Here are a few things I’ve been looking at:
- Orly Taitz radio interview with David Parkman (YouTube)
- Great Moments in Birthism (not new but if you haven’t seen it…)
- California user manual for Registering Out-of-Hospital births
- God bless Barack Obama (WorldNetDaily)
- If Obama isn’t a US citizen, then neither is McCain – Arizona citizen
- Amherst Bulletin | Lifestyles: Dishing the dirt on our presidents
- Feces throwing monkey on the loose in Tampa
- Why I Heart Joseph Farah : Dispatches from the Culture Wars (Science Blogs)
- Jon Stewart Announces DC ‘Rally to Restore Sanity’ | PopEater.com
- No evidence of Hawaiian birth for AKA Obama. What about Kenya? – English pravda.ru
Here’s one you’ve got to look at, Doc. From The Onion:
Poll: 1 In 5 Americans Believe Obama Is A Cactus
“He must speak frankly to the American people about his mammalian background,” Pelmont added. “If not, it’s only a matter of time before people start believing those fringe bloggers who claim the president of the United States is actually an old washing machine.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-1-in-5-americans-believe-obama-is-a-cactus,18127/
I did a double take on that one. Mammilaria is a very common genus of cactus.
For those with interest, link attached from the OC Weekly Blog with Spencer Kornhaber where he interviews Dr Rotunda….Orly’s alleged Constitutionial lawyer that supports her.
Alleged in support, NOT alleged in being a Constitution lawyer which he is.
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-embarrasses-chapman/
Various commnets, a couple attached, my favourite being the last one….
================================
Ronald Rotunda: Yeah, she’s the one who has been sanctioned by courts for filing frivolous motions and she and thinks that Obama was born in Indonesia or something like that?
Yeah.
Yeah, I’d heard of her. She asked me to recommend some lawyers, and I did that and now I guess we’re best buddies, or so she says. She’s made her argument, she’s lost one case after another. I think Obama’s a citizen of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States. I don’t feel why I should undercut a birth certificate in Hawaii–I don’t know what else you need.
There’s some people who say that both parents need to be citizens. That’s never been the law…What they [the founders] were thinking about at the time was they were just concerned about foreigners coming in. But that’s not what we’ve got here. So I think she’s grabbing whatever straw she can, and I happen to be a straw.
=========================================
So her argument–if the father is Indonesian or Kenyan or whatever he is, the mother is a US citizen–but whatever happened to the two of them, he was born in Hawaii, that’s what the birth certificate said. So, it’s a free country, birthers can do what they want, but there’s no squirrel in the tree they’re barking up, as best I can tell.
There is some serious birther stupidity polluting the comment threads there.
Will, there definately is. A poster acually had the nerve to write the following after it was pointed out that he/she were incorrect about a couple of issues….
ksdb says:
Black Lion:
Two things are problematic in Trumbull’s citation: “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.”
At the time of the founding of the Constitution, it was still possible to be born in this country and be a natural born subject of Great Britain. IOW, jus soli birth did not make anyone a natural born citizen as the parents need to clarify to which country they held allegiance.
Another note: Our Constitution says the our country is a collective of “We the people of the United States” and it established FOR “ourselves and our posterity.” Citizenship, under this construction, is a birthright for the children of those who have declared their allegiance to the United States. The Minor decision talks about this prior to explaining what constitutes a natural-born citizen: “Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by ‘the people of the United States,’ …” “Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens.” Those who did not associate as part of the new nation would not be considered children, nor would there children.
The other problem is that Obama claims birth allegiance to a different country, not the United States. “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.” How do you reconcile having citizenship by the British Nationality Act as being consistent with natural-born U.S. citizenship. This obviously doesn’t meet the intention of the founders, such as John Jay, who said, “Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” Clearly, Obama would have been considered a foreigner regardless of where he was born, and not a natural born U.S. citizen.
ksdb says:
@ Anonymous
1. Minor’s definition is 90 percent verbatim from Vattel. Chief Justice Waite told us that it was “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” It’s also the same definition used by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus case. Sorry, but you’re absolutely wrong here.
2. Sorry, on this point, but these citations have no legal weight in comparison to what Waite wrote in Minor. Chief Justice Gray, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, quoted Waite’s definition verbatim from the Minor case. What you cited from him doesn’t change that. That particular citation was used to show that people born in the United States could still be considered to be natural-born subjects of England’s king, so it doesn’t actually support your belief.
Gray said the definition for ‘citizen of the United States’ is in the Constitution:
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.””
… but that the definition for NBC is not:
“In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.”
‘Elsewhere’ is a word-for-word definition that matches Vattel’s definition from The Law of Nations.
Gray goes on to rule that the plaintiff in Wong Kim Ark is a ‘citizen of the United States’ … not a natural born citizen. But even to do that, it was only under the qualification that Ark’s parents were permanent U.S. residents who had permanent domicil in the United States. Under that definition, Obama fails again — even if born in the United States — not only to be a natural born citizen, but to even be a ‘citizen of the United States.’
ksdb is a well known birther troll. Writes like a sock puppet for Border ravin’ lunatic.
ksdb is borderraven? That makes sense. The inability to grasp simple legal concepts is common among birthers. Borderraven or ksdb is clueless. They harp on statutory citizens and 14th amendment citizens and can never cite any legal cases to support their claims….
Sock puppetry … Ronald Rotunda statements were quite clear. The professor of Constitutional law was very comprehensive in his statements about natural born citizens and the constitution. It didn’t take even 10 comments for a birther to misrepresent everything he said. I was going to write a comment, and decided against it.
There was “John” who seems to believe that his comments are more relevant than the article, but seems to consistently contradict himself.
Well we all know a Constitutional Expert is only a Constitutional Expert as long as he or she touts the Birther party line- well all of the Birther party lines.
I don’t think so, actually. KSDB is a more fluid writing, particularly when it comes to Borderraven’s habit of putting in extra comments at random places in a sentence. He’s also just plain nastier, although this has to be balanced against Borderraven’s misogyny.
My liege, I defer to your wisdom. But they drink from the same poisoned well.
In my opinion, KSDB, BloatedRaven, et al. are one and the same. They all share the same brain.
Dave, agreed…ksdb’s latest nonsensical rant over at the OC thread…Showing how people can take an obvious ruiling and make it say something that it doesn’t….
“ksdb says:
Black Lion: The Indiana Appeals Court decision you quoted is an embarrassment to the legal system. They contradicted themselves and quoted inconclusive sections from Wong Kim Ark, while simply ignoring parts of the decision that were inconvenient to their opinion. Further, they failed to actually declare Obama to be natural born citizen. Of course, they couldn’t, because even under their defintion, there’s no legal proof of where Obama was really born.
First, they say the plaintiffs claimed “neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were ‘born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America’ …” Later the court says, “… the most common argument has been waged by members of the so-called ‘birther’ movement who suggest that the President was not born in the United States; they support their argument by pointing to “the President’s alleged refusal to disclose publicly an ‘official birth certificate’ that is satisfactory … The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.'”
The plaintiffs didn’t make a different legal argument; they argued both that Obama was not born in the United States AND that Obama was not born of two citizen parents.
Next the court willfully mischaracterizes the plaintiff’s argument, saying “they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century …” That treatise was by Vattel … a treatise cited frequently by the Supreme Court and for which Minor copied a definition of NBC. The ‘quotations of members of Congress’ were from the authors of the 14th amendment to illustrate original intent … something else that the Supreme Court has no problem with. Plaintiffs would have been better served to cite Minor directly, but it still doesn’t give the Indiana court an excuse for trying to diminish the importance of those citations.
The court’s next problem is that the case from which they divined phantom guidance to misinterpret NBC was insufficient to do what they tried to do: “We note the … Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a ‘natural born Citizen’ …”
Elsewhere, they make a serious error: “The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” First, WKA said the meaning of ‘citizen of the United States’ can be found in the Constitution (via the 14th amendment). Second, they completely ignore that Minor gave a strict definition for which there is no doubt, and then argue in a footnote “the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” Minor does not say anything about ‘both parents’ having similar status, just that all children born in the country of parents who were citizens = NBC. For other definitions there is doubt. WKA does not resolve that doubt because it distinguishes between an extraconstitutional definition of NBC, and a constitutional definition of ‘citizen of the United States,’ which was the only classification for which the plaintiff was declared.
The court cited several passages from WKA in regard to English common law, but none of that says that English common law is the basis for any definition of natural born citizen. Justice Gray was trying to build a case that the 14th amendment could override a treaty with China that prevented Chinese subjects from naturalizing in the United States. The common laws were used to say that a general principle was in place prior to the establishment of that treaty and that by declaring Ark’s parents to have permanent domicile and residence in the United States, their child would be subject to U.S. law and allegiance. As we know, Obama’s papa, as a visiting foreign scholar, did not have permanent domicil nor permanent residence in the U.S.
Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 23 2010 @ 1:59PM
or
ksdb says:
@ Mary Adams: You said, “There are only TWO kinds of US citizens: Natural Born and Naturalized.” This is false. The courts have said the Constitution contemplates two types of citizenship: at birth and through naturalization. What the Supreme Court also said is that the definition for natural born citizen is found OUTSIDE of the Constitution. So they are acknowledging this is a characterization of citizenship that is separate from the two types you’ve mentioned.
Further, some types of at-birth citizenship are technically types of naturalization or what statutory law calls ‘collective naturalization.’ This is where persons who are born outside of the borders of the United States and/or who are not clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (and under the blanket of the 14th amendment) are statutorily declared to be citizens, but via jus sanguinis reasons. These are citizens at birth, however they are not natural born citizens. So citizen at birth does NOT = NBC, unless the parents are citizens and the child is born in the country.”
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/the-hilarious-haters/orly-taitz-embarrasses-chapman/
But the best comments had to be by old friend Squeeky….
SqueekyFromm says:
To KDSB:
Here is your problem. You are a malebeast. You can’t help it. You are probably a nice person, but if you are a MALE look at how you spend your life: Constantly trying to wiggle and squirm your way into something.
That is what you are doing here. You are trying to wiggle and squirm your way into what you want the law to say. That is why all you Vattle Birthers get into trouble. Lookit. Why are all those Mexican Anchor Babies out there? Because they get BORN HERE! If they weren’t BORN HERE, they wouldn’t be ANCHOR babies, they wouldn’t weigh nothing citizenly specaking. That’s why all this stuff is in the news.
Blacklion, who is probably a stupid OBOT, is just reading to us what the law says. You are having to wiggle and squirm stuff to what some court would have said differently if they meant what you want them to mean. This is why all this stuff, and Mr. Apuzzo’s is so hard to understand. Its just a bunch of blah blah blah.
Women don’t spend their lives trying to wiggle and squirm into things. We can just take stuff like it is. Soooo, I can read what Blacklion says and it is simple and understandable. You are having to jump around all over the place trying to make some fit in with something else and it is like trying to read Mother Goose written by a drunk. Whaaay bliddle spiddle the splat and the squiddle jeeped ober duh spoon.
There’s no reason for this. The damned idiot is a Kenyan. He’s an Afican idiot.But, if he was born in Hawaii, then he’s an American Idiot and we have to live with his stupid Muslim self for 2 more years before we take our country back.
Whatever, it is not helping anything when you Vattle Birthers keep coming out with all this jump here and jump there stuff that nobody can understand and follow, and that law doesn’t seem to really say.
I have been to college and have a degree in English and can write poetry and everything (and a lot better than some of that crap the stupid Obots write about spider eyes.) But I can’t follow half of what you are saying when you start off on Vattle this and Vattle that. It just confuses the hell our of me even when I haven’t been drinking. And I am somebody who wants to believe you. But here is what I think:
Vattle is prattle so why do battle?
In my opinion, Mobamba’s a Kenyan.
Plus, this is the simple approach Dr. Taitz takes. Put up or shut up Mobamba.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I just had to leave this line for her:
Squeeky after reading your nonsense rants I am reminded of the line from As Good as it Gets when Jack Nicholson’s character is asked how he writes women so well.
Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
Please stop making Jack Nicholson’s character in that movie truthful.
BL is there a reason why she picked the monicker similiar to the Manson Family member?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Fromme
Bob, I have no clue. She is a scary chick…She used to be a PUMA calling herself Jennifer4Hillary….She seems like she is on some sort of medication….
Well you can add manson worshipping to your replies to her. See how she reacts when you bring it up. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme
Rest Easy. This Squeeky is a spoofer. I have it on good authority.
And, you say that birthers have no sense of irony.
Oh no one said that. I find it entirely ironic that Squeeky talks about feminism while having a monicker based off a codependent member of the manson family
I also think this Squeeky is a spoof.
Here is the real one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65awpykCvAs
YIKES ! ! !
Hahaha I love this comment on that video:
lewisbell
1 year ago 20
“Bring me Solo and the Wookie”
LMAO ! ! I’ll bet she has a Princess Leia doll chained up somewhere.
Bob, I can’t decide who is scarier…Her or Orly…I can see why she hates men….And that comment is classic….Her new name is “Squeeky the Hut”…