The occasional open thread: epic fail edition

Posted on August 24, 2011 by Dr. Conspiracy

Post your Obama conspiracy comments here when they don’t relate to the current articles. Comments will close in two weeks.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.

View all posts by Dr. Conspiracy →

This entry was posted in Open Mike. Bookmark the permalink.

354 Responses to The occasional open thread: epic fail edition

gorefan says:

August 23, 2011 at 2:45 pm gorefan(Quote)

OT

There was a 5.8 earthquake in Virginia. How long before we hear about the President using HARRP to distract from the BC and SSN?
misha says:

August 23, 2011 at 3:28 pm misha(Quote)

gorefan: There was a 5.8 earthquake in Virginia.

I am writing from the subterranean command center of the International Jewish Conspiracy™. We caused it, because we are unhappy with Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.

Perry’s prayer revival:
– “Lord, I pray that we might see a reinstating of the display of the Ten Commandments in our classrooms. I pray Lord that we will again see freedom to pray in our classrooms.”
– “Tens, even hundreds, of thousands of Jewish people in the last decades have come to their Messiah. And so Lord, we pray for the revival around the world, and for Israel to come to their own Messiah.”
– “In the humanistic culture, people are talking about love without reference to Jesus Christ.”
– That, in the name of tolerance, even in the name of love, we are redefining love that is not on God’s terms. Jesus is god. There is no other god than Jesus. Father, son, and Holy Spirit. All the world religions, they can say what they say. There is no other god besides Jesus. There is no other standard of truth. Jesus alone is the standard of truth. He defines morality. He defines marriage.

If Perry become president, we’ll bring back the 10 Plagues. That earthquake we engineered was just a warning.
richCares says:

August 23, 2011 at 3:37 pm richCares(Quote)

Mischa says “If Perry become president, we’ll bring back the 10 Plagues”
.
you forgot to mention Bachmann’s pledge, $2.00 gas plus all earthquakes limited to magnitude of 2.0 or less. A vote for Bachmann is a vote for smaller quakes and cheaper gas, support Bachmann, she needs support as that dunce cap is very heavy
misha says:

August 23, 2011 at 8:01 pm misha(Quote)

OT: here is a photograph of earthquake damage. (Dr C: move to appropriate thread if you wish.)

http://www.bestweekever.tv/2011-08-23/oh-god-the-first-photo-of-the-dc-earthquake-devastation/
misha says:

August 24, 2011 at 12:43 am misha(Quote)

“I have often said that not only does God have a sense of humor, it’s a vicious one. — Tim Adams”

Hey Tim: god backwards, spells dog.
misha says:

August 24, 2011 at 5:03 am misha(Quote)

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government’s founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Read on:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html
Lupin says:

August 24, 2011 at 9:52 am Lupin(Quote)

OT I hope any of you guys in the path of Hurricane Irene will remain safe and sound.
Thrifty says:

August 24, 2011 at 10:33 am Thrifty(Quote)

I’m kind of excited for Hurricane Irene. Says it’ll be felt up here in Delaware. I know that considering the damage a hurricane can do, that this sounds selfish, but when Floyd came by in 1999, it dumped more rain than I’d ever seen in my life. It was neat.
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 1:28 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Hello Obotopians!

I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.

‘Dr Merry/Mary Othigo on bribes at the Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. September, 2008.’

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/helton-maganga-heltan-maganga/dr-merrymary-othigo-on-bribes-at-the-coast-province-general-hospital-mombasa-kenya-september-2008/

Please read and comment. Thank you.
jayHG says:

August 24, 2011 at 1:31 pm jayHG(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Hello Obotopians!I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.‘Dr Merry/Mary Othigo on bribes at the Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. September, 2008.’http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/helton-maganga-heltan-maganga/dr-merrymary-othigo-on-bribes-at-the-coast-province-general-hospital-mombasa-kenya-september-2008/Please read and comment. Thank you.

No need to read it……..I’m confident that it’s all drivel and you’re still an idiot……
Thrifty says:

August 24, 2011 at 1:44 pm Thrifty(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Hello Obotopians!I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.‘Dr Merry/Mary Othigo on bribes at the Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. September, 2008.’http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/helton-maganga-heltan-maganga/dr-merrymary-othigo-on-bribes-at-the-coast-province-general-hospital-mombasa-kenya-september-2008/Please read and comment. Thank you.

*waves paw dismissively*

Bah.
jayHG says:

August 24, 2011 at 1:55 pm jayHG(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Are you the Obot that claims to be a black American?If so, I don’t really believe you.But….if you really are a black American….I feel sorry for you. What sort of black person would be online posting as an Obot. Were yoy shunned by other blacks in real life? Mostly hangout with white democrats? Sort of an Oreo, huh? Loser.

I’m so hurt that you don’t believe that I am black. Listen to this what I’m about to say very carefully – I DON’T CARE!!! You’re an idiot and a convicted felon.

I’m a supporter of President Barack Obama and also someone who calls birthers idiots and calls you, Lucas Smith, a liar. You constantly embarass yourself. Once and for all, everyone knows that you never went to Kenya, you are a stupid birfer, and you are to be mocked and ridiculed and made fun of….whichever comes to mind first.
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:16 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith:
Hello Obotopians!

I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.

Uuuh. Okay.

So… is your new claim an admission that the POSKBC is a fake, but that you were the victim of one of the “con artists: that stalked the halls of the hospital preying on the unsuspecting?

I mean, a con being conned would be deliciously ironic, sure. But I have trouble buying it.
ASK Esq says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:19 pm ASK Esq(Quote)

I wonder if he, Lucas Smith, realizes the implications of the article he linked to, and the descriptions of people being swindled at Coast General.

Let’s give him the benefit of doubt and say he was there and that he paid someone for a photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate. What’s to say it wasn’t one of these conmen who knew an easy mark when he saw one? Way to weaken your case, Lucas.
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:22 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: Uuuh. Okay. So… is your new claim an admission that the POSKBC is a fake, but that you were the victim of one of the “con artists: that stalked the halls of the hospital preying on the unsuspecting?I mean, a con being conned would be deliciously ironic, sure. But I have trouble buying it.

Do you get paid to write such misleading questions?

The article demonstrates that bribes are common place at CPGH. You know, not something unusual or typical. Othigo takes bribes, as well.
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:24 pm Epectitus(Quote)

It also demonstrates that many of those taking bribes were con men with nothing to do with the hospital. IS that what you;re claiming happened to you?
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:24 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

ASK Esq: I wonder if he, Lucas Smith, realizes the implications of the article be linked to, and the descriptions of people being swindled at Coast General.Let’s give him the benefit of doubt and say he was there and that he paid someone for a photocopy of Obama’s birth certificate. What’s to say it wasn’t one of these conmen who knew an easy mark when he saw one? Way to weaken your case, Lucas.

You get paid to post misleading questions too?

Othigo is the administrator that I dealt with in 2009. Real doctors take bribes, not just pretenders. Read the article and read my past writings.
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:27 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Oh this is a pretty serious change in the story here, Luke. When did you ever before claim Othigo was the administrator you dealt with? And if she was why did Heltan “Can’t Spell His Own name Right” Maganga sign your POSKBC?
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: Oh this is a pretty serious change in the story here, Luke. When did you ever before claim Othigo was the administrator you dealt with? And if she was why did Heltan “Can’t Spell His Own name Right” Maganga sign your POSKBC?

This has been my story from day one. I don’t have time to walk you through it step by step. Pay attention from now on.

I’ve never claimed I dealt with Dr Helton/Heltan Maganga. I never saw him and I never talked with him. I’ve always stated, from day one, that I dealt with a female member of the CPGH admin staff.

Last month or so was the first time that I saw a group of pictures (1950s thru 2010) of Othigo with her name attached. Before that I never knew what lady’s name was that I dealt with back in 2009. I’ve already blogged about this. Pay attention next time.

I’ve always said, even the first time that I ever spoke with Orly Taitz, that it was a female member of the admin staff at CPGH that I dealt with in 2009. My posts at FreeRepublic from back then, and 2010, reflect this as well.

Also read my blog:

“Doctor Merry/Mary Othigo and two hospitals in Mombasa, Kenya: Aga Khan Hospital and Coast Province General Hospital.”

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/doctor-merrymary-othigo-and-two-hospitals-in-mombasa-kenya-aga-khan-hospital-and-coast-province-general-hospital/

“Whats this about Lucas Smith meeting with Merry/Mary Othigo at CPGH back in February, 2009?”

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/barrack-obama-eligibility/whats-this-about-lucas-smith-meeting-with-merrymary-othigo-at-cpgh-back-in-february-2009/
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: This has been my story from day one.I don’t have time to walk you through it step by step.Pay attention from now on.

Actually, no it has not. Now that I’ve gone back at looked at your “blog,” it looks like it has only been your story since July 25. “Day one” as you may recall is was a couple years ago.

Why are you still trying so hard to salvage this fake? Everybody else has moved on.
Judge Mental says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:49 pm Judge Mental(Quote)

When it came up on my screen, the red “I’m Too Epic To Fail” subtitle graphic for this article caught my eye in its proximity to the photo of Tim Adams slightly below in the next article.

Apart from its possible comedic descriptive value to Adam’s pathetic “thesis”, those who are old enough might remember there was a pop group quite a few years ago who had a major hit with the song “I’m Too Sexy For My Shirt” and at a glance Adams photo is dead ringer for one of them.

Nice accidental one Doc!
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 2:50 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: Actually, no it has not. Now that I’ve gone back at looked at your “blog,” it looks like it has only been your story since July 25. “Day one” as you may recall is was a couple years ago.Why are you still trying so hard to salvage this fake? Everybody else has moved on.

It’s been my story from day one. I just didn’t know what the lady’s name was until last month. I’m not sure how to make it any easier for you to understand. You want me to hold you hand and walk you through it all?

Ask a more seasoned, or better paid, Obot. I’ve always stated that I dealt with a female member of the CPGH admin staff.

Go search old Freerepublic thread and other online writings. Ask seasoned Obots such as Great Kim aka Mik Taerg.

Whatever you do, just pay attention before you write you paid postings.
gorefan says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:12 pm gorefan(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Please read and comment. Thank you.

So how upset were you to find this article at this late date? If you had found it in May or June of 2009, you probably would not have used the news account of Dr. Helton Maganga. Or at least you would have seen the possiblity of a conflict in who was the chief administrator in February, 2009 and done more research.

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft a-gley” Robert Burns, 1786
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:16 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: It’s been my story from day one. I just didn’t know what the lady’s name was until last month.I’m not sure how to make it any easier for you to understand. You want me to hold you hand and walk you through it all?

Odd. I’m looking at the affidavit you made for Teresa Cao dated April 10 of this year. You mention two Kenyan military / police officers and a friend from Congo, but no “female member of the CPGH admin staff.”

You mention no “female member of the CPGH admin staff” in your letter to Congress.

Your September 3, 2009 affidavit mentions only a single “Kenyan military officer,” and also mentions only a single bribe rather then the three you now claim. No “female member of the CPGH admin staff” to be seen.

Want to point us to the first time you ever mentioned a “female member of the CPGH admin staff ?” I’d really like to see when you think “day one” was.
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: Odd. I’m looking at the affidavit you made for Teresa Cao dated April 10 of this year. You mention two Kenyan military / police officers and a friend from Congo, but no “female member of the CPGH admin staff.”You mention no “female member of the CPGH admin staff” in your letter to Congress.Your September 3, 2009 affidavit mentions only a single “Kenyan military officer,” and also mentions only a single bribe rather then the three you now claim. No “female member of the CPGH admin staff” to be seen.Want to point us to the first time you ever mentioned a “female member of the CPGH admin staff ?” I’d really like to see when you think “day one” was.

Day one means day one. Call Orly Taitz if you want to. Read old Freerepublic threads. Btw, cracker, did you read anything about talking with or seeing Dr. ‘Maganga’ in my affidavits for Orly and Cao? No, you didn’t. I don’t think that I even mentioned his name at all.

Ask a more seasoned Obot.
SluggoJD says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm SluggoJD(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith:
Hello Obotopians!

I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.

‘Dr Merry/Mary Othigo on bribes at the Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. September, 2008.’

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/helton-maganga-heltan-maganga/dr-merrymary-othigo-on-bribes-at-the-coast-province-general-hospital-mombasa-kenya-september-2008/

Please read and comment. Thank you.

Hey you, Lying Lucas Smith, thanks for providing some comedy relief!
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:31 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

SluggoJD: Hey you, Lying Lucas Smith, thanks for providing some comedy relief!

No problem, cracker. My pleasure to give purpose and meaning to your life.
SluggoJD says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:33 pm SluggoJD(Quote)

Hey you, Lying Lucas Smith…

You claimed in the beginning that you went to Kenya in “spring.”
And then you changed your story to “February.”

Would you like to defend your bullshit?
JoZeppy says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:40 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: It’s just you then are interested? Why do you respond to me then? Just like the MSM, you need to inform everyone when something is no longer important or talked about? I thought that people could make their own minds up and that if something was dead or no longer important that people would know that for themselves? I’ve been listening to Obots tell others what is old news’ or dead’ for more than 2 years now. What a bunch of limp-d-crackers.

You’ll note, Mr. Smith, that I was not in fact responding to you. But as your POSFAKBC showed, attention to detail is not your strong suit.

Personally, my interest is in junk law. It is a hobby of mine. Always has been. Before birthers, it was tax protesters and sovereign citizens. The fact that the birthiverse contains a low grade con-man like yourself is just a happy coincidence. And you see, the problem is that only you seem to fail to recognize that not only are you nor your POSFAKBC important, you never were important. Pretty much everyone has made up their minds that point, and your sad and pathetic attempts to somehow make yourself relevant is probably one of the funnier things that hits this board. And when confronted with the fact that you’re a joke, you resort to calling everyone gay or a cracker (and now added racist diatribes to your repertoire).
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:47 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: Odd. I’m looking at the affidavit you made for Teresa Cao dated April 10 of this year. You mention two Kenyan military / police officers and a friend from Congo, but no “female member of the CPGH admin staff.”You mention no “female member of the CPGH admin staff” in your letter to Congress.Your September 3, 2009 affidavit mentions only a single “Kenyan military officer,” and also mentions only a single bribe rather then the three you now claim. No “female member of the CPGH admin staff” to be seen.Want to point us to the first time you ever mentioned a “female member of the CPGH admin staff ?” I’d really like to see when you think “day one” was.

It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.

Just google search “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH”
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.Just google search “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH”

So are you saying your story changes with each retelling of your story Lucas?
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:53 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Day one means day one.Call Orly Taitz if you want to. Read old Freerepublic threads.

Provide the link or admit the lie.
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.
Just google search “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH”

It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.

Just google search “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH”

[Personal insult removed. Doc.]
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.

March of 2011 is a mere five months ago. “Day one” was two years ago. Is that really the earliest reference you made to this “female member of the admin staff?”

I don’t think you know what “day one” means.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.Just google search “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH”Gay cracker.

You’re white lucas why are you calling people crackers?
JoZeppy says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Breezy! You wasted all that space and word for a guy and document that are not important and and never were? Very strange, very strange.

We all need mindless hobbies. Nothing strange about it at all. I also do crossword puzzles and they’re not particularly important either.

Lucas D. Smith: Why are you thinking of me so much?

I don’t actually. But much like a child having a tantrum at the grocery store, you’re hard to miss. I just have to wonder, when you show up here with your latest attempt to salvage your POSFAKBC, do you honestly expect any to remotely take you seriously? Or do you believe any attention is better than no attention at all (and then why do you have little tantrums when everyone mocks your attempts to rehabilitate your poor forgery)?

[Section removed. Doc.]
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:02 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus: March of 2011 is a mere five months ago. “Day one” was two years ago. Is that really the earliest reference you made to this “female member of the admin staff?”I don’t think you know what “day one” means.

So….you just keep back tracking? First it was today (ha!, dolt!), then in it was July 25, and now it is March 15th, 2011?

What a loser. Go search freerepublic threads and my youtube profile channel. Unless you’ve got an sort of life.

An easier way you be for you to ask obot Great Kim aka MIk Tearg.
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: So….you just keep back tracking? First it was today (ha!, dolt!), then in it was July 25, and now it is March 15th, 2011?

None of those is “day one” is it?

What a loser. Go search freerepublic threads and my youtube profile channel.Unless you’ve got an sort of life.

Link it or admit the lie.
Thrifty says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm Thrifty(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): That’s not what your wife told me last night. What’s with you and the gay stuff? Did prison really make you turn that soft?

I had to laugh out loud at this one. Bob, you’re smart enough to do better than such juvenile taunts, but considering who we’re dealing with, anything more would be unnecessary. Circumstances were just right that a cheesy insult gave me the giggles.
sfjeff says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:12 pm sfjeff(Quote)

I guess Doc is out of the office and isn’t around to moderate the homophobic and other slurs.

Lucas used to be at least amusing….now he is just purely offensive.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Thrifty: I had to laugh out loud at this one. Bob, you’re smart enough to do better than such juvenile taunts, but considering who we’re dealing with, anything more would be unnecessary. Circumstances were just right that a cheesy insult gave me the giggles.

I’m still laughing that Lucas decided to come here to this appropriately titled thread to defend his forgery.
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:15 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Why don’t you post a picture of you and any girlfriend that you ever had or just admit that you are gay and that you love a good tube steak?

First things first. Link it or admit the lie.
Thrifty says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:18 pm Thrifty(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): I’m still laughing that Lucas decided to come here to this appropriately titled thread to defend his forgery.

Pathetic forgery, pathetic human being hurling pathetic, childish insults, with such ferocity, and the occasional pathetic attempt at defending his pathetic forgery. It’s like when someone makes a terrible movie that’s so completely inept that you can’t stop laughing at it. Lucas Smith is the Tommy Wiseau of internet posting.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:23 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Thrifty: Pathetic forgery, pathetic human being hurling pathetic, childish insults, with such ferocity, and the occasional pathetic attempt at defending his pathetic forgery. It’s like when someone makes a terrible movie that’s so completely inept that you can’t stop laughing at it. Lucas Smith is the Tommy Wiseau of internet posting.

Oh Hi Mark!
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Epectitus:

Sir, I’ll make this easy for you. Try to find one, just one single reference, to me stating that I have ever talked with or seen Dr Mananga. You wont find a single refernce to that effect. You know why? Because I have never seen the guy and I have never spoken with him.

Just about every person that I have worked with understand that.

Taitz, Lincoln, Berg, Patterson, Lillard etc.

I’ll wait now for you to try to dig up anything to the contrary. Impossible.
[Personal insult removed. Doc.}
Wile E says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:33 pm Wile E(Quote)

Have you ever thought about changing the name of your blog to “Mary/Merry and the Bizzare Lucas Cap”?

Why no pics of you without the cap…even inside for dinner? Ringworms? Bad prison tattoos? Clear-colored hair?

(BTW…this post was mostly a test to see if Doc had put me in moderation)
Lucas D. Smith says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:41 pm Lucas D. Smith(Quote)

Wile E: Have you ever thought about changing the name of your blog to “Mary/Merry and the Bizzare Lucas Cap”?Why no pics of you without the cap…even inside for dinner? Ringworms? Bad prison tattoos? Clear-colored hair?(BTW…this post was mostly a test to see if Doc had put me in moderation)

Plenty of pics of me without the hatcap. Check freerepublic. Should be some of me almost naked taking a shower in the rain. No hat, just shorts on.
Bovril says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:46 pm Bovril(Quote)

To return to the boring, mundane and terribly sad little posted link to “I Lucas D. Smith”.

I take it anyone else who has held their nose and looked at the latest in the long line of troll bait over there has recognized the pattern..?

It is a truism that the failing con-man will inevitably embellish, fantasize and bloviate his tales of cack with ever increasing levels of internally inconsistent and intricately fallacious detail. Lo and behold, what do we see……?

I have also had a wander through the cesspit of Freeperville and qu’elle suprise, I, Lucas D. Smith is….wait for it…….lying about his “From DAY ONE” statement”.

So, I, Lucas D. Smith where are the passports and visa details we are all still waiting with bated breath for?
Wile E says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:52 pm Wile E(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith:.Should be some of me almost naked taking a shower….

Ummmm….bet that brings back memories?

Hey. Why did you pick the same time, day, and year of birth that is on President Obama’s fer real BCs to be used on your fake one? Seems like you shoulda switched it up a bit, No?
Epectitus says:

August 24, 2011 at 4:56 pm Epectitus(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Sir, I’ll make this easy for you.Try to find one, just one single reference, to me stating that I have ever talked with or seen Dr Mananga.You wont find a single refernce to that effect. You know why?Because I have never seen the guy and I have never spoken with him.

Compete straw man. I never said you did.

Now, as to you claiming you dealt with a female administrate person “from day one.” Day one was IIRC late June of 2009 when you first started trying to sell the POSFKBC on eBay.

So far, you have yet to provide an example closer than 22 months too late.

Link it or admit the lie.

You have yet to come up with an example closer than
Thrifty says:

August 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm Thrifty(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: Bob Ross says that you and him used to bump nasties in the hallway of your one room flats? That true? Or is Bob just lying like usual?

*chortle*
Mary Adams says:

August 24, 2011 at 5:23 pm Mary Adams(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH”

Yeah, riiiiight. The BC with the deformed “baby” on it. Does President Obama have Dwarfism? LOL!

Wasamatta Lucas, you couldn’t look up the measurements of a normal baby?

Obviously, your “guys” are pitiful weaklings since in all that sex you claim to have had, you have never fathered a child. If you had one, you’d know s little more about weight & length and birth certificates.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) says:

August 24, 2011 at 5:39 pm Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote)

Mary Adams: Yeah, riiiiight. The BC with the deformed “baby” on it. Does President Obama have Dwarfism? LOL!Wasamatta Lucas, you couldn’t look up the measurements of a normal baby?Obviously, your “guys” are pitiful weaklings since in all that sex you claim to have had, you have never fathered a child. If you had one, you’d know s little more about weight & length and birth certificates.

You’d think he’d know a little more about it because of his attraction to children.
Majority Will says:

August 24, 2011 at 5:45 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith:
Hello Obotopians!

I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.

‘Dr Merry/Mary Othigo on bribes at the Coast Province General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya. September, 2008.’

http://www.wasobamaborninkenya.com/blog/helton-maganga-heltan-maganga/dr-merrymary-othigo-on-bribes-at-the-coast-province-general-hospital-mombasa-kenya-september-2008/

Pleaseread and comment. Thank you.

Pointless, idiotic spam from a convicted felon and con artist headed back to prison soon.
Mary Adams says:

August 24, 2011 at 6:06 pm Mary Adams(Quote)

I wonder what Dr. Othigo would think about Lucas accusing her of accepting a bribe?

Also, is there a Kenyan privacy law that would prevent anyone from simply giving Lucas a copy for the 5 shillings or whatever it costs?
Daniel says:

August 24, 2011 at 6:12 pm Daniel(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH

Was she riding a unicorn?
Bob says:

August 24, 2011 at 6:20 pm Bob(Quote)

And here’s what comes up when you search Freerepublic for Lucas D. Smith:

“Nothing matched your criteria.”

Even according to Freerepublic Lucas D. Smith is nothing.
jayHG says:

August 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm jayHG(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith: It was even talked about here on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in March of 2011.Just google search “On February 19th, 2009 I was handed the certified copy of the 1961 CPGH Obama bc by a female member of the admin staff at CPGH [Personal insult removed. Doc.}

Shut up already! God you’re ignorant.
Keith says:

August 24, 2011 at 8:33 pm Keith(Quote)

misha: Perry’s prayer revival:…

Keith’s Prayer:

Our Lager,
Which art in barrels,
Hallowed be thy drink,

Thy kegdom come,
I fill thee mug,
At home, as in the tavern.

Give us this day, oru foamy head,
And forgive us our spillages,
As we forgive those who spill upon us,
And lead us not,
Into inebriation,
But deliver us from hangovers.

Barmen.

(stolen from a birthday greeting card from mooningduck.com)
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 24, 2011 at 8:48 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Bizarre comment. On this web site everybody is black, typing on a white background.

Lucas D. Smith: Probaby [sic] can’t even shake hands with other black Americans guys, can you?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

There certainly are con men in Kenya selling fake Obama birth certificates. I’ve been offered one.

Epectitus: I mean, a con being conned would be deliciously ironic, sure. But I have trouble buying it.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 24, 2011 at 8:52 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

This is not a “democrat” web site. I don’t have a clue on the racial demographics of the commenters.

Lucas D. Smith: If you are black, you should be ashamed for posting on this cracker democrat website.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 24, 2011 at 8:58 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

I don’t know. I just got back from choir practice. This morning there were 4 comments and now there’s a hundred more peppered with this “junior high” stuff you mention.

I think I’m going to get a mop and clean this up.

Thrifty: Jesus Christ. Did I just wander into a junior high school?
Keith says:

August 24, 2011 at 9:04 pm Keith(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know. I just got back from choir practice. This morning there were 4 comments and now there’s a hundred more peppered with this “junior high” stuff you mention.

Thrifty: Jesus Christ. Did I just wander into a junior high school?

I hate to be the one to say it Doc, but I don’t think the question was addressed to you. 😎

(I know, I know, but it was an opening you could drive a truck through and nature abhors a vacuum – that is why we dislike Lucas so much I guess).

Doc Martin! How many metaphors can I mix in one sentence for crying out loud?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 24, 2011 at 9:10 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Anyone can pay fee and look at the birth index.

Mary Adams: Also, is there a Kenyan privacy law that would prevent anyone from simply giving Lucas a copy for the 5 shillings or whatever it costs?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 24, 2011 at 9:22 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Yeah. Well I’ve been having some recreation today and then I spent some time pulling weeds in the yard, had dinner with Ms. Conspiracy then I went to choir practice. I’m cleaning house now. I’m looking forward to starting a new Habitat house the end of the week.

sfjeff: I guess Doc is out of the office and isn’t around to moderate the homophobic and other slurs.
Joey says:

August 24, 2011 at 10:28 pm Joey(Quote)

For what it’s worth, there’s a pretty interesting “two citizen parents required” thread going on at freerepublic.com right now based on speculation that Senator Marco Rubio might be a Vice Presidential candidate.
I was surprised at how many non-birther right wingers there are posting in defense of Obama’s (and Rubio’s) eligibility over there.
“Coming Soon: Rubio Birthers”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2768512/posts?q=1&;page=101
misha says:

August 25, 2011 at 12:47 am misha(Quote)

Pat Robertson Blames Mild Earthquake on People Who Seem Kind of Gay

Almighty’s Anger at Metrosexuals Caused Ambiguous Quake

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/08/24/pat-robertson-blames-mild-earthquake-on-people-who-seem-kind-of-gay/
J. Potter says:

August 25, 2011 at 1:47 am J. Potter(Quote)

Another pressure vector threatening the cranial integrity of birthers everywhere–AWESOME!!! If wingers actually had to live with permanent consequences of their fickle desires … would they ever learn?

Joey:
For what it’s worth, there’s a pretty interesting “two citizen parents required” thread going on at freerepublic.com right now based on speculation that Senator Marco Rubio might be a Vice Presidential candidate.
I was surprised at how many non-birther right wingers there are posting in defense of Obama’s (and Rubio’s) eligibility over there.
“Coming Soon: Rubio Birthers”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2768512/posts?q=1&;page=101
Keith says:

August 25, 2011 at 2:46 am Keith(Quote)

misha:
Pat Robertson Blames Mild Earthquake on People Who Seem Kind of Gay

Almighty’s Anger at Metrosexuals Caused Ambiguous Quake

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/08/24/pat-robertson-blames-mild-earthquake-on-people-who-seem-kind-of-gay/

I almost missed that that is a Borowitz piece…
roadburner says:

August 25, 2011 at 7:18 am roadburner(Quote)

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): You’re white lucas why are you calling people crackers?

it´s an eminem thing.

😀
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 25, 2011 at 7:52 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

I looked at your article, which is a wrapper around a newspaper article which I read (or one very much like it) a couple years ago. I fail to see the relevance since Othigo was not the person whose name was on the POSFKBC you claim you got from Coast Province General Hospital.

Lucas D. Smith: I have a published at new report at the WOBIK Blog.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 25, 2011 at 8:07 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Hey, MY MOTHER taught me about thread counts.

misha: Pat Robertson Blames Mild Earthquake on People Who Seem Kind of Gay
HellT says:

August 25, 2011 at 12:37 pm HellT(Quote)

OathKeeper, Tea Partier, Birther, and fugitive from justice Charles Dyer has just been captured by the FBI.

http://tinyurl.com/3aqv5k4
Obsolete says:

August 25, 2011 at 12:46 pm Obsolete(Quote)

Cross one featured speaker off the Birther Summit.
Daniel says:

August 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm Daniel(Quote)

Obsolete: Cross one featured speaker off the Birther Summit.

And 10% of potential attendees
J.Potter says:

August 25, 2011 at 2:31 pm J.Potter(Quote)

Another Okie does the state proud by entering Federal Service. I would like to move to CO, looks like he might beat me to it (assuming he winds up in the supermax hotel there).

Thanks for the note HellT.

HellT:
OathKeeper, Tea Partier, Birther, and fugitive from justice Charles Dyer has just been captured by the FBI.

http://tinyurl.com/3aqv5k4
Bovril says:

August 25, 2011 at 2:59 pm Bovril(Quote)

Nigh on 24 hours since last “I Lucas D. Smith” graced us with his presence…..arrested again….?
SluggoJD says:

August 25, 2011 at 3:32 pm SluggoJD(Quote)

For everyone,

Just want to point out that “He, Lying Lucas Smith,” avoided the “spring vs February” fatal FKBC flaw again.
G says:

August 25, 2011 at 3:59 pm G(Quote)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention! Very relieved to hear that he was caught and arrested without violent incident.

From the article:

Three days before his court date, Dyer’s residence was found burned to the ground, according to the FBI. Two men believed to have started the fire are in custody and are believed to be affiliated with Dyer’s Oath Keepers organization. The day of the fire, Dyer’s attorney filed a motion requesting that the trial date be pushed back due to the fire.

Well, that is another interesting development in his “house fire”… the same one where his own girlfriend was arrested for trying to set it on fire hours earlier. This will be interesting to unravel as part of what is going on, especially in light of Dyer’s remarks leading up to the fire & his going on the lamb and his “manifesto” he submitted via his lawyer. So far, the evidence is looking mighty suspicious that the whole “house fire” thing was an intentional arson setup that he was probably involved in plotting from the start.

HellT: OathKeeper, Tea Partier, Birther, and fugitive from justice Charles Dyer has just been captured by the FBI.http://tinyurl.com/3aqv5k4
Tom says:

August 25, 2011 at 4:17 pm Tom(Quote)

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39748

Obama’s ineligibility: Prepare to defend America – the political-media complex
Author
– Lawrence Sellin Thursday, August 25, 2011
(11) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us
28Share

imageTo paraphrase President Dwight Eisenhower, the country is governed by a powerful and coordinated political-media complex, which is determined to maintain the status quo regardless of the wishes of the American people.

Their lust for power is so great and their greed so boundless that Washington, D.C. is willing to accept and protect an illegal and criminal President.

To retain their privileged positions, they are prepared to violate their oaths of office, illegally circumvent the Constitution, erode the rule of law and ignore their constituents.

It is no surprise that 60% of Congress members are not holding town hall meetings during the recess.

A total of 430 current members of the House of Representatives have been canvassed and only 191 of them have scheduled meetings. The results reveal that members of both parties share the blame, with about 59% of Democrats and 50% of Republicans stating they had no town hall meetings scheduled for the recess period.

Congress no longer listens to the America people. It is time to elect representatives that do.
Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the Presidency according to the Constitution and the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor vs. Happersett

There has never been any doubt that Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible for the Presidency according to the Constitution and the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor vs. Happersett.

At least twenty document experts have now shown that Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. The Social Security Administration has corroborated that Obama is using a Social Security Number not issued to him. His Selective Service registration is a forgery.

All are felonies. Sufficient evidence is already available. The problem is that neither Congress nor any legal authority will take action.

It is all about maintaining the status quo and the power and money it brings.

The political-media complex sees the American people only as laborers and generators of wealth to which the selfish elite feel entitled to use without any accountability.

Members of Congress are guilty of facilitating the Obama fraud, collaborating in the Obama cover-up or too afraid to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.

The conservative media is largely controlled by the Republican component of the political-media complex, which contributes to maintaining the status quo.

Here is one vignette of how the Republican political-media complex may operate to stifle the truth and manipulate public opinion.

Rush Limbaugh’s shows are aired on the Premiere Radio Network, which is a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications. Clear Channel Communications owns not only many talk radio stations, but also many billboards around the country.

In 2008 Clear Channel Communications was bought by Bain Capital, which was founded by anti-Birther and GOP Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Jerome Corsi has filed a lawsuit against Clear Channel Communications for scrubbing his interviews on their radio stations immediately after the release of Corsi’s blockbuster book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President”, which was released shortly after Obama produced his forged Certificate of Live Birth on April 27, 2011.

In addition, Joe Farah, CEO of World Net Daily, has said on many occasions that Clear Channel Communications’ executives have steadfastly refused to allow him to advertise his “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” billboard campaign on their billboards, which have a substantial national base.

George Soros’ investment in American liberal media is providing a similar propaganda service for Obama.

The American people are being scammed.

Take Obama out of office before the 2012 election and much of the corruption of the political-media complex will be exposed as well as provide an opportunity to take back our government.

Obama is the weak point and will ultimately be defeated in the court of public opinion.

The second weak link in the chain of deception is individual members of Congress. They are willing hostages of the political-media complex.

To preserve their jobs, they have succumbed to their party leadership’s pressure not to speak about Obama’s ineligibility or his crimes.

Congress members are also paralyzed by the fear of being called names like “racist” and “birther”.

In one way or another they are all intimidated.

The tide will turn only when individual members of Congress become more afraid of the American people or jail time than the political-media complex.

First, all the disparate anti-Obama groups must join together under a single umbrella organization, similar to the Tea Party.

Second, a separate means of communication outside of the main stream media must be established to get the truth out.

Third, sustained action must be mounted, including civil disobedience, focused on Obama and members of Congress.

“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.” – Thomas Jefferson

Lawrence Sellin
Daniel says:

August 25, 2011 at 4:44 pm Daniel(Quote)

Yeah I wouldn’t take Canada Free Press too seriously. They have less of a following in Canada than even Orly’s blog has in the US.

CFP is considered a laughingstock of angry lunatics up here, and for Canadians, that’s pretty far out there lol.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 25, 2011 at 5:16 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

When I see them in my Google News alerts, I just ignore it.

Daniel: Yeah I wouldn’t take Canada Free Press too seriously.
gorefan says:

August 25, 2011 at 5:42 pm gorefan(Quote)

Tom: Lawrence Sellin

I’ve heard he lives in Helsinki. Is that true?
jayHG says:

August 25, 2011 at 6:10 pm jayHG(Quote)

What’s the “political-media complex” or the “republican component” of the “political-media complex?”
Welsh Dragon says:

August 25, 2011 at 6:16 pm Welsh Dragon(Quote)

gorefan: I’ve heard he lives in Helsinki.Is that true?

I believe so although January is the last time I can say so definately. He’s lived there for many years.
Scientist says:

August 25, 2011 at 6:39 pm Scientist(Quote)

Daniel: Yeah I wouldn’t take Canada Free Press too seriously. They have less of a following in Canada than even Orly’s blog has in the US.CFP is considered a laughingstock of angry lunatics up here, and for Canadians, that’s pretty far out there lol.

There is not the slightest reason anyone in Canada should care about US Presidential eligiibility. Canada very sensibly allows any citizen over the age of 18 to serve in Parliament and any Member of Parliament is eligible to be Prime Minister. Most Canadians think that discriminating between different classes of citizens is foolish and unjust.
Keith says:

August 26, 2011 at 2:59 am Keith(Quote)

The Republicans are starting to eat their own.

Somebody is starting to wake up to the destructive obstructionism of the Tea Party.

New Hampshire Republicans to dump Tea Party Chairman
The Magic M says:

August 26, 2011 at 6:33 am The Magic M(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: I fail to see the relevance since Othigo was not the person whose name was on the POSFKBC you claim you got from Coast Province General Hospital.

Is Lucas Smith still pimping his non sequitur argument of “if one guys gets his name written wrong once, it can happen for another as well, so my forgery goof still hasn’t been proven”? Unbelievable!
JD Reed says:

August 26, 2011 at 8:48 am JD Reed(Quote)

Surely the Pat Robertson piece is a parody. It sure reads like one. For one thing, for a televangelist to imply that God finds anything confusing is to contradict His omniscience. If you know everything, you can’t be confused.
thisoldhippie says:

August 26, 2011 at 8:50 am thisoldhippie(Quote)

This is just sad. Our town has been dealing with a horrific murder all summer and the suspect, who has long curly hair and is a law student, was of course villified as being some sort of hippie gone mad by many people in our community.

Now this article this morning tells otherwise. He was a member of the Federalist Society and a birther.

http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678356/mcdaniel-posts-describe-torture.html
Keith says:

August 26, 2011 at 8:54 am Keith(Quote)

JD Reed:
Surely the Pat Robertson piece is a parody. It sure reads like one. For one thing, for a televangelist to imply that God finds anything confusing is to contradict His omniscience. If you know everything, you can’t be confused.

I almost fell too.

Oh, and Google is your friend: Andy Borowitz
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 26, 2011 at 9:07 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Nonetheless, historically I’ve gotten a lot of visitors from Canada.

Scientist: There is not the slightest reason anyone in Canada should care about US Presidential eligiibility.
misha says:

August 26, 2011 at 9:48 am misha(Quote)

thisoldhippie: He was a member of the Federalist Society and a birther.

Why am I not surprised.
thisoldhippie says:

August 26, 2011 at 10:11 am thisoldhippie(Quote)

misha: Why am I not surprised.

It just goes to show that conspiracy theories can wreak havoc on someone’s psyche, especially if they were not solid to begin with.
TopSecret says:

August 26, 2011 at 10:52 am TopSecret(Quote)

Is it true that Foggy is actually Batman?
G says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:09 am G(Quote)

Wow…that guy was one weird, disturbed, ultra-conservative psychopath with a lot of repression issues. Wearing chain-mail armour under his clothes to school… Burglarizing other apartments to steal condoms… Writing in advance about fantasy killings and how to do the perfect murder… A long haired guy who idolized Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and who drove a subaru with a “Pray” bumper sticker… I don’t see how he reconciled his supposed faith with his desire to do violence. There seems to be a number of other articles out there that fill in more pieces of his story. The info so far found about all his “SoL” (Son of Liberty) postings and stuff seem to confirm he was both a Birther and an avid Tea Partier and that this 25-year old law student had been a creepy, dangerous anti-social loner with violence issues since at least high-school.

Here are just a few more good links:

http://m.13wmaz.com/topstory/article?a=141513&f=924

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/a-closer-look-at-stephen-mcdaniel-lauren-giddings-and-mercer-law-school/

What a horrible way for that poor girl to be killed. Let’s hope he is never returned back into society. This guy has all the markings of a serial killer in the making…

thisoldhippie: This is just sad. Our town has been dealing with a horrific murder all summer and the suspect, who has long curly hair and is a law student, was of course villified as being some sort of hippie gone mad by many people in our community. Now this article this morning tells otherwise. He was a member of the Federalist Society and a birther. http://www.macon.com/2011/08/26/1678356/mcdaniel-posts-describe-torture.html
misha says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:24 am misha(Quote)

TopSecret:
Is it true that Foggy is actually Batman?

Is it true Ann Coulter had an abortion at Planned Parenthood?
Daniel says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:42 am Daniel(Quote)

Keith: Somebody is starting to wake up to the destructive obstructionism of the Tea Party.

Oh please, please, please God let this be a trend. I can only hope that we Republicans are finally waking up to the fact that loud and stupid does not mean electable or responsible.
misha says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:48 am misha(Quote)

G: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/08/a-closer-look-at-stephen-mcdaniel-lauren-giddings-and-mercer-law-school/

– McDaniel has an “ultra-conservative” father and was “a staunch Tea Partier,”
– McDaniel “was very publicly harangued by the student body after calling Obama a communist”
– Who breaks into apartments to steal condoms when they are only like a buck in a gas station?

What’s the difference between Beer Nuts and deer nuts?

Beer Nuts are $1.79.
Deer nuts are under a buck.

Thank you. I’ll be here all week.
thisoldhippie says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:50 am thisoldhippie(Quote)

I firmly believe that the fear of a boogyman behind every tree and under every bed is the cornerstone to full on delusional psychosis. Conspiracy theories are the epitome of that fear. Add with this the fact that McDaniel clerked for the DA’s office here in Macon and learned about several crimes and his obsession with extreme violence and you’re right – you have a serial killer in the making. Yet, he truly felt he was intellectually superior to others.
misha says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:52 am misha(Quote)

Daniel: I can only hope that we Republicans are finally waking up to the fact that loud and stupid does not mean electable or responsible.

Huntsman does not stand a chance. He’s sane, and speaks excellent Mandarin.
G says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:52 am G(Quote)

Agreed! Especially the part of your statement I put in bold.

thisoldhippie: I firmly believe that the fear of a boogyman behind every tree and under every bed is the cornerstone to full on delusional psychosis. Conspiracy theories are the epitome of that fear. Add with this the fact that McDaniel clerked for the DA’s office here in Macon and learned about several crimes and his obsession with extreme violence and you’re right – you have a serial killer in the making. Yet, he truly felt he was intellectually superior to others.
G says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:57 am G(Quote)

It would be nice to see a return to sanity & civility, wouldn’t it? Sadly, I’m less optimistic it will happen anytime soon.

Although there have been lots of signs of waning Tea Party enthusiasm this year, we are dealing with a non-election year. I’m expecting that they will be back to full-on frothing as we get closer to the actual 2012 election.

Sadly, I don’t see any way for the GOP to return to sanity until all their crazy wing is either kicked to the curb…or it eventually implodes under the weight of its own actions.

Daniel: Oh please, please, please God let this be a trend. I can only hope that we Republicans are finally waking up to the fact that loud and stupid does not mean electable or responsible.
Rickey says:

August 26, 2011 at 5:26 pm Rickey(Quote)

john mirse:

My opinions may begarbage to posters here,but if presidential candidate Obama does not improve his low ratings in key swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia between now and election day Nov. 2012,President Obama will lose those states come election day Nov. 2012, and President Obama willbe in deep, deep trouble in his campaign to win a second term.And that statement ain’t garbage.

You keep repeating the same thing, as if you have stumbled across a gem of wisdom which hasn’t occurred to anyone else.

Of course, if Obama were to lose those three states, but carry all of the other states which he carried in 2008, he would still have 305 electoral votes, 35 more than he needs to win. If he were to lose those three and North Carolina, he would still have 290 electoral votes. Also, Obama should benefit from the fact that the voters in Ohio and Florida had their newly-elected Republican governors. The latest polls show that both Gov. Kasich and Gov. Scott have job approval ratings of 35%.

And a new AP poll shows that only 25% of voters support the Tea Party and only 28% of voters have a favorable view of the Tea Party. So please, keep nominating Tea Partiers.

Besides, whether Obama wins or loses in 2012 has nothing to do with his eligibility to be President.
G says:

August 26, 2011 at 6:18 pm G(Quote)

John, I haven’t seen anyone question the pretty much *duh* no brainer statement about simple electoral political math that you keep stating. Other than adding a few additional states to the mix you listed (such as PA), what you’ve stated is simple electoral punditry 101. Nothing outside of the normal. Those are always key states to electoral victory and certainly extremely important ones for Obama’s campaign as well as his eventual opponent. It is hard to win without them, but still possible. Sure, there are still some other routes to get at least 269 electoral votes, but those become less likely as without carrying the higher-value swing states, if their trend carries over beyond just those states alone.

It should be noted that in the 2008 math, Obama would still have won even without OH, FL or VA. He had a 359 to 179 margin of victory, which still would have left him with a solid win in that year’s map without ANY of those states you mentioned. Such “flips” would have to be part of a much broader trend in 2012 spreading to other states in order to seriously threaten his re-election.

Barring extremely unforseen circumstances, in all reality, only a certain number of states are likely to actually be “in play” in our current very partisan enviornment, regardless.

Let’s look at the new 2012 EV values and apply them to “solid” states with a 20% or more Margin from 2008:

Obama won over 20%: DC, HI, VT, RI, NY, MA, MD, IL, DE, CA, CT = 149 EV
Obama lost over 20%: WY, OK, UT, ID, AL, AK = 32 EV

Extremely unlikely you’ll see such a severe change to alter those ones. Even a 15% Margin swing change is fairly unlikely, so let’s add those to the mix of “non-swing” states for 2012:

Obama won over 15%: ME, WA, MI, OR, NJ, NM = 58 more = 207 total EV…just 62 more swings his way to tie, 63 to win.

Obama lost over 15%: AR, LA, KY, TN = 33 more = 65 total EV…still need 204 more to swing to GOP to even tie, 205 to win.

When you look at the pure and simple facts of the math, it is an extremely steep hill for the GOP to climb. With a weak candidate field on their side, even the economy alone is only so much of a threat to Obama’s re-election.

john mirse: My opinions may be garbage to posters here, but if presidential candidate Obama does not improve his low ratings in key swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia between now and election day Nov. 2012, President Obama will lose those states come election day Nov. 2012, and President Obama will be in deep, deep trouble in his campaign to win a second term. And that statement ain’t garbage.
john mirse says:

August 26, 2011 at 6:30 pm john mirse(Quote)

Rickey wrote: Of course, if Obama were to lose those three states, but carry all of the other states which he carried in 2008, he would still have 305 electoral votes, 35 more than he needs to win.
***********

If you truly believe that candidate Obama could lose swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and still win all the other states that he won in 2008, then I have some ocean front property in Las Vegas to sell you, or a bridge in New York to sell you.

I’m sure candidate Obama and his campaign staff are very happy to hear how people like you dismiss swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia as unimportant in the grand scale of things when adding up numbers in the electoral college. Yeah, I bet they are so happy to hear your words of wisdom.

They probably won’t even bother to campaign in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia after reading your words of wisdom that say that Obama could win re-election without winning any of those states. Why bother, when they could use their valuable time and energy to make sure that they win all the other states that they won in 2008? Yeah, right.

And I am also sure that voters in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are happy to hear how you quickly dismiss their importance in the numbers count of the electoral college come election day Nov. 2012. They may even remember people like you who dismiss the importance of their votes when they enter the voting booth on election day Nov. 2012.

I guess we will see come election day Nov. 2012 how important Florida, Ohio, and Virginia electoral college votes turn out to be in deciding if President Obama is re-elected or not.
Sef says:

August 26, 2011 at 6:45 pm Sef(Quote)

I’m not quite sure why we have this discussion of the ’12 election now, but since we do I’ll put in my $.02.

The question is do we want a Casper Milquetoast in charge who lets the schoolyard bully destroy everything and have Casper take the blame, or do we want the bully to be in charge, destroy everything, and have no one to blame except maybe China, resulting in another unwinnable war. As things stand now, those are the choices.
Sef says:

August 26, 2011 at 7:31 pm Sef(Quote)

Good move, Doc, in putting these things where they belong.
Daniel says:

August 26, 2011 at 7:53 pm Daniel(Quote)

John Mirse:

I answered this in another thread, but since your spamming this nonsense everywhere, it probably bears repeating.

If Obama loses the second term it will be because Republicans, like me, are working hard to make sure that we put forward candidates that are what America needs, and work towards making sure we win the hearts of the people.

This will be in spite of birthers who have been working hard for three years to hand the election to Obama on a silver platter, by making conservatives look like a bunch of lunatic whack jobs.

If you really want to make sure Obama doesn’t get a second term, John Mirse… if you truly want to make sure Obama doesn’t get four more years, then the best thing you could do; you and the other birthers, is just shut the hell up and let the real conservatives get on with the real work.

And while you’re shutting the hell up, you could spend some time improving your IQ, starting with figuring out what the quote link is for, instead of coming up with lame excuses why you can’t use it.
Rickey says:

August 26, 2011 at 8:08 pm Rickey(Quote)

john mirse:

If you trulybelieve that candidate Obama could lose swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and still win all the other states thathe won in 2008,then I have some ocean front property in Las Vegas to sell you, or a bridge in New York to sell you.

I’m sure candidate Obama and his campaign staff are very happy to hearhow people likeyou dismiss swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia as unimportant in the grand scale of things when adding up numbers in the electoral college.Yeah, I bet they are so happy to hear your words of wisdom.

They probably won’t even bother to campaign in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia after reading your words of wisdom that say that Obama could win re-election without winning any of those states.Why bother, when they coulduse their valuable time and energy to make sure that they win all the other states that they won in 2008?Yeah, right.

And I am also sure that voters in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia arehappy to hear how you quickly dismiss their importance in the numbers count of the electoral college come election day Nov. 2012. They may even remember people like you who dismiss the importance of their votes when they enter the voting booth on election day Nov. 2012.

I guess we will see come election day Nov. 2012 how important Florida, Ohio, and Virginia electoral college votes turn out to be in deciding ifPresident Obama is re-elected or not.

And now the childish Mirse comes to the fore.

Anyone with the reading comprehension to understand Hardy Boys books would realize that I never said or suggested that Florida, Virginia and Ohio are not important.

By the way, have you ever admitted that Obama’s Zip Code in the mid-seventies was 96814?
G says:

August 26, 2011 at 11:48 pm G(Quote)

John Mirse – As Rickey succinctly put it, you are just being childish here, as everything is your wail and moan has NOTHING to do with *any* statement that Rickey actually made.

He merely pointed out the straight facts and reality that EV wise, Florida, Ohio and Virginia combined are not enough of a swing in change to cause Obama to lose.

Yes, it is a fair statement to say that if those all go against Obama, it is likely that some other swing states he captured before might also follow that trend.

However, it is unfair of you to rant against Rickey, as he never said anything about those other states, so there is NO implication in his post that either claims Obama will retain every other state he had in 2008 and most certainly there is NOTHING in his posts that in any way slander or diminish the states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

You are simply making up those tantrums in your own head and acting like a total douchebag. Try to act responsible in your behavior and posts in the future.

john mirse: If you truly believe that candidate Obama could lose swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia and still win all the other states that he won in 2008, then I have some ocean front property in Las Vegas to sell you, or a bridge in New York to sell you.
I’m sure candidate Obama and his campaign staff are very happy to hear how people like you dismiss swing states Florida, Ohio, and Virginia as unimportant in the grand scale of things when adding up numbers in the electoral college. Yeah, I bet they are so happy to hear your words of wisdom.
They probably won’t even bother to campaign in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia after reading your words of wisdom that say that Obama could win re-election without winning any of those states. Why bother, when they could use their valuable time and energy to make sure that they win all the other states that they won in 2008? Yeah, right.
And I am also sure that voters in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia are happy to hear how you quickly dismiss their importance in the numbers count of the electoral college come election day Nov. 2012. They may even remember people like you who dismiss the importance of their votes when they enter
G says:

August 27, 2011 at 3:02 am G(Quote)

Daniel – I just read this article on Estonia and their rediscovery of their pagan traditions and thought you might enjoy it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14635021
misha says:

August 27, 2011 at 3:27 am misha(Quote)

G:
Daniel – I just read this article on Estonia and their rediscovery of their pagan traditions and thought you might enjoy it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14635021

From the BBC article: “But it is one which leaves the Church struggling to define its role in a place where Christianity, and organised religion in general, come bottom in most people’s list of priorities.”

Take religion out of the Middle East, and watch what happens. Hitchens is right.
ellen says:

August 27, 2011 at 6:44 am ellen(Quote)

Lucas D. Smith, who claims to have gone to Kenya and that he got a copy of “Obama’s birth certificate” in Mombasa, Kenya, has never even shown that he went to Kenya. Smith has been repeatedly asked to show proof that he went to Kenya by showing the Kenya entry or exit stamps on his US passport, but Smith never even did that.
Keith says:

August 27, 2011 at 7:12 am Keith(Quote)

I hope you’ve got the hatches battened down, Doc.

(And everyone else on the East Coast).
Daniel says:

August 28, 2011 at 12:25 am Daniel(Quote)

G:
Daniel – I just read this article on Estonia and their rediscovery of their pagan traditions and thought you might enjoy it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14635021

Thanks for the link G. I really enjoyed the article.
Daniel says:

August 28, 2011 at 12:27 am Daniel(Quote)

Orly is warned… again…

“”The Court is continually frustrated by the extraneous information that OTI and otherparties include in their requests for leave to file. For example, in this request, the Courtfails to see how it is relevant that Orly Taitz has purportedly not filed any lawsuits againstthe plaintiffs here. The Court also fails to see how Taitz’s crusade against PresidentBarack Obama has any relevance to this request.

The Court may impose sanctions forextraneous arguments and statements in future requests, including references toPresident Obama, who appears to have no direct relationship to the August 23request.””

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63048795/gov-uscourts-cacd-497989-359-0
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 29, 2011 at 4:08 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Not so many articles these past few days. Part of it was not having much to write about and the rest is all the time I spent Saturday and today working on a Habitat house.
misha says:

August 29, 2011 at 4:41 pm misha(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Not so many articles these past few days. Part of it was not having much to write about and the rest is all the time I spent Saturday and today working on a Habitat house.

I cannot tell you how much I admire Habitat. My wife and I have donated several appliances.
Keith says:

August 29, 2011 at 6:52 pm Keith(Quote)

I hope Irene didn’t give you any unwanted help. The pick looks like pretty good weather.
Daniel says:

August 29, 2011 at 8:48 pm Daniel(Quote)

Orly posted a story about Ft Hood with the header “I just received this story, do not have confirmation of all the facts, would like confirmation”

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=24999

“What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood. He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped. Bush only asks for directions to the hospital then drove on. The gate guard called that “The President is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital.”

The base went bananas looking for Obama. When they found it was Bush, they immediately offered escort. Bush simply told them it was o.k. and to let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.

He stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours, and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House.

Obama flew in days later and held a “photo opportunity” session in a gym, and did not even go to the hospital.”

Someone should do her a favor and let her know about SNOPES

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/forthood.asp

The whole “Bush is the Hero and Obama didn’t even care” routine is a complete fabrication…. but I guess Orly doesn’t have time to check easily referenced sources, what with all the fail court time she’s got going.
charo says:

August 30, 2011 at 4:07 pm charo(Quote)

‘Tea-Party Conservative’ Refutes Claims of Obama Birth Certificate Forgery

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tea-party-conservative-refutes-claims-of-obama-birth-certificate-forgery-2011-08-30
charo says:

August 30, 2011 at 4:16 pm charo(Quote)

And John Woodman insists that what might be seen by some as odd behavior for a conservative is, in fact, completely in harmony with the Tea Party’s “Restoring America” theme.

“I didn’t set out to disprove the forgery claims,” he says. “I set out to discover the truth. And truth, even when some may find it inconvenient, is definitely one of the values we need to preserve and restore in our society.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tea-party-conservative-refutes-claims-of-obama-birth-certificate-forgery-2011-08-30
G says:

August 30, 2011 at 4:29 pm G(Quote)

Thanks for the excellent article & link Charo. Major kudos to Mr. Woodman! Hopefully Dr. C. will post a blog article on this article…and even get the book. The entire article you cited is full of solid quotes worth repeating. Just a snippet:

In this case, unraveling the truth took Woodman, a computer professional with 20 years’ experience, a full 3 months of careful investigation. He meticulously researched more than 30 different claims of evidence that Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is forged – and ended up dismissing them all.

“There are certainly a lot of odd and interesting things about the birth certificate,” he says. “But in spite of what you’ve heard, not one of them amounts to credible evidence that it’s a fraud.”

A related survey by Mr. Woodman suggests at least two-thirds of Americans have heard the rumors that President Obama’s birth certificate – publicly released by the White House in the form of a computer PDF file – is an obvious and proven forgery. And those claims have been backed up by an entire panel of experts showcased by conservative website WorldNetDaily. But Woodman says that all of “their experts” are wrong – and that his detailed analysis proves it.

Of course, the quote you already cited is very important too:

charo: And John Woodman insists that what might be seen by some as odd behavior for a conservative is, in fact, completely in harmony with the Tea Party’s “Restoring America” theme.“I didn’t set out to disprove the forgery claims,” he says. “I set out to discover the truth. And truth, even when some may find it inconvenient, is definitely one of the values we need to preserve and restore in our society. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tea-party-conservative-refutes-claims-of-obama-birth-certificate-forgery-2011-08-30
Rickey says:

August 30, 2011 at 6:03 pm Rickey(Quote)

G:
Thanks for the excellent article & link Charo. Major kudos to Mr. Woodman!

I don’t mean to throw cold water on this, but based upon what I see of Mr. Woodman’s credentials I don’t know that he is any more qualified to pass judgment on the PDF of the birth certificate than any of WND’s so-called experts.How does “programming, consulting, designing and building software” translate into expertise about birth certificates?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 30, 2011 at 7:54 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Mr. Woodman is careful and objective, which puts him light years beyond the WND crowd. I wouldn’t argue that Woodman could detect any forgery that could possibly exist, but he can certainly debunk the birther objections. If Woodman were to say “the document is authentic,” I would not accept that as an expert opinion; however, when he says “this objection is bunk and let me show you why” I accept what he says on the strength of his argument.

Rickey: I don’t mean to throw cold water on this, but based upon what I see of Mr. Woodman’s credentials I don’t know that he is any more qualified to pass judgment on the PDF of the birth certificate than any of WND’s so-called experts.How does “programming, consulting, designing and building software” translate into expertise about birth certificates?
gorefan says:

August 30, 2011 at 8:03 pm gorefan(Quote)

G: Thanks for the excellent article & link Charo.

Just to be fair, it needs to be pointed out this article is actually a press release from Mr. Woodman.

That doesn’t mean he is not correct in his analysis but still …
G says:

August 30, 2011 at 8:38 pm G(Quote)

I agree. I was never insinuating that his was an expert opinion. I’m just thrilled to see someone stand up for objective analysis in search of the truth and seem to mean it. That’s the part that I care about most.

Dr. Conspiracy: Mr. Woodman is careful and objective, which puts him light years beyond the WND crowd. I wouldn’t argue that Woodman could detect any forgery that could possibly exist, but he can certainly debunk the birther objections. If Woodman were to say “the document is authentic,” I would not accept that as an expert opinion; however, when he says “this objection is bunk and let me show you why” I accept what he says on the strength of his argument.
charo says:

August 30, 2011 at 8:54 pm charo(Quote)

gorefan: Just to be fair, it needs to be pointed out this article is actually a press release from Mr. Woodman.

That doesn’t mean he is not correct in his analysis but still …

I consider myself in the group of people who don’t have a clue about proving forgery. Enough people who were previously to some degree a birther were convinced by the release of a long form birth certificate. They were persuaded by that particular piece of evidence. They didn’t require more. Others never needed any evidence. Others needed some but not the actual release of the LF. In the Casey Anthony case, we saw what happened much to the horror of those with the mindset of a prosecutor and the non-surprise (for lack of a better description) of those with a defensive mindset. Those people needed more. What would a jury deciding some kind of birther issue need? It would depend on the jury pool and jury selection from that pool.

I think a finer point that is being missed is that this is the press release of an alleged member of the Tea Party who stated one of the tenets of that movement. I myself am not a member. I don’t seem to have the time for anything except the conquering of the day to day challenges. I hear, though, some very broad generalizations that at least in the case of Woodman, don’t pan out.
G says:

August 30, 2011 at 10:36 pm G(Quote)

Good post, Charo. Thanks.

charo: I consider myself in the group of people who don’t have a clue about proving forgery. Enough people who were previously to some degree a birther were convinced by the release of a long form birth certificate. They were persuaded by that particular piece of evidence. They didn’t require more. Others never needed any evidence. Others needed some but not the actual release of the LF. In the Casey Anthony case, we saw what happened much to the horror of those with the mindset of a prosecutor and the non-surprise (for lack of a better description) of those with a defensive mindset. Those people needed more. What would a jury deciding some kind of birther issue need? It would depend on the jury pool and jury selection from that pool.I think a finer point that is being missed is that this is the press release of an alleged member of the Tea Party who stated one of the tenets of that movement. I myself am not a member. I don’t seem to have the time for anything except the conquering of the day to day challenges. I hear, though, some very broad generalizations that at least in the case of Woodman, don’t pan out.
charo says:

August 31, 2011 at 8:06 am charo(Quote)

Thank ye.
G says:

August 31, 2011 at 8:13 am G(Quote)

Under the Epic Fail Edition Open Thread, this definitely applies:

http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3180617:BlogPost:137918&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Rabidly ranting birther Cody Robert Judy files to run for President against Obama in the Democratic primary… *rolls eyes*

… maybe that was Orly’s real birthday present…
G says:

August 31, 2011 at 8:38 am G(Quote)

Sorry, forgot to give proper attribution for this “nugget”…

H/T to StrangeAppar8us at Rumproast:

http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/finally_obama_gets_a_primary_challenger/

G: Under the Epic Fail Edition Open Thread, this definitely applies:http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3180617:BlogPost:137918&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_postRabidly ranting birther Cody Robert Judy files to run for President against Obama in the Democratic primary… *rolls eyes*… maybe that was Orly’s real birthday present…
john says:

August 31, 2011 at 10:33 am john(Quote)

John Woodman is no friend to birthers. But, regardless of what Woodman has to say, Obama can never be eligible because he’s not an NBC. Birthers like to focus on Obama’s birth certificate and his place of birth but these are red herrings according to Leo Donofrio. It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC. Woodman makes no argument on the meaning of NBC in his book according to table contents.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 31, 2011 at 5:41 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

If that little hallucination were true, explain to me this: between the time Obama announced his candidacy for President and his nomination by the Democratic Party, why did not a single person on the planet suggested on any record I am aware of that he wasn’t eligible to be President because his father wasn’t a US Citizen? Or am I wrong about that?

john: It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC. Woodman makes no argument on the meaning of NBC in his book according to table contents.
ellen says:

August 31, 2011 at 5:48 pm ellen(Quote)

Re: “It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC.”

Answer. Yes indeed. Obama’s father was not a US citizen. And, guess what, Obama is still a Natural Born US citizen due simply to the PLACE of his birth.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
jayHG says:

August 31, 2011 at 6:27 pm jayHG(Quote)

john: John Woodman is no friend to birthers. But, regardless of what Woodman has to say, Obama can never be eligible because he’s not an NBC. Birthers like to focus on Obama’s birth certificate and his place of birth but these are red herrings according to Leo Donofrio. It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC. Woodman makes no argument on the meaning of NBC in his book according to table contents.

“…according to Leo Donofrio.” Surely you can’t be serious, but then again, you’re a birther so I guess you are serious. At any rate, everyone knew that President Obama’s father was born and raised in Kenya. President Obama, then Senator Obama, told millions of people just that in 2004 when he was the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention.

And besides all that, if this fact of his father being from Kenya would disqualify him, can you, John, tell me why he is called President Obama?? This is indeed puzzling to me, an avowed anti-birther.
Stanislaw says:

August 31, 2011 at 6:37 pm Stanislaw(Quote)

john:
John Woodman is no friend to birthers.But, regardless of what Woodman has to say, Obama can never be eligible because he’s not an NBC.Birthers like to focus on Obama’s birth certificate and his place of birth but these are red herrings according to Leo Donofrio.It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC. Woodman makes no argument on the meaning of NBC in his book according to table contents.

Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
Zixi of Ix says:

August 31, 2011 at 6:51 pm Zixi of Ix(Quote)

john:
Birthers like to focus on Obama’s birth certificate and his place of birth but these are red herrings according to Leo Donofrio.

Therein lies your problem, doesn’t it?

And sadly (for you) it’s an insurmountable problem, isn’t it?

Either Donofrio and a small handful of (hopefully) misguided birther lawyers, conspiracy theorists, convicted criminals, motley fame seekers, and money grubbers are right, and everyone else from the President of the United States (Bush, in this case), the Vice President, the FBI, the CIA, the Supreme Court, the State Dept., all of Congress, and every other lawyer, District Attorney, State Attorney General, Governor, judge, law enforcement officer, and law professor in the nation is not only wrong, but actively involved in a massive conspiracy and cover up,

or…

Donofrio and that small handful of (hopefully) misguided birther lawyers, conspiracy theorists, convicted criminals, motley fame seekers, and money grubbers are wrong.

So, which do you think is more likely?

Not which you’d like to be more likely, but the one logic says is more likely.

Ockham and his razor await your reply.
gorefan says:

August 31, 2011 at 6:53 pm gorefan(Quote)

john: It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC.

John – you need to start paying better attention. Leo never met any of the Founders, so he wouldn’t know what they thought. So let’s see what William Rawle, who actually knew Washington, Franklin and other founders, had to say,

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”

And later in the same paragraph he writes,

“no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

See, John, it is really straight forward.

Now, I know you are saying “William Rawle? never heard of him.” So here is a little bit of trivia for you.

In February, 1787, a group of Philadelphians got together and formed a society. They called themselves the “Society for Political Inquiries”. The purpose of the society was the “mutual improvement in the knowledge of government and the advancement of political science.” They decided to met twice a month. At the first meeting, Thomas Paine was asked to draft the rules and by-laws and Benjamin Franklin was elected the president. All subsequent meetings were at Franklin’s house. William Rawle was one of the members of the society and was on the Committee of Papers along with Benjamin Rush (signer of the Declaration of Independence).

Other members of the society included signers of the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution including James Wilson, George Clymer, Gouverneur Morris, and the only man to score the hat trick – Robert Morris (he signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

Later, William Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the U.S. Attorney for the District of Pennsylvania. This was after he turned down President Washington’s request to be the first Attorney General of the United States.

So William Rawle obviously knew some people. Who does Leo know?
john says:

August 31, 2011 at 7:52 pm john(Quote)

I suppose William Rawle could be considered one possible authority on the NBC definition. As such, SCOTUS recognized this in Minor Versus Happersat regarding NBC:

“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”.
Joey says:

August 31, 2011 at 7:58 pm Joey(Quote)

john:
John Woodman is no friend to birthers.But, regardless of what Woodman has to say, Obama can never be eligible because he’s not an NBC.Birthers like to focus on Obama’s birth certificate and his place of birth but these are red herrings according to Leo Donofrio.It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC. Woodman makes no argument on the meaning of NBC in his book according to table contents.

The Courts have already ruled that Obama is eligible and Obama has been serving as the duly elected 44th President of the United States for more than two and a half years now.
In Ankeny v Governor Daniels, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that: “Based on the language of Article II, Section 1 Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born with the boundaries of the United States are “natural born citizens” REGARDLESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF THEIR PARENTS.”–November 12, 2009 “Ankeny, et. al, v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels
No higher court has reversed the ruling in this lawsuit.

No member of Congress out of 535 members currently serving has EVER questioned President Obama’s eligibility on the grounds that both of his parents weren’t US ctizens.
The Speaker of the House Representative John Boehner (R-OH) has said: “The state of Hawaii says that he was born there, that’s good enough for me.”

The Chief Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that: “This is one of several lawsuits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. THIS COURT IS NOT WILLING TO GO TILTING AT WINDMILLS WITH HER.”–Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto), April 14, 2010, Judge Royce C. Lamberth

The issue of Obama not having two American citizen parents has been before the US Supreme Court for Justices’ Cert Conferences in several different appeals: Donofrio v Wells, Lightfoot v Bowen, Hollister v Soetoro, et. al., and Kerchner v Obama. None of those appeals was able to find four justices who were interested enough in the constitutional arguments presented in appellee’s briefs to vote to hear the appeal before the full Court.
JoZeppy says:

August 31, 2011 at 8:01 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

john: according to Leo Donofrio

And the shocking thing, you seem to think that really matters?

I mean who needs Laurence Tribe when you have Leo Donofrio? Because afterall, someone who spent more time at a poker table than in a courtroom is obviously the source we all should be relying on.

Do you even remotely see how monumentally stupid basing an argument on “according to Leo Donofrio” is?
Northland10 says:

August 31, 2011 at 8:17 pm Northland10(Quote)

Stanislaw:[responding to John] Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?

For him to be right would require change. Change is not something birthers can believe in (unless it is changing history, US Law, the Constitution, reality, etc.)
Dr. Conspiracy says:

August 31, 2011 at 8:36 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

William Rawle? I don’t think he said that, but he did say this:

…he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity

William Rawle
A View of the Constitution

Rawle was, unfortunately for your side, an abolitionist instead of a slaveholder.

john: I suppose William Rawle could be considered one possible authority on the NBC definition. As such, SCOTUS recognized this in Minor Versus Happersat [sic] regarding NBC:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that….
gorefan says:

August 31, 2011 at 9:19 pm gorefan(Quote)

john: Minor Versus Happersat regarding NBC

John,

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals told us what to look for when trying to determine what is dicta and what is holding.

“We have defined dictum as “a statement in a judicial opinion that could have been deleted without seriously impairing the analytical foundations of the holding–that, being peripheral, may not have received the full and careful consideration of the court that uttered it.” Sarnoff v. American Home Products Corp.”

skip

“So instead of asking what the word “dictum” means we can ask what reasons there are against a court’s giving weight to a passage found in a previous opinion.”

skip

“One is that the passage was unnecessary to the outcome of the earlier case…”
“A closely related reason is that the passage was not an integral part of the earlier opinion–it can be sloughed off without damaging the analytical structure of the opinion…”
“Still another reason is that the passage was not grounded in the facts of the case… ”
“that the issue addressed in the passage was not presented as an issue….”

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/837/291/157384/

See John, try it yourself. Take out the one sentence (These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.) from the passge you quoted. The decision doesn’t change. The Constitution still does grant anyone the right to vote.
john says:

August 31, 2011 at 9:33 pm john(Quote)

The Ankeny Court was misguided. Charles Kerchner recently weighed in on it:

See this article by Commander Kerchner on how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently recognized the importance of Emer de Vattel to the Founders and our Constitution:

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/law-of-nations-principles-of-natural-law/

Now is this not just grand. The court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), which gave us a definition of a “natural born Citizen” which I contend is wrong, did not even know who Vattel was.

Ankeny, among the many shortcomings of its decision, conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. The Founders and Framers place their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the Ankeny court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.
Steve says:

August 31, 2011 at 10:20 pm Steve(Quote)

john:
John Woodman is no friend to birthers.But, regardless of what Woodman has to say, Obama can never be eligible because he’s not an NBC.Birthers like to focus on Obama’s birth certificate and his place of birth but these are red herrings according to Leo Donofrio.It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC. Woodman makes no argument on the meaning of NBC in his book according to table contents.

And yet not one person brought that up during the 2008 election…
ellen says:

August 31, 2011 at 10:34 pm ellen(Quote)

John: I am amazed that birthers make anything at all over this phrase: “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first”.

That is like saying that it was never doubted that if you wore both suspenders and a belt there’s no question that your pants will stay up. But that does not mean that you have to wear both. The court specifically stated that it did not have to decide whether one or both requirements were necessary for citizenship.

And, by the way, the phrase that you quote is concerned with CITIZENSHIP, not natural born status. If you look closely, you will see that there were doubts as to what was required to be a citizen. But that does not mean that there were any doubts as to the meaning of Natural Born.

EVERYBODY know what Natural Born meant, and at the time that the Constitution was written, it was always used in America (not Switzerland) to refer to citizenship due to the PLACE of birth. You cannot find, and I tried, a single American writer at the time who ever used the term Natural Born to refer to parents.

Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, natural born citizens were “those born within the state.” The reference is only to the place of birth, not to parents.
john says:

August 31, 2011 at 10:35 pm john(Quote)

It has always been assumed that if you are born in the US, you are a natural born citizen with a hidden assumptions that both of your parents are US citizens. Although the NBC has been investigated in the past, it has always focused with the place of birth with the assumption that the parents were US citizens. In 2008 election, as it became more apparent that Obama’s father was not a US citizen, the NBC was investigated further. It was discovered by legal authorities like Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Herb Titus that Obama is clearly is not a NBC. This research took while resulting in numerous lawsuits before and after Obama was elected as the POTUS. While there have been cases in the past where the candidate’s parents were not US citizens, no one seemed to take up a concern about it. Perhaps those with a hatred and fear of Obama being elected as well his problem concerning his place of birth resulted in a heighted interest and concern in the definition of NBC. The Internet has also been instrumental in spreading the concern for NBC where is just wasn’t possible to do in earlier times.
JoZeppy says:

August 31, 2011 at 11:21 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Amazing how many birthers fancy themselves qualifed to make grand pronouncements on the state of the law, without having to suffer the minor inconvenience of having to go to law school….and then what they do point to for authority for these grand pronouncements? A mail order lawyer, a DWI attorney, and someone who spent more time infront of a poker table than a judge.

How do you combat such willful ignorance?
Keith says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:01 am Keith(Quote)

john: It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC.

If you are born on American soil, the citizenship status of your parents has nothing to do with anything what-so-ever, especially your status as Natural Born Citizen (unless they are on an official diplomatic mission or a member of an invading army, of course).

The only situation where the citizenship status of your parents has any affect on your citizenship status is if you are not born on American soil, (say if you are born in the Panama Canal Zone, for example).

Can you please start singing a different tune one of these days?
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:07 am gorefan(Quote)

ellen: Here is an example of how it was used in 1803, shortly after the Constitution was written

I don’t wish to be too @nal about this but in actuality, this is not a quote from St. George Tucker. It is St. George Tucker quoting from a letter written by George Nicholas in 1799.

http://www.archive.org/stream/letterfromgeorge00nichrich#page/n3/mode/2up

The quote starts on page seven.

Clearly though St. George Tucker agrees with the sentiments expressed by Nicholas.

BTW
“A friend told me that he once saw Mr. Madison laugh till the tears came into his eyes at a caricature of George Nicholas, which represented him ” as a plum pudding with legs to it.” He was probably one of the fattest lawyers since the days of his namesake Sir Nicholas Bacon, the lord keeper” “The History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788” by Hugh Blair Grigsby, LL.D
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:10 am Daniel(Quote)

Poor John. Not only does he need to keep flogging that dead horse, he can’t even afford to get a new dead horse to flog.
ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 8:06 am ballantine(Quote)

It is quite funny how these clowns keep citing Donofrio as if he is some kind of respected scholar when he s a poker player with a legal resume that pretty much consists of two epic fail birther suits. They don’t care what real scholars like Tribe or Olson say or a real court like Ankeny. They have their fake scholar and that’s that.

Of course, back in the real world, lawyers owe a duty of candor to the court. A lawyer claiming Minor is binding precedent could be subject to santions as any real lawyer would know the citizenship discussion is dicta and such dicta did not even address the citizenship status of children of aliens. Really no argument about this. Also, failing to acknowldge that Wong Kim Ark is precedent, or at least trying to make an argument that its definition of natural born should not be precedent, would again be a big no no with a real court. The Ankeny plaintiff was lucky he was pro se as the court would not have been amused if a real lawyer had not raised the supreme court precedent on the case. I would love to see these clowns get chewed out by a court for misrepresenting these cases so thoroughly. Too bad they are not smart enough to understand the law of standing.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 8:45 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Your comment is basically a lie.

William Rawle in his early book, A View of the Constitution, explicitly states that persons born in the country are natural born citizens without regard for the citizenship of their parents. Vice-chancellor Sandford of the New York Chancery Court did an extensive review of all the history and authorities in 1844 and concluded that the child of non-citizen parents could be president. Rather than a “hidden” citizenship requirement, these investigations come right out and say that there is no such requirement. Add to that the argument by the Supreme Court in US v Wong and the Indiana Court of Appeals in Ankeny v Daniels.

Donofrio and Apuzzo have no distinction as experts. They are run of the mill lawyers — Donofrio spends most of his time playing poker and Apuzzo has a DUI practice. Herb Titus is a professor at a fourth-rate law school — but in all that I have read he has never said there is a citizen parent requirement for US Presidents (perhaps you have a citation?).

You are right on one point. I’m reading the book Idiot America that makes the point that if people hear something loudly enough and frequently enough they come to the mistaken conclusion that there may be some validity in it. The Internet has allowed crank arguments to get an unprecedented public hearing. In times past such low grade misinformation would never have gotten an airing. Now people, thanks to cranks and liars like you, hear this nonsense so often that those with weaker intellects actually think that there might be something to it. There is not.

john: It has always been assumed that if you are born in the US, you are a natural born citizen with a hidden assumptions that both of your parents are US citizens. Although the NBC has been investigated in the past, it has always focused with the place of birth with the assumption that the parents were US citizens. In 2008 election, as it became more apparent that Obama’s father was not a US citizen, the NBC was investigated further. It was discovered by legal authorities like Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Herb Titus that Obama is clearly is not a NBC. This research took while resulting in numerous lawsuits before and after Obama was elected as the POTUS. While there have been cases in the past where the candidate’s parents were not US citizens, no one seemed to take up a concern about it. Perhaps those with a hatred and fear of Obama being elected as well his problem concerning his place of birth resulted in a heighted [sic] interest and concern in the definition of NBC. The Internet has also been instrumental in spreading the concern for NBC where is just wasn’t possible to do in earlier times.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 8:50 am Annie(Quote)

“yet none dare admit that birtherism began with our first black president”

Birtherism began when the first person, of whom his father was not a U.S. citizen, was elected to serve as President. You can attribute Birtherism to anything that suits your needs but that won’t change the root cause.

I predict that there will be lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in most of the 50 states.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 8:55 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

The Court in Lynch v Clarke (1844) certainly knew who Vattel was, since they cited him in their decision. They wrote, however, than the child of non-citizens could be president.

You can “contend” all day, but that doesn’t make it so.

john: Now is this not just grand. The court in Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), which gave us a definition of a “natural born Citizen” which I contend is wrong, did not even know who Vattel was.
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 8:56 am misha(Quote)

john: It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC.

Lay off the acid, will ya? That’s some LSD you’re tripping on.
roadburner says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:19 am roadburner(Quote)

Annie: “yet none dare admit that birtherism began with our first black president”Birtherism began when the first person, of whom his father was not a U.S. citizen, was elected to serve as President. You can attribute Birtherism to anything that suits your needs but that won’t change the root cause.I predict that there will be lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in most of the 50 states.

you would probably be right in your prediction of more court cases.

here´s my prediction – they´ll all go the same way that the previous 80-odd cases have, that is, failed due to not having a leg to stand on be it regarding the constitution or u.s. law.

get ready, because you´re in for a world of dissapointment between now and 2012, because your democratically elected president isn´t going anywhere before then.
roadburner says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:21 am roadburner(Quote)

BTW annie, he wasn´t the first president to have a non-u.s. citizen parent. do try to keep up.
SluggoJD says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:37 am SluggoJD(Quote)

Annie:
“yet none dare admit that birtherism began with our first black president”

Birtherism began when the first person, of whom his father was not a U.S. citizen, was elected to serve as President. You can attribute Birtherism to anything that suits your needs but that won’t change the root cause.

I predict that there will be lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in most of the 50 states.

LOL, the lack of a grip on reality is strong with this one.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:41 am Annie(Quote)

roadburner,

Those federal case were dismissed on technicalities (standing). The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.

“he wasn´t the first president to have a non-u.s. citizen parent”

I should have been more precise. Obama was the first to make it known to the general public that his father was not a U.S. citizen.
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:55 am Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: Birtherism began when the first person, of whom his father was not a U.S. citizen, was elected to serve as President. You can attribute Birtherism to anything that suits your needs but that won’t change the root cause.

You mean in 1880 when Chester Arthur was elected Vice President? Funny that I didn’t hear about Birthers until 128 years later.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:57 am Ballantine(Quote)

And the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark knew who Vattel was since the dissent cited him but lost the argument that he was relevant to US law. As opposed to birthers, the Ankeny court bothered to read Wong Kim Ark and understand it rejected Vattel.
Tarrant says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:57 am Tarrant(Quote)

Annie:
“yet none dare admit that birtherism began with our first black president”

Birtherism began when the first person, of whom his father was not a U.S. citizen, was elected to serve as President. You can attribute Birtherism to anything that suits your needs but that won’t change the root cause.

I predict that there will be lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in most of the 50 states.

Yet despite the fact that his father was not a citizen was common knowledge, not one of said suits were filed prior to the election, nor did anyone – anyone – even bring up a hint of ineligibility. It was only after the election when the two parent theory was created out of whole cloth, and not one single court, congressman, or prominent paw firm has agreed with said theory.

Why? Because it is WRONG. There will likely e lawsuits in many states, all of which will lose, because the two parent theory is nonsense.
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:57 am Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: I should have been more precise. Obama was the first to make it known to the general public that his father was not a U.S. citizen.

Yes, and he did this long before he was elected or even nominated. And yet…. Congress certified the election and he was sworn in on January 20th, 2009.

Why don’t you idiots just admit that your interpretation of the law is wrong and move back to farfetched conspiracy theories?
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:02 am Thrifty(Quote)

Gonna be a simple election for Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney is not eligible to be president because his last name begins with the letter ‘R’.

Michele Bachmann is not eligible to be president because she is a woman.

Rick Perry is not eligible to be president because his last name rhymes with “cherry”.

Ron Paul of course cannot be president because he has 2 first names. This makes him ineligible.

I don’t think there are any contenders, but the ones I listed are all ineligible because of reasons that I have been taught since I was a child, and which I certainly didn’t retcon after these people announced their runs for president.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:06 am Annie(Quote)

Thrifty,

Isn’t your display of ignorance enough? Why do you feel the need to insult people?

Though not elected to the presidency, I will gladly accept your inclusion of Chester Arthur. Can you show us where Chester Arthur made the citizenship status of his father known to the general public?

I have to wonder why you’ve got your panties in a wad. I explained why I think Birtherism appeared, and stated that I predict numerous challenges will be filed in the states. Now you’ve gone off on irrelevant tangents. Why?
roadburner says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:14 am roadburner(Quote)

Annie: roadburner,Those federal case were dismissed on technicalities (standing). The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.

the reason ALL the birther cases to date have failed without exception is because they have no grounding under the u.s. constitution and u.s. law.

why do you think taitz has gone after the SS n�? because at least she seems to have realised that the NBC rubbish the birther movement regurgitates ad nauseum is quite simply that – rubbish.

your president let it be known his father was kenyan BEFORE the election and EVERYBODY knew about it. – congress, the senate, the electoral college, the voting public, literally everybody, but for some reason this never became an issue until he was elected. sour grapes or some other agenda? i can´t say, but the fact remains that it never was a secret, and the people responsible for vetting saw no impediment as did no-one else apart from the then new born birthers.
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:20 am Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: Thrifty,Isn’t your display of ignorance enough? Why do you feel the need to insult people?

Because your views are stupid, easily and repeatedly debunked, and not worthy of respect.

Though not elected to the presidency, I will gladly accept your inclusion of Chester Arthur. Can you show us where Chester Arthur made the citizenship status of his father known to the general public?I have to wonder why you’ve got your panties in a wad. I explained why I think Birtherism appeared, and stated that I predict numerous challenges will be filed in the states. Now you’ve gone off on irrelevant tangents. Why?

Chester Arthur is irrelevant. His presidency and life are long over.

Can you explain why Congress declared Barack Obama eligible even though everyone knew that his father was not a U.S. citizen? You’re declaring him ineligible based on undisputed publicly known facts. You’re saying he’s ineligible just because you want him to be. I’ve done the same by declaring the current Republican contenders ineligible based on undisputed but irrelevant facts. Of course I’m doing it satirically and you’re doing it seriously.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:20 am Annie(Quote)

roadburner,

I see you said “your president”. Are you not a U.S. citizen or not a resident of the Uinted States?
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:27 am Annie(Quote)

“Because your views are stupid, easily and repeatedly debunked, and not worthy of respect.”

Now you’re just trying to be funny. I hope.

Don’t you think numerous suits challenging Obama’s eligibility will be filed in the state in 2012?

Don’t you think Obama was the first President for which the non-citizenship status of his father was made public?

If you win arguments on the playground by calling people stupid, I suggest you return (or stay) on the playground.

“Chester Arthur is irrelevant.”

Then why did you introduce him to the conversation?
roadburner says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:28 am roadburner(Quote)

john: It was discovered by legal authorities like Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Herb Titus that Obama is clearly is not a NBC. P>

you owe me a new keyboard, as i´ve just sprayed coffee all over it.

PLEASE tell us you´re joking!
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:32 am Annie(Quote)

“Can you explain why Congress declared Barack Obama eligible even though everyone knew that his father was not a U.S. citizen?”

There are many thing that I cannot explain. The actions of others has been among those many things on multiple occassions.

“You’re declaring him ineligible based on undisputed publicly known facts. You’re saying he’s ineligible just because you want him to be.”

I did? That’s news to me! Please show us all where I made that absurd claim.
dunstvangeet says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:32 am dunstvangeet(Quote)

Annie: Can you show us where Chester Arthur made the citizenship status of his father known to the general public?

It was known to a bunch of people who wanted to keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency and had gone as far as saying that he was born somewhere where they couldn’t prove. Arthur P. Hinman knew that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen until after Arthur was born. In fact, he wrote the Secretary of State the letter that strongly suggested it. This letter was a full 3 months before Arthur was sworn in as Vice President. Let me ask you this: if “Natural Born Citizen” has always been 2 citizen parents, then why didn’t Arthur P. Hinman, who was hired to basically keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency, not use verifiable proof of this to keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency? Where’s your evidence that Hinman ever brought it up and tried to use that to keep Arthur out?
Horus says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:34 am Horus(Quote)

US Citizen: Birthers seem to pretend it’s all a coincidence.

I believe that some truly don’t know who they are in league with.
roadburner says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:36 am roadburner(Quote)

Annie: roadburner,I see you said “your president”. Are you not a U.S. citizen or not a resident of the Uinted States?

well spotted.

i use `your president´ when replying to birthers to remind them that they are talking about the democratically elected president of their country, like it or not.

why is it my business? because when the u.s. sneezes, europe gets the cold. having a group of wackos trying to destroy the u.s. political system fills me with dread. the damage to the u.s. would be (if they had a leg to stand on) devastating.
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:39 am Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: Don’t you think numerous suits challenging Obama’s eligibility will be filed in the state in 2012?

Several dozen lawsuits have already been filed, and they were all failures. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

The citizenship of Chester Arthur’s father was known prior to his Vice-Presidency and was used against him in the same way you’re trying to use Obama’s father against him.

Don’t you think Obama was the first President for which the non-citizenship status of his father was made public?

It doesn’t matter whether he was the first or not. What matters is that it was known, and NOBODY IN CHARGE OF CERTIFYING HIS ELIGIBILITY OBJECTED.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:40 am JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: Those federal case were dismissed on technicalities (standing). The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.

Standing is not a technicality. It is a Constitutional requirement for all federal cases. But why am I not surprised a birther doesn’t have a firm grasp on the Constitution? Your state cases won’t have much luck either. You see there is the slight problem in that all the facts and law are against you.

Annie: I should have been more precise. Obama was the first to make it known to the general public that his father was not a U.S. citizen.

No. There, it was just that no one cared where Aurthor’s parents were born, since it was irrelevant. No one cared about Vice President Agnew’s parents either, or presidential candidate Mike Dukasis, who oft repeated the phrase, “born of Greek immigrant parents.”

The reason no one cared, is because it doesn’t matter.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:44 am Ballantine(Quote)

Here is some of the work of your legal gurus. From the Second Circuit:

“As to the merits of Appellants’ claims, they are utterly frivolous. We reject these claims on the merits for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court below.”

From the 3rd Circuit:

“Because we have decided that this appeal is frivolous, we will order counsel for Appellants to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed.”

Look like legal geniuses to me. Most lawyers would be really embarrassed to have a circuit court call their arguments frivolous. I guess it is a badge of honor in the birther bar.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:47 am JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: Don’t you think numerous suits challenging Obama’s eligibility will be filed in the state in 2012?

There will. I’m guessing quite a few will be filed by Orly, in fact. And I’m guessing they will all meet the same fate. An order containing the sentence, “Motion to dismiss granted.”

Annie: Don’t you think Obama was the first President for which the non-citizenship status of his father was made public?

No. It was only the first time that a group of non-governable anti-American malcontents that can’t stand the notion of a president that doesn’t fit their ideological bent leading the country, created a definition of Natural Born Citizen that no one in the legal community takes seriously, and then makes up stories of how they remember being taught that in grade school, although they can’t produce an school book that contains that definition, but rather quite the opposite, every school book see says the exact opposite.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:49 am Annie(Quote)

dunstvangeet,

“It was known to a bunch of people who wanted to keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency”

Then you should have no problem providing us all with documented evidence of this. Please do so.

“Arthur P. Hinman knew that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen until after Arthur was born.”

Please provide a link to support this. To the best of my knowledge, Bayard (the SoS to whom you refer) considered the child of a German immigrant, born on U,S. soil, was NOT a U.S. citizen. I have a hard time believing that Bayard would have had a different view just because the father was an Irishman.

“Let me ask you this: if “Natural Born Citizen” has always been 2 citizen parents, then why didn’t Arthur P. Hinman, who was hired to basically keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency, not use verifiable proof of this to keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency? Where’s your evidence that Hinman ever brought it up and tried to use that to keep Arthur out?”

Where did you come up with the 2 citizen requirement? I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence of Hinman’s knowledge regarding the citizenship status of Arthur’s father. Once you do that we can discuss how he used this alleged proof.
G says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:51 am G(Quote)

Your problem is that you simply refuse to accept the reality of the actual explanations, because it doesn’t fit your emotional desires and worldview.

I’m sure a bunch of Birthers will try to pull state challenges. They will all fail. That is easy to predict by anyone who’s been paying attention.

For one, as JoZeppy pointed out, “standing” is not a mere “technicality” as you wish to dismissively and naively believe. It is a key pillar of how the justice system works and yes, part of determining the “merit” of a case.

For another, if any state case was written properly and had proper standing, etc. to review the underlying issues brought up, then it would be one that simply determines if eligibility requirements are met. All that would be required is for Obama’s team to submit the COLB form and due to FFAC, the whole case ends right there.

Sorry, but you’re pining your hopes on self-deluded desires. Detatching yourself from reality with wishful fantasy thinking doesn’t accomplish anything in the real world and has no bearing on influencing the law.

Annie: There are many thing that I cannot explain. The actions of others has been among those many things on multiple occassions.
G says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:53 am G(Quote)

Exactly.

JoZeppy: No. It was only the first time that a group of non-governable anti-American malcontents that can’t stand the notion of a president that doesn’t fit their ideological bent leading the country, created a definition of Natural Born Citizen that no one in the legal community takes seriously, and then makes up stories of how they remember being taught that in grade school, although they can’t produce an school book that contains that definition, but rather quite the opposite, every school book see says the exact opposite.
dunstvangeet says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:02 am dunstvangeet(Quote)

Arthur P. Hinman wrote a letter to the Secretary of State under the previous President, Annie, asking if someone is Naturalized due to their father being Naturalized if that makes them a Natural Born Citizen.

A.P. Hinman wrote a book saying: “How a British Subject became the President of the United States.” In that, he publishes a letter from Senator Thomas Bayard, dated January 10, 1881. In those days, the President and Vice President weren’t sworn in until March 1881. The letter clearly indicates that A.P. Hinman knew about the Naturalization of Arthur’s father.

It states, as published: “DEAR SIR :-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term” natural-born citizen,” as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.
Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD.”

Now, why would A.P. Hinman, who was basically hired to float rumors and keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency, knowing that Arthur, according to you, was ineligible, not use this to ultimately accomplish his goal? He used rumors that Arthur was born in Ireland and Canada to try, but couldn’t prove those. And yet, there is not one mention of him using this verifiable information?

People knew of Arthur’s father’s citizenship status. Why wouldn’t Hinman use this slam dunk, as you think it, to ultimately accomplish his goal?
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:04 am JoZeppy(Quote)

john: It was discovered by legal authorities like Donofrio, Apuzzo, and Herb Titus

Do you even know what a legal authority is? You might as well be calling Moe, Larry, and Curly a legal authority. Merely having a JD does not make one an authority on anything.
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:07 am Thrifty(Quote)

dunstvangeet: People knew of Arthur’s father’s citizenship status. Why wouldn’t Hinman use this slam dunk, as you think it, to ultimately accomplish his goal?

A better question, in my opinion, is why wouldn’t John McCain or anyone in the Republican party in 2008 use the same apparent slam dunk to accomplish their goals? Or Hilary Clinton for that matter.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:08 am Ballantine(Quote)

And we have no idea if Andrew Johnson’s father was a citizen and it seems even Andrew was not sure where his father was born as his father died when Andrew was an infant and historical sources dispute whether he was born in England or America.

When Andrew Johnson became Vice President, there was actually a debate about whether Johnson was eligible. No one mentioned his father but only Andrew’s place of birth. The question was whether the fact that the state he was born in left the union meant that he wan’t eligible since he wasn’t born in what was then the United States. This was quickly dismissed. In such debates, both Senator Davis and Johnson point out that the President merely needed to be a native born citizen. Johnson was probably the most famous lawyer in the country at this time.

“No one who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or a citizen at the time of adoption of the Consitution, can be voted for.” Sen. Johnson

“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizen.” Sen. Davis

No mainstream legal authority has ever questioned jus soli.
dch says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:10 am dch(Quote)

“I predict that there will be lawsuits challenging Obama’s eligibility to be on the ballot in most of the 50 states.”

The birthers have already been there & done that. The birthers went all the way to the top appeals court in Indiana and had their butts handed to them on a platter. In the Arkeny case, the appeals judges upheld the lower court’s dismissal and went on to take the time to put a include an opinion of the imaginary two-parent nonsense.

The various state and federal birther cases were all dismissed years ago. Reviving them with new plaintiffs in the SAME courts will result in the same result – birther failure. Norhing has changed.

Also the entire birther-bill movement was nothing more than a dog-and-pony pandering to the birthers. You were all punked.
Rickey says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:14 am Rickey(Quote)

J

JoZeppy: Do you even know what a legal authority is?You might as well be calling Moe, Larry, and Curly a legal authority.Merely having a JD does not make one an authority on anything.

John suffers from a compulsion which requires him to show up here from time to time in order to put his ignorance on display for the entire world to see.

As for the Stooges, I suspect that they had more courtroom experience than Leo Donofrio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZeqHamjyjU

JoZeppy: Do you even know what a legal authority is?You might as well be calling Moe, Larry, and Curly a legal authority.Merely having a JD does not make one an authority on anything.
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:16 am gorefan(Quote)

Annie: Don’t you think Obama was the first President for which the non-citizenship status of his father was made public?

The President may be the first President, but not the first Presidential candidate.

George McClellan Jr. (son of the Civil War general) had his “natural born” status questioned when he was being tauted as a possible Presidential candidate (he was born in Saxony, while his parents were traveling in Europe). Here is what the Chicago Tribune wrote about McClellan,

“A curious question has been raised in regard to Mr. McClellan. It is contended that, while he is the son of American parents, yet, having been born in Dresden, Saxony, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States, although he is a “citizen.” The distinction seems fine spun and will not hold, for it has been settled that the child of American citizens born abroad is a natural born citizen. The courts would hold, were the matter to come before them, that Mr. McClellan is both “a citizen” and “a natural born” citizen, and, hence, eligible to hold the presidency.”

Charles Evan Hughes Sr. ran for President and very nearly beat Woodrow Wilson. His ‘natural born citizen” status was also questioned (his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth). Here is what was written about him in the Chicago Legal News

“Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.”

“He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.” But is there not a distinction between “native born” and “natural born”? At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England. His father had not then been naturalized. The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government.”

George Rominey (Mitt’s dad) had his “natural born citizen” status questioned (he was born in Mexico). Here is what Congressman Dowdy (D. texas) said on the House Floor about George Rominey,

“I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.”

As to future lawsuits, it is hardly a prediction that there will be more lawsuits. Here is my prediction only lawsuits by other Presidential candidates will make it to heard. They will be dismissed and the Supreme Court will not take them up.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:16 am Annie(Quote)

Thrifty,

If you think I’m going to scour Wikipedia to find something, you guessed wrong. You made the claim. You should support your assertion. Until you can, I will consider it to be a fabrication.

“Several dozen lawsuits have already been filed”

Name them. Remember we’re talking about my prediction on the filing of state cases challenging Obama’s appearance on the ballot, not federal suits after the election.

JoZeppy,

“You see there is the slight problem in that all the facts and law are against you.”

How can the facts be against me when I haven’t presented an argument?

“born of Greek immigrant parents”

Has an argument now been presented that one’s parents cannot be immigrants? This is new to me. I had heard arguments concerning the citizenship of the parents when the child is born, but never heard anything excluding those whose parents were immigrants.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:17 am JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.

And what makes you think they won’t be so easy to dismiss? Cases where neither the law or facts support you are usually pretty easy to get rid of.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:18 am Annie(Quote)

gorefan,

Moving the goalposts? Is that necessary?

I stated that I believe the reason Birtherism came into existence was due to Obama being the first President to have made it known to the public that his father was not a citizen.

Why go off on other tangents?
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:19 am Annie(Quote)

I’m sorry I can’t answer everone’s questions. It is made even more difficult by those who introduce new arguments and present false accusations. I will do my best, but you need to stay on topic if you want answers.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:21 am JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: How can the facts be against me when I haven’t presented an argument?

Because there are no facts that support any birther arguments. Pretty simple there.

Annie: Has an argument now been presented that one’s parents cannot be immigrants? This is new to me. I had heard arguments concerning the citizenship of the parents when the child is born, but never heard anything excluding those whose parents were immigrants.

No, but there was never any investigations or even questions raised as to whether Dukasis’ parents ever became citizens. His parentage was never questioned or an issue (and Dukasis was also a Greek citizen due to parentage). To be honest, to this date, I don’t even know when, if ever, they became citizens.
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:24 am Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: Thrifty,
If you think I’m going to scour Wikipedia to find something, you guessed wrong. You made the claim. You should support your assertion. Until you can, I will consider it to be a fabrication.

Scour? I gave you a direct link! I’ll make it easier. Go to Early Life / Birth and Family, specifically around footnote number 8, which references a biography of Chester A. Arthur.

Quote: William Arthur’s frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office.[8] A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth.[9] Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause.[9][note 3] When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.[9].
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:28 am Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: I’m sorry I can’t answer everone’s questions. It is made even more difficult by those who introduce new arguments and present false accusations. I will do my best, but you need to stay on topic if you want answers.

It can be overwhelming, indeed. Barack Obama’s father was not an American citizen at the time of his (the President’s) birth. This is a fact not in dispute, and was known long before the election. You seem to be asserting this as well. Start by addressing how this is relevant, and why he was still certified as eligible by the electoral college, the Congress, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who administered the oath of office).
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:28 am Annie(Quote)

dunstvangeet,

“Now, why would A.P. Hinman, who was basically hired to float rumors and keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency, knowing that Arthur, according to you, was ineligible”

According to me? What is according to me? If you’re going to make accusations, at least have the ability to back them up.

I happen to know that the citizenship status of Chester Arthur’s father was not made public. I also know that Chester Arthur himself questioned the status of children born on U.S. soil whose father had not yet become citizens.

Do you think Arthur would consider the citizenship of those children who were born on U.S. soil to fathers who had not yet become citizens to be unsettled, yet still consider them to be natural-born citizens? The mere proposition is ludicrous.
Steve says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:31 am Steve(Quote)

Annie:
roadburner,

Those federal case were dismissed on technicalities (standing). The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.

“he wasn´t the first president to have a non-u.s. citizen parent”

I should have been more precise. Obama was the first to make it known to the general public that his father was not a U.S. citizen.

Yes, Obama made it known that his father was not a U.S. citizen and nobody brought up this idea that he was not a natural-born citizen during the 2008 election.
If that is the standardly-accepted definition of natural-born citizen, how come nobody raised objections in 2008?
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:35 am Annie(Quote)

Thrifty,

“Start by addressing how this is relevant, and why he was still certified as eligible by the electoral college, the Congress, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who administered the oath of office).”

I can’t tell you why people chose to do or not do things. All I can tell you is that it was never discussed by Congress. I don’t consider a matter not discussed to be settled. As far as the Chief Justice goes, his giving the Oath of Office has no legal meaning or inertpretation of law. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to swear in the President.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:38 am Annie(Quote)

Thrifty,

You provided this quote from Wikipedia;

“Quote: William Arthur’s frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office.[8] A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth.[9] Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause.[9][note 3] When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.[9]”

I noticed that nothing in this quote is alleging that Hinman knew that Author’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth. All I see is that hinman had made allegation that Chester was not native-born. Am I missing something here?
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:39 am Ballantine(Quote)

Steve: Yes, Obama made it known that his father was not a U.S. citizen and nobody brought up this idea that he was not a natural-born citizen during the 2008 election.If that is the standardly-accepted definition of natural-born citizen, how come nobody raised objections in 2008?

Because every legal dictionary, treatise and civics book says one only need to be born on US soil. Until Donofrio starting making this stuff up, nobody thought about it. to his day, most people are not aware that birthers are making this silly argument. When Professor Tribe was told of this, he called is “wacky,” as would any actual scholar that one might ask.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:42 am JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: All I can tell you is that it was never discussed by Congress.

Perhaps because Congress has better things to waste their time on? Or perhaps because they actually know that his parentage doesn’t matter.

Annie: I don’t consider a matter not discussed to be settled.

And what you consider to be settled really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. The Courts consider it settled. Every real legal scholar considers it settled. So again, why should anyone care what you consider settled?

Annie: As far as the Chief Justice goes, his giving the Oath of Office has no legal meaning or inertpretation of law. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to swear in the President.

How about the fact that the government doesn’t even feel compelled to respond to birther cert petitions, and not a single Supreme Court justice has felt the need to ask the government to respond to a birther cert. All it takes is one justice to ask for a response, and they would be required to file one, and yet, not a single one has ever has done so before denying cert.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:45 am Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

“No, but there was never any investigations or even questions raised as to whether Dukasis’ parents ever became citizens. His parentage was never questioned or an issue (and Dukasis was also a Greek citizen due to parentage). To be honest, to this date, I don’t even know when, if ever, they became citizens.”

A question not raised is not a question answered. Your failure to inquire into the citizenship status of Michael Dukakis’ parents leaves the question open, not answered.

Why introduce something that you don’t know the answer to?
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:53 am Daniel(Quote)

Annie:

I can’t tell you why people chose to do or not do things. All I can tell you is that it was never discussed by Congress. I don’t consider a matter not discussed to be settled.

Yet you birthers seem to be perfectly capable of telling every Constitutional expert what the founding fathers had in mind a couple hundred years ago…

If something is so blatantly obvious to everyone with an ounce of sense or education in Constitution and law, that it needs no discussion, do you still require people to waste time on it just because “I wanna”?

Exactly how much discussion would have satisfied you? An hour? A day? A month?

I submit to you that no amount of discussion would have satisfied you. Given that, why do you think Congress should cater to you personally?
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:55 am Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

“And what you consider to be settled really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans.”

Is that how you learned to argue your position?

“real legal scholar”

A Professor of Law at ABA accredited univeristy is not “real legal scholar”?

Forced to rely on ad hominems? You should be able to do better than that.

“How about the fact that the government doesn’t even feel compelled to respond to birther cert petitions”

What Cert petitions were not responded to?
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 11:59 am JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: A question not raised is not a question answered. Your failure to inquire into the citizenship status of Michael Dukakis’ parents leaves the question open, not answered.
Why introduce something that you don’t know the answer to?

The question was not raised because it was, and continues to be irrelevant. It wasn’t merely my failure to inquire, but rather like for Obama up until Donofrio conjured up the parent requirement, no one cared. The very fact that no one bothered to answer the question, while Dukasis regularly made a point of pointing it out, shows just how meaningless it is regarding a person’s NBC status. And in both cases, it was widely known. Dukasis campaigned on the fact that he was a first generation American. President Obama published Dreams from My Father in 2004. He announced his campaign for the Presidency in 2007. Yet before a poker player started pushing his Vattel theory, no one ever dreamed of caring about a persons parentage.

And one more point….both Dukakis and Obama are Harvard law grads. Don’t you think a pair of Harvard law grads would know what the defintition of NBC is, and if parentage really mattered, they might try to hide the fact they were ineligible rather than publishing it to the world?
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:10 pm misha(Quote)

JoZeppy: You might as well be calling Moe, Larry, and Curly a legal authority.

I am proud to say all 3 Stooges were Jewish.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:12 pm Ballantine(Quote)

What “real scholar” says parentage matters? Congress discussing it does not settle a matter. One court did address the issue, but apparently that doesn’t count. Of course, such court merely looked to what the Supreme Court had said. Yes, the Supreme Court did reject the two parent theory a century ago. That means it is settled law unless the court revisits the issue. One actually has to have some legal argument to get the court to re-visit the issue.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:14 pm Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

In terms of Commander in Chief; What would be the difference if the Commander in Chief were captured during battle by…let’s say.. the Germans…If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?

I ask this because Jonh Jay suggested that the Commander in Chief be only given to a natural-born citizen. Jay did not say President or Executive. His letter refered to the command [sic] in chief of the army. It has been established here, by Dr. Conspiracy, that “John Jay COULD NOT HAVE KNOW what was in any draft of the Constitution. He could not have known what requirements were being drafted for the president.” You can agree or disagree with Dr. Conspiracy. However, if you disagree with Dr. Conspiracy and think that John Jay did know what was in the Constitution, please provide some support for your position.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:18 pm Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

“Yet before a poker player started pushing his Vattel theory, no one ever dreamed of caring about a persons parentage.”

Really? Did I just imagine that I read the Court’s opinion in Minor? If you want to disagree with what the court said in Minor, I don’t have a problem with letting you do so, but to suggest that Donofrio’s claims have no historical substance is a complete denial of the facts.
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:19 pm Daniel(Quote)

Lol can’t you just see the conversation on the house floor?

Speaker: Call for discussion… if any. Ah Recognize the member from the state of Birtherstan

Congressperson Annie: Madam Speaker, Even though it is obvious to any reasonable person that no party would be so stupid to nominate an ineligible candidate, and that no opposing party would be stupid enough to allow a nomination by an ineligible candidate to go unchallenged, and even though Obama had the actual physical copy of his birth certificate available at his campaign HQ for anyone who wished to examine, and even though the people of the United States of America made their choice, and even though I have never cared about this for any other President in history… I insist we, the Congress of the United States of America, waste a schwack of time and taxpayer money to discuss a non-issue that I’m never going to accept anyways. I yield the remainder of my time to our alien lizardmen overlords.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: Is that how you learned to argue your position?

Just pointing out the cold reality. Your opinion, and my opinion for that matter, are pretty meaningless. Lawrence Tribe, on the other hand. His opinion carries far more wieght.

Annie: A Professor of Law at ABA accredited univeristy is not “real legal scholar”?

As far as I know, you have one person, with an admitted political agenda, who is persuing elected office, at a 3rd or 4th teir law school. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t even amount to a minority theory of law. Then the next question would be, how many journal articles has he published on the issue? Just like having a JD doesn’t make one an expert on all subjects of law, merely being a professor at even Harvard, doesn’t make you a scholar on every subject of law. You’re still grasping. The overwhelming body of academia is against you.

Annie: Forced to rely on ad hominems? You should be able to do better than that.

How is it an ad hominem to point out that anyone who is actually educated on the subject disagrees with you? Contrary to what your parents may have told you, not every opinion is of equal value. There are accepted experts in certain fields of law. There are wrong answers. At a certain point, asking the same thing over and over, becomes a stupid question.

Annie: What Cert petitions were not responded to?

Everyone filed by either Orly, and Apuzzo, off the top of my head.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm Ballantine(Quote)

Annie: JoZeppy,In terms of Commander in Chief; What would be the difference if the Commander in Chief were captured during battle by…let’s say.. the Germans…If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?I ask this because Jonh Jay suggested that the Commander in Chief be only given to a natural-born citizen. Jay did not say President or Executive. His letter refered to the command [sic] in chief of the army. It has been established here, by Dr. Conspiracy, that “John Jay COULD NOT HAVE KNOW what was in any draft of the Constitution. He could not have known what requirements were being drafted for the president.” You can agree or disagree with Dr. Conspiracy. However, if you disagree with Dr. Conspiracy and think that John Jay did know what was in the Constitution, please provide some support for your position.

Jay doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” so why do poeple cite him. He said it would be a “strong check” again admission of foreigners. What he thought was a strong check is pure speculation. However, the only “check” discussed in the Convention was a native borth requirement. Citing Jay as supporting your view is silly.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:21 pm Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

FYI: Chester Arthur cared about a person’s parentage (in terms of their citizenship status) when born. I suggest you brush up on history. I’ll even give you a hint. Read Chester Arthur’s State of the Union Addresses. I think you’ll be very surprised by what you find.
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:23 pm Daniel(Quote)

Annie: Did I just imagine that I read the Court’s opinion in Minor?

You certainly imagined it said what you reeeeeeeeally need it to say.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:23 pm Ballantine(Quote)

Annie: JoZeppy,“Yet before a poker player started pushing his Vattel theory, no one ever dreamed of caring about a persons parentage.”Really? Did I just imagine that I read the Court’s opinion in Minor? If you want to disagree with what the court said in Minor, I don’t have a problem with letting you do so, but to suggest that Donofrio’s claims have no historical substance is a complete denial of the facts.

Donofrio is wrong as the discussion of citizenship in Minor is dicta and the court specifically declines to address the citizenship status of children of aliens. Hence it is not precedent on the subject of children of aliens. It does point out that natural born citizen must be defined by the common law and hence it is clear what the court would have found if it addressed the issue as there is no doubt what the common law rule was.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:25 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: In terms of Commander in Chief; What would be the difference if the Commander in Chief were captured during battle by…let’s say.. the Germans…If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?

None.

Annie: I ask this because Jonh Jay suggested that the Commander in Chief be only given to a natural-born citizen. Jay did not say President or Executive. His letter refered to the command [sic] in chief of the army. It has been established here, by Dr. Conspiracy, that “John Jay COULD NOT HAVE KNOW what was in any draft of the Constitution. He could not have known what requirements were being drafted for the president.” You can agree or disagree with Dr. Conspiracy. However, if you disagree with Dr. Conspiracy and think that John Jay did know what was in the Constitution, please provide some support for your position.

And how does any of this even matter?
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:27 pm Annie(Quote)

Ballentine,

“Jay doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” so why do poeple cite him.”

They cite him as the origin of the mandate. Nothing more

“He said it would be a “strong check” again admission of foreigners.”

No he did not. I suggest you reread Jay’s letter and get back to me. The rest of your comment is based on your own ignorance of Jay’s communication. I’ll wait for you to educate yourself.
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:29 pm Daniel(Quote)

Annie: In terms of Commander in Chief; What would be the difference if the Commander in Chief were captured during battle by…let’s say.. the Germans…If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?

Interesting but ridiculous scenario.

However I would ask you how that would have worked with those past Presidents that were, in fact, dual citizens? And yes, we certainly have had them.

Surprised? Yes birthers usually are.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

“None”

Then, my friend, you are too ignorant to engage in discussion of the subject matter.

“And how does any of this even matter?”

If I didn’t know the subject matter, I would be just as likely to avoid it.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:33 pm Ballantine(Quote)

Annie: Ballentine,“Jay doesn’t define “natural born citizen,” so why do poeple cite him.”They cite him as the origin of the mandate. Nothing more“He said it would be a “strong check” again admission of foreigners.”No he did not. I suggest you reread Jay’s letter and get back to me. The rest of your comment is based on your own ignorance of Jay’s communication. I’ll wait for you to educate yourself.

Here is what Jay said:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Where does that say anything about one’s parents? Where does it define who is natural born? Why are you citing it as it defines nothing. It is speculated that this prompted the NBC clause due to Washington’s reply. However, the framers discussed eligiblity before this and they only talked place of birth. I suggest you do some research on what actually happened.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:34 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: Really? Did I just imagine that I read the Court’s opinion in Minor? If you want to disagree with what the court said in Minor, I don’t have a problem with letting you do so, but to suggest that Donofrio’s claims have no historical substance is a complete denial of the facts.

His claims have no historical substance. The Suprme Court has ever adopted Vattel’s citizenship theories. Never. To use Donofrio’s arguments in court, would open one’s self to sanctions for lack of candor to the court. You’re hanging your hat on a tiny bit of dicta, that actually refuses to provide a definition, and as far as I know wasn’t even briefed as Minor’s citizenship was never contested. Particularly in light of the fact that Wong Kim Ark went to such great leghts to define natural born citizenship, it’s really reaching.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm Joey(Quote)

Annie:
Thrifty,

You provided this quote from Wikipedia;

“Quote: William Arthur’s frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office.[8] A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth.[9] Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause.[9][note 3] When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.[9]”

I noticed that nothing in this quote is alleging that Hinman knew that Author’s father was not a citizen at the time of his birth. All I see is that hinman had made allegation that Chester was not native-born. Am I missing something here?

William Arthur was a well known minister in Vermont. He spoke and preached the gospel with a strong Scots- Irish brouge and he never hid the fact that he was an immigrant who gained US citizenship in 1843 when his son Chester was 14 years old.
It was not an issue when Chester ran for Vice President or when he assumed the presidency because no one cared.
In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur stated
“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”
That sure sounds like an admission of his father’s foreign birth to me.
The interview in the newspaper took place before Arthur was elected Vice President.
Whatever4 says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm Whatever4(Quote)

Annie: Here’s an article on this site about Bayard and Hinman, including a link to Hinman’s book. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/donofrio-misfires/#more-4790

Dukakis? What about Agnew? No one raised any issues about his Greek immigrant parents, and census records differ on when his father naturalized. Bill Richardson was a candidate in the 2008 NH primary, mother was Mexican. Charles Curtis (VP under Hoover) was the son of a native American woman at a time when Indians couldn’t be citizens. Or John Fremont, the first Republican candidate for president, the illegitimate son of a French immigrant. Digging into other candidates and VPs parental status has never been necessary.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:36 pm Annie(Quote)

Daniel,

“Interesting but ridiculous scenario.”

Not so ridiculous if you knew international law. -Yes, International Law would come into play if captured by the enemy during war.

“However I would ask you how that would have worked with those past Presidents that were, in fact, dual citizens? And yes, we certainly have had them.”

Please identify them, and how you have come to know of their dual citizenship.
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:40 pm Annie(Quote)

JoZeppy,

“The Suprme Court has ever adopted Vattel’s citizenship theories.”

Really? Then you would be surprised to find the Circuit Court to have considered otherwise.

I hope you like surprises.

I’m done here. I’ve given you all plenty to look into. I’m not here to debate with you. That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:41 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: Then, my friend, you are too ignorant to engage in discussion of the subject matter.

Oh, the irony…coming from someone relying on the arguments of someone who has more of a career playing poker than drafting legal arguments.

Annie: If I didn’t know the subject matter, I would be just as likely to avoid it.

I am very familiary with Jay’s letter. It just really doesn’t matter. First, he never defines Natural Born, no does he mention parentage. Secondly, we have a clear precident of the defintion of Natural Born as stated in Wong Kim Ark. WKA takes us through that history going back another couple centuries back to Calvin’s Case. Why would I want to try to read the mind of Jay, when I have the clear statements of the law as stated by the Supreme Court. Again, you’re grasping at straws of vagueness to try to counter very clear statements by the Court.
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:43 pm Ballantine(Quote)

Annie: JoZeppy,“The Suprme Court has ever adopted Vattel’s citizenship theories.”Really? Then you would be surprised to find the Circuit Court to have considered otherwise.I hope you like surprises.I’m done here. I’ve given you all plenty to look into. I’m not here to debate with you. That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.

Of course, your done as you have made assertions without backing it up. What circuit court are you talking about. Show any court at any level that has adopted the theory?
Thrifty says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:43 pm Thrifty(Quote)

Annie: I can’t tell you why people chose to do or not do things. All I can tell you is that it was never discussed by Congress. I don’t consider a matter not discussed to be settled. As far as the Chief Justice goes, his giving the Oath of Office has no legal meaning or inertpretation of law. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Chief Justice to swear in the President.

So what you’re saying is that the Republican party which has, ever since 2009, done everything it can to block the President’s agenda, didn’t bother to raise even a peep in objection to his election or nomination? Why didn’t anyone in 1992 raise an objection to the issue of Bill Clinton being born in a state named after a conceptual noun (Hope, Arkansas)?
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:46 pm Joey(Quote)

“Spiro Theodore Agnew, born 1918, was the 39th Vice-President of the United States, serving under Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973.

As one might guess from his name, Agnew was of Greek heritage. His father was Theodore Spiros Agnew (formerly Anagnostopoulos), who immigrated to the United States from Greece in 1897.

And like Barack Obama, Agnew’s father was not a U.S. citizen when Agnew was born. To evidence this, The Agnew family’s entry in the 1920 U.S. Census shows, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is listed as “Alien”:

Under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Ergo, the Vice-President must be a natural born citizen, just like the President.

Agnew’s Greek heritage was conspicuous (especially given the name “Spiro Agnew”). His father’s status as an immigrant was hardly obscure; to the contrary, his immigrant background helped him in becoming Nixon’s running-mate.

And yet, Agnew was never accused of not being a natural born citizen. Nor was his Constitutional eligibility ever challenged on the grounds of his father’s citizenship. Nor was his eligibility ever doubted on the grounds that he may have possibly inherited Greek citizenship through his father.

Spiro Agnew had a non-citizen father, and yet he was a natural born citizen. That is historical fact. To apply a different and novel test to Barack Obama, when the only difference between the two is that Agnew’s father was from Greece whereas Obama’s father was from Kenya, is simply inconsistent and hypocritical, and reeks of being a double standard. ”
With thanks for the above to the barackryphal web blog.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:46 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: Really? Then you would be surprised to find the Circuit Court to have considered otherwise.

Provide a quote where the Supreme Court has quoted and adopted Vattel’s thoery of citizenship.

Annie: I hope you like surprises.

Surprised that a birther makes a claim without supporting it? No real surprise there.

Annie: I’m done here.

Of course you are…make a series of unsupported claims, then run away.

Annie: I’ve given you all plenty to look into.

No. You made a bunch of unsupported claims, and ran away. Do you really think you’re the first birther to do that?

Annie: That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.

You mean like trying to argue with a birther?
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:46 pm Ballantine(Quote)

Annie: JoZeppy,“The Suprme Court has ever adopted Vattel’s citizenship theories.”Really? Then you would be surprised to find the Circuit Court to have considered otherwise.I hope you like surprises.I’m done here. I’ve given you all plenty to look into. I’m not here to debate with you. That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.

Still haven’t figured out that England could make everyone a dual citizen and we would have no one eligible to be President. Duh. really hard to believe that birthers never think of that.

Woodrow Wilson and probably Andrew Johnson were born British subjects under English statutes. I think Buchanan was too but the English law is very confusing on the subject. Others have made more definative lists here. No court has ever said dual citizenship is relevant and such notion was rejected in Wong Kim Ark. I assume you’ve never read Wong Kim Ark.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:49 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

misha: I am proud to say all 3 Stooges were Jewish.

And you have Orly too…..does she count as a stooge too?
Whatever4 says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:51 pm Whatever4(Quote)

For Annie, State eligibility cases:
Ankeny v. Daniels (Indiana)
Brockhausen v. Andrad (Texas)
Broe v. Reed (Washington State)
Connerat v. Obama (Florida)
Constitution Party v. Lingle (Hawaii)
Corbett v. Bowen (California)
Donofrio v Wells (New Jersey)
Fitzpatrick v. Obama (North Carolina)
In re John McCain’s Ineligibility to be on Presidential Primary Ballot in Pa. (Pennsylvania)
Keyes v. Bowen (California)
Lightfoot v. Bowen (California)
Marquis v. Reed (Washington)
Martin v. Bennett (Hawaii)
Martin v Lingle (Hawaii, several cases)
Neal v. Brunner (Ohio)
Schneller v. Cortes (Pennsylvania)
Sorensen v. Riley (Obama & McCain, Alabama)
Spuck v. Secretary of State (Ohio)
Stumpo v. Granholm (Michigan)
Strunk v. Patterson (New York)
Strunk v. NY State Board of Elections (New York)
Sullivan v. Secretary of State (North Carolina)
Sullivan v. Marshall (North Carolina)
Terry v. Handel (Georgia)
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Connecticut)

Thanks to the incomparable Tes!! http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:56 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Ballantine: Still haven’t figured out that England could make everyone a dual citizen and we would have no one eligible to be President. Duh. really hard to believe that birthers never think of that.

I’m still wondering where the phatom court that adopted Vatell’s definition is. But I’m guessing we won’t be getting answer for that one.
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 12:56 pm gorefan(Quote)

Annie: Those federal case were dismissed on technicalities (standing). The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.

Why wouldn’t these state cases be moved to Federal Courts?
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:02 pm misha(Quote)

JoZeppy: And you have Orly too…..does she count as a stooge too?

No, she’s an inadvertent clown – that doesn’t count. Plus, she’s a shande.

When I think of Orly and Berg, it reminds me of what my father, alev hashalom, always used to say: ‘There are plenty of stupid Jews. Look at your uncle Sid.’
Ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:04 pm Ballantine(Quote)

JoZeppy: I’m still wondering where the phatom court that adopted Vatell’s definition is. But I’m guessing we won’t be getting answer for that one.

I’m guessing she is misreading what the court actually said.
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:07 pm Daniel(Quote)

Annie: I’ve given you all plenty to look into.

What, do you think any of this is new material? Do you honestly suppose you’ve sprung some previously unknown or unexamined truths upon us?

Puh-leese

Look back and check out previous posts, and the FAQ (you do know what FAQ means right? Nothing new here folks just the same old tired questions), you’ll see you’re nothing special or new. You’re not a prophet of God, a voice crying in the wilderness. You’re just another birther hack wannabee who has read a few birther blogs and now thinks she knows the Constitution and history better than everyone else on the face of the earth.

Old news, Annie. Tired, pathetic, old news> I feel so very, very sorry for you.
Whatever4 says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:23 pm Whatever4(Quote)

Also for Annie: US Supreme Court Cert petitions denied:
Berg v. Obama et al (2 emergency stay applications dismissed, 1 Rule 11 Writ denied)
Beverly v. FEC (Writ denied)
Craig v. US (Rule 11 Writ denied)
Donofrio v Wells (Application for stay denied)
Herbert v. US, Obama, John Roberts (Writ denied)
Hollister v. Soetoro (Writ denied)
Kerchner et al v. Obama et al (Writ denied)
Lightfoot v. Bowen (Application for stay denied)
Rhodes v. MacDonald (Application for stay denied, Writ denied)
Schneller v. Cortes (Application for stay denied, Writ dismissed)
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Application for stay denied)

That’s 15 dismissals/denials, for those keeping score at home.
From the Birther Scorecard, updated TODAY by the amazing Tes!
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf
Majority Will says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:26 pm Majority Will(Quote)

All of our Presidents have, to date, been born in the 50 states. Notably, President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and so is clearly a natural born citizen.
– US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)

Who to believe? Anonymous Annie with zero authority or credibility or US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired)?

Since birthers are usually bigots and cowards and always wrong on U.S. law, I’ll go with US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired) and every other relevant authority who time and again have proven beyond any doubt that birthers are full of crap and living in a desperate and pathetic existence of heavy denial, bigotry and confirmation bias.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:32 pm Joey(Quote)

In addition to the Ronald Reagan appointed Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Conner, there is the former Republican Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle who said:
“You know, during the campaign of 2008, I was actually in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain. This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country. And so I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. And yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue. And I think it’s, again, a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this. … It’s been established. He was born here.”
Whatever4 says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm Whatever4(Quote)

JoZeppy: I’m still wondering where the phatom court that adopted Vatell’s definition is.But I’m guessing we won’t be getting answer for that one.

I suspect that since the rest of her arguments came from Leo and Mario, this one is the Apuzzo reading of Venus, Charming Betsy, Shanks v. Dupont, etc.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:56 pm Joey(Quote)

Birthers always forget that the Vatell theory of natural born citizenship has been before the US Supreme Court in appellants’ briefs for Justices’ Cert Conferences on a number of occasions: Hollister v Soetoro and Kerchner v Obama, just to name two, and there aren’t four Justices of the Robert Court who are interested enough to grant cert to any Obama eligibility appeal.
roadburner says:

September 1, 2011 at 1:57 pm roadburner(Quote)

Annie: Did I just imagine that I read the Court’s opinion in Minor? If you want to disagree with what the court said in Minor, I don’t have a problem with letting you do so, but to suggest that Donofrio’s claims have no historical substance is a complete denial of the facts.

did you actually READ minor, or just the birther abridged version?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:00 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Arguably Arthur opponent A. P. Hinman was a birther; however, he believed that President Arthur was born in Canada (not true) rather than objecting to Arthur’s non-citizen father.

In fact there were some who argued that George Washington was born in England rather than the accepted version that he was born in Virginia — noting that Virginia had not yet ratified the Constitution at the time it went into effect.

Thrifty: You mean in 1880 when Chester Arthur was elected Vice President? Funny that I didn’t hear about Birthers until 128 years later.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:08 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Your original comment is historically inaccurate. Birthers started with rumors that Obama was born in Kenya. It wasn’t until months later that they came up with the idea that a president’s parentage had any legal significance. In fact, many of the parental eligibility tribe that don’t subscribe to the “born in Kenya” theory resent being called birthers.

Annie: I have to wonder why you’ve got your panties in a wad. I explained why I think Birtherism appeared, and stated that I predict numerous challenges will be filed in the states. Now you’ve gone off on irrelevant tangents. Why?
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:18 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

There have been state cases lost or dismissed as well:

Keyes v Bowen
Donofrio v Wells
Ankeny v Daniels
Brockhausen v. Andrade
Broe v. Reed
Connerat v. Browning
Fitzpatrick v Obama
Justice v. Fuddy
Marquis v. Reed
Martin v Lingle
Neal v. Brunner
Spuck v. Secretary of State (Ohio)
Strunk v. Patterson et al
Sullivan v. Marshall
Terry v. Handel
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz

While a state case is more likely to be heard on the merits, there’s no chance of any of them winning.

Annie: Those federal case were dismissed on technicalities (standing). The state cases won’t be so easy to dismiss.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm Joey(Quote)

I always find it amazing that there are folks who cling to the dicta in a Supreme Court decision about women’s suffrage (Minor v Happersett) is evidence of anything significant.
I guess it just shows how little factual evidence there is on the birther side of the argument.
In any event, the Roberts Court isn’t interested and neither are any of the more than 150 judges and justices all across America who have had the opportunity to review legal briefs submitted in Obama eligibility lawsuits.
The judicial scorecard at last court was birthers; 0 legal victories/Obama 130 legal victories/ 3 lawsuits pending.
Obsolete says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:20 pm Obsolete(Quote)

Maybe Annie will be back after she looks for more birther crap and court cases she doesn’t understand to post here.
Minor? OMG! we’ve never heard THAT misinterpretation before!
Maybe Annie can tell us about the Pakistani travel ban and Obama’s grandmother on tape.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:29 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Joey: Birthers always forget that the Vatell theory of natural born citizenship has been before the US Supreme Court in appellants’ briefs for Justices’ Cert Conferences on a number of occasions: Hollister v Soetoro and Kerchner v Obama, just to name two, and there aren’t four Justices of the Robert Court who are interested enough to grant cert to any Obama eligibility appeal.

Not only could not get four justices interested enough to grant cert, they couldn’t get even one justice interested enough to ask for a response to the petition. Both times, Obama or DoJ waived the right to respond. Neither time did a justice request a response (just checked the docket to make sure). It only takes one justice to get a respondent to file an Opposition. It never happened.
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:33 pm gorefan(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: While a state case is more likely to be heard on the merits, there’s no chance of any of them winning.

IANAL – but it would seem to me that any state case will be against the various Secretaries of State. Those based on place of birth will be dosmissed because of the COLB/LFBC. Those based on two citizen parents will be moved to Federal Court and dismissed for lack of standing, unless brought by another Presidential candidate.

If I’m working for the President, I order 50 copies of my COLB and staple them to the different state’s nomination certificates just to get the ball rolling.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:38 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Let me step in here with a little clean up. Bayard was a Senator, not Secretary of State, at the time when he wrote his letter to A. P. Hinman, January 10, 1881.

The references from A. P. Hinman’s book are here:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/chester-a-arthur-rest-in-peace/

I think the Bayard letter strongly suggests that Hinman, who after all wrote a book about Arthur’s eligibility, knew all the details about his father’s naturalization. However, another strong case can be made that Hinman would not have cared about the father’s citizenship. One of the exhibits in Hinman’s book is this newspaper citation:

PRESIDENT ARTHUR’S MESSAGE SEVERELY CRITICIZED BY
A ST. PETERSBURG JOURNAL-EXCEPTION TAKEN TO
THE CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN RUSSIA.
(By cable to the Herald.)
London, December 12, 1881.

…Arthur even refrains from making comments
on English home affairs–the Irish rebellion, for instance,
which is agitating millions of American citizens, who are
also born Irishmen like the President.

and finally Hinman cites this:

City and County of New York, ss
Chester A. Arthur, being duly sworn, says he is a native born
citizen of the United States; that he is of the age of
twenty-one years, and a resident of the First Judicial District
of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
CHESTER A. ARTHUR.
Sworn to before me this 4th day of May, 1854.
WM. A. DUSENBERRY, Com. of Deeds.
Indorsed; filed May 8, 1854.
State of New York,
City and County of New York, \ ss
I, William A. Butler, Clerk of the said City and County,

Did Hinman consider “native born” sufficient? Yes, he did. The opening sentence of Hinman’s book says:

To the Citizens of the United States:

The Constitution of the United States requires that both the President and the Vice-President should be native born.

No one should be surprised that Hinman, a New York lawyer, had such an opinion because not too many years earlier, the Chancery Court of New York in Lynch v Clarke wrote that this was the “universal impression of the public mind.”

Before you dig yourself too deep into a hole do some reading, such as:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/natural-born-citizenship-primer/

Annie: “Arthur P. Hinman knew that Chester Arthur’s father was not a citizen until after Arthur was born.”

Please provide a link to support this. To the best of my knowledge, Bayard (the SoS to whom you refer) considered the child of a German immigrant, born on U,S. soil, was NOT a U.S. citizen. I have a hard time believing that Bayard would have had a different view just because the father was an Irishman.

“Let me ask you this: if “Natural Born Citizen” has always been 2 citizen parents, then why didn’t Arthur P. Hinman, who was hired to basically keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency, not use verifiable proof of this to keep Arthur out of the Vice Presidency? Where’s your evidence that Hinman ever brought it up and tried to use that to keep Arthur out?”

Where did you come up with the 2 citizen requirement? I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence of Hinman’s knowledge regarding the citizenship status of Arthur’s father. Once you do that we can discuss how he used this alleged proof.
Whatever4 says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:38 pm Whatever4(Quote)

Annie:
JoZeppy,

FYI: Chester Arthur cared about a person’s parentage (in terms of their citizenship status) when born. I suggest you brush up on history. I’ll even give you a hint. Read Chester Arthur’s State of the Union Addresses. I think you’ll be very surprised by what you find.

I’m in a researching mood today, so here’s what Arthur said in his third SOTU (1884):

Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. Those sections relating to persons residing within the limits of the United States in 1795 and 1798 have now only a historical interest. Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is ambiguous in its terms and partly obsolete. There are special provisions of law favoring the naturalization of those who serve in the Army or in merchant vessels, while no similar privileges are granted those who serve in the Navy or the Marine Corps.

“An uniform rule of naturalization” such as the Constitution contemplates should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power (section 1992) and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens but have failed to perfect their naturalization. It might be wise to provide for a central bureau of registry, wherein should be filed authenticated transcripts of every record of naturalization in the several Federal and State courts, and to make provision also for the vacation or cancellation of such record in cases where fraud had been practiced upon the court by the applicant himself or where he had renounced or forfeited his acquired citizenship. A just and uniform law in this respect would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting its citizens abroad and would pave the way for the conclusion of treaties of naturalization with foreign countries. State of the Union Address: Chester A. Arthur (December 1, 1884) http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/96.html#ixzz1Wj1LzfHs

Section 2172 is:
“children of persons who now are, or have been, citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof . . . .”

Section 1992 is:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Nothing earth-shattering.
Daniel says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:41 pm Daniel(Quote)

Why do birthers always treat the concept of “standing” like it’s just some legal technicality that judges use when they don’t want to deal with something?
Sef says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:46 pm Sef(Quote)

john: It is established fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan Citizen making Obama NOT an NBC

Maybe he’s a CBS instead.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:48 pm Joey(Quote)

JoZeppy: Not only could not get four justices interested enough to grant cert, they couldn’t get even one justice interested enough to ask for a response to the petition.Both times, Obama or DoJ waived the right to respond.Neither time did a justice request a response (just checked the docket to make sure).It only takes one justice to get a respondent to file an Opposition.It never happened.

You are exactly right. There have been 11 Obama eligibility applications or petitions at the Supreme Court and not one of them has made the “discuss” list. Meaning ZERO Justices interested.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:50 pm Joey(Quote)

Daniel:
Why do birthers always treat the concept of “standing” like it’s just some legal technicality that judges use when they don’t want to deal with something?

I always refer to it by its full and proper title “Article III standing” to counter their attempt at minimization. Because they lose everytime, they attempt to denigrate the reason for their defeats.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:54 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

And how, pray tell, do you know that? Are you like a vampire that has lived for hundreds of years? Do you use a Ouija board? You admit you haven’t scoured the Wikipedia. So exactly where does this historical assertion come from?

Annie: I happen to know that the citizenship status of Chester Arthur’s father was not made public.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 2:59 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

The Chancery Court of New York said both that US-born children of alien fathers were natural born citizens and eligible to be President, and that this was the general opinion of the legal profession. Since Chester A. Arthur was a lawyer from New York, it is hard to argue that he was not of the same opinion.

Annie: Do you think Arthur would consider the citizenship of those children who were born on U.S. soil to fathers who had not yet become citizens to be unsettled, yet still consider them to be natural-born citizens? The mere proposition is ludicrous.
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:02 pm gorefan(Quote)

Daniel: Why do birthers always treat the concept of “standing” like it’s just some legal technicality that judges use when they don’t want to deal with something?

For the same reason that birthers like Annie will dismiss cases like Ankeny or Lynch because they are not Supreme Court Cases, but will get all excited over a Circuit Court case.

Or dismiss the dicta in Wong Kim Ark but hold fast to the dicta in Minor v. Happersett.

It suits their purposes and they are hypocrites.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:04 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Because despite Obama’s book Dreams from My Father was a runaway bestseller nobody read it?

Steve: Yes, Obama made it known that his father was not a U.S. citizen and nobody brought up this idea that he was not a natural-born citizen during the 2008 election.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:07 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

So, are you arguing that John Jay intended to say that George Washington, whose father died a British subject, was not a suitable commander in chief?

Annie: I ask this because Jonh [sic] Jay suggested that the Commander in Chief be only given to a natural-born citizen. Jay did not say President or Executive. His letter refered to the command [sic] in chief of the army.
jayHG says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm jayHG(Quote)

roadburner: BTW annie, he wasn´t the first president to have a non-u.s. citizen parent. do try to keep up.

Annie’s a birther – reeping up is their short suit……
jayHG says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm jayHG(Quote)

jayHG: Annie’s a birther – reeping up is their short suit……

I mean “keeping” up………typing tooooooo fast.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:10 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

Nearly all of them.

Annie: What Cert petitions were not responded to?
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm gorefan(Quote)

Annie: I stated that I believe the reason Birtherism came into existence was due to Obama being the first President to have made it known to the public that his father was not a citizen.

And the first lawsuits were against then-presidential candidate Obama. The rest of the lawsuits are just opportunists jumping on those bandwagons in the hope of cashing in.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:32 pm Joey(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
Nearly all of them.

I think we have a semantic issue here. All the Cert Petitions of birthers were responded to with a denial of the requested Wrt of Certiorari.
The Supreme Court can have two responses to a Petition for a Writ of Certioari: grant the petition or deny the petition. Every birther petition has been denied without comment.
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 3:59 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Joey: I think we have a semantic issue here. All the Cert Petitions of birthers were responded to with a denial of the requested Wrt of Certiorari.The Supreme Court can have two responses to a Petition for a Writ of Certioari: grant the petition or deny the petition. Every birther petition has been denied without comment.

The response in question here isn’t the response of the SCOTUS, but rather that of the respondent. When a party files a petition for writ (the petitioner), the other party (the respondent) has the option of filing a response (an opposition), or waiving the right to respond, unless the Court requests one. It only takes one Justice to get a respodent to file his Opposition. If the Court never requests a response, it means you are 100% assured that the Court will deny cert, since they were so unconvinced with the petitioner’s cert petition, they they don’t need to hear an opposition to decide they won’t be granting cert. In all the birther suits that I am aware of, the respodant waived their response, and the Court never requested an Opposition.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 4:20 pm Joey(Quote)

JoZeppy: The response in question here isn’t the response of the SCOTUS, but rather that of the respondent.When a party files a petition for writ (the petitioner), the other party (the respondent) has the option of filing a response (an opposition), or waiving the right to respond, unless the Court requests one.It only takes one Justice to get a respodent to file his Opposition.If the Court never requests a response, it means you are 100% assured that the Court will deny cert, since they were so unconvinced with the petitioner’s cert petition, they they don’t need to hear an opposition to decide they won’t be granting cert.In all the birther suits that I am aware of, the respodant waived their response, and the Court never requested an Opposition.

You are correct, sir and add to that no Justice has requested responses from the Solicitor General either.
Rickey says:

September 1, 2011 at 4:29 pm Rickey(Quote)

Joey: You are correct, sir and add to that no Justice has requested responses from the Solicitor General either.

You know that the birther legal arguments have no legs when not even Clarence Thomas sees any merit in them.
G says:

September 1, 2011 at 4:41 pm G(Quote)

??? Your comment makes no sense. This blog has a specific topic and is very clear about that. The blog posts here deal with the Birther conspiracies about Barack Obama.

This is not a political news site. This is not a general news site either.

Therefore, some minor story about some non-close relative of his, who’s gotten themselves into trouble doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of this blog.

Nor does it have any real relevance or reflection upon Barack H. Obama II himself, other than the detail that this is one of many people related to him by blood on his father’s side.

Same as how issues of various family members of past president’s got themselves in trouble (lots of other drunk stories there). A minor splash in the general news for a bit, but no meaningful nor relevant connection to that President, other than the tidbit that they were related.

Bottom line. Nobody here cares about his uncle Omar, nor does it have any relevance to anything dealt with on this blog.

Donate to Omar: Maybe you could donate to Uncle Omar’s defense fund?How come you haven’t reported that story?
Donate to Omar says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:14 pm Donate to Omar(Quote)

If I recall didn’t this site report on the aunt’s case?
Donate to Omar says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:17 pm Donate to Omar(Quote)

Two family members of Obama being in America illegally with social security numbers has a lot to do with Obama. I understand you would like it not to though.
Donate to Omar says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:19 pm Donate to Omar(Quote)

The Boston Globe and many other mainstream media outlets are making a connection.
Scientist says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:21 pm Scientist(Quote)

Who is Omar and why should I donate to him? I’d rather help flood victims around where I live; is that wrong?
Scientist says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:34 pm Scientist(Quote)

Annie: In terms of Commander in Chief; What would be the difference if the Commander in Chief were captured during battle by…let’s say.. the Germans…If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?

This is a very silly example, since if an enemy were to capture the President in a war, the Vice President would assume office under the 25th Amendment. The enemy would presumably hold the President for ransom and any other citizenships he might be entitled to would be quite irrelevant.

You are also ignoring the fact that naturalization in the US does not generally result in loss of other citizenships one might hold. So, German-born persons who naturalize in the US might well retain German citizenship and pass that on to their children (it is entirely a matter of German law). Such laws might even apply to grandparents and earlier generations of ancestors. In fact, if Leo Donofrio’s parents or even grandparents (one or both) were born in Italy, Leo is likely a dual Italian/US citizen, even if they naturalized.
Joey says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:44 pm Joey(Quote)

Ol’ “Donate to Omar” is trying to use the “guilt by association” ploy!

When George W. Bush’s brother and George H.W. Bush’s son Neil Bush was caught with two teenage prostitutes in Bangkok, Thailand, nobody donated to help poor Neil.

No one donated to Neil when he was caught up in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal. either.

Omar is on his own. So was Neil. They’re both adults who made their own beds to lie in.
Rickey says:

September 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm Rickey(Quote)

Donate to Omar:
Two family members of Obama being in America illegally with social security numbers has a lot to do with Obama. I understand you would like it not to though.

There is nothing unusual about non-citizens having Social Security Numbers. There is nothing in the story of Obama’s uncle which suggests that he entered the country illegally. He probably became illegal at some point for overstaying his visa. However, he would have been eligible to receive a SSN if he was authorized to work in the U.S. while he was still a legal resident. In fact, he had to have a SSN in order to work in the U.S.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10096.html#3
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 6:01 pm gorefan(Quote)

Donate to Omar: Two family members of Obama being in America illegally with social security numbers has a lot to do with Obama. I understand you would like it not to though.

Timothy McVeigh had a couple of sisters. Using your logic they must be terroists too. Right. LOL

Birthers are so delusional.
Rickey says:

September 1, 2011 at 6:03 pm Rickey(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy:
So, are you arguing that John Jay intended to say that George Washington, whose father died a British subject, was not a suitable commander in chief?

Not to mention that George Washington fought with the British Army during the French & Indian War.
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 6:43 pm gorefan(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy: So, are you arguing that John Jay intended to say that George Washington, whose father died a British subject, was not a suitable commander in chief?

The birther position is clear on this – they believe that Jay expected the country to wait for someone born after July 4th, 1776 to grow up and become CIC. Until such a time, the position would be vacant. LOL
Keith says:

September 1, 2011 at 6:49 pm Keith(Quote)

JoZeppy: And you have Orly too…..does she count as a stooge too?

No. The Stooges had talent.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 1, 2011 at 7:46 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

I mentioned Zeituni Onyango’s comment about Donald Trump’s allegations that the President was born in Kenya, and an allegation that she was really the President’s mother (she was 9 years old in 1961).

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/tag/zeituni-onyango/

Donate to Omar: If I recall didn’t this site report on the aunt’s case?
Annie says:

September 1, 2011 at 8:48 pm Annie(Quote)

Dr. Conspiracy & scientist,

You both were touching on the same issue.

To answer Dr. Conspiracy’s question regarding the eligibility of Washington: I think Jay would have preferred that Washington not hold that position (for the reasons I explore below). However, they were planning for the future. It is not unusual to provide for a less desirable candidate in the interim (as evidence by the exception demonstrates they did).

As Dr. Conspiracy and I agree, John Jay would not have been privy to the events of the Constitutional Convention. We need to limit this to what Jay would have likely believed would be provided for at the Convention. There is no reason to believe that the role of commander in chief would have been anything more than a minor role, completely outside of the administration of our government.

At no other time had the President, or Chief Executive, and the Commander in Chief fallen upon the same hands, at the same time. Knowing this to be the case, there is no reason to believe that John Jay would have suggested that the President be a natural-born citizen; his suggestion was distinguished to only the commander in chief. (Most people fail to read Jay’s letter closely enough to identify the distinction; Hence the reason they think natural-born citizen had something to do with foreign influence.)

If we look at Jay’s letter to Washington, we see two separate things being discussed. The first is that Jay doesn’t think the administration of our government should be placed in the hands of foreigners. He wanted to avoid foreign influence. That was easily resolved by requiring that only citizens hold those positions. The second thing addressed by Jay is the commander in chief (Not the presidency or the office of the chief executive; those were not mentioned.).

As previously stated, prior to the end of the Constitutional Convention, the role of commander in chief of the army and navy had been a role separate from that of the Chief Executive (President). John Jay himself was President of the Continental Congress, but had never been the commander in chief. George Washington was commander in chief of the Continental Army, but never the President of the Continental Congress.

With this knowledge, we need to look at Jay’s “suggestion” as it applies to the commander in chief from a strictly military standpoint, and examine the potential pitfalls. It was separate and distinct from that of the administration of our government, but the position also meant that the person serving in that role would be liable to capture.

As I would hope most of your readers are aware, no government has to accept a renouncement of allegiance. (Most of this is done according to treaty, but that’s another story for another time.) That allegiance (sometimes recognized to be perpetual) can even pass a generation by blood. (There is a difference between permitting foreign-born descendants to acquire citizenship, and the duty of owing allegiance though born abroad.)

In jus soli jurisdictions (as the U.S. is recognized to be) the citizenship of a person born on U.S. soil is considered to be presumptive. I say presumptive because, as we all know, not everyone born on U,S, soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. Only when the parents (yes -plural) are citizens themselves, is the citizenship of the child considered to be conclusive.

This has nothing to do with trust in the commander in chief. It has to do with the potential for capture when engaged in war abroad or from onboard a ship. Until the President and the role of Commander in Chief fell into the hands of the same person, for the first time, the normal place to find the commander in chief during time of war was with the troops. Jay would have known that, and only that. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than keeping the position of commander in chief out of the hands of naturalized citizens for any other reason.

Scientist,

Please limit your considerations to those put in place at the Constitutional Convention. Provisions provided by later Amendment will confuse the issue. As will the suggestion of holding the President hostage in exchange for ransom. We’re talking about the commander in chief, serving in only that role.
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:05 pm misha(Quote)

john: Obama can never be eligible because he’s not an NBC.

Sef: Maybe he’s a CBS instead.

Maybe ABC, or PBS, or NPR, or CNN, or CSPAN. Maybe M.O.U.S.E.
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:10 pm gorefan(Quote)

Annie: I say presumptive because, as we all know, not everyone born on U,S, soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. Only when the parents (yes -plural) are citizens themselves, is the citizenship of the child considered to be conclusive.

Of course there is William Rawle,

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”

A view of the Constitution, 1829
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:27 pm misha(Quote)

misha: I am proud to say all 3 Stooges were Jewish.

JoZeppy: And you have Orly too…..does she count as a stooge too?

Keith: No. The Stooges had talent.

Also, the Stooges were all completely sane.
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:33 pm misha(Quote)

misha: I am proud to say all 3 Stooges were Jewish.

Also, Larry Fine was from Philly. He has a grandson who is Afro-Judeo, as is Maya Rudolph.
ballantine says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:41 pm ballantine(Quote)

Annie:
Dr. Conspiracy & scientist,

You both were touching on the same issue.

To answer Dr. Conspiracy’s question regarding the eligibility of Washington: I think Jay would have preferred that Washington not hold that position (for the reasons I explore below). However, they were planning for the future. It is not unusual to provide for a less desirable candidate in the interim (as evidence by the exception demonstrates they did).

As Dr. Conspiracy and I agree, John Jay would not have been privy to the events of the Constitutional Convention. We need to limit this to what Jay would have likely believed would be provided for at the Convention. There is no reason to believe that the role of commander in chief would have been anything more than a minor role, completely outside of the administration of our government.

At no other time had the President, or Chief Executive, and the Commander in Chief fallen upon the same hands, at the same time. Knowing this to be the case, there is no reason to believe that John Jay would have suggested that the President be a natural-born citizen; his suggestion was distinguished to only the commander in chief. (Most people fail to read Jay’s letter closely enough to identify the distinction; Hence the reason they think natural-born citizen had something to do with foreign influence.)

If we look at Jay’s letter to Washington, we see two separate things being discussed. The first is that Jay doesn’t think the administration of our government should be placed in the hands of foreigners.He wanted to avoid foreign influence. That was easily resolved by requiring that only citizens hold those positions. The second thing addressed by Jay is the commander in chief (Not the presidency or the office of the chief executive; those were not mentioned.).

As previously stated, prior to the end of the Constitutional Convention, the role of commander in chief of the army and navy had been a role separate from that of the Chief Executive (President). John Jay himself was President of the Continental Congress, but had never been the commander in chief. George Washington was commander in chief of the Continental Army, but never the President of the Continental Congress.

With this knowledge, we need to look at Jay’s “suggestion” as it applies to the commander in chief from a strictly military standpoint, and examine the potential pitfalls. It was separate and distinct from that of the administration of our government, but the position also meant that the person serving in that role would be liable to capture.

As I would hope most of your readers are aware, no government has to accept a renouncement of allegiance. (Most of this is done according to treaty, but that’s another story for another time.) That allegiance (sometimes recognized to be perpetual) can even pass a generation by blood. (There is a difference between permitting foreign-born descendants to acquire citizenship, and the duty of owing allegiance though born abroad.)

In jus soli jurisdictions (as the U.S. is recognized to be) the citizenship of a person born on U.S. soil is considered to be presumptive. I say presumptive because, as we all know, not everyone born on U,S, soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. Only when the parents (yes -plural) are citizens themselves, is the citizenship of the child considered to be conclusive.

This has nothing to do with trust in the commander in chief. It has to do with the potential for capture when engaged in war abroad or from onboard a ship. Until the President and the role of Commander in Chief fell into the hands of the same person, for the first time, the normal place to find the commander in chief during time of war was with the troops. Jay would have known that, and only that. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than keeping the position of commander in chief out of the hands of naturalized citizens for any other reason.

Scientist,

Please limit your considerations to those put in place at the Constitutional Convention. Provisions provided by later Amendment will confuse the issue. As will the suggestion of holding the President hostage in exchange for ransom. We’re talking about the commander in chief, serving in only that role.

Gibberish. Jay didn’t define who is natural born. He didn’t say what would be a “strong check.” Jay says nothing about foreign influence. “Foreigners” in the Constituional Convention meant “foreign born” as they were distinguished from “natives.” But, of course, you have never read the debates from the Constitutional Convention. Claiming he supports you is just stupid.

There is no authority any framer thought that one needs citizen parents so your saying so without citing authority is simply another unsupported assertion. Any country could change its law of allegiance to claim any of our Presidents owe allegiance to them. Is that really that hard to understand? Under our laws, they owe allegaince to us. We have never card about the laws of other nations.

You are simply making up a hypothical that Jay never suggests and claiming a definition that Jay never suggests. I guess all you can do is make stuff up as you can cite no actual authority to support your nonsense.
Majority Will says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:43 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Annie: I’m done here. I’ve given you all plenty to look into. I’m not here to debate with you. That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.

You lied.

“I say presumptive because, as we all know, not everyone born on U,S, soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. Only when the parents (yes -plural) are citizens themselves, is the citizenship of the child considered to be conclusive.”

You’re wrong, birther. You have no idea what you’re babbling about.

And you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Scientist says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:45 pm Scientist(Quote)

Annie: In jus soli jurisdictions (as the U.S. is recognized to be) the citizenship of a person born on U.S. soil is considered to be presumptive. I say presumptive because, as we all know, not everyone born on U,S, soil is a U.S. citizen at birth.

Tommyrot!! Anyone born in the US, except for the children of foreign diplomats is and was always considered a US citizen. If that was not the case, there would be cases of people born in the US who were naturalized. And there are none. If you disppute that, show me such a case. Go ahead, i dare you

Annie: Please limit your considerations to those put in place at the Constitutional Convention

No. i won’t Please go away. You probably won’t do what I ask, so why should i do what you ask? Interpreting the Constitution without its amendments is llike drinking a beer without bubbles. So is reading your nonsense.

Your ridiculous “idea” about “capturing the Commander in chief” has neither practiical relevance nor any legal validity.. A foreign nation that captured the US President would treat him as they saw fit, whatever dual citizenships he held. Each country is free to consider whomever they wish as citizens. The fact that Italy might well consider your heroes Donofrio and Apuzzo to be Italian citizens doesn’t make them any less US citizens. Despite Italian law, they are eligible for the Presidency (until such time as an amendment is passed disqualifying fools). So is Obama (the fool amendment would not affect him).
gorefan says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:46 pm gorefan(Quote)

ballantine: “Foreigners” in the Constituional Convention meant “foreign born” as they were distinguished from “natives.”

The problem with people like Annie is that they don’t realize that to the 18th century mind place of birth determined allegiance.
Rickey says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:47 pm Rickey(Quote)

Annie:

Please limit your considerations to those put in place at the Constitutional Convention.

Perhaps you should follow your own suggestion, You go on and on about your dubious interpretation of what John Jay meant, yet there is no evidence that Jay’s letter to George Washington had any influence whatsoever upon the Constitutional Convention.

If you can cite a single history, civics, or legal textbook which states that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents, please do so. Then we will have something to discuss. The reality is that it wasn’t until Leo Donofrio resurrected Emerich de Vattel from obscurity that anyone had heard of the two-citizen parent requirement. Ironically, even Vattel never said that both parents must be citizens. One of the contributors here, Lupin, is a French attorney and he attributes that belief to a mistranslation of Vattel. When Jerome Corsi wrote “The Obama Nation” he knew that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, yet in that book Corsi never mentioned that it disqualified Obama from being eligible to be President. When did Corsi learn about the two-citizen parent requirement?
Rickey says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:55 pm Rickey(Quote)

Scientist:

Your ridiculous “idea” about “capturing the Commander in chief” has neither practiical relevance nor any legal validity..A foreign nation that captured the US President would treat him as they saw fit, whatever dual citizenships he held. Each country is free to consider whomever they wish as citizens.

And the British very nearly captured President James Madison in 1814. Madison, of course, was a British citizen at birth, so who knows how the British would have treated him?
Scientist says:

September 1, 2011 at 9:59 pm Scientist(Quote)

I’m STILL trying to parse this idiocy about “capturing the President”. Let’s say during World War II the Germans had grabbed FDR’s ship bound for Yalta. Effectively, once captured he would cease to be Commander in Chief, since any order he gave would have to be assumed to be under duress from his captors. So the Vice President would have taken over.
Now suppose that the Germans decided to claim that since FDR had Dutch heritage and they had captured Holland, they were going to consider him a German citizen. I fail to see what difference that would make. Is our poster going to claim that the US would have had to cease the war and sue Germany for peace? Under what twisted logic would that have been the case?
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:00 pm misha(Quote)

Annie: I’m not here to debate with you. That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.

Well, “Annie,” I doubt you are female. I say you are a man. See here:

http://www.ricklatona.com/wpcontent/uploads/2008/12/picresized_1229584137_youreadog1.gif
JoZeppy says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:02 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Annie: In jus soli jurisdictions (as the U.S. is recognized to be) the citizenship of a person born on U.S. soil is considered to be presumptive. I say presumptive because, as we all know, not everyone born on U,S, soil is a U.S. citizen at birth. Only when the parents (yes -plural) are citizens themselves, is the citizenship of the child considered to be conclusive.

I suppose this is the kind of thing one writes when they aren’t bound by things like providing binding legal precident for their statements. But you’ve already established that you’re pretty good at making statements without providing any authority to support them. The rest of your missive is equally unconvincing in that it is purely conjecture. Not just unsupported conjecture, but three layers of it. What you think John Jay meant, when he used a term her didn’t define, and what you think George Washington then understood that letter to mean, and how you think the Constitutional Convention understood what Washington may have conveyed, is pretty much worthless in trying to establish the meaning of the phrase. Particularly when contrasted with it’s clear history of use in the common law. Taking that long trip of pure unsupported guesses of what may have been going on in the minds of the founding fathers over 200 years ago is not going to win many court cases….but losing court cases is what birthers do best..
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:05 pm misha(Quote)

misha:
Annie: I’m not here to debate with you. That would be like getting into a pissing contest while letting the other side control the wind.

Well, “Annie,” I doubt you are female. I say you are a man. See here:

That link is broken. This one works:
http://chrisabraham.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nobodyknowsyoureadogontheinternet.jpg
Scientist says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:10 pm Scientist(Quote)

Rickey: Ironically, even Vattel never said that both parents must be citizens

The law of Vattel’s home country, Switzerland, requires ONE parent be a citizen. I have been unable to find any country on Earth that requires BOTH parents to be citiizens. Perhaps there is one on Annie’s home planet.
misha says:

September 1, 2011 at 10:59 pm misha(Quote)

Scientist: Perhaps there is one on Annie’s home planet.

I checked with the Galactic laws; anyone born on any planet can be president of Mars. That’s “Annie’s” home planet.
Whatever4 says:

September 2, 2011 at 1:46 am Whatever4(Quote)

gorefan: The birther position is clear on this – they believe that Jay expected the country to wait for someone born after July 4th, 1776 to grow up and become CIC.Until such a time, the position would be vacant. LOL

Found this in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1858) while I was arguing with Jedi Pauly over on NBC’s site:

NATIVES. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered as natives.

2. Natives will be classed into those born before the declaration of our independence, and those born since.

3. – 1. All persons, without regard to the place of their birth, who were born before the declaration of independence, who were in the country at the time it was made, and who yielded a deliberate assent to it, either express or implied, as by remaining in the country, are considered as natives. Those persons who were born within the colonies, and before the declaration of independence, removed into another part of the British dominions, and did not return prior to the peace, would not probably be considered natives, but aliens.
gorefan says:

September 2, 2011 at 2:09 am gorefan(Quote)

Whatever4: while I was arguing with Jedi Pauly over on NBC’s site:

Funny thing about Jedi, Mario is convinced he is an undercover Obot.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/08/jedi-pauly-false-flag-obot.html
Keith says:

September 2, 2011 at 7:43 am Keith(Quote)

Rickey: Ironically, even Vattel never said that both parents must be citizens.

I refer you to The Oatmeal.

And yes I get the irony of the last few ‘paragraphs’ in the link.
Paul Pieniezny says:

September 2, 2011 at 8:13 am Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

Annie: If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?

You haven’t been around much, right? Ever he
Paul Pieniezny says:

September 2, 2011 at 8:31 am Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

Annie: If the Germans could establish a claim of allegiance upon him, versus a Commander in Chief with whom they could not lay claim?

You haven’t been around much, right? Ever heard of Dwight, pardon me, David Eisenhower?

You ARE indeed moving the goalposts. That argument switches it from “born to a foreign parent” to “having dual citizenship at birth”.

There is no way that could be an argument for ineligibility, because there were simply too many US presidents born with dual citizenship.

Since you talk about Germans, Eisenhower was definitely considered German at birth by German law, and so probably was Martin Van Buren (since he was born before Holland left the German Empire).

Of course, Ike did not do any presidenting while German, because he lost German citizenship or any right to it when he joined the US army. Around the same age as when Obama lost Kenyan citizenship, by the way. Thomas Jefferson did do some presidenting while French, and unlike the Huguenot presidents he actually accepted French citizenship and used it when in France.

So, what is more troublesome; a foreign citizenship accidentally acquired at birth and later lost, or a foreign citizenship actively sought for?

Since you are a birther, I happen to know your answer, of course.

Oh, and think of how North Korea could influence US elections by bestowing North Korean citizenship all candidates except the one they want to win.
Paul Pieniezny says:

September 2, 2011 at 8:35 am Paul Pieniezny(Quote)

Scientist: Anyone born in the US, except for the children of foreign diplomats is and was always considered a US citizen. If that was not the case, there would be cases of people born in the US who were naturalized. And there are none. If you disppute that, show me such a case.

Oh, but I know a case of someone who was born in the United States, and was later naturalized a US citizen.

Annieis not going to like it, however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
Sef says:

September 2, 2011 at 9:54 am Sef(Quote)

Paul Pieniezny: Oh, but I know a case of someone who was born in the United States, and was later naturalized a US citizen.

Annieis not going to like it, however:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya

There’s that silly “jurisdiction” thing.
bob jones says:

September 2, 2011 at 11:31 am bob jones(Quote)

So this is a thread fail; here is my ( tongue in cheek) argument.

“…, or a Citizen of the United States,…” is an enclosed parenthetic expression set between two commas.

This means that “…, at the Adoption of this Constitution,…” is the main clause.

Thus only the first 9 plus Zachary Taylor are eligible.

What is non-birther equivalent to Fogblow?

Apologies to the 1857 justice who was quoted here a few days ago, as well as Struck and White.

Great site
Ballantine says:

September 2, 2011 at 11:59 am Ballantine(Quote)

bob jones: So this is a thread fail; here is my ( tongue in cheek) argument.“…, or a Citizen of the United States,…” is an enclosed parenthetic expression set between two commas.This means that “…, at the Adoption of this Constitution,…” is the main clause.Thus only the first 9 plus Zachary Taylor are eligible.What is non-birther equivalent to Fogblow?Apologies to the 1857 justice who was quoted here a few days ago, as well as Struck and White.Great site

There is a whole law review article that points out the punctuation makes clear that no one today is eligible. Somewhat tongue and check.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/takingtextandstructurereallyseriously.pdf
JoZeppy says:

September 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Saw an interesting exchange on Mad Orly’s site…seems Orly isn’t amused by Sven’s theories either:

ShapeShipper
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:29 am
Unfortunately, there are numerous misconceptions about Social Security. For example, Obama has a SSN from a state where he has never lived.

In the Federal Foster Care system, the Foster Care child is considered to be a resident of the state/county that has court jurisdiction over the child’s care and control.

Federal regulations allow the court to delegate care and control to caretakers. As a result, caretaker relatives may reside in a county or state other than the one with jurisdiction.

Obama returned to the US as an unaccompanied minor with Indonesian citizenship in 1971. Consequently, he legally resided in Connecticut when his SS-5 was filed, but actually lived in Hawai’i.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am
that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
Daniel says:

September 2, 2011 at 2:46 pm Daniel(Quote)

JoZeppy:
Saw an interesting exchange on Mad Orly’s site…seems Orly isn’t amused by Sven’s theories either:

ShapeShipper
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:29 am
Unfortunately, there are numerous misconceptions about Social Security. For example, Obama has a SSN from a state where he has never lived.

In the Federal Foster Care system, the Foster Care child is considered to be a resident of the state/county that has court jurisdiction over the child’s care and control.

Federal regulations allow the court to delegate care and control to caretakers. As a result, caretaker relatives may reside in a county or state other than the one with jurisdiction.

Obama returned to the US as an unaccompanied minor with Indonesian citizenship in 1971. Consequently, he legally resided in Connecticut when his SS-5 was filed, but actually lived in Hawai’i.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am
that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

Orly demanding proof. That’s hilarious!
aarrgghh says:

September 2, 2011 at 3:41 pm aarrgghh(Quote)

now i’ve seen everything — schooled by the nitrous queen. not an ounce of cred from one of the most self-deluded and gullible loons on the planet. now that is what i call an epic-f*cking-fail. in fact it’s a meta-fail: sven is a fool who can’t fool a fool.

JoZeppy:
seems Orly isn’t amused by Sven’s theories either:

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am
that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
Rickey says:

September 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm Rickey(Quote)

JoZeppy:
Saw an interesting exchange on Mad Orly’s site…seems Orly isn’t amused by Sven’s theories either:

Wow, a spasm of sanity!
Critical Thinker says:

September 2, 2011 at 6:31 pm Critical Thinker(Quote)

Orly doesn’t take too kindly to conspiracy theories about Obama being a naturalized Indonesian citizen because that is Phil Berg’s shtick. Whatever Phil Berg likes, Orly doesn’t. That’s just how she rolls.
JoZeppy says:

September 2, 2011 at 7:40 pm JoZeppy(Quote)

Critical Thinker: Orly doesn’t take too kindly to conspiracy theories about Obama being a naturalized Indonesian citizen because that is Phil Berg’s shtick. Whatever Phil Berg likes, Orly doesn’t. That’s just how she rolls.

I think Orly just refuses to accept that there is even the vague possibility that President Obama has a legitimate SSN, and hasn’t stolen the SSN of some man she can’t identify that was born in 1890. That would force her to admit her whole identity theft schtick is an utter waste of time, and God forbid, something about President Obama that wouldn’t be criminal.
gorefan says:

September 2, 2011 at 9:07 pm gorefan(Quote)

Over at ORYR – apparently there is an NPR interview in which General Colin Powel turns down the rigged Birther Summit meeting.
bob jones says:

September 2, 2011 at 9:23 pm bob jones(Quote)

I love Dr. Taitz.

She is the train wreck version of smart crazy women I knew in High School and College.

I have much respect for anyone who passes the bar with an online degree.

That was probably her greatest day, and with that out of the way;

Her website is a mess. The posters do not seem informed by anyone but her, and the other 20 delusional posters. They never seemed more dangerous, or sinister, than later angry Daffy Duck.

But, I recently read some really disturbing posts about Marc Rubio and Bobby Jindhal.

My question and concern is; how can an immigrant be so xenophobic and racist? Do her followers believe she is a true America and patriot because she is white?

How dangerous are the birthers?
Majority Will says:

September 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm Majority Will(Quote)

bob jones: My question and concern is; how can an immigrant be so xenophobic and racist? Do her followers believe she is a true America and patriot because she is white?

Like many birthers, they’re not in touch with reality.

For example here is a post on Orly’s Facebook page from one of her ardent supporters:

“As an Orthodox Christian, I value your courage in the face of our worsening lawlessness in the courts. II Thess 2 “when that which restrains (lawful governing) is removed then the Lawless one (antichrist) will appear”. We are surely close to this time. God bless and many, many years for your birthday celebration (belatedly)! Matushka Irene”

Since Orly is Jewish, perhaps this devotee of Orly’s should ask Orly’s take on the antichrist, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians or of any matters of Christianity and more specifically Orly’s belief in Jesus.

(source: https://www.facebook.com/dr.orly.taitz)
ShapeShipper says:

September 2, 2011 at 11:48 pm ShapeShipper(Quote)

JoZeppy:
Saw an interesting exchange on Mad Orly’s site…seems Orly isn’t amused by Sven’s theories either:

ShapeShipper
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:29 am
Unfortunately, there are numerous misconceptions about Social Security. For example, Obama has a SSN from a state where he has never lived.

In the Federal Foster Care system, the Foster Care child is considered to be a resident of the state/county that has court jurisdiction over the child’s care and control.

Federal regulations allow the court to delegate care and control to caretakers. As a result, caretaker relatives may reside in a county or state other than the one with jurisdiction.

Obama returned to the US as an unaccompanied minor with Indonesian citizenship in 1971. Consequently, he legally resided in Connecticut when his SS-5 was filed, but actually lived in Hawai’i.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am
that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming

You people are obsessive.

If anyone is interested … GOOGLE federal foster care unaccompanied minor jurisdiction

Although Obama lived in Hawai’i, he legally resided in Connecticut as a permanent resident alien from 1971 to the age of majority. His grandmother was appointed as his delegated caretaker.
aarrgghh says:

September 3, 2011 at 12:46 am aarrgghh(Quote)

somebody must know a babe or drunkard that’ll take sven seriously. the poor soul sounds quite lonely … and obsessive.
BatGuano says:

September 3, 2011 at 12:53 am BatGuano(Quote)

aarrgghh:
somebody must know a babe or drunkard that’ll take sven seriously.

usually when drunks get to that point they seek out AA.
Majority Will says:

September 3, 2011 at 1:21 am Majority Will(Quote)

aarrgghh:
somebody must know a babe or drunkard that’ll take sven seriously. the poor soul sounds quite lonely … and obsessive.

Silly, troubled Sven flat out rejected by his hero, Mad Orly!

It must be devastating for a confused birther to be mocked and snubbed by his hero.

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am
that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
misha says:

September 3, 2011 at 2:01 am misha(Quote)

bob jones: My question and concern is; how can an immigrant be so xenophobic and racist?

Funny you should ask. Orly, like Avigdor Lieberman, is equally xenophobic and racist. How can this be? And how did Israel end up with whole cities filled with these crackpots? I lived there for a year, so let me explain.

First, some words of wisdom from my father, alav hasholom, עלי�” �”שלום: “There are plenty of stupid Jews out there. Just look at your Uncle Sid.”

When my mother was 12, boys on the Lower East Side, would shout “jude” and “Żyd” at her. She told me she went into her building’s basement, and caught a rat by the tail. She walked up to a boy who was her worst tomentor, holding the rat squirming behind her back, and he spat Żyd at her. She told me she flung the rat, and hit the boy in the chest. He screamed, and never went near her again.

The Holocaust survivors became social and fiscal liberals. As they are dying out, they are being replaced by immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who are as right wing as the RWNJ here. We elected Reagan, and Israel elected Menachem Begin, who had as much blood on his hands as Yasser Arafat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

Orly and her coterie are now going to throw tomatoes at me in 3,2,1…

So now we have Lieberman as Foreign Minister. Not bad for a former bouncer. He has the intellect of a street thug, and Orly has the intellect of a technician who managed to get a DDS, plus a mail order law “degree.” BTW, she got a law license because of her myriad malpractice lawsuits. Her ~~sugar daddy~~ husband, helped her with the tuition, along with a Tesla roadster.

Orly, like Lieberman and their crowd, spend their days licking their wounds. Why are the Settlers and their politicians so hostile to Arabs and liberals, just like the RWNJ here? Because they are funded by American evangelicals, who egg them on. And what do people like John Hagee, who sooo loves Israel, say about us? “The anti-Christ will be a homosexual. He will be Jewish, as was Adolf Hitler, as was Karl Marx.” In other words, Jews gave us fascism and communism. Only Hitler wasn’t Jewish. He also explains how Jews control the world’s monetary supply. The Tea Partiers don’t want to lose their Social Security checks, or Medicare, even though Social Security was invented by Karl Marx, and both are pure socialism.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7706179979766534830#

I have had Settlers scream at me “you’re not Jewish,” and “the Jews don’t need another socialist fool like you.”

David Shuster, who is Jewish, said to Orly that MSNBC sent a taxi for her trip to the studio, and he found out she refused that taxi because the driver was an Arab:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/orly-taitz-vs-david-shuster.php
misha says:

September 3, 2011 at 2:06 am misha(Quote)

bob jones: How dangerous are the birthers?

Orly is trying to incite a lone wolf. That’s how dangerous.
misha says:

September 3, 2011 at 4:45 am misha(Quote)

bob jones: My question and concern is; how can an immigrant be so xenophobic and racist?

Because Hagee is financing them. Read this:

The Fiske Theatre in Oak Grove has been chosen as the only theater in Louisiana to show…”Jerusalem Countdown,”

“Jerusalem Countdown” is a faith-based film adapted from the best-selling book by Pastor John Hagee of the same name.

The film centers on the Middle-East conflict and how it relates to Armageddon via a nuclear holocaust in the United States.

Read and weep:
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110903/LIFESTYLE/109030301/-Jerusalem-Countdown-coming-Oak-Grove
bob jones says:

September 3, 2011 at 4:48 am bob jones(Quote)

Is it only the victim of slander/libel able to prosecute?
misha says:

September 3, 2011 at 4:52 am misha(Quote)

bob jones:
Is it only the victim of slander/libel able to prosecute?

IANAL, but I believe that is the case.
Northland10 says:

September 3, 2011 at 9:25 am Northland10(Quote)

gorefan:
Over at ORYR – apparently there is an NPR interview in which General Colin Powel turns down the rigged Birther Summit meeting.

He had an interview with Steve Inskeep for the 10th anniversary of 9/11. As part of the interview, Powell mentioned:

In fact, as you may have noticed, some people are trying to persuade me to listen to their arguments as to why he is not a citizen, and I don’t choose to participate in that any longer. We’ve spent enough time on this issue. President Obama was born in the United States. He was born in Hawaii. He’s shown his certificates, and the rest of this is just conspiratorial nonsense.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140132047/interview-with-former-secretary-of-state-colin-powell

Now the Birther party have their answer that they should be used to by now… NO!
Whatever4 says:

September 3, 2011 at 10:22 am Whatever4(Quote)

Back in April, I sent away for my PA LFBC, using the instructions given to me by a helpful clerk at the Department of Health in Pennsylvania. She told me what “magic words” to say to get a copy of the original.

4 months later, I get… a freshly generated computer Certification of Birth with some new fields added. I now know my parents ages and birthplaces. No doctor, no hospital, no occupation of parents, no length or weight… not even the city of birth.

I must accept that I can never run for President or VP. I am crushed.
bob jones says:

September 3, 2011 at 11:00 am bob jones(Quote)

Love the background of the site.

Just got it.

The wise-ass factor here is sweet.

I hope I can bring some insight/humor to those that have been here before.

Thanks, Doc
Rickey says:

September 3, 2011 at 11:36 am Rickey(Quote)

ShapeShipper: You people are obsessive.

I admit that I am obsessed with reading your crackpot theories and your consistently erroneous predictions. Rarely have I seen so much baseless speculation offered up without a shred of evidence to support it. You never fail to amuse!
Majority Will says:

September 3, 2011 at 12:00 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Rickey: I admit that I am obsessed with reading your crackpot theories and your consistently erroneous predictions. Rarely have I seen so much baseless speculation offered up without a shred of evidence to support it. You never fail to amuse!

Sven must be projecting. Birthers seem to rely on that defense mechanism when cornered.

How many online personas has Sven created and maintained?

Is this obsessive?

Dan Draper
Det. Cliff Hanger
Dick Whitman
Sven Magnussen
BadAssMoFoTooOld4Arguendo
Bob’sNewFriend
CousinBill
CousinEsther
DrunkenObot(s)
FlameThrower Extraordinaire
FTE
IcanChangeMyScreenName?
IcanChangeMyScreenNameCousinBill
InfloriousBuzzard
IngloriousBasterd
IngloriousBasturd
IngloriousBusterd
IngloriousBuzzard
IngloriusBasterd
kerok
LikeDaTerminatorDaStoryWon’tDie
MarvelousMarvAlbert
MuhommadMcLovin
MysteryMessiahTheatre
Not Enough Hugs as a Child
ObotsRCruel
ObotsREvil
Pretty in Pink
Second to the Last Samurai
SixToeMoe
Ima Obot
SwampMop
IheArtObots
Dick Whitman II
PennsylvaniaAvenue

. . . . and now Shapeshipper

(source: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/sock-puppets/#more-6822)
ShapeShipper says:

September 3, 2011 at 12:17 pm ShapeShipper(Quote)

Rickey: I admit that I am obsessed with reading your crackpot theories and your consistently erroneous predictions. Rarely have I seen so much baseless speculation offered up without a shred of evidence to support it. You never fail to amuse!

Admission is the first step. Now, turn your anger into positive reinforcement.

Did you see this? http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=25167

Orly is churning her negatives into positives. The problem is she promised Judge Lamberth new evidence. I’m trying to help her and she is ignoring me.

Would you mind mentioning jurisdiction as it pertains to Federal foster care for an unaccompanied minor to her?
Majority Will says:

September 3, 2011 at 12:48 pm Majority Will(Quote)

ShapeShipper: Admission is the first step. Now, turn your anger into positive reinforcement.

Did you see this? http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=25167

Orly is churning her negatives into positives. The problem is she promised Judge Lamberth new evidence. I’m trying to help her and she is ignoring me.

Would you mind mentioning jurisdiction as it pertains to Federal foster care for an unaccompanied minor to her?

dr_taitz@yahoo.com
September 2nd, 2011 @ 6:33 am
that is a complete BS
Obama was never a foster child
by the way, where is his Indonesian citizenship documentation? Where is proof, that he returned to US as an Indonesian citizen in 1971? show me a shred of evidence of what you are claiming
Rickey says:

September 3, 2011 at 1:00 pm Rickey(Quote)

ShapeShipper:

Orly is churning her negatives into positives. The problem is she promised Judge Lamberth new evidence. I’m trying to help her and she is ignoring me.

Would you mind mentioning jurisdiction as it pertains to Federal foster care for an unaccompanied minor to her?

No problem! I’ll give her a call as soon as I stop laughing.
Joey says:

September 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm Joey(Quote)

I guarantee with 100% metaphysical certitude that Orly’s Motion for Reconsideration will be denied (as has every other birther motion for reconsideration).

I also guarantee with 100% metaphysical certitude that the November hearing on Orly’s Motion to Compel in Taitz v Fuddy will be denied (as has every other motion been denied in every one of the 130 or so birther lawsuits).
Majority Will says:

September 3, 2011 at 1:20 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Rickey: No problem! I’ll give her a call as soon as I stop laughing.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that you won’t stop laughing for a very, very long time.

I know I can’t stop laughing.
Sef says:

September 3, 2011 at 2:03 pm Sef(Quote)

Joey: I also guarantee with 100% metaphysical certitude that the November hearing on Orly’s Motion to Compel in Taitz v Fuddy will be denied (as has every other motion been denied in every one of the 130 or so birther lawsuits).

But there’s also the Appeals Court for DC, en banc at the Appeals Court, and the Supremes. Orly never takes “no” as a final answer, so the November hearing may be continued for awhile. There’s also the possibility of the same scenario for any sanction that Judge Lamberth might find appropriate.
Expelliarmus says:

September 3, 2011 at 2:17 pm Expelliarmus(Quote)

Joey: I also guarantee with 100% metaphysical certitude that the November hearing on Orly’s Motion to Compel in Taitz v Fuddy will be denied

There won’t even be the courtesy of a formal denial. It will go off calendar based on the dismissal of the underlying action. The Hawaii court technically would no longer have jurisdiction to rule one way or another — the whole thing simply goes away once the summary judgment order is final.

It will not be kept ‘open’ while the matter is being appealed, because once the case is dismissed, the trial courts have lost jurisdiction. From a procedural standpoint, if a party is successful on appeal and a case is reinstated, that party would need to re-serve the subpena — it isn’t going to be held open at the trial level waiting to see what happens on appeal. Essentially Taitz v Astrue is dead, and once it is confirmed dead, the motion to compel is dead too.
Joey says:

September 3, 2011 at 2:38 pm Joey(Quote)

Expelliarmus: There won’t even be the courtesy of a formal denial.It will go off calendar based on the dismissal of the underlying action.The Hawaii court technically would no longer have jurisdiction to rule one way or another — the whole thing simply goes away once the summary judgment order is final.

It will not be kept open’ while the matter is being appealed, because once the case is dismissed, the trial courts have lost jurisdiction.From a procedural standpoint, if a party is successful on appeal and a case is reinstated, that party would need to re-serve the subpena — it isn’t going to be held open at the trial level waiting to see what happens on appeal. Essentially Taitz v Astrue is dead, and once it is confirmed dead, the motion to compel is dead too.

You are always a fountain of legal wisdom, Expelliarmus. Thanks again.

Have you ever considered going second chair for Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, John Hemmingway, Andy Martin, or Philip Berg? 😉
misha says:

September 3, 2011 at 6:22 pm misha(Quote)

Sef: But there’s also the…Supremes.

Excellent point. Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UkIkwy5ZM
charo says:

September 3, 2011 at 10:11 pm charo(Quote)

http://www.rollcall.com/news/fec_drafts_opinions_for_guyana_born_man_about_presidential_run-208330-1.html?pos=htmbtxt
GeorgetownJD says:

September 4, 2011 at 12:11 am GeorgetownJD(Quote)

charo:
http://www.rollcall.com/news/fec_drafts_opinions_for_guyana_born_man_about_presidential_run-208330-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

So?
misha says:

September 4, 2011 at 12:34 am misha(Quote)

charo: http://www.rollcall.com/news/fec_drafts_opinions_for_guyana_born_man_about_presidential_run-208330-1.html?pos=htmbtxt

GeorgetownJD: So?

It’s already been settled: George Romney. Romney was born in Mexico to US citizens, and ran for prez in 1968. Two things finished him off: Vietnam and Rambler.

“While Romney was born in Mexico, he was still considered to be a viable and legal candidate to run for president. His Mormon grandfather and his three wives fled to Mexico in 1886, but none of them ever relinquished their citizenship. While the Constitution does provide that a president must be a natural born citizen, the first Congress of the United States in 1790 passed legislation stating: “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.” Romney and his family fled Mexico in 1912 prior to the Mexican revolution.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_presidential_campaign,_1968
Joey says:

September 4, 2011 at 12:51 pm Joey(Quote)

Eligibility to RUN for President is established in each of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia.
Roger Calero, the Socialist Workers Party candidate was born in Nicaragua and is a dual citizen. He was allowed on the ballot in 2008 in five states and was disallowed in five other states where the Socialist Workers Party had an alternate presidential candidate.
The US Constitution is moot on who can RUN for President. Article II sets the requirements for assuming the office of the Presidency.
According to the 12th Amendment, whoever receives a majority of the votes of the Electoral College “shall be the President.”
Majority Will says:

September 4, 2011 at 4:15 pm Majority Will(Quote)

Welcome back from vacation to OFGS!
charo says:

September 4, 2011 at 8:33 pm charo(Quote)

GeorgetownJD: So?

I thought Dr. Conspiracy was following the case. That was an update. I guess I’m wrong.
Dr. Conspiracy says:

September 4, 2011 at 8:45 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote)

My interest in this case relates to what kinds of advisory opinions the FEC might issue and whether they will ever issue an opinion that relates to the conspiracies we discuss.

One might recall that the FEC argued that they should removed from the original Berg lawsuit.

GeorgetownJD: So?
misha says:

September 6, 2011 at 3:37 pm misha(Quote)

Rabid Dog Briefly Mistaken for Tea Party Candidate

Read on:
http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/09/05/rabid-dog-briefly-mistaken-for-tea-party-candidate-2/

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The occasional open thread: epic fail edition

About Dr. Conspiracy

354 Responses to The occasional open thread: epic fail edition

Leave a Reply

Welcome

Conspiracies

Recent Comments

Donate

Recommended books

Quick Reference

Archives

Quick Reference