It seems that the answer to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President may just have been right under everyone’s noses. Unless repealed in a subsequent Amendment, ratified by the States, the Constitution (1) requires the President of the United States to be a “natural-born citizen”, and (2) defines that requirement.
Many scholars have said that “natural-born” is not defined in the Constitution, but that we must look to the laws that subsequently developed. However, this is a wrong premise. The Constitution actually does define the requirement, by incorporation of the Laws of Nations. Vattel’s Laws of Nations is referenced in the Constitution, and through legalese, the precepts of the Laws of Nations are incorporated into the Constitution.
Greg Goss wrote:
The Constitution and de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, §1:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, § 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
288 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 8, 2009 at 7:21 am
HistorianDude
The “de Vattel definition” of “natural-born citizen “did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed.
1. De Vattel wrote in French, not English. As such there is no evidence that the phrase “natural-born citizen” ever was a product of either his lips or pen. What he actually wrote was, “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
2. The first English translation was published in 1759, in London. It translates “Les Naturels ou indigènes…” to read “The natives or indigenes…” The phrase “natural-born citizens” is nowhere to be found. And the currently intuitive “naturels” is translated to “natives,” while “indigenes” is left completely untranslated.
3. There were 3 different English editions of the work published prior to 1787 and therefore available to the Framers of the Constitution. They were London:1759, London:1760, and New York:1787. All of them translated “Les Naturels ou indigènes…” to read “The natives or indigenes…”
4. Additional English editions were printed in Dublin:1792, London:1793, and New York:1796. All of them translated “Les Naturels ou indigènes…” to read “The natives or indigenes…”
5. The first appearance of the phrase “natural-born citizens” appears in the London:1797 edition, and it is a translation of the French word “indigènes,” not the French “naturels.” This was ten years after the Constitution was written, and 30 years after de Vattel’s death.
6. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, the “de Vattel” definition did not exist.
7. There was a single definition of “natural-born citizen/subject” that existed in 1787 and was available to the Framers, and it was that of English Common Law. That definition was exclusively tied to place of birth, the citizenship status of parents was irrelevant.
Your argument here, to be true, would require the Framers to be capable of time travel. While they were undoubtedly gifted men, being able to rend the time-space continuum was probably among the things they were good at.
Regards,
The Dude
August 8, 2009 at 8:45 am
JAMES
I am following the discourse on this chapter of the controversy, so I appreciate your input. How simple it would be if the buffoons advising the President would simply say “Let’s put this all too rest…. it isn’t making a mockery of the RNC like we thought, so lets just shut it up once and for all”. After all, the POTUS had no problem telling us to shut up yetsterday, while he fixes the “mess”!
August 8, 2009 at 9:50 am
HistorianDude
I am unclear on what you are asking here. If the argument you are making regards de Vattel (the only thing addressed in your post), what are you suggesting the President do? If you are suggesting he release the long form birth certificate, that would have nothing to do with the “de Vattel definition” at all.
You appear to be confusing a couple of different arguments here. It’s difficult for me to respond when I’m not sure what you’re asking.
August 9, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Follow the Constitution
Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens =
The Natural or indigenous are those born in the country of Parens Citizens
The key being TWO parents that are both citizens! So regardless of whether the actual words “Natural Born Citizen” were used, it does state to be a natural citizen you must be born of citizen parents. Plural as in both parents must be citizens. Obama’s father was not a US citizen, therefore he is not eligible as defind by the US Constitution. This is as clear as day!
August 10, 2009 at 6:58 am
HistorianDude
Excuse me? It does not say “natural citizen” in either French or English. The french word for citizen is “citoyen,” and you will not that it is used only once in that sentence. And not where you are pretending it is used.
October 14, 2009 at 2:00 am
Hinoema
Also, this text speaks in great detail about the rights and responsibilities of the ruler, or Sovereign, referred to as either Prince or King, but not once have I, in my reading, seen mention of any office called ‘President’. Unless the Founders were establishing a Monarchy, I don’t think this book is an appropriate guide for determining the requirements for being a President.
November 15, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Irene
Actually, you are quite mistaken. Ben Franklin, who took part in writing the Constitution, spoke French.
In December of 1776 Franklin was dispatched to France as commissioner
for the United States. He lived in a home in the Parisian suburb of Passy.
Franklin remained in France until 1785.
In France, the adaptable Franklin “learned the language” and displayed an uncanny knack at politics and persuasion, which led scholar Leo Lemay
to call Franklin “the most essential and successful American diplomat of all time.”
In 1775, Franklin observed, the importance of the Law of Nations, on the Founding Fathers and he then ordered 3 copies of the latest editions. The Library Company of Philadelphia which holds one of the three copies, lists the 1775 reference to this book, as “Le droit des gens,” from the publishing house of Chez E. van Harrevelt in Amsterdam, Holland, with a personal note to Franklin from the editor of this edition, C.G.F. Dumas. The fact that this particular volume that Franklin ordered is in French is significant, for at that time French was considered by the “family of nations” to be the diplomatic language, and the 1775 edition was considered the most exact reference of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers did not exclusively use the English translation, but relied upon the French original. On December 9th of 1775, Franklin wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
DEBUNKED!
November 16, 2009 at 9:25 am
historiandude
Irene:
He also wrote a pamphlet on how to choose a mistress, and another on how to pass gas in public. Ben Franklin was an accomplished and eccentric fellow who also rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ. There are any number of interesting facts we can recount… all of which are red herring in light of this thread.
The simple unassailable point remains that de Vattel did not include the phrase “natural born citizen” in his book in any language, and no one (to include Ben Franklin) ever translated it that way until after the Constitution had been written and both Ben Franklin and Emmerich de Vattel were dead. Therefore, de Vattel cannot possibly have had any influence over Article II of the United States Constitution.
At the time of the Constitution’s writing, there existed a single definition of “natural born citizen” in the English language, and the definition was that of English Common Law. Anyone born on American soil who was not the child of foreign diplomats or an occupying Army is a natural born American citizen regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
I hope you have noticed that this definition was reasserted just last week in the court’s decision in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana. Quoting from the decision:
Click to access 11120903.ebb.pdf
May 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm
El Gato Gordo
So Dude, what then is the meaning of indigènes? Can’t be natives, since you and the other translators have used that for Naturels?
The formulae was A or B is C. Where “C” is “person’s born in the country of parents who are citizens”. Now “A” had been identified as “Naturels/Natives”, while “B” is “indigènes/?????” something.
English-French dictionaries from the period show “natruels” is best translated as “natives”, in the context of the paragraph. However that leaves “indigènes”, which can also be translated as “natives”, or as “naturals”, and since “natives” has already been used, we are left with naturals” The way the words are used, implies they mean the same thing. Many early American works/court decisions etc, also use the words “Natrual Born” and “natives” interchangeably. Our meaning of “natives” has drifted to “born in the country.
May 11, 2010 at 3:19 pm
HistorianDude
Surely you jest? Why “indigenous,” of course. But why do you imagine for a second that it can’t still also be natives? Even De Vattel himself is saying here that they both mean the came thing. He gives them both a single definition for god’s sake.
Very good. Your problem is that neither A nor B is “natural born citizen.”
Absolutely.
Implies? Oh Fat Cat, that’s just funny. It implies nothing. It comes right out and explicitly says that they mean the same thing.
Or not.
May 14, 2010 at 12:55 am
DraggingCanoe
The Founders translated naturels to natural born.
May 15, 2010 at 8:37 am
HistorianDude
Where?
May 12, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Randy
Pure B.S…it looks and sounds like you’ve been time traveling to that mythodical obama-land that will never exist. It’s terrible when our founding fathers are right, isn’t it. You can’t follow the constitution any better than that guy sitting in the W.H.
May 12, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Randy
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html
July 1, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Jjan
So then, by your argument, the first verse of Genesis “In the beginning” can’t be true because it was originally written in Hebrew?
August 8, 2009 at 8:57 am
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
Do you have a link to the post where you copied and pasted this from?
I’d like to read the whole article.
August 8, 2009 at 9:09 am
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
I believe that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was that a “natural born citizen” was someone who was born on the land of parents who were citizens.
Those born on the land of parents who were not citizens would be defined as “native born citizens”.
I can’t fathom simply being born on the land would constitute being a “natural born citizen”.
But the COURTS should decide this, that’s what the Judicial Branch of Government is for.
Sadly, for those of us who are asking these questions, the COURTS have not seen fit to allow the question to be heard.
I sense a crack in the armour though. There is a hearing to be held in California where a Judge is actually going to allow the evidence to be argued, and with the Officer whose orders were revoked when he questioned Obama’s eligibility, and subsequently fired from his civilian job (which gives him STANDING on the Obama eligibility issue, because he was actually “harmed” by not being able to argue his case).
These are just my opinions, but it seems to me that with the fight by Obama to keep his documents sealed, there is SOMETHING in there that he doesn’t want us to see.
What other explaination is there?
Oh yeah, “Because he doesn’t want too.”
What a bogus argument.
August 8, 2009 at 9:54 am
HistorianDude
Bystander,
Your comments require that there be a distinction between “native born citizens” and “natural born citizens.” But even de Vattel (if we use the translation preferred by the “Ineligibility movement”) says that they mean the same thing. So, by the way, do multiple Supreme Court decisions.
As you recall, that translation is “The natives, or natural-born, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” If we accept the most favorable translation to the movement, then native and natural born mean the same thing.
August 8, 2009 at 9:43 am
HistorianDude
It’s not an article. It is my original post.
August 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
Link the Supreme Court decisions that distinguishing who is a “natural born citizen”.
I don’t think you can find one.
Citizenship decisions, but NOT “natural born citizen” decisions.
August 8, 2009 at 4:03 pm
HistorianDude
http://openjurist.org/169/us/649
The case is UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK (1898)
“[E]very child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
“‘Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
August 11, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Follow the Constitution
In 1898, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the Supreme Court reexamined the “citizenship-by-birthplace-alone” theory, but did not decide whether it applied to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen, but did not rule that he was a natural born citizen.
Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States sometime between 1868 and 1873. When he was born, his parents were Chinese immigrants and were permanent legal residents of the United States; but they were not U.S. citizens. In the Wong Kim Ark (1898) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a U.S. citizen, even though his parents were not.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. (Page 169 U.S. 705, Wong Kim Ark, 1898)
================================
The Wong Kim Ark case does not directly apply to Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility, for two reasons:
The Supreme Court did not rule that Mr. Ark was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen. Even if Barack Obama’s circumstances at birth were identical to those of Mr. Ark, the Wong Kim Ark decision would, at most, only convey citizenship to the President. It would not convey natural born citizenship, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office.
Mr. Ark was granted citizenship because, at the time of Mr. Ark’s birth, his parents had “permanent domicile and residence” in the United States and was “carrying on business” in the United States. President Obama’s father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident and he was not doing business in the U.S. He was merely visiting the U.S. temporarily, presumably on a student visa, for the purpose of getting an American education.
=======================
In 1797 (a decade after the Constitution was adopted), the English translation of Emmerich de Vattel’s, Law of Nations was revised to include the term “natural born citizen”. The revised English translation helps to clarify the meaning of “natural born citizen”, as English-speaking people generally understood it towards the end of the 18th Century:
The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. … 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. (Vattel, Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19)
In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:
…it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
In Minor v. Happersett, the Supreme Court expressed “doubts” regarding the citizenship of U.S.-born children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. In Wong Kim Ark, 1898, the Supreme Court examined these “doubts”, but did not render any decision or ruling pertaining to natural born citizenship. The Court ruled that Mr. Ark was a citizen; it did not rule that he was a natural born citizen. To date, the Supreme Court has never answered the question as to whether natural born citizenship extends to children of non-citizen parents.
=================================
Every U.S. President who was born after 1787 — except President Barack Obama and President Chester Arthur — was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The general public did not learn until recently that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election is the first time in American history that America knowingly elected a post-1787-born President whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
When Chester Arthur ran for Vice President and later President, he told outright lies and burned historical records, to conceal the fact that, although he was born in the United States, his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. citizen at the time of his (President Arthur’s) birth. If “natural born citizen” means anyone born in the United States, regardless of parental citizenship, why did Chester Arthur go through so much trouble to convince the public that his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born? It is inconceivable that Chester Arthur would have taken such extraordinary measures, unless he believed that his birth to non-citizen parents made him ineligible to serve as VP or President
========================
The Wong Kim Ark decision was written by Justice Horace Gray. Justice Gray was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur. At the time, the general public did not know that, when Chester Arthur was born, his father was a British subject and not a U.S. citizen; therefore Arthur was not a U.S. citizen at birth under then-existing laws.
In Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, the plaintiff (Cort Wrotnowski) argued that the Wong Kim Ark decision was not based on an impartial objective reading of history and the law, but was designed to grant U.S. citizenship retroactively to Chester Arthur, so as to legitimize Chester Arthur’s presidency and thereby legitimize Horace Gray’s own appointment to the Supreme Court
August 12, 2009 at 11:33 am
HistorianDude
I can only reply by referring you again to the direct quotation from Wong Kim Ark:
There is nothing ambiguous in ot. It explicitly says that “The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, AND CONTINUED TO PREVAIL UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED.”
And it also clearly says what that rule was:
“[E]very child born in England OF ALIEN PARENTS was a NATURAL-BORN SUBJECT, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
There is no wiggle room there. No ambiguity, no refusal to define the rule (a al Minor v. Happersett), no tap dancing. Just a statement of the rule itself and the affirmation that it was the rule under the Constitution as established.
So your cut and paste does not help you all.
July 20, 2012 at 2:58 pm
John Henry
169 U.S. 649 – United States v. Wong Kim Ark
http://openjurist.org/169/us/649
118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
August 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
You are commenting on a decision that happened long before the immigration “boom”, and it is my opinion that this issue should be looked at again. This decision is over 110 years old. It is also my understanding that this decision was about “citizenship”, and not “natural born citizenship”.
I’m not sure that the US V Kim decision does much to bolster your point.
Although I have not read the decision (a lawyer I am NOT, thankfully), because I have seen this decision used AGAINST the notion that being born on US soil is all it takes to be a “natural born citizen”.
It is my view that this decision should be affirmed, or modified as the COURT sees fit.
Bottom line the way I see it, is that we SHOULD NOT have a President who has allegiance, whether through parents, or location of birth within another country.
Besides, they haven’t after a whole week, been able to determine whether the Kenyan Birth Registry document is a forgery or a genuine document. Why is that?
These questions of Obama’s eligibility are legitimate. He should release the documents, and put this issue to rest.
August 9, 2009 at 6:45 am
HistorianDude
Aren’t we BOTH commenting on a decision that happened long before the immigration “boom?” I.e. the framing of the US Constitution? Certainly, if your position that the Constitution as written is flawed, and that we need an amendment to fix it, that would be a worthy discussion. But it would do little to settle the issue of what the Framer’s had in mind in 1787, and whether or not President Obama is a natural born American citizen.
I would suggest that, lawyer or not, you actually read that decision. It includes a very comprehensive historical review of the nature of American citizenship. And not only does it “bolster my point” it explicitly makes my point. Natural born citizenship is determined by place of birth, not by citizenship of parents.
You write, “Bottom line the way I see it, is that we SHOULD NOT have a President who has allegiance, whether through parents, or location of birth within another country.” And certainly, this opinion is widely shared by member of the “Ineligibility Movement.” I am certain that I too could come up with a half dozen or so things that I believe SHOULD NOT be possible, and yet are absolutely possible in spite of my personal viewpoint. I am not, however, of the mistaken impression that the Supreme Court is obligated in any way to assuage my personal dissonance when there is apparently no point of law requiring their attention.
You also write, “Besides, they haven’t after a whole week, been able to determine whether the Kenyan Birth Registry document is a forgery or a genuine document. Why is that?”
I’m not sure who the “they” are that you are referring to, but the Kenyan Document was conclusively debunked by “Obots” within hours of it’s release. There certainly are a large number of “Ineligibility Movement” members who still consider it authentic, but after the revelation that it was actually just a brilliant political satire, such a position is simply untenable.
Why is that? It is because the “Ineligibility Movement” is not based on law, evidence or reason. And since we are “a nation of laws and not of men” it is not possible to satisfy that movement’s objectives by challenging the President’s citizenship status by way of Article II.
August 9, 2009 at 8:11 am
Greg Goss
If your citizenship is determined by a law then you are not a natural born citizen.
August 10, 2009 at 5:35 am
HistorianDude
I’m not sure that’s exactly correct. After all, the Constitution is itself law, right? Both jus soli and jus sanguinis are “law,” even if common law. I struggle to imagine how it would be possible for citizenship to NOT be determined by a law.
What I am certainly clear on is that a naturalized citizen cannot be a natural born citizen, because they become citizens through a specific individual ACT of law, having originally NOT BEEN citizens at all. And the distinction between naturalized and born is the only distinction the constitution makes within the general class of citizen. There is no other.
August 20, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Ed
That is correct. A natural born citizen is a citizen by the laws of nature and not of man. If you are born in the US to parents who are both US citizens, then you do not need a human law to say that you are a US citizen. You are obviously and “naturally” a citizen — you are a natural born citizen. Furthermore, no foreign nation can have any claim (either by place of birth or citizenship of the parents) on a natural born citizen of the US.
August 21, 2009 at 6:09 am
JAMES
unless you give up that citizenship
August 21, 2009 at 6:40 am
HistorianDude
Nonsense.
All citizenship is governed by “laws of man.” There are no exceptions. The “laws of nature” are rather hostile to the very concept.
At the time the Constitution was framed, there existed a single definition of natural born citizen and that is the definition provided by British Common Law; i.e. born on national soil. Full stop.
There was no other.
The “requirement” for two citizenship parents is contradicted by history. It is concept that cannot be found in any discussion of natural born citizenship prior to 1797… or ten years AFTER the Constitution had already been set in stone.
August 9, 2009 at 8:15 am
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
I don’t know where you get your information, but the document HAS NOT been proven to be a forgery.
From what I understand the document that they say the fake Obama document is based on, was actually put up AFTER the Obama document surfaced, and it was put up on a site that hadn’t been edited for two years.
The jury is still out on the Kenyan Registry of Birth.
However, you seem to miss the points of
1. Whether Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, changed his name, took him to Indonesia, where Barry Soetoro became an Indonesian citizen.
2. Whether Obama recieved aid designated for foreign students when he attended Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard, when he was an ADULT, which could prove his ineligibility.
3. Whether Obama used an Indonesian passport when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, again when he was an adult, and would be proof positive that he renounced his US citizenship.
or
4. Whether Obama registered with the Selective Service in the time frame dictated when the registration law was passed. The penalty for doing that is ineligibility to serve in ANY position in the Executive Branch, or ineligibility to be employed by the Postal Service.
All of these arguments are based on LAW, evidence (or lack there of), and reason.
But Obama’s place of birth has not been proven with documentation given the laws of Hawaii at the time of his birth.
Legitimate questions by those of us who want our Constitution upheld.
As far as your “the Constitution was written long before the US v Kim decision”, you are right. However, the Constitution also has written in to it a provision to where the Supreme Court is to interpret what the meaning of the words are. The Constitution is a living document, and hence it evolves as we go along.
Rowe v Wade is a good example. There are people who worry that the Supreme Court will overturn that decision. This tells me that there are legitimate arguments from BOTH sides. THAT decision came down in the early 70’s.
Same goes with the US v Kim and the eligibility of our President.
The questions won’t go unanswered. Our voice is growing every day. IF Obama runs for a second term, this issue will be front and center, along with EVERY campaign promise Obama has broken.
All Obama has to do is release the documents and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is eligible to serve as our President.
But to your side, releasing his COLB is proof enough.
It’s not proof enough for me, and many hundreds of thousands of others.
August 9, 2009 at 10:27 am
HistorianDude
Bystander:
YOU WROTE: “I don’t know where you get your information, but the document HAS NOT been proven to be a forgery.”
RESPONSE: But of course it has. The largest newspaper in Kenya ran an article several days ago in which they showed what the real equivalent Kenyan document looked like compared to the hoax. There was no similarity between them. You can see that article here:
The only similar documents that have been found are all Australian, to include the specific actual certificate that the hoaxer used as his or her model.
YOU WROTE: “From what I understand the document that they say the fake Obama document is based on, was actually put up AFTER the Obama document surfaced, and it was put up on a site that hadn’t been edited for two years.”
RESPONSE: You have been misinformed. The document was already on that site before those two years even started. But more important is the actual posting by the hoaxer. By showing that he had the original, high definition version of the photograph Dr. Taitz posted on her site and offered the court, it is proven that her image came from the hoaxer and no one else.
The jury is not “still out.” It has been proven to be another example of the long tradition of American political hoaxes that go back at least as far as Benjamin Franklin.
YOU WROTE: “However, you seem to miss the points of
1. Whether Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama, changed his name, took him to Indonesia, where Barry Soetoro became an Indonesian citizen.
2. Whether Obama recieved aid designated for foreign students when he attended Occidental, Columbia, or Harvard, when he was an ADULT, which could prove his ineligibility.
3. Whether Obama used an Indonesian passport when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, again when he was an adult, and would be proof positive that he renounced his US citizenship.
or
4. Whether Obama registered with the Selective Service in the time frame dictated when the registration law was passed. The penalty for doing that is ineligibility to serve in ANY position in the Executive Branch, or ineligibility to be employed by the Postal Service.”
RESPONSE: I did not miss these points. This is the first time you have raised them. I cannot “miss” what was never raised. So… in the order you originally provided:
1. Ignoring that there is no evidence that Obama was ever adopted by Lolo Soetoro or became an Indonesian citizen, even if that were true it would not matter. Under American law, specifically the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act that was in force during the time of which we speak, there is nothing Obama’s mother or step-father can have done, to include adoption, that would cause Obama to lose his status as a natural born American citizen.
2. Again, ignoring that there is no evidence that Obama received any foreign aid at all for his education, under American law it would not have made him ineligible for the Presidency even were it true. The eligibility requirements for POTUS do not mention college or how it is paid for.
3. Again, there is no evidence that Obama has ever traveled on any passport other than an American one. Anybody with an American passport could travel to Pakistan in 1981 with no problem whatsoever.
4. Obama’s Selective Service registration forms are public record, having been obtained directly from the SSS and released under an FOIA request. They show that he registered within the time frame required by law.
YOU WROTE: “As far as your ‘the Constitution was written long before the US v Kim decision’, you are right. However, the Constitution also has written in to it a provision to where the Supreme Court is to interpret what the meaning of the words are. The Constitution is a living document, and hence it evolves as we go along.”
RESPONSE: The Supreme Court does not appear interested in revisiting this issue. KIM WONG ARK stands. You really should read it. After all, you were the one who asked for the link.
YOU WROTE: “The questions won’t go unanswered. Our voice is growing every day. IF Obama runs for a second term, this issue will be front and center, along with EVERY campaign promise Obama has broken.”
RESPONSE: If true, wonderful. You can then exercise the very direct, powerful and effective tool that the Constitution has provided you to express your position on this issue. You can choose to vote for somebody else.
YOU WROTE: “All Obama has to do is release the documents and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is eligible to serve as our President.”
RESPONSE: Sadly, you and I both know that this is not precisely true. The “ineligibility” movement” does not depend on evidence, it never has. In your own list above your arguments depend entirely on creative speculation, and have not a shred of evidence in their favor. But we are a nation of laws, not men. We need evidence, not speculation.
YOU WROTE: “But to your side, releasing his COLB is proof enough.
It’s not proof enough for me, and many hundreds of thousands of others.”
RESPONSE: People will always have different standards as to what is “enough.” That is why we eliminate the potential for controversy by formalizing our legal standards ahead of time. Laws are not just about punishment. They are also about guidance, and standards, and guidelines. They tell us what is “enough.”
It does not matter what you find enough, or what I find enough. It depends exclusively on what the law already says is enough.
You can find it here:
Click to access 86755.pdf
You will find that his COLB is enough.
August 9, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Follow the Constitution
Well it wasn’t enough for the State of HI who is the same State that issues the COLB. HI homeland security would not accept their own COLB pertaining to HI born naturals, but it is suppose to be good enough for everyone else, when HI itself requires a copy of the vault long form BC??? LOL
BTW, the State of HI seems to be going through a lot of trouble to cover up this issue. They have recently updated their web site to now state they will accept a COLB after this was brought to light. I have a screen shot of the original version that shows they wouldn’t accept it.
Also, Obama went to kindergarden in HI and as everyone knows when you first enroll in public school you have to provide a copy of your BC. Since that was a public school his records there are attainable through the freedom of information act. But when they tried to obtain those records….low and behold! They LOST them! Imagine that! Out of all the records and years of keeping them, when it came to Obama’s records they were suddenly lost and can’t be found!
So we have State losing schools records, changing policies on accepting their own COLB after never accepting that for decades in the past, and officials making slick comments in an attempt to mislead the people by stating they have veried his vault copy does exist in accordence to State laws! (((((WOW)))))!!!
But ya’ll just sit back and accept anything they say as being “good enough”! LOL
August 10, 2009 at 6:56 am
HistorianDude
Follow the Constitution:
YOU WROTE: “Well it wasn’t enough for the State of HI who is the same State that issues the COLB. HI homeland security would not accept their own COLB pertaining to HI born naturals, but it is suppose to be good enough for everyone else, when HI itself requires a copy of the vault long form BC??? LOL”
RESPONSE: Ignoring that this is no longer true (and actually was not even true before they changed their web page), so? When a police officer pulls you over for speeding and asks for your license, would you give him your passport? Of course not. Does that mean your passport is inadequate for its actual purpose? Of course not.
Different documents serve different purposes. A COLB is absolute legal proof of citizenship. It is not absolute legal proof of Hawaiian blood.
Different purposes… different documents.
YOU WROTE: “Also, Obama went to kindergarden in HI and as everyone knows when you first enroll in public school you have to provide a copy of your BC. Since that was a public school his records there are attainable through the freedom of information act. But when they tried to obtain those records….low and behold! They LOST them! Imagine that! Out of all the records and years of keeping them, when it came to Obama’s records they were suddenly lost and can’t be found!”
REPONSE: Public School records are not attainable under the FOIA. You have been misinformed.
So please, point to exactly who “they” are who tried to obtain the records and the response showing that the records were lost. In my own search, I can only find “Ineligibility movement” members making the claim, but to this point I have never seen anything to indicate that this is more than an Internet rumor.
YOU WROTE: “So we have State losing schools records, changing policies on accepting their own COLB after never accepting that for decades in the past, and officials making slick comments in an attempt to mislead the people by stating they have veried his vault copy does exist in accordence to State laws! (((((WOW)))))!!!”
RESPONSE: I am curious. What exactly do you find “slick” about the authoritative statement by the Hawaii Director of Health that, “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”
It is a simple declarative statement. Not a lot of wiggle room.
August 10, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Follow the Constitution
RESPONSE: I am curious. What exactly do you find “slick” about the authoritative statement by the Hawaii Director of Health that, “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”
It is a simple declarative statement. Not a lot of wiggle room.
Really??? And exactly on what basis does the Hawaii Director of Health base this on as being fact?
I am assume you mean it is based on seeing Obama’s vault copy birth certificate? So which version would that be based on giving the fact there are 5 different ways one could obtain a vault copy birth certificate from the State of Hawaii from anyone born in that time frame? Only one being a version that has a doctor or midwife listed and the hospital listed as the place of birth. Is THIS the version they have on file OR is it based on one of the other four versions??? Any of the 5 versions could be used to state he was born in HI but only one of those 5 versions would be absolute proof. The others could all have been easily obtained by providing false information. So which version is this based off of to make that claim?
August 11, 2009 at 8:53 am
HistorianDude
Follow:
YOU WROTE:”Really??? And exactly on what basis does the Hawaii Director of Health base this on as being fact?”
RESPONSE: She told you right in the statement; “the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health.” In her previous statement she was even more specific and said it was “Obama’s original birth certificate.”
YOU WROTE:I am assume you mean it is based on seeing Obama’s vault copy birth certificate?
RESPONSE: No assumption necessary. She stated that rather explicitly.
YOU WROTE: “So which version would that be based on giving the fact there are 5 different ways one could obtain a vault copy birth certificate from the State of Hawaii from anyone born in that time frame? Only one being a version that has a doctor or midwife listed and the hospital listed as the place of birth. Is THIS the version they have on file OR is it based on one of the other four versions??? Any of the 5 versions could be used to state he was born in HI but only one of those 5 versions would be absolute proof.”
RESPONSE: Sadly you are simply and factually in error.
First off, there is no such thing as “absolute proof” of anything. That is why “absolute proof” is not a legal standard for anything in any courtroom, or in any law. Not one of your alleged “5 versions” provides “absolute proof” of anything.
Second, the legal standard for what constitutes a birth certificate that is “proof of citizenship at birth” has been defined by US State Department Regulations for decades. It can be found here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
The relevant part reads as follows:
————————————–
7 FAM 1119 PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
(TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)
a. To establish a claim to U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States:
A person born in the United States in a place where official records of birth were kept
at the time of his birth shall submit with the application for a passport a birth certificate under the seal of the official custodian of records. [22 CFR 51.43.]
b. The birth certificate must:
(1) Show the applicant’s full name, and date and place of birth;
(2) Have a filing date within 1 year of the birth; and
(3) Bear the signature of the official custodian of birth records and the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the issuing office.
——————————————-
The COLB itself already meets this standard, and so legal proof is established regardless of which of the alleged “5 versions” was it’s source.
YOU WROTE: “The others could all have been easily obtained by providing false information. So which version is this based off of to make that claim?”
RESPONSE: It is based on a version that meets the legal requirement for proof of citizenship at birth since it:
(1) Shows Barack Obama’s full name, and date and place of birth.
(2) Has a filing date within 1 year of the birth, and
(3) Bears the signature of the official custodian of birth records and the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the issuing office.
August 10, 2009 at 3:41 am
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
Sorry, but I simply don’t buy your “article”. Looks fake to me. Something put together by someone over at the “DU”, or “Yes to Democracy”, if you ask me.
Of course the document released isn’t his original birth certificate, it’s not even a birth certificate. Like Obama’s COLB, it is the document that was available at the time. If requesting evidence of birth, then this is the document that you would receive, unless you specifically asked for a copy of your original birth certificate. Austrailia was also a Birtish Colony, so it only goes to reason that their Government documents would look similar. Why does the author of the article question the EF Lavendar on the Obama document, but you don’t question the Lavendar on the Austrailian document?
As far as your “the Austrailian document was there two years ago” argument, that’s not what I have read, what I read is that it was edited in AFTER Obama’s document was released.
As for your other arguments,
There is evidence that Lolo adopted “Barry”, because his school entrance document (which Obamam DID NOT release), states that he was an Indonesian citizen, and the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers mention an adult child. IF Lolo hadn’t adopted Barry, then there would be no need to mention him in the divorce papers.
IF Obama recieved aid for college, and that aid was reserved for foreign students, and Obama stated that he was “Indonesian” on the documents (we don’t know, because Obama won’t authorize their release), then this is evidence that Obama renounced his US citizenship AS AN ADULT.
The same arguement goes for the passport issue. You state:
“Again, there is no evidence that Obama has ever traveled on any passport other than an American one.”
Where is your evidence that Obama traveled using an “American” passport? There is none, only assumption. Obama won’t release his passport information.
His Selective Service (which again, Obama didn’t release) document has also been researched and found to be a fake:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
I have heard NOTHING questioning this assesment of Obama Selective Service form.
There is evidence on both sides. What this does is put the ball in the laps of THE COURTS.
Let the evidence be heard, and let’s get a decision.
This should have happened BEFORE Obama became President.
August 10, 2009 at 6:31 am
HistorianDude
Bystander:
YOU WROTE: “Sorry, but I simply don’t buy your “article”. Looks fake to me. Something put together by someone over at the “DU”, or “Yes to Democracy”, if you ask me.”
RESPONSE: Then perhaps you should have checked. The article is from page three of the August 6th Daily Nation, Kenya’s largest newspaper. You can find the entire paper here:
http://dn.nationmedia.com/DN/DN/2009/08/06/INDEX.SHTML
YOU WROTE: “Of course the document released isn’t his original birth certificate, it’s not even a birth certificate. Like Obama’s COLB, it is the document that was available at the time. If requesting evidence of birth, then this is the document that you would receive, unless you specifically asked for a copy of your original birth certificate. Austrailia was also a Birtish Colony, so it only goes to reason that their Government documents would look similar. Why does the author of the article question the EF Lavendar on the Obama document, but you don’t question the Lavendar on the Austrailian document? “
RESPONSE: Actually, you are in error here a couple of ways.
First, (and I speak here as a Family Historian with extensive experience in government vital records archives in several states and foreign countries) the United States is almost unique in that our original birth records are birth certificates. In most countries (Australia and Kenya both included) the original birth record is an entry in a bound register, not a certificate. They are “Birth Registries,” and not “Birth Certificates.” In those countries, ONLY the extracted and certified COPIES are “birth certificates.” They certify the birth, while the original record merely records it. So the Bomford document actually is a birth certificate, while the “original” document it copied is not.
You will also note that in spite of Kenya and Australia both having been British colonies, their documents actually do not look similar at all. There is no resemblance at all between them.
Third, the article does not question the Australian document because it does not even appear to be aware of it. The article was by Kenyans pointing out that the document was a fake simply on its face, even without knowing what it was originally modeled after.
YOU WROTE: “As far as your “the Austrailian document was there two years ago” argument, that’s not what I have read, what I read is that it was edited in AFTER Obama’s document was released.”
RESPONSE: Again I suggest that you depend less on rumor and repetition and actually do some of your own reading in primary sources. The web pages in question can accessed in the historical caches of any number of web services. What you will find is that the document was on that web page since at least October of 2006.
YOU WROTE: “There is evidence that Lolo adopted “Barry”, because his school entrance document (which Obamam DID NOT release), states that he was an Indonesian citizen, and the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers mention an adult child. IF Lolo hadn’t adopted Barry, then there would be no need to mention him in the divorce papers.”
RESPONSE: Again, I must point out that nowhere on the school registration form or the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers is any adoption mentioned. Not even once. In the divorce, the Judge’s order does not even acknowledge Obama’s existence. Whatever it is that you believe these documents are evidence of, an adoption is not on the short list. And again, by law (specifically the 1952 Immigration and nationality Act) it would not have mattered anyway.
YOU WROTE: “IF Obama recieved aid for college, and that aid was reserved for foreign students, and Obama stated that he was “Indonesian” on the documents (we don’t know, because Obama won’t authorize their release), then this is evidence that Obama renounced his US citizenship AS AN ADULT.”
RESPONSE: There are three wild speculations in that paragraph. None of them have any evidence in their favor. But that said, even if all three were true, it is not evidence whatsoever that Obama renounced his US citizenship. Only an actual document of renunciation made to an official of the US Department of State, a Consular Official, or a sitting judge (none of which would be in his school records) would provide such evidence.
YOU WROTE: “Where is your evidence that Obama traveled using an “American” passport? There is none, only assumption. Obama won’t release his passport information.”
RESPONSE: I don’t need any evidence in that regard. I am not the one making the extraordinary accusation. If your attempt here to shift the burden of proof to me is a concession that you have no evidence for your claim that he traveled under an Indonesian passport, I am perfectly content to leave it at that.
YOU WROTE: “His Selective Service (which again, Obama didn’t release) document has also been researched and found to be a fake:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/
I have heard NOTHING questioning this assesment of Obama Selective Service form.”
RESPONSE: Then you haven’t looked very hard. It is very clear that you are depending on others to teach you what to say on this issue, but that is not holding you in good stead.
First, note that even Ms. Schlussel admits that the documents came directly from the SSS themselves. So you are accusing the US Government (not the Obama campaign) of faking their own official documents. That is a heck of an accusation that bursts any boundary that might have existed between the “Ineligibility Movement” and a full blown conspiracy theory.
But more directly, when I first read Ms. Schlussel’s article, I did something that appears to have never crossed your mind. I personally wrote to the SSS and asked them to explain it. It was very simple (they have an email address right on their web page) and they wrote back in very short order. This is what they said:
Dear Mr. Xxxxxxx:
Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists. But the reality is the following:
a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.
b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.
c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.
d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.
Thus, the first three characters of the DLN do NOT represent the year the form was keyed into the SSS registrant database, despite what some may hold dear.
Richard S. Flahavan
Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
Selective Service System National Headquarters
rflahavan@sss.gov
As you see, Ms. Schlussel’s “analysis” is wrong in every detail. And all it took to find that out was an e-mail to the people who would actually know.
YOU WROTE: “There is evidence on both sides. What this does is put the ball in the laps of THE COURTS.
Let the evidence be heard, and let’s get a decision.
This should have happened BEFORE Obama became President.”
RESPONSE: I have been studying this issue since August of 08. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever on the side of the “Ineligibility Movement” that could stand up to rational scrutiny.
That is your biggest hurdle; not getting into court, but actually comeing up with the evidence that might get you there. In fact, if you had actual evidence, no court would probably need to get involved at all. But alas…. you have certainly provide no such evidence in this thread.
If you are holding back, I would very much appreciate seeing it.
August 10, 2009 at 3:42 am
Interested Bystander
Also,
Your last link didn’t even mention “natural born citizens”, at least in the pages I read.
August 10, 2009 at 7:02 am
HistorianDude
It wasn’t intended to. Please, try to keep track of your arguments. You have two, and you tend to get them confused.
August 10, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
If the last link wasn’t supposed to bolster your argument of Obama being a “natural born citizen, then what was it linked for?
You commented:
“Then perhaps you should have checked. The article is from page three of the August 6th Daily Nation, Kenya’s largest newspaper. You can find the entire paper here:”
Even IF this is Kenya’s “National Newspaper”, I still stand by my stance of it being a fake article. No corruption in Kenya, no siree. I’m sure they wouldn’t have been “enticed” to write such an article.
Then you commented:
“In most countries (Australia and Kenya both included) the original birth record is an entry in a bound register, not a certificate.”
So where’s the “register”? The document Taitz put out has a book and page number on it. Where is the register? I suppose it is “lost” somewhere, conveniently “lost” I might add.
You continue:
“Third, the article does not question the Australian document because it does not even appear to be aware of it.”
But they sure are aware of all of the other “theories”. The Australian Registration of Birth actually has a “Lavander” on it, so I suppose THAT is a fake too then? Kenya being a “Dominion”, even though the the document written in 1963 states “Republic”, and so on. I’m sure “freedom of the press” is alive and well in Kenya.
The article even calls Taitz a “lawyer, dentist, estate agent”, which is EXACTLY what the folks at Daily Kos, and DU call her, except for the “real” before “estate”. I’m surprised they didn’t point out that Taitz got her law degree from an on-line college.
Heck, even the “birth certificate” they have pictured, you can’t even read it or see what date is on it, so how do we know that this is from 1964? THEY even say “early 60’s” in the article, so the form may have changed in 1964 (which would be MID 60’s, not “early 60’s).
You continue:
“The document was already on that site before those two years even started. But more important is the actual posting by the hoaxer. By showing that he had the original, high definition version of the photograph Dr. Taitz posted on her site and offered the court, it is proven that her image came from the hoaxer and no one else.”
So what you are suggesting, is that SOMEONE duped Taitz? I would think that this person would be in a heap of trouble then.
Then on Obama’s adoption (or lack there of) by Soetoro you comment:
“Again, I must point out that nowhere on the school registration form or the Soetoro/Dunham divorce papers is any adoption mentioned. Not even once.”
So you believe that Obama’s name wasn’t “Barry Soetoro” when he went to school, or that he wasn’t an Indonesian citizen, as the form says?
And if he wasn’t adopted by Lolo Soetoro, why is he mentioned in the divorce papers?
I was the product of a mother, step-father upbringing. My “real” dad wouldn’t allow my step dad to adopt me, so I went through life with my “real” dad’s last name. Seems to me that IF Obama wasn’t adopted by Soetoro, then he would have remained an “Obama”, and not have taken the name “Soetoro”.
On the college aid issue you comment:
“Only an actual document of renunciation made to an official of the US Department of State, a Consular Official, or a sitting judge (none of which would be in his school records) would provide such evidence.”
I would beg to differ with you. IF Obama put his citizenship as Indonesian on his school entrance documents so that he could get foreign student aid, then this is “prima fascia” evidence that he wasn’t a US citizen.
I would be willing to let a jury hear THAT, and render a verdict as to whether Obama was or was not an Indonesian citizen. Ever heard of jury nullification? It is the INTENT, no matter what the law says.
Then on the passport issue you comment:
“I don’t need any evidence in that regard.”
But in the last comment to me you made this comment:
“Again, there is no evidence that Obama has ever traveled on any passport other than an American one.”
So which is it? Do you not need evidence, or is the only evidence that the only passport he travelled under was and American one?
You continue:
“I am not the one making the extraordinary accusation. If your attempt here to shift the burden of proof to me is a concession that you have no evidence for your claim that he traveled under an Indonesian passport, I am perfectly content to leave it at that.”
I am not trying to “shift the burden of proof”, YOU ARE THE ONE who commented that “there is no evidence that Obama has ever traveled on any passport other than an American one.” Back up that statement.
On the Selective Service Registration form you comment:
“But more directly, when I first read Ms. Schlussel’s article, I did something that appears to have never crossed your mind. I personally wrote to the SSS and asked them to explain it.”
And then the first line of the “email” you received has this:
“Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists.”
Sounds pretty “official” to me. Where is ANY article that refutes what Schlussel posted? IF it was not legit, wouldn’t there be SOMEONE who would have corrected Schlussel, and make her take that “misinformation” down?
When I commented that I would like this to be heard, you commented:
“I have been studying this issue since August of 08. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever on the side of the “Ineligibility Movement” that could stand up to rational scrutiny.
That is your biggest hurdle; not getting into court, but actually comeing up with the evidence that might get you there. In fact, if you had actual evidence, no court would probably need to get involved at all. But alas…. you have certainly provide no such evidence in this thread.”
What you fail to recognize is that we can’t get discovery if we can’t get a court to hear the case. No matter what you may believe, I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the questions deserve to be answered.
This issue could be resolved very quickly IF Obama would honor his pledge of “transparency” that HE promised when he announced his candidacy, and we folks in the “Ineligibility Movement” would look like fools.
Why won’t he do that?
Just release the documents. Your “lawyer” arguments don’t sit well with us everyday ordinary citizens. Bunch of gobbly goop if you ask me.
August 10, 2009 at 5:06 pm
HistorianDude
Bystander:
YOU WROTE: “If the last link wasn’t supposed to bolster your argument of Obama being a “natural born citizen, then what was it linked for?”
RESPONSE: It was. Since “natural born citizenship” is the same thing as “citizen at birth,” it shows that the Obama COLB is absolute legal proof of that status.
YOU WROTE: “Even IF this is Kenya’s “National Newspaper”, I still stand by my stance of it being a fake article.”
RESPONSE: Then why pretend you care about the evidence at all? You’re just going to declare it fake.
YOU WROTE: “So what you are suggesting, is that SOMEONE duped Taitz? I would think that this person would be in a heap of trouble then.”
RESPONSE: It’s not a suggestion. It is a demonstrated fact. Did you miss the hoaxer’s “You’ve been Punk’d” blog?
http://fearlessblogging.com/post/view/3037
As to the hoaxer being “in trouble,” not at all. A political hoax of this sort is actually protected free speech. Now, Dr. Taitz on the other hand could be in very deep trouble if she continues to introduce a proven hoax into her court cases. We’ll see.
YOU WROTE: “So you believe that Obama’s name wasn’t “Barry Soetoro” when he went to school, or that he wasn’t an Indonesian citizen, as the form says?”
RESPONSE: I don’t particularly care. It is irrelevant to his eligibility to be President.
YOU WROTE:And if he wasn’t adopted by Lolo Soetoro, why is he mentioned in the divorce papers?
RESPONSE: Because he was Stanly Ann’s son.
YOU WROTE: “I was the product of a mother, step-father upbringing. My “real” dad wouldn’t allow my step dad to adopt me, so I went through life with my “real” dad’s last name. Seems to me that IF Obama wasn’t adopted by Soetoro, then he would have remained an “Obama”, and not have taken the name “Soetoro”.”
RESPONSE: Obama is not even the first president to have used a step-dad’s surname without being adopted. Presidents Ford and Clinton both did so.
YOU WROTE: “I would beg to differ with you. IF Obama put his citizenship as Indonesian on his school entrance documents so that he could get foreign student aid, then this is “prima fascia” evidence that he wasn’t a US citizen.”
RESPONSE: No it is not. One country’s citizenship is irrelevant to any other country’s citizenship.
And the phrase is “prima facie.”
YOU WROTE: “So which is it? Do you not need evidence, or is the only evidence that the only passport he travelled under was and American one?”
RESPONSE: You need evidence that he traveled under an Indonesian passport. I need no evidence at all.
YOU WROTE: “Sounds pretty “official” to me. Where is ANY article that refutes what Schlussel posted? IF it was not legit, wouldn’t there be SOMEONE who would have corrected Schlussel, and make her take that “misinformation” down?
RESPONSE: The Selective Service System corrected her in that e-mail. She was wrong. Nothing else is necessary to prove.
YOU WROTE: “What you fail to recognize is that we can’t get discovery if we can’t get a court to hear the case. No matter what you may believe, I believe that there is sufficient evidence that the questions deserve to be answered.”
RESPONSE: It does not matter what you believe. It only matters what you can prove. ‘Discovery” is not a fishing license. If you admit (as you seem to admit here) that you actually have no evidence for your position at all, the court is not going to help compensate for your shortfall.
YOU WROTE: “This issue could be resolved very quickly IF Obama would honor his pledge of “transparency” that HE promised when he announced his candidacy, and we folks in the “Ineligibility Movement” would look like fools.
Why won’t he do that?”
RESPONSE: A few reasons:
First off, the “Ineligibility Movement” has become the punch line for late night comics, and the subject of ridicule and scorn by media outlets all over the world. You folks need no more help to look like fools.
Second, you demonstrated above why it would resolve nothing. You would just call whatever he released “a fake.”
Third, it is a political gold mine for him. It makes the entire Republican Party look (in the words of conservative columnist Michael Medved) “nutburger.”
Fourth, (and this is the most important reason) because releasing anything while “Ineligibility Movement” lawsuits are pending would eviscerate the foundational legal concept of “standing.” And that would be a disaster to our system of civil law.
He has already, under the law, proven that he is a natural born American citizen. Why slay again the already slain?
August 10, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
I believe you are getting confused.
First I write this:
“Also,
Your last link didn’t even mention “natural born citizens”, at least in the pages I read.”
And you reply this:
“It wasn’t intended to. Please, try to keep track of your arguments. You have two, and you tend to get them confused.”
And now you reply to my last comment with this:
“It was. Since “natural born citizenship” is the same thing as “citizen at birth,” it shows that the Obama COLB is absolute legal proof of that status.”
You are either trying to deliberately confuse me, or you can’t keep up with what you have previously posted.
Then you comment this:
“Then why pretend you care about the evidence at all? You’re just going to declare it fake.”
Well, because the news in Kenya is CONTROLLED by the Government, but it seems like you like that kind of “news”.
Then you comment this about the Kenyan document:
“It’s not a suggestion. It is a demonstrated fact. Did you miss the hoaxer’s “You’ve been Punk’d” blog?”
This was all over DU, for people to make fake documents and send them out. What evidence is THAT link? That comment actually makes NO SENSE at all.
On Obama having the name “Barry Soetoro” you comment:
“I don’t particularly care. It is irrelevant to his eligibility to be President.”
That’s kind of like your, “Then why pretend you care about the evidence at all?” comment, isn’t it? It’s NOT irrelevant; especially IF Obama used his Indonesian citizenship to get aid for college, OR used an Indonesia passport when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981.
When asked about why Obama was mentioned in the divorce papers, you comment:
“Because he was Stanly Ann’s son.”
What difference does that make? The dog was Stanley’s dog, but because Lolo didn’t adopt him, HE’S not in the divorce papers. IF Lolo didn’t adopt Obama, then he has no responsibility for him. His being alive would be irrelevant, and the document said that he relies on Lolo for “financial assistance”. Again, it’s like your “Then why pretend you care about the evidence at all?” comment.
Then you comment:
“Obama is not even the first president to have used a step-dad’s surname without being adopted. Presidents Ford and Clinton both did so.”
From wikipedia (yuck) Ford: “legally change his name until December 3, 1935”
And Clinton: “formally adopted the surname Clinton as a gesture toward his stepfather.”
So what you are trying to comment is that Obama could have used Soetoro’s name without it ever being legally changed? I honestly don’t see how you do that, at least legally.
“No it is not. One country’s citizenship is irrelevant to any other country’s citizenship.”
What? Are you serious? Sounds like lawyer gobbly goop to me.
Then you correct me with this:
“And the phrase is “prima facie.”
Oh man, I’ve been corrected, it’s like the first time in my life I’ve been wrong. Oh I’ll just shut up now, someone is smarter than me…………You knew what I meant, I don’t correct your misspellings.
Then you commented when I posted YOUR double speak:
“You need evidence that he traveled under an Indonesian passport. I need no evidence at all.”
You are the one who said that there was evidence Obama traveled using an “American” passport. Show it. I’d suggest you CAN’T, so now you are backpeddleing.
Here’s YOUR comment:
“Again, there is no evidence that Obama has ever traveled on any passport other than an American one.”
Your “other than the American one” part suggests that there is evidence to that affect, all I’m doing is calling you out on it. If you miss-commented, no problem, just admit it, and we’ll move on.
Then on Obama’s Selective Service card you comment:
“The Selective Service System corrected her in that e-mail.”
Oh, so you, or anyone who emailed the Selective Service are the only ones who KNOW that the post by Schlussel is incorrect? I mean, other than the “cut and paste” you did of an email that we are supposed to take as “evidence”?
Typical Obama supporter comment:
“It does not matter what you believe.”
Just shut up and let me ruin the Country. It doesn’t matter that you don’t believe that I am eligible, or that my programs are not supported by the MAJORITY of the Country, just take my word for it!
You continue:
“It only matters what you can prove.”
And there are many Grand Juries who have looked at the evidence, and decided that there is “cause” to take this in to court.
http://americangrandjury.org/barrack-obamas-birth-certificate-a-pure-fraud
And you continue:
“Discovery” is not a fishing license.”
No it’s the legal process where we get to look at the evidence the “other side” is going to present at trial.
And you conclude this paragraph with:
“If you admit (as you seem to admit here) that you actually have no evidence for your position at all, the court is not going to help compensate for your shortfall.”
Kind of like your “Then why pretend you care about the evidence at all?” comment.
I admitted NOTHING of the sort; by the way, YOU are the one who has back peddled on TWO of your comments now, not me. (Or is it “not I”?)
Then when I ask why Obama won’t release the documents you give 4 reasons:
#1. “First off, the “Ineligibility Movement” has become the punch line for late night comics, and the subject of ridicule and scorn by media outlets all over the world. You folks need no more help to look like fools.”
But WHO will look like the fool IF the documents get realeased, and they prove us RIGHT?
#2. “Second, you demonstrated above why it would resolve nothing. You would just call whatever he released “a fake.”
So we are just supposed to take everything at face value? That in itself is a joke.
If we were to do this, then we would believe that:
Obama will allow a bill to sit on his desk for five days before signing it,
Obama will have the most “ethical” Adminisrtation in history,
That Obama will go through the budget “line by line” to cut out any “earmarks”,
That there will be no middle class tax increases,
Need I go on? I could go on about 50 other things that we should have just taken Obama’s word on, that he has broken, or lied, or flat out done the opposite.
#3. “Third, it is a political gold mine for him. It makes the entire Republican Party look (in the words of conservative columnist Michael Medved) “nutburger.”
Call us all the names you want, seems you are heading down that road, but there are Democrats, Republicans, and Independants in our movement. You just can’t fathom that.
#4. “Fourth, (and this is the most important reason) because releasing anything while “Ineligibility Movement” lawsuits are pending would eviscerate the foundational legal concept of “standing.” And that would be a disaster to our system of civil law.”
What? Yeah, you wouldn’t want to put this to rest, by actually PROVING that you are eligible, so let’s do this two step dance with the court system. Oh HistorianDude, the day is coming. Colonel Cook may now have “standing” because of what Obama did to him, by revoking his orders, and his security clearance. I hope this is the crack in the ice. IF Obama could prove he was eligible, Cook would have been Court Martialed and he would have been disciplined. Obama took the easy way out, because he’s too chicken to stand up and prove his eligibility.
“He has already, under the law, proven that he is a natural born American citizen.”
Again, to YOU he has, to many many Americans, he’s playing a game.
August 10, 2009 at 9:47 pm
HistorianDude
Bystander:
YOU WROTE: “You are either trying to deliberately confuse me, or you can’t keep up with what you have previously posted.”
RESPONSE: Those are not the only two options. Another is that you are making two different arguments, but keep forgetting which one you are on.
YOU WROTE: “This was all over DU, for people to make fake documents and send them out. What evidence is THAT link? That comment actually makes NO SENSE at all.”
RESPONSE: Ignoring that I don’t even know what “DU” is (where I come from it is the University of Denver), I have to ask. Why do you bother pretending that you care about the evidence when you don’t even look at it when it is provided? “THAT link” has the URLSs to four photographs that prove Dr. Taitz was hoaxed. Did you not even look at them?
YOU WROTE: “It’s NOT irrelevant; especially IF Obama used his Indonesian citizenship to get aid for college, OR used an Indonesia passport when he traveled to Pakistan in 1981.”
RESPONSE: It is absolutely irrelevant. The criteria for eligibility for the Presidency are three and only three. They do not include how you financed college (or even went to college at all, a la Harry Truman). They do not include what passports you have traveled under. They do not include what your name is, if it has ever changed, or if you were ever adopted, or if you ever traveled to Pakistan. They do not include if you are or were a dual citizen.
Please… if you are honestly concerned about the Constitution (something your shotgun of irrelevant argument lends no confidence to) try to focus on what first matters, and second you actually have evidence to support.
YOU WROTE: “IF Lolo didn’t adopt Obama, then he has no responsibility for him. His being alive would be irrelevant, and the document said that he relies on Lolo for “financial assistance”. Again, it’s like your “Then why pretend you care about the evidence at all?” comment.”
RESPONSE: Either you have never read the divorce papers, or you are being deliberately misleading. The divorce decree is absolutely clear that Lolo Soetoro had no responsibility for Obama. Obama is never even acknowledged to exist by the judge. The only place he is mentioned is in Stanley Ann’s filing, not in any action of the court. And all she did was fill out a blank form.
But AGAIN, I must point out to you that it does not matter anyway. According to United States law, there is nothing that Obama’s mother or stepmother can have done, to include adoption, that would deprive Obama of the natural born American citizenship he gained by being born on American Soil.
YOU WROTE: “From wikipedia (yuck) Ford: “legally change his name until December 3, 1935”
RESPONSE: After already using it for 19 years without being adopted or legally changing it. This was almost five times longer than Obama used Soetoro.
YOU WROTE: And Clinton: “formally adopted the surname Clinton as a gesture toward his stepfather.”
RESPONSE: After already using it for ten years without being adopted or legally changing it. This was more than twice as long as Obama used Soetoro.
YOU WROTE: “So what you are trying to comment is that Obama could have used Soetoro’s name without it ever being legally changed? I honestly don’t see how you do that, at least legally.”
RESPONSE: As you yourself found out by going to Wikipedia, he would not have been the first. So I don’t honestly see how you can’t honestly see that.
YOU WROTE: What? Are you serious? Sounds like lawyer gobbly goop to me.
RESPONSE: I am completely serious. The fact that you find simple statements of truth “gobbly goop” is no surprise. perhaps if you actually put in the effort to understand what the law says, you would not be reduced to puerility.
YOU WROTE: You are the one who said that there was evidence Obama traveled using an “American” passport. Show it.
RESPONSE: No. You have taught me already that it is a waste of time to provide evidence when you ask for it, because you do not care about the evidence and will not even consider it. Again, and I can repeat it as long as you keep running away from it, you are the one making an extraordinary claim. The burden of evidence is entirely on you.
YOU WROTE: “Oh, so you, or anyone who emailed the Selective Service are the only ones who KNOW that the post by Schlussel is incorrect? I mean, other than the “cut and paste” you did of an email that we are supposed to take as “evidence”?
RESPONSE: Schlussel knows she is incorrect too. I mailed her the SSS response within a day of receiving it. She has not had the integrity to even comment, and she censored her blog of all efforts to post the SSS letter. She appears to be no more interested in the evidence than you are.
Again, no other evidence is needed. It is a direct and complete explanation provided by the only organization that is in the position to be authoritative. If you do not believe it, email them yourself.
YOU WROTE: “And there are many Grand Juries who have looked at the evidence, and decided that there is “cause” to take this in to court.”
RESPONSE: Fantasy “grand juries” are no more real grand juries than a fantasy baseball team is the New York Yankees. The one judge who has even bothered to comment on these little charades has dismissed them as meaningless.
YOU WROTE: “No it’s the legal process where we get to look at the evidence the “other side” is going to present at trial.”
RESPONSE: Not in this case.
YOU WROTE: But WHO will look like the fool IF the documents get realeased, and they prove us RIGHT?
RESPONSE: I will. But I am not the slightest bit worried. If you had any evidence you would have presented it by now. You have none… and you know it.
YOU WROTE: “So we are just supposed to take everything at face value? “
RESPONSE: No. You are supposed to actually consider it first and use a modicum of critical thinking instead of declaring it a fake in a purely knee jerk response. That is something you do not do.
YOU WROTE: “Call us all the names you want, seems you are heading down that road, but there are Democrats, Republicans, and Independants in our movement. You just can’t fathom that.”
RESPONSE: I didn’t call you names. Conservative commentator Michael Medved did. So did Anne Coulter, by the way. Even Glen Beck is calling you folks “nits.”
That said, I don’t need to “fathom” it either. There are not enough of you in any of those three categories to matter much beyond the damage you are doing to the Republican party. And by the way, I was a Republican for more than 35 years before recently becoming an Independent. Folks like you are the reason I left.
YOU WROTE: “What? Yeah, you wouldn’t want to put this to rest, by actually PROVING that you are eligible, so let’s do this two step dance with the court system.”
RESPONSE: You are the guys who sued. The involvement of the court system is entirely your fault. Had you not sued, you would probably have had the long form months ago. But as long as you keep pushing these futile and frivolous suits, there is nothing Obama can release without setting a disastrous precedent.
I know you think that’s just “gobbly goop.” But your personal inability to understand an important legal issue is not the standard by which actual “gobbly goop” is measured.
YOU WROTE: “Colonel Cook may now have “standing” because of what Obama did to him, by revoking his orders, and his security clearance. I hope this is the crack in the ice. IF Obama could prove he was eligible, Cook would have been Court Martialed and he would have been disciplined. Obama took the easy way out, because he’s too chicken to stand up and prove his eligibility.’
RESPONSE: Okay, now here is something I also have expertise in, being a West Point graduate and Army Officer myself.
1. Cook is a Major, not a Colonel. It is ironic that you are promoting him at the same time the Army is considering busting him.
2. He has no standing in any civilian court, as his current circumstance is entirely self inflicted. Civilian courts have no oversight on the granting, denying or suspension of security clearances.
3. Obama did not revoke his orders. His commander did.
4. Obama did not take away his job. His security clearance was pulled because his behavior showed that he was no longer trustworthy and the military command to which he was contracted considered him a security risk. It is another irony that he lost his civilian job because he had made himself ineligible to hold it.
5. There was no incentive for Obama to do anything to retain this disloyal, dishonest and insubordinate officer. Why would he want to prove anything in such a context? Especially when it was something that had already been proven over a year ago?
If Cook were not a field grade officer, I might feel some sympathy for him, victimized as he was by an apparently incompetent lawyer. But after he went on the radio and lied about his “combat experience” I could no longer find it in me to respect so dishonorable a soldier.
YOU WROTE: “Again, to YOU he has, to many many Americans, he’s playing a game.”
RESPONSE: I assure you. It is no game. But he is still definitely winning.
August 11, 2009 at 3:28 am
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
You commented:
“I assure you. It is no game. But he is still definitely winning.”
It IS a game. A Chicago style politics game.
He may be winning, but the COUNTRY is losing.
I would also comment that IF you support this man (which you obviously do), then you were NEVER a Republican.
I will respond to your other comments later.
August 11, 2009 at 6:24 am
HistorianDude
Bystander:
YOU WROTE: It IS a game. A Chicago style politics game.
RESPONSE: What do you mean? Like Cubs fans who hate the White Sox? It is NOT a game. It is the governance of the world’s oldest Constitutional democracy. It has existed for more than 230 years because we were blessed with perspicacious and brilliant founders who assembled a system under which we could select our own leaders and peacefully transfer power between successive governments. We accomplished that most rare of political miracles again just eight months ago.
If you insist n treating it like “a game” you can function within our Constitutional system as the loyal opposition, or you can sit on the sidelines and bitch about the rules. The choice is entirely yours.
But do not imagine for a second that games are won by the hecklers in the cheap seats.
YOU WROTE:”He may be winning, but the COUNTRY is losing.”
RESPONSE: The country has been “losing” for more than decade. It is now the Democrat’s turn at bat. We’ll see if they can do better at bat than the previous administration. If they cannot, then we’ll have another election in 2012.
YOU WROTE: “I would also comment that IF you support this man (which you obviously do), then you were NEVER a Republican.”
RESPONSE: And you wonder why the Republican Party is shrinking faster than the polar ice caps. An April Washington Post/ABC news poll showed that only 21% of Americans still identified themselves as Republicans, down from 25 percent in a late March poll and at the lowest ebb in 26 years. In that same poll, 35% self-identified as Democrats and 38% called themselves Independents.
Democrats do not control the Presidency, the House, the Senate and 29 governorships because Republicans had such a great at bat last inning.
The “Ineligibility Movement” is not helping to reverse that trend.
August 11, 2009 at 10:12 am
Follow the Constitution
The COLB itself already meets this standard, and so legal proof is established regardless of which of the alleged “5 versions” was it’s source.
YOU WROTE: “The others could all have been easily obtained by providing false information. So which version is this based off of to make that claim?”
RESPONSE: It is based on a version that meets the legal requirement for proof of citizenship at birth since it:
(1) Shows Barack Obama’s full name, and date and place of birth.
(2) Has a filing date within 1 year of the birth, and
(3) Bears the signature of the official custodian of birth records and the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the issuing office.
.=============================
So by legal standards Obama’s sister who also has a HI COLB who was born in Indonesia is a Natural Born Citizen of the US simply because she posses a HI COLB just like Obama’s? LOL
So your argument is, regardless of where someome was born, and regardless of how they obtained a birth certificate, even by fraud and deceit, they only need to meet the legal standard as described to over come the fraud and be considered a Natural Born Citizen since they managed to obtain a real birth certificate through laxed loopholes that exist in the State of HI that anyone can obtain a BC through. BRILLIANT!
August 11, 2009 at 10:17 am
HistorianDude
Follow:
YOU WROTE: “So by legal standards Obama’s sister who also has a HI COLB who was born in Indonesia is a Natural Born Citizen of the US simply because she posses a HI COLB just like Obama’s?”
RESPONSE: You have been misinformed. Maya Soetoro-Ng does not have a Hawaiian COLB.
YOU WROTE: “So your argument is, regardless of where someome was born, and regardless of how they obtained a birth certificate, even by fraud and deceit, they only need to meet the legal standard as described to over come the fraud and be considered a Natural Born Citizen since they managed to obtain a real birth certificate through laxed loopholes that exist in the State of HI that anyone can obtain a BC through.”
RESPONSE: Nope. That’s not even close to my argument.
Next question?
August 11, 2009 at 11:19 am
Follow the Constitution
IF Obama was not born in HI it is in fact very easy for him to have obtained a HI birth certificate. This is fact!
There is more circimstantial evidence that suggests he was not born in HI than the circumstatial evidence Obama has provided that suggests he was born in HI. This is fact.
IF he has in fact, obtained a HI birth certificate by way of fraud, whether it was by his parents, his grandparents, or Obama himself in recent years, are you saying just because he has those documents then we should just ignore the fact it could be documents obtain through fraud just because they meet the required standards by law?
So the question is, “IF” it is in fact true, that Obama was not born in HI and his HI birth certificate was in fact obtained through fraud, do we just sweep it under the rug, just because his fraudulant BC meets the legal requirements set for in the statues you provided? OR should this be investigated and determined in a court of law whether it is in fact legit or a fraud?
August 11, 2009 at 11:43 am
HistorianDude
YOU WROTE: “IF Obama was not born in HI it is in fact very easy for him to have obtained a HI birth certificate. This is fact!”
RESPONSE: No it is not a fact. It is a bald assertion. It is no easier to get a birth certificate in Hawaii than in any other State of the Union.
YOU WROTE: There is more circimstantial evidence that suggests he was not born in HI than the circumstatial evidence Obama has provided that suggests he was born in HI. This is fact.
RESPONSE: No it is not a fact. It is another bald assertion. In truth, the COLB alone (which is , by the way, NOT “circumstantial”) is enough to legally overwhelm all the wild speculation against his Hawaiian birth combined. I’ve been following this issue for over a year now. The “circumstantial evidence” of which you speak is entirely a figment of your imagination.
If you disagree, then all you gotta do is show me.
YOU WROTE: “IF he has in fact, obtained a HI birth certificate by way of fraud, whether it was by his parents, his grandparents, or Obama himself in recent years, are you saying just because he has those documents then we should just ignore the fact it could be documents obtain through fraud just because they meet the required standards by law?”
RESPONSE: Unless you actually have evidence that the birth certificate was obtained by fraud, then yes. The standard is met. So now you know what you need to do to actually have the tiniest hope of a legal review of your conspiracy theory.
If you actually had any evidence, last year would have been a good time to start showing it. But I’d love to see it now.
What have you got?
YOU WROTE: “So the question is, “IF” it is in fact true, that Obama was not born in HI and his HI birth certificate was in fact obtained through fraud, do we just sweep it under the rug, just because his fraudulant BC meets the legal requirements set for in the statues you provided? OR should this be investigated and determined in a court of law whether it is in fact legit or a fraud?”
RESPONSE: If you have evidence, present it. Evidence of a fraud wouldn’t even need to leap the civil hurdle of “standing” as it would be a criminal matter.
So, I will ask for at least the thousandth time this year… what evidence do you have that it was obtained by fraud? If you have none, according to the Federal Rules of Evidence the COLB alone is complete legal proof of his eligibility.
Is that too much to ask? That you have actual evidence?
August 11, 2009 at 10:27 am
Follow the Constitution
This was compiled into a report that was done by a retired CIA Officer.
I think that I now understand the legal background to the question of where Obama was born.
Let’s begin with the statement that Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health released on October 31, 2008. The television and print media used this statement as a reason to prevent and treat with contempt any investigation into whether Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. But the language of the statement was so carefully hedged and guarded that it should have had the opposite effect.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record. Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino’s press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.
Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.
In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.
BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.
BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”
[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]
BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).
In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fifth kind of “original birth certificate”. Under Act 182 H.B. NO. 3016-82, “Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that the proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” In this way “state policies and procedures” accommodate even “children born out of State” (this is the actual language of Act 182) with an “original birth certificate on record.” So it is even possible that the birth certificate referred to by Dr Fukino is of the kind specified in Act 182. This possibility cannot be dismissed because such a certificate certainly satisfies Dr Fukino’s statement that “I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” If this is the case, Dr Fukino would have perpetrated so unusually disgusting a deception that I find it practically incredible (and I greatly doubt that anyone could be that shameless). On the other hand, if the original birth certificate is of types 2, 3, or 4, Dr Fukino’s statement would be only somewhat less deceptive and verbally tricky. I only bring up this possibility to show how cleverly hedged and “lawyered” and basically worthless Dr Fukino’s statement is.
Sections 57-8, 9, 18, 19, 20 & 40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act explain why Barack Obama has refused to release the original vault birth certificate. If the original certificate were the standard BC1 type of birth certificate, he would have allowed its release and brought the controversy to a quick end. But if the original certificate is of the other kinds, then Obama would have a very good reason not to release the vault birth certificate. For if he did, then the tape recording of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother asserting that she was present at his birth in Kenya becomes far more important. As does the Kenyan ambassador’s assertion that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as well as the sealing of all government and hospital records relevant to Obama by the Kenyan government. And the fact that though there are many witnesses to Ann Dunham’s presence on Oahu from Sept 1960 to Feb 1961, there are no witnesses to her being on Oahu from March 1961 to August 1962 when she returned from Seattle and the University of Washington. No Hawaiian physicians, nurses, or midwives have come forward with any recollection of Barack Obama’s birth.
The fact that Obama refuses to release the vault birth certificate that would instantly clear up this matter almost certainly indicates that the vault birth certificate is probably a BC2 or possibly a BC3.
It is almost certainly a BC 3 or even a BC 4 if the “Certification of Live Birth” posted on the Daily Kos blog and the fightthesmears.com website by the Obama campaign is a forgery. Ron Polarik has made what several experts claim to be a cogent case that it is a forgery. There have been a couple of attempts to refute his argument and Polarik has replied to the most extensive of them. I do not claim expertise in this area, but I think it would be best for journalists and politicians to familiarize themselves with the arguments on both sides before they casually dismiss Polarik’s position without taking the trouble to understand it.
=====================================
As anyone can see, regardless of which method was used for Obama to obtain a HI birth certificate the Department of Health can merely make a claim that Obama was born HI which is merely based on someone’s sworn statement, regardless if true or not. This would explain why they refuse to discuss anything further as to what is stated on the actual birth certificate. It is also interesting to note that the officials of HI also refuse to say whether the COLB posted by the Obama campaign is real and was in fact issued by them.
What we have is merely misleading statements made with refusal to back them up with any facts other than merely taking the misleading statements being made.
Think about this. IF this was any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street, and all this circumstantial evidence was the same being brought against them in a court of law, where this individual refused to release a vault copy BC, there is no Judge or Jury that would find in favor of that individual. The amount of circumstantial evidence that suggests they were born somewhere else is overwhelming.
August 11, 2009 at 10:43 am
JAMES
I refer you to one of the newer posts, which gives an analysis as thorough as yours.
August 11, 2009 at 11:29 am
HistorianDude
Follow:
What “retired CIA Officer?” Who compiled it for this mysterious ex-spy? Do you want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
Let’s cut through the smokescreen. There is no CIA officer; there is no “intelligence investigator”. That’s just set decoration to lend an air of mystery and secret knowledge. Somebody ordered a copy of the Hawaiian laws from 1955, and reedited them to make it appear that the writer had performed some sort of actual investigation, and that the resulting “report” was serious. It is not.
YOU WROTE: “As anyone can see, regardless of which method was used for Obama to obtain a HI birth certificate the Department of Health can merely make a claim that Obama was born HI which is merely based on someone’s sworn statement, regardless if true or not.
RESPONSE: Every birth certificate of every type is “merely based on someone’s sworn statement.” Even those that come from hospitals. And since people are actually born outside of hospitals every day, the law considers their birth certificates to be just as valid as anybody else’s.
Furthermore, Hawaii’s system for certifying births is not significantly different or less rigorous than any other State in the Union. All other states register unattended births or delayed births in the exact same way that Hawaii does. The claim that Hawaii is somehow different is well… pure prejudice.
YOU WROTE: “This would explain why they refuse to discuss anything further as to what is stated on the actual birth certificate. It is also interesting to note that the officials of HI also refuse to say whether the COLB posted by the Obama campaign is real and was in fact issued by them.”
RESPONSE: But an even better explanation is that it would simply be against the law for them to do what you are asking for here. You should look up “Occam’s Razor.” It will help clarify your thought process.
YOU WROTE: “What we have is merely misleading statements made with refusal to back them up with any facts other than merely taking the misleading statements being made.”
RESPONSE: What you find misleading about “Obama was born in Hawaii” is difficult to fully understand. It is an official authoritative statement on the issue. It is direct, crystal clear, and entirely without qualification. Unless you have evidence to contradict it, it would be fully determinative in a court of law.
YOU WROTE: “Think about this. IF this was any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street, and all this circumstantial evidence was the same being brought against them in a court of law, where this individual refused to release a vault copy BC, there is no Judge or Jury that would find in favor of that individual. The amount of circumstantial evidence that suggests they were born somewhere else is overwhelming.”
RESPONSE: I guess that will be a relevant comment were you ever to get in front of a real judge or jury. Of course then Obama would merely present his COLB and it would all be over.
Here then is the short and sweet of it:
EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII:
1. A state issued and certified birth certificate.
2. Two contemporary birth announcements.
3. An official statement by the Hawaii Director of Health.
4. The personal testimony of Obama himself.
5. The personal testimony of his sister.
EVIDENCE THAT OBAMA WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII:
1.____________________________________________
Until you guys can get around to filling in that blank, you are going to get exactly nowhere. That blank remains empty even after a year of court cases and make believe “grand juries” and furious blogging on the Internet. And that is why you have made no progress while Obama proceeded to get nominated, elected, certified and inaugurated.
The evidence is without exception entirely on Obama’s side. You got nothing.
August 11, 2009 at 11:53 am
Follow the Constitution
Let’s cut through the smokescreen. There is no CIA officer; there is no “intelligence investigator”. That’s just set decoration to lend an air of mystery and secret knowledge. Somebody ordered a copy of the Hawaiian laws from 1955, and reedited them to make it appear that the writer had performed some sort of actual investigation, and that the resulting “report” was serious. It is not.
========================
And your proof of this is exactly what?
August 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm
HistorianDude
My primary proof is that the “analysis” is inaccurate and dishonest. Since I have actually worked with CIA officers, I know their work to be much higher quality.
August 11, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Follow the Constitution
RESPONSE: You are the guys who sued. The involvement of the court system is entirely your fault. Had you not sued, you would probably have had the long form months ago. But as long as you keep pushing these futile and frivolous suits, there is nothing Obama can release without setting a disastrous precedent.
I know you think that’s just “gobbly goop.” But your personal inability to understand an important legal issue is not the standard by which actual “gobbly goop” is measured.
=====================================================
Setting a disastrous precedent?
Would John McCain not have already then set this precedent after he was sued and then released all his information to the court? Or does this not apply only when you are running for office of POTUS and would only apply after becoming POTUS?
If your argument is it would only apply after becoming POTUS then why didn’t Obama avoid this from becoming a problem before the election and just release is vault copy BC before the election the same as John McCain did?
August 11, 2009 at 4:27 pm
HistorianDude
Follow:
YOU WROTE: “Would John McCain not have already then set this precedent after he was sued and then released all his information to the court? Or does this not apply only when you are running for office of POTUS and would only apply after becoming POTUS?”
RESPONSE: No, he did not. He did exactly what Obama has done. He moved to have the cases dismissed for “standing.” Bot of them were summarily dismissed for that reason. Furthermore, you have been badly misled. McCain never released a single document to the court. This includes his birth certificate which he still has never released.
I have no idea where you ever got the idea that McCain did a single thing different from Obama in any of the cases against him. But he did not.
August 11, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
What is THIS then?
Click to access McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf
McCain put the document on a table and let the reporters look at it.
Is that being “punked”?
August 11, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
And look what else I found:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/08/05/forget-obamas-birth-certificate–now-you-too-can-be-born-in-kenya.html
Imagine that, you can have your own Kenyan Birth Certificate.
I’m sure I’m just imagining this though.
August 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm
HistorianDude
Bystander:
YOU WROTE: What is THIS then?
Click to access McCain-SurreplyEx-7-21-08.pdf
McCain put the document on a table and let the reporters look at it.
Is that being “punked”?
RESPONSE: Yes it is. It is also you being confused again.
1. That is not the document that was shown to a reporter. It is the fake BC that the plaintiff tried to introduce when suing McCain in the case Hollander v. McCain. You will note that it says McCain was born in Colon, Panama. McCain himself has denied that as recently as this last week.
You can read about the forgery here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
2. McCain has never released his birth certificate. A senior aid (not McCain) did show a single reporter a birth certificate, but unlike Obama he did not allow it to be photographed or posted on-line. The image you link to here is not the certificate the McCain’s aide showed the reporter, since that one said he was born on Coco Solo Naval Station, and not in Colon.
3. Yes, it is being “punked.”
August 11, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Follow the Constitution
“according to the Federal Rules of Evidence the COLB alone is complete legal proof of his eligibility.”
So a foresnic expert that claims the COLB is a forgery and the fact the State of HI will not state whether the COLB the Obama campaign posted is real or not, is not any proof of anything?
So now a forensic expert’s testimony is no longer valid in a court of law?
And when evidence is being suppressed under lock and key how does one go about getting that evidence released in order to clear up the matter?
August 11, 2009 at 4:47 pm
HistorianDude
Follow:
YOU WROTE: “So a foresnic expert that claims the COLB is a forgery and the fact the State of HI will not state whether the COLB the Obama campaign posted is real or not, is not any proof of anything?”
RESPONSE: I am very sorry to break the news to you. No “forensic expert” has ever claimed the COLB is a forgery. Both of the originally anonymous bloggers who pretended to be forensic experts have been exposed as amateurs with no experience in document forensics at all, either paper or electronic.
The first was “Techdude” who fled the scene after it was found he had plagiarized another person’s resume.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html
The second went by the pseudonym “Polarik,” but has turned out to be a man named Ron Polland who as “Polarik,” lied about his degrees and experience, faked a significant amount of his evidence, and has no experience in any sort of forensics whatsoever.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html
You can find several embarrassing expose’s of “Polarik” here, starting with the blog entry that outed him as a fraud.
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html
Both “Techdude” and “Polarik” wrote analyses that were immediately dismissed as incompetent and amateurish by real experts in the field such as Dr. Neal Krawetz whose ctitiques of both are already linked above.
YOU WROTE: “And when evidence is being suppressed under lock and key how does one go about getting that evidence released in order to clear up the matter?”
RESPONSE: If it is “being suppressed under lock and key,” then what makes you think it exists at all?
August 11, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
First you respond with this:
“Those are not the only two options. Another is that you are making two different arguments, but keep forgetting which one you are on.”
I pointed out TWO times when you have back peddled on what you have commented.
I suggest YOU are the one who can’t keep their comments straight, and I provided EVIDENCE.
Then you comment this on the Kenyan BC:
“Ignoring that I don’t even know what “DU” is (where I come from it is the University of Denver), I have to ask. Why do you bother pretending that you care about the evidence when you don’t even look at it when it is provided? “THAT link” has the URLSs to four photographs that prove Dr. Taitz was hoaxed. Did you not even look at them?”
DU would be the Democratic Underground, but you KNEW that and are acting ignorant.
Wouldn’t the University of Denver be called the U of D, and NOT DU, which would be Denver University? Just asking?
“That link”, was put up AFTER Taitz released the photo of the document, and AFTER DU asked it’s supporters to put out as many FAKE certificates as possible.
The four photos PROVE nothing.
And I would also comment that IF Taitz was hoaxed, it is evidence of “the game”, that I commented on earlier (and which I will get to in a few minutes).
Then when I commented that Obama’s entrance documents and passport information was relevant you commented:
“It is absolutely irrelevant. The criteria for eligibility for the Presidency are three and only three.”
I beg to differ with you on the relevance. As far as criteria, the first one is to be a “natural born citizen”.
IF Obama received aid reserved for foreign students, or IF Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan than this is evidence that he RENOUNCED his US citizenship, and is then NOT a “natural born citizen”.
Then on the divorce documents you commented:
“Either you have never read the divorce papers, or you are being deliberately misleading.”
Where is page 11 of the divorce decree? Might it be “relevant?
On the Ford and Clinton issue you wrote:
“After already using it for ten years without being adopted or legally changing it.”
But how were they enrolled in school?
Then when I commented about you using “gobbly goop”, you commented:
“I am completely serious. The fact that you find simple statements of truth “gobbly goop” is no surprise. perhaps if you actually put in the effort to understand what the law says, you would not be reduced to puerility.”
It’s not “simple statements”, as you wrote. It is law language, and “law language” tends to be a bunch of “gobbly goop”.
And then when I suggested that YOU were the one who said that there was evidence of Obama using an American passport to travel, you commented:
“No. You have taught me already that it is a waste of time to provide evidence when you ask for it, because you do not care about the evidence and will not even consider it.”
Well then all I can do is believe that you mis-commented because YOU wrote the following:
“Again, there is no evidence that Obama has ever traveled on any passport other than an American one.”
You wrote “other than an American one.” That suggests that there is evidence that he used an American passport. That is NOT gobbly goop. THAT is a “simple statement”.
Then on the Selective Service document you commented:
“Schlussel knows she is incorrect too.”
Oh yeah, a mind reader now HistorianDude?
And on the Grand Juries you wrote:
“Fantasy “grand juries” are no more real grand juries than a fantasy baseball team is the New York Yankees.”
No HistorianDude, LAWFUL Grand Juries allowed by the Constitution that was presented the evidence, and concluded that the issue deserved to be heard by a Court of Law.
And then when I commented that we need discovery, you commented:
“Not in this case.”
Some “Constitutionalist” there are you HistorianDude? I suppose you are the authority on what cases get discovery, and which do not.
And then when I asked who will look like the fool IF the documents prove Obama isn’t eligible you commented:
“I will.”
You sure will, along with many other people who kept playing this “game” of “lawyer speak” about how this or that is enough evidence, or that this or that is all the law requires.
When I asked if you are supposed to take everything at face value you commented:
“No. You are supposed to actually consider it first and use a modicum of critical thinking instead of declaring it a fake in a purely knee jerk response. That is something you do not do.”
So when someone argues the COLB as being a forgery, or when someone looks in to the address given in the newspaper announcements and find out the Obama’s NEVER lived there, or when someone suggests that Kenyan newpapers are Government run, or when I link where the Selective Service document is fake (and you respond with an EMAIL), or when a report is put out that shows the different kinds of Birth Certificates allowed by Hawaii, then these are “purely knee jerk responses”?
And then when I commented that you were getting real close to lowering yourself to name calling you wrote:
“I didn’t call you names.”
No, but you sure do quote people who do.
And when I asked why Obama won’t release the documents you comment:
“You are the guys who sued. The involvement of the court system is entirely your fault. Had you not sued, you would probably have had the long form months ago. But as long as you keep pushing these futile and frivolous suits, there is nothing Obama can release without setting a disastrous precedent.”
What “precedent” would be set? Please fill me in. As far as us filing suit, that was AFTER asking politely for the evidence to be released. LONG after officially asking Obama to release the information. YOU KNOW THAT.
You continue:
“But your personal inability to understand an important legal issue is not the standard by which actual “gobbly goop” is measured.”
What “important legal issue”?
When I commented about Cook, you responded:
“1. Cook is a Major, not a Colonel. It is ironic that you are promoting him at the same time the Army is considering busting him.”
I stand corrected, I didn’t look it up first, but again, you knew what I was commenting on. I consider my hand slapped. So the Army is “considering” busting him are they? Well how can they bust him now that he hasn’t refused to follow orders?
“2. He has no standing in any civilian court, as his current circumstance is entirely self inflicted. Civilian courts have no oversight on the granting, denying or suspension of security clearances.”
Him getting his securtiy clearance suspended was NOT his own doing. It was the “doing” of Obama’s Administration. It is my understanding that Cook had just the month before had his security clearance RENEWED. Simply by asking the President to prove that he is eligible to order him to duty, this is the circumstances? Boy I’m glad I retired 7 years ago, because I’d sure be asking that exact question.
“3. Obama did not revoke his orders. His commander did.”
And who would his Commander be? That would be Barack Obama. Besdies, it wouldn’t have been his Commander who revoked his orders, it would have been CENTCOM, or someone like that.
“4. Obama did not take away his job. His security clearance was pulled because his behavior showed that he was no longer trustworthy and the military command to which he was contracted considered him a security risk.”
On orders from Obama himself I would suggest.
“5. There was no incentive for Obama to do anything to retain this disloyal, dishonest and insubordinate officer. Why would he want to prove anything in such a context? Especially when it was something that had already been proven over a year ago?”
Because more and more military personell are questioning Obama DAILY. Is he going to throw them ALL out? Cook isn’t the last one to be asking this question.
The in the next comment about this being a game you worte:
“What do you mean? Like Cubs fans who hate the White Sox? It is NOT a game. It is the governance of the world’s oldest Constitutional democracy.”
Fisrt off, we ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, we are a REPUBLIC. Maybe you need a history lesson:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
And it IS a game to the likes of you. You seem to relish in that fact also. You comment about all this lawyer gobbly goop stuff, you suggest that the “late night comics” are having a field day when asked why Obama won’t release the documents, you relish the fact that someone would submit forged evidence (if that is what actually happened), you seem to allow for evidence when it suits YOUR side, but pooh pooh off evidence to the contrary, you suggest that a fine American Soldier doesn’t have the RIGHT to ask his Commander in Chief to prove he is eligible to give orders, and the list goes on and on.
IT IS A GAME to your side. A SERIOUS GAME. You could give a crap about whether Obama is eligible or not. “He doesn’t have too produce the evidence”, or “if your side wouldn’t have sued Obama, you’d have the evidence by now”, and your excuses go on and on also.
We have evidence enough that a Judge should hear the case. And when we get a hearing, the President revokes the orders of the soldier, so that the point is moot. “Brilliant move” is what your side says. Gobbly goop, is what that was, pure and simple lawyer junk.
Pitiful, is what our side says. It’s no wonder that Americans HATE lawyers. A bunch of word mumbo jumbo.
August 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm
HistorianDude
YOU WROTE: DU would be the Democratic Underground, but you KNEW that and are acting ignorant.
Wouldn’t the University of Denver be called the U of D, and NOT DU, which would be Denver University? Just asking?
RESPONSE: I have never before heard of the “Democratic Underground.” And no, here in Denver we call the University of Denver DU. http://www.du.edu/
YOU WROTE:The four photos PROVE nothing.
RESPONSE: You are sadly mistaken. They absolutely prove the hoax beyond any reasonable doubt. Have you even looked at them yet? I’m happy to discuss them in detail with you, but you have to actually look at them first.
YOU WROTE: IF Obama received aid reserved for foreign students, or IF Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan than this is evidence that he RENOUNCED his US citizenship, and is then NOT a “natural born citizen”.
RESPONSE: If… if… if…. imaginary evidence is not evidence at all. But worse, guess what? A person can be a dual citizen and still be president, just as long as one of his citizenships is natural born American. You can receive foreign aid (which Obama did not) and travel on foreign passports (which Obama did not) without ever renouncing your US citizenship. Tens of millions of Americans are in that boat right now.
YOU WROTE: Where is page 11 of the divorce decree? Might it be “relevant?
RESPONSE: No it cannot be relevant. I assure you that an imaginary “Missing page 11” from the Soetoro divorce decree would be a pretty neat trick, considering that the entire decree along with the complaint is ONLY FOUR PAGES LONG. It appears that you are confused again.
YOU WROTE: It’s not “simple statements”, as you wrote. It is law language, and “law language” tends to be a bunch of “gobbly goop”.
RESPONSE: Your inability to understand legal language is entirely a personal problem. But it explains your consistent confusion regarding the law. A perfect example is here in your comments regarding “grand juries.” How do you on one hand insist that “law language” is “gobbly goop” and then in the next breath pretend to have such a deep understanding of legal language that you can justify fantasy “grand juries” as somehow being Constitutional?
Let me put you out of your misery. Here is a link to the ruling of the only Judge who bothered to comment on these “grand jury presentments” BEFORE tossing them into the trash can:
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009mc0346-2
Here’s the good part: “Any self-styled indictment or presentment issued by such a group has no force under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
YOU WROTE: Some “Constitutionalist” there are you HistorianDude? I suppose you are the authority on what cases get discovery, and which do not.
RESPONSE: Close enough. I have been correct in predicting every single one of the 47 decisions that courts at all levels have made in every eligibility case filed to this point. Of course, it was hardly difficult to do so.
That said, the actual lawyers on your side have never got a single one right… except when they are suing each other.
YOU WROTE:So when someone argues the COLB as being a forgery, or when someone looks in to the address given in the newspaper announcements and find out the Obama’s NEVER lived there, or when someone suggests that Kenyan newpapers are Government run, or when I link where the Selective Service document is fake (and you respond with an EMAIL), or when a report is put out that shows the different kinds of Birth Certificates allowed by Hawaii, then these are “purely knee jerk responses”?
RESPONSE: Here… let me give you a perfect example of an egregious “knee jerk response” from your list above. I posted an article from a Kenyan Newspaper. You did not even bother to check a single thing about it before 1) declaring it fake, and 2) blaming it on “DU.” You didn’t even sheck to see if it came from a real newspaper beofre declaring it was fake.
As “knee jerks” go, you are lucky you did not kick yourself in the teeth with that one.
Now hey, I can’t do a thing about your refusal to spend ten seconds checking to see if your accusations might be true. And I can’t do a single thing about your credulous swallowing of convenient falsehoods without making the tiniest effort to check on any of them.
But if you did some real checking of your own, you would find out things like this:
Obama’s COLB has been declared authentic by every single person who has ever seen the actual document.
The Obama’s lived in the cottage at the back of the address on the birth announcements, not in the main house in front.
The Daily Nation is not only NOT “government run,” but is independently owned and operated by a publicly traded African multinational news group that is not even Kenyan.
The Selective Service would happily send you an email too and correct the falsehoods you believe regarding Obama’s SSS registration.
The article by the “ex-CIA agent” regarding birth certificates is simply factually in error.
I do not know why you swallow so much nonsense, or why you are too slothful to use any critical thinking whatsoever to check your sources. But I got tell ya. Your performance to this point has been pretty dismal.
YOU WROTE: “What “precedent” would be set? Please fill me in. As far as us filing suit, that was AFTER asking politely for the evidence to be released. LONG after officially asking Obama to release the information. YOU KNOW THAT.’
RESPONSE: You are wrong yet again. Obama was asked in July by a reporter to show his birth certificate primarily to prove that his middle name was not “Muhammad.” He quickly provided it as an on-line version (so as many people as possible could see it), distributed it to several news organizations, and made the actual paper document available for inspection in his campaign headquarters. Every single reporter who ever bothered to examine the original has declared it authentic.
Obama was never asked again to provide anything until Phil Berg filed his suit one month later. by then, it was too late, and that was entirely your fault.
As to the precedent, it has to do entirely with the foundational civil concept of “standing.” The concept is critical to the maintenance of the Constitutional separation of powers between the judiciary and the other two branches of government, and it serves as the crucial safety valve to protect ordinary citizens like you and me from frivolous, nuisance or harassment lawsuits. The concept is simple. Stripping away all the “gobbly goop” it can be reduced to “You cannot sue somebody just because you don’t like them.”
If Obama were to cave into one or more these frivolous eligibility lawsuits by providing them with a single document they are asking for, it would eviscerate “standing” and essentially hamstring our civil judicial system as well as the government’s ability to get anything done. I know you probably think “standing” is some sort of sleazy legal technicality. But you can afford to believe that since you have essentially no responsibility for governance. Obama cannot be so cavalier. he actually has an important job.
YOU WROTE: I stand corrected, I didn’t look it up first, but again, you knew what I was commenting on. I consider my hand slapped. So the Army is “considering” busting him are they? Well how can they bust him now that he hasn’t refused to follow orders?
RESPONSE: Do you ever look ANYTHING up? The direct answer to your question is that you cannot be a field grade office in the US Army without at least a CONFIDENTIAL security clearance. Busting him to Lieutenant will be automatic once the final clearance review has ended.
YOU WROTE: Him getting his securtiy clearance suspended was NOT his own doing. It was the “doing” of Obama’s Administration. It is my understanding that Cook had just the month before had his security clearance RENEWED. Simply by asking the President to prove that he is eligible to order him to duty, this is the circumstances? Boy I’m glad I retired 7 years ago, because I’d sure be asking that exact question.
RESPONSE: This is really one of those cases where you would be better served to listen to people who actually know what they are talking about. In his request for a TRO halting his deployment to Afghanistan, he explicitly called himself a “conscientious objector.” Conscientious objectors are automatically denied security clearances by regulations that go back to World War II. While it is also true that his disloyal and insubordinate actions caused his commander to consider him a genuine security risk, the loss of clearance was automatic based on his complaint. I assure you, nobody from the Obama administration twisted his arm to declare himself a conscientious objector.
YOU WROTE: And who would his Commander be? That would be Barack Obama. Besdies, it wouldn’t have been his Commander who revoked his orders, it would have been CENTCOM, or someone like that.
RESPONSE: It was specifically Lt. Gen. John F. Mulholland Jr., the commanding general of Special Operations Command Central who formally revoked Cook’s orders.
YOU WROTE: On orders from Obama himself I would suggest.
RESPONSE: I assure you. Lieutenant Generals generally do not need an order from the president to cashier disloyal and insubordinate officers. Its already part of their job descritption.
YOU WROTE: Because more and more military personell are questioning Obama DAILY. Is he going to throw them ALL out? Cook isn’t the last one to be asking this question.
RESPONSE: You are delusional. There is no significant eligibility movement in the US military. Our soldiers are actually loyal, in spite of the efforts of people like ORLY Taitz to suborn mutiny.
YOU WROTE: Fisrt off, we ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, we are a REPUBLIC. Maybe you need a history lesson:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
RESPONSE: It astounds me how you people leap on that phony canard as if you have discovered a buried treasure and think it makes you look smart. You think democracies and republics are mutually exclusive things? They are not. We are Federal Constitutional Republic. That means, yes, we are a democracy.
I cannot help but enjoy the irony of you pointing me to a website called “wimp.com” for that awful and error filled lesson on “political systems.” Right wing propaganda is rarely that poorly done.
YOU WROTE: We have evidence enough that a Judge should hear the case. And when we get a hearing, the President revokes the orders of the soldier, so that the point is moot. “Brilliant move” is what your side says. Gobbly goop, is what that was, pure and simple lawyer junk.
RESPONSE: You have nothing. If you did, you wouldn’t need to mask your fishing expeditions behind the pretense of “discovery.” And I assure you, that sort of attitude towards lawyers and the law is unlikely to get a warm reception from any judge on the planet. They are lawyers, you know. Or didn’t you?
YOU WROTE: Pitiful, is what our side says. It’s no wonder that Americans HATE lawyers. A bunch of word mumbo jumbo.
RESPONSE: Everybody hates lawyers… until they need one.
August 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Interested Bystander
Follow the Constitution,
You hit the nail on the head when you commented this:
“And when evidence is being suppressed under lock and key how does one go about getting that evidence released in order to clear up the matter?”
Exactly how I feel.
I can see HistorianDude’s response now…………blah blah blah, gobbly goop and more gobbly goop with some lawyer speak mixed in with some more gobbly goop.
But “legally”, he’ll be right, at least in HIS mind.
August 11, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Follow the Constitution
The DC District Court has the authority to investigate the eligibility of a sitting President. The DC District Court received this authority from Congress when Congress passed the Federal Quo Warranto Statute in 1901 and revised it, in 1963, to its present form.
A Quo Warranto inquiry is not a prosecution. It does not accuse Barack Obama of breaking any law. The inquiry is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. In a Quo Warranto inquiry, the DC District Court would say to Barack Obama something to this effect (loosely paraphrased):
Mr. President, you are being asked to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to hold the office that you are currently holding. Please be advised: 1) You bear the burden of proof. It is up to you to show that you are eligible to serve as President. 2) Constitutional questions will be heard and settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. 3) This Quo Warranto proceeding has teeth. It operates under Congressional authority. If you cannot or will not show the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are eligible to be President, this Court has the power and the authority to remove you from office.
The DC District Court would determine (by jury, if necessary) the relevant facts of the case — Obama’s birthplace, his parents’ citizenship, etc. The Supreme Court would then decide the Constitutional legal issues, such as what a Constitutional natural born citizen is and whether Barack Obama is such a citizen.
If you believe there is enough doubt about Obama’s eligibility to warrant a public inquiry, please consider writing, in your own words, a letter to the proper authorities, politely and respectfully asking them to bring (or permit a third party to bring) the matter before the DC District Court. Attorney Leo Donofrio suggests writing to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, since the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor has resigned.
By writing, you would show that (a) you care about the Constitution, (b) you believe there are reasonable doubts about the President’s Constitutional eligibility, and (c) faithfulness to the Constitution requires a proper and timely investigation and resolution of these doubts.
=================================
I suppose if enough people follow through on this then perhaps they might look into this, although I wouldn’t hold my breath.
August 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
Maybe you should listen to what Sen Schummer says on the other thread about documents being released.
A “simple statement” without all of the gobbly goop.
August 11, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Follow the Constitution
6. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, the “de Vattel” definition did not exist.
In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)
August 12, 2009 at 7:31 am
HistorianDude
You are rather badly misrepresenting the Minor v. Happersett decision.
1. The never reference de Vattel once.
2. What you quote is not from the ruling, it is from dicta… the review of reasoning behind the decision.
3. You fail to quote the very next sentence in which the Justices EXPLICITLY REFUSE to “affirm Vattel’s definition of ‘natural born citizen.'” That sentence is, “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” True to their word, nowhere in the decision do they affirm the “de Vattel definition” as correct.
Sadly… this decision does not say what you wish it does; i.e. that the “de Vattel definition” is correct.
August 12, 2009 at 9:51 am
Follow the Constitution
Nice spin! You yourself said they never reference de Vattel once….then you spin this by trying to say the Justices EXPLICITLY REFUSE to “affirm Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. HOW does one refuse to affirm something that is never referenced?
What the REFUSED to affirm was the DOUBTS pertaining to natural born citizen is considered one who is born here regardless of their parents citizenship. They stated there is in fact DOUBTS to that, and stating that there is NO DOUBT that someone born here from both parents being citizens here is in fact a natural born citizen.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”
The class born here from non-citizen parentS there have been DOUBTS! For the purpose of THIS CASE it is not necessary to solve these DOUBTS!
August 12, 2009 at 10:24 am
HistorianDude
Follow:
YOU WROTE: “Nice spin! You yourself said they never reference de Vattel once….then you spin this by trying to say the Justices EXPLICITLY REFUSE to “affirm Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”. HOW does one refuse to affirm something that is never referenced?”
RESPONSE: By being excruciatingly intellectually honest, something which seems to be inexplicably beyond the capacity of certain other contributors to this thread.
You might have noticed that I always put the phrase “de Vattel definition” in quotation marks. I am always very careful to do so because it is a misnomer. It is not de Vattel’s definition at all. It is a definition that did not exist until 30 years after de Vattel was dead, and 10 years after the Constitution was written.
If you take a breath, you will also note that the phrase you quoted from me above was actually my quotation of YOU. You are the one who falsely insisted that they were affirming de Vattel, not me. I simply pointed out that de Vattel was never mentioned once, therefore you were wrong to say they were affirming him.
I then went on to the most important point which was that they explicitly refused to affirm the definition (regardless of whose definition you call it) that requires two citizen parents.
Whether you choose to call it the “de Vattel definition” or the “Twofer” definition or the “Birther definition” does not matter. Minor v. Happersett EXPLICITLY REFUSES to affirm the definition that a natural born citizen must have two American citizen parents. But that’s okay, other Supreme Court decisions such as Wong Kim Ark already have that covered.
August 13, 2009 at 12:12 am
U.S. Constitution and Vattel's Law of Nations: The Answer has been …
[…] See the original post: U.S. Constitution and Vattel's Law of Nations: The Answer has been … […]
September 17, 2009 at 8:36 am
Bill Anderson
“Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name.”
You did notice that “Congress”, “Power”, “Piracies”, “Offenses”, and “Felonies” were also capitalized, didn’t you?
You need to examine the implications of your theory. Do you really want to claim that the Founding Fathers (almost as an afterthought, in a clause related to crimes on the high seas) incorporated a volume of legal theory by a Swiss philosopher into the Constitution, thereby increasing it’s size by two orders of magnitude and binding us all to the ideas of a man most Americans have never heard of? Are you saying that Emerich de Vattel is the true father of our country? I’d say that’s a pretty sketchy notion.
September 24, 2009 at 7:10 am
slcraig
The fact that historydude, and others of the Kool-Aid crowd, argue so adamantly against Vattel and the other writers of the Age of Enlightenment should stand as irrefutable proof of the correctness that those tomes advised the Writers and Framers of the Constitution.
He has been proved wrong about the available editions, in English, of Vattel, with the volumes used by B. Franklin, T. Jefferson and the Constitutional Convention being 1st published in 1758.
September 24, 2009 at 7:38 am
HistorianDude
Unfortunately for slcraig’s historically false account, none of the English editions prior to 1797 included the phrase “natural born citizen.” In every single previous English edition (to include every single such edition available to B. Franklin, T. Jefferson and the Constitutional Convention) the French phrase “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes” was translated as “The natives, or indigenes.”
This includes all six of the English language editions prior to 1797:
London 1759, London 1760, New York 1787, Dublin 1792, London 1793, and New York 1796.
The first edition of “Law of Nations” that ever included the phrase “natural born citizen” was the London 1797 edition. This was 30 years after de Vattel was dead, and ten years after the Constitution was written.
It is therefore impossible for de Vattel to have had any influence whatsoever on the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen.” Unless, of course, you believe Ben Franklin had a time machine.
September 24, 2009 at 11:22 am
slcraig
http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Vattel.html
For those who want the truth about Vattel……….
However, I do not think it would be completly accurate to say it was Vattel’s work alone that is referenced at Art I Sec VIII, but rather the full body of law of the various writer of the Age of Enlightenment, going back to even Prufendorf, 1600’s.
September 24, 2009 at 11:54 am
HistorianDude
“However, I do not think it would be completly accurate to say it was Vattel’s work alone that is referenced at Art I Sec VIII, but rather the full body of law of the various writer of the Age of Enlightenment, going back to even Prufendorf, 1600’s.”
Completely accurate? It would be the exact opposite of accurate.
In fact, it would be a lie to suggest that de Vattel was “referenced at Art I Sec VIII” AT ALL. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, there existed in the English language a single definition of “natural born citizen/subject.” This was the definition provided by English Common Law. And that definition was that anybody born on national soil was a natural born citizen of that nation, with the sole exceptions of children born to diplomats or members of a hostile occupying army.
There was no other.
September 24, 2009 at 12:07 pm
slcraig
Are you just ‘acting stupid’ or are you sincerely stupid………do this, reconcile the ‘citizen of Article I, i.e., Senators and Congressmen, with the NBC of Art II……. When you can make ‘Common Law’ reconcile with the differences implied therein, I would consider reconsidering your cognitive abilities.
But if you argue the English Common Law on Citizenry, you have to accept it all and not be overly selective.
September 24, 2009 at 12:46 pm
HistorianDude
I am simply correcting one of the most common of the oft repeated “Birther” falsehoods. It is simple and absolute impossibility for de Vattel to have had any influence whatsoever regarding the Constitutional definition of natural born citizen. That would require time travel, and I would not suspect you believe in time travel.
Most middle schoolers have no problem reconciling the “citizen” of Article I with the “natural born citizen” of Article II. “Citizen’ is a major category that includes two subcategories; “natural born citizen” and “naturalized citizen.” Both subcategories can be Senators or Congressman, but only one subcategory can be President. Certainly, your command of the English language has prepared you to understand that rather simple and obvious distinction. No?
September 24, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
What never ceases to amaze me about HistorianDude is that he always corrects people, even when he isn’t sure about what he is correcting about.
I get the impression that HistorianDude was alive way back when, and can read the minds of our Fore Fathers.
How does he know what the Fore Fathers meant by using the term “natural born citizen”? It is my opinion that “natural born citizen” would mean being born to PARENTS that are citizens along with being born in Country. I would include those who are born while their parents are stationed overseas by the Military or being a Diplomat representing the US, so long as BOTH parents are American citizens.
But that’s just my opinion.
The FACT is that this is why we have a Supreme Court. It is THEIR job to interpret the Constitution, not some blogger posting on a site. Contrary to what HistorianDude will post, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on this issue.
It’s sad the Supreme Court won’t take up this issue. Shows how corrupt they are also.
Now I suppose HistorianDude will go about correcting me, but it will be in vain, because I am allowed MY opinion.
September 24, 2009 at 2:02 pm
slcraig
To Interested Bystander;
You are right on top of the issue. I have a case at SCOTUS that will be considered for Allowing or Denying Writ on the 29th of Sept.
It has been through the USDC and USCA 10th Circuit asking for the ‘Legal Constitutional’ definition of NBC. The 10th Circuit say’s ‘No One’ has a ‘Right’ to be determined an NBC. I don’t know how SCOTUS is going to deal with it all, but along with the 10th Circ Judgement was included the Remand of the case to the USDC should I choose to re file.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-10817.htm
September 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm
HistorianDude
Sure you know how SCOTUS is going to deal with it.
So do I.
😀
September 24, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Follow the Constitution
“The 10th Circuit say’s ‘No One’ has a ‘Right’ to be determined an NBC.”
Translation….We can not rule on this matter in the interest of national security that would expose to the world we currently have a usurper sitting as POTUS!
Please resubmit your case about 20 years after the usurper has been out of office and then we might consider making a ruling.
September 24, 2009 at 2:10 pm
HistorianDude
IB:
YOU WROTE: “What never ceases to amaze me about HostorianDude is that he always corrects people, even when he isn’t sure about what he is correcting about.”
RESPONSE: I know exactly what I’m correcting here. I am correcting a “Birther” falsehood. The entire “Birther” narrative is founded on such falsehoods, and so I find that I have to correct a lot.
YOU WROTE: “I get the impression that HistorianDude was alive way back when, and can read the minds of our Fore Fathers.”
RESPONSE: Actually, that’s why historians actually read what they wrote. That is the essential equivalent of reading their minds. It is a very different process from simply making stuff up. I certainly do not pretend they had time machines like you guys apparently do.
YOU WROTE: “How does he know what the Fore Fathers meant by using the term “natural born citizen”? It is my opinion that “natural born citizen” would mean being born to PARENTS that are citizens along with being born in Country. I would include those who are born while their parents are stationed overseas by the Military or being a Diplomat representing the US, so long as BOTH parents are American citizens.”
RESPONSE: Well, your opinion does not really count for much since it is not based on the historical facts. The historical facts are these: Only a single definition of “natural born citizen” existed in the English language at the time the Constitution was written. This is how we know what they meant when they used the term. They were very familiar with that definition, and they had no other alternatives at their disposal.
YOU WROTE: “The FACT is that this is why we have a Supreme Court. It is THEIR job to interpret the Constitution, not some blogger posting on a site. Contrary to what HistorianDude will post, the Supreme Court has NOT ruled on this issue.”
RESPONSE: I refer you again to the decision in Wong Kim Ark. They absolutely have defined for us what “natural born citizen means,” and explained in detail its origin in English Common Law. There is no genuine legal controversy here.
YOU WROTE: “It’s sad the Supreme Court won’t take up this issue. Shows how corrupt they are also.”
RESPONSE: That’s one possibility. Another is that you are wrong. My bet is on the latter.
YOU WROTE: “Now I suppose HistorianDude will go about correcting me, but it will be in vain, because I am allowed MY opinion.”
RESPONSE: Congratulations. You finally said something true.
September 24, 2009 at 2:41 pm
slcraig
You presume to know what SCOTUS will do?
Yet you will not address my challange to reconcile the citizenship diferences implied in the Constitution nor have you bothered to address the fact that the 10th Circuit ‘discussion’ in my case refutes your 14th Amendment assertions of NBC……you are just grasping at straws as you slide off your pedestal of hay….
Read Blackstone on Citizenship before you try and foist your Kool-Aid induced defense of Wong Kim Ark on thinking people…….
September 24, 2009 at 2:59 pm
HistorianDude
Of course I do. I have been following this phony “controversy” for more than a year. I have had the opportunity to make more than 45 specific predictions regarding what decisions courts at all levels and in several states would make in eligibility lawsuits. all of those predictions were made publicly on “Birther” blogs.
I have been correct exactly 100% of the time. Certainly you must concede that am in a good position to be confident about one more.
As to your challenge, I immediately addressed it in a post within minutes of your making it. I offered no “14th Amendment assertion” at all, so please, try to keep up with the discussion we are having on the blog rather than the discussion you are having in your head. You did not response to my elementary reconciliation, so I must conclude that you have no argument against it.
Again, if you continue to contend that de Vattel can have any influence on the Constitutional definition of “natural born citizen,” than you are as incompetent at math as you are at law.
1797-1787=10
That’s the number of years that passed after the Constitution was already written before the “de Vattel definition” of natural born citizen ever even existed.
September 24, 2009 at 3:06 pm
HistorianDude
Oh yeah. One more thing Steve-o. I’ll meet you here on Tuesday evening after SCOTUS has announced the writs they granted that day and your case is not among them. Then we’ll see who was being “presumptive,” shall we?
September 24, 2009 at 3:12 pm
slcraig
Emerich de Vattel (1714–67)
Swiss philosopher and jurist
Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliquTs a la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains (1758)
Law of Nations, 1759 First English Edition
The first English edition of Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns is shown below. The title page is followed by the Preface and then the Table of Contents for Book I and Book II is shown in its entirety. The handwriting on the title page is from a previous owner.
Law of Nations was strongly influenced by Leibnitz and Christian von Wolff. Vattel rejects the social contracts of Hobbes and Locke to propose a system of mutual law and respect for the betterment of all mankind. Where Hobbes had proposed a hierarchical system based on his mistrust of man’s nature and of the populace in general, Vattel sees our only hope in redirecting selfishness to the common good.
Also you have not bothered to read Blackstone and come to understand that under the English Common Law on Citizenship and Naturalization when a person is ‘naturalized’ they are henceforth considered ‘natural born subject/citizens’.
Now, please refer back to your juvenile reconciliation and consider the ‘grandfather clause’ of the original text of A2S1C5 and explain, if using English Common Law, why the need for the Grandfather Clause?
September 24, 2009 at 3:54 pm
HistorianDude
I will type the operative comment in caps so that you will perhaps finally understand:
The 1759 First English edition you link to here DOES NOT EVEN CONTAIN THE PHRASE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” ANYWHERE WITHIN IT. It is not there. It cannot be found in ANY of the editions of the work that existed when the Constitution was being written.
It did not exist until 10 years later.
Do you get it yet?
Your gross misunderstanding of Blackstone is noted and placed in the same list of your other egregious misunderstandings of law and mathematics. Perhaps you should read more actual Blackstone and less Apuzzo. Under English common law a naturalized subject did not BECOME a natural born subject. They may have gained all the rights of a natural born citizen… but could rather obviously never BECOME natural born. The American choice to deny the Presidency to naturalized citizens has nothing to do with the definitions of natural born vs. naturalized. Need I point out… there is no and never has been a “President” of England.
And finally, you insist on adding another flaccid challenge which has nothing to do with my previous, still unopposed reconciliation of your previous challenge. This one is no harder to reconcile than your first.
The United States became a nation in 1776. The Constitution was finalized (minus amendments) in 1787. The oldest “natural born American citizens” at the time of the framing of the Constitution were only 11 years old.
That is why the grandfather clause was necessary. There would not be a single “natural born citizen” old enough to be President until 1811. The Framers were smart enough to realize we might actually need a president or two before then.
Next stupid question?
September 24, 2009 at 3:16 pm
slcraig
I do not presume to speak for SCOTUS one way or the other in regards to my case.
I’m simply waiting in that ‘No answer is an answer just as a partial or full answer will be answers. Regardless, my case is still alive on Remand to the USDC and the war is never over until the last shot is fired.
September 24, 2009 at 3:59 pm
HistorianDude
I do not presume to speak for SCOTUS either. I presume to understand the law. To this point my understanding has proven 100% correct.
How’s yours?
Wars are often over LONG before the last shot is fired. in fact entire battles have been fought after the war was over. New Orleans ring a bell?
September 24, 2009 at 3:24 pm
slcraig
Link to full pages re: 1759 1st English Edition of Vattel
http://hua.umf.maine.edu/Reading_Revolutions/Vattel.html
September 24, 2009 at 3:57 pm
slcraig
Oh, and to refute your silly implication that Vattel coined the ‘idiom’ wholecloth…….check this out;
Aristotle’s Politics, Book 3, Written 350 B.C.E, regarding Aristotle’s views on citizenship:
“Part 1: …Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?…Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear…
Part 2: But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens…
Part 3: …It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another)….
Part 5: …Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the qualification for office is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citizen; but a mechanic may, for an actual majority of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens…”
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html
September 24, 2009 at 4:01 pm
HistorianDude
What the hell are you talking about? Who ever implied de Vattel coined anything at all?
September 24, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Follow the Constitution
If you download the Jefferson’s manual they include the constitution as well. They cite cases for every part of the constitution. Under A2S1C5 they specifically cite one case which is Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830)…….
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/99/case.html
Also, this case cites Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. 6,
http://www.geocities.com/englishreports/77ER377.html
No matter how anyone tries to twist it, the bottom line is a natural born citizen is a child born on the soil of the US by TWO US Citizens, period!
If this ever went before the Supreme Court there is no doubt this is exactly what they would rule based on all written history by the founding fathers and everything prior to the constitution being written.
For anyone that tries to argue that anyone simply born here regardless of parents is plain absurd! They are living in a fantasy world.
Barrack Hessein Obama is NOT a natural born citizen…Mmm mmm mmm!
Barrack Hessein Obama is NOT a natural born citizen…Mmm mmm mmm!
Barrack Hessein Obama is NOT a natural born citizen…Mmm mmm mmm!
Barrack Hessein Obama is NOT a natural born citizen…Mmm mmm mmm!
September 24, 2009 at 6:54 pm
JAMES
To what tune is that verse sung!!?? BTW, that is how I have read the many readings. Now if I could only get my former ConLaw professor to agree!!
September 25, 2009 at 7:05 am
HistorianDude
YOU WROTE: “No matter how anyone tries to twist it, the bottom line is a natural born citizen is a child born on the soil of the US by TWO US Citizens, period!”
RESPONSE: Please show us the law that says that.
September 24, 2009 at 4:14 pm
slcraig
You imply by your erroneous assertion that there was no English version available to the multi-lingual Framers and by extension that NBC was ONLY a term to be found in Vattel…. What you and your 14th Amendment English Common Law followers fail to grasp is that it is the ‘CIRCUMSTANCES’ that dictate whether a person is or is not a NBC………..
Speaking of the ‘Common Law’…….;
“Now, the United States did not bring it with them from England [meaning the common law]; the Constitution does not create it; and no act of Congress has assumed it. Besides, what is the common law to which we are referred? Is it the common law entire, as it exists in England; or modified as it exists in some of the States; and of the various modifications, which are we to select, the system of Georgia or New Hampshire, of Pennsylvania or Connecticut?”
THE UNITED STATES v. WORRALL, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
2 U.S. 384 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 384
http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/384/case.html
September 24, 2009 at 4:26 pm
JAMES
I wish that the Justices in the Supreme Court would take the time to go through the analysis that both you and HistorianDude have presented.
September 24, 2009 at 4:45 pm
HistorianDude
Read the decision in Wong Kim Ark. You will find that they have done exactly that.
September 24, 2009 at 4:44 pm
HistorianDude
Steve-o:
YOU WROTE: “You imply by your erroneous assertion that there was no English version available to the multi-lingual Framers and by extension that NBC was ONLY a term to be found in Vattel….”
RESPONSE: I imply no such thing. And trust me, I have no need to “imply” anything. I am not so shy that I do not come right out and say exactly what I mean. You again appear to be arguing with voices in your head rather than anything I have written, let alone “implied.”
1. I never said there was “no English version available to the multi-lingual Framers.” In fact I explicitly pointed out in my first post in this thread that there were THREE. Your problem is that NONE OF THEM have the phrase “natural born citizen” anywhere in them. Neither did the next three English editions published after the Constitution. That phrase was never inserted into an English edition of de Vattel until 1797… 10 YEARS AFTER the Constitution had already been written.
2. “Natural born subject/citizen” was ONLYa phrase that could ONLY be found in ENGLISH COMMON LAW, not de Vattel. The English Common Law definition was the only one that existed when the Constitution was written
YOU WROTE: “What you and your 14th Amendment English Common Law followers fail to grasp is that it is the ‘CIRCUMSTANCES’ that dictate whether a person is or is not a NBC………..”
RESPONSE: I am not a “Amendment English Common Law follower.” In fact I do not even know what that means. The circumstance that dictates whether a person is or is not a natural born citizen is place of birth, and only place of birth. The citizenship of the parents is completely irrelevant.
September 24, 2009 at 4:42 pm
slcraig
James…………. In each of the filings of my case I include much of the ‘oppositions’ assertions as a means of asserting the ‘natural law’ based version of my position, which, IMO, defeats the opposition when intellectual honesty is applied to the purpose and intent of the Framers.
An example is Wong Kim Ark that the kool-aid drinkers thinks proves their case, but quit the contrary, it reinforces the distiction between NBC and Citizen; Note the fact that the Judge points out he is deciding a ‘singular’ question, whether the petioner is a citizen of the 14th Amendment or not…….also note that know where in his opinion does he suggest that the 14th Amended A2S1C5….the 14th confers ‘citizenship’, for an NBC you have to look elsewhere;
“The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed. ” United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)
C:\Documents and Settings\steve craig\Desktop\SCOTUS WRIT\supplemental\United States v_ Wong Kim Ark.mht
September 24, 2009 at 4:49 pm
JAMES
Once I saw the comment earlier mentioning “Meeting” after SCOTUS, I started looking for some of the filings. That will be my Friday readings!
September 24, 2009 at 5:03 pm
HistorianDude
James:
Don’t forget to read the dismissals by the court, too.
September 24, 2009 at 5:07 pm
JAMES
HD: I find it most helpful to read ALL the filings
September 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm
slcraig
James…….you can go here to see an analysis of the USCA 10th Circuit Order and Judgement on my case…..
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/craig-v-us-10th-circuit-court-of-appeals-held-08-05-2009-14th-amendment-native-born-citizens-have-no-constitutional-right-to-natural-born-citizen-status/
September 24, 2009 at 5:29 pm
HistorianDude
James… in that analysis, pay particular attention to this:
“(A)s I have recently told Mr. Craig, natural born citizen status is not a protected civil right. In fact, it’s not a right at all. And as such he could not expect to prevail as the court would not have subject matter jurisdiction. Without a deprivation of rights, the court has no claim to adjudicate. Furthermore, I explained to Mr. Craig that he does not meet the federal standing requirements in that his alleged injury is no different than millions of other citizens.”
September 24, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
So what the judge ACTUALLY wrote was that Mr Craig does have an “alleged injury” but because “millions of other citizens” aren’t signing on with Mr Craig, then his case has no merit?
Excuse me, but I’m sure there was someone who FIRST brought up the case for going to War to proclaim our Independence, but because “millions of other citizens” didn’t agree with that first person, then he should have just shut up, and let the British rule them?
I’ve got a feeling this whole “eligibility” issue is of such a scope that “some” people believe that we should leave well enough alone (HistorianDude would be at the top of the list, because he’s got excuse after excuse after excuse as to why Obama shouldn’t just prove his eligibility, and I know HistorianDude will comment about how “Obama has proven by law” blah blah blah).
When you argue that Obama should just release the documents, HistorianDude indoctrinates us with the blather of how it would set some “precedent”, but never explains WHAT that “precedent” would be. Would that be the “precedent” of doing what is morally right? Seems HistorianDude could use some of THAT “precedent”.
When you argue that the Supreme Court should decide this case, HistorianDude brings up ONE case, that was a case about the 14th Amendment which doesn’t even cover “Natural born citizen”, but simply “citizenship”. And I agree with Follow the Constitution, if this case was decided by a SC Justice that was appointed by a KNOWN illegal President, then the case should have NO MERIT itself.
It’s a shame that in these days and times we can’t get the President to prove he is eligible, or get a Court to order him too.
It doesn’t matter what HistorianDude posts, that piece of paper Obama released is worthless as far as proving his eligiblity, I don’t care that Fukino states a bunch of lawyer written gobbly goop about how Obama is a “natural born citizen”, and Fukino has “seen” the evidence. THE PEOPLE haven’t, show us what you looked at Fukino. Let us see how you came to that conclusion. Isn’t that Hawaii law? That if a spokesperson makes a statement that the relevent information examined to make that statement has to be released?
It doesn’t really matter if Mr Craig loses. There have been many before him who have lost, and there will most probably be many more after him that may lose, but it WON’T stop us from asking the simple question until we get an answer.
It matters if he WINS.
Then we all win.
September 24, 2009 at 4:50 pm
HistorianDude
From Wong Kim Ark:
“[E]very child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
What, Steve, do you not understand there?
September 24, 2009 at 5:02 pm
slcraig
You are being obtuse….repeat;
“Now, the United States did not bring it with them from England [meaning the common law]; the Constitution does not create it; and no act of Congress has assumed it. Besides, what is the common law to which we are referred? Is it the common law entire, as it exists in England; or modified as it exists in some of the States; and of the various modifications, which are we to select, the system of Georgia or New Hampshire, of Pennsylvania or Connecticut?”
THE UNITED STATES v. WORRALL, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
2 U.S. 384 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 384
http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/384/case.html
That said, it is IMPOSIBLE for the A2S1C5 NBC to be based on your definitions from English Law……the English naturalization makes a person NBC, retro actively…….that being so, why would the Grandfather Clause be in the Original Text of the Article? If an NBC is the same as Citizen of Article I, then why the distinction in Article II. And do not try to pass off the erroneous info that the 14th amended any distinction, the words do not say so, nor do they require it.
September 24, 2009 at 5:17 pm
HistorianDude
YOU WROTE: “You are being obtuse”
RESPONSE” Nonsense. I am being excruciatingly direct and explicit.
YOU QUOTED: “Now, the United States did not bring it with them from England [meaning the common law]; the Constitution does not create it; and no act of Congress has assumed it. Besides, what is the common law to which we are referred? Is it the common law entire, as it exists in England; or modified as it exists in some of the States; and of the various modifications, which are we to select, the system of Georgia or New Hampshire, of Pennsylvania or Connecticut?”
THE UNITED STATES v. WORRALL, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
2 U.S. 384 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 384
http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/384/case.html
RESPONSE: So… what’s your point? You are quoting questions. Wouldn’t it be more helpful to actually quote answers?
YOU WROTE: “That said, it is IMPOSIBLE for the A2S1C5 NBC to be based on your definitions from English Law……the English naturalization makes a person NBC, retro actively…….that being so, why would the Grandfather Clause be in the Original Text of the Article?
RESPONSE: You really should talk to a few people who actually know law. It will keep you from the amateur misunderstandings that riddle your arguments.
1. English naturalization does not make a person a natural born citizen. It makes them a naturalized citizen.
2. Under English STATUTE, natural born and naturalized citizens have the identical rights. Under American STATUTE and CONSTITITUTION they do not. That has nothing to do with the definition of either natural born or naturalized.
3. We already discussed the grandfather clause. Without it, the US could not have had any President at all between 1797 and 1811. This would be, not to put too fine a point on it, incredibly stupid.
YOU WROTE: “If an NBC is the same as Citizen of Article I, then why the distinction in Article II. “
RESPONSE: They are not the same. A citizen can be either natural born or naturalized. A natural born citizen can only be natural born. What about that do you not understand? Exactly?
YOU WROTE: “And do not try to pass off the erroneous info that the 14th amended any distinction, the words do not say so, nor do they require it.”
RESPONSE: You are again arguing with the voices in your head. The only person who keeps bringing up the 14th Amendment here is you.
September 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm
HistorianDude
Oh… Steve. What a disappointment. I had assumed that you were in over your head, but not that you were being willfully dishonest. i went a read the rest of the Supreme Court decision you quoted above. I did not expect the quotation to be ripped so egregiously from the rest of the ruling. How did you miss this part?
“The common law, therefore, of one State, is not the common law of another; but the common law of England, is the law of each State, so far as each state has adopted it; and it results from that position, connected with the Judicial act, that the common law will always apply to suits between citizen and citizen, whether they are instituted in a Federal, or State, Court.”
THE UNITED STATES v. WORRALL, 2 U.S. 384 (1798)
2 U.S. 384 (F.Cas.) 2 Dall. 384
http://supreme.justia.com/us/2/384/case.html
Shame on you.
September 24, 2009 at 5:18 pm
slcraig
HistorianDude says; What, Steve, do you not understand there?
Out of all the tortured convolutions of Judge Gray trying desperately to justify not pulling the cover off of Chet Arthur, the best he could do was to make a ‘citizen’ of WKA. Have you ever stopped to consider with all of the Judges talk of English Law NBC’s why he does not call WKA a NBC?
In spite of your tortured convolutions there still remains a distinction between citizen and a natural born citizen.
September 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm
HistorianDude
I ask again Steve. What about those paragraphs from Wong Kim Ark do you not understand?
September 24, 2009 at 5:33 pm
slcraig
You are OBTUSE aren’t you?
Do you not understand the ENGLISH COMMON LAW is based in large part on the COMMON NATURAL LAWS of MEN and NATIONS and if you look and read closely you will notice a DISTINCTION made by the use of upper and lower case type in the quotation you offer and, further, if you read the quotation you offer with intellectual honesty you will read that it is an affirmation of what I posited before and what I say here now.
September 24, 2009 at 6:08 pm
HistorianDude
Steve:
YOU WROTE: “Do you not understand the ENGLISH COMMON LAW is based in large part on the COMMON NATURAL LAWS of MEN and NATIONS and if you look and read closely you will notice a DISTINCTION made by the use of upper and lower case type in the quotation you offer and, further, if you read the quotation you offer with intellectual honesty you will read that it is an affirmation of what I posited before and what I say here now.”
RESPONSE: I have no idea what you are trying to say. You have stopped arguing and started blithering.
There is no such thing as “the COMMON NATURAL LAWS of MEN and NATIONS.”
I will ask a third time, and perhaps this time you will have the guts to answer:
What about those paragraphs from Wong Kim Ark do you not understand?
September 24, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Follow the Constitution
What I understand is at the time unknown by the people the POTUS was a usurper who once elected appointed this Judge that made the ruling in that case. Since the POTUS was not a legal sitting POTUS who also illegally appointed that Judge, that ruling would make for a weak argument. Especially knowing today that that was intent of making such a bogus ruling to cover up for the usurper that appointed him.
September 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm
HistorianDude
I’ll take that as a full concession that SCOTUS has already spoken.
September 24, 2009 at 5:41 pm
slcraig
And James, consider as that applies to me, it also applies to the Prez0 Usurper.
RevisionistHistoryDude has a way of not grasping what is being said or read……..
September 24, 2009 at 6:02 pm
JAMES
Here is my question with regard to the citizenship of Barack Hussein Obama… if he is in fact an American citizen, where is his deep pride in this great Nation?
September 24, 2009 at 6:09 pm
HistorianDude
It is in his entire life’s work.
September 24, 2009 at 6:12 pm
HistorianDude
“RevisionistHistoryDude has a way of not grasping what is being said or read……” says the guy who has never won a single court decision, and is five days away from losing another
September 24, 2009 at 6:01 pm
slcraig
By the way, RevisionistHistoryDude, I proved you and your buddies wrong about the date of the 1st English translation of Vattel a number of months ago on a different blog, why are you still trying to pass that lie off that there was no English translation until 10 yrs after the Constitution was written?
Do you not learn or are you just unwilling to accept the truth?
September 24, 2009 at 6:05 pm
HistorianDude
Steve Craig… learn how to read.
Nobody EVER claimed “there was no English translation until 10 yrs after the Constitution was written. Again, you are arguing with the voices in your head.
September 24, 2009 at 6:54 pm
slcraig
Well, I don’t understand how this blog logs posts, but in going back and reading the Lyinghistorydude’s post I find it doesn’t matter.
He says English Law does not make their ‘naturalized citizens’ retro-actively NBC’s, when it does…….he tries to make people believe because Judge Gray used the English Common Law to make WAK a ‘citizen’ that it makes WAK an English Natural Born Citizen when all it does is make WAK a ‘citizen’, if Gray thought it made WAK a NBC he would have said so.
He say’s he hasn’t tried to say that the 1st English version of Vattel wasn’t available until after the Constitution was written when clearly he has told that lie more than once…….so…I’m done, once again, with the lyinghistorydude……..
September 25, 2009 at 6:12 am
HistorianDude
Steve Craig’s most glaring fault is a near complete inability to read and understand simple English. This explains why he continues to argue against things his opponents never said, why he continues to misrepresent Supreme Court decisions so spectacularly, and why he continues to believe the 1759 English Edition of de Vattel has the words “natural born citizen” in it somewhere.
I will not speculate on whether his illiteracy is biochemical, organic, or the result of simply having been raised badly. But it is my sincere hope that after the Supreme Court denies his Writ of Certiorari next Tuesday he takes the opportunity to pursue the relevant intervention be it medication, therapy or just good old rest.
September 24, 2009 at 7:43 pm
slcraig
Thank you Interested Bystander;
Here is a link to Leo Donofrio who is working on taking down the Hawaiian Dept of Health Officials who have been ‘protecting the ‘0”……….
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
There is a couple of background posts, today’s;
TerriK INVESTIGATION – PART 1: Hawaii Department of Health Directors Fukino and Okubo Are Guilty of Misdirection.
and more information dump as he and TerriK pursue their options….
Just a matter of time….one way or the other……….
September 25, 2009 at 6:36 am
HistorianDude
Leo is off his meds again. His entire argument, even if correct will result in the release of the “index information” for Obama’s BC. What is that information?
Three things.
Obama’s name. Obama’s gender. And the fact that Obama was born.
Wow…. what a stunning victory that would be for the “Birthers.”
September 25, 2009 at 6:33 am
HistorianDude
IB:
YOU WROTE: “So what the judge ACTUALLY wrote was that Mr Craig does have an “alleged injury” but because “millions of other citizens” aren’t signing on with Mr Craig, then his case has no merit?”
RESPONSE: You are ignoring first and foremost that an “alleged injury” is merely an allegation, and not necessarily an injury in fact. The judge ACTUALLY wrote that there was no injury in fact.
But yes… there is also a “prudential limitation” on courts when it comes to addressing grievances that are generalized across large groups of people. This is because of the separation of powers prescribed by the US Constitution. Generalized grievances are the purview of the Congress, not the Courts.
YOU WROTE: “Excuse me, but I’m sure there was someone who FIRST brought up the case for going to War to proclaim our Independence, but because “millions of other citizens” didn’t agree with that first person, then he should have just shut up, and let the British rule them?”
RESPONSE: As you may recall from your history, the grievances of the American Colonists were not taken to court. They were taken to Parliament. See how that is supposed to work?
YOU WROTE: “When you argue that Obama should just release the documents, HistorianDude indoctrinates us with the blather of how it would set some “precedent”, but never explains WHAT that “precedent” would be. Would that be the “precedent” of doing what is morally right? Seems HistorianDude could use some of THAT “precedent”.”
RESPONSE: You can pretend that I never explained what that precedent would be, but we both know that you are lying. You simply hate Obama too much to care that you would end up gutting the core of our civil legal system by destroying the foundational legal principle of standing. Obama on the other hand is the President of the United States. He has to care.
“Birthers” do not occupy the moral high ground here. If they did, they would not be such inveterate liars.
YOU WROTE: “When you argue that the Supreme Court should decide this case, HistorianDude brings up ONE case, that was a case about the 14th Amendment which doesn’t even cover “Natural born citizen”, but simply “citizenship”. And I agree with Follow the Constitution, if this case was decided by a SC Justice that was appointed by a KNOWN illegal President, then the case should have NO MERIT itself.”
RESPONSE: Ignoring that, like Steve, you appear to have never read the Wong Kim Ark decision, certainly you don’t believe there is only one case, do you? I have to wonder how you guys can be so confident when you are too lazy to even research the law. But at least that explains why you keep being surprised when courts throw your cases out on their ears.
Chester A. Arthur was a natural born American citizen. Wong Kim Ark is the law of the land. Deal with it.
YOU WROTE: It doesn’t really matter if Mr Craig loses. There have been many before him who have lost, and there will most probably be many more after him that may lose, but it WON’T stop us from asking the simple question until we get an answer.
RESPONSE: You got your answers more than a year ago. You just don’t like them.
Tough.
September 25, 2009 at 7:42 am
slcraig
Author: HistorianDude Comment: Steve Craig’s most glaring fault is a near complete inability to read and understand simple English. This explains why he continues to argue against things his opponents never said, why he continues to misrepresent Supreme Court decisions so spectacularly, and why he continues to believe the 1759 English Edition of de Vattel has the words “natural born citizen” in it somewhere. I will not speculate on whether his illiteracy is biochemical, organic, or the result of simply having been raised badly. But it is my sincere hope that after the Supreme Court denies his Writ of Certiorari next Tuesday he takes the opportunity to pursue the relevant intervention be it medication, therapy or just good old rest.
Response;
Your myopic fidelity to your ‘0’, (Zer0), leader makes any effort of critical thinking by you to fall into a loop of Kool-Aid induced fantasies.
Translations from one language to another are a process of imparting the author’s intent of meaning within the grammatical and etymological parameters of the target language.
Natural born citizen speaks to definitive circumstances that MUST be interpreted in the context applied. The difference between ‘indigenous’ and ‘citizen’ should be apparent on its face, but dealing with an intellectual neophyte, such as you, I will explain. The indigenous people floating around upon a continental plate may or may not be ‘citizens’ of any organized social compact even though the most primitive of tribes of peoples seem to have an understanding of tribal memberships, often spurning, or worse, any that are born of seed not of their approved members. But the context of the Vattel ‘idiom’, and by extension, all such writers going back to Aristotle, is to describe the circumstances that result in the ‘undeniably deserving recipient of a nation/states citizenship’, those being the children of those that are citizens themselves in good standing.
Author: HistorianDude Comment: IB:
You got your answers more than a year ago. You just don’t like them. Tough.
Response;
There is no ‘Statute of Limitations’ on Usurpation that I am aware of.
Author: HistorianDude Comment: Leo is off his meds again. His entire argument, even if correct will result in the release of the “index information” for Obama’s BC. What is that information? Three things. Obama’s name. Obama’s gender. And the fact that Obama was born. Wow…. what a stunning victory that would be for the “Birthers.”
Response;
Just as with your myopia on the results of my case you apply your Alynski Rule of ridicule to an investigation that has already produced results that will add to the unraveling of the Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/DemoRat conspiracy to elect a Dual Citizen Usurper Pretender.
Author: HistorianDude Comment: Please show us the law that says that.
Response;
1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174.
2. Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, § 212, § 215; p 101 cited in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856).
3. Robert Trout, Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.;, FIDELIO Mag. V. VI No.1 , Spring, 1997.
4. Act of March 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86-3, § 1, 73 Stat. 4.
5. THE FEDERALIST No. 68
6. Id., U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1.
7. 3 M. Farrand, Rec. Fed. Conv. 617, 629, June 18, 1787.
8. Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3 (New York, July 25, 1787).
9. Rec. Fed. Conv. 2:494; Journal, 4 Sept. 1787; 1 J. Eliot, 284, 302.
10. Deuteronomy 17:15
11. Pennsylvania J. Aug. 22, 1787.
12. Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800).
13. St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries with notes of reference to the Constitution and Laws,(1803) Bk. 1 p 323.
14. James Kent Commentaries, Lecture 13 (1826-30); Joseph Story, Commentaries 3 § 1473 (1833).
15. Act of April 9, 1866 U.S. Revised. Stat. 1878 Sec. 1992
16. 39 Cong. 1st Sess., Globe 1291 (Mar. 9, 1866) Statement Rep. Bingham.
17. 39 Cong. Globe, Mar. 9, 1866 pg. 1293, Statement of Sen. Trumbull.
18. 39 Cong. Globe (1866) p 2893 Statement Sen. Howard
19. Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167-168.
20. 14 Stat. 27; Rev. Stat. § 1992.”Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102 (1884).
21. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 716, 721.
22. 14 CFR 61 et seq.
23. Bible Ruth 4:6; Rushdoony (1973), Inst. Biblical Law, Craig Press p 99.
24. Emmerich de Vattel, Law of Nations (1758), Bk. 1, Ch. 19, Citizens & Nations, p 101 sect. 212, sect. 215.
25. William Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) *154-57.
26. Naturalization Act 1790 March 26, 1790.
27. Rec. Fed. Conv. 1787 CCLXXXVIII p 385, 387 (March 28, 1800).
28. Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893, 909; Judicial Definitions Words and Phrases 2nd Ser. (1914) West Pub. p 697.
29. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
30. 10 Stat. 604; 48 Stat. 797.
September 25, 2009 at 8:39 am
HistorianDude
CRAIG WROTE: Your myopic fidelity to your ‘0’, (Zer0), leader makes any effort of critical thinking by you to fall into a loop of Kool-Aid induced fantasies.
RESPONSE: Someday a “Birther” will say something that is not ironic, and I will throw a party. Nice to see, though, that you are so fond of what you call below the “Alynski Rule of ridicule.” In that case you move beyond mere irony to personal hypocrisy.
Do not feel alone. It is the “Birther” standard.
CRAIG WROTE: Translations from one language to another are a process of imparting the author’s intent of meaning within the grammatical and etymological parameters of the target language.
RESPONSE: Stop trying to change the subject. The issue is not whether or not any particular translation of de Vattel is better than any other. The issue is whether or not the specific translation you depend upon for your argument to be true even existed when the Constitution was written.
It did not.
Not a single English language translation available to the Framers (and there were three) included the phrase “natural born citizen.”
CRAIG WROTE: Natural born citizen speaks to definitive circumstances that MUST be interpreted in the context applied. .
RESPONSE: Let’s cut through Craig’s prolix and deceptive hand wavingand drill right down to the extended hypocrisy it displays.
First and foremost, while Craig insists elsewhere on carefully distinguishing between “citizen” and natural born citizen,” he proves in this analysis that he is incapable of doing that himself. For example, he references Aristotle to defend his claims about “natural born citizenship.” But Aristotle speaks only to “citizen” and NEVER to “natural born citizen.” According to Aristotle, the children of non-citizens are NOT CITIZENS AT ALL, let alone “natural born.”
This is actually also de Vattel’s position, though Craig does not seem to notice. The “de Vattel definition” does not deny mere “natural born citizenship” status… it denies “citizenship” period.
In other words, Craig’s pet theory would render tens of millions of American suddenly stateless. This includes multiple millions who have been in this country for several generations. It is thus not merely contradictory to the US Constitution and US Law. It is stupid as well.
Craig also needs a refresher in beginning French. His distinction between “indigenous” and “citizen” appears to be based on his garbled understanding of de Vattel’s original text, and a grossly false understanding of its translation into English. As a result, Craig is insisting on a distinction that de Vattel himself explicitly refutes.
Craig asserts that there is a difference between “indigenous” and “citizen” that is “apparent on its face.” But oddly, once translations of de Vattel began to appear that did include the phrase “natural born citizen,” it was as a direct translation of the word “indigenes.” All English translations of de Vattel without exception translate “naturels” NOT as “natural born citizen” but instead as “natives.”
I’m sorry Steve. But your scholarship is so sloppy as to be laughable. Have you ever actually read any of the sources you claim support your failed case?
CRAIG WROTE: Just as with your myopia on the results of my case you apply your Alynski Rule of ridicule to an investigation that has already produced results that will add to the unraveling of the Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/DemoRat conspiracy to elect a Dual Citizen Usurper Pretender.
REPSONSE: Steve, when your claims are ridiculous, you should expect ridicule.
Now, I note you gave us a long list of citations in response to my request for you to show us a law that defines “natural born citizen” as “born on US soil to 2 citizen parents.” The list is a hodgepodge of (unexplained) court cases, Biblical references, and a lot of things that are not also laws at all like commentaries.
But you never actually show us that law I asked for.
Now put up or shut up.
Otherwise, I’ll see you back here on Tuesday evening after the Supreme Court denies your writ without comment?
September 25, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
Does anyone but me find it so immature that here we are asking simple questions, and the basic answer we get back is “because I don’t have too”?
Just like so many other promises Obama made during the campaign, his promise of transparency in Government has been shown to be:
“Just words”
All Obama has to do is “lead by example”, but yet he refuses to do it.
The ONLY precedent that would be set by Obama releasing the documents, would be if another person wanted to become President who has as much hidden as Obama does. It’s that simple.
Why won’t he release the documents that would once and for all PROVE that he is eligible to hold the Office he now holds? Reasonable people (notice I posted REASONABLE people, that would leave HistorianDude out of the loop) can only conclude that Obama is hiding something.
Sooner or later the people WILL see the documents, it may be 100 years from now, it really doesn’t matter, but we will finally see what Obama is hiding.
IF he had nothing to hide, then a reasonable person would think that Obama would have put them on the table already.
That piece of paper Obama released MAY be enough legally, but what is right morally is that Obama would live up to HIS “transparency” promise, and release the documents.
No matter when we get to see the documents, it will prove once and for all whether Obama is eligible. No Judge, or Congressperson, or Senator, or newspaper, or HistorianDude will stop us until we see the documents that prove Obama either is or isn’t eligible.
WHEN we see the documents, and they prove Obama IS eligible, we “Birthers” will simply ask what took so long?
However IF the documents prove he is NOT eligible, then the “Oborters” have some ‘splainin to do.
He is ruining our economy, he is ruining our reputation around the World, he is ruining the progress of eight years of fighting by our brave men and women in our Military, and he is ruining our standing as the “go to” Country when leadership is needed (Seems to me Israel has THAT right now).
All of you “Oborters” will have to explain why you fought so hard for someone who “led” us down this path.
September 25, 2009 at 2:19 pm
HistorianDude
IB WROTE: “Does anyone but me find it so immature that here we are asking simple questions, and the basic answer we get back is “because I don’t have too”?”
RESPONSE: No, because it is not true. The questions you ask have been repeatedly answered. You just don’t like the answers.
IB WROTE: “The ONLY precedent that would be set by Obama releasing the documents, would be if another person wanted to become President who has as much hidden as Obama does. It’s that simple.”
REPONSE: Well, there you go. That’s why you are so confused by something so “simple,” even though it has been explained to you several times. Because you apparently cannot understand what is true, you replace the truth with a “simple fiction.”
How is that working out for you?
IB WROTE: “Why won’t he release the documents that would once and for all PROVE that he is eligible to hold the Office he now holds?
RESPONSE: He can’t release them. He has an obligation to Protect the office of the Presidency. As long as there are court cases against him, he can release nothing without setting a disastrous precedent that would eviscerate the civil legal foundational concept of standing, and paralyze the courts and the government through creation of a de facto judicial filibuster.
That’s been explained to you several times. Your failure to get it can only mean it is too difficult a concept for you to personally understand. You have to be more than merely “reasonable’ to understand that, I guess. You must also be smart. Or not so blinded by irrational hatred that you can figure out the law.
IB WROTE: Sooner or later the people WILL see the documents, it may be 100 years from now, it really doesn’t matter, but we will finally see what Obama is hiding.
RESPONSE: No doubt.
IB WROTE: IF he had nothing to hide, then a reasonable person would think that Obama would have put them on the table already.
RESPONSE: You keep saying that. I refer you to judge land’s decision in Georgia a week ogo when he threw out Orly’s latest case and proposed $10,000 in fines for her bad behavior. The judge wrote, “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
When you’re ready to come back through the looking glass, let us all know.
IB WROTE: All of you “Oborters” will have to explain why you fought so hard for someone who “led” us down this path.
RESPONSE: Hey, my 401K is up 22% since Obama was inaugurated. I just got a new job that will increase my personal income by more than 30%. All the economic indicators are up… this looks like your worst nightmare brewing.
If this keeps up and the economy is halfway decent in 2012 (after what the last 8 years of a Republican administration left us with) Obama will be re-elected in a landslide.
September 25, 2009 at 4:34 pm
JAMES
Gotta love that optimism HD. Obama is a one timer, which is why he is intenet on this massive spree he is on. Unless you know something that the real world (not Bernanke or geithner) know, the economy is not in fact as rosy as they make it seem. Enjoy that 22% at the moment, as it will not last. And if that isn’t enough for you, pay attention to EVERY cuture and start preparing for 2012…. Argentina will look like a cake in the park.
September 25, 2009 at 4:35 pm
JAMES
And you’ll need that 30% increase in income to pay for the increase in health insurance costs, and their ripple effect— increased cost of goods.
September 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Interested Bystander
You know HistorianDude, sometimes you get on my nerves.
HistorianDude commented:
“No, because it is not true. The questions you ask have been repeatedly answered. You just don’t like the answers.”
Well that would be because your answers are ALWAYS “because I don’t have too”, like I commented. You all sound like a bunch of 10 year olds.
He continues:
“Well, there you go. That’s why you are so confused by something so “simple,” even though it has been explained to you several times. Because you apparently cannot understand what is true, you replace the truth with a “simple fiction.”
How is that working out for you?”
It’s working out fine with me HistorianDude, because it’s NOT “simple fiction”, it’s the truth. There is NO precedent that would be set for Obama to release the documents that would be detrimental to anyone other than Obama. None, nada, zip zilcho, nothing. Well except for that one precedent of him doing what is MORALLY RIGHT.
Then he comments this:
“He can’t release them. He has an obligation to Protect the office of the Presidency. As long as there are court cases against him, he can release nothing without setting a disastrous precedent that would eviscerate the civil legal foundational concept of standing, and paralyze the courts and the government through creation of a de facto judicial filibuster.”
Talk about “simple fiction”. Obama has an OBLIGATION to HONOR the Office for which he holds, by being ABOVE the law, and doing what is MORALLY RIGHT.
You know it as well as I know it, Obama was asked nicely to produce the documents BEFORE the election. WELL BEFORE THE ELECTION. Obama has FORCED the suits you claim to use as the reason the documents have not been released. YOU KNOW IT. What was your argument BEFORE the suits HistorianDude, you have admitted that you have followed this for over a year, well that would be before the suits you now are using as your excuse as to why Obama hasn’t released the documents. Explain what your “lame” excuse was BEFORE the suits.
Then HistorianDude writes this:
“That’s been explained to you several times. Your failure to get it can only mean it is too difficult a concept for you to personally understand. You have to be more than merely “reasonable’ to understand that, I guess. You must also be smart. Or not so blinded by irrational hatred that you can figure out the law.”
You people kill me. I do not “hate” Obama. You people can make the silliest jumps from someone concerned that our Constitution be upheld, to claiming because of that, we “hate” the person we have the claim against.
What a joke this is. I don’t “hate” Obama, I dislike his policies, but that has NOTHING to do with the person, it has to do with his actions. You know, someone in my family is a crackhead. I “hate” what that person does, but I don’t “hate” them for doing it.
Just because you disagree with someone’s views, doesn’t mean that you “hate” that person.
Your comment is ridiculous and shows your side’s desperation.
“How’s that working out for you?”
He continues:
“You keep saying that. I refer you to judge land’s decision in Georgia a week ogo when he threw out Orly’s latest case and proposed $10,000 in fines for her bad behavior. The judge wrote, “Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
Well, that may be Judge Land’s opinion, but more and more people are asking these questions.
But you are correct, simply saying it is so, doesn’t make it so. However, a reasonable person can look at the evidence (or lack there of) and conclude that Obama must be hiding something. How will we know until we see the evidence? This whole back and forth is so ridiculous, your side claiming that we aren’t “allowed” to see the evidence, and our side simply asking questions. Oh I know, your side is winning at every turn, but we will not stop asking until we get to see the evidence.
We keep asking to see the evidence, and your side keeps saying “we don’t have to show you”.
HistorianDude then writes:
“When you’re ready to come back through the looking glass, let us all know.”
Well when you are ready to show some character, you let us know.
His next comment is this:
“Hey, my 401K is up 22% since Obama was inaugurated. I just got a new job that will increase my personal income by more than 30%. All the economic indicators are up… this looks like your worst nightmare brewing.”
Yeah, well good for you HistorianDude, I’ve had to wipe out my 401K since Obama was inaugurated because there are no jobs here, except for temporary positions with no hope of ever being hired on permanently, paying between 9 and 10 bucks an hour. There are NO manufacturing jobs out there, that aren’t being filled with people who stand a chance of being hired on full time.
I was laid off in Feb, PERMANENTLY LAID OFF. Doesn’t that mean “fired”? Just a fancy word for being fired? Not for anything I did, but because there were NO orders to fill. After having been laid off for 5 months, I got a call from my ex supervisor who asked if I would like to come back to work for him? I said SURE, and he told me that I had to go to this temp agency, and that I would get placed in a “long term temp” position. I asked how long I would have to work for the temp agency, and I was told “indefinitely”. Oh yeah, I had to take a 4 dollar an hour pay CUT also. But what’s 160 bucks a week, right HistorianDude, no big deal right?
So yeah HistorianDude, the “economic indicators” are up, but what are people’s “real earnings”? Besides, the “economic indicators” are being falsely padded because of the “cash for clunkers” program. I believe THAT’s the only reason I got called back. I don’t think it will last long, but I am hopeful.
So good for you HistorianDude, your story is the EXCEPTION, and not what is happening to us people here in the Midwest, especially in manufacturing.
HistorianDude concludes with this:
“If this keeps up and the economy is halfway decent in 2012 (after what the last 8 years of a Republican administration left us with) Obama will be re-elected in a landslide.”
Good luck with that.
September 25, 2009 at 5:47 pm
HistorianDude
James:
Yes. It is clear that Obama supporters tend to be forward looking, optimistic, confident and hopeful. In contrast, the opposition is angry, pessimistic, backwards looking and deeply unhappy. You are such a profoundly curmudgeonly lot that I thank God every morning that I am not one of you.
It is a sad statement that you so deeply desire the nation to fail under this President. As a genuine patriot, I find your attitude completely inexplicable.
September 25, 2009 at 9:35 pm
JAMES
I sincerely do not wish this country to fail under this President, nor do I wish this President to fail. In fact, I am not sure how you think that failure is what I wish.Unfortunately, failing is what he is doing. Failing this country, failing those who believed in his hope and change, failing period. He cannot make a decisive move after campaigning about taking our troops TO afghanistan. He speaks with contempt toward Israel, basically throwing them under his very large bus. He has forged a debt structure that makes George Bush’s spending look like child’s olay, and for the first time in our history, the next two or three generations will have a life that is less than that of the previous generation.
I am an optimistic patriot, HD. I hold strong and true to the values my father served this country for, the values that my family members took bullets for in WWII and in Korea and Vietnam. It is just those patriotic values that cause me to be so optimistic that this President serve not one more day than the foour years you elected him to serve. He is the POTUS, and I respect that office. That does not mean that I must blindly embrace evry thing he is attempting to do, unchecked an unbridled.
You elected an empty suit, not because he offered hope and change (or maybe that was your specific reason) but becuase he was not George Bush or a Republican. I am offering the suggestion that in 2012 the votes be cast on principles and values, not on the initial after the name.
Curmudgenly lot– because I challenge the policies of this wayward administration? I thank God every morning that I am still living in this great land where I am able to voice my support or opposition for our government. And each morning I awake that ObamaCare is still not a reality, I know that I have another day to battle the administration to keep it out of our lives.
HD, I always read your answers, and respect your thoughts and analysis, but do not profess that you are more patriotic becuase you have a great belief in this Obama. It makes you sound as like nancy Pelosi, and you have to be far more inteligent than she is. Do not think that those opposed to the Obama are any less patriotic than you profess yourself to be.
September 26, 2009 at 7:52 am
HistorianDude
JAMES WROTE: “I sincerely do not wish this country to fail under this President, nor do I wish this President to fail. In fact, I am not sure how you think that failure is what I wish.Unfortunately, failing is what he is doing. Failing this country, failing those who believed in his hope and change, failing period. He cannot make a decisive move after campaigning about taking our troops TO afghanistan. He speaks with contempt toward Israel, basically throwing them under his very large bus. He has forged a debt structure that makes George Bush’s spending look like child’s olay, and for the first time in our history, the next two or three generations will have a life that is less than that of the previous generation.”
RESPONSE: We are less than a year into the first term of this President, and you have already declared the failure of programs and policies that have not even been implemented yet. How do you expect any thinking person to take seriously such naked tea leaf reading? It is one thing to assert with passion that you would have done things differently (although I note in a very quick review of the articles you post, almost none of them actually offer alternatives to policies they attack), but another entirely to announce from a position of near divine omniscience that they have already failed.
No James, your protests of offended intention here are not credible. Your blog is a monument to the active pursuit of this president’s failure. It is not a mere catalog of your disapproval, it is an active effort to push him into the abyss.
JAMES WROTE: I am an optimistic patriot, HD. I hold strong and true to the values my father served this country for, the values that my family members took bullets for in WWII and in Korea and Vietnam. It is just those patriotic values that cause me to be so optimistic that this President serve not one more day than the foour years you elected him to serve. He is the POTUS, and I respect that office. That does not mean that I must blindly embrace evry thing he is attempting to do, unchecked an unbridled.
RESPONSE: Here I see one of the reasons we may have such very different perspectives. You are essentially a “trust baby” while I am a “self made man.” I speak not of wealth, although that may also be true. I speak of the investment in this nation we have personally made vs. the benefits we have obtained. You speak of your father’s service and your family’s service… but not your own. You are (and I do not begrudge you this) benefiting from the bloodshed of others without having apparently contributed yours. A deep and profound component of the “patriot” experience is only theoretical to you… and so you have an impediment to truly understanding its value.
I on the other hand have worn the uniform and had America’s enemies fire bullets at me in anger. I have been stationed on foreign soil and witnessed firsthand the travesties of justice and lack of freedoms that flow from political systems less inspired than our own. I have even been present when a government is overthrown by those who allow their own sense of political entitlement to create disdain for the institutional and Constitutional processes of political change.
In short, I have seen what happens when guys like Steve Craig and “Interested Bystander” win. It is an ugly thing to see,
JAMES WROTE: “You elected an empty suit, not because he offered hope and change (or maybe that was your specific reason) but becuase he was not George Bush or a Republican. I am offering the suggestion that in 2012 the votes be cast on principles and values, not on the initial after the name.”
RESPONSE: Until George W. Bush’s second term (when I became an Independent) I was a lifelong Republican. I assure you that in the 2008 election, voting because he was not George Bush or a Republican WAS a vote cast on principles and values.
But I am offering a somewhat different suggestion. What I am suggesting to you is that in 2012 the votes be cast on what Obama has actually accomplished in four years… not on the wild imagination and bizarre paranoid predictions (i.e. “FEMA Camps,” “death panels” and “killer vaccines”) of fringe fantasy.
JAMES WROTE: “Curmudgenly lot– because I challenge the policies of this wayward administration? I thank God every morning that I am still living in this great land where I am able to voice my support or opposition for our government. And each morning I awake that ObamaCare is still not a reality, I know that I have another day to battle the administration to keep it out of our lives.”
RESPONSE: Not at all. Curmudgeonly lot because you guys are consistently miserable. Review your own history of posts. It is overwhelmingly characterized by anger and fear. Read the posts by “Interested Bystander” and Steve Craig. Read the other “Birther Blogs.”
This is no way to live your life.
JAMES WROTE: “HD, I always read your answers, and respect your thoughts and analysis, but do not profess that you are more patriotic becuase you have a great belief in this Obama. It makes you sound as like nancy Pelosi, and you have to be far more inteligent than she is. Do not think that those opposed to the Obama are any less patriotic than you profess yourself to be.”
REPONSE: Please, take a nanosecond and consider the deep irony in that comment. Review your own blog and those of your fellow travelers and consider the consistent drumbeat of assertion that you guys are “patriots” while Obama supporters are “America haters.” And then understand why your comment cannot for a second be taken seriously.
James, you spoke earlier of values. And patriotism, spoken of without irony or cynicism does not reconcile with the values reflected in so many of the posts on this blog. The patriot does not care who his leaders are, they care what his leaders do. The patriot understands that, as John Adams said, we are a nation of laws not a nation of men. The patriot respects the choice of his fellow countrymen, and respects the office of the Presidency along with the man or woman who occupies it for the duration of their term.
The patriot prays every night for his President to be wise, for his choices to be correct, for his policies to succeed and for our nation to prosper under his watch.
The patriot does not write, “Damn right I hope the ‘0’ fails and I intend to do everything I can to expedite his departure from the office of POTUS before he damages beyond redemption.”
James… please understand that much of what I write here is directed at posters other than yourself. While your editorial positions are glaringly displayed by what you choose to post, you are generally above the fray when it comes to the more passionate debates that take place in the comments. Do not take personally comments that are clearly meant for others.
September 26, 2009 at 9:27 am
JAMES
HD: I follow your comments closely, as I believe that every one of us have a reason for our beliefs.
There are some things that I do take personally, such is the implied thought that because I am not on the Obama side, I am miserable. I actually am quite thankful for the Obama team– it has truly awakened the “sleeping giant” of American patriotism that had become complacent. You criticize those who do not support the Obama policies as not being true patriots, yet the same people who are lauding the praises of the empty suit were the vocal attackers of the prior administration. Were they not patriots as they loudly proclaimed the failings of Bush?
As far as “trust baby”, God I only wish. No, I did not serve in the military. Does that make me a trust baby? Or am I a trust baby because I operate a business trying to keep 18 employees employed in this poor economic climate while trying to get the government from taking more of my business and more control of our lives. You raved about your 401k. I think that is great. Some employer has sacrificed to build a business that employs you to be able to build your 401k. Some employer has risked their assets to build a business to generate jobs and income. Yet the Obama administration loves to villify the business owners. Let me be very clear… the healthcare legislation, be it from the Senate or the House, is going to cost my business enough that either my prices go up, or 2-3 employees, or a combination of both.
To be fair as far as what I post, yes, I post based upon my positions. If I were a newspaper or news center, the quest for objectivity should be tantamount, with positions left to the editorial pages. I really started my blog as a place to exchange ideas and thoughts without the name calling that I found on other sites. For the most part, I think we’ve accomplished that, albeit a small group of followers. The passionate debates are the reason I keep blogging, because I believe that helps keep our minds open to each other’s viewpoints. This is the next best thing to kitchen table neighborhood debates that our grandparents had.
September 26, 2009 at 10:28 am
HistorianDude
Sorry my reply ended up above your comment. This blog format does sometimes make for such a mistake.
September 27, 2009 at 5:44 am
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
HistorianDude commented this:
“I on the other hand have worn the uniform and had America’s enemies fire bullets at me in anger.”
Were you a poll worker in Philly?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Now THAT was funny.
September 25, 2009 at 6:27 pm
HistorianDude
IB:
IB WROTE: “Well that would be because your answers are ALWAYS “because I don’t have too”, like I commented. You all sound like a bunch of 10 year olds.”
RESPONSE: Nonsense. This very thread proves that claim to be unadulterated bulls*t.
IB WROTE: “It’s working out fine with me HistorianDude, because it’s NOT “simple fiction”, it’s the truth. There is NO precedent that would be set for Obama to release the documents that would be detrimental to anyone other than Obama. None, nada, zip zilcho, nothing. Well except for that one precedent of him doing what is MORALLY RIGHT.”
RESPONSE: That’s your response? I explain what the precedent would be (for the … what? Fifth time?) and your response is not to even try and challenge it? Instead, all you do is go, “Nuh, uh!!!” What kind of argument is that? What was it you were saying about ten year olds?
It is clear that you have no idea about how the legal system in our nation works. That is why you are so frustrated with it, and why you are constantly disappointed with it. Spend some time to try and figure it out, and your whole demeanor will change for the better. You could probably even start getting advice to that astounding stable of lawyerly incompetence that constitutes the “Birther” legal brain trust of Berg, Taitz, Donofrio, Apuzzo and Pidgeon.
There is great personal fulfillment in knowledge. You should try it.
IB WROTE: “Talk about “simple fiction”. Obama has an OBLIGATION to HONOR the Office for which he holds, by being ABOVE the law, and doing what is MORALLY RIGHT.”
RESPONSE: And that is exactly what he is doing, at no small personal cost. He has put the protection of the Office of the Presidency before his own personal reputation… at least among the right wing fringe. You do not occupy the moral high ground on this issue. Obama does.
IB WROTE: “You know it as well as I know it, Obama was asked nicely to produce the documents BEFORE the election. WELL BEFORE THE ELECTION.”
RESPONSE: Actually, you could not be more wrong if you declared bat guano to be platinum. When Obama was asked before the election to provide his birth certificate he did exactly that. Without any whining, or hand wringing he provided a scanned image of the certificate to multiple news outlets, and then provided the original for inspection to any media outlet that wanted to come look at it.
Not a single Birther ever bothered to go do that. Not Phil Berg. Not Andy Martin. Not Joe Farah or Jerome Corsi. Not even Ron “Polarick” Polland, the fraud who made an entire career of declaring forged a document he had never even seen.
And we all know why that was. Because in point of fact “Birthers” do not care one whit about the Constitution, or the eligibility requirements to be President. You do not care that he has already proved that he meets them.
That is why you have also come up with plans B through E. Your objective is not to defend the Constitution. It is to reverse an election.
IB WROTE: “You people kill me. I do not “hate” Obama. You people can make the silliest jumps from someone concerned that our Constitution be upheld, to claiming because of that, we “hate” the person we have the claim against.”
RESPONSE: That would be more compelling if you guys didn’t keep insisting that the Constitution means what it does not say.
IB WROTE: “What a joke this is. I don’t “hate” Obama, I dislike his policies, but that has NOTHING to do with the person, it has to do with his actions. You know, someone in my family is a crackhead. I “hate” what that person does, but I don’t “hate” them for doing it.”
REPONSE: I’m sure that’s your story and your sticking to it. But I have read more than a few of your posts. You claim to dislike his policies, but as a general rule it does not appear that you have a clue as to what most of them even are. You jump on every absurd Internet rumor and biliously false chain e-mail without a second’s consideration of whether they are true, or even if they are possible.
The single criterion that appears necessary for you to decide you “dislike” something is that it have something to do with Obama. As such, you demonstrate repeatedly and in spades the true object of your hatred. It cannot be the policies because you don’t even understand them.
The single common factor in your outrage, anger and disdain is the man.
IB WROTE: “Well, that may be Judge Land’s opinion, but more and more people are asking these questions.”
RESPONSE: Yep. It is another judges opinion. We have had almost 50 of them to this point. Not one of them has gone your way.
Noticing a pattern here?
IB WROTE: “Yeah, well good for you HistorianDude, I’ve had to wipe out my 401K since Obama was inaugurated because there are no jobs here, except for temporary positions with no hope of ever being hired on permanently, paying between 9 and 10 bucks an hour. There are NO manufacturing jobs out there, that aren’t being filled with people who stand a chance of being hired on full time.”
RESPONSE: See… this is another example of the difference between you and me. What I do in situations like that is the same thing my father did, and his father did. I go to where the work is. I don’t blame anybody else. I don’t wring my hands and whine like a beaten stepchild. If I need different skills, I go get them. If I need to change states, I change states. And I never… never… NEVER for a second believe there is no chance of being hired full time.
There are people who depend on me as the bread winner. I do something about it, IB.
Be a man, IB. Get a job.
September 25, 2009 at 4:58 pm
slcraig
You’re off your Kool-Aid and Oreo meds………..better run down to your local ACORN office and pick up your……oh, wait, did your local ACORN office get shut down?
HistorianDude
25 September 2009 at 2pm
RESPONSE: He can’t release them. He has an obligation to Protect the office of the Presidency. As long as there are court cases against him, he can release nothing without setting a disastrous precedent that would eviscerate the civil legal foundational concept of standing, and paralyze the courts and the government through creation of a de facto judicial filibuster.
That’s been explained to you several times. Your failure to get it can only mean it is too difficult a concept for you to personally understand. You have to be more than merely “reasonable’ to understand that, I guess. You must also be smart. Or not so blinded by irrational hatred that you can figure out the law.
September 25, 2009 at 5:39 pm
HistorianDude
Steve:
Rule number one. If you’re going to mock your opponents, do not parrot their previous put downs. It makes you look unoriginal, unintelligent, desperate and more than a little pathetic. A good snark requires some wit and creativity. Having read your court filings, I know that you do not have a hint of either. You are better served by playing it straight.
That said, I note that you quote me and yet make no attempt to counter my substantive argument. I will take that as a concession that I am correct.
See you on Tuesday evening.
September 25, 2009 at 6:52 pm
slcraig
HistoryDude…..I don’t know if you’re being paid, related, mentally retarded, mind numb from drugs or brainwashed, but isn’t there anything you find repugnant in defending a Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/DemoRat/American Hating/Black Theologist, if God ain’t Black He has to be Killed/Closet Muslim?
Damn right I hope the ‘0’ fails and I intend to do everything I can to expedite his departure from the office of POTUS before he damages beyond redemption.
September 25, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Follow the Constitution
slcraig….I heard Obama is being asked to step down. This is coming from the world court from what I’m hearing. There are things going on behind the scenes that are not out in the open for the public to see. There is also a very interesting case pending that is looking very favorable.
September 25, 2009 at 9:36 pm
JAMES
FTC: Can you elaborate?
September 26, 2009 at 6:51 am
HistorianDude
And in that post Steve Craig abandons all pretense of actually being able to argue the issues, and instead launches into a foaming spasm of impotent insult. The post is only 68 word long and 34 of them are insults. Yet it contains not a single substantive point regarding his “policies.”
How can anyone read that post and pretend with straight face it is not purely about personal hatred towards Obama rather “disapproval of his policies?” And how can anyone read that post without full recognition that Steve Craig’s hatred of this president extends to hatred of this country, of our Constitution, and of the brilliant political experiment that is the worlds oldest existing Constitutional democracy?
You would rather the nation be destroyed than a particular President succeed. Because that’s how it works, Steve-o. The President’s success or failure is the nation’s success or failure.
See you back here Tuesday evening. I’ll bring the gloating.
September 25, 2009 at 7:24 pm
slcraig
Author: Follow the Constitution
Comment:
slcraig….I heard Obama is being asked to step down. This is coming from the
world court from what I’m hearing. There are things going on behind the scenes
that are not out in the open for the public to see.
………well, the world court can go suck eggs, this is a family problem, results of the ‘0s’ misguided youth and socialist inspired school system that turned him in to a useful idiot. But like I said, it’s an American family problem and we should handle it on our own.
As for pending cases, read the records, every time a case has been turned away with comments they stick their foots in their mouths and shoot themselves in the foot and turn the lights on their own failures in keeping their oaths.
September 26, 2009 at 7:50 am
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
HistorianDude comments:
“Nonsense. This very thread proves that claim to be unadulterated bulls*t.”
Your answer is “unadulterated bulls*t”, because I am correct when I post your answer is always “because he doesn’t have too”. You’re right that this thread PROVES my point.
Then he posts:
“That’s your response? I explain what the precedent would be (for the … what? Fifth time?) and your response is not to even try and challenge it? Instead, all you do is go, “Nuh, uh!!!” What kind of argument is that? What was it you were saying about ten year olds?”
Yeah, THAT’s my response. Deal with it. Sorry you can’t deal with a reasonable response. It’s not a “10 year olds” response, it is a response of someone who doesn’t have to hide behind “the law”.
He continues:
“It is clear that you have no idea about how the legal system in our nation works.”
You’re right, I sure don’t. I haven’t been in a courtroom in my life. All I have are my reasonable beliefs in how the system should work. I had no idea about this stupid “standing” issue. There is NO REASON a Court shouldn’t have already ruled against Obama, at least in the minds of us people who can REASONABLY think.
Next he writes:
“That is why you are so frustrated with it, and why you are constantly disappointed with it.”
Damn right I’m disappointed with it, I find it rather unbelievable that the Courts are using some stupid “standing” issue to dismiss these cases, even when people of “standing” have brought them. Hide behind the law, no matter how ridiculous it is. Kind of like the Maryland AG. Ever heard of “Jury nullification”? Why aren’t juries given that instruction?
And then this:
“Spend some time to try and figure it out, and your whole demeanor will change for the better.”
No it won’t. What it will do is open my eyes as to how corrupt, and idiotic the system is. I already understand THAT. When someone can sue someone else because their child fell out of their tree and broke their arm, then we know that they system is BROKE, and is in dire need of an overhaul.
He continues:
“There is great personal fulfillment in knowledge. You should try it.”
I’m pretty smart HistorianDude. I’m no genious, but I am more informed than MOST. Not tooting my own horn, just posting the truth.
What he writes next is this:
“And that is exactly what he is doing, at no small personal cost. He has put the protection of the Office of the Presidency before his own personal reputation… at least among the right wing fringe. You do not occupy the moral high ground on this issue. Obama does.”
This is an outright LIE. He is doing nothing more than putting a shadow on the Office he holds by fighting the cases. If he was a man of character, he would have already released the documents, you know like before we had to resort to the filing of these cases.
A man of character when asked if he received aid reserved for foreign students while attending Occidental, Columbia or Harvard would have said, “Here’s my entrance papers, show me where it says I received aid as a foreign student.”
A man of character, when asked what hospital he was born at in Hawaii, would have put out the document that showed what hospital he was born in, and put THAT to rest.
When asked if he was adopted by Soetoro, a man of character would have at least said no he wasn’t, but Obama hasn’t even done THAT. Obama has been quiet on this issue.
A man of character, when asked under what passport he used to travel to Pakistan in 1981, would have plopped out his passport and said, “This one”.
Obama has done NONE of these things.
Then he comments this idiotic comment:
“Actually, you could not be more wrong if you declared bat guano to be platinum. When Obama was asked before the election to provide his birth certificate he did exactly that. Without any whining, or hand wringing he provided a scanned image of the certificate to multiple news outlets, and then provided the original for inspection to any media outlet that wanted to come look at it.”
You mean the document that IF he was born out of State, or Country could have been filed with Hawaii so long as there was a signature of a “witness” saying he was born in Hawaii? That document? The document that has his father’s race as “African”, when “African” wasn’t even on the list of races allowed to be put on a Hawaiian birth certificate? That document? That document that you lay all of your argument on, is a complete and utter failure when it comes to ACTUALLY proving where Obama was born, except in the eyes of the Court system. In the Court of Public opinion, when people are INFORMED on how that document could have that information on it, KNOW that the document could be used to MANIPULATE the very system you praise.
A man of character would have released the long form document that answers more questions than the one the Courts uses as it’s “standard”.
And your “scanned image” was INVALIDATED when he blacked out the certificate number. It says so right on the document, but you expect us to take this INVALIDATED document as evidence. Why would this “lawyer” allow someone to post an INVALID document as evidence? Why did he black out the certificate number? What purpose did this serve, except to state if he is proven to be ineligible that you can’t use this as evidence because the document itself says it is INVALID if altered? YOU ARE A JOKE HistorianDude.
The whole premise that the President of the United States can produce a document that the information on it could have been mailed in to the Health Department, without the ACTUAL document that was mailed to the Health Department to back it up, IS A JOKE.
This Certification of Live Birth that Obama released may be good enough for the “law”, but it STILL leaves unanswered questions, like WHERE Obama was born.
Can you explain WHY in his book Obama doesn’t name the hospital he was born in? Seems like a pretty easy thing to have done. Seems like this would have answered the question BEFORE it was brought up, but he didn’t, and the ONLY answer we have is some “letter” Obama wrote to a hospital.
Kind of like his Pakistan trip. It’s all a mystery, Obama won’t elaborate on why he went, how he got in there, who paid for it or what he did there. It was a HUGE slip of his tongue that he admitted to going to Pakistan in 1981. A preverbial “Pandora’s Box” was opened when he made this statement last year during the campaign, and one that “journalists” won’t follow up on. Obama simply ignores the issues this brings up.
Then HistorianDude writes this:
“And we all know why that was.”
Yeah, it’s because it doesn’t matter what Obama released. I have admitted that this document is what the State of Hawaii sent to Obama. However, this document is not definative proof that the information on this document is what is on his ORIGINAL birth certificate.
Obama only did what he had to do “by law”. It’s a weasely move.
Look, if I committed a crime, and someone else was prosecuted for the crime, and found guilty, LEGALLY, I have NO obligation to come forward and clear the person who committed the crime. I believe that would be the RIGHT thing to do. You would argue that I would be an idiot for doing that. I would argue that I would be an idiot if I didn’t.
You tell me who has more character in this instance?
HistorianDude then commented this:
“It is to reverse an election.”
ONLY if he was illegally elected.
He continues:
“That would be more compelling if you guys didn’t keep insisting that the Constitution means what it does not say.”
Well, you can keep citing the “Kim” case, but you KNOW this was a case of “citizenship” concerning the 14th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment doesn’t even answer the “natural born citizen” clause, so YOU are stretching the case to cover something that it does not even address.
All we are asking is for the Supreme Court to hear the case, and make a decision.
Then HistorianDude makes this absurd comment:
“I’m sure that’s your story and your sticking to it. But I have read more than a few of your posts. You claim to dislike his policies, but as a general rule it does not appear that you have a clue as to what most of them even are.”
You are entitled to your misguided opinion. You are delusional, there’s no doubt about that.
He continues his absurdity with this comment:
“The single criterion that appears necessary for you to decide you “dislike” something is that it have something to do with Obama.”
Well in the last comment, you stated that you have read a “few” of my posts, and come to this conclusion. Well, unless you have read my posts criticizing Bush, and McCain, and Reagan, then you have NO GROUNDS to make this statement.
And then he posts this as if it were true:
“The single common factor in your outrage, anger and disdain is the man.”
Well this shows your ignorance of me then doesn’t it HistorianDude. Was Obama President when the FIRST stimulus package was passed? Did Obama do that? Well I criticized BUSH and the CONGRESS for passing that. Was Obama President when TARP was passed? I criticized BUSH, McCAIN and CONGRESS for passing that also. Was Obama President when the Department of Education was created? I criticize THAT all of the time.
You need to just keep your comments to yourself when you THINK you know what I think, because you don’t have a CLUE as to who I have criticized, or questioned. You live in a fantasy world if you think I haven’t criticized anyone but Obama.
IT IS A LIE.
The HistorianDude comments:
“Yep. It is another judges opinion. We have had almost 50 of them to this point. Not one of them has gone your way.”
Yet!!!!!!!!
Then he continues with this:
“See… this is another example of the difference between you and me. What I do in situations like that is the same thing my father did, and his father did. I go to where the work is. I don’t blame anybody else. I don’t wring my hands and whine like a beaten stepchild. If I need different skills, I go get them. If I need to change states, I change states. And I never… never… NEVER for a second believe there is no chance of being hired full time.”
Another example of HistorianDude not knowing my situation, and making jumps. You see HistorianDude, my father has lung cancer, and NEEDS me here. I have to take him to doctors appointments, treatments, scans and tests. I can’t just uproot my family and take them to another state. I have lived here all of my life, and I shouldn’t have to look somewhere else for work, and I won’t. What I WILL do is make things work. I didn’t “whine” as you put it, I stated what is happening around here, and telling the truth.
I didn’t BLAME anyone for my situation. I take RESPONSIBILITY for my situation. Are you giving credit to Obama for you being able to better yourself?
All I was pointing out to you was that not everyone is in the situation you are in, and the way I see it, at least around here, is that there are many more people in MY situation, than in YOUR situation. I suppose your answer would be for all of us to move, and uproot our families to go where the jobs are. That simply won’t work, and you know it won’t work.
I’m glad for you HistorianDude, please don’t ridicule me for simply telling you what is happening around here. We are making it fine, but we are definitely not in the situation we were in 2 years ago.
Then HistorianDude comments this:
“Be a man, IB. Get a job.”
I have a job HistorianDude. The same job I had 5 years ago. The problem is, I had to take a 4 dollar an hour pay CUT to get my job back. That was MY decision.
You have no right to make this comment. You don’t know me, so what I would comment to you would be quit telling me how to live my life. I’m more of a MAN than you will EVER be. I pay my bills. I do what is necessary to keep what I have. I’m not going to pack everything up and leave somewhere that I have lived for almost 5 decades, especially when my family NEEDS me here. It’s easy to post “Get a job” when you believe you are better than someone else. YOU AREN’T BETTER THAN I AM. You will NEVER have the character, and responsibility, and backbone, and common sense that I have.
You may be smarter than I am, and you may have more worldly goods than I have, and you may have more money than I have, but you will NEVER have the MORAL CHARACTER I have.
You prove this with your idiotic posts proclaiming that YOU know better for me than I do.
Just SHUT UP already.
September 26, 2009 at 9:55 am
HistorianDude
IB WROTE: Your answer is “unadulterated bulls*t”, because I am correct when I post your answer is always “because he doesn’t have too”. You’re right that this thread PROVES my point.
RESPONSE: You are not correct and you are not telling the truth. Simply reading this thread makes that obvious.
IB WROTE: “You’re right, I sure don’t. I haven’t been in a courtroom in my life. All I have are my reasonable beliefs in how the system should work. I had no idea about this stupid “standing” issue. There is NO REASON a Court shouldn’t have already ruled against Obama, at least in the minds of us people who can REASONABLY think.”
RESPONSE: Since you fully admit here to having no idea how the legal system works, perhaps a quotation from Abraham Lincoln would be appropriate. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
When it was suggested that it would help for you to actually learn about the law, your astounding response was:
IB WROTE: No it won’t.
RESPONSE: Your willful, deliberate and gleeful embrace of ignorance is noted. It does you no credit.
IB WROTE: “This is an outright LIE. He is doing nothing more than putting a shadow on the Office he holds by fighting the cases. If he was a man of character, he would have already released the documents, you know like before we had to resort to the filing of these cases.”
RESPONSE: How would you know it was a lie, when you have already admitted first that you do not understand it, and second that you refuse to even try to learn enough to understand it?
I know I am being too generous by expecting you to actually have the integrity to know what you are talking about when you start calling people names. But here again you demonstrate in spades that you do not occupy the moral high ground. A moral man does not call his brother a liar when he has already admitted he does not know that to be true.
You are demonstrably not a man of honor.
Now, you demonstrate again your bilious and visceral hate of the man by bringing up the long list of irrelevant and idiotic Birther issues that stand as pathetic substitutes for the simple fact that Obama perfectly meets the eligibility requirements of the Presidency and has already proven it. There is no Constitutional requirement that a President be born in any particular hospital, or in a hospital at all. There is no Constitutional requirement that a President even be a college graduate (Truman was not) let alone finance that education any particular way. There is no Constitutional prohibition from a future President traveling to Pakistan. The Constitutional requirements are these:
1. Be a natural born American Citizen.
2. Be 35 years of age or older.
3. Be a US resident for 14 years.
The COLB that Obama released is absolute legal proof that he is a natural born citizen and more than 35 years old. You have nothing that contradicts it. If you were being honest that your concern is the Constitution you would stop trying to move the goal posts, and stop trying to invent new and unusually requirements that exist nowhere within it.
But of course, you are not an honest man. It would be naive to expect such behavior from you.
IB WROTE: “All we are asking is for the Supreme Court to hear the case, and make a decision.”
RESPONSE: First you have to have a case to hear. You do not have one. And this is why the courts (all of them at every level) keep telling you to stick it in your ear.
IB WROTE: “Another example of HistorianDude not knowing my situation, and making jumps. You see HistorianDude, my father has lung cancer, and NEEDS me here. I have to take him to doctors appointments, treatments, scans and tests. I can’t just uproot my family and take them to another state. I have lived here all of my life, and I shouldn’t have to look somewhere else for work, and I won’t. What I WILL do is make things work. I didn’t “whine” as you put it, I stated what is happening around here, and telling the truth.”
RESPONSE: Shit happens. We all make choices. You have made yours. Stop blaming others for them.
IB WROTE: “I didn’t BLAME anyone for my situation. I take RESPONSIBILITY for my situation. Are you giving credit to Obama for you being able to better yourself?”
RESPONSE: Reread your previous post. You did exactly that.
IB WROTE: “I have a job HistorianDude. The same job I had 5 years ago. The problem is, I had to take a 4 dollar an hour pay CUT to get my job back. That was MY decision.”
RESPONSE: There you go. That was your decision. It is also the operation of the free market capitalist system that you and I support. Grow up and deal with both. Do not come whining to me about your problems. You have long surrendered the level of personal regard that would require me to care about you personally.
I will continue to care about job growth. I will continue to care about a social safety net. I will continue to care about both legal and economic justice. I will continue to care about the health of our nation and our individual people.
I just do not have room to care about you personally. You are not special.
IB WROTE: “You have no right to make this comment. You don’t know me, so what I would comment to you would be quit telling me how to live my life. I’m more of a MAN than you will EVER be. I pay my bills. I do what is necessary to keep what I have. I’m not going to pack everything up and leave somewhere that I have lived for almost 5 decades, especially when my family NEEDS me here. It’s easy to post “Get a job” when you believe you are better than someone else. YOU AREN’T BETTER THAN I AM. You will NEVER have the character, and responsibility, and backbone, and common sense that I have.”
RESPONSE: Every reality conspires against that paragraph being true. Thomas Jefferson characterized his hopes for the American experiment as “aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity.” There was a time, a mere generation or two agon when the folk who lost an election sucked it up and became the loyal opposition. They did not cry about it without cease. They did not look for dishonest and dishonorable ways to revoke the Constitution and drive the rightly elected government from power. They did not base their politics on hatred and prejudice, but buckled down to continue their participation in the collaborative effort that comprises a nation.
Times have changed.
You and I are both different people, so there are certainly areas in which one will be better than the other. You could very well be better looking than I am. I might very well be in better physical shape than you. One of us is probably smarter than the other, one of us is probably taller than the other, one of us can hit deeper into center field than the other, and one of us is probably better in bed than the other.
And yes… one of us probably has greater moral character than the other.
There will probably never be an objective determination of any of those issues, certainly not in this blog. But… one thing we do know serves as a great hint to the likely outcome of others.
You are a puerile whiner. And I am not.
September 26, 2009 at 10:27 am
HistorianDude
James, thank you for your thoughtful post. Let me respond to just a few comments.
YOU WROTE: You criticize those who do not support the Obama policies as not being true patriots, yet the same people who are lauding the praises of the empty suit were the vocal attackers of the prior administration. Were they not patriots as they loudly proclaimed the failings of Bush?
RESPONSE: In fairness, I do no such thing. You will notice that there are a large number of your posts that never receive so much as a hint of criticism from me. Almost all of them that are policy posts go completely ignored as they are part of the legitimate political discourse. I have never once accused anybody of being unpatriotic simply for opposing Obama’s policies. You can review my by now significant number of posts on your blog and verify that fact.
Instead, I post primarily on the Birther issue. This is because Birthers are not a mainstream conservative political movement. It is a dangerous radical fringe that openly speaks (on other blogs, not so much yours) about their personal hatred for this President, and too often waxes longingly for the violent overthrow of our government. There is nothing about such a position that deserves any credit for being “patriotic.”
I also (excruciatingly rarely) will depart from the Birther issue with a post that corrects a specific and demonstrable error of fact in a post on other issues. I do not stick around to defend a particular viewpoint on them, I simply correct the error and move on.
You are wrong to assert that I “criticize those who do not support the Obama policies as not being true patriots.” Instead, I criticize those who believe that we must destroy the Constitution in order to save it as being both unpatriotic and dangerous.
YOU WROTE: As far as “trust baby”, God I only wish. No, I did not serve in the military. Does that make me a trust baby? Or am I a trust baby because I operate a business trying to keep 18 employees employed in this poor economic climate while trying to get the government from taking more of my business and more control of our lives. You raved about your 401k. I think that is great. Some employer has sacrificed to build a business that employs you to be able to build your 401k. Some employer has risked their assets to build a business to generate jobs and income. Yet the Obama administration loves to villify the business owners. Let me be very clear… the healthcare legislation, be it from the Senate or the House, is going to cost my business enough that either my prices go up, or 2-3 employees, or a combination of both.
RESPONSE: I have never once seen, read or heard of the Obama administration “vilifying small business owners.” I suspect you have not either. I have read such claims only from opposition talking points, but I have always found them deeply ironic, since it was the fact that the previous administration ignored small business in favor of large business that resulted in my closing my own firm more than a year ago. Was small business vilified then either? Of course not. It was praised and then promptly ignored.
Let me shock you here. I too am completely opposed to the “health reform bill” being discussed. But not because it goes too far. I am opposed because it does not go far enough. It is fiddling with insurance. It is fixing nothing.
Healthcare is my career field. I speak from a position of deep professional knowledge. This healthcare legislation is the least of your concerns. Without genuine, deep and painful reform none of your 18 employees will have insurance that is worth squat in another 15 years.
Neither, by the way, will you.
YOU WROTE: To be fair as far as what I post, yes, I post based upon my positions. If I were a newspaper or news center, the quest for objectivity should be tantamount, with positions left to the editorial pages. I really started my blog as a place to exchange ideas and thoughts without the name calling that I found on other sites. For the most part, I think we’ve accomplished that, albeit a small group of followers. The passionate debates are the reason I keep blogging, because I believe that helps keep our minds open to each other’s viewpoints. This is the next best thing to kitchen table neighborhood debates that our grandparents had.
RESPONSE: Agreed completely, and you personally do a better job of making that possible than many others. I apologize to you (and at this point to you alone) for suggesting you were miserable when you insist you are not. Alas, I cannot offer that same apology to either Steve or “IB.” My judgment on their unhappy existences must remain unchanged.
September 26, 2009 at 11:09 am
JAMES
HD: Your comments have always been on the Birther issue. Without going into that discourse here, I find the tone of the Obama administration troubling, as I have mentioned before, because of the manner in which it seems to be perceived that he is apologizing on our behalf. And from that, one can wonder about his allegiances in light of the questions surrounding his COLB, his eduactional records, everything. We know more about Joe the Plumber’s past than Obama’s, and it is in Joe the Plumber that the small business owner gets villified. The “no one making less than $250k will have taxes increased” is an attack on the small business owners, particularly those who are sole proprietorships or S Corporations.
I firmly believe that there is a need for reform in healthcare, but I believe that this massive legislation that will create more massive departments IS NOT the answer. For one thing, I am tired of the line that we will pay for part of this with savings from cutting Medicare fraud…. how about lets cut the fraud NOW, regardless of the health care reform legislation. I know many in the healthcare profession who believe the Obama reform strategy is not intended for reform, but for more government control. If the helathcare reform was an easy task, Kennedy would have pulled it off years ago. For serious reform, I believe our legislators need to void themselves of all lobbyists influence, and bring all parties to the table with the challenge of developing a strategy that keeps the government out of the control of healthcare, fosters true competition, eliminates the loopholes that allow for coverage cancellations, foster preventitive healthcare instead of reactive (and defensive) healthcare, and keep the lawyers out of the doctor’s office.
Finally, back to small businesses, they are typically forgotten in the mix. Al Gore gets a loan of billions to build cars in SWEDEN, while many small businesses cannot get adequate credit lines in this climate to keep jobs in AMERICA !
September 26, 2009 at 12:16 pm
HistorianDude
I have lived overseas. I know first hand that the United States has very large feet and we often do not pay adequate attention to where we step. An apology, when deserved, is not a sign of weakness. It is simply good manners.
As to Healthcare Reform… it strikes me that you are offering me received talking points rather than a serious discussion. For example you write that, “I firmly believe that there is a need for reform in health care, but I believe that this massive legislation that will create more massive departments IS NOT the answer.”
What you seem to miss is that it would be essentially impossible to create a more massive, costly and inefficient bureaucracy than we have today in the form of our private health insurance industry. They consume a huge percentage of our health care spending without delivering a dime of actual health care. They are actively and aggressively RATIONING health care TODAY. And their entire incentive structure rewards denying health care to those who actually need it. It is my direct experience that people who are happy with the health insurance they have now are healthy people who are not using it.
This is a critical issue here. The tip of the bayonet for genuine health care reform is to take health decision making away from insurance company bureaucrats, almost none of whom have ever been health care providers, and return it to primary care physicians. Even a single payer system, designed correctly, would not be “government controlled.” It would be physician controlled… something that does not exist today for any but the wealthiest Americans.
You also write, “For one thing, I am tired of the line that we will pay for part of this with savings from cutting Medicare fraud…. how about lets cut the fraud NOW, regardless of the health care reform legislation.”
Fraud is actually not the big issue here, and there is no great distinction between Medicare fraud and private health insurance fraud. Thieves will rort any system that has a lot of money involved. Eliminating fraud is a good thing, but not because it is a reasonable way to pay for health care reform.
A reformed health care system should be funded exactly the same way we fund our current system; premiums paid by individuals, businesses and subsidized by government. Almost any single payer model conceivable would be, out of the gate, 1/3rd less costly than the system we have today. National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009. We would save more than $700 billion with a single payer system. That alone could provide health insurance for every single currently uncovered American with bucks left over for physician bonuses.
That last comment was not a snark. We pay our physicians today (especially our specialists) based on piece work. The more procedures they do, the more they get paid… even if the procedures are unnecessary. The result is that we have a massive shortage of primary care physicians, while wasting a huge amount of money on unnecessary care. Physicians should be salaried professionals who are rewarded for quality of outcomes, not for who can catheterize the most already healthy hearts.
And finally, we need serious tort reform. We will never control our costs until we can eliminate the fear of malpractice lawsuits that cause so many physicians to practice “defensive medicine” rather than preventive health care.
By the way…. I was a member of a consortium of health care providers and suppliers who developed exactly such a model more than 15 years ago. It included some of the biggest names in health care such as the Mayo Clinic, J&J, Baxter International and the American medical Association. It was never adopted or even considered because Republican propaganda portrayed it falsely as a “big government takeover.”
The Republicans this time are playing the same cards and have effectively kept a single payer plan completely off the table. Even Obama was too timid to try and propose one. So… why does this health care plan suck so much? Because of tea parties and screamers at town hall meetings regurgitating a Republican mantra that they don’t even understand.
I am less concerned over the fact that billions are going to build cars in Sweden than I am that they already have better health care than us and pay much less… and have exactly zero uninsured.
And that is unlikely to change anytime soon.
September 26, 2009 at 1:58 pm
JAMES
Whatever shape the healthcare reform takes, any government control of it will be unacceptable. SERIOUS TORT REFORM is exactly where the reform should begin. I believe that Mississippi has made some efforts in that area that could be a foundation. I agree that there is fraud in the Medicare and the private sector, The idea of the government calling the shots (no pun) in defining our health care, medical reimbursements, etc., is sickening, given their experience in Amtrak, the Post Office, etc. Single payer is not what I want to see, because that means government control. In the plans before Congress now, no matter how much they try to say we can keep our health plans, the fine print is that we will all be moved to the public plan, either as an economic factor for our employer or because we can only keep the policy we ae on until it is phased out, and then we will have no option but the public plan.
No matter how we try to say it isn’t so, the President himself has said that the care for the elderly will be changed (i.e. the 105 yr old wman who needed a pacemaker at 100, and one doctor wouldn’t do it while another would, and Obama’s answer was that sometimes we have to accept that a pill would be better than the pacemaker!). Ezekial Emanuel’s theory of gearing healthcare toward the productive parts of the community (18-50) would become acceptable.
I will not refute your numbers on the single payer plan, because you obviously have the data that I d not, but we all know that our government would find a way to keep our healthcare costs exactly where they are. We are subjects of ur government’s greed which has been fueled by raising an entire generation of entitlement families and raising this generation to believe that government is the answer, instead of the individual. With healthcare, the government may need to be a key player, but they cannot be the one’s setting the rules or the standards.
Physicians cannot be paid salaries, unless they are employees of a health center, etc. Many, if not most, are small businessmen, and thus they should be paid competitively. To say that we are putting all physicians on salaries, and then rewarding them with bonuses is inferring that we will be making them federal employees of the government. And aren’t we presently opposed to “bonuses” for compensation? I agree wth your analysis f shortages of primary physicians, and the waste, etc., and this is a result of the private insurance payments of “reasconable and customary” and the government’s poor Medicare reimbursement fee structure.
What is Sewden’s tax structure? I for one am not willing to give our government one more dime to be wasted. Of course, the reform of our tax code is another whole issue!!
September 26, 2009 at 2:01 pm
JAMES
Another question HD… Why does everyone feel that an employer should bear any part of the cost of their employee’s health insurance? Why should an insurer charge a individual 3-5v times the amount the charge for the same policy on a group plan? The risk is being spread among the same pool, no matter how you look at it? A “benefit” like health insurance, was a means of getting one to work for company A over comapny B, not something that should be mandated as it now is.
September 26, 2009 at 3:23 pm
HistorianDude
James:
YOU WROTE: No matter how we try to say it isn’t so, the President himself has said that the care for the elderly will be changed (i.e. the 105 yr old wman who needed a pacemaker at 100, and one doctor wouldn’t do it while another would, and Obama’s answer was that sometimes we have to accept that a pill would be better than the pacemaker!). Ezekial Emanuel’s theory of gearing healthcare toward the productive parts of the community (18-50) would become acceptable.
RESPONSE: Those sorts of decisions are made every day in this country. Already. This moment. Without any push from health care reform. Sometimes we DO have to accept that a pill would be better than the pacemaker, because it is simply true. I am only 52 years old, and I have had to make more than a half dozen such decisions for myself or my loved ones already. Welcome to real life.
The problem is that unlike the example you offer here, many such decisions are today being made by health insurance bureaucrats, rather than either doctors or patients. We are absolutely rationing health care already. The problem is we ration it for the purpose of making money for insurance companies rather than making sure that the people who need health care most are actually getting it.
YOU WROTE: Physicians cannot be paid salaries, unless they are employees of a health center, etc. Many, if not most, are small businessmen, and thus they should be paid competitively. To say that we are putting all physicians on salaries, and then rewarding them with bonuses is inferring that we will be making them federal employees of the government.
RESPONSE: Well, you already pointed out there are already a lot of physicians who are salaried professionals today. Why immediately assume that a different non-private model would be required? It’s not.
I repeat…. there is no reason a single payer plan should have any decision being made by anybody in the employ of the government.
YOU WROTE: And aren’t we presently opposed to “bonuses” for compensation? I agree wth your analysis f shortages of primary physicians, and the waste, etc., and this is a result of the private insurance payments of “reasconable and customary” and the government’s poor Medicare reimbursement fee structure.
RESPONSE: I’m not opposed to bonuses. Are you? I think bonuses are great.
YOU WROTE: What is Sewden’s tax structure? I for one am not willing to give our government one more dime to be wasted. Of course, the reform of our tax code is another whole issue!!
RESPONSE: It’s absurd. But not because of health care. Their health care costs are roughly 2/3rds of our own per capita… yet they are 23rd on the list of best health care in the world while we are 37th. For heaven’s sake, Malta, Columbia and Morocco are higher on the list than we are.
I too would be a big supporter of tax code reform.
YOU WROTE: Another question HD… Why does everyone feel that an employer should bear any part of the cost of their employee’s health insurance?
RESPONSE: Because employer’s embraced that role themselves when they began competing for employees by providing non-salary benefits. But who would you prefer pay? After all, health care does actually cost, and somebody has to pay. If you’d prefer to shift the burden to the individual, fine. If you’d rather put it all on taxes, that’s fine too. A single payer plan would still cost less and deliver better quality outcomes, no matter who ends up paying.
YOU WROTE: Why should an insurer charge a individual 3-5v times the amount the charge for the same policy on a group plan? The risk is being spread among the same pool, no matter how you look at it?
RESPONSE: Who ever said they should? They do it because they can. It is profitable for them to do so. There is no other reason.
YOU WROTE: A “benefit” like health insurance, was a means of getting one to work for company A over comapny B, not something that should be mandated as it now is.
RESPONSE: Yes… if we actually decided as a nation that health care was a right rather than a privilege of those who can afford it, it would eliminate one competitive dimension in benefits packages. As a small business man, I’d have thought you would approve.
September 26, 2009 at 5:26 pm
JAMES
Health care is not a right. It is our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is our right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, and so forth. Healthcare is not an enumerated right. As a small business owner, I do not want the government mandating what I must supply my employees as a benefit. I see we have some agreement in the helath care costs. The burden of the cost of health care should be the burden of the individual, not the government, and not the business owner.
I am not opposed to bonuses, and I knew you were not by your analysis.
Yes, we all have to make certain medical decisions for ourselves and our families. That is just the point. I do not believe that there will be “death panels”, but I do believe that the bureaucracy that will be created will set standards, and at a certain point, you will not have a say in the care. Certain cancer patients can sustain a decent quality of life with intermittent chemotherapy, for years, but if that person is 70 or 80, will that care be continued? These are the concerns that need to be CLEARLY SPELLED out, along with making it clear that they truly are moving us all into the one system– they need to stop the game playing, both parties, and clearly define what all the bills say, and give the American public time to review ALL of it before they vote on it to send to POTUS.
September 26, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude wrote:
“You are not correct and you are not telling the truth. Simply reading this thread makes that obvious.”
I am right, and I am telling the truth, and reading this thread will only prove me as being correct.
Then he writes:
“Since you fully admit here to having no idea how the legal system works,”
I know how the system is SUPPOSED to work, and it sure isn’t the way it works now. When a killer can get off in the face of indisputable evidence, because of some stupid “technicality”, then our system is BROKE.
He continues:
“Your willful, deliberate and gleeful embrace of ignorance is noted. It does you no credit.”
Well well, I have no credit in HistorianDude’s mind. WOW. Honestly, I could care less how much credit YOU think I have. Like I posted above, when people can walk the streets AFTER being found guilty, over some stupid “technicality”, then there is a problem with the system. How many guilty people have you gotten off on some stupid “technicality”? I hope you are proud of yourself.
And HistorianDude, excuse me for never being arrested, or having a suit filed against me. I am no expert on how our system actually works, but I sure do know how it is SUPPOSED to work, it’s lawyers like you who have brought about the ridiculous nature of the way our system is now.
His next comment is this:
“How would you know it was a lie, when you have already admitted first that you do not understand it, and second that you refuse to even try to learn enough to understand it?”
Well I know that he sure isn’t bringing “honor” to the Office he holds by fighting tooth and nail to keep the documents sealed. THAT’S what the LIE is that you posted. How do I KNOW that? Well that would be because a man of “honor” doesn’t keep things sealed, especially a man in the position Obama is in, a man of “honor” would put the documents out, and let the cards fall where they fall. A COWARD HIDES BEHIND THE LAW, even more so when the coward stands behind the law if he has nothing to hide. Pretty simple HistorianDude, if he had nothing to hide, he would have released the documents BEFORE all of this came up.
Then he writes this:
“You are demonstrably not a man of honor.”
I have more HONOR in my little finger than you have in your entire body. You sir are a COWARD.
The next comment is this:
“Now, you demonstrate again your bilious and visceral hate of the man by bringing up the long list of irrelevant and idiotic Birther issues that stand as pathetic substitutes for the simple fact that Obama perfectly meets the eligibility requirements of the Presidency and has already proven it.”
Call it whatever you want, if that what fuels your hatred of AMERICA, then you go ahead and keep thinking that. You make no sense at all trying to equate “hatred of a man” with not agreeing with his policy. If you question ANYTHING Obama, then you either hate him, are a racist, are “astroturf” or a “Birther” or whatever. Big deal HistorianDude, your intimidation tactics have not worked in the past, and they won’t work now.
WE DON’T KNOW IF OBAMA MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION. YOUR LOVELY COURT SYSTEM WON’T ALLOW US THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.
I hope you are proud of that FACT.
Then he spouts this:
“There is no Constitutional requirement that a President be born in any particular hospital, or in a hospital at all.”
No, but doesn’t Obama say he was born in a hospital? Didn’t he write that letter to the hospital? Well unless he releases the document that would prove that, why should we take his word for it? He is a proven liar over and over again. I would not be surprised if he wasn’t lying about this also, but we don’t KNOW, now do we HistorianDude?
And if he is lying about being born in a hospital, then what else is he lying about? He’s lied so many times, it comes natural to him. You see I have a concious, I believe it is wrong to lie, and I try not too. Oh I’m not perfect when it comes to not lying, but I sure couldn’t do it with the nonchalantness that Obama does.
So there IS relevence, you don’t like it when it is brought up. IF it could be proven Obama wasn’t born in a hospital, which the release of his ORIGINAL birth certificate could do, then there is one more piece of evidence that Obama is hiding something.
And this:
“There is no Constitutional requirement that a President even be a college graduate (Truman was not) let alone finance that education any particular way.”
No, but IF he received aid that was reserved for foreign students, and Obama received some of that funding, then there’s another piece of evidence that Obama ISN’T a “natural born citizen”. You see, I believe that John Lindh lost HIS “natural born” status, don’t you? Well that’s a stupid question, of course you DON’T think he has lost it, he was born here and that’s all you need to be a “natural born citizen”, right HistorianDude? Forget the FACT that all of the evidence points to him HATING America (kind of like you do HistorianDude), all he has to do to be a “natural born citizen” is be born in that Country.
So yes HistorianDude, to us reasonable thinking people, how his College was financed has relevence. IF he received funds reserved for foreign students, then he admits that he is a foreign student, which means he is no longer a “natural born citizen”.
He continues:
“There is no Constitutional prohibition from a future President traveling to Pakistan.”
No there sure isn’t, but there sure are questions raised when that “future President” won’t even tell us what passport he used when he traveled to Pakistan. Kind of insinuates that he is hiding something, at least in reasonable thinking people’s mind. HistorianDude, you can’t think “reasonably” when your mind is clouded by what our BROKEN Court system mentality is. YOU live in that world, I don’t. I live in a world where things ought to be done because they are RIGHT, not where you hide behind the skirt of some UNreasonable system.
Then HistorianDude writes this:
“The Constitutional requirements are these:
1. Be a natural born American Citizen.
2. Be 35 years of age or older.
3. Be a US resident for 14 years.”
Obama hasn’t PROVEN that he is a natural born citizen.
He continues:
“The COLB that Obama released is absolute legal proof that he is a natural born citizen and more than 35 years old.”
It may be in today’s Court system, but what he released is not ABSOLUTE PROOF, that what is on that piece of paper, is what is on his ORIGINAL birth certificate.
Even Fukino admits that much.
More blather from HistorianDude:
“If you were being honest that your concern is the Constitution you would stop trying to move the goal posts, and stop trying to invent new and unusually requirements that exist nowhere within it.”
Not trying to “move the goal posts”, not at all, only trying to make sure the crowd don’t TEAR DOWN those goal posts after winning the Presidency.
Then he attacks with this:
“But of course, you are not an honest man. It would be naive to expect such behavior from you.”
All you have to do is consider the source of this comment to understand that it is pure blather.
Then he comments this:
“First you have to have a case to hear. You do not have one. And this is why the courts (all of them at every level) keep telling you to stick it in your ear.”
Well what about those 50 “victories” you are so proud of? If a case wasn’t brought, then you couldn’t be gloating about your “victories”. This proves that you are a liar HistorianDude. Talk about “moving goal posts”.
And just because the Courts keep telling us to “stick it in your ear”, it won’t stop us from asking, it just increases the curiosity.
The he comments these two comments:
“Shit happens. We all make choices. You have made yours. Stop blaming others for them.”
And
“Reread your previous post. You did exactly that.”
Where in ANY of my comments have I blamed ANYONE but myself for the situation that I (and many others) find themselves in? I “reread” my previous post, and I can’t see ANYWHERE where I say ANY person other than myself is responsible for my situation.
Boy, you sure have a clouded mind to think otherwise, but I’ll simply let others read my comments and make their own conclusions.
Then he writes THIS:
“There you go. That was your decision. It is also the operation of the free market capitalist system that you and I support. Grow up and deal with both. Do not come whining to me about your problems. You have long surrendered the level of personal regard that would require me to care about you personally.”
I didn’t bring up MY situation until after YOU brought up YOUR situation, trying to get people to think that things are getting better because YOU have been fortunate enough to find a better way of life in these tough times. I was simply pointing out that there are people out here, who have not been that fortunate. I’d say that MY situation is more prevelant than YOUR situation is.
I would reject any “regard” that you would have for me anyway, so it was never asked for, never expected, and from what I read in your comments it wouldn’t be held in high “regard” if you offered it. You lost ALL respect from me when YOU started with the personal attacks.
It’s a tactic right out of Alinsky, you have learned well.
Then he goes on this diatribe:
“I will continue to care about job growth. I will continue to care about a social safety net. I will continue to care about both legal and economic justice. I will continue to care about the health of our nation and our individual people.”
If I can deal with these line by line:
“I will continue to care about job growth.”
That’s fine, but where does it state ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the Government should care about job growth?
“I will continue to care about a social safety net.”
Again, that’s great, but where in the Constitution does it say that the Government has to supply a “social safety net”?
Sure people should contribute to the Red Cross, their churches, Community organizations and the like. THOSE are the folks who SHOULD provide that “social safety net”, not the Government.
“I will continue to care about both legal and economic justice.”
What is “economic justice”? Is that the new phrase for redistribution of wealth? Better watch “gloating” too much about how you are bettering yourself, your “Uncle” may be knocking on your door demanding some of that “bettering”.
I’d suggest to you that if the forefathers could see what our legal system has become, they would go out back of that Courthouse and throw up.
“I will continue to care about the health of our nation and our individual people.”
Good for you HistorianDude, how about caring for the health of someone who doesn’t have health insurance, by going out and paying for their coverage? If you cared so much, then why haven’t you done that yet?
And if you care so much about “the health of our nation”, why aren’t you out here complaining about what “condition” our Nation’s health is in? I’ve been complaining about it since Reagan. I seen the Government having RECORD deficits when Reagan was President, and told anyone who asked the way I felt about it. Now we PRINT money we have NO collateral for. Been doing it for some time now.
I could go on and on about how we could get ourselves out of it, but it would have to do with that thing you say YOU are upholding, and that would be getting back to what the Constitution IS all about. Not some contrived belief that somewhere in the Constitution it allows for the Government doing something about “job creation”, or “social safety nets”, or caring about “economic justice” or caring about “individual health”.
Then he comments this:
“Every reality conspires against that paragraph being true.”
I would stand my life, and everything I have done in my life, against yours any day of the week HistorianDude.
Then he comments this:
“There was a time, a mere generation or two agon when the folk who lost an election sucked it up and became the loyal opposition. They did not cry about it without cease. They did not look for dishonest and dishonorable ways to revoke the Constitution and drive the rightly elected government from power. They did not base their politics on hatred and prejudice, but buckled down to continue their participation in the collaborative effort that comprises a nation.”
This comment is a total untruth. There has ALWAYS been opposition and it is lawful according to what is written in that paper you keep thinking you are “upholding”.
It says that we have the right of “Assembly”. You might want to reread THAT part of the Constitution. There are remarkably peaceful “Assemblies” being held around the Country. Did you hear there were NO arrests in DC at the “rally”? I wonder if that was the case of the Obama Inauguration crowd?
Then this:
“Times have changed.”
They sure have.
He continues:
“You and I are both different people, so there are certainly areas in which one will be better than the other. You could very well be better looking than I am. I might very well be in better physical shape than you. One of us is probably smarter than the other, one of us is probably taller than the other, one of us can hit deeper into center field than the other, and one of us is probably better in bed than the other.
And yes… one of us probably has greater moral character than the other.”
But CHARACTER is the ONLY thing that REALLY matters, and you have shown the lack of that in each and every one of the posts you make.
Then he writes this:
“There will probably never be an objective determination of any of those issues, certainly not in this blog. But… one thing we do know serves as a great hint to the likely outcome of others.
You are a puerile whiner. And I am not.”
In your clouded mind.
Just release the documents Mr President, and put this issue to rest.
September 26, 2009 at 2:48 pm
HistorianDude
IB WROTE: “How many guilty people have you gotten off on some stupid “technicality”? “
REPONSE: You have been told no less than a half dozen times that I am not a lawyer. For God’s sake man… are you brain damaged or what? How many times must you be told some simple fact before it manages to puncture the envelope of your delusion, ignorance and bigotry?
IB WROTE: “Well I know that he sure isn’t bringing “honor” to the Office he holds by fighting tooth and nail to keep the documents sealed.”
RESPONSE: You know nothing of the sort. You know only that you haven’t gotten your way and you are all pissy about it. Again, I already suggested you spend some time to figure out what the law actually is, and you said no. You have chosen to be an ignorant moaner. We have nothing else to talk about.
IB WROTE: “I have more HONOR in my little finger than you have in your entire body. You sir are a COWARD.”
REPONSE: Why not just call me a poopy head? Grow up, IB. You are being a baby.
IB WROTE: “WE DON’T KNOW IF OBAMA MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS LAID OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION. YOUR LOVELY COURT SYSTEM WON’T ALLOW US THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.”
RESPONSE: You speak only for yourself, IB, and a handful of your fellow haters. The rest of know that Obama meets the requirements.
IB WROTE: “No, but doesn’t Obama say he was born in a hospital? Didn’t he write that letter to the hospital? Well unless he releases the document that would prove that, why should we take his word for it? “
RESPONSE: Who cares one second whether you take his word for it? It does not matter one way or the other.
IB WROTE: “No, but IF he received aid that was reserved for foreign students, and Obama received some of that funding, then there’s another piece of evidence that Obama ISN’T a “natural born citizen.”.
RESPONSE: No, it isn’t. Tens of millions of natural born American citizens are dual citizens.
IB WROTE: “No there sure isn’t, but there sure are questions raised when that “future President” won’t even tell us what passport he used when he traveled to Pakistan.”
RESPONSE: No, there aren’t. Again, tens of millions of natural born American citizens are dual citizens and can travel on foreign passports.
IB WROTE: Obama hasn’t PROVEN that he is a natural born citizen.
RESPONSE: The US State Department disagrees with you. Under oath.
IB WROTE: It may be in today’s Court system, but what he released is not ABSOLUTE PROOF, that what is on that piece of paper, is what is on his ORIGINAL birth certificate.
REPONSE: There is no such thing as absolute proof of anything. And by law, the original BC is no more or less proof than the COLB.
IB WROTE: Even Fukino admits that much.
RESPONSE: That is a lie. Dr. Fukino has said no such thing.
IB WROTE: Well what about those 50 “victories” you are so proud of? If a case wasn’t brought, then you couldn’t be gloating about your “victories”. This proves that you are a liar HistorianDude. Talk about “moving goal posts”.
RESPONSE: Again, IB, you need to quit while you are ahead. You have already boasted that you are completely ignorant regarding the law, and you demonstrate it here again. Those 50 victories consist almost entirely of the courts deciding you haves no case.
Please, it is enough that you keep both your feet firmly in your mouth. There is no need to chew.
IB WROTE: “And just because the Courts keep telling us to “stick it in your ear”, it won’t stop us from asking, it just increases the curiosity.”
REPONSE: How nice for you. I hope you have stick in Q-tips. Now please stop whining.
IB WROTE: That’s fine, but where does it state ANYWHERE in the Constitution that the Government should care about job growth?
RESPONSE: Article 1, Section 8.
IB WROTE: Again, that’s great, but where in the Constitution does it say that the Government has to supply a “social safety net”?
RESPONSE: The Preamble.
IB WROTE: What is “economic justice”? Is that the new phrase for redistribution of wealth? Better watch “gloating” too much about how you are bettering yourself, your “Uncle” may be knocking on your door demanding some of that “bettering.”
RESPONSE: Do you honestly have no sense of “economic justice?” I thought you said you had things like morality, and character. I guess you were just joking? Get a copy of the New Testament. read a little bit about what Jesus had to say on the issue. Unless you’re an Atheist, of course.
IB WROTE: I’d suggest to you that if the forefathers could see what our legal system has become, they would go out back of that Courthouse and throw up.
RESPONSE: And I would point out again that you have admitted that you have no idea how our legal systems works, so you are no more qualified to make that suggestion than you are to suggest how to design a hypersonic airfoil.
IB WROTE: “Good for you HistorianDude, how about caring for the health of someone who doesn’t have health insurance, by going out and paying for their coverage? If you cared so much, then why haven’t you done that yet?”
RESPONSE: I am already paying for the health coverage of three people (other than my wife and I) who do not have coverage from their work. How’s that?
IB WROTE: And if you care so much about “the health of our nation”, why aren’t you out here complaining about what “condition” our Nation’s health is in?
RESPONSE: I leave you to complain, and whine, and wring your hands, and pee all over yourself. I don’t complain. I do something.
IB WROTE: “I would stand my life, and everything I have done in my life, against yours any day of the week HistorianDude.”
RESPONSE: You would lose.
IB WROTE: Just release the documents Mr President, and put this issue to rest.
RESPONSE: And IB finishes with an idiotic flourish. It would put nothing to rest. It certainly would not stop your whining.
September 26, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey HistorianDude,
In the second “response” above, you posted this:
“We have nothing else to talk about.”
But then you go on to write over 400 more words in response to my comments.
Is that being a hypocrite?
September 26, 2009 at 3:45 pm
HistorianDude
No. It is putting as fine a point as possible on the fact that you are completely over your head.
Hypocrisy appears to be another concept that you do not understand.
September 26, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
ROFLMAO,
even AFTER spouting that
“We have nothing else to talk about.”
HistorianDude continues to respond to my comments.
Hypocrite.
September 26, 2009 at 4:41 pm
HistorianDude
It is great fun exposing your buffoonery. I could keep it up all day.
😀
September 26, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
Merriam-Wenster’s definition of hypocrite:
“a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”
Yep that’s HistorianDude.
Now who’s exposing who’s buffoonery?
September 26, 2009 at 5:22 pm
HistorianDude
You need to aim before you fire.
I am not acting in contradiction to my stated beliefs or feelings. I absolutely believe you to be a buffoon. And we actually stopped talking about anything substantive several posts ago.
So… the direct answer to your question?
I am exposing your buffoonery.
Still.
September 26, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
Only in a mind as clouded as yours that when you comment this:
“We have nothing else to talk about.”
And then continue to “talk” to that person, then that isn’t being a hypocrite.
Post about “buffoonery”, and then commit the very act that you are trying to imply that I do.
BWAHAHAHAHA
Only in YOUR clouded mind HistorianDude.
September 27, 2009 at 8:04 am
HistorianDude
“BWAHAHAHAHA?”
IB…. perhaps you should just go to your room and let the grownups talk.
September 27, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Interested Bystander
HistorianDude,
No, I like it right here.
You’re funny. A stupid kind of funny, but gut busting funny nonetheless.
September 26, 2009 at 3:41 pm
slcraig
So it appears that the “History is whatever the Socialist Masters say it is Dude” acknowledges that the ‘0’ was/is a Dual Citizen from birth but is somehow under the misconception that circumstance is equivalent to being a natural born citizen.
Which is fine, ignorance is not a crime or sin in and of its self.
You see, even though I have a very strong belief that the correct definition of NBC is being born of TWO CITIZEN Parents, specifically, the Parents both being citizens at the time of birth, regardless of how they acquired their citizenship.
But I also acknowledge that there is not a specific definition spelled out in words in the Constitution nor is the a Statute or legal Opinion the spells out all of the perimeters of the circumstances required to be defined as an American Natural Born Citizen.
Having read through the idiots posts it is obvious that he is unwilling to be intellectually honest when confronted with evidence that English Common Law is insufficient to reconcile the needs of A2S1C5 and that the 14th did not Amend A2S1C5 nor does it make a person an NBC, as it says it makes the person a citizen.
The point is, “History is whatever the Socialist Masters say it is Dude” appears to be an unredeemable Marxist/Socialist Useful Idiot spending his time defending the indefensible. His ramblings are at best, outright lies, and at worst, the perpetuation of fraud, aiding and abetting.
September 26, 2009 at 3:55 pm
HistorianDude
STEVE CRAIG WROTE: Having read through the idiots posts it is obvious that he is unwilling to be intellectually honest when confronted with evidence that English Common Law is insufficient to reconcile the needs of A2S1C5 and that the 14th did not Amend A2S1C5 nor does it make a person an NBC, as it says it makes the person a citizen.
RESPONSE: Steve… you are still arguing against the voices in your head. Either put on your tin-foil hat and block them out so you can argue with what I’ve actually written, or please, just sit on your hands until after SCOTUS has denied your writ.
See you here on Tuesday.
September 27, 2009 at 8:01 am
HistorianDude
James:
The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
So, pointing out that health care is not “an enumerated right” is not the same thing as establishing that it is not a right. You have stated your opinion that it is not, and I understand that. It is an opinion that we do not share, but that speaks to our personal moral values and nothing more.
I understand your unwillingness to help support the health of your employees. I think that’s a bad business decision for a lot of reasons, but it’s your business and it’s your call.
As to the substance of your last paragraph:
You wrote, “I do believe that the bureaucracy that will be created will set standards, and at a certain point, you will not have a say in the care.”
This is a description of the status quo in our country at this very moment. Insurance company bureaucrats set standards and deny people a say in their care every single day. Any system that returns those decisions to doctors and patients is an improvement.
September 27, 2009 at 2:27 pm
JAMES
First, HD, I cannot make the decision to not supply health care to my employees. I am mandated to offer, and to pay for at least a portion of their healthcare. I believe we all have a moral obligation to our families and to our community. However, as I am sure you have seen in your own career, there are far too many freeloaders, and therein becomes the issue my responsibility toward the healthcare f our fellow man. Our entitlement programs have become the career income for many who think they are “entitled” when in fact they are abusing the system. These people create a problem for those who are in true need of the entitlement service. I have had employees who did not want to health cverage if they had to pay one dime for it, and they went to the public hospital to have their children on your dime and mine.
I am all for assisting those who are first willing to assist themselves, and perhaps its demographics, but a majority of those in my area do not fall into that category.
I agree that the medical decisions must be returned to the physicians and the patients, but I do not see how the HealthCare Civil Rights Department will be moving us in that direction.
Going back to your idea of single payer, the problem I would forsee with single payer is that it wll eventually eliminate the private insurers, creating a mechanism of no competition in the insurance market place, thus permitting the government to control our care by and through our premiums– another tax.
From the Bible, we are told to render unto God that which is His, and render to caesar that which is Caesar’s”. At the rate our government is going, Caesar isn’t leaving anything for God!
September 28, 2009 at 6:17 am
HistorianDude
James:
YOU WROTE: “I agree that the medical decisions must be returned to the physicians and the patients, but I do not see how the HealthCare Civil Rights Department will be moving us in that direction. “
RESPONSE: Nothing automatically moves us in that direction. We must choose to move in that direction. But we can never get there if we choose not to move at all. The rhetoric coming from the right wing today is a choice to not move at all, and it garners support for that choice by frightening its rank and file with errant falsehood.
As a result, we get the single worst possible outcome… no reform at all.
YOU WROTE: Going back to your idea of single payer, the problem I would forsee with single payer is that it wll eventually eliminate the private insurers, creating a mechanism of no competition in the insurance market place, thus permitting the government to control our care by and through our premiums– another tax.
RESPONSE: First and foremost, good riddance. The private insurers add essentially zero value in exchange for the massive costs they create. Are you aware that most private insurers do not even “push the paperwork” that is the core of any insurance process? They outsource the actual process to third party software/service companies like Trizetto, and instead spend all their time developing “insurance instruments” for which they get paid significant premiums that are then protected by actively seeking to deny the coverage for which they were paid.
Developing “insurance instruments” is a lot like developing complex and opaque “financial instruments” of the sort that turned what should have been a simple housing downturn into a global economic meltdown. They make the insurers wealthy, keep the insured unhealthy, and the delivered product at the end is a health system that is inexplicably expensive and approaching third world quality.
Second, they deliberately create costly friction in the system to protect their “competitive” franchises. The opportunity to drive down administrative costs (worth tens of billions of dollars a year) for physicians and hospitals by standardizing to a single claims process has been actively fought by private insurers because filing errors is actually a planned source of revenue for them. They deliberately create complex systems for the explicit purpose of denying claim payments. And each insurer has their own unique process and software requiring providers to manage several different systems at the same time if they hope to ever get paid.
Finally… what should be the basis of competition in health care? It certainly isn’t pushing paper. Everything the private insurers do is most efficiently and effectively performed by a single standard commodity process. Competition in health care should instead occur at the provider level and be driven by differences in cost and QUALITY OF DELIVERED CARE, not of bureaucracy. Today, in order to compete effectively providers spend more time worrying about their alignment with insurers than they do about the quality of their care. Such alignment guarantees an income stream, regardless of whether or not they are actually making people well.
Again, I point you to single payer systems all over the planet that deliver higher quality care at lower cost than our own, and do so while keeping health decisions in the hands of the patients and providers. Where do see any advantage in our own system of “competition?”
YOU WROTE: “From the Bible, we are told to render unto God that which is His, and render to caesar that which is Caesar’s”. At the rate our government is going, Caesar isn’t leaving anything for God!’
RESPONSE: While I know that this verse from the synoptic Gospels has been interpreted many, many different ways, I am baffled by how you seem to be using it here. I might understand how you could think that at the rate our government is going, Caesar isn’t leaving anything for you. I do not however find God competing with Caesar for my health care premiums.
September 28, 2009 at 7:22 am
JAMES
HD: My use of the Bible verse was not just in the framework of the healthcare reform, but moreso as some infusion of humor, given the various tax increases we may endure, such as cap & trade, soda tax, etc. I agree that we must do some form of reform, but I think that since healthcare is such a massive and complex issue, the massive legislation being proposed is not being planned out carefully. God isn’t competing for the healthcare benefits. just that 10% that will become nonexistent soon.
As a proponent of the single payor system, and touting the great healthcare that other countries under single payor system have, I would figure that you would agree that the path the Congress and Obama are on at the moment is going to make the problem worse, not better. Consider that today they are again talking about putting criminals (in the form of illegal aliens) onto the plan.
While I understand the insurance system as you have described it, I also believe that once everyone is under the same plan, we will see a decline in the quality of healthcare that most of us have under our present coverage. The competition in our system is limited by the confines of regulations of selling across state lines, etc.
September 29, 2009 at 8:49 am
HistorianDude
I do not agree that the current plan will make things worse. I believe that the current plan is a pointless distraction from the real issues at hand.
The “decline in the quality of health care that most of us have under our present coverage” is a description of the status quo… it is what we are experiencing now without any changes whatsoever. What you are proposing here is actually not a whole lot different from the plan being currently considered by congress. You are proposing flaccid and limited insurance reform… not health care reform at all.
Understand this… insurance companies do nothing to reduce or slow down the increase in health care costs. Nothing. They add complexity and overhead to the system, sucking up resources that are needed to actually deliver care.
It is the cost of that care that needs addressing. Not the cost of insuring it.
September 29, 2009 at 9:21 am
JAMES
HD: I do not profess to be an expert, and since you have spent years in the profession, you have far greater insight, to a point. I have not had a decline in the quality of my health care under my coverage. I choose to pay a slightly higher premium to have more than the “basic” plan. Under the plans being discussed now, the insurer will be taxed for that plan. That “tax” will be passed along to me a s a consumer and/or the benefits of the plan will be diminished. Additionally, by 2016, I will then be taxed for having that “better” plan. This, in my eyes, is equivalent to class warfare.
Let me put it in a different light: When you buy car insurance, you choose your “level of risk” with your deductibles, your PIP limits, medical limits, etc., as well as whetehr to include theft coverage, replacement value coverage, etc. Should I be taxed on having more than the basic limits?
I realize that insurance companies are a fundamental problem, as are attorneys, and the reform has to address these concerns. One primary reform is that the insurance carriers need to refocus their thought process to realize that preventive/ wellness care can be far more cost-effective than reactive care.
September 29, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
I will tell you EXACTLY how to fix the health care industry.
Shut down the Food and Drug Administration. Close the doors on the Department of Health and Human Services, and any other Government agency that has to do with health care and then overturn ALL regulations on the health care industry.
Then pass a law that says that if you feel that you have a problem with a doctor or a hospital, then how ever much you are asking for, is the amount you have to pay if you lose.
Then let the free market decide who survives, and who goes under, whether it be the patient or the provider.
Problem fixed.
Health care IS NOT an issue the Government should be involved in. THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM.
September 29, 2009 at 8:39 am
HistorianDude
Today is the first conference of the Supreme Court’s October Term 2009, and Steve Craig’s case (Craig v. US) will have its chance today. In its multi-article review prior to today’s conference, the influential website SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/) decided that Craig v. US didn’t even deserve to be noticed. In all probability, the Clerks for the nine Justices (all of whom, by the way, are lawyers) have reached the same conclusion and recommended to their respective bosses that certiorari be denied. For certiorari do be granted, four of the nine justices have to agree. Unfortunately for Craig, seven of the nine are already on record as supporting Wong Kim Ark as ‘good law,” and so are unlikely to suddenly change their minds and be open to the “birther” definition of natural born citizen.
So here is what we should expect today.
Towards the late afternoon, the court will issue a “Miscellaneous Order” list announcing all the cases they reviewed today that have been granted certiorari or otherwise approved to move forward in SCOTUS.
Craig v. US will not be on that list, meaning it has been denied by the court.
On Monday October 5th, the court will release its formal “Order List” that officially announces all the denials from today’s conference, even though by the process of elimination we will already know what they are. The only thing to be gleaned from that list is whether or not the denial was made with or without comment.
Craig v. US will be denied without comment.
See you all back here later today after the Miscellaneous Orders have been released. Hopefully Steve will join us to give excuses as to what went wrong, to accuse the Supreme Court of treason, and to try and spin however best he can this latest of the “Birther” courtroom smackdowns.
September 29, 2009 at 10:09 am
slcraig
So I take it from the glee you derive in the post below that you agree with the USCA 10th Circuit that “No one” not even 14th Amendment babies have the “Right” to be determined Natural Born Citizens”?
As it happens, I concur in part and demur in part……..
Author: HistorianDude
Comment:
Today is the first conference of the Supreme Court’s October Term 2009, and
Steve Craig’s case (Craig v. US) will have its chance today. In its
multi-article review prior to today’s conference, the influential website
SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/) decided that Craig v. US didn’t even
deserve to be noticed. In all probability, the Clerks for the nine Justices (all
of whom, by the way, are lawyers) have reached the same conclusion and
recommended to their respective bosses that certiorari be denied.
September 29, 2009 at 11:25 am
HistorianDude
Steve:
Well… that has nothing to do with my glee. But of course I agree with that. So (as you might remember) does “Birther lawyer” Donofrio. My glee however derives from elsewhere.
My glee derives from the deep satisfaction of seeing dishonorable and dishonest movements like the “Birthers” receiving justice via our judicial system. It derives from extending my own perfect streak of predictions regarding eligibility cases going back over a year. It derives from another instance of rationality and the rule of law overcoming bigotry and the madness of the mob.
Each “Birther” failure is a gift from God himself and demonstrates his intentions. I find great joy in the judgment of the Lord.
I have just discovered that I have to leave early this afternoon to walk the boundary of my ranch to help define my conservation easement. We have no internet service in the mountains, so I will not be able to join you here to gloat about your dismissal until sometime tomorrow.
But don’t worry. I’ll be back.
September 30, 2009 at 8:40 am
HistorianDude
It’s official. The cases that have been granted certiorari have had their orders published:
Click to access 093009zr.pdf
Craig v. US did not make the cut.
Cue Queen singing, “Another One Bites the Dust.”
😀
September 30, 2009 at 5:23 pm
HistorianDude
I guess Steve Craig is off sulking?
September 30, 2009 at 6:13 pm
JAMES
I’m still trying to go through all the references both of you provided in your discourse.
September 30, 2009 at 8:35 pm
slcraig
“Author: HistorianDude
Comment:
I guess Steve Craig is off sulking?”
Well, we haven’t seen the results of the full conference docket yet. But, what your feeble little myopic mind is unable to grasp
is that NO ANSWER from SCOTUS on the question asked is an answer in its self.
So do not try and tell me that the ‘0’ IS a natural born citizen, because according to the results of my case so far, there is no such “idiom” recognized nor defined and NO ONE has a RIGHT to be declared one.
Got, Unable to ‘Understand History Dude’……….
October 1, 2009 at 6:40 am
HistorianDude
When discussing the ability to “grasp” an idea, it is important at the same time to avoid embracing easily demonstrated falsehoods. SCOTUS never provides “no answer.” When an issue is genuine, the answer may go on for many pages. When the issue is trivial, frivolous, fraudulent or stupid the answer is usually a single word, “Denied.”
But it is an answer none the less.
The “results” of your case? The results of your case are that you have been sent packing by every court that has been forced to suffer through the tendentious delusion of which it consists.
The absurdity of your position is perfectly displayed in the immediate quotation of you post above. It is, frankly, false on its face to pretend that just because something is not a “right” that the thing somehow does not exist, or that somehow nobody has access to it. There is no “right” to be called a billionaire, yet there are billionaires. There is no “right” to be called intelligent or beautiful, yet there are intelligent and beautiful people. There is no “right” to be called an astronaut, yet there are astronauts.
There is no right to be declared a “natural born citizen.” Yet there are natural born citizens.
Barack Hussein Obama is one of them.
A different question worthy of consideration is the origin of the profound shortcomings of intellect and integrity that are prerequisite to becoming a committed “Birther.” Is it nature or nurture that creates in a person like yourself the transcendent prejudice and credulity that so completely short circuits the ability to reason? To recognize evidence? To discriminate between possibilty and absurdity? To understand that truth trumps desire?
Is the failure in your ability to think critically organic? Or does someone have to actually learn that?
You write that “NO ANSWER from SCOTUS on the question asked is an answer in its self.”
Why of course it is.
And the answer is that you are still wrong.
But like the rest of the “Birthers,” you will never accept answers you do not like. It does not matter that they are true. If they do not conform to your false beliefs, you will pretend they say what they do not… adding yet another layer of delusion to the “Birther” narrative.
No one has the “right” to be declared a wacky fringe conspiracy theorist. And yet there actually are wacky fringe conspiracy theorists. And you have been declared exactly that by people like Anne Coulter and Michael Medved.
Oh… and by me too.
October 1, 2009 at 3:41 pm
slcraig
ThereisnoisinHistoryDude says;
“Is the failure in your ability to think critically organic? Or does someone have to actually learn that? “
Apparently a quote he thought up looking in the mirror.
You still insist the ‘0’ IS an NBC?
What, the ballot box is an Amendment process in your New World Order?
I live in a country that is a Republic, as long as we can keep it.
THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION OF NBC!
The 10th Circ says I or none of the other millions of people situated as I am do not have the ‘right’ to be determined an NBC.
You are the one failing to see the dilemma that places me, the courts, the Prezo and the Constitution in.
That my case was deficient in structural technicalities was known, and has been understood by me, from the beginning.
But it is also the perogative of any Federal Court to accept and take up any case when the Constitution is the subject of concern.
So, I’ll make you a deal. For every SCOTUS or lower US court Opinion, or and Act of Legislation that has EVER defined NBC as any thing other than a person born of TWO American Citizen Parents, I will show you two that affirms my position.
Otherwise, suck eggs.
October 2, 2009 at 7:44 am
HistorianDude
Steve-o:
Snark without wit only makes you look puerile and unintelligent. You would be better served if you tried serving your insults up straight. If you have no native talent for the Churchillian put-down (and it is clear you do not) you should resign yourself to being Lady Astor. When you try to be clever and fail, it only puts a finer point on the fact that you are not clever.
Of course I do.
What the hell does that even mean? The only people attempting an end-run around the Constitutional Amendment process are the “Birthers.” Under the mistaken hope that you can get the judicial branch to violate the separation of powers by taking actions reserved by the Constitution exclusively to the Congress you prove that a foundational part of your rhetoric is a lie. You do not care one whit what the Constitution says, since it stands four square in the way of you accomplishing your single genuine objective.
Getting rid of this President.
The ballot box is what it has always been… the tool that (I hate doing this, but you asked for it) “We the People” use to select the individuals we believe are best qualified to represent our interests. The eligibility requirements for the Presidency are few, focused and extremely concise… demonstrating the economy of language that was among their greatest talents. As a result, we can be certain that the Constitution does not mean what it does not say. Had they wanted to deny the presidency to the native-born children of aliens they could (and certainly would) have said so. Instead, they prescribed a criterion that had at the time of the Constitution’s writing a single definition in the English language. And it was not de Vattel’s.
Why then do you demonstrate such contempt for the Constitution of that Republic?
Of course there is. A natural born citizen is anyone whose citizenship requires no affirmative act of law. This includes at the very least anyone born on American soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying enemy.
And you do not.
There is no dilemma. You are imagining things… again.
Actually, no. It is not their prerogative.
In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, there are a number of conditions that must be met. Among these are that the Court will not grant advisory opinions. Another is that the court must not be asked to resolve a political question.
Political questions involve matters where there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department,” meaning that the Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue.
If the case fails to meet any one of these requirements, the court cannot hear it. Your case fails to meet any of them.
I have a better deal. It is simpler, more objective and cuts directly to issue of Constitutional intent.
Show me a single definition of natural born citizen/subject that existed in the English language prior to the writing of the Constitution that even mentions the citizenship of the parents.
Just one.
I leave the “egg sucking” to the official losers… of which you are one of the more prominent.
October 14, 2009 at 5:45 am
slcraig
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73
1833
§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By “residence,” in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.
§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigour, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.
The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 3, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, Document 2
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html
The University of Chicago Press
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.
October 14, 2009 at 6:43 am
HistorianDude
Steve… why have you returned?
Your case was dismissed by the Supreme Court without comment. Your argument has failed. It is over.
And why did you post this commentary when it does not help you the tiniest bit? Ignoring that it is a commentary writtem almost 50 years after the Constitution was framed, it nowhere pretends that citizenship of parents has anything to do with natural-born citizenship, or that dual citizens are proscribed.
It seems that you simply like to see yourself type. Why not just transcribe the telephone book. It wouls be just as relevant.
October 14, 2009 at 7:23 am
slcraig
I returned because your and your useful idiot b-buddies lies, obfuscation’s, distortions and misrepresentations offend me.
Neither you nor I know if there is a ‘slip opinion’ comment or dissent re: my case as they have not been published yet.
You also ignore the FACT that I was successful at the 10th Circuit on two points as the case was ‘affirmed’ in part and ‘remanded’ in part.
According to the 10ths ‘commentary’ NO ONE, including 14th Amendment babies, have a ‘right’ to be determined an NBC. (The intellectual dishonesty of that statement should be obvious to anyone with the least bit of intellectual curiosity, i.e., ‘How can such a statement be made without addressing the ‘definition’ in its entirety first?’)
So as long as you and your Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/LiberationTheologist/DemoRat b-buddies
continue to spread you revisionist obfuscation’s, distortions and misrepresentations I will be there to challenge your Kool-Aid induced ramblings.
October 14, 2009 at 8:01 am
HistorianDude
Steve-o:
I have very bad news for you. There is no “slip opinion” and we both know it. The orders for your conference were published, and you were denied without comment. That means no opinions, “slip” or otherwise. It means that your case was not even worthy of one.
You have lost and it is over. Be a man. Move on.
October 14, 2009 at 8:50 am
slcraig
You ‘Move-On’ …….. I see what you ignore and/or try to hide …….. And I find NO disgrace or embarrassment in having joined the battle to defend the Constitutional Republic from Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Liberal/LiberationTheologist/DemoRat b-buddies…………..,
So laugh and make hey while you can, your and your b-buddies days of spreading lies, obfuscation’s, distortions and misrepresentations are numbered…………..
October 14, 2009 at 10:05 am
HistorianDude
Steve….
You are beginning to sound like the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail who remains defiant even after all his arms and legs have been cut off. It makes for great comedy, but certainly you cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Your case is over, done, finito, finished, dead, terminated with extreme prejudice. Yesterday Orly Taitz was fined $20,000 because her cases (and all birther cases) have proven to be frivolous. Any day now her California case and Mario Apuzzo’s Kerchner case will be dismissed. Orly herself stands on the precipice of being disbarred, just like the convicted felon and disbarred attorney that now serves as her “law clerk.”
The Birther movement is the laughing stock of the International blogosphere and even conservative commentators like Anne Coulter and Michael Medved dismiss you as “nutburgers.”
Show some dignity. Find another hobby. One that does not make you look like such a bad person.
October 14, 2009 at 10:37 am
slcraig
Hey, Saul AlynskyRevisionistHistoryB-Buddy,
……..your ridicule is nothing more than fuel to my motivation, your lack of understanding of what’s reality and what is not is only confirmation that the TRUTH will be exposed, while your lies, obfuscation’s, distortions and misrepresentations will be your epitaph, RIP.
October 14, 2009 at 10:57 am
HistorianDude
Steve:
When you are being ridiculous, you should expect ridicule.
It’s over. Whether you know it or not.
October 14, 2009 at 3:55 pm
slcraig
“I have not yet begun to fight” ……………………………..and, ……………………”Nuts”
October 14, 2009 at 4:13 pm
HistorianDude
You must really be stinging from Attorney West’s use last week of the famous “Nuts” remark in his e-mail response to Charles Lincoln. Why else would you be so pathetic as to try and use it yourself?
You have not only begun to fight, but your fleet is at the bottom of the sound.
Nuts indeed.
October 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm
slcraig
Hawaii Attorney General Invokes Attorney Client Privilege Concerning DoH “Natural-Born Citizen”
Press Release of July 27, 2009.
Posted in Uncategorized on October 14, 2009 by naturalborncitizen
On October 5, 2009 I sent the following letter to Jill T. Nagamine at the the office of Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett:
Subject: Request for AG Opinion letter
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009 8:34 PM
From:”Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
To: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov
Dear Ms. Nagamine,
The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA.
I request a copy (or access to a copy) of the Attorney General Opinion Letter the Attorney General provided to Department of Health Director Fukino which reviewed and approved her July 27, 2009 statement/press release about President Barack Obama wherein it was stated that he is a “natural-born American citizen.”
I request the opinion letter referenced above whether it was prepared as a formal Opinion Letter under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 (and/or any other authority) or as an informal letter if prepared under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 (and/or any other authority).
Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules.
Just a few hours later, I received the following official response from Jill Nagamine:
Subject: Re Request for Ag Opinion letter
From: “Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov”
To: “Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
Dear Mr. Donofrio:
No formal attorney general opinion was generated relating to the July 27, 2009 public statement made by Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D. Any other legal advice rendered to our clients is privileged communication. We have nothing to release based on your request.
Very truly yours,
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Whether an attorney general opinion is formal or informal is a question of law. Under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3, if the opinion of the Attorney General was related to a question of law submitted to him by the head of an agency, then that opinion must be made available to the public according to the statute which says:
§28-3 Gives opinions. The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department. The attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, the supreme court library, and the legislative reference bureau within three days of the date it is issued. Opinions on file with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, and the supreme court library shall be available for public inspection.
As I have previously discussed, 28-3 requires that formal AG opinion letters be disclosed to the public. It is not a matter of discretion. The statute uses the word “shall”. The Hawaii courts have interpreted the statute as requiring mandatory public disclosure thereto.
Under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, opinions given by the AG on other matters are not expressly required to be made public. But, according to OIP Opinion Letter 91-23, informal opinions must also be recorded and sometimes disclosed to the public when certain conditions are met:
[T]he Attorney General provides two separate and distinct recorded forms of legal advice: (1) “opinions” on questions of law submitted by certain public officers, and (2) “advice and counsel” to public officers in all matters connected to their public duties. Unlike section 28-3, Hawaii Revised Statutes, which expressly requires the public availability of certain specified “opinions,” section 28-4, Hawaii Revised Statutes, does not expressly require that the “advice and counsel” of the Attorney General either be filed with the Lieutenant Governor or be made available for public inspection.
However, according to OIP Opinion Letter 91-23, when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:
A client cannot voluntarily and selectively disclose those portions of a communication between the client and the client’s attorney without forfeiting the right to keep other portions of the communication on the same subject matter privileged…
The privilege may be said to be waived when the client relinquishes its protection. The waiver of this privilege follows as a consequence from any conduct by the client that would make it unfair for the client thereafter to assert the privilege. See generally, Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1065 (1986)…
Similarly, under Rule 510 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, the holder of a privilege waives it if the privilege holder consents to the disclosure of “any significant part of the privileged matter.” (Emphasis added.)
Note that the OIP underlined “consents” in the passage above. This is important because the July 27, 2009 press release – wherein DoH Director Fukino stated that President Obama “was born in Hawaii” and that he is a “natural-born American citizen” – was reviewed and approved by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office. ( DoH Communications Director Janice Okubo previously revealed such reliance to researcher Justin Riggs.)
As stated above, whether an attorney general opinion is formal or informal is a question of law. The Attorney General is governed by law. If the letter is formal under 28-3 then the letter must be disclosed to the public. If the letter is informal under 28-4, then the letter must also be made available to the public when the client/agency voluntarily discloses the conclusions of the advice rendered by counsel.
On July 27, 2009 the DoH disclosed the conclusions of the Attorney General’s opinion. The DoH cannot make secret law. The controlling statutes, case law and OIP opinion letters make it quite clear that the Attorney General opinion rendered to the head of the DoH pertaining to her infamous July 27, 2009 press release must be made available to the public.
I am currently drafting an appeal to the OIP as well as the judiciary. According to the UIPA statute at 92F-15(f), judicial review will be expedited.
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Copyright 2009
October 14, 2009 at 6:12 pm
slcraig
He used it after I did in a related correspondence ……………….. who’s pathetic now………
But you really do not have to hang on my every word……… isn’t it Kool-Aid and Oreo time for you?
October 14, 2009 at 7:33 pm
HistorianDude
Why Steve,… you remain the pathetic one, of course.
Attorney West actually wins cases, so his use of General McAuliffe’s historic response is glorious and funny, while yours is merely desperate and sad. You seem to forget the circumstances under which it was first uttered. It was not the childish posturing of a bullied special needs student. It was the confident promise of great commander and leader of men.
You don’t get to use the phrase “Nuts” because you do not deserve it. It belongs to patriots, it belongs to leaders, and it belongs to winners.
It does not belong to wannabe pseudo-lawyers who cannot even subtract 1787 from 1797.
October 14, 2009 at 7:47 pm
slcraig
See, you can not help youself, you repeat your LIES again.
Listen, NotSoBrightMemoryLapseDude, putting aside the fact that you are wrong about the 1st English Edition Publication Date of Vattel, explain why you think the later editions translator was the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD that could translate Vattel?
If the ‘idiom’ was obvious to him, could it not be that he accepted it as recorded by the FOUNDERS?
Don’t bother to answer, you go to your little ‘0’ shrine and have your Kool-Aid and Oreo’s and wonder what it would be like to get through a day without lying, obfuscating, misrepresenting and being delusional.
October 14, 2009 at 8:03 pm
HistorianDude
Steve… do actually have organic brain damage?
This has been explained to you so many times that your failutre to understand can only be the result of a lesion on your frontal lobe. I will type in caps so you might understand.
THE FIRST ENGLISH EDITION NEVER MENTIONS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
THE SECOND ENGLISH EDITION NEVER MENTIONS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
NEITHER DO THE THIRD THROUGH SIXTH ENGLISH EDITIONS.
If as you idiotically insist that “the idiom’ was obvious” to ANYBODY, then why is it that NOT A SINGLE PERSON ever translated it to mean “natural born citizen” until 1797?
And why does EVERY SINGLE TRANSLATION until then translate it the identical way without mentioning natural born citizen? The only “obvious” translation was the one that six prior translators used.
The only definition that existed in the English language for natural born citizen at the time the Constitution was written was that of English common law. THERE WAS NO OTHER!
You have already run away once from my challenge for you to demonstrate a single definition of NBC that existed prior to 1787 that agrees with yours. You could not do so. You cannot do so.
Your “idiom” cannot be that of the founders because it did not exist.
October 14, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Follow the Constitution
Kenyan born Obama
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
October 15, 2009 at 7:22 am
slcraig
So let’s have your ‘translation of the original text from Vattel……imparting meaning and intent………..
“. Les Naturels, ou Indigenes font ceux gui font nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens.”
October 15, 2009 at 8:37 am
HistorianDude
Certainly. But first, some administrivia.
One of the most annoying Birther habits is that they always get Emmerich de Vattel’s name wrong. His name is not “Vattel.” It is “de Vattel,” and to leave off the prefix is a demonstration of both sloppy scholarship and general ignorance.
Now… to your sepcific question:
The most common and accurate translation is the same one used (with only minor variations in punctuation) in the first six English language editions:
“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” (emphasis in original). De Vattel is being explicit that the words “native” and “indigene” are exactly synonymous, since he gives the same definition to both. And of course, this is true… “naturel” and “indigene” are two French synonyms for what is a a single word in English: “native.” This is the specific reason all the earliest translations did not translate “indigene” at all. It would have been a clumsy and stupid translation to write:
“The natives or the natives are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
The chapter from which this sentence is extracted is titled, “Des Citoyens & Naturels.” This is translated as “Citizens and Natives,” and he repeatedly asserts in the chapter that these terms are also synonymous. According to de Vattel native=citizen=indegene.
So what de Vattel is saying is not that the children of non-citizens are not “natural born citizens.” He is saying that the children of non-citizens are not citizens at all!
This is, in case you were unaware, is in absolute and direct contradiction to the US Constitution as well as every single American statute or court decision that deals with the issue of citizenship. Were it true, it would render tens of millions of American citizens stateless, as anybody with a non-citizen alien anywhere in their family tree would be a non-citizen.
This would be, I am certain you would agree, simply stupid.
October 15, 2009 at 9:51 am
slcraig
So, IncapableOfUnderstandingHistoryDude;
Your ‘intellectual dishonesty’ is showing……………. The ‘meaning’ stems from the ‘intent’ of the passage, i.e., to ‘identify’ the ‘citizens’ of a ‘civil society’.
You somehow want to make the Native Indians, (not taxed), ‘citizens’ of the ‘Civil Society’ as it existed at the Founding.
IT SAYS, ‘The Naturals, Born as ‘Indigenes’, (of the ‘contemplated’ Civil Society), are those born of ‘PARENTS’ (plural), who are or are made Citizens of that contemplated Civil Society, ergo, Natural Born Citizens of the Civil Society, being, The United States of America in its Constitutional usage.
As for your intellectually dishonest proposition that those born not citizens would be ‘stateless’ is being totally ignorant of the status of persons amongst the various State/Colonies prior to the Constitution.
The Constitution its self only made ‘Citizens’ of those persons who where already ‘’citizens’ of the various states/Colonies. There were many ‘stateless’ persons among the various States/Colonies, before and after the Constitution, being indentured servants or in servitude, not to mention the ‘indigenous Indians or the Alien Immigrants who had no intention of becoming a citizen of a state/colony or had not yet been granted citizenship, they never the less retained the ‘status’, whatever it may have been, of the lands from which they came.
Just as the ‘0s’ sperm donor was a Alien Foreign National British Colonial Subject/Citizen when he came here to study Marxism in the American Marxist Capital of Hawaii, he ‘carried’ his citizenship status with him and passed that ‘citizenship status’ to his prodigy.
NEVER, EVER attempt to impugn my intellectual ability when you start from a position of ‘lies, obfuscation’s, distortions and misrepresentations…………..GOT IT………..?
October 15, 2009 at 11:09 am
slcraig
By the way…….you make this assertion………..
“THE FIRST ENGLISH EDITION NEVER MENTIONS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
THE SECOND ENGLISH EDITION NEVER MENTIONS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
NEITHER DO THE THIRD THROUGH SIXTH ENGLISH EDITIONS.”
Provide source of that allegation or retract……………….
October 15, 2009 at 1:16 pm
HistorianDude
What you mistake for “intellectual dishonesty” on my part is your own confusion and delusion.
It does not matter what I want. It matters what de Vattel says. He rather clearly was not even considering Native Indians (not taxed) at all. He was not writing about the United States or the specific American circumstance. He was writing for continental (i.e. non-British) Europeans years before the United States even existed.
You are being, again, deeply stupid.
October 15, 2009 at 1:44 pm
slcraig
FantasyInsteadOfHistoryDude………..
You are a complete obfuscating idiot!
I did not say Vattel was writing about America, but I am saying that the Founders took a great deal of what he wrote to heart and use.
Your understanding and application of NBC as expressed by Vattel and used by the Founders is juvenile and/or you are continuing your attempts of deceptive distortions.
The Founders had been British Subject Citizens prior to the Declaration of Independence and upon Ratification of the Constitution were ‘Naturalized’, as American Citizens were they Citizens of any of the various States/Colonies.
Their Children would then be the 1st generation of American NBC’s, bearing in mind that women continued to derive their citizenship from their husbands up to the 14th Amendment depending on the various States Laws.
Any person born of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS, regardless of how the Parents derived their citizenship, are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS whenever that occurs in American History.
And NO, a person born of Alien Foreign National Parents, either one or both, are NOT Natural Born Citizens of America.
However that child would be considered a British Natural Born Citizen where ever the child was born. See British Nationalty Act of 1948 to determine the ‘0s’ citizenship status.
Grow up.
As for YOUR source, CRAP. Selective passages of various historical countries and of English Common Law which each show the flaws of being ‘Subjects’ as opposed to Sovereign Cit8izens.
And the plucking out of the words ‘Naturals’ and ‘Indigenes’ without any intellectual attempt to place the words into the context of the intent of the Chapter, that being to define those persons that would be the ‘Natural Indigenes Citoyens’ of the contemplated civil society, again exposes you devious machinations to distort a simple truth.
Go play in the sandbox and wait for your Block Czar to bring you your Kool-Aid and Oreo’s
October 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm
HistorianDude
Then stop dishonestly rewriting de Vattel to insert fake references to America and the Constitution. If you want to offer commentary, then do so. But stop lying about what de Vattel actually said.
How can that be when de Vattel never “expressed” any concept of NBC in the first place? He spoke of natives and citizens. He never mentioned the phrase “natural born citizen” once.
Actually, no. Anybody born on American soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or an occupying army is a natural born citizen. It does not oherwise matter what their parents were.
But if de Vattel is correct, any person not born or two citizen parents can never be a citizen, and neither can any of their descendents except by naturalization. This would include tens of millions of present day Americans… some whose families have been in the country for more than 200 years.
If de Vattel is correct, they would not be citizens AT ALL!
Not of the parents were from Germany.
I gotta tell you Steve… bigoted, stupid and lazy is no way to go through life, son.
The reference shows you exactly how every English language version of de Vattel translated the operative sentence between the first English edition and the 1797 edition. It even shows photographs of the actual pages involved.
It proves that you are wrong.
That you didn’t notice proves that you are a cretin.
October 15, 2009 at 3:00 pm
slcraig
Look, you simply lie and refuse to address any fact that requires an honest answer……….
You can go on believing that the Founders agree with you that ANY Alien Foreign Natural Child born on US soil is the same NBC as they had in mind………….and that makes you an IDIOT……………or you can attempt to say that the 14th Amendment makes you right but you can not show me where the words Amend the A2S1C5 because it did not do so, which, again, makes you an idiot. Or you can go on believing the English Citizenship structure is that which was contemplated, but the you have to accept that the English Law makes a newly ‘Naturalized’ person a ‘Natural Born British Subject/Citizen Retro-Actively which is not compatible with the implied distinguishments of Article I and Article II………which makes you a stupid idiot………………
Take your lies to move-on.org…………they’ll believe you………
October 15, 2009 at 4:13 pm
HistorianDude
Reality never lies, Steve. The falling piano will crush you to death whether you believe in it or not.
You have personally lost every court case you have filed. This is reality.
Every single decision made in every single Birther case has gone against you. This is reality.
The definition of natural born citizen is any person born on American soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or an occupying army. This is reality.
Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4th, 1961 at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii and is therefore a natural born American citizen. This is reality.
Barack Hussein Obama is the legitimate and Constitutionally elected President of the United States of America. This is reality.
I know this makes you sad.
Tough.
Reality never lies.
October 15, 2009 at 4:03 pm
slcraig
Have as yet to see the ‘Papers’…………but NotSoSmartAboutHistoryDude will have to walk backward for years to atone for his petulance……………
From Joe……………
““The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”.
My family is in possession of over seven thousand files of Adams documents that have been passed from generation to generation. We know what our forebears intended, we are not guessing and jumping to conclusions. Every possible legal scenario was thoroughly discussed and carefully decided by the Founding Fathers. Contrary to prevailing opinion, they left NOTHING to chance. I will be sharing our documents with the best qualified attorneys working on the Obama eligibility cases. Get used to it, Obama is finished and he knows it. Obama is knowingly leading his blinded followers down the paths of deceit and directly into the darkened halls of shame.
My heritage includes the Adams of Massachusetts and the Herndons of Virginia. The Adams papers I am in possession of plainly state they looked to “Vattel’s Law of Nations” for guidance in determining who might be qualified as a “natural born Citizen”. (Yes, they capitalized “Citizen”.) Do you actually believe there was no discussion of the topic by the Founding Fathers? Are you truly that ignorant of how well the Founding Fathers understood the law and its possible impact on future generations? It is very clear you haven’t a clue how well educated and intelligent the Founding Fathers were. Most were conversant in Latin and Greek, plus Hebrew and Aramaic
“The Lees of Virginia and other families also possess within their private archives a great deal of documentation regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers. Those who believe this issue was not debated and decided long ago haven’t been previously afforded access to the existing documents. ”
…The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. 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.”
My family also counts among our forebears King O’Leathlobhair (pronounced OWE LAL_OW_IR), who was ruler of all England in the third century A.D. The name O’Leathlobhair means “seeker of justice” and it is the original term from which the word “lawyer” was derived around the year 100 B.C.”
October 15, 2009 at 4:14 pm
HistorianDude
And you never will. Such papers do not exist.
October 15, 2009 at 4:39 pm
slcraig
http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d15-Obamas-Achiles-heel–Natural-Born-Citizenship
From the research of Ken Dunbar:
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” -US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1812)
********
“By this same writer it is also said: ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society [60 U.S. 393, 477] cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” – Associate Justice Peter Daniel in Scott v Sanford ( 1857 )
********
I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen – —Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )
********
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
-Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
********
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
[…]“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” .-Associate Justice Horace Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)
In all these quotes, two things are of importance: the use of the word Parents – plural meaning more than one, and the concept that the citizenship conditions of children follow from that of their parents. These historical references are clear in their meaning. In order to be a Natural Born Citizen, one must have parents – two parents, that are citizens of the Nation, and must be born on the soil of the Nation. It does not get any simpler than this.
October 15, 2009 at 4:59 pm
HistorianDude
Ignoring that so many of these quotations are grossly, dishonestly and deliberately misrepresented, here is your problem:
The US Constitution was framed in 1787.
These quotations are respectively 25, 70, 79, 88 and 111 years too late to matter. And not one of them is by a participant in the framing of Article II.
As I have proven here on this thread again, and again, and again… there was only a single definition of “natural born citizen” at the time the Constitution was written: and it was the definiton of British Common Law.
Anybody born on American soil who was not the child of a foreign diplomat or occupying army was and is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.
You fail again, Steve. It must really, really, really suck to be you.
October 15, 2009 at 5:00 pm
slcraig
NotAClueDude said this………………The definition of natural born citizen is any person born on American soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or an occupying army. This is reality.</i ……………which makes NotAClueDude a ‘natural Born Idiot’………..
I did not loose a single case, they were not adjudicated, they were dismissed on Jurisdiction.
That will soon change.
The ‘0’ is/was a Dual Citizen at Birth and therefor IS NOT the Presiden, HE IS A USURPER………that is reality…..get used to it…….
October 15, 2009 at 5:43 pm
HistorianDude
They were dismissed on jurisdiction… which means you lost.
And Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States of America.
Certainly you are ALREADY used to that,
October 15, 2009 at 7:36 pm
JAMES
At some point in time, in some forum, the issue will be addressed. It just continues to amaze me that something so simple as academic records, etc., are so important to the One that he just doesn’t release them. John Kerry and George Bush did. The Obama team wanted every stitch of Palin’s records. The Obama team used the Chicago Tribune to force a judge to open divorce records on Jack and Jeri Ryan, all for the point of embarassing him to clear Obama’s path to the Senate. If the Trib could get divorce files unsealed, why can’t they get Obama’s records…. oh yea, because the media loves him. But alas, that too is changing. With the honeymoon all but over, perhaps slcraig and others will get some assistance from true investigative journalists. Of course, if Obama was a Republican, Woodward and Bernstein would have been all over the Obama “transparency”.
October 15, 2009 at 8:20 pm
HistorianDude
James, almost nothing in that post is true.
George Bush never released his academic records. And Kerry refused to release his for years. In fact, the only reason they were ever released was by accident… they were part of his Navy files.
The “Obama team” had exactly nothing to do with the divorce records of Jack Ryan being released, that was the result of action by the Chicago Tribune and WLS News.
And where did anybody on the “Obama team” ever even ask for any of Sarah Palin’s records? Have they been released? Of course not.
Neither, by the way have McCain’s.
Ignoring that academic records have absolutely nothing to do with presidential eligibility (Harry Truman never even went to college), why do you want to see them… other than the hope that something embarrassing might turn up?
But mostly, you are destined to be unhappy and frustrated with the situation because you continue to compund your egregious double standard with false memories of what other candidates have supposedly done. Remember the list you provided several months ago about all the other Presidents where you “knew” where they were born? I asked you, how do you really know, have you ever seen any of their birth certificates?
You never answered. You knew better than to even try.
The simple truth is (as I have said many times before) Obama can release nothing while these cases are in the court because of the disastrous precedent it would set. Nobody, not even the President should be required to respond in any positive way to frivolous lawsuits.
And if you think these lawsuits aren’t frivolous, why not volunteer to pay Orly Taits’s $20,000 fines for filing frivolous Birther lawsuits.
The issue was addressed last November by an election. Nothing more is required, necessary, or even reasonable.
October 16, 2009 at 9:39 am
JAMES
Obama’s academic records will show how he was registered at Occidental, using what as an ID#; Perhaps it might give an understanding to his SSN being issued in Connecticut in 1979-80, instead of Hawaii. His Harvard records, particularly his financial aid history, might show that Khalidi did in fact raise funds to pay for Obama’s Harvard education. The student loans line changed several times during the campaign, from “their loans” to “Her loans”.
Regarding the birth certificates of our great Presidents, no I have not seen any of them, nor have I asked to do so, Their pasts do not leave one looking at an empty suit with a blank resume. Additionally, I believe that Mrs. Kennedy was alive when her Brookline home was designated as Kennedy’s birth place, as was Clinton’s mother when his childhood home was named. If they were asked to produce them, I would bet that they would, without question.
As far as eductaional records, if Bush did not release his, then where is the information about his mediocre grades coming from?
The issue may have been addressed in an election in November 2008, but if the person presented by the DNC was not legitimately qualified, the November election would be moot.
October 16, 2009 at 10:20 am
HistorianDude
First off, James, you are old enough to know that until the mid 1980s, SSNs were not required for anone until they applied for their first job. So what possible issue could there be with Obama having a SSN issued in Connecticut? My children were born in North Carolina and Illinois respectively… but both their SSNs were issue in Pennsylvania.
Secondly, I have again checked the Constitution and there is no eligibility requirement regarding how one funds one’s college education. So… it appears that I was correct by observing that your primary purpose for wanting to see them is the hope that you might come up with something embarrassing. It is entirely your prerogative to try and discredit the President of the United States. But you don’t get to use the courts to make up for your inability to do so on your own.
And by the way… the story never changed regarding their loans. Both had them, so “her loans,” “his loans” and “their loans” are not changes. They are all correct and are all true.
As for the other Presidents…. your inexplicable double standard is showing. Barack Obama has already provided more proof for his ctizenship and birth than any other President in all of American history. He did not have to, but he did. And yet you blissfully accept these other accounts for which you have no evidence whatosever and dismiss the specific document that the State Department has declared is proof of American citizenship at birth. The State Department has gone on record twice in statements made under oath in courts of law that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, is a natural born American citizen, and that his COLB is authentic and proof of his citizenship.
Yet you insist it’s not good enough for you. Well, then you have a powerful and precious tool for making your dissatisfaction known: withhold your vote.
As for Bush’s records, they were exposed by good old fashioned reporting by good old fashioned reporters. You’ve got Fox. You’ve got WND. If you want to get Obama’s records then go get them the same way we got Bush’s and Kerry’s. Find a leak.
If you have any evidence whatsoever that Obama is not legitimately qualified to be President, then perhaps you should send it to Orly Taitz and save her $20,000 in court sanctions.
Oh, but I forgot. You don’t have any evidence. This is why you guys want to waste all this time in court… to try and get the courts to do your job. One which you’ve been incapable of doing with more than a year of trying.
Not a single piece.
Nothing.
October 16, 2009 at 2:59 pm
JAMES
I am also old enough to know that SSN’s were need for college. Additionally, they would have been needed for a bank account. But hey, I’ll go along for a bit. Explain why Barck Obama wuld have a SSN issued in Connecticut when he in fact was attending Occidental at the time. Every college form would have been needed the SSN, as well as his apparently doctored Selective Service Registration, issued on a form not in use at the time!
Let’s let good old fashioned reporting instead of ObamaMessiah worshipping do its job, and vet the man they way they should have 24 months ago. Thats why he used the Trib to do his dirty work on Jack Ryan.
I have no double standard. Obama has shown nothing but an unverified document. John McCain provided more details.
Historian, I enjoy your discourse and your factual references. How do you know what the truth about the student loans is. In the waining days of the campaign, Obama changed from mentioning student loans to the great opportunities that were afforded him, i.e., after stories began circulating about Khalid’s involvement in his legal eductaion.
I am wasting no time in court… I am keeping my mind open. The problem with Obama is that his blank resume is beginning to show, costing me and thee more than our great grandchildren will ever be able to afford, and leading us into economical and moral demise. I hope your wife apprecates the tenets of sharia law, because, after all, Obama’s advisors say it is misunderstood. Health care will be the least of our problems.
By the grace of the Almighty, I will have to come back here and admit that I was wrong about the empoty suit and his lovely wife, but my gut is telling me that the Obama voters will be building a stronger level of buyer’s remorse than they already have.
October 16, 2009 at 4:34 pm
HistorianDude
Why are you asking me to explain something for which there is no evidence? The only person who insists Obama has an SSN from Connecticut is Orly Taitz. It is only one of the 35 or so different SSNs she says he has. You might as well be asking me to explain why Obama has blue eyes. He doesn’t.
But I point out again, it does not matter what state Obama got his SSN from. Anybody can have an SSN from any state, and it would still be irrelevant to their eligibility for the Presidency.
His SSS Registration is not doctored. It is identical to every other SSS registration from the same place and time, and this is a trivial issue to prove. You have been misled again. Why is it, James, that no Birther lie ever dies, even when proven to be false? This is not a rhetorical question, and the answer is obvious:
Birthers do not care what is or is not true. Birthers only care about what they can come up with slur Barack Obama, his wife, or anybody else associated with him.
It is not a healthy way to live your political life.
Since I was a citizen of Illinois when the Jack Ryan story broke, I will attribute to simple ignorance the lie that the Tribune and WLS were doing anything for Obama when they broke that story. The point I actually want to make here is a different one.
You guys constantly whine about the “liberal media” when in fact there are very powerful conservative media outlets available to you. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, WND… there is no shortage of “good old fashioned reporters” who have the ability and the motivation to do the reporting you pretend has not been done. Why have they also come up with zero?
Heck, WND even sent Jerome Corsi to Kenya… and came up blank.
The reason you do not have any evidence that Obama was born in Kenya is simply because he was not born in Kenya.
This is nonsense.
A McCain aide showed a single reporter McCain’s BC. Obama in contrast released his publicly on the Internet and then let any reporter who wanted come to his Chicago headquarters to personally inspect it. McCain did not allow any photographs to be taken of his. Obama in contrast allowed FactCheck to take as many pictures as they wanted.
And when McCain was challenged in court (three times now) to prove his citizenship status, he did exactly what Obama has done… moved to have the cases dismissed based on standing.
To this day, McCain has never publicly released his BC to anybody. Obama’s on the other hand can be found all over the Internet.
Once again we discover that your “memories” of what other candidates have done are not accurate, but instead are the received myths of Birther apologists who are not telling the truth.
Now lets look at another probelm with the way you argue… you keep changing your story.
That’s not what you were saying just one post ago. You were complaining then that he changed the story from “our loans” to “her loans.” Having been shown that is not a change, you have now tried to come up with a completely different one.
Again, we know that Birther lies never die, to include the lie about his Harvard education being paid by Rhashid Khalidi. That turned out to be just another bogus claim for which there was no evidence and that everybody in a position to know has denied.
When you accused him of changing his story, you were not telling the truth. And as an ironic response, you decided to change yours.
Look….. I know you hate Obama. I know that you have a natural tendency to swallow hook line and sinker every single bad thing anybody says or writes about Obama, no matter how obviously idiotic. I know that you really do not try very hard to check your sources or critically consider what you are told.
You’re concerned about buyer’s remorse? Speaking as somebody who voted for George W. Bush, I know exactly what you mean.
So I hope you don’t vote for him in 3 1/2 years.
The way things are going though, I will be voting to re-elect him. And so, probably, will another 70 million other people.
October 16, 2009 at 5:22 pm
JAMES
enough of Barack Obama’s SSN can be found online, on Cook County Records, etc. and the numbers when put into the SSN decoding, shows that it was issued in CT, in 1979-80. I had posted that on JAMES with dr. taitz info, as well as other sights that had similar information. Thus that attack on Dr. taitz is unjustified.. The decoding is accurate, as I have tested it with the SSN numbers of every one of my family members as well as employees. very accurate.
SSN decoding: http://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html
https://james4america.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/social-security-numbers-decoded/
Stanley Ann Dunham’s SSN Application: http://webofdeception.com/obamamother’sssapplication.html
As far as Obama’s Loans, you can try to shift words, etc., but I did not change my stance. Obama changed his words. But they are, after all, Just Words.
How do you know whether or not I hate Obama? Because I disapprove of his policies and his Marxist alliances, I must automatically hate Obama. That is the furthest from the truth. An Obamahater I am not. I do give serious consideration to what is presented, and I have said today and before, when Obama proves me wrong, I will admit it. Then the full efforts can be placed on making sure his policies are reversed.
The way things are going, only 43% of those who voted for him would do so again. We cannot handle 8 full years of this man. And I am sorry that you voted for George Bush and have buyers remorse. It sounds like you didi that twice. Luckily, I do not have to say that.
Now, there is one thing we can both agree on– we bot have the absolute RIGHT to bitch about the politics and policies because WE VOTED. I get so annoyed at those who do not exercise this great opportunity in our great Republic. They have no right to complain or question if they didn’t vote!
Please link me to the proof of the Khalidi lies. Percy Sutton is on videotape discussingKhalidi asking him for a letter of recommendation for Harvard for Obama, and imlies that Khalidi was doing more than a simple request of a friend.
October 17, 2009 at 11:06 am
HistorianDude
James:
Let me begin by addressing your second post. Why do I not always provide links? Because that would be rewarding your bad behavior… specifically the fact that you are either too lazy or too oblivious to even do a google search to check whether or not what you post is true.
I have no good reason to do your work for you, especially when you are not self critical enough to fairly assess the genuine evidence (or lack there of).
Ignoring that there is (at this point) almost no attack on Dr. Taitz that is unjustified,
I have very bad news for you. You do not know what Obama’s SSN is… even what the first five digits might be. As Orly Taitz/Neal Sankey’s list demonstrates, publicly searchable database of the sort you have accessed give notoriously poor information; hence the 39 different SSNs they have associated with Obama. At least 38 of them are false… an error rate of 97.4%.
I have done a similar set of database searches on my own name… and come up with a similar order of magnitude: 26 different SSNs, of which only one is partially correct… a 96.2% error rate. The databases have included wrong SSNs which belonged to (respectively) my wife, my children, my parents, two different business partners, and (in three cases) my realtors. That leaves 14 different SSNs which belong to people completely unknown to me. Many of the erroneous SSNs are associated with my name multiple times. And many of them (especially the realtors) are associates with addresses where I actually lived.
So, I simply again ask… why would I try to explain something for which you have no actual evidence?
The paper trail exists in this thread, and this is only one example of where you have changed your argument when confronted with the insufficiency of your original. But what is most fascinating here is your bizarre belief that different words used at different times are “changing your words” when they are all saying the same thing. There is no contradiction in anything you have quoted Obama saying, yet you launch into wild speculations on why he would have used different words at different times, finding dishonorable motives for imaginary inconsistencies.
It is tour de force demonstration of the conspiracist mind.
Because I read your blog. The common denominator in your selection of material is not whether or not something is true, but whether or not it makes Obama look bad. It often does not even need to have ANYTHING to do with your excuse of disliking his policies.
It’s not businesslike. It’s personal.
Well, since his (combined) approval rating is (including the bogus Rasmussen poll) currently 52.3%, that would require 63% of those who didn’t vote for him to now be willing to do so. I’m happy to show you the math, and I’d be thrilled if this were true.
But since your assertion is nonsense, I’ll just have to be happy with the 52.3% and rising.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Here again is a perfect example of where you are asking me to do your work for you. A genuinely critical thinker would have already have found the sources that I am about to provide for you. I never take a stand on an issue until I have looked at both the evidence for a claim and the evidence against it.
First, let me correct an error I made, briefly confusing Rashid Khalidi with the guy who supposedly paid for Obama’s Harvard education, Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour. Two different guys.
1. Obama and al-Mansour have both testified that they do not even know each other. Al-Mansour, in fact, never heard of Obama until 2004… long after Obama had graduated from Harvard.
2. Both Obama and al-Mansour have denied that any such letter was ever requested or written.
3. No copy of such a letter has ever been shown to exist. Now… don;t even start whining about how you would get the letter if you had discovery in a court of law. Since the letter even if it exiosted would be irrelevant to Obama’s eligibility to be President, it is not something that any Birther lawsuit could ask to even see.
4. During the primary campaign (in which Sutton supported Clinton), Sutton himself said that he didn’t know Obama and had never met him. How then can he sudenly be remembering writing a letter for a guy he did not even know eight months later?
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/02/05/4829228-sun.html#
The bottom line is that Sutton and al-Masour knew each other, but neither of them appear to have even known who Obama was when the imaginary letter was supposedly being written.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_camp_denies_Sutton_story.html#
Now James…. How hard would it have been for you to find this out for yourself?
October 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm
JAMES
HD: I will ignore your ignorance and arrogance at your comment about “lazy” etc. I didn’t realize I was supposed to be operating a blog as a business. If that’s the case, my capitalistic nature would want me to be making money off this.
As far as Percy Sutton goes, I suggest you look back to the youtube posting of him, in his OWN words, discussing Obama and Harvard.
I am not FOXNews, so I do not profess to be fair and balanced like they are (or at least far moreso than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC combined). I do howver welcome the opposing viewpoints. Your contention that my posts are without basis and unresearched is your opinion. I take note that youur whole basis is in attempting to refuite the possibility that Obama is ineligible to be President. In nine months in office, Obama has shown he is simply the same type of politician that he swore he would not be.
The first Tuesday in November will be an eye-opener, the results of the two Governor races will, one way or another, be a referendum on Obama and his policies. Should be interesting!
Barack Obama, day in and day out, is showing himself to be the inexperienced empty suit that Hillary and Biden both warned us about.
October 17, 2009 at 1:56 pm
HistorianDude
I can only take this as essentially an admission that every single one of my accusations are true. You do not deny them, you merely seek to excuse them. You are admitting that you actually are lazy, but that you’re completely okay with that. You are admitting that you make no effort to determine whether or not what you post is true, and you really don’t care.
You are completely conceding what objective observers already know to be true; you will post anything and everything and leave it to others to do the work of sorting the lies from the truth.
Whether you make money off the blog or not, what you are doing with this approach is squandering more important capital… that of your personal integrity. Since you are fine with that, I would only advise you in that case to scrupulously continue maintaining your anonymity.
I am completely familiar with Percy Sutton’s interview. And now you are also familiar with the fact that good old fashioned reporting by good old fashioned reporters have demonstrated that what he said in that interview is not and cannot be true. What is your response?
You ignore it completely. You pretend as if the other sources were not even offered. You deceptively continue to push one side of the story without doing what any honest reporter would do… consider both. It is a demonstration of pure prejudice. Nothing more.
Percy Sutton himself said in February of 2008 that he did not know Obama and had never met him. In September of 2008 he tells a different story that everybody else connected with denies, and that contradicts what he himself said just a half year earlier.
But it makes Obama look bad. And you hate Obama. So that is the story you are sticking with.
You are at no risk of anybody accidentally thinking you are fair and balanced. I have not for a second expected it of you. My indictment is elsewhere.
I do not complain that you are unfair, that is entirely within your right. I complain that what you post is not honest. Honest prejudice is a fair editorial position. Dishonest prejudice is just propaganda.
October 17, 2009 at 4:36 pm
JAMES
I concede nothing in my discussions with you. If my posts provoke thought and discussion, then we all benefit. Dishonest posts- I think not. Propaganda– I leave that to the professionals.
October 17, 2009 at 5:16 pm
HistorianDude
At least…. not on purpose.
October 16, 2009 at 5:29 pm
JAMES
Additionally, you refute statements, claims, etc, but do not provide the foundation, the links or source, for your assertion that the statement is wrong. With all due respect, Obama expects us to believe it so because he says so, but that does not apply to HD. Sorry.
Again, I am keeping an open mind on Obama’s eligibility.
October 16, 2009 at 5:34 pm
JAMES
HD: FYI– the kid needs to sign up for soccer league. I have to get the original birth certificate out f the strong box– the city does not accept the computer generated COLB. If a kid needs to show it for soccer, I think I can request a candidate for President do the same. The Constitution lists certain requirements, but that does not stop a state from asking for more proof before they sign the qualification statement.
October 16, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Follow the Constitution
The BC really doesn’t matter. The only thing that could prove is whether he is a citizen or not. Regardless of where he was born he is not a NBC anyway, so what difference does the BC make? Even Obama himself has admitted to this fact.
Obama even mislead the world court over his being POTUS by claiming since he really merely a President of a corporation it doesn’t matter about his NBC status. But he is wrong there as well because if he isn’t a US citizen he must have been born in the Disrtict of Columbia per their own code, which he clearly was not. So he can’t even be President of the United States Corporation either.
October 17, 2009 at 11:15 am
HistorianDude
I am sorry James, but I do not believe you are being truthful when you claim “the city does not acceopt the computer generated COLB.” I know that in my experience, the computer generated COLB has gotten my son into LaCrosse, into school, into a driver’s licences and into a US Passport.
If your expoerience is different, it is because the particular bureaucrat asking for the certificate is a srew up.
You are mistaken. The Constitution actually does stop a state from doing so. It’s called Article IV, Section 1…. the “full faith and credit clause.”
If a state accepts its own birth certificates for any purpose, it cannot reject the BCs of any other state for that same purpose. Ivenif those BCs are COLBs.
October 17, 2009 at 12:55 pm
JAMES
This is not the first time of registrations, so I know what I need to bring.
I was not inferring that the state could refuse that flimsy piece of paper Obama claims as a birth certificate. I was stating that a state can require documentation to accompany the affidavit that a candidate files with the state’s Secretary of State. And they can, at that point, in legislation, state that they require the form to show more than Obama’s does.
October 17, 2009 at 1:35 pm
HistorianDude
James, I can only address what you say, not what you “infer.” I can also address only what the law actually says, not what you wish the law says.
If your soccer league does not accept COLBs, they are wrong. Not the law. It is an example of people not knowing what they are doing.
If a State, ANY State requires a Birth Certificate for a Candidate to be on the ballot, they must, under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution accept Obama’s COLB as completely fulfilling that requirement. They cannot demand anything more or anything else if it is intended to meet the Constitutional qualification under Artilce II.
October 15, 2009 at 10:27 pm
slcraig
By timh………….
People who defend the indefensible, do so for a reason.
Could parrots possibly be “doing quite well” perhaps even recieve “stimulus” in this new paradigm, and as such ardently defend it?
Would an ACORN crook defend the big guy, to forestall his own judgement? Do parrots here possibly belong to an organizations, that have something to hide?
And are statements that stall, disseminate, obfuscate, and lie simply measures of self preservation?
Truth. Its what we demand. Its what we deserve.
If O was truthful, he wouldnt be hiding his past.
” I want a piece of the action” -Acorn 2009
October 16, 2009 at 6:51 am
HistorianDude
Slurs and insults designed as rhetorical questions serve one purpose only… to save face while tacitly admitting that you have completely lost the argument. And you have lost Steve… in the courts, in the media and in the forum of public opinion.
The Birther movement has already gone down in history as another of the classice nutcase fringe conspiracy theories along with the “faked moon landing,” the “9/11 Truthers” and the “US Government invented AIDS to kill black people.”
But do not imagine for a second that anyone believes you want the truth. You do not care about the truth any moire than you do not care about the Constitution.
You care only about finding some way, any way to remove a President that you hate for some personal and dishonorable reason.
You are convinced that I am some sort of “ACORN” leach on society looking for a stimulus handout. FIne.
Because in perfect symettry, I believe that you are an unremmittant racist who cannot stand the fact that your fellow Americans have elected a black man to be your president.
Neither of us can defend those opinions because we do not really know each other. But we hold them none the less.
Where the symmettry breaks down is here:
My side won. Your side lost and continues to lose.
This is the reality.
And reality never lies.
October 16, 2009 at 1:47 pm
slcraig
Serves no purpose to consider you any thing but a mind numbed kool-aid drinking moron……..and your ‘handle’ has certainly proven to be where the deception begins with you………..HISTORY of the ‘0’ has NOT been written……….we DUALERS will not quit………….and the English Common Law you revel in LOST in the Revolution…………..DUD
October 16, 2009 at 3:56 pm
HistorianDude
See the reason I am “HistorianDude” and you are not is that you neither know nor care about the actual history. The “history” you imagine is a complete fantasy that bears no resemblance to truth.
For example, you wrote this particular inanity:
That’s your fantasy. Here is the actual history.
49 out of the 50 States (Louisiana being the only exception) have “reception statutes” on their books in which they formally adopt British Common law as their own common law.
Zero states have done the same thing for de Vattel.
Reality never lies.
May 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Randy
Government lies…THAT is proven by history. Why has obama tried to destroy our constitution and sovereignty? THAT is why Vattel is SO IMPORTANT…
October 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm
slcraig
You are an idiot moron.<period
English Common Law evolved from the customs of the 'common people' because they could not find justice in the Kings/Emporers Courts.
That the 'Rulers' adopted and began the codification in the various European Kingdoms was the result of accomadations to the 'common people'.
Further, that the British took the name in whole does not mean that the English Common Law is/was the ONLY common law, as it was/is also known as 'natural law'.
But I know you've had to pull your cape up over your head to hide your eye's from those words and the Kool-Aid in your veins is boiling over gushing out of your every orifice at having to read words of truth and fact……..take two Oreo's and call me in the morning.
October 18, 2009 at 9:32 am
HistorianDude
And the American Courts have repeatedly affirmed (especially SCOTUS via Wong Kim Ark) that English Common Law is the basis of American citizenship law, not de Vattel.
October 18, 2009 at 6:07 am
slcraig
President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”.
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney http://naturalborncitizen.worpdress.com
October 16, 2009
October 18, 2009 at 9:19 am
HistorianDude
Ignoring that your link is broken… the comment is a lie.
President Obama has never “admitted he was ‘Kenyan-Born.”
But more than that, Steve-o. I thought you believed it didn’t matter where he was born. After all, haven’t you been insisting that Emerich de Vattel used a DeLorean with a flux capacitor to come back from the dead, rewrite his book “Law of Nations” in a language he did not speak, then brought it back (again via time machine) to whisper in the ears of our Founding Fathers a definition of NBC that he had forgotten to include in his book when her first wrote it while he was still alive, and that cannot be found in any contemporary record?
So why would you even care if Obama was born in Kenya or not?
October 18, 2009 at 1:23 pm
slcraig
Hey, NoClueAboutThePastPresentFutureDud,
You’re way behind on your research, or comprehension……..By virtue of his ‘jus Sanguinis’ relation to his Kenyan British Colonial Subject/Citizen, the Big ‘0’, dadio, the ‘0’ is CONSIDERED a Son of the Soil of Kenya by the ‘jus Sanguinis Republic of Kenya’.
Get up to speed if you want to stay in the game………..oh, and give up on your ‘English Law’ argument, they also us a combination of jus Sanguinis/jus soli in their various permutations of ‘citizenship status’……………
October 18, 2009 at 4:05 pm
HistorianDude
Steve-O:
1. Who cares? Unless you are claiming that the United States is an inferior nation and that our laws are inferior to Kenyan and British laws, it does not matter what any other nation’s laws say about citizenship. We are a sovereign nation, and only our laws can determine who is or is not a natural born citizen of the United States. No other country gets a vote.
In other words,anybody can have as many citizenships as nations choose to give them. But if one of them is natural born American citizenship, then they can be President.
2. The only definition of “natural born citizen” that existed in the English language at the time our Constitution was written and adopted was that of English Common Law. That definition was (and remains) that anybody born on national soil is a natural born citizens except for the children of foreign diplomats and occupying armies. There was no other.
3. You have been tossed out of every court at every level where you’ve tried to sell your goofy ideas… all the way to SCOTUS. This includes you personally and every single other Birther conspiracy theorist, lawyer, lawyer-wannabe, supporter, pretender, poseur, puppet and minion.
The word is spelled, “Loser.” Not, “Looser.”
Buh bye.
October 18, 2009 at 5:56 pm
slcraig
Hey, HistoryIsWhateverItTakesToKeepTheUsurperInOfficeDud,
!) The more you say that anyone born anywhere is a natural born citizen the stupider it sounds…………keep it up and you could be a Congressman someday………..
2) See #1
3) See #1 and #2……………
What a louser you is…………..
October 18, 2009 at 7:37 pm
HistorianDude
Supreme Court of the United States
(ORDER LIST: 558 U.S.) – MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2009
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
08-10817 CRAIG, STEVEN L. V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is
denied.
October 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm
slcraig
So, The’0’HasNOHistoryDud……….. Highlighting my attempt to get the ‘Legal Constitutional Definition of Natural Born Citizen’ toubles you because..?
Oh, that’s right, your Kool-Aid pusher is a Dual Citizen and your source depends on covering that fact up……….good luck…not.
October 18, 2009 at 7:58 pm
HistorianDude
Yes!
I highlighted the fact that you are a loser.
You have lost every single court case you have filed in ever court all the way up to the US Supreme Court.
And so has ever single other Birther sock puppet.
October 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm
slcraig
FYI, HistoryOfObfuscationDud,
I have not ‘lost’ a single case, my case was ‘Remanded’ to the USDC Western District OK where it started.
And you know what…? …..The ‘Fat Lady ain’t sing’n’ ……
October 19, 2009 at 7:09 am
HistorianDude
As usual you are being completely dishonest.
Your case was dismissed in District Court.
Your case was denied at the Supreme Court.
Your appeal was “remanded” by the Appeals Court with specific orders to be dismissed again. The Appeals Court order explicitly AFFIRMED the district court’s order to dismiss and its reasons for that dismissal.
That’s three strikes. You’re out.
October 19, 2009 at 6:30 am
slcraig
FYI…………from http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/hawaii-attorney-general-invokes-attorney-client-privilege-concerning-doh-natural-born-citizen-press-release-of-july-27-2009/#comments
packrat1145 Says:
October 18, 2009 at 10:32 PM
BTW, Christopher, to clarify, what I referred to above as being in the footnotes is actually in the numbered comments following the text of the case.
However, I did find something else very interesting in the actual footnotes; which are designated in the text by tiny little letters that are easy to miss. There is an “e” at the end of the following sentence….
“The general principle applied by the writers on the law of nations to the case of a civil war, considers the war, (as between the conflicting parties,) as just on both sides, and that each is to treat the other as a public enemy, according to the established usages of war.e”
Clicking that little “e” to see what the footnote says, you find “Vattel, L. 3 ch. 18. s. 296;” which seems to be conclusive proof that “The general principle applied by the writers on the law of nations” referred to by the Court in THE UNITED STATES v. PALMER is a reference that comes directly from Vattal’s Law of Nations.
Of course, I’m assuming that “the writers on the law of nations” is a reference to the writers (Framers) of the Constitution and “[t]he general principle applied […] on the law of nations” refers to their application of the principles in Vattal to certain topics in the Constitution.
I’m not a lawyer, so I will certainly defer to Leo’s learned expertise; but, if my assumption is correct, at least twice in the text of that case (once via footnote), there is proof of the Court pointing out the knowledge and usage by the Framers of Vattal’s work.
Moreover, in the numbered comments after the text of the case, you will find the following adjacent to the # 40 at the left of the screen….
“If, however, it becomes necessary to consider the other questions in this case, I will lay down a few general principles, which, I believe, will answer all: 1. Congress can inflict punishment on offences committed on board the vessels of the United States, or by citizens of the United States, any where; but Congress cannot make that piracy which is not piracy by the law of nations, in order to give jurisdiction to its own courts over such offences.”
I could be wrong; but, what that indicates to me is that, at least in this court’s opinion, not only did the Framers of the Constitution use Vattal’s Law of Nations as a reference, this court and others are also expected to use it and abide by it’s principles, at the very least, when and as those principles are written into the Constitution.
I understand that it may be accurate to say the Framers used the principles of laws of nations which were known to most scholars of the day who had any knowledge of legal matters. However, I believe it’s also accurate to say they used the actual book by Vattal as a handy reference guide to those well known principles.
An anology would be that just as all Americans know the English language, most of us still keep a good dictionary on hand for reference. I believe there is ample evidence that Vattal’s “Law of Nations” was the Framers’ preferred reference book when it came to laws of nations.
October 19, 2009 at 7:19 am
HistorianDude
This is a complete red herring.
1. Nobody has argued that the Framers were not familiar with de Vattel’s “Law of Nations.” They were.
2. And they certainly considered him an important resource on CERTAIN issues such as maritime law.
3. But they also ignored and contradicted him on other issues. For example, de Vattel is explicitly opposed to the right of citizens to bear arms. He insists that the right is possessed only by the “nobility,” yet another idea rejected by our Founding Fathers. So the 2nd Amendment is an explicit rejection of de Vattel and his ideas.
4, De Vattel cannot have been an influence on the Article II definition of natural born citizen, because de Vattel never mentions it. And no English translation of de Vattel mentions it until thirty years after de Vattel is dead, and ten years after the Constitution had already been written.
5. When the Constitution was written and accepted, there was a single definition of natural born citizen in the English language, and it was that of English Common Law. There was no other.
6. That definition is: Any person born on national soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or an occupying army.
May 24, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Teo Bear
If the Founding Fathers accepted English Common law as suggested then why did they do something so “Vatel” and permit expatriation, that is the ability to renounce previous allegiences, something English common law expressly forbids?
May 25, 2010 at 10:22 am
HistorianDude
Ignoring that I can find no mention of expatriation anywhere in the Constitution, I hold a mirror up to that question.
If the Founding fathers considered De Vattel such an authority, why did they permit freedom of the press (which De Vattel opposed), the right to bear arms (which De vattel opposed), proscribe government establishment of religion (which De Vattel supported)?
It seems that Bill of Rights is almost a point-by-point rebuttal of De Vattel’s ideas.
May 25, 2010 at 9:54 am
slcraig
And, if English Nationality Laws were used, as Ole’ Judge Gray of the infamous WKA opinion would have us believe, why are we ‘citizens’ instead of ‘subjects’…?……
The debate is over, the line is drawn; those with intellectual honesty are on one side and the Useful Idiot 0’pologists by any means to achieve their Socialist goal are on the other…………..
Don’t be caught in the middle….the stakes are too high to sit on the sidelines……
May 25, 2010 at 10:23 am
HistorianDude
Because we are a Republic and not a Monarchy.
Next question?
May 25, 2010 at 10:31 am
slcraig
Again, for your benefit makeyourownHistoryDude;
The debate is over, the line is drawn; those with intellectual honesty are on one side and the Useful Idiot 0′pologists by any means to achieve their Socialist goal are on the other…………..
May 25, 2010 at 10:50 am
HistorianDude
And Barack Obama is still the president of the United States.
And Steve Craig is still just a guy who has failed every time he’s tried to go to court.
May 25, 2010 at 12:13 pm
slcraig
And makeyourownHistoryDude remains a Useful Idiot 0′pologists by any means to achieve their Socialist goal berift of any intellectual honesty or respect for the Constitution…………..I’m still standing and your still on the wrong side of history….dude…………
May 25, 2010 at 3:24 pm
HistorianDude
You’re still standing?
LOL
Not in any court on THIS planet!
Say it with me, Stevo:
“Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States of America.”
That’s history right there, Steve. Part of every book on American History from now until the end of time.
Craig v. United States? Not so much.
August 25, 2010 at 9:29 am
Ooooppps
Not only did the term Natural born citizen exist, at the time of the constitution, the first head of the supreme court suggested to Washington that it be included.
AND
Vattel’s Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, published 1758, that defines natural born as being “born in the country to parents who are citizens” is part of the US Supreme Court case law. The Supreme Court reporter, Volume 18, page 779 published 1897.
August 25, 2010 at 9:31 am
Ooooppps
correction typo page 479 of Supreme Court reporter 18
August 25, 2010 at 7:57 pm
HistorianDude
Of course it did… but the only definition that existed was not Vattel’s. It was that of English common law.
Wrong.
Vattel never defined natural born citizen at all. And the first translation of his book in which the definition you cite was inserted (30 years after Vattel’s death) was published 10 years too late to have had any influence whatsoever on Article 2 of the Constitution.
You really need to catch up.
October 11, 2010 at 11:52 am
mystylplx
Small quibble, as I generally agree with you.
I don’t believe it is quite accurate to say “natural born citizen” is defined by English common law. The mistake here is in assuming that “natural born citizen” is a compound noun with a meaning that is distinct from the meaning of the noun “citizen” as modified by the compound adjective “natural born.”
The Oxford English dictionary, THE internationally recognized authority on the English language, defines ‘natural born’ as “Having a specified position or character from birth.” Thus, in English, a ‘natural born citizen’ is anyone who is born a citizen. They list that definition as going back to the 1500′s.
In the Constitution itself (as was the tradition at the time,) all nouns and compound nouns are capitalized. The phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution, however, is NOT capitalized. (Only the word “Citizen.”) This indicates the term “natural born” was intended as an adjective modifier under normal usage. I.E. the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is the meaning of the word “citizen” as modified by the adjective phrase “natural born.”
Natural born (having a specified position or charector
The Oxford English dictionary, THE internationally recognized authority on the English language, defines ‘natural born’ as “Having a specified position or character from birth.” Thus, in English, a ‘natural born citizen’ is anyone who is born a citizen. They list that definition as going back to the 1500′s.
In the Constitution itself (as was the tradition at the time,) all nouns and NOUN PHRASES are capitalized. The phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution, however, is NOT capitalized. (Only the word “Citizen.”) This indicates the term “natural born” was intended as an adjective modifier under normal usage. I.E. the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is the meaning of the word “citizen” as modified by the adjective phrase “natural born.”
Had they intended “natural born Citizen” to mean something different from the simple combined meaning of the adjective and the noun they would have rendered it “Natural Born Citizen.”
In Blackstones Commentaries he issues sentences such as–
The use of the word “are” in that sentence could make it seem that he is defining the term, but in fact that sentence is exactly synonymous with the sentence–
He is merely stating what the requirements were to be a subject at birth.
Indeed, Vattel was also not defining the words “Les naturals, ou indigenes.” The meanings of those words were already understood. They mean the same thing as “natural born citizen” i.e. citizen at birth. He also was merely stating what he thought the requirements should be to be entitled to citizenship at birth.
October 11, 2010 at 12:06 pm
mystylplx
Eh, sorry, made a mess of that reply. Trying again–
Small quibble, as I generally agree with you.
I don’t believe it is quite accurate to say “natural born citizen” is defined by English common law. The mistake here is in assuming that “natural born citizen” is a compound noun with a meaning that is distinct from the meaning of the noun “citizen” as modified by the compound adjective “natural born.”
The Oxford English dictionary, THE internationally recognized authority on the English language, defines ‘natural born’ as
Thus, in English, a ‘natural born citizen’ is anyone who is born a citizen. They list that definition as going back to the 1500′s.
In the Constitution itself (as was the tradition at the time,) all nouns and compound nouns are capitalized. The phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution, however, is NOT capitalized. (Only the word “Citizen.”) This indicates the term “natural born” was intended as an adjective modifier under normal usage. I.E. the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is the meaning of the word “citizen” as modified by the adjective phrase “natural born.”
Had they intended “natural born Citizen” to mean something different from the simple combined meaning of the adjective and the noun they would have rendered it “Natural Born Citizen” thus indicating it was a compound noun with it’s own special meaning.
In Blackstones Commentaries he issues sentences such as–
The use of the word “are” in that sentence could make it seem that he is defining the term, but in fact that sentence is exactly synonymous with the sentence–
He is merely stating what the requirements were to be a subject at birth.
Indeed, Vattel was also not defining the words “Les naturals, ou indigenes.” The meanings of those words were already understood. They mean the same thing as “natural born citizen” i.e. citizen at birth. He also was merely stating what he thought the requirements should be to be entitled to citizenship at birth.
October 11, 2010 at 10:46 am
mystylplx
The Oxford English dictionary, THE internationally recognized authority on the English language, defines ‘natural born’ as “Having a specified position or character from birth.” Thus, in English, a ‘natural born citizen’ is anyone who is born a citizen. They list that definition as going back to the 1500’s.
In the Constitution itself (as was the tradition at the time,) all nouns and NOUN PHRASES are capitalized. The phrase ‘natural born Citizen’ in the Constitution, however, is NOT capitalized. (Only the word “Citizen.”) This indicates the term “natural born” was intended as an adjective modifier under normal usage. I.E. the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is the meaning of the word “citizen” as modified by the adjective phrase “natural born.”
Had they intended “natural born Citizen” to mean something different from the simple combined meaning of the adjective and the noun they would have rendered it “Natural Born Citizen.”
October 13, 2010 at 2:40 am
finpwvpgss
In this saving (or any restraint, in reality) people are desperate to suit more economical while keeping their lifestyle, or at least some semblance of it. Inseparable parade-ground where people are penetrating move in reverse is in their high-end jewelry: they’re buying less and less of it. But equitable because you don’t want to frame out of the closet the three ample to gain that stunning ruby and sapphire necklace you old saying at Neiman Marcus doesn’t at any cost you can’t get it. A trade can be originate in your local bead store.
It’s a well-kept unpublished that many shire jewelry designers don’t wish for you to know. You can buy all the parts in return that exact anyhow necklace and word it together yourself for less than $200 bucks.
Convinced, you play a joke on to provoke it yourself, but the outcome is the unvarying: you get a ruby and http://sapphire-necklace-33.webs.com/apps/blog/ – sapphire necklace.
Specifically, you’ll privation a somerset of beading wire occasionally called tiger rear end ($2.00), a instal of gold or gold-filled clasps ($12.00), two crimp beads ($.25), a pair of pliers seeing that crimping ($10.00), two gold, 4mm spacer beads ($4.00), a strand of faceted ruby roundels ($70.00), and a strand of faceted sapphire roundels ($100.00). And that’s all you need! Conducive to less than $200.00 you enjoy a dearest gemstone necklace that would sell for 10 times that in any high-end store.
And you don’t make to terminate at ruby beads or sapphire beads. As an alternative you can clear swank, wearable art excuse of just down any transcribe of gemstone you can have in mind of.
Faceted gemstone beads are establish in emerald, garnet, opal, and more than ever notwithstanding diamond. Faceted diamond roundels can be establish in understandable, down in the mouth and Champagne-tinted hues. The most striking faceted diamond bead is the black diamond. Establish in Alaska, it seems to shimmer as it lies all your neck.
Also, don’t overlook not far from pearls. A strand of near-perfect cultured saltwater pearls will save you in dire straits less than $100.00. Link them with the constant materials as those listed over and what muscle normally sell for on all sides of $500.00 is yours representing a bargain.
And while the economy presents opportunities to release money as you expand your jewelry accumulation, it is also presenting many with the opportunity to unclinched up their own business as jewelry designers. Neck if you resold the necklace you ethical made at copy the penalty you knackered on it, you’d to be selling it pro a steal compared to the unchanging necklace in the jewelry warehouse display.
So why aren’t more people getting into making their own overpriced jewelry the inexpensive way? Perhaps they’re hoping against security this set-back doesn’t model much longer. Or perchance they’re reasonable in denial.
Whatever the lawsuit, it’s easy to learn ensure that making your own jewelry, like a ruby and sapphire necklace, a diamond necklace, or an emerald and gold bead necklace, is a much smarter conclusion than dropping the money it’d take to go for them on Rodeo Drive. And constant if it doesn’t take wrapped in a capricious jewelry punch, at least you can tower your building and stilly outfit in manner!
May 12, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Randy
C:\Users\Randy\Desktop\LEFTIES=2011-05-12_2301.png
July 5, 2011 at 12:24 am
S Gre
Is the argument over whether or not Vittal’s french translates to “natural born”, or whether or not the french is accurately translated into “two parents who are citizens”? Because if the two parents who are citizens part is an accurate translation then it doesn’t matter what you call Obama, not having two American citizen parents makes him ineligible! Plus, whatever kind of American citizenship Obama may have had, quibbling over French translations may be moot. Since Indonesia did not recognize dual citizenship with the U.S.at the time Obama became an
Indonesian citizen, he would have automatically forfeited that American citizenship. Since there is NO record of Obama upon returning to the U.S. from Indonesia reapplying for U.S. citizenship (the status of which would have been naturalized not natural born) as such he is currently residing in the WH as an illegal alien!.
July 5, 2011 at 7:33 pm
mystylplx
Except that Vattel did not write the Constitution nor have anything to do with it. The birther argument was that the framers must have gotten their definition of that phrase from him since he used it before the Constitution was ratified. The problem is he didn’t.
And Obama was never an Indonesian citizen and even if he had been it wouldn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what Indonesia does or does not recognize. It matters what U.S. law recognizes. Under U.S. law a minor child cannot give up their citizenship. Period. Nor can their parents do so on their behalf.
July 7, 2011 at 8:28 am
HistorianDude
1) Vattel is irrelevant to US citizenship law, to the definition of natural born citizen, and to eligibility for the US presidency.
2) Under US Law (specifically the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act) there nothing Obama, his step-father, his mother or the government of Indonesia can had done to deprive him of his status as a natural born US citizen.
July 7, 2011 at 9:56 am
John
US Law deals only with citizenship and has nothing to do with any meaning of natural born citizen. US citizenship is not the same as natural born citizen and there is no US law that defines its meaning. But under its true meaning Obama is not elegible.
July 7, 2011 at 3:51 pm
mystylplx
It’s true meaning? It’s true meaning is ‘citizen at birth.’ The compound adjective ‘natural born’ is defined as “Having a specified position or character from birth.” This is according to the OED, which is THE internationally recognized authority on the English language. A natural born ANYTHING is someone who is ANYTHING from birth. Parents have nothing to do with it. Claiming it has some different meaning when put in front of the word “citizen” than it does when put in front of the word “subject,” or any other word, is rather absurd.
The framers wrote in the English language. It means what it means in English.
July 7, 2011 at 1:34 pm
slcraig
Let’s try to get an honest intellectual perspective on the subject of “natural born Citizens”.
Any and all self defining groups of peoples throughout history produce ‘natural born citizens’ into their ‘goups’, whether it be a ‘tribe’, province, state, country, kingdom, empire or nation.
It is and has been in large measure the very purpose of peoples combining and agreeing to measures for mutual protection and governence, i.e., to raise families among like minded peoples adhering to customs, traditions and rules of conduct that are deemed appropriate for their purposes.
The children of any Founding Generation of such a group ARE the “natural born beneficiaries’ as are the children of any ‘foreigners’ that they accept as full members of their groupsgovernancegroups.
These ‘concepts, circumstances and consequences’ have been fully discussed through-out history and were NOT the product of whole clothe by Vattel with the most notable historical recounting of this NATURAL circumstance being found in the text of the Bible in Genesis and more recently by Aristotle in 450 BC in Book I “Politics”.
What sets an American natural born Citizen apart from whatever consideration any other Nation may place upon their natural born is the FACT that the American natural born Citizens were signified as being the ONLY Citizens within the Constitutional Republic that were “eligible” to serve in the Office of the POTUS by the words of the Constitution its self.
The recent analysis by Leo Donofrio of the Minor v Happersette SCOTUS Opinion is compelling and has me reassessing my ‘statement of adjudicative fact’ that ‘there is no acknowledged legal definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen, insofar as Citizenship is concerned’ and may add the qualifier, “except for Minor v.”……..
The point is, the nature of a natural born citizen of any society is the result and consequences of anticipated circumstances that have long been observed in the laws of nature as they affect the conduct and affairs of men.
July 7, 2011 at 4:03 pm
mystylplx
You are somewhat right. The natural born members of any group are those that are members of that group by birth–they are born into it. What the rules are to be entitled to said citizenship, however, vary widely from group to group. In Japan even being born on the soil of two citizen parents does not necessarily make you a natural born citizen. In Britain being born on the soil is enough OR having a British subject father is ALSO enough.
In Minor they merely stated the fact there was current confusion over what the REQUIREMENTS were (as opposed to the definition) to be a natural born citizen. Were citizen parents required? Or not? Several other cases from the time also delve into this, all of which were about citizenship at birth (aka Natural Born Citizenship.) Minor was not about that, but even so they were examining the question of whether she was a citizen at all, not whether she was eligible to run for President. They stated–
“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
So they explicitly admit there was disagreement and then go on–
“For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
In other words, they were not ruling on whether citizen parents were or were not required to be a citizen at birth. They were merely stating that Virginia Minor qualified as a citizen at birth under either definition.
July 8, 2011 at 5:36 am
slcraig
Well, your understanding is much like what I have taken away by the “Doubts” passage, however, the recent Donofrio analysis shows that the inquiry into the citizenship status of Virginia is much more specific than the casual reading reveals.
The ‘precedent’ making reading turns on the fact that the Court did NOT look to the 14th to establish Virginia’s citizenship but rather concluded that she was a citizen by virtue of her birth circumstance conformity to the needs of the Article II form of citizenship known as ‘natural born Citizen’.
Therefore the ruling that the 14th gave Virginia neither citizenship nor the right of suffrage.
However, such still requires an acknowledgment by the appropriate controlling legal authority and until then provides only a greater confidence in the held belief that the correct and proper definition, meaning and intent of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen as being of the nature of that which Vattel posits in his work considering the establishment of a ‘new state’.
July 8, 2011 at 7:53 am
mystylplx
Actually they also look to the 14th, stating–
“There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are expressly declared to be “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.”
They go on to say–
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,”
Thus they acknowledge there are only two routes to citizenship, birth or naturalization. And they then quote article II in support of that idea. From context it is clear they are referring to Natural Born Citizens as those who were born citizens. Indeed, in every SCOTUS case where that phrase was used it was used to mean “citizen at birth.”
They then go on to examine the question of whether her natural born citizenship could be removed by moving to another country (no) and whether citizenship alone entitled her to the right to vote (they decided ‘not’.)
July 8, 2011 at 8:24 am
slcraig
Well, the myopia by which you adhere to your interpretations is beyond my concern but the citation above should give you a clue that you are narrowly defining to your own needs;
“…, But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision.”
There are no words or words that require that the 14th AMENDS Article II Section I Clause V and any argument that suggests that it does flies in the face of Marbury v Madison and as such is to be considered inadmissible.
It is true that the “COLLECTIVE NATURALIZATION PROVISION” of the “Declaratory Born Clause” of the 14th provides for citizenship of individuals that were hitherto not entitled to citizenship and it continues to be used for that purpose.
However, Article II Section I Clause V makes clear that there exists circumstances by which persons are born Citizens by virtue of ITS EFFECT and, again, any argument to the contrary MUST be considered as inadmissible.
Ergo, “DOUBTS” remain as to those you would consider NBC’s, whereas NO DOUBTS exist among those I consider NBC’s.
July 8, 2011 at 11:47 am
mystylplx
No, the 14th neither amends article II nor provides citizenship to those who were not previously recognized as citizens. It merely recognized an existing fact, thus the use of the word “are” rather than “shall be “or will be.” The 14th simply clarified what had always been the case previously, and had not been questioned until racists in the 19th century attempted to deny citizenship to the children of African and Asian Americans.
And Yes, there are doubts among some, but those doubts are pointless. The Constitution was written in English and baring a court decision to the contrary the phrase “natural born citizen” means what it means in English. In English the compound adjective ‘natural born’ is defined (by OED) as “Having a specified position or character from birth.” They cite this definition as going back to the 16th century. In English a natural born ANYTHING is someone who is ANYTHING from birth. It makes no sense to believe (without any reason to do so) that the adjective takes on a new meaning when put in front of the word “citizen” than it has when put in front of any other word. A natural born leader is someone who is born a leader. A natural born killer is someone who is born a killer. A natural born British subject is someone who is born a British subject. And a natural born American citizen is someone who is born an American citizen.
In addition, prior to 2007 and the advent of birthers, there was no doubt that anyone born on the soil is a natural born citizen. To the extent that doubts existed it was on whether birth on the soil was necessary or whether a child born elsewhere but eligible for birthright citizenship by other means was also a natural born citizen. Those doubts were also, IMO, senseless. As I said, it means what it means in English unless a court says otherwise, and no courts have done so.
June 3, 2012 at 8:54 am
Preet Rau
Thanks for your marvelous posting! I seriously enjoyed reading it, you happen
to be a great author. I will be sure to bookmark your
blog and will come back sometime soon. I want to encourage
one to continue your great work, have a nice afternoon!
August 4, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Kashika Vohra
Please let me know if you’re looking for a author for your site. You have some really good posts and I think I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d love to write some material for your blog in exchange for a link back
to mine. Please blast me an email if interested. Cheers!
December 24, 2012 at 6:56 am
www.hulkshare.com
Fascinating blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?
A design like yours with a few simple adjustements would really make my blog jump out.
Please let me know where you got your design. Many thanks