National Public Radio reports that Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett is “satisfied” with the birth documentation proved by the state of Hawaii. Bennett said that he only asked because 4,000 constituents, the so-called birthers, contacted him with concerns. In a statement released this afternoon, Bennett said:
Late yesterday, our office received the “verification in-lieu of certified copy” from officials within the Hawaii Department of Health that we requested in March.They have officially confirmed that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for the President matches the original record in their files.
Here is a copy of the actual verification, courtesy of AZCentral.com:
Reactions from the birthers are predictable. Here are some samples from the Obama Release Your Records blog:
- “A fake proven birth certificate with information to match words only and not a copy of original paper in Hawaii records, does not make the usurper a natural born citizen. What it is wrong with America? An elected Marxist can do what ever he wants and the people obey due to fear like in Castor’s Cuba.”
- “the copy matches our files ???
in other words, HI puts out a fake document
the AZ SOS sends back the fake document
and
now HI verifies that it has the same
information on the fake document that HI originally released
interesting BS” - “ONAKA WON’T SAY OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII
NOR WILL ABERCROMBIE
FEAR! they should fear the noose for lying which is TREASON
so they won’t just come out and make a statement” - “Thanks for the good work. Alvin Onaka is best advised to get his affairs in order, as he is now looking at several long years in the penitentiary”
- “It’s actually now a nightmare for Kapiolani Hospital. They are now confirmed as the birthplace of the 44th President of the USA, yet not a single record of Stanley Ann Dunham, or baby Barry ever having been patients there! Bennet (sic) has managed to do what Taitz, Abercrombie, Lingle, et al, have been trying to do now for the last 4 years: get Hawaii to once and for all, make an official claim that his long-form birth certificate-the same one that has been proven to be a ‘computer generated forgery’ as an official vital record on file at the HDOH.
Oops!”
I have postulated a new “Corsi’s Law of Investigation”:
Failure to establish proof establishes proof. I believe it is as applicable here as it is anywhere.
You forgot the ultimate fall back: “Sheriff Joe is still on the case! The last honest petty tyrant sociopath law man in America will save us!”
At this point it’s like Linus in the pumpkin patch. If they remain steadfast and sincere, the great Pumpkin will come.
I don’t know, Fred, I tried to change that “postulated” to “pustulated” and I couldn’t do it.
You are prescient, Doc. Spot on for the comments on the birther sites. They got to Bennett, HI is lying, they just verified the information Obama’s grandparents filed for his Kenyan birth, what about the forgeries, etc. One even said they hoped Oswald had a son. Despicable.
I am at a loss as to what they would accept. The problem is they prefer the lie to the truth. They will reject anything or anyone who says Obama was born in HI or that both parents don’t have to be citizens to be an NBC.
And now the poor deluded ones are wondering why the DOH would verify the accuracy of a ‘known forgery’. Our friend Butterdezillion is leading the pack in total denial.
Hilarious… I understand, she has so much invested in her hypotheses and being shown wrong at every single step does become somewhat tiring and may exhaust a person. But she chose her own path of foolishness.
In the it was bound to happen file:
Everyone knows that the Savanah Guthrie photos of the LFBC have been a sticking point with birthers. How to explain them with their raised seal and all. Enter Mark Gellar with his theory:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/05/nbcs-savannah-guthrie-unintentionally.html#c2923669071342356838
According to this theory there are some kind of marks on the right edge of the green security paper. He contents they are notations on the BC like the penciled in numbers in the various fields. He actually says they are from a penci (look more loike dirt marks to me)l. The marks do not show up on Savanah Guthrie’s photo ipso facto the pdf is a forgery. Idiot. He literally makes the claim that the paper document Guthrie photographed and the scanned pdf cannot possibly be different.
BTW, on Gellar’s video, he has an NBC report from Guthrie on the day she held the LFBC (first time I had seen that). Listen how Gellar mischaracterize it.
The WND Birthers are clinging to the two-citizen-parent-for-presidents-only myth. Obama’s NBC has now been “verified” is the new mantra.
First off, wasn’t that original number a few dozen……..not it’s 4000?? Whatever.
Surely no one who can read/think above the level of first grade thought this would satisfy these birthers. To me, Bennet pandered for nothing. Normal folks are going to question his character, and the birthers, who weren’t going to accept whateve he “found” anyhow, are going to start to trash him cause he didn’t frog march the scray black man from their White House after they bought all that popcorn…….
A very creative piece! And down to the usual standard of …. whatever it is birther do. Lie, I guess. My favorite:
“A clipping mask that hides information is in and of itself a clear sign of document tampering.”
Man, there’s an awful lot of ‘tampered-with’ PDFs out there! I call on the software to explain this built-in, automated tampering!
And on Gellar to demonstrate how to add a clipping mask in Preview. Or, right, right, it was altered in one app and resaved through preview / the file markup was itself altered.
The rabbit hole knows no bottom.
…and they’ll be crying fouler and fouler. Bennett is now on the birfoons’ traitor list. When will repuke pols learn the consequenses of birflirting?
I think the temptation of being their shining knight and savior, the one who finally brings down Obama, is too strong a pull. Like moths to a flame.
Bummer. I had hoped John would have posted in this thread. I find John entertaining.
Any way TPM has a scan of the doc here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/05/hawaiis-verification-of-president-obamas-birth.php?page=1
What’s the over/under on birthers claiming the verification is a forgery, too?
Different comments from the Freerepublic thread:
“Yep this guy [Bennett] looks like your typical Pencil-Neck GEEK who has NEVER been in a good fist-fight in his LIFE/ DWEEB!”
“Does Bennett do little boys? I wonder how they go to him.”
“Them’s called weasel words.’
‘I’ve slammed this ball-less Arizona wonder as much as anyone, but none of the other 49 states are doing a damn thing about this either.”
“His statement makes absolutely zero sense.”
“So……unless Bennett has a COLB we don’t know about, the COLB they are verifying is the forgery Obama put out a few months back that showed Sr. as his father. That would mean the State of Hawaii has legally verified that Obama is not a natural born citizen.”
“Whatever’s going on, it doesn’t pass the sniff test.
The corruption is everywhere.”
the first question i saw
what was the “chain of evidence”
I think he’s probably out somewhere using his cranium as a field-hockey backstop.
His son does, or did until he was caught. Maybe that’s how They got to him 🙂
Not everybody’s visit from the Secret Service is as cordial as Nugent’s was.
The dope doesn’t even realize that there are two copies of the LFBC. So the one that was scanned to make the pdf may not even be the one that Guthrie photographed.
And then all that stuff about the color values being the same must mean that had to be made with the same pencil. The “vital statisitc codes” are not even on the BC but on the green security paper which didn’t exist in 1961.
Gellar has to a moron or very desparate.
I looked at it and the background lined up with the text perfectly. I think the WH PDF and Guthrie’s photos must have come from the same certified copy.
I do remember when we had a mystery guest who claimed that he could use the WH PDF and a background template to “manufacture” a higher quality PDF. It ended up looking really weird, and the security paper background of course didn’t line up the same as Guthrie’s photo or the WH PDF.
I can only hope!
If the Birthers concerns were genuine and not just a smear tactic they would welcome this.
I don’t know the A in Onaka is clean on the guthrie photos but smudged on the ap document and the pdf.
Agreed, plus they would have been demanding birth certificates of all presidential candidates, and evidently, their parents, too.
If the number of people that showed up for Orly’s last meeting are any indicator, 4000 is highly exaggerated.
More likely Bennett just came up with the number.
I can even imagine more people contacted him to tell him he was off his rocker than did to ask him support such ideas.
I recall that quote well – it was by ORYR hanger-on “Torches N Pitchforks”, a 70 year old shut-in lonely conspiracy nut who talks a big game sitting behind his 1999 era Gateway computer while living in a trailer in the desert. Another internet tough guy.
The only shot she has of the signature stamp isn’t high enough resolution for me to tell. It does look somewhat smudged, but that detail sort of goes away with the really low resolution of the wide shot.
I remember looking at the closeup shot and comparing it to the WH PDF – and noticing how perfectly the text lined up with a particular edge of the basketweave pattern.
That’s obviously a computer generated forgery of a Verification of Birth. Look there’s at least three different typefaces, and that form didn’t exist in 1961, and there’s halos around the pixels and the typewriter kerns and worst of all…. THERE”S NO SMILEY FACE IN ONAKA’S SIGNATURE!!!!!
Wasn’t it done on a copy machine? Why wouldn’t they line up? Hit the copy button twice and don’t move the book.
I kept reading it was 1200 emails.
http://ktar.com/6/1544027/Emails-received-by-Arizona-in-regards-to-Obamas-eligibility
How quickly they forget — and turn on their allies. A few days ago Bennett was their balls-y hero.
I was just at ORYR…..alas, not one of them seems to be convinced of anything other than the scope of fraud and ability of Obama thugs to get to people. Geezie peezie!
Well they are joining ranks with the deluded freepers. Hilarious to watch..
When you combine true believers with conspiracy theorists you end up with Bithers.
The level of self delusion is just mind numbing. These are not very smart people now are they? What a riot
that or Truthers.
Or in the case of Phil Berg, an unholy combination of the two.
perhaps this embarrassed bennett:
Mitt Romney: Is He a Unicorn? More Than 17,000 People Want Ken Bennett to Find Out
In response to the 1,200 “birthers” who asked Bennett to verify with the state of Hawaii — yet again — that President Obama has a birth certificate there, the left-wingers would also like Bennett to check out their conspiracy theory.
“I understand you are considering kicking President Obama off the ballot because some people continue to raise questions about his birth,” the petition to Bennett says. “Well, I believe it cannot be proven conclusively that Mitt Romney is *not* a unicorn. A unicorn would not be qualified to be president. Thus, I hope you will apply the same standard to Romney, and investigate the unicorn question.”
Indeed, Romney has never denied being a unicorn, and the left-wingers say it’s possible Romney’s hair could be covering up a unicorn horn.
As one of the petition-signers pointed out, the framers likely did not intend for unicorns to be qualified as natural-born citizens, so the lefties just want Bennett to check it all out.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2012/05/mitt_romney_unicorn_obama_birth_certificate.php
It does not bode well for the gene pool.
So Bennett has just found out that Hawaii has officially confirmed again what it’s been officially confirming for four years now? What was this all about again?
Today, Arizona released Obama’s Verification of birth from Hawaii that vouches for the information on the long form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011. The State Hawaii has unwilling provided Sheriff Joe Arpaio with Standing and a tangible interest in Obama’s birth certificate. Arpaio says the White House BC is a forgery but the State of Hawaii is vouching for it. Therefore, Arpaio needs to go to court and have forensics run the birth certificate. Hawaii has now created an actual contraversy that can be taken to court – Who is telling the truth? Is Sheriff Arpaio or is the State of Hawaii. Sheriff Arpaio! Take your case to court now. You have standing and a tangible interest.
These people are so eaten up with their hatred for the President — whether because of his biracial heritage, his policies (insofar as he has been able to implement them in the face of an obstructionist Congress), or just his plain decency as a human being — that there’s no room in their minds for anything else.
I keep picturing Bennett as Travolta*, opening The Briefcase. “Yeah, we happy.”
Obama in a Jheri curl plays Jules. That leaves the role of whiny, prepster, wannabe gangster to ….. the birthers.
* A really skinny Travolta!
I’m not convinced Romney is old enough to be President. Bennett needs lo look into this for me.
Let me switch to birther mode to give you an anti-birther answer:
Notice he said “1,200 emails”, not “1,200 constituents”. Quite possibly it was 120 birthers sending 10 emails each, or 12 birthers sending 100 emails each. Remember some of them have been writing one email per day to every member of Congress and every SoS for the last years.
I’m not so sure. He probably thinks that apart from the small number of actual hardcore birthers, there might be (if only in his mind, whatever) a significant number of people who simply “have doubts” or don’t like Obama, but would welcome anything that could hurt Obama (such as an SoS alluding there might be something wrong with his life story).
Winning over those people at the cost of alienating the fringe group of loons who likely wouldn’t vote “establishment” anyway might have looked like a good thing to him.
There are several problems with your comment. You don’t understand “actual controversy,” “standing,” the difference between a civil and a criminal proceeding, and the definition of “tangible interest” in Hawaiian law. Nothing Bennett did affects Arpaio’s standing, a concept of civil procedure anyway.
The bigger problem is that even if forensic examination concluded that the birth certificate was authentic, you would still say Obama wasn’t eligible, so why bother?
Well, at least we have achieved one tiny victory.
Whenever a Birther says that the State of Hawaii has never verified or authenticated his Birth Certificate, we can now say “yes, they did. They did it for Arizona in May of 2012.”
Simple. Hawaii is telling the truth. Arpaio has been proven to be wrong. Just look at his hilarious and inept Insane Clown Posse’s “investigation” of the PDF, which is entirely without merit.
That may be true but as someone else stated earlier, who verified the verification? The birthers will just move the goalpoasts back a little bit further then start their nonsense from square one.
The article has been updated with the actual verification form.
There’s no seal on it! The kerning is off! Onaka was paid off! There’s layers, I tell ya!
So the liar Onaka simply doubled down on his lie because now he’s in so deep it’s the only tactic he’s got left to cover his butt. If Bennett would have insisted on seeing the real paperwork Onaka would have been sunk. He just bought himself a little more time, but simultaneously tighted his noose real snug. He’s documented his lie and taken direct ownership. This will be remembered.
To this moment, no independent document examiner has yet to see the real goods. You non-proofers are incredible to behold.
But we all know he will not do that, ever. Because, y’know, when he told Orly to shove it, he wasn’t saying “I would love to help, I just don’t think we’ll succeed right now as we have no standing”. It was more like “don’t you ever dare bother me again”.
Dr. Onaka is well-respected by his peers in the vital records community, having served as president of the National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information Systems, and is a recipient of the Dunn award.
Your gutter-minded fantasies are beneath contempt.
With the release of the Hawaii Obama birth verification, Sheriff Joe is likely to be stonewalled. However, Sheriff Joe should focus his team on proving one question – Was Stanley Ann Dunham in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 04, 1961? If Sheriff Joe’s team can prove Dunham wasn’t in Honolulu (They don’t have to prove she was in Kenya, just prove she wasn’t Honolulu) on August 04, 1961, then Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery irregardless of what Hawaii says.
And how to you suggest they go about that?
Thank you! I think we’re rather fabulous, too.
I’m not sure doc. Sheriff Joe’s team is pretty resourceful and they are a police agency. that means to have resources and powers not generally accessible to the public
They just told you they verified she was there to “start the fraud”.
I think the central allegation of birthers and perhaps of Sheriff Joe’s team is that Hawaii is LYING. It is now the mission to prove that Hawaii is lying by getting ahold of the long form birth certificate, if it exists, and run forensic tests on it. This will tell us if the document is legit or has been tampered with. The evidence that points to Obama being born in Kenya is irresistable and Sheriff Joe and birthers will not stop until they get the birth certificate from Hawaii to prove it is fraud. Hawaii could choose to offer a compromise to Sheriff Joe but chosen entirely not to cooperate. Sheriff Joe has said this is a criminal investigation and if 10 deputies are needed in Hawaii for security and cooperation, he will send them.
He’s not going to do that. He knows his evidence is discredited crap for rubes like you, so he’s never going to get within a mile of an actual court.
Blah blah blah. Full Faith And Credit, deal with it. You got nothing.
And, as we know, it will not satisfy the birthers. Enjoyed this tweet though:
Hawaii sends Arizona proof of Obama’s birth. Now Arizona is demanding proof of Hawaii’s statehood.
— @PANTSSteve via TweetDeck
Sheriff Joe needs the cooperation of Hawaii Law enforcement so he can go in and seize the birth certificate. I would love to see Alvin Onaka hauled out in handcuffs for noncooperation and interfereing with an official police investigation.
It must be a strain to have to reach so far to grab those straws.
Sheriff Joe’s investigative results have never been refuted by any credible body. Doc C and Fogbow are not credible bodies. Hawaii claims the information matches theirs but Sheriff Joe has proven otherwise. Therefore, you have actual contraversy. Who is right? Sheriff Joe or the word of Hawaii government official. The only resolution is to produce the Best evidence – the original long form birth certificate for forensic testing.
Read the law, idiot. You don’t get to fondle the actual certificate while erotically imagining a world without black people. Hawaii gives verifications to parties under specific circumstances spelled out in statute, which have legal standing. And since no one has presented a legally actionable case that hinges on any determination of the original documentation, which is legally presumed valid per the full faith and credit clause, there has never been any reason for an independent verification. The fantasies of a bunch of willful fools don’t constitute legal grounds for anything.
Right…..so you “proofers” are sending Sheriff Joe and company to check out Romney’s original BC and have an independent document examiner check that out?
Ken Bennett should either put up or shut-up (or is he Alfalfa from the Little Rascals).
Lets be clear none of these Birther dullards have taken there “Birther Documents of facts, more like lies” and won a case in the “U.S. Courts”, maybe in their simple minds (if they have any) but not in our “U.S. Courts”, so unless Birthers/ teabaggers, whatever you want to be called, win a court case, we will continue to see as dullards, liars or racist or maybe all three. Deal with that baby!
And enjoy voting for the Mitt, the first “Republican Anchor Baby”! Too Funny
Oooh! I know, I know! They could have the doctor who delivered Obama sign an official document, keep that with the official records of the State of Hawaii. Then if someone requests the information, Hawaii would keep the original document for security purposes and only issue certified copies to authorized persons, attested to by a state official. Great, huh?
What? No good? You still need more?
It was bound to happen, the first calls for Bennett to either resign from SOS or resign from the Romney Campaign. Me thinks it’s going to be a LONG Memorial Day weekend for Mr. Bennett.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/05/24/campbell-to-bennett-resign-romney-post/
Bazinga.
Well, good luck on that one… Sigh… John is truly getting more and more desperate with his little, dark world collapsing around him…
Reality has been replaced by speculative hope…
Why is it that John has such a problem with reality?
The biggest problem is when you have to say “Even If”. We’re at the 4 year mark and still in the speculation stage? How can the Obots hang their nighty night caps on that?
The alleged hospital of birth still in seclusion. Common sense tells us that if Obama was born there the hospital would make a public announcement with a record to confirm what the directors at the HDOH are claiming.
The birth certificate is actually useless since Obama has never been nor can he ever be a natural born Citizen as Mario Apuzzo has so accurately and thoroughly explained on his blog site. I believe the evidence is conclusive for Vattel’s Law of Nations as the American founders source for the Article II eligibility requirement for the Presidency.
On another note: It’s being reported that fellow Obot Adam Cox, who in the recent past was posting in this forum, is once again on the run and is believed to be headed west. A warrant has been issued for his arrest.
In a sane world, this would put to rest any doubts about where our president was born, in HI, our 50th state. The fact his father was Kenyan has never been disputed. The man did write a bestselling novel about his dad, for Christ sake, so for birthers to be yelling about how he is trying to hide this fact just goes to show how off base they are.
The truth is this: birthers are racists who want to hide behind something else to try and pretend that it isn’t racism that is motivating them. From the very beginning when it became obvious to all that this man was going to win, every racist rose up in revolt. Since he won by such a large margin the idea that the election was rigged did not hold up. So first we had the Kenyan birth certificate, which turned out to be false. Thwarted on that front, in 2010 they decided that there is a 2 citizen parent rule for being president. There isn’t and every judge who has listen to this nonsense has said so. Every judge has also ruled that the president is a NBC. In over 120 court cases, birthers have lost over and over.
Bennett was a fool to even ask the question. It has been answered, not by some unqualified hack, but by our legal system. In court, judge after judge has ruled on this and said the president is a NBC. There is no doubt. He wanted some free publicity and he got it. Unfortunately for him, it wasn’t the kind that made him look like an intelligent man. Just a racist.
Actual, it’s not Sheriff Joe that needs to prove anything.
The burden is on us to prove that a quantum singularity couldn’t have allowed Stanley Ann Dunham to be in multiple places on the fateful day. She gave birth in Kenya, phased out to register said birth in Hawaii, and then phased out to take a college course in Seattle, stopping along the way for a delightful poached salmon at Fisherman’s Wharf.
Because the only alternative to this story is that a black man could legally be President, which is wildly more far-fetched to the average birther.
John, you’re deluding yourself when you say Arpaio now has a tangible interest that he can enforce in court. No way. He has provided no evidence that woould come close to stnading up in court, and the burden of proof is heavily on him. I wish you were a betting man with money. I’d challenge you to a little wager about Arpaio getting anything through the court system in Hawaii, Would just love to.
Arpaio’s “team” consists of a man who may or may not at one time have been a private investigator in New Jersey and a bodyguard. My guess is that they are spending more time on the beach at Waikiki (on the taxpayer’s dime) than conducting their so-called investigation.
Exactly. And the musings of some self-described ‘experts’ who do not even appear to understand the impact of mixed raster compression makes the case extremely weak. After all, how does one determine from a pdf that the original document is a fake when the determination is based on electronic artifacts.
John is so desperate, it is almost funny. We shall see, but I have consistently predicted that Joe will never file any charges. And now that Bennett and the Tea Party members have destroyed his bargaining chips, he may increase in volume but not in content. Poor Joe… Stabbed in the back by the Tea Party…
Be careful what you wish for…
It does feel like that so often, does it not…
“If Sheriff Joe’s team can prove Dunham wasn’t in Honolulu…..”
Sure, but so what?
You birthers having been trying to do that for four years and end up back at the DoH reaffirming the original COLB every time. Why is that? Why do you look in Hawaii for evidence of birth outside of Hawaii?
LOL
And I suppose “prove” will again be translated to “we still cannot rule out the possibility she wasn’t there”?
Because I think it’ll be kinda hard to prove (in the “sane world” sense of the word) the whereabouts of a non-celebrity on a specific day 50 years ago.
So far, all birthers have “she was enrolled in Washington”.
So unless you come up with a contemporary witness with perfect memory or a credible photo, how are you expecting to do that?
See, that’s why birth certificates were invented. Because otherwise you could never prove where your mother was the day you were born.
Actually Hawaii is stuck between a rock and hard place. Alvin Onaka has no choice but to lie and say the White House BC matches with his records. Why? Very easy Answer. Because the White House was able to forge the Hawaii stamp and signature, Hawaii is stuck. They can’t say the White House BC is forgery because of that very fact. For if they did, Hawaii would be in big big trouble, because the White House BC bears their stamp. If Hawaii said the White House BC is a forgery, the White House simply would respond that their BC contains the stamp. This would put Hawaii in a very difficult situation of the White House pointing the finger at Hawaii and Hawaii pointing the finger at the White House. The only way to escape this conundrum, is for Hawaii to lie and say the White House BC is legit.
You are better off proving Hawaii is not a state.
Actually, that’s a whole new option. After all, has anyone seen Hawaii’s original long form birth certificate as a state? I bet it says the father is some volcano with a suspiciously foreign sounding name,
If I could prove the world was flat…I’d be a hero to the flat-earth society
If I could prove that the moon landing was faked…I’d be a hero to moon-landing was faked society.
If I could prove their was a 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll…I’d be a hero to the Kennedy assassination conspiracy crowd
If I could prove there are aliens on earth…I’d be a hero to the MIB is real crowd
If I could prove that President Bush and Cheney conspired with Osama Bin-Laden to cause the destruction of the world trade center…I’d be a hero to the Bush conspired with Bin-Laden crowd
If I could prove that Sonny Bono was murdered and did not die by accident…Cher would give me all her money and serenade me every evening.
Lot’s of ifs there John…considering the Sheriff’s PROOF just went POOF!!!
He has another choice: tell the truth and say that the White House BC matches with his records (since it is, after, just a certified photocopy of them).
Only nut-case birthers are even thinking of a forensic examination of anything. Speculation yes, but irrational speculation to be more specific. Rational speculation ended in June of 2008. Birthers have just dug in their denial more deeply since then, moving goal posts and grasping at straws. If “the Birthers” were a novel, it would be funny. As it is, real people are making fools of themselves, and that is not funny.
You conveniently ignore the federal law preventing hospitals from disclosing information about their patients. Whether they still have a “record” after 50 years is pure speculation. However, Kapi’olani definitely confirmed Obama was born there, albeit in an indirect way…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YpAa891AmA
john, you’ve said more ridiculous things than I can count, but that takes the cake. Forging a stamp and signature would be EXACTLY what Hawaii would send the big guns after. According to you, if someone forges the Federal Reserve seal and Tim Geithner’s signature on a $100 bill, the Secret Service would have to let that go.
Shame for you that Vattel and Apputzo’s NBC BS is not the law of the land in the U.S., and never will be. Your argument, such as it is, is null and void.
But hey, get back to us when you win a court case based on your garbage. Any court case will do.
ROTFL… The far more likely explanation is the simple one: The document matches the records and no lies are needed.
But I understand your discomfort with finding out that reality does not match up with your dark and ever smaller growing world.
Hilarious John… All these unfounded accusations show how little moral high ground you have left.
Empty hopes again… I understand John… Your whole reality is based on empty promises, failed expectations and more…
Poor John
Grandstanding. 1 or 10 deputies are not going to make ANY difference. Poor John still confusing quality and quantity.
No WE aren’t. You may be, but WE are NOT. Personally I knew Obama was born in Hawaii from Aug 4 1961. Many people knew it when they learned that his parents LIVED in Hawaii at the time (that fact alone made the odds of a Hawaiian birth >99.999%). The remaining rational people accepted the COLB released in 2008. Frankly the document released last April was mere gilding of the already well-gilded lily.
Nope, there is has not been any room for honest specullatiion for a long time.
As for you and Apuzzo, come back when you win even a single court case. I will vene take a TV judge, though I suspect Judge Judy will find you more ridiculous than even the most moronic of the morons who appears on her show with a “the dog ate my lease” defense.
Credible bodies don’t waste their time with masturb*tion.
Read more carefully. What Doc actually said was “The bigger problem is that even if forensic examination concluded that the birth certificate was authentic, you would still say Obama wasn’t eligible, so why bother?” Meaning, birthers still would not accept it. The “even if” is because after 4 years, birthers still have not won a court case, no criminal charges have been filed, etc. How can birthers “hang their night night caps on that”? How do they continnue to fail accept all reason, evidence and court rulings? Why aren’t they asking for forensic examination of Romeny’s birth certificate?
Possibly I need some couch time with a shrink for even thinking about responding to this. So here i go taking a trip into what looks like futility.
Explain how you personally knew Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4th, 1961, when I’ve never seen anyone come forward as an eyewitness to his birth.
Granted, I’m not a birther and have only intermittingly followed this, but still I’m not aware of anyone making the claim you are.
Didn’t Abercromie try that and then had to back off and admit he wasn’t there as a witness? (?)
You do know that the State of Hawaii linked to the birth certificate the White House posted at the time, right? And that they also posted links to the letters Obama and his attorney sent to them requesting it as well as their letter to Obama with the certified copies?
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Be careful in the quote attributions. It was John, not I who said these foolish things. Of course John has no interest in facts.
Only problem with that is no court agrees with Mario Apuzzo, and if you take a look at that Constitution, you’ll note that it leaves it up to the courts, not Mario Apuzzo, to decide controversies arising under the Constitution.
What you believe is irrelevant, since it is completely, totally, and utterly incorrect
Dr. David A. Sinclair signed a statement that he was present when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Yes, you need some couch time.
No that’s not what happened. You’ve been reading too many birther web sites that make stuff up.
I don’t personally know it. But is that the new standard these days–no one’s birth documentation is to be accepted at face value unless it comes with the DVD statement of someone who personally witnessed the birth, including their information for verification?
That’s completely insane.
Perhaps you have never been present at a birth, but there are generally several medical/nursing staff members present, not just the attending physician. Some are young interns/residents who might well still be alive if they keep themselves in good condition by walking several miles every day.
As for coming forward, some people enjoy a private life and don’t want it disturbed by birther riff-raff.
Try this-prove I was NOT there….
Now that’s funny!!!!
um, yeh you are a birther. Pick whatever name you like, but facts are facts (a fleeting concept for you, I know).
We know he was born there on that day because of the Full Faith And Credit Clause verification from the DoH in HI. If that isn’t enough for most rational people, there is a newspaper clipping from a paper, just like the millions upon millions of other people who have similar verifications of their births in papers.
Sorry if that isn’t good enough, but too bad. The courts, every one of them, agree with us.
And if he was conducting a real criminal investigation, there would be channels to get the cooperation of Hawaii law enforcement. But since he’s just on another of his “smear those who dare to oppose me campaigns” he knows better than to take this garbage before a judge who would smack him upside his head.
And I would love to see unicorns and pixies prancing in the fields….It’s about as likely to happen since Onaka hasn’t interfered with an official police investigation, and has complied with Hawaii’an law regarding what information to hand out, and to whom. Just accept that Sheriff Joe has no legal right to go mucking about Hawaii’s vital records, no jurisdiction over those records, he also has no jurisdiction to be even investigating the purported crimes he claims to be investigating.
Because his results have never been brought before any body. Why hasn’t he brought his results to a district/state’s attorney, or whatever the prosecuting body he normally brings these things to? Why hasn’t he gone before a judge seeking an order to examine the records if he had probable cause? Could it be because he knows it’s B.S.? Nah…Not Sheriff Joe….I mean it’s not like he or anyone from his office have ever been accused of our have been found to have made up B.S. investigations against political enimies.
I don’t think you really understand the meaning of the word “proven.” Perhaps you should look it up. And considering Sheriff Joe has never actually examined any of the documents in question, he is hardly in a position to prove much of anything. Between the State of Hawaii, and Sheriff Joe, Hawaii will win hands down in any court of law.
Much like the word prove, you don’t seem to understand what the term “controvery” means in a legal setting. Just because two parties disagree on something does not mean it’s a matter for the courts to decide. And this is one of those cases that have no place in the courts. To be quite honest, in the legal world, no one really cares what Sheriff Joe has to say on the issue.
Which is exactly what no court will ever do….let me explain exactly what would happen if this ever did get before a court (which it never will). Sheriff Joe claims it’s a forgery. Hawaii says, no. Court asks Joe what his evidence is. Joe spouts off about pdfs. The court says, I don’t care about no stinkin’ pdfs, what evidence do you have that the documents were forged? Joe mentions that all he ever looked at were pdfs. The court feeling generous, decides to cut him some slack…that is until every witness of his is precluded from testifying, being found to be unqualified to provide expert testimony under voir dire. The court inquires if he ever asked the state of Hawaii about the records, to which he admits they pointed out that under Hawaiian law he is authorized to get anything, but they did send a verification to his state secretary of state, and he spoke to him. Court says Hawaii says it’s legit. Joe, with no evidence claims forgery. Full faith and credit clause requires accepting Hawaii’s papers, Joe sent packing.
Wow! You know, John, you might want to consider submitting that to the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction writing contest. You know, the one for worst fiction writing? You’d win hands down.
Speak for yourself. The only people in “the speculation stage” are birthers.
Common sense tells us that the hospital is obliged to comply with HIPAA. Have you heard of it?
Here’s a history quiz for you.
1. How many times is Vattel cited in “The Federalist?”
2. How many times is Vattel mentioned in the “The Debate on the Constitution” (The Library of America, two volumes)?
3. How many courts have agreed with Apuzzo’s definition of natural-born citizen?
Hint: the correct answer to all three questions is the same.
Here is a fascinating analysis. Vattel used the word indigenes. However, when the text of the U.S. Constitution was translated from English to French, not a single translator translated “natural-born” as indigenes. As our French attorney Lupin has pointed out several times, what Vattel wrote does not mean what Apuzzo believes it means.
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/vattel-and-natural-born-citizen/
His attending physician surely put his signature on the document to testify to this fact. Let me ask you the same question in reverse and see if you care to answer…
By any and all reasonable standards of evidence, and logic or reason, it is clear that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. But if you want to pretend to be the ultimate skeptic then nothing will satisfy you. But then again, you have no relevance to offer the discussion.
Sure Rambo, you just talk like one, walk like one, but you are not a birther… Do you have any eyewitnesses to testify to that?
Nice strawman…
They did but they may not have the record and they are in fact prohibited from making the information public.
If you were to spend some time informing yourself about the facts, you would not be deluding yourself with statements like “speculation stage”.
Sigh… By any and all standard you have identified yourself as a birther my friend.
And on a truely amusing note…Orly sent a letter to Bennett (visit her site at your own risk)….her typical B.S. being all threateny….but this one line stood out:
“I am an attorney, who is challenging Barack Obama in several states and came very close to removing him from the ballot in the state of GA during primary”
The line “I am an attorney” was enough to elicite a chuckle from me, but “and came very close to removing him from the ballot in the state of GA”? And in what alternate universe does losing to an empty chair constitute coming “very close to removing” anything? Woman is truely delusional.
Well, by definition, wouldn’t you feel it was close if you lost to an empty chair? I mean, you didn’t see that chair doing any victory dance, objecting, or granting interviews after the proceeding. In fact, the chair looked kind of timid and pensive throughout the whole event. It was probably thanking its lucky stars it eked by.
Associate of DP here, and I must say i disagree. I thought the chair exhibited the kind of stately calm one only finds in a true master. I think it was toying with Orly.
OMG, John, you’re right!!!!!! Everyone, my car is parked at the curb. With this relevation of John’s here, we can head on over to the White Hut, as John and the birthers call it, and watch as President Obama is frog marched out and on to Gitmo.
I can’t wait. This is going to be so much fun. Come on, let’s GOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks, John!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you have evidence of a crime committed by Dr. Onaka, such as forgery, you must report this crime to law enforcement authorities, or else you run the risk of being named yourself as an accessory to the crime, or even separately charged with conspiracy.
For what purpose are you withholding your evidence? Why have you chosen not to report this crime?
I have come across a startling discover in researching American law:
Dead Swiss Philosophers don’t write American law. Who knew of such a thing?
Sorry! I know you would never say anything so inane. Thanks, Doc for fixing that.
I’m not and never have claimed to be one. I’ve explained in the past that I had other reasons for disqualifying Obama from being Pres & CinC.
Not pointing any fingers but some of the Birther sites are not credible & just make anything up, and to be fair, what the Obots did recently on this site in the thread “Investigating Ancestors” was just as bad. I quit counting at 50 lies or as the Gipper would say “they know so much that isn’t so”.
I posted over a month ago on a site to John Woodman a hypothetical so he’d understand my #1 reason why Obama isn’t qualified, he never responded. Now he does a post on his site that comes into the area where I’m at. He leaves out labeling the ideology that’s behind it.
Mario Apuzzo has so accurately and thoroughly explained things that he went to court in New Jersey and put his arguments in front of the court and was told that there was ZERO BASIS IN LAW for his assertions.
He also filed an amicus brief in a few other birther lawsuits. What happened in those? The two parent theory was ruled to have NO BASIS IN LAW.
Mario can write whatever he wants on his blog. He can write that it somehow takes THREE citizen parents – you need a mother, father, and must be born via a citizen surrogate mother. He can write whatever he wants. But what matters is what the courts say, not what Mario says, and every time Mario has gone to court and made his argument, he has lost. Then he goes back to his blog and tries to say he won, or the court got it wrong.
Every. Single. Time.
There’s always a hitch in the Obots get-a-long. On this they provide some unique mental gymnastics for “anyone come forward as an eyewitness to his birth”.
Scientist is right, there should be people alive who witnessed the birth if in fact it was as the Obots claim. So where are all these eyewitnesses?
It’s ironic because I too did some research and found Vattel’s work was the go to source for the American founders while they were drawing up the Declaration & Constitution.
The copies that Dumas sent to Franklin in 1775 were a new special edition specifically for the American situation called the “Amsterdam Edition”. Dumas was a believer in Republicanism.
National citizenship is not part of international law (i.e., the Law of Nations). While Vattel was an important source for international relations, he was never important on municipal law. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is full of repudiations of Vattel (i.e. compulsory national religion, no right to bear arms except by the nobility).
In fact, in the entire notes of the Federal Convention that drafted the Constitution, Vattel came up in only one instance on one day.
You can’t do research on birther blogs and read birther position papers and expect to get the truth. They are a biased partisan source. You have to read the books that have nothing to do with the current debate to get the straight story. That’s what I did. I would never go to an Obama apologetics work to get facts.
You can yell all you want, but 6 courts have already ruled against your claim. You’ve been swept aside by the normals.
Benjamin Franklin was a Federalist.
What evidence?
There is absolutely NONE. NADA. Not a shred.
On the other hand, there is copious concrete evidence President Obama was born in Hawaii.
There is one who posts here frequently. But if you want them to identify themselves with a real name. you will have to make a firm offer. What is it worth to you? Cold hard cash, Ike, how much?
If you throw a ball against the wall, it always comes back. Perhaps Woodman decided talking to you was pointless.
Common sense and a little familiarity with the law tells us that hospitals do not make such announcements (where is the GW Bush plaque?) and in fact it is illegal for them to do so.
Also, we know from birther Mikki Booth that Kapiolani does not keep records for even 30-some-odd years as she was unable to get her own birthing records.
Vattel never said both parents had to be citizens to be President. Not ever. In fact, he didn’t mention Presidents at all. Nor did he say BOTH parents. The word parents in the line the birthers quote implies one OR two.
Anyway, i have read the discussions from the time. They were ONLY concerned about a foreign royal, so, in my opinion natural born citiizen was ONLY intended to apply to a foreign royal and was never intended to apply to ordinary immigrantts.
Now, perhaps courts might not agree with me. But they don’t agree with you either. So my opinion and yours are worth the same.
So how many people witnessed your birth, idiot? For most people, it’s simply the parents, the doctor, and maybe a few attendings. It’s a huge event for the parents, but not so much the people who do it all the time.
However, the physician who signed Obama’s birth certificate, David Sinclair, was a historically real doctor in Hawaii. There were even newspaper articles interviewing his surviving family when the long form came out; they seemed to find that bit of historical trivia neat.
[The family of a Honolulu doctor whose signature appears on President Barack Obama’s birth certificate woke up to the news Wednesday that the late obstetrician had delivered Obama.
Relatives of Dr. David Sinclair told The Associated Press that they were “blown away” and “honored.”
So-called “birthers” have questioned Obama’s birthplace, espousing theories that he was not born in the U.S., possibly his father’s native Kenya, and therefore ineligible to be president.
Obama released a short form copy of his birth certificate in 2008. Recently, potential Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump began questioning why he hadn’t ensured that the original certificate was released.
On Wednesday, the White House released a copy of the original birth certificate.
Below Obama’s mother’s signature was one which appeared to read: “David. A. Sinclair.”
“It’s my husband’s signature,” said his widow, Ivalee Sinclair, 82, from her downtown Honolulu office. She held up a copy of the birth certificate she printed from the Internet and pointed to the signature, recognizing his familiar left-handed cursive.
Sinclair had an obstetrics and gynecology practice in Honolulu and delivered babies all over Hawaii when Obama was born in 1961, said his son Karl Sinclair, 55, of Kailua. The doctor retired in the late 1990s and died in 2003 at 81.
“What a shocker,” said Karl Sinclair, one of six children. “It’s amazing. I’m blown away by it, quite honestly.” ]
And back to the point, who thinks the random remembrance of someone from fifty years ago is a more reliable source of fact than documented state records, anyway? That’s why they keep records, a fact that doesn’t escape most non-idiots.
Well, let’s see 50 years ago there were likely some nurses and the attending physician. The mother, the grandparents may have attended soon after the birth but would not have witnessed the birth itself. All have passed away, which is not much of a surprise really. Even a 20 year old would be in his/her 70s.
One woman does remember how her father came home one day and stated ‘Stanley had a baby’ in likely references to Stanley Ann Dunham.
But again, the relevant witnesses have signed the document of birth.
I am not sure that your claim is actually that well reasoned. Few people who witnessed my birth for instance are still alive.
Again, why these foolish questions? Is it so hard to accept the facts? Or is it that you like to pretend not being a birther and yet sounding like one. I believe the word is ‘trolling’. I can understand why people do not take you very seriously.
Well, actually the hospital where Bush was born has a little pamphlet that they hand out about him being born there and where the delivery room was. I think, though, the gift shop is not operated by the hospital, and the information came from records other than the hospital records. It’s been a long time since I read up on that.
There is a lack of oxygen for the handful of birther trolls wedged firmly and snugly inside of Mario Apuzzo.
no, Scientist is not right, it is highly unlikely that anyone alive remembers being at Obama’s birth. There is no earthly reason that anyone unrelated to the family itself would remember this from the time and made note that, “hey, a future president was born today.”
Don’t believe it? Then please go ahead and produce for me any witnesses who remember being president at George Bush’s birth.
Birthers love those blatant double standards.
Only in your imagination.
I have a copy of Dumas Malone’s six-volume biography of Jefferson. It contains not a single mention of Vattel.
I have a copy of Walter Isaacson’s biography of Franklin. It contains not a single mention of Vattel.
The Federalist – not a single mention of Vattel.
The Debate on the Constitution – not a single mention of Vattel.
It certainly is odd how your “go to source” has flown under the radar of every distinguished U.S. historian.
Hey Ike-“Parents must pick up their children by 5 PM”. Do BOTH parents have to pick up the child? Nope. One will do.
“The day care accepts children of employees”. Do BOTH parents have to be employees? Nope. One will do.
This is fun. I could go on, but surely even you get it by now?
Hey, your fellow Obots are saying you’re shucking & jiving.
Too bad you can’t produce a live eyewitness. It would be Waterloo for the Birthers.
Impossible. I can see the birth in my mind like it was yesterday. Hula dancers. Ukeleles playing. Elvis. Am I just imagining things?
Well, his parents were there; his mother anyway. I think they are trying to forget though…
I am about the same age as Obama. Neither of my parents witnessed my birth. My mother was under general anesthesia, out like a light. My dad was in the waiting room with the other fathers-to-be. Since my birth was unremarkable (except for possible excessive cuteness) and due to my advancing years, I feel comfortable saying there is no one alive who has any reason to remember my actual entrance into the world.
I have to say in regards to the birth witness thing- my wife and I, with our toddler visited the delivery nurse about a year after my daughter was born.
She never did recognize my daughter, and it took her a little while to place us.
The only people who can honestly vouch for my daughters birth is my wife and myself.
Thats why we have records. So that when my wife and I are gone, no one can claim that my daughter was not born in the U.S. because no one remembers it.
Just sheer idiocy.
How many “eyewitnesses” should there be to a birth?
Actually Carl, we KNOW there is one person alive today who absolutely, positively WAS present at President Obama’s birth. And that person has said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii.
So that ends the matter. Not to mention all the documents.
In a sane America our congressional public servants would have been forced to uphold their oath and take whatever steps were necessary to clear up the questions the American voting citizens were asking before Obama was placed on the ballot. That only happened with McCain.
Now comes another Obot flip-flop. Apparently “Obot Logic” is defined as ‘covering it from both sides’. Last week under the thread “Investigating Ancestors” it was claimed by many that Obama didn’t know his dad and only met him once in arguing that his dad’s marxist believe couldn’t have influenced him. Now you’re saying Obama wrote a novel about his dad. I would think one would have to know a whole lot about somebody in order to write a book about them. This is interesting, will we stay on flop or return to flip?
Here you show why there is so much contempt for Obots. Had there been a white guy with the same problems Obama has, nothing would be different, except their supporters wouldn’t be calling the opposition racists for 4 years. This is being opportunistic and pandering to skin color.
The averaging of the last 3 general elections shows that each candidate of the 2 major political parties received 50 million plus votes. In other words that is 50 million that voted against either the Republicans or Democrats. There are many examples of Obots calling Republicans racists, and some, add the modifier “white” in front. Were you a racist for not supporting Bush?
Were the Democrats and their lefty minions racist for what they did to Bush? Check out how they treated Bush for 8 years:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
Pay attention to what Kerry, Kilborn, and Williams said about Bush. Check out the Death Threat T-shirts and tell me which one is threatening, and why the lefties finally went silent on the Obama Joker shirt. BTW, do you know who was in bed with the Democrat & their minions organizing most of the rallies & marches against Bush?
So what. That only become important after the Constitution and before the Bill of Rights. Adams & Hamilton were Federalist too. All 3 are on my list as the Dozen most important founders of America, with Franklin #1.
That is very ironic….actually, ironic is the wrong word….mornic…yeah that the right word. I suggest you do a little more than “some research. Do a lot more search infact, because clearly you have not even bothered to read Vattel beyond that one passage birthers love so much, because otherwise you’d realize just how little Vattels work is remotely similar to the government our founders established.
You do realize the founders had access to many books….being sent a book by someone isn’t proof they relied on it for anything, unless you can actually provided the discussed it…you know, like the countless referenses to Blackstone in the debates.
Bush was delivered by Dr. Mary Taylor who was 56 at the time. Bush was born in 1946.
The reason for that is that McCain is the only one that had legitimate questions about his status as a natural born citizenship, since he was born overseas.
Obama had no such legitimate questions about his status since he was born right here in good ol’ USA.
Again…you need to so a little more research. A particular founder’s being a Federal was all the more important prior to the Constitution, as the Federalists were the ones that pushed for the Constitution, and after it was drafted, promoted its ratification (all the Federalist papers were written before the ratification of the Constitution). If the Federalist Papers, the writings written for the sole purpose of advancing ratification of the Constitution, extolling its benefits, and trying to frame how it should be understood, fail to mention Vattel even once….well, that says quite a bit, don’t you think.
In the very sane America, the American voting citizens made a choice and elected Barack Hussein Obama as your President. The only ones with questions are a small stash of moronic malcontents who cannot handle that the American people elected that “darkie with the funny name who seems muslimy.” Or is your issue that you think that Obama’s father showed up on our shores and asked loudly, “where are all the white women at?” Apparently, you like the insane America.
By the way, your “questions” about whether Obama should be on the ballot, that would be the definition of Birther.
There are no questions. He was born in Hawaii, his father wasn’t a diplomat, he is qualified to be President. The law is cyrstal clear n the issue. That is the sane America.
McCain was born in Panama…and even then, all that was done was a couple of statements by well respected Constutional scholars was entered into the Congressional record, and the Senate passed a non-binding resolution. (and there is still a debate as to whether McCain is a natural born citizen).
The only problem President Obama has is that there is a bunch of ungovernable malcontents running around making B.S. claims about his qualifications to be President. And while I personally don’t believe that all birthers are racists (I’m sure these are many of the same ungovernable malcontents that attacked Clinton for 8 years), the claim to racism isn’t far fetched, considering birther star Tim Adams first made his appearance at a racist conference.
There are many examples of Republicans being racists….and misogynists, and homophobes, and pandering to the fears of lower middle class, middle aged white males. If the shoe fits…
If they were speaking at a New Black Panther, or Nation of Islam rally, perhaps. But one thing can’t be denied is that birthers are making attempts to de-legitimize and making demands of this President, that have never been directed at any other President in our history.
There were no real questions. And once he had shown his COLB, the issue was well settled. Furthermore, there is some question as to how congressional public servants should have gone about this other than through the Constitutionally outlined process. They did and none raised any objections, for obvious reasons. There is nothing sane about a witch hunt based on foolish arguments and failed logic.
Does it not bother you that you continue to behave like a birther, devoid of logic and reason?
Are you referring to the non-binding Senate Resolution for McCain, that was co-sponsored by both Senators Clinton and Obama, who were then running for the democratic presidential nomination? Obama has a non-binding resolution, too. In the resolution commemorating Hawaii’s 50th anniversary of state, it states that Obama was born in Hawaii.
FYI, it is the responsibility to congress to certify those elected president, not those who are running.
As many as Rambo’s hero Reagan had when he ran for President (fyi, Reagan’s mother died in 62).
Your confusing Obots and democrats who behaved foolishly against Bush. Although his crimes were of a real nature, misleading our Nation and take it down a path of war, in violation of International Law, setting an incredibly dangerous precedent.
But do you even realize how you are again abandoning reason and logic here and brushing with a broad stroke to ‘get your revenge’?
Silly really… But quite educational
The book is called Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. It was first published in 1995 and one of the main themes is that Obama Jr did not have any first hand knowledge of his father.Jr sets out to discover who his father was, after he learns that Sr died in a car accident.
And in reference to people flip flopping: what are you talking about? Most people were saying that the reading material of his mother had nothing to do with the President’s belief. You were pushing that more than his father’s college paper, which you did quote in an 8 point critique, but then never brought up again in that thread
AGAIN, try to understand: Not ONE single court agrees with that idiot Appuzo nor your assertion that Vattellism is the rule for citizen status in this country. You are a goddamn brick wall, just like Appuzo and his little fantasy version of the US and it’s laws, parroting the same crap that not ONE JUDGE agrees with and refusing reason and precedent like a child holding his fingers in his ears going “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.
Are referring to the non-binding Senate Resolution for McCain, that was co-sponsored by both Senators Clinton and Obama, who were then running for the democratic presidential nomination? Obama has a non-binding resolution, too. In the resolution commemorating Hawaii’s 50th anniversary of state, it states that Obama was born in Hawaii.
FYI, it is the responsibility to congress to certify those elected president, not those who are running.
Not to split hairs, but at least one side of Panama can be reached from the Continental United States without crossing a sea 🙂
… so it might be more accurate to say he was born abroad. But then if he was a broad, how is he a dude now? Oh what a tangled web!
Project much? Seen the recent articles in the news on birthers?
You are surreal. Enjoy living in your little bizzarro world. I greatly look forward to November and to seeing the second term of one of the greatest presidents this country has ever had. Too bad, so sad, for the ignorant, unhinged, racist, and delusional birther movement.
He claims not to be a birther but in ignorance and foolish arguments, he often exceeds them. Funny.
Seems more hardcore than John and possibly even YuTube, but somehow, unlike them, he isn’t a birther, nope nope.
Either the level of self denial is exceeding what has been observed before, or he is toying with us. What other explanations could there possibly be?
However, since the Canal has split the continent, and Coco Solo Naval Base, where McCain claims to have been born, is on the ‘other’ side, that side of Panama cannot be reached from the Continental United States without crossing a body of water even if it might be the canal and not the sea.
I wanted to amplify on the witnesses to President Reagan’s birth. At the time he ran for President, there were no living witnesses. None. And there was no contemporaneous birth certificate. None. The President got his birth certificate years later.
Similarly, when President Eisenhower was elected, there were no living witnesses to his birth. And he had no birth certificate. Didn’t get one until he left office.
And what about my kids? One was born while I was actually in the air flying a mission. The other was born while I was on the ground half a world away. Does the two citizen parent theory require the two parents to witness the kid’s birth? Are my kids going to have their ability to run for President compromised just because their Dad was in the service?
I read that Eisenhower didn’t have one until he was running for office. Either way, he had been a five-star general and was in his 60’s before he ever had a birth certificate.
http://turningthescale.net/?p=372
I don’t think Apuzzo believes it either. His job is to lie & propagandize. It’s a bit as asking Tony Soprano’s attorney if he believes is client is in waste disposal management.
That is simply untrue and incorrect; in fact even if one assumed Vattel’s arguments applies to the situation at hand (a disputed fact), then by Vattel;’s criteria, Obama would be indisputably a natural-born citizen.
I have 30 years experience over Apuzzo in this matter, so I know what I’m talking about. (In fact this is the reason I ended up on this blog in the first place.)
Not does Apuzzo know this because he and I discussed it here, but he pretty much admitted defeat. The fact he continues to use this debunked argument (as well as others) is merely an indication he is paid to lie (like many attorneys).
Shhh. Gullible birther bigot rubes like john and Rambo Ike are the putz’s bread and butter.
While the evidence that the Founders relied upon Vattel is somewhere between non-existent and thin, we ought not be running from him. Vattel notes that England treats people born there as citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. There is no reason to be limited to the one paragraph Birthers wish to mis-quote.
Yet Vattel has never been mentioned by any of the founders as a source.
At least Rambo has finally made his birther position clear. The position is wrong, but it is clear.
The following is a letter from Dr. Taitz to SoS Bennett. I am sure he is scared. I never realized that she came close to victory in Georgia: Learn something new everyday.
Dear Mr. Benett,
I just received your e-mail sent to my supporter, Netty. My name is Orly Taitz. I am an attorney, who is challenging Barack Obama in several states and came very close to removing him from the ballot in the state of GA during primary, I will renew my challenge in the general election there and I brought challenges in other states. In MS and IN the legal challenges include Secretaries of States. I am placing you on notice of flagrant forgery in Barack Obama’s birth certificate, selective service certificate and his fraudulent use of CT Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was never assigned to him according to e-verify. BLAHBLAHBLAH.
The blahs are mine, obviously. Just wanted to give the highlights.
Holy cow, Oily is Pure Cimedy Gold! Came close to victory in Georgia? She lost even though the other side didn’t even put up an argument! WOW!
Whenever a birther tells me people who have witnessed Obama’s birth (like the physician who delivered him) are “conveniently dead”, I ask them how many witnesses of McCain’s birth they expected to be around, given that McCain was 72 when he ran for President, plus the fact that every possible witness would have to have been between 18 (learning nurse?) and around 50 (delivering physician), all his witnesses would have been 90 to 120+ years old by 2008.
In fact, it’s quite interesting that the GOP usually sends candidates aged 60+ in Presidential races where there’s not a chance in hell any witnesses of their birth (other than parents like with GWB) are still alive. Methinks one could concoct a conspiracy theory out of that…
But of course birthers don’t realize that, as deeply entrenched in their bizarro world as they are…
The Magic M gives an example of Obot logic in full bloom.
McCain aside, who eveyone knew was born in Panama, were the birth records along with almost every other record of those aspiring to be president being questioned and challenged by the American voters? How many of those others hired law firms to block in the courts the American people from getting access to their records?
In England the people were not called citizens. They were subjects of the King {British Crown]. Maybe you’d preferred to be called a subject. If you wanted to be called a citizen then you’d had to come to America.
The evidence for the use of Vattel’s work by the founders is overwhelming. His work was read aloud by those in attendance during the Constitutional Covention.
Then based on your assumption, which is right:
Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XIX [original 1758 edition]
de Vattel: “The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent.”
Explain to me how it was possible for Obama to give his mere tacit consent to become a true American citizen when America was never the country of his father?
Are you claiming a different father?
How come you been diddling with it for 30 years when it took me less than 15 minutes? Are you French?
Any further problems/questions that you’re having with this see Mario & friends at his blog site.
BTW, how is your country giving up its sovereignty to the EU working out?
Here’s one where I might have misconstrued Dr. Conspiracy intent. I’ve been conditioned to believing all replies to me will be in the negative. ~grin~
I’m saying the same thing you are, but inlike you, I didn’t have time to write a book on it.
One of the tricks of the Obots is always using the name “Vattel” to make the claim he wasn’t mentioned during the Constitutional Convention. Instead his work The Law of Nations was read aloud by many in attendance.
For all of this talk about Vattell, I would just once like to have a Birther admit that until Barack Obama was elected he had never heard of Vattell, had never heard or even considered that two parents were a supposed requirement to be a natural born citizen and that this was all a transformation once pointed to the ‘truth’
Because all of us who grew up here in the United States, and were educated here, know that anyone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen. This is the reason why no one- and I mean no one was raising the issue when Obama was running for President.
For all of the arguments about Vattell etc etc, it is really somewhat like arguing with someone who is claiming that slavery is still legal. The very claim that two parents are a necessary requirement to be a natural born citizen is on the face of it is as ridiculous as arguing that slavery is still legal- we all know this to be false.
The fact that the courts have accurately reflected what everyone already knows is just a bonus.
Were the records of presidents Eisenhower & Reagan being questioned? Did they have to hire law firms to blocj access to their records?
If illogical arguments by a dad counted then your kids would be disqualified.
Corsi steps off deep end.
Corsi was on Inforwars yesterday. He didn’t share any of the bombshells that he was promising for this week but he says you won’t believe the bombshells forthcoming in Arpaio’s investigation–big news in a few weeks as to the identity of Obama’s real father. Hint: It’s not Barack Obama Sr.
.
you have to fail the IQ test to be a WND reader.
I think I’ve figured out their end game: They’re going to come up with an American born father so they can claim to have solved the mystery and determined that Obama is, indeed, a native born American because both his parents were citizens. Case solved!
Clever those birthers.
Slavery is still legal if you are in prison. And you wonder why the vast majority of our prisoners are black.
The New Yorker has an interesting piece up saying that while Bennett stepped in it, he’s actually not a Birther. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/05/bennett-birther.html
Nah, they’ll come up with a story that Stanley Ann Dunham was not the President’s real mother and the son she had died during child birth and was replaced with another child from Kenya. Then they’ll demand that they dig up Stanley’s body and perform a genetic test on the remains and on the President.
And, of course, when they match, they’ll claim that it wasn’t really Stanley in the grave. That grave robbers stole the body and replaced it with the President’s real mother who was killed and secretly put in the grave to fool all the believers. The conspiracy runs deep.
If Corsi uses this, I want credit!!! :))
Lmao at this one.
It’s not about the courts agreeing – I’m not making that point. From what I’ve seen so far on how some of the law suits have been handled, I could say some of the judges were overseeing a Moscow Show Trial with a Twist.
What I did was cue off what other sites were presenting as evidence for Vattel, checked it out through research to see if their facts were correct, and then drew my own conclusions. In doing that, I found at times, additional info that hadn’t been presented.
And then there’s Albert Moore’s theory. He thinks President Obama’s mother was his sister.
This comment includes what was supposed to turn out to be an amicus brief in the Georgia ballot challenge:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/as-sheriff-arpaios-investigation-of-obamas-citizenship-nears-completion-holder-sues/#comment-79786
This is a letter to the editor of the Independence Examiner:
http://www.examiner.net/opinion/letters/x1381057761/Is-the-president-lying-about-his-ethnicity
Mr. Moore is running for Blue Sub-District 4 Committeeman in Jackson County, Missouri in the August primary.
You’ll recall that when he was posting here he refused to admit, in spite of irrefutable evidence, that there was never a ban on U.S. citizens traveling to Pakistan. Apuzzo is beneath contempt.
Maybe you should try reading the book. You might even be able to figure out that it’s not a novel.
I mentioned earlier in this thread that Dumas Malone wrote a six-volume biography of Jefferson (he won a Pulitzer Prize for it). Guess what? Dumas Malone never met Jefferson. Imagine that, writing a book about someone you never met!
Of course it’s not Barack Obama Sr., it’s Zeus, Lord of Thunder! And that makes the president a natural-born demi-god.
Very good!
Of course he isn’t. Like most of the RWNJ’s that flirt with or take this up in a political context, he merely hates the President, period, and will do anything to help keep him from being re-elected. Birtherism is just a convenient smear to add to any others their feverish minds can conjure up.
Maybe Rambo should try reading a book. Over and over again, he makes claims from his “research” which show he never actually cracked a book on the subject. How odd is it that he claims to be fighting “leftists” and yet seems surprised that Obama wrote a book about his father? Exactly what rock has he been under. I can only figure he gets his research from various blogs and bulletin boards (or, like a good troll, makes it up as he goes along).
“Hawaii duped Arizona” says WorldNet Daily in a story posted moments ago.
Mike Zullo says “The cover up is alive and well in Hawaii.” He also attacks Ken Bennett.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/sheriff-joes-posse-hawaii-duped-arizona/
As Gomer Pyle would say: “Surprise, surprise, surprise.”
If anyone ever thought this was a legitimate investigation the comments from Zullo in this story should remove all doubt.
I supposed from your biased viewpoint it might seem that way. But nobody else (but birthers) see it that way. You say that the cases were not well-represented, but Donofrio’s nearly 100-page brief was submitted as an Amicus brief in at least one. The problem isn’t that the plaintiffs are presenting an inadequate prosecution; the problem is that they (and you) have an inadequate understanding of what the law is.
If the site gets slow, that can happen. Without the comment editor, things like that give messages like “server is not responding.”
I don’t know of any candidate, Obama included, who hired a law firm to block any records.
There were several lawsuits against McCain’s eligibility. Like Obama, he defended the ones that named him as defendant, and didn’t get involved with the others. No one ever brought a lawsuit that could have been settled by releasing anything, and I challenge you to show otherwise.
Based on extensive reading on the topic from original sources, I believe that your remark is false and without basis. But you can always redeem yourself with an example of a reference to Vattel’s work in the notes of the Federal Convention of 1787. Note that a general reference to “the law of nations” means “international law” of which there several works with which the framers were familiar. One might tell the difference if some of the text is cited, or “the” is capitalized when it otherwise wouldn’t be. For example, the Constitution contains the phrase “the Law of Nations” but “the” isn’t capitalized.
This can only mean one thing. The 80’s band “The The” is in on the Obama Conspiracy.
Citations please.
Ah, Mr. Ike now says everyone knows that Sen. McCain was born in Panama. Perhaps he can point to Sen. McCain’s birth certificate. I don’t think Sen. McCain was born in Panama and I think there is no evidence of Panamanian birth.
And Mr. Ike ignored my comment that Vattel recognized that the English recognized citizenship from being born there, without regard to the citizenship of the parents. It’s actually in the book. Maybe that’s the section John Adams read aloud to Tom Jefferson on a slow day at the convention.
At the time of President Eisenhower’s election, he had not been a resident for the previous 14 consecutive years. Some folks historically thought that disqualifying. So, Mr. Ike, how do we get around that?
Doc, that’s pretty funny, asking our friend Mr. Ike for “citations.” If this spreads, others will ask birthers for citations.
No it wasn’t.
And even if it had, it would have been in French, since the English translation didn’t yet exist, and in the original French the phrase “natural born citizen” is not in the book.
Who hired law firms to block access to their records? Obama sure didn’t do any such thing. Obama in fact RELEASED his birth certificate– twice. No prior presidential candidate had ever released his birth certificate. There are no legitimate questions about Obama’s birth. We know more about it than any prior candidate. This is not even remotely open to dispute.
That’s not exactly true. There was an English Translation at that point, however, it did not contain the words “Natural Born Citizen”. It translated the word that people try to conflate with “Natural Born Citizen” (indegenes) as “Indegenes”. So, there is still no chance that they found the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” from there.
What the birthers want you to believe is that somehow, the Founders took a term of art “Natural Born” which had 300 years of precedent under English Common Law, redefined it to mean the exact opposite of what it meant under English Common Law, and then didn’t tell anybody that they were doing that, only to be rediscovered by a bunch of people 230 years later by a bunch of people who are not historians, and have no experience in constitutional law.
I hope Adams read it REALLY loud.
Jefferson was in France at the time.
That translation is both incomplete, and incorrect. I provided a correct annonaded translation here and lengthy explanations of the context which were archived by Dr Conspiracy somewhere on this site.
Maybe he’ll be kind enough to provide you with a link where you can go and read it for yourself.
Suffice it to say that, were one to apply Vattel’s criteria to Obama (and assuming that one was to equate his terminology with that of “natural-born citizen” which Vattel doesn’t use) then Obama would meet the necessary qualifications based purely on his mother and relatives on his mother’s side.
If Vattel was deemed relevant, he not only does NOT help the birthers’ cause; he destroys it.
As mentioned here frequently, but for your benefit, yes, I am a French attorney, a Sorbonne graduate, with 35 years experience, who has edited published translations of Vattel’s work into English. I initially came to this site because of my connection with Vattel’s works, to correct the appalling mistranslation and misunderstanding of his writings by birthers. As I just tried to do here.
Mario Apuzzo is a sock puppet who has pretty much abandoned arguing Vattel on this site because he knows he’s wrong.
Your last comment would warrant a lot of discussions: arguably, the present problem with the EU is is that not enough sovereignty was granted in financial/monetary matters. For instance, I doubt California or some of richest States would continue to bankroll the train wreck that are your Southern States (Louisiana is in far worse shape than Greece) if there wasn’t a Federal Government to force them to do so. Our problem is that we don’t have a true federal reserve bank.
I couldn’t agree more.
I once in my career dealt with what might be termed a mob lawyer, when I was working for a French Bank who had foolishly been embezzled by notorious Italian mafiosi Giancarlo Paretti. The bank was, somewhat quixotically, triying to recover some of its money from Signore Paretti.
I don’t know if anyone here has dealt with a mob attorney before, but let me tell you, it’s a very trying and frustrating exercise where you have to constantly argue that the sky is blue. Sisyphus’ job was a picnic compared to that.
I recognize the pattern in Mario.
Now I know that every lawyer is entitled to make a living, and everyone even pond scums are entitled to legal representation, but let me tell you, I don’t have to respect lawyers who make their living that way.
In Mario’s case it’s even worse, I think, because he’s being paid to undermine the legitimacy of your President and propagandize vile, racist, unconstitutional theories. A firing squad at dawn would be an appealing (if wrong) fate for him.
Which some may notice is sort of like the USA under the Articles of Confederation. Not exactly but close enough that a very interesting parallel can be drawn.
And just like the USA did with the AofC, the EU has had a couple of tries of fixing it. In our case, we finally came to the conclusion that the AofC could not be fixed, and we threw it out and instituted our remarkable Constitution instead.
I am convinced that it will be less than a decade before the EU comes to the same conclusion. It will be difficult though. Much more difficult than ours was.
Without even going into a complex argument, the two really obvious things that pretty much dynamite the birthers’ interpretation (I never get tired of repeating it) are: (i) parents is used as a group plural as in “only children whose parents are club members can use the pool” and (ii) “parents” in French means “relatives” as well as “parents” (as in “I have parents who live in America”).
Anyway, the more relevant arguments are that Vattel recognized England operated under different lines than Switzerland Germany, and besides, its treatise isn’t applicable to the US anyway.
There really is nothing in Vattel to help bolster the birthers’ argument. Your Congressional Legal Office who reviewed the whole matter summarized it rather well in its conclusions.
Well, hopefully, not a Civil War like yours.
Maybe putting a red traffic light in Brussels might stop the Germans next time. 🙂
I thought you were a little more familiar with American History than that. The Articles of Confederation applied from about 1777 (I think) until 1789 when the Constitution replaced them. The Civil War was in the 1860’s, some 70 years later.
It wasn’t a civil war that woke us up to the inadequacy of the AofC; it was the threat of foreclosure on the Revolutionary war debts (mostly from France) that we couldn’t pay because the AofC made impossible for the Government to raise taxes to pay them.
I know; I was being facetious. 🙂 I agree with your analysis.
While all of Ike’s nonsense is laughable, this may well be the most laughable of all. Apparently all it takes is someone “questioning”, never mind whether the “questions” are motivated by political, racial, personal or religious animus, the mere fact that someone asks, means not only that they must be answered, but that teams of investigators must be dispatched to gin up charges.
OK, I’ll play. I hereby “question” where Mitt Romney was born. I hereby “demand” to see his birth certificate. Should he show it, I hereby call it a forgery and demand that the CCP go henceforth to Lansing,, MI and, for good measure, to Toronto, ON to demand from the State of Michigan and the Province of Ontario that they open all their files. I hereby demand that all 50 Secretaries of State demand confirmation from both of those jurisdictions on pain of leaving Mr Romney off the ballot.
Now, Ike, you cannot say that no one asked questions about Romney.
Doc asked you for citations, so, while you are at it, please explain the following, since you want to defend your argument and show us how wrong we are:
1. On what day/session was Vattel’s Law of Nations read aloud (or at least a portion) and by whom?
2. What was the subject they were discussing during that session?
3. How does this relate to Vattel’s paragraph on citizenship?
4. Were there other writers quoted in that session?
5. What part of Vattel’s Law of Nations was read aloud during that session?
6. What delegates recorded this action (i.e. who is your source).
If the Birthers ever got the dreamed after uprising, the best defense would be some strategically placed garage sales. That would quickly halt their advance.
Or divert roads to oval tracks.
What day was Obama born?
Friday
and the Yankees beat the Twins, 8 to 5.
It was a hot summer evening. The animals were stirring, the sun was beginning its descent. August, the day of four in the year nineteen hundred and sixty one. This was conferred to the people of the United States upon wood pulped and processed into a green lined paper. Many questions have been asked, many answers given.
August 4, 1961. Why ask here instead of looking it up at the Wikipedia?
Just a guess: But it wasn’t on the document Hawaii sent Bennett. And we know what that means……right?????
“What day was Obama born?”
On the same day his mom left management for labor.
Neither had Hoover. He was in Australia, perfecting
his vacuum cleanermining techniques.Who is buried in Grant’s Tomb?
And those are the people who scream the loudest how they hate the government.
The people in those states scream the loudest that the Federal Reserve is run by Jews.
Also, Alabama trains Hyundai workers at state expense, along with everything else given in gifts. But that’s not socialism – it’s good business.
No, that only works in “Blazing Saddles.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU
So now you’re pulling Chubby Checker into this mess. Good heavens, leave him alone. He lives in retirement, about 40 miles from here.
As I write, Intrade has Obama at 57.4%; Willard at 38.6%. Intrade has an accuracy of better than 90%.
Remember, Bo rides inside. I’ve gone one better: I had Angel certified as a service dog, so she can ride in taxis, buses and subways.
There is. His name is Willard Mitt Romney. And there is a double standard.
I’ll try again. The Kenya birth scenario is physically impossible:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-born-in-kenya-no.html
Geller is a shonde.
He won’t, because he’s smart enough to avoid a perjury trial. That’s why he talks to a press pool, instead of a grand jury.
Someone forgot his thorazine.
If my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a trolley car. Philly still has trolley cars.
Actually, it’s for the worst opening sentence. “Each entry must consist of a single sentence but you may submit as many entries as you wish.”
http://www.bulwer-lytton.com/2011win.html
There it is, folks.
I already have. On this site. Several times.
Sorry if you can’t read, Bub.
They have already had Waterloo, Appomattox, Stalingrad, Thermopylae and Dien Bien Phu.
I’d like to make a joke, but it would get me banned.
john: Sheriff Arpaio! Take your case to court now.
.
Sheriif Joe is not in charge, Corsi is the ring leader***, and Corsi not satisfied in smearing Obama, is preparing a smear on his mother, great hero you got there john!
.
*** to verify note that you can see Corsi hand sticking in Joe’s back
Sure you have, and the moon is made of cheese too.
Are you sure it was Aug. 4th, 1961?
According to Dear Leader he was a product of 2 people being inspired by the 1965 Selma March.
More grandstanding by you.
I’m laughable? Yet you’re the one that ran away when we went Head to Head elsewhere over Romney.
So where is a copy of this pamphlet?
If this is true, someone would have posted a copy on the internet as proof that Kapiolani can do the same.
AlCum: Don’t believe it? Then please go ahead and produce for me any witnesses who remember being president at George Bush’s birth.
And I highly doubt Dr. Taylor remembered attending the birth.
She only knows she did because it was shown that she signed the certificate of live birth.
Ok, then you’re saying the following isn’t true and never happened?:
“……..Obama is illegally using campaign funds to fight the disclosure of his college records from Occidental because they might show that he enrolled as a foreign citizen. Why else would he hire a high-priced lawyer whose other clients include Amazon, Starbucks, and Microsoft? His campaign has spent almost $700,000 on just this one law firm — and he has other law teams actively denying the American People reasonable access to his birth certificate and scholastic and medical records.”
Well, of course I am saying that’s not true. It isn’t. It’s a flat out lie. You have no evidence for it and neither does the person you copied it from. The tip off is the phrase “why else would…” it’s all fabrication and supposition.
Is there no limit to the nutbaggery you birthers won’t swallow?
Something is not right about this.
I’ve read – not from Birthers sites – that it was translated into english in 1760, and Thomas Jefferson had a copy of it around that same time. By 1780 Kings college [now Columbia] and William & Mary [not sure on that one] were teaching it as a course. In between those 2 dates many of the founders were using it. Also, there was an error in the translation from french to english on Vattel’s title for Book I, Chapter 19, section 212. (?)
It is not true, and it never happened. Also, what you posted is a copy and paste job, most likely from WhirlNutDoody.
Yes. Obama has had to answer some birther suit in which he is a defendant. He isn’t a defendant in all of them and none are to keep his records sealed. That is a matter of law.
It isn’t true and it never happened.
There was a lawsuit (Keyes v. Bowen), but it wasn’t a suit to obtain records from Occidental college, but a challenge to Obama’s eligibility. After a motion to dismiss was filed, the plaintiff tried to gain discovery of Obama’s Occidental records, and Obama’s attorney moved to quash the subpoena because there was a motion to dismiss pending. The discovery process is time consuming and expensive and such motions are standard practice. That one motion is the only thing even remotely like Obama blocking access to his records. Obama’s attorney, Frederick Woocher, told Politico.com that he was acting Pro Bono in the case.
The Obama for America campaign did pay considerable sums (more than $700,000) to the Perkins Coe law firm for campaign legal expenses (as did the McCain campaign to their attorneys). It would be a disingenuous political smear to try to associate those legitimate campaign expenses with Obama hiding records and the $700,000 number is fallacious.
Finally, there are no “other law teams actively denying the American People reasonable access to his birth certificate and scholastic and medical records” and if you want to try to maintain that there are, then say who they are and exactly how they are denying people access to records.
You’re always going to come off appearing mentally defective when you quote stuff from The Obama File web site. I don’t mind folks quoting authoritative sources, but they are not sources, but partisan propagandists.
And you are reptilian.
According to the certified copies of his birth certificates, short and long, statements made by the State of Hawaii, FOIA documents for both his mother and father, the most recent Verification by the State of Hawaii, etc., it is STILL August 4, 1961.
Where is your citation that Vattel was read at the Constitutional Convention? Where are your answers to the questions I asked about those citations? If you do not answer, can I assume you have no idea?
If you forgot the questions, click on the link below to my comment. Take an affirmative action and show us how brilliant you are.
Let me clear this up. Yes, the English translation of The Law of Nations came out in 1760, as you say and the following is a link to an image from that edition:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/vattel-1760.gif
You will see that in this translation, the phrase “natural born citizen” does not appear in section 212.
The first American edition of the work was published the year of the Federal Convention in 1787, and it too lacks the phrase “natural born citizen” as you can see here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/vattel-1787-american-edition.gif
It was not until two years later, in 1789, that the English translation first used the words “natural born citizen.” The change came about because of changes in French law that altered the definition of the French term.
Jefferson, however, was not at the Federal Convention that wrote the Constitution. He was in France, and if he read Vattel, he probably did so in French. An interesting side note is that Jefferson accepted French citizenship, and was a French citizen while he served as President of the United States.
It is reported in the literature that Vattel’s book was used at William and Mary (citation). I think, however, that it is a misreading of the text to say that Jefferson suggested that Vattel’s book be used as the textbook in the International Law course. Rather, Jefferson’s suggestion was the the Professor of Moral Philosophy be the one to teach the course, which that person did beginning in 1789, the year Jefferson ended his tenure as US Minister to France. I was unable to verify Vattel’s use at King’s College.
Again, I must point out that state citizenship is a matter of municipal law, not international law. I would not want to diminish the importance at the founding of the United States of Vattel philosophy of international law, but he was not the only writer on that subject that was important and there are scant few instances where Vattel is cited on questions of citizenship, and in those it is on expatriation, and not the acquisition of citizenship. See also:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/06/framer-cites-vattel-on-citizenship/#more-13457
I’m not wasting effort posting on Lucas Smith’s blog. I simply wanted to congratulate him on his support for Obama over Romney. He may be a fraud artist, but so are you and he at least might be entertaining to have a beer with.
Did I miss your demand to see Romney’s records? I mean a serious demand, delivered to the Romney campaign and birther web sites, not some vague claptrap. And I would expect that you demand EVERYHING from him and go over them with the finest of nanocombs.
I have, repeatedly. If you can’t read, that’s your problem.
Rambo Ike: I’m laughable?
Yes. You are hilarious. You reject obvious facts and embrace utterly spurious garbage. The Birther sites have you trained like a pet parrot, and just like the birdbrain you repeat anything they say without questioning or even understanding it.
And you act superior while doing it!
No lie…it’s really, really funny to watch. Like watching Mike Tyson trying to be eloquent or Dick Cheney trying to be a human being.
No clown was ever funnier. Actually it’s a two-fer: clown act and freak show rolled into one!
How about this eyewitness? This mother, who gave birth during the same time period, remembers seeing a black baby in the nursery. Her memory of that time is extremely credible.
“Monica Danielsson, Mother of Stig Waidelich
A Swedish woman, Monica Danielsson, 78, may have provided the last piece in the puzzle on where US president Barack Obama was born, when CNN recently went to Hawaii finally lay the matter to rest. “Obama was lying there next to my Stig in the bassinet and I remember him because he was the only black child there and I thought he was very cute,” she said to Swedish daily Expressen…
Monica, who was born in Traneberg in Stockholm, moved to Hawaii 50 years ago. Her memories of an African-American baby at the maternity ward further corroborate the story. “I have no absolute proof of course, but I saw Obama and I have always thought it was Obama,” she told Expressen.
When President Obama became a candidate in 2008, Monika noticed his birth date and hospital in an article and remembered that day in the nursery. Since then more memories of Obama growing up has come back to Danielsson. “The memories come rushing back to me. Obama was very into sport and my son was good at tennis, although Obama was more into basketball,” she said.
In order to see what happens when someone born in Hawaii requests a birth certificate, CNN asked a current resident of the state – Stig Waidelich – if he could get a copy of the document.
Waidelich was born just hours after Obama in August 1961. Like Obama, Waidelich’s birth was announced at the time in the Honolulu Star Bulletin newspaper. Waidelich, like Obama in 2008, was given a certification of live birth in response to his request.
Monika Danielson is Stig’s mother and she has vivid memories from the hospital after Stig was born. Monika told CNN that she remembers visiting the nursery after Stig’s birth and seeing a lot of Asian babies, one white baby which was her son, and one black baby.
Because Monika is from Sweden, she told CNN that she had not seen many black children or babies before, which was why she particularly remembers seeing this black baby in the nursery. When President Obama became a candidate in 2008, Monika noticed his birth date and hospital in an article and remembered that day in the nursery. She believes that baby she spotted was indeed President Obama.”
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/people-remember-president-obama/friends/
Well how about that! It’s the one & only Thomas “I shine where the sun don’t” Brown.
There’s alot you don’t understand and probably never will, but you are proof of what a poster said in another thread.
Who’s trained and hiding in a controlled safe haven as a yes-man? Think again.
I don’t reject facts or spew garbage. I do try to sort out truth from fiction.
Your bud made a claim and it got notice by some. Apparently i’m the 1st one who has asked him to produce it. It would be the 44 magnum of smoking guns.
I understand that it didn’t appear till after ratification, but the ’89 edition is so close that the founders must have been already familiar with the term. My own belief is they read Vattel’s Chapter XIX in Book 1 and decided to switch out “subject” to “citizen” and go with how Vattel was describing it. They definitely didn’t want anything to do with a British Crown, King or Parliment who seen them as subjects and could change up the laws whenever it pleased them.
That french citizenship was to pander and buy time for all the money owed to France. ~grin~
Kings college comes from a book I’ve been studying on Vattel. A 1916 work by Charles Fenwick translating the 1758 original, with an introduction by Albert Lapradelle.
Excerpts from the Introduction regarding the Amsterdam Edition sent by Dumas to Franklin [page XXX]: “The fathers of [American] independence soon felt they were in accord with the ideas of Vattel.”, “…of Vattel, they found in the Swiss writer all their maxims of political liberty…”, “From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”
From footnote #1 of page XXX in the Introduction: [Amsterdam Edition] “This copy was undoubtedly used by members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policies of the United Colonies till the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States……”
Unless those writers knew Edgar Cayce there is no way what they wrote was done to stick it to Obama.
In all the material I’ve read on this subject I never see anyone use “The Law of Nations” [with the capital T]. It’s always Vattel’s Law of Nations or the Law of Nations [small t].
On your citizenship being municipal law I’m perplexed. Since I’ve never been a student of law or a legal scholar I have to fall back on logic. You stated Vattel’s work was about international relations, Wikipedia as one source shows Vattel’s work as the foundation of modern international law. Vattel does a chapter in his work on citizenship. It looks like citizenship is a part of international relations & law. Hey, it made sense to me.
That’s cool! Now lets get her signature on a deposition along with a couple polygraphs and we can wrap up this nightmare on where Obama was born. Then all we’ll have left is nbC.
We have a problem. The article was posted on a anti-Obot site by either a Birther or Birther site. So instead of getting the inmates in here all riled up I’ll only cut & paste in what is pertinent to what I stated.
~June 27 1787. IN CONVENTION (Vattel’s legal work is read aloud during the Federal Convention) “…that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho’ the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he [Luther Martin] read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers — Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he [L.M.] read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford:” From Madison’s Notes on the Convention.
Similar notes on Vattel being read during the convention can be found in the notes of Rufus King and Robert Yates as well.~
How’d you know about McCain & Eisenhower? That is national security secrets. Are you CIA or did you pull a Sandy “in your pants” Berger?
Eisenhower was just a temporary decoy. Walt Disney was really in charge while his cartoon artists sketched out the plan for ‘operation underlord’. Mickey & his steamboat led the charge.
Vattel’s book is (as you can see in the extended title) a book on International Law and on the application of “natural law” to government. What we have in the section on citizenship is notes on national laws and his natural law views on citizenship.
His section on a mandatory state religion doesn’t make that topic international law either.
Simply put, if citizenship were a matter of international law, then there would be international laws defining who is a citizen of a country, but in fact every country has their own laws defining who is their citizens.
Perky ‘Canada’ Has Own Government, Laws
http://www.theonion.com/articles/perky-canada-has-own-government-laws,19927/
Since the courts interpret the law, what is your point?
The only points he has, are under the hood of his ’68 Chevy.
That site being this one perhaps?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2711155/replies?c=1457
You were close. It was a ’69 Camaro ragtop [hand pull] with a set of distributor points under the hood.
That works only if logic catches you when you fall.
I see no reason to get riled because what you cut and pasted is essentially from Madison’s notes and, in short, shows the requested citation. What you may notice however, is that nothing in those notes makes any mention of citizenship, especially how natural born citizenship is acquired. Instead, it only discusses equal sovereignty.
The Founding Fathers were well read in the concept of Natural Law. In Natural Law, they see a natural right of sovereignty, among our various rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc.). Though we may be born into a state of nature, some of our natural sovereignty is surrendered for the good our our family/community/state.
The natural sovereignty was also understood for states/nations and their relations together were based upon equal sovereignty so thus, made up the much of the basis for the concept of the Law of Nations at that time. In the Convention, the speaker was commenting on the equal sovereignty of our states but also the equal sovereignty of the people in the sates. This was debating on whether to have representation equal to the population (eventually the House of Representatives) or by state (Senate). Vattel, Locke and others were known Natural Law and Law of Nations writers, so it would not be unexpected for somebody to quote them in this debate. I am relatively certain that that they read from John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government.
So, the Law of Nations, at the time, is not entirely just a government method to foreign relations such as continental Europe’s Balance of Power policies (which found the ultimate expression during Bismark), but as a expression of the natural sovereignty of nation-states and how that sovereignty was expresses in international relations. Knowing this, it can bring a different perspective on reading of the various authors of the time period and the writings of our own founding fathers.
You have the right site. The original article looks to have been started in 12/’08 with periodic updates and the last one being 5/’11. Yours is dated 4/’11 and just under 20% of the total article.
Thanks, Paper, for the link. It’s probably a good time to remind folks of the reference article on the Translation of Vattel from the French on this site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-translation-of-vattel-from-the-french/
Even I forget sometimes all the incredible research material tucked away in various places here. In addition to the 2,158 articles, there are also reference pages both on and off-site under the Bookmarks menu, and links to several valuable comments referenced on the page:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/favorites/
And not a week goes by that I don’t get an email asking a question that’s answered in the Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/debunk
I don’t have everything, but I have a lot.
One of the 3 delegates notes on the Convention mentioned the speaker referenced above was particularly long-winded. It appears to have rubbed off on me and my comment.
That was during a debate about whether each state should have an equal vote in the new Congress. It had nothing to do with citizenship.
I have a copy of “James Madison: Writings” (Library of America, 966 pp.). Madison mentions Vattel twice. The first instance was in 1793, when Madison was writing about the powers of the government:
…a just analysis and discrimination of the powers of government, according to their executive, legislative and judiciary qualities are not to be expected in the works of the most received jurists, who wrote before a critical attention was paid to those objects, and with their eyes too much on monarchical governments, where all powers are confounded in the sovereignty of the prince. It will be found however, I believe, that all of them, particularly Wolfius, Burlamaqui and Vattel, speak of the powers to declare war, to conclude peace, and to form alliances, as among the highest acts of the sovereignty; of which the legislative power must at least be an integral and preeminent part, pp. 539-540
Madison mentioned Vattel again in 1833, in a letter to William Cabell Rives. At that time there were people who were arguing that the “Constitutional band” which held the states together was merely a partnership.
It seems strange that it should be necessary to disprove this novel and nullifying doctrine; and stranger still that those who deny it should be denounced as Innovators, heretics & Apostates. Our political system is admitted to be a new Creation – a real nondescript. Its character therefore must be sought within itself; not in precedents, because there are none; not in writers whose comments are guided by precedents. Who can tell at present how Vattel and others of that class, would have qualified (in the Gallic sense of the term) a Compound & peculiar system with such an example of it as ours before then,
That’s it. No further mention of Vattel, and in particular no mention of Vattel in regard to citizenship.
The mere fact that Vattel’s name came up in passing during the Constitutional Convention does not mean that his book was relied upon to any significant extent by any of the Framers. I also have the Library of America collection of Franklin’s writings – and guess what? Not a single mention of his precious copy of “The Law of Nations.”
But that would mean Apuzzo and the other birther sources lied and keep lying to spread this myth.
What could possibly be their motive for lying? (/sarcasm)
Yeah, Camaro owners did get a lot of practice with their [hand pull] technique. 😎
If I can show how you’ve been duping people will you accept the same firing squad fate for yourself? i also am contemplating if Dr. Conspiracy is being duped or playing along with you on it.
Seem noone remembered a little comment I made over a month ago about the founders and Vattel’s work.
1st it needs to be verified if what Dr. Conspiracy posted above is the actual english translation for the text [later listed as Chapter XIX, secton 212] of Vattel’s work that the American founders were reading.
If it is, then you must ask yourself, why does it matter if there are errors in translation?
Rambo,
On the topic of “parents’ citizenship,” you may or may not be aware of the various attempts over the last few decades, at least, to attempt to limit, through law or Constitutional Amendment, “birthright citizenship” and thus halt what is called by some “anchor babies.” The most recent attempt for this were by Rep. King and Senator Vitter. What I find interesting, is their use of terminology, which has been generally consistent for the last 20 years.
Every occurrence always mentions, “one of whom” or in the stricter versions, such as by Ron Paul, “the mother.” If citizenship is supposed to be from both parents, why do these bills only require one parent, or sometimes just the mother?
I have asked this question of others and received no response. Since you appear to share the same “anti-immigrant” (or anti-illegal-immigrant) viewpoint as the bill sponsors, maybe you could shed light on why they only see one parent as necessary.
Pretty much ruins his whole day.
In fact it doesn’t matter, because there is no evidence that the Founders paid any attention to Vattel’s opinions about citizenship regardless of the accuracy of the translation.
When Vattel’s name came up during the Constitutional Convention, it was in regard to state sovereignty.
When Jefferson cited Vattel in 1793, it was in regard to international treaties.
When Hamilton cited Vattel in 1784, it was in regard to international treaties. When Hamilton again cited Vattel in 1793, again it was in regard to treaties.
When Madison cited Vattel in 1793, it was in regard to the power of the Federal government. When Madison again cited Vattel in 1833, it was in regard to the permanent nature of the Union.
Birthers have been arguing about Vattel for 3 1/2 years and they have yet to produce a single example of a Founder citing Vattel in regard to citizenship. George Washington had a copy of Vattel’s book, but there is no evidence that he ever cited Vattel about anything. Benjamin Franklin had a copy of Vattel’s book, but there is no evidence that Franklin was influenced by Vattel’s views on citizenship – regardless of how they were interpreted.
I challenge you to cite even one civics text, history text, or legal text which unambiguously states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. You can’t do it, because no such text exists. In fact, you can’t even cite a text which states that a natural born citizen must have ONE citizen parent, because no such text exists.
You’re incoherent and make no sense whatsoever.
Personally, I object to Vattel being mistranslated and misused and misquoted by people like Apuzzo in the same fashion as, presumably, an American scholar would object if a bunch of French lunatics mistranslated and misused the writing of, I don’t know, Oliver Wendell Holmes, for example, in order to justify anti-semitic rhetoric.
Obviously, facts don’t matter to a birther. Never have and never will.
What you don’t understand is it is you who are misleading people with your claims & accusations. Whether you did it deliberately or not, well, I can only say let your conscience be your guide.
I had this all wrapped up by the end of 2009 and for the next 2 years paid little attention to it. This year I noticed the Obots making statements that conflicted with what I had already figured out, but didn’t know where they were coming from, it didn’t make sense. A couple times I replied saying “it was the way the founders understood it” and not anyone else.
In this thread I posted the following to you:
Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XIX [original 1758 edition]
de Vattel: “The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent.”
ike: Explain to me how it was possible for Obama to give his mere tacit consent to become a true American citizen when America was never the country of his father? Are you claiming a different father?
Your response:
“That translation is both incomplete, and incorrect. I provided a correct annonaded translation here and lengthy explanations of the context which were archived by Dr Conspiracy somewhere on this site.
Maybe he’ll be kind enough to provide you with a link where you can go and read it for yourself.
Suffice it to say that, were one to apply Vattel’s criteria to Obama (and assuming that one was to equate his terminology with that of “natural-born citizen” which Vattel doesn’t use) then Obama would meet the necessary qualifications based purely on his mother and relatives on his mother’s side.
If Vattel was deemed relevant, he not only does NOT help the birthers’ cause; he destroys it.”
I’m still confused as to why you would make such statements, but from this I can gather that possibly you are the originator of this disinformation that is being peddled.
Dr. Conspiracy follows with a copy of the 1760 english translation of section 212. I have no problem with that. It matches the text of every english translated edition I’ve seen, except for 1 word, the word “indigenes”. In a couple editions indigenes is replaced with natural-born citizen. He then follows that up with an article that shows you [Lupin] as the author from what he calls his “Debunker’s Guide”. It’s here that I finally catch on to what has been going on.
It doesn’t matter if every frenchy in the world says it was mistranslated, or anyone else making such a claim. It doesn’t matter if the whole text had been mistranslated. What only matters is how the American founders understood the english translated text of 212, how they were defining the words of 212, and even how they interpreted any french version of it. Nothing else matters!
We have evidence from the historical writings of the founders that they were reading that english translated text of 212 four years before the Declaration [1776].
Did I actually say it was about citizenship, or did I say Vattel’s work was read aloud in the Convention? Another Red Herring?
You better contact that old troll that run Wikipedia and tell him to scrub his references to Franklin’s statements about them copies, or if you want, you can read the letter from my collection of Franklin’s writings.
I do have many sources that shows the founders were reading Vattel’s work. Even have 1 for Sam Adams’s writings in 1771 about the Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XIX.
In 1732, decades before the Law of Nations was written by Vattel, the charter of the Colony of Georgia said:
In subsequent years (even beyond 1789) the States used the term “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen” in legislation interchangeably.
Prior to the Constitution, the way a person naturalized in the United States was to have an act of the legislature make them a citizen, and many of those acts gave naturalized citizens the rights of natural born subjects/citizens (both terms were used). The term was widely used and widely understood at the time. To say that the term derives from Vattel, when it predates Vattel (whose English translation didn’t use “natural born citizen” until 1789″) is an argument totally lacking in historical support.
First, there is no evidence that anything in Article II of the US Constitution came from Vattel. Vattel would never have supported a popularly elected President-he was a monarchist who would have urged a quick appointment of a king who would pass the title through his descendants. As for “natural born citizen” the term was commonly used in England long before Vattel was born. So, it is silly to think that anyone took the phrase from Vattel.
Second, this may have escaped your attention, but we live in a world where men and women are equal. In fact we have for some time. In cases where children inherit from their parents, they can inherit equally from a mother or a father. So, Lupin is 100% correct to point out that the correct phrasing of the sentence today is “the country of the father OR THE MOTHER”.. Look, if you don’t like the 21st century, that is just tough, pal. Get off the computer and reply to me with parchment and quill.
In fact, you ought to look at the laws in Vattel’s homeland, Switzerland, which follows jus sanguinis. What does it take to be born a natural born Swiss citizen? A Swiss father OR a Swiss mother. In fact, nowhere in the world, except Birthestan, are 2 citizen parents required-one one and it can be either the mother or the father.
So Lupin is correct and you are clueless.
Okay, I am at a loss. What exactly is your point?
You insist the founders read the English translation of Vattel, that even if it was mistranslated it doesn’t matter because that is the how the founders understood it and there are records of the founders reading it. When it was pointed out that the records show the founders reading other subject matter by Vattel, not citizenship, you said you never claimed they did.
No one here is trying to say the founders were not familiar with Vattel. They only say they did not use the English translation birthers quote for their definition NBC.
Yes, you see conspiracy everywhere.
LOL! Now that is one colossal cognitive fail. It doesn’t matter how French people translate their own language, or that several of the Founders were fluent in French, or that any documentation of or reference to any reliance on Vattel has been found, nor that the birthers have latched onto one legal theorist who was a royalist and never had anything to do with America, nor does the entire colonial legal tradition matter.
NO! The only thing that matters is the ‘understanding’ you choose to project onto a heterogeneous group of several dozen early Americans. An understanding which you are certain they were in one accord on.
In short, all that matters, is your belief.
You know, that just doesn’t do much for me.
Good luck!
What about their understanding of 214? Doesn’t that matter? Doesn’t it matter whether or not they understood if Vattel understood the municipal law background that they were familiar with?
Does it matter at all, that the founders rejected just about every other principle espoused by Vattel? Like monarchy and an established Church?
The only thing that matters is what you imagine what the Framers imagined they were reading in Vattel? Doesn’t it even matter what you imagine about how much weight the Framers gave to Vattel’s opinions over more writers they were more familiar with?
And it doesn’t matter what the Framers actually, provably, said about the subject?
Really? Nothing else matters? Do you have trouble finding a hat that can fit your head?
Funny, I had it all wrapped up in mid 2008. And I am still right.
I’m glad to see you pointing out that the American founders were aware of both terms. It does add credence to my stated position. I never said either term derived from Vattel.
This isn’t only for Scientist, but also a reply to Northland10, Linda, JPotter, and Keith [the last posters].
By trying to defend & cover for Lupin you are in essence doing the same thing he did. To not look at it in an impartial way destroys your credibility, and leaves it open for people reading this blog site to see your lack integrity. You all have to climb down from your hoity-toity perches, admit the error of your ways & Lupin’s, then make the necessary corrections. Lupin, himself, should admit to the wrong committed. Then and only then, will people reading this blog, have any faith that what is being said here can also be associated with the TRUTH. You are your own worse enemies.
The mode here of creating red herrings & strawmen to divert the subject matter to make people believe you’ve debunked something reeks of a deceit so infamously that it can be placed on the same level to the way a deranged pervert operated in Germany some 80 years ago. Knowing what the intent is I abhor the use of them.
Scientist makes a very typical common mistake in his comments that I see so many doing, and yes, I too did it many years ago until I caught on. He projects 21st century thinking & standards on to those Americans involved during the pre- to post-revolutionary period. In order to understand them you have to understand what they were faced with on a daily basis, how they thought & what influenced that thinking, and what their principles & ideas were. The grievances listed in the Declaration gives us a big clue, and the preamble points to their solution. The abundance of pre-revolution writings is even more helpful when read in the context of their period in time.
One quote from an American founder I believe sums up those pre-revolutionary writings:
“Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people . . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.”
John Adams, circa 1820
What term can be used to describe what it was that they were rising up to rebel against? Collectively from the writings & other historical material I concluded it was being subjects under a tyrant king, or simply SUBJECTHOOD. When you look at it from the perspective of subjecthood, selective parts in the works of the many philosophers & biblical writings took priority with these American revolutionaries.
Need I continue or have you figured out where I’m going with this? It takes an open unbiased mind to understand.
I frankly haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Perhaps if you toned down the rhetoric and try to make a coherent argument, and I don’t mean just an argument with citations, but one that flows in a logical way rather than shooting flack at airplanes.
I think you have nothing and don’t know it.
Clumsy allusions to Hitler are usually a clue that the writer has nothing and knows even less.
I have rarely seen such a bunch of tripe. You need to take some prozac.
Your misguided comments about Vattel have all been addressed here before, if you’d only care to search for the answers. (I’m certainly not going to go into it for the umpteenth time.)
The short version of it that Vattel merely restated the jus sanguinis that was the custom at the time in Switzerland Germany, i.e.: that citizenship is inherited from blood relatives (and not EXCLUSIVELY from the father as you mistakenly believe — the role of the mother was, in fact, precised in a footnote to the second edition [should be 1863 French edition. Doc.]). Vattel was meticulous in noting that such a system was not universal and England used the jus soli system.
This, taken together, makes Vattel useless to the birther cause, even if one was to assume that (a) the term “natural born citizen” is an accurate translation of Vattel’s terminology of indigene, which is very debatable, and (b) Vattel’s writings had any bearings on evolving US Law on the matter, which is highly unlikely.
I don’t like touting my own horn, but I was chief legal officer of the Los Angeles branch of Credit Lyonnais, the 5th largest bank in the world (at the time), and studied and wrote about Vattel long before your coterie of bigoted imbeciles, Apuzzo included, thought that he was (at best) a brand of mineral water.
I’d like to add that your Congressional Legal Expert came to the same conclusions in his study — as in fact any other decent legal scholar would.
Good one, mon ami!!! For those who may not know, Vittel is a mineral water sold all over France, though I haven’t seen it in the US. I remember their ads from when I lived in France-a bunch of miserable looking people (pas Vittel) next to some outrageously happy folks (Vittel!!). The water I really miss is Badoit. You can find it here but it is insanely expensive.
There is absolutely no question that if Ike and his fellow members of the History Ended in 1776 (or 1788) Crowd had actually been alive at that time, they would have been rock-ribbed Tories, running around saying “We’ve had a King since 1066 and that’s good enough for me!”
The fact that women were not given their full due in 1788 is not in the slightest binding on anyone living today. The plain and simple fact is that anything, including citizenship, that might be inherited from a father is equally inherited from a mother. To pretend otherwise is simply ridiculous (not that being ridiculous bothers Ike).
Besides, Vattel starts with all relatives, clearly spelled out, then mentions the father, but not exclusively of the others; in what world does that constitute an exclusion clause? And in fact, the editors caught that sloppy bit of writing & fixed it in the next edition. To pretend otherwise like Rambo Ike is simply bonkers.
OT, I myself never cared for the tastes of Badoit, but I don’t like Perrier either, or anything fizzy. If I have to have mineral water, Evian or Vittel are my choices. Where did you live when you were here?
Lyon.
Barak Hussein Obama II is the 44th President of the United States. That is the truth. It will always be the truth.
Your wild accusations, and offensive, misguided analoges, do not change that truth in any way, shape, or form.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
“Again, that is a guess on my part.”
– Rambo Ike
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
– Benjamin Franklin
We figured out where you were going a long time ago. You’re going to the wrong place.
I used to see Perrier TV ads as a child, loved the bottle and wanted to taste it. When I did, I was severely disappointed. I’ve been hooked on Gerolsteiner ever since.
“Originalist” or “traditionalist” has often been a euphemism for “I want slavery back” or “I want ‘the man is boss in the house’ back” or “I want biblical law back”.
And people like you effectively claim that the Founders meant for everything to remain the same forever with little to no progress allowed.
However, lawmaking doesn’t work that way. That is why laws are formulated so they don’t really depend on what’s the current technology or fashion. “You shall not kill” applies to test tube babies as well as those created from “natural” conception and you cannot say “hey, God never thought about test tube babies, that’s a loophole, I can kill them now!”.
Another common argument is that the Founders never envisioned automatic rifles, so why are they covered by the 2nd Amendment? Or, OTOH, why aren’t nuclear weapons allowed if the 2nd is to be read broadly?
That’s why, IMO, the “leaving breathing Constitution” proponents have a good point. (See the 2nd Amendment argument.) The Founders never intended their contemporary views to be set in stone for millennia. But it requires interpretation because a broad reading may also be dangerous, see above.
But not vice-versa! Only women pass down Mitochondrial DNA.
See Rambo Ike, if the founders only knew that little fact, they would have given women the vote from the beginning, and maybe even have written them into the constitution as each counting as 1 and 1/4 person, because they are better, and who knows, our first president might have been Martha Washington.
Really, when you think about it, the founders should have been trying to get into our mindset; they should have been watching our television, reading our blogs, visiting the moon, and even studying how gymnastic competitions on Mars changed the whole political structure of the galaxy (oh wait, we’re not there yet…sometimes I forget what year it is…sorry).
But you know, they did the best they could, aiming for a more perfect union and all.
I used to see it, drank it a few times. Who knew it was philosophically imbued water?
I have raised that many times with 2nd Amendment absolutists and never gotten a sensible response. It seems to me either: (1) The right to bear arms is absolute and must include any and all arms, including nuclear; or (2) The law can place reasonablle limitations on the right.
A beautiful city and likely the culinary capital of France; also very convenient in terms of getting anywhere. I hope you had a nice time there.
The entire family loved it. Even our now departed dog, whom we brought with us. We strapped his crate on top of the airplane, like Mitt.
When we returned to France we brought our also now-departed dog (a BC) back with us; Air France was very kind and helpful; we took her out of the crate and had her on a leash at CDG airport and unlike LAX where they were very rude and hostile (quelle surprise!) everyone from customs to passport control loved her.
When I was a teenager (a long time ago) I used to go and ski at Courchevel and always stopped in Lyon; strangely enough, a comics publisher I now own (or co-own) used to be based there.
Where were we? Ah yes, the Mittster. Did you see this Danziger cartoon, which is entire On Topic:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/victory-lap-dance.gif
Here’s a photograph of that:
http://truthquake.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/obama-mitt-romney-white-house-correspondents-dinner-2012-dog-on-car-joke-illuminati-funny-comedy-roast-jimmy-kimmel-gay-lindsay-lohan-kim-kardashian-bi-reese-witherspoon-pregnant-freemason-george-clooney-michelle-donald-trump-plane.jpg
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”
– Benjamin Franklin
‘Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Existential water?
So a reasonable limitation might be: suitcase nukes okay; a nuke that you can’t carry in your own arms, forbidden. Because we all know, don’t we, that size is what matters, especially with nuclear bombs.
Natural Existential Water.
Natural Born Existential Water.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I just didn’t want to get into an extended constitutional argument about whether or not water can be *born.* Too late? Apuzzo has already filed a case about it?
There shouldn’t be an argument about it. Doesn’t the 2nd amendment protect the right to bear armloads of water?
Doesn’t the 2nd amendment protect the right to arm bears? (Not that they need it.)
This blog is about Obama’s eligibility. It is irrelevant to us that the Founders occasionally cited Vattel on topics other than citizenship.
I didn’t say that Franklin never mentioned Vattel. I said that Vattel is not mentioned in the collection of Franklin’s writings which were published by the Library of America. And as I pointed out previously, Vattel’s name does not appear in Walter Isaacson’s biography of Franklin I also have an 1889 biography of Franklin written by John T. Morse – no mention of Vattel.
I have “Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny” (1973) by famed historian Richard B. Morris. The book examines the contributions of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Jay, Hamilton, Adams and Madison to the founding of the United States. And guess what? Not a single mention of Vattel is anywhere to be found. There are multiple references to Blackstone.
I have “A History of American Law” by Lawrence Friedman. Again, no mention of Vattel.
You have yet to provide a single example of a Founder citing Vattel on citizenship. When you can do that, we have something to talk about.
I see you’re still peddling the same line of cockamamie. I’d of thought that one claiming 30 years of practicing law would beable to understand what is so fundamental about the translation. So I’ll do this slow and keep it simple just for you, and of course Scientist. I always try to take it slow for him. You continue to make statements that do not depict the english translation of Vattel’s work, and that is what originally caught my attention. I’m not disputing your claim that there was a mistranslation from french to english, some other online sources also say there was flaws in the translation. That’s not the problem.
Every english translations I’ve seen – about 6 – from 1760 on & into the 1900s have the text of 212 all the same except for 2 words – naturels & indigenes. The 1916 translation of the 1758 original work by 2 french guys; Charles G. Fenwick (Charles Ghequiere), and Albert Geouffre de Lapradelle of Paris, have it the same as the other english translations. None of the editions I checked including the 1916 works by the 2 french guys have the footnote you’re claiming.
When I presented you with the following:
de Vattel: “The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent.”
ike: Explain to me how it was possible for Obama to give his mere tacit consent to become a true American citizen when America was never the country of his father? Are you claiming a different father?
Your reply: “That translation is both incomplete, and incorrect.”
And that reply is where you are misleading [duping] or you’re just plain ignorant. To you, who understands french it would be incorrect, but to those at that time in the english speaking world that translated it into english it was the way they interpreted it from their understanding of french, and even if they deliberately mistranslated it it still makes no difference. The english Edition was published and the people in the American colonies were reading it and understanding the text from the flawed english translation.
From 1760 forward that flawed english translated text of 212 is what was being studied in the colonies. According to the many different sources I’ve read it was stated that Vattel’s work was being discussed among the colonists starting in the 1760s, by 1773 Vattel’s work was being taught at Kings College [Columbia], and by 1780 it had become a classic at the universities. Prior to the writing of the Constitution a whole lot of people were educated with the English Edition on Vattel’s Law of Nations.
We also have evidence that many founders were using Vattel in their arguments against English Common Law. From the writings of Samuel Adams it shows him using Vattel’s chapter XIX for his position against Lock’s perpetual subjecthood to the British Crown. It’s a Big Lie to deny that the founders weren’t reading Chapter XIX along with the rest of his work where it’s plainly stated “The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and they become true citizens by their mere tacit consent.” & “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Please correct your glaring error.
Rambo Ike {riding roughshod over ignorance & deceit]
I’m haven’t seen justification for a conclusion so strong as you make here. However, the problem with your whole thesis is that if Vattel is the only candidate running, he gets the most votes, but if there are other candidates running you must consider their virtues as well. Saying Vattel was taught at some university, while being conveniently silent on Blackstone, Locke and the rest is not a valid argument, nor an honest one.
It’s a matter of fact that in early American court citations, Blackstone is far an away more often cited than Vattel. A number of the framers were attorneys who practiced English common law prior to the Revolution and English common law adopted by state constitution and statute afterwards, and some (e.g. South Carolina’s Rutledge) were even trained in London and practicing law before The Law of Nations was even written. James Madison is the principle author of the Constitution and clearly HE thought that place of birth was what mattered.
Vattelian views of citizenship were perhaps appropriate for the stable European society of Switzerland, but not for a country that needed a steady influx of immigrants to maintain the population. I suggest you read Bancroft’s history and his description of why jus sanguinis citizenship wouldn’t work in the US. You might learn not to be so insufferably arrogant and dismissive:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/03/obots-in-history-george-bancroft/
On any question of any complexity considered by a large number of people, you will find a difference of opinion. And in fact, you can find some Vattelian views on US Citizenship, not the least of which was given by Mr. Collins in the case against Wong Kim Ark. Finding someone to agree with you doesn’t make the case. You cannot cite a loser and expect to win. I remind you of Ballantine’s recent list of Supreme Court citations:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/new-jersey-purpura-appeal-filed/#comment-189818
Whatever helps you sleep at night is all that truly matters.
The first law school in the United States was at William and Mary. It was founded with the help of Virginia Governor Thomas Jefferson, who asked his old mentor George Wythe to be the first law professor.
“Jefferson became governor of Virginia in 1779, and as part of his gubernatorial duties, he joined the Board of Visitors at the College of William and Mary. Jefferson persuaded the Board to engage in a restructuring of the education offered at the College, which included the establishment of a new professorship in law. To fulfill his vision of training lawyers who would exercise public virtue, Jefferson turned to his old friend and mentor, George Wythe. The William and Mary law school was born with a singular vision of training lawyers who would help the new nation successfully complete its remarkable experiment in self-government.”
“Wythe began teaching law at the College in January 1780. His students learned the nuances of the English common law, relying in significant measure on Blackstone’s Commentaries. Wythe also had his students read the work of contemporary political theorists, such as Montesquieu, and classical writers such as Horace and Virgil. But Wythe did far more.”
http://law.wm.edu/about/ourhistory/index.php
One of the Framers Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (of South Carolina) study law at Oxford University where he attended the lectures of Justice Blackstone.
So what. We know the Framers consulted Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England during the Constitutional Convention.
“Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.” August 29, 1787, James Madison, “Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention ”
They were still using Blackstone’s Commentaries late into the Constitutional Convention.
Well, that’s not surprising since South Carolina was a British Colony. Oh, yeah, never mind.
How about Madison arguing to approve the Constitution in the Virginia Ratifying Convention:
“I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand–Blackstone’s Commentaries.” James Madison, 18–19 June 1788
It is simply the case that Vattel was really not cited very much and the Law of Nations was a relatively minor area of law dealing with international affairs. I would bet no birther ever heard of Vattel before this. In fact, I have asked at least 50 Ivy League educated lawyers if they ever heard of him and only one had. He had come across the name when doing research as a clerk but knew little or nothing about him. It is simply a fact that a legal education in the US was based on Blackstone into the 19th century where eventually he would be replaced by the likes of Kent and Story.
There is one perhaps. William Smith of Charleston South Carolina was a delegate South Carolina constitutional convention that ratified the new Constitution. He quoted Vattel in a letter to the editor of the Charleston Gazette in 1787.
Ironically, it was Smith’s opponent, Dr. Ramsay, also a delegate to the South Carolina ratifying convention, writing under the pseudonym Epaminondas, who cites Blackstone but then says:
That long citation comes from Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, “The principles of Natural and Politic Law” (1748).
Here we go again. It’s the “Rise of the Strawman & Red Herring”. I’ve had a good number of my posts blocked because of that and even 1 in this thread responding to Northland10’s racist comment.
The subject matter is about the translation of Vattel’s work into the english speaking world and its use. I tried to stay within that boundry.
Had that previously been extended to other areas there is much I could of pointed out.
Ah! In rereading what I posted I found 2 errors in what I typed. That’s typical for me.
John Lock should be “Locke”, and “It’s a Big Lie to deny…” should be “It’s a Big Lie to say…”
Excuse me!! The President of the United States does NOT need the permission of a long-dead Swiss writer to call himself a true American citizen. Obama owes zip to Vattel. He is a citizen under American law, which has been around since well before that Swiss dude,
Here is what American law always was and still is (whether Vattel would approve or not) starting with the settlement at Jamestown up to today (though the natives who are the TRUE Americans might differ). Johann and Hilda Braun leave Germany and arrive on the docks at New York. Hilda is pregnant and gives birth 10 minutes after they arrive. Though neither Johann nor Hilda are yet citizens, that baby is a citizen of New York before 1790 and of the US after 1790. I defy you to cite me actual cases that say otherwise. The only exceptions were slaves before the Emancipation (and Obama’s ancestors were not slaves), Chinese between the exclusion acts and Wong and native peoples before the various acts of Congress making them citizens. For everyone else born here, they always were citizens and are so today.
As for Vattel and Article II of the US Constitution there is no relationship whatsoever. None. Vattel was a monarchist who would never have suggested an elected President. Nor did he think that the ruler had to be a natural born citizen or even a citizen at all. European countries commonly took monarchs from other countries-The First Hanoverian kings of England didn’t even speak English; Catherine the Great of Prussia ruled Russia; the Austrian Hapsburgs were everywhere. And that was fine with Vattel. So Vattel and the US Constitution couldn’t have been farther apart.
Was that fast enough for you or should I go faster?
As I have mentioned before, the countries of the Western Hemisphere are all jus soli, granting citizenship to any child born in their terriitory. This is true whether they are of English/French origin (Canada), Spanish origin (Mexico, Argentina, Peru) or Portuguese (Brazil). In fact, until recently, Brazil was strictly jus soli, and would not grant ciitizenship to the child of 2 Brazilians born outside the country, unless they were on official government business. I believe they were forced to change the law because some of those children were left stateless depending on the laws of the birth country.
Ike has a WHOLE lot to learn before he shoots his mouth off.
What if an Act of Congress were to be passed which declared Barack Obama Sr. to have been a Foreign Diplomat after the fact? (You left out the bastards of invading armies and diplobrats).
I think there are a few Western Hemisphere exceptions, but not many. My map of jus soli countries doesn’t include Cuba, Haiti, or Surinam. Then of course there are the overseas territories of European countries such as Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Saint Martin.
When will you get around to correcting your major errors of fact and law?
According to this source you are incorrect about Cuba. Their constitution makes citizens of all those born in Cuba unless the parents are officials of a foreign government or an international organization. Castro’s father was from Spain and I don’t know if he naturalized before Fidel was born (Fidel was illegitimate). So take that Cuban birthers!!
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/cuba/constitution/constitution03.php
You are correct on Haiti. A parent has to be a native-born Haitian citizen.
I can’t find much on Surinam.
The French departments of Martinique and Guadeloupe are under French law (they are considered fully part of France).
Silly me. Here I thought the subject matter of this thread was “Bennett satisfied; Birthers cry foul”….
But hey, go on wasting your own time arguing over Vattel. Too bad that ship has sailed and sunk in the courts ever single time…
*yawn*
alrighty then… and what does this have to do with “Bennett satisfied; Birthers cry foul”….?
“Ike has a WHOLE lot to learn before he shoots his mouth off.”
You can dream.
“You might learn not to be so insufferably arrogant and dismissive…”
You can dream too, Doc C.
I did say according to my map” which was the Wikipedia article on jus soli. I wasn’t sure how authoritative it was. However, Article 29 seems to state that there are “requisites and formalities” for those born to temporary foreign residents. That would seem to place a limit beyond simply the children of diplomats. I’m guessing this is why the Center for Immigration Studies (decidedly right wing) doesn’t consider Cuba a jus soli state. It sounds as if the parents would have to legally be in Cuba and perhaps there are additional requirements.
http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship
No you’re wrong, to put it simply. Even a cursory reading of Vattel’s article indicate that the father is just one amongst the set of blood relatives who transmit citizenship as indicated at the beginning of the article. It doesn’t matter which translation you read. It just helps to understand it better if you read a more accurate translation. (And the footnote is there in the second edition; you just don’t know where to look.)
And as folks have pointed out numerous times, (a) Vattel is not relevant anyway; and (b) that article only described Swiss and German rules, not English ones.
I’ve told people that arguing with Mario is a waste of time; arguing with you is even worse because you’re truly an idiot.
Have you considered that I don’t care at all whether Obama is legitimate or not; you don’t see me argue about Minor or WKA or any other US cases or laws which are beyond my sphere of knowledge; I have no horse in your race. If I tell you you’re wrong about Vattel, it’s purely because you are and because I’m an expert.
There has been questions about the footnote to Art. 212 which I have mentioned several times in the past.
It can be found in the 1863 edition — Dr. Conspiracy, will you archive this link so that I won’t have to do this again? (although it took me less than 10 minutes to find it again, proving ad nauseam that Rambo Ike doesn’t know what he’s doing):
http://books.google.fr/books?id=2iie98wAuX0C&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=Chapitre%20XIX&f=false
It’s Note 1 to Article 212 which clearly states that the mother can also transmit citizenship to her child if the parents aren’t legitimately married, showing the evolution of the rights of women; it also states that in England, jus soli takes precedence over this system. You can read it for yourself.
It’s nothing ground-breaking, in the sense that it doesn’t invalidate, just precises and completes what Vattel initially wrote, and confirms what I might dub the “common sense” interpretation, as opposed to the birthers’ crazy interpretation.
Ultimately — and purely as an intellectual speculation — if Obama had been born in Switzerland in the 1780s, from a Swiss mother and a British father, and been raised by his mother in Switzerland, and not been taken away by his father back to England, there is little or no doubt that, if consulted, Vattel would have labeled him an Indigene. In my expert opinion, I can’t possibly imagine how one could read Art. 212 and reach a different conclusion.
This, of course, it wholly irrelevant to your situation, of course.
It’s added under the Bookmarks | Citizenship menu.
Your ass has been handed to you on a platter. You should consider stopping while you’re so very far behind unless humiliating yourself is your casual hobby or some kind of personal obsession.
P.S. “English” is a proper noun and capitalized.
English |ˈi ng (g)li sh | noun
• the West Germanic language of England, now widely used in many varieties throughout the world.
English is the principal language of Great Britain, the U.S., Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries. There are some 400 million native speakers, and it is the medium of communication for many millions more; it is the most widely used second language in the world. It belongs to the West Germanic group of Indo-European languages though its vocabulary has been much influenced by Old Norse, Norman French, and Latin.
And “boundry” is not a word in English unless you’re referring to an uncommon proper noun.
boundary |ˈbound(ə)rē|
noun ( pl. -ries)
a line that marks the limits of an area; a dividing line : the eastern boundary of the wilderness | the boundary between the U.S. and Canada | [as adj. ] a boundary wall.
• (often boundaries) figurative a limit of a subject or sphere of activity : a community without class or political boundaries.
ORIGIN early 17th cent.: variant of dialect bounder, from bound 2 + -er 1 , perhaps on the pattern of limitary.
(wiki sources)
Unlike your preferred and admitted method of intellectual discovery, these are not guesses.
I’m not sure what those laws regarding temporary residents in Cuba are. However, I am confident that there is not a country in the world (other than Birthestan) that would not consider a native-born child of a native-born citizen like Stanley Ann Dunham a birth citizen regardless of who the father was. Even Haiti, which requires parents to be native-born Haitian to pass citizenship, says mother OR father. And, as Lupin has pointed out, Vattel would have considered the Swiss-born child of a British father and a Swiss mother to be an “indigene”, as Switzerland does today.
Essentially, to be a birther is to be against Motherhood. That’s right, against Motherhood. Because it requires devaluing the role of the mother and saying only the father matters. Calling Dr Freud…
As far as the Center for Immigration Studies, I find it odd that they would have the US join the Western Hemisphere Outliers Club, consisting of a Communist dictatorship and the hemisphere’s perennial basket case (I don’t know much about Surinam), rather than being in with the more enlightened states, like Canada, Chile, Brazil and Argentina.
What Rambo Ike fails to grasp (amongst many other things) is that it is not, as we say in French restaurants, a cheese OR dessert menu.
To carry on with my purely theoretical example, young Swissbama raised by his Swiss mother in Switzerland would have been undoubtedly labeled an Indigene; but let’s suppose that his British father had taken him, with or without his mother’s consent, to England…
I suspect –others here more familiar than I with old British law will check me on this — that he could have been recognized as a British citizen while born in Switzerland based on his father’s citizenship and assuming of course that the father would have recognized him as his offspring.
The point I’m making is that both scenarios were possible even under Vattel’s theories, and one does not exclude the other. What concerns us here is what would have happened to Swissbama in Switzerland, not hypothetically in England.
This is why I keep saying Vattel is no help to the birthers’ cause whatsoever, even if he was relevant, which he isn’t.
Thanks for the interesting link, although I’m not prepared to elevate William Smith to the status of “Founder.”
I wrote before: Rambo and all the others who cite Emerich de Vattel never heard of him, until Donofrio pulled him out of a dustbin. They never read one page, much less one chapter. They are parroting what they have read on sites written by malcontents.
I’m curious what Rambo’s degree is in. Care to tell us?
M.W.:
You’re right about Rambo’s rear being platterized, but I doubt he can feel humiliation, as he lacks the capacity for self-critical thought. We’ve all seen his type . . . shopping at Walmart in his pajamas and Crocs, with a XXXL t-shirt that says “I’m with Stupid.”
Lupin: The very idea of having to choose cheese OR dessert is un-French and should be proscribed by law.
With $150 of frozen dinners on the conveyor, a box of roach traps, a fistful of lottery tickets and a fixed glare of quiet, simmering desperation.
…that a black man, with an Arabic Muslim name is president, and most likely will be re-elected, despite what some websites have told him about some brilliant man from the 18th century, in Switzerland.
Intrade has Obama at 55%. I believe Obama will be re-elected, despite Aipac. I’m J Street.
I’m glad you qualified that. I wouldn’t want to think you were describing this guy
I might just have to come over and pee on your rug if you were.