2 follows from number 1?

    You can only find number 1 in SR 511.

    Test number 2. Find me the part of SR 511 that says that ONLY those born to two citizen parents are natural born citizens:

    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

    Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

    Is it the one I put in italics? If so, you’ll notice that it doesn’t JUST say that McCain was born to citizen parents. It says that he was born on a military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

    If the resolution says that only those with citizen parents are NBC, then it must say that only those born on military bases in the Panama Canal Zone are NBC.

  644. Rickey says:

    Senate Resolution 511 is the latest bandwagon which the birthers have jumped upon. The wacko Strunk even cites it in his latest filing.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/28201377/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-NOT-ON-DOCKET-STRUNK-NOT-PARTY-28125579-Doc-Xx-Taitz-v-Obama-DCDC-1-10-Cv-00151-Strunk-Notice-of-Cross-Motion-for-Declaratory-Judgme

    But of course Senate Resolution 511 does not say what the birthers would have us believe it says. I have seen other birthers claim that the Senate held hearings on McCain’s eligibility, which of course it did not. They love to make things up.

  645. SFJeff says:

    Who is this Ursurper Dick keeps talking about anyway?

  646. DickWhitman says:

    EXCERPT OF SECRETARY of DHS and FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE MICHAEL CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:

    ***

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

    Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

    Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

  647. Bovril says:

    Dickie Dear,

    Read the preceding post by Greg there’s a nice chap.

    There are various paths from which one becomes an NBC of which ONE is a-la McCain model.

    It is neither singular or exclusive, as an example there is…lets see….oh yes any person born on US soil irrespective of parental situation

  648. Bovril says:

    Dickie Dear,

    Read the preceding post by Greg there’s a nice chap.

    There are various paths from which one becomes an NBC of which ONE is a-la McCain model.

    It is neither singular or exclusive, as an example there is…lets see….oh yes any person born on US soil irrespective of parental situation

  649. G says:

    ….My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.Chairman Leahy.That is mine, too.Thank you.

    So, what is your point, Dick? Are you going to tell us that water is wet next?

    I think all of us read that and say, duh, of course!

    No one here disputes that if you are born of American parents then you are an American NBC.

    What you fail to grasp, as has been pointed out already numerous times here, is that nothing in these statements indicate nor support that is the *ONLY* situation under which someone is an American NBC.

  650. ballantine says:

    This has to be the stupidest of the many stupid birther arguments. Basic english really.

  651. Greg says:

    Hey, Dick, are these two sentences different?

    1. If you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

    2. Only if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

  652. SFJeff says:

    I am going to use Birther logic here: Senator Leahy says anyone born of American parent- he didn’t say American citizen parents. It is clear from Senator Leahy’s statement that there are American’s and American citizen’s. We will have to look at Vattel of course to find the definition of what an American is.

  653. Whatever4 says:

    Notice Chertoff didn’t say anything about also being born on American soil. So being born of American Parents is one way. If that were the ONLY way, then location of birth wouldn’t matter at all.

    $1.00 is equal to 4 quarters. It’s also equal to 10 dimes. Or 2 quarters and 5 dimes.

    Didn’t you learn all this in school?

  654. misha says:

    I used to play Mattel’s “Lie Detector” when I was a child. Glad to see it had some practical use.

    You did say Mattel, didn’t you?

  655. Mary Brown says:

    Also, if the Senator believed Obama was not eligible because of Obama Senior’s nationality, he would have raised that issue before he was chosen as nominee or before the Congress certified the election.

  656. ballantine says:

    Also, the constitutional experts the Senate consulted on this, Tribe and Olson, said that anyone born on US soil was a natural born citizen.

  657. SFJeff says:

    By the way- I just love how Birthers love to repost any snippet all over the web if they think it supports their case. Trying to find the actual excerpt, I found dozens of sites reposting this same snippet- all of them gleefully sure that this is the smoking gun.

    Just wait- 3 months from now, somebody else will post that here going “Ah hah!”

  658. dunstvangeet says:

    Actually, according to the language, it says: “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936”

    So, birthers must believe that Senate Resolution 511 declared Natural Born Citizenship to be only available to people who are born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.

    After all, that is what Senate Resolution 511 says! And since the Senate passed it, they must believe that is the case!

    So, every previous president has been a usurper.

  659. Arthur says:

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

    Dear Slamson

    I’d be glad to join you! But my sign will read, “I”m with Stupid.”

    Oh gee, look, I’m . . . I’m sorry; I apologize for my childish behavior, but you guys make the rest of us endure your bankrupt iterations over and over and over again. It’s like . . . well, it’s like living with someone with Alzheimer’s . . .

    (transitional music, lights cross fade . . .)

    Birther: Obama’s not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Empiricist: No Grandpa, we went over this, remember? His mother was an American citizen, and he was born in Hawaii. And remember all that case law? The 150 years of legal precedent? Mr. Obama is a citzen, and he’s the president now. In two more years, you can–

    Birther: By gum, I tell ya, he’s not a Natural Born Citizen!

    Empiricist: Calm down Grandpa; how about we we read a little of Black’s Law Dictionary; you’d like that wouldn’t you?

    Birther: Vattel, I want Vattel!

    Empiricist: But Grandpa, you always get so confused when we read Vattel.

    Birther: He’s a Usurper!

    Empiricist: Vattel?

    Birther: Obama! Clean our your ears, why don’t ya! Why am I always being contradicted!?

    Empiricist: Sorry, Grandpa.

    Birther: I tell ya, if ol’ Black Jack Pershing was around, why–

    Empiricist: That’s right, grandpa.

    Birther: Ol Black Jack showed those Mexicans a thing or two!

    Empiricist: I know Grandpa.

    Birther: Didn’t bumble-dick around! He’d send that Obama back to Juarez or wherever he was born!

    Empiricist: That’s right. Here’s some pudding.

    Birther: I hate pudding! Trying to poison me?! Pudding violates natural law!

    Empiricist: You want to look at these funny pictures. Look, look here. See? Look: this funny lady has a funny pancake on her head.

    Birther: I like pancakes!

    Empiricist: I know you do, Grandpa, I know you do.

    And . . . scene!

  660. Slamdunk says:

    It wasn’t enough that he wouldn’t pledge allegiance to it, but now our wonderful “Christian” Usurper in Chief has banned the flying of the American flag in Haiti. Why am I not surprised?

  661. nbc says:

    Makes sense. Why fly the US flag in Haiti?
    The US is recovering from a lousy reputation and it helps not to be seen as an occupation force.

    As to refusing to recite the pledge, that’s another one of those myths.

    Seems you lack respect for your Country and your duly elected President…
    Why is that?

  662. Scientist says:

    SD-Instead of nitpicking at those who are actually doing something to help, why don’t you get off your big, fat butt and go to Haiti (or Chile or anywhere) and do something useful to help your fellow humans. As a private citizen you would be free to fly any damn flag you wanted. Seems to me that’s what a real Christian would be doing, as opposed to a phony-baloney such as yourself.

  663. misha says:

    Flying outside of my window is the Jolly Roger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.