Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama Citizenship Lawsuit?

By
Monday, August 24, 2009 at 6:00 am

When he was confronted by Mike Stark, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) gave perhaps the clearest statement of any Republican member of Congress on the persistent conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birth. That makes this report on a weekend town hall meeting especially confusing.

Franks said there was not enough evidence that Obama is not an American citizen. He did say there was a lot of conflicting evidence of Obama’s citizenship and that he was considering filing a lawsuit, the only congressman to do so. Franks asked why the president did not simply produce a birth certificate.

What could Franks have been referring to? WorldNetDaily has attempted to assemble “conflicting” evidence about Obama’s birth, with stories about “private detectives” who had suspicions about the address Obama’s parents lived at, stories about Websites that originally mislabeled Obama’s hospital of birth, and, famously, stories about forged “Kenyan” birth certificates. But no actual “conflicts” have arisen from those stories. So is Franks working overtime to appease a truly fringe part of his base? Mikel Weisser, a constituent who showed up at the meeting, posts at another newspaper’s forum and claims that no fewer than nine “birthers” hounded Franks during the meeting. A blogger at one of the conspiracy sites that noted this story claims that Franks has been answering constituent mail from “birthers” by dismissing them and “pretty much saying that obama has been vetted and all is in order.”

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

212 Comments

The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … | kozmom news
Pingback posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:48 am

[...] post: The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … google_ad_client = "pub-3658190228035086"; google_ad_slot = "1112917537"; google_ad_width = [...]


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … | Lawsuit Attorney Blog - Connecticut
Pingback posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:12 am

[...] rest is here: The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama [...]


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies
Pingback posted August 24, 2009 @ 11:53 am

[...] See original here:  The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … [...]


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama …
Pingback posted August 24, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

[...] the whole story here: David Weigel aggregated by [...]


dprosenthal
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

I don't like any of his programs.I certainly didn”t vote for him…But get over it—He's the president. Try using your position to oppose his extrodinarily expensive and ineffective proposals and work toward getting rid of some of his worshipers in the next election.


Neil
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

I blame the Republican party for offering McCain and Palin as the choice. The worst thing Obama has done is kept the same secrecy and war policy Bush had. At least Obama stopped the torture but he's not defending the Constitution when he doesn't allows war criminals Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld a fair trial.


patrickjkiger
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

Hmmmm…come to think of it, I've never seen any proof that Rep. Franks is a U.S. citizen, either. That first name, Trent, sounds suspiciously foreign to me.


slama
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

what are you talking about neil?? palin was the only one worth having in the race.. why do you think she was attacked so aggressive? the intire media attacked palin.. her record is clear that she is a TRUE reformer.. washington dont need someone like sarah diturbing there – kickbacks, lies, thieft, corruption,ect.. do they? she was the only honest one in the race.. period


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

Mr. Weigel;
When you say that '…no actual “conflicts” have arisen from those stories', I assume it is because you have an extreme conflict of interest in writing and exposing the facts and the truth.

The facts are simple and the truth is obvious to anyone but the mentally or patriotically 'challenged' that Mr. Soetoro/Obama does not meet Article I & II qualifications for eligibilty for POTUS and CINC: a 'Natural-Born' U.S. Citizen, born ot two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – with the actual Citizenship to be that of the father.

Whether or not he was born in Hawaii is irrevalent. Dissembling our Constitution is. We can survive 4 years of ANYONE as President. We cannot survive without our Constitution.

So the only question we would have for Rep. Franks is “Why didn't you object to the certifying of the electoral votes on January 8th, 2009, when EVERYONE in Congress (all 535 of them) KNEW that there were questions about his eligibilty, and especially when everyone knew that California's 55 electoral votes included one from an elector who had been DEAD FOR OVER 6 YEARS!?'

Now that's something for you to inquire into – while you're beating up on Mr. Franks coming to his senses. That is, if you have any sense of honor and decency, SIR!


elpinche
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

Hahaha, “Patriot” is the new “moran”

The republicans are a bunch of kooks. What happened guys? Are there any reasonable non-crazy conservatives left in your party? Maybe Vince Foster has the Kenyan certificate?

Talk about crazy and hilarious:

“Palin…her record is clear that she is a TRUE reformer.”

Yeah, if you think about it, quitting governorship in the middle of her term is a special type of reform. It's the good kind of reform for Alaska.

Forget the Party of No, it's more like the Party of KOo kOos!!


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

Uh Mr Patriot, if an American has to have “two US citizen parents” to be considered NBC then how do you explain Chester A Arthur who was POTUS even though his father is CANADIAN?

Shouldn't an American patriot is well versed in American HISTORY?


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

Thank you, even though you dislike Obama and his program and his supporters you're a big enough man/woman to admit his presidency is legit.

I have more respect for people like you than for sore losers who made up things to smear the winner.


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Hey 'elpinche';

Why do “morans” always try to make their point by making moronic statements?

It would be really nice If you could make your point by addressing the issues with logic and intelligence. Unless you are mentally or patriotically 'challenged', then perhaps you could respond to my statement, which I repeat here:

The facts are simple and the truth is obvious to anyone but the mentally or patriotically 'challenged' that Mr. Soetoro/Obama does not meet Article I & II qualifications for eligibilty for POTUS and CINC: a 'Natural-Born' U.S. Citizen, born ot two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – with the actual Citizenship to be that of the father.

I await your considered explanation regarding the FACTS of this matter, SIR.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

U.S. Code does not change the Constitution. To change it (Articles I & II), it takes a very lengthy and thoughtful process that must be ratified by 3/4 of the States to take effect.

I fail to see where your U.S. Code Title 8, §1401 completes this process. This may be the argument put forth by the Congressional Research Services (now made no longer subject to FOIA requests by our Imposter in Chief), but that also does not alter the Constitution, Articles I & II.

BTW, Article I refers specifically to the Law of Nations by name, so it becomes integral to the Constitution in defining a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.

BTW 2, McCain may also not meet the requirements of Articles I & II (despite Senate Resolution 511 saying that he does), since he was not born ‘on base in a U.S. facility’ in Panama. He was born ‘off-base’, and therefore would not be eligible for ‘Natural-Born’ designation. And you can be your sweet patootie that, if he won, the Dems would have been pushing that issue long before the electoral votes were counted.


Bob
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

Rep. Trent Franks, to date, has not demonstrated his eligibility to serve in Congress, as defined by Article I of the U.S. Constitution.


hoser
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

Therapy and medication free to all Birthers! Paid for by American's concerned about the health and welfare of our Ariz. brothers and sisters. No charge, we'll pay for you to get better- because we care about you.


labman57
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

I guess this congressman has too much time on his hands. Economic recovery, health care reform, wars on two fronts, education reform, climate change/energy infrastructure…. naw, why bother with any of those issues when you can join the Birfers and learn their secret handshake and get to wear your very own tin foil hat.

The birther phenomenon is intended to damage the validity of the Obama Administration, but it will instead diminish the credibility of the conservative base so long as its members continue to give credence to the deluded fantasy that the POTUS was not born in Hawaii.


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

Hey Patriot, what part of Article I and II qualifications to be POTUS state that a candidate has to have TWO US citizen parents?

Oh and you still haven't explain how Chester A Arthur be eligible to be (And indeed he was) POTUS even though his father is CANADIAN if what you said about “born ot two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – with the actual Citizenship to be that of the father” is true.


hoser
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

Hey Patriot35, as a patriotically “challenged” person I have to say your mastery of words and numbers is most impressive. They make absolutely no sense, but it's all pretty impressive. I imagine you are seated in your public library, where you can be found every day, all day, and the staff has told you that one more disturbance will get you 86'ed permanently. I hope you can hold it together and that you don't lose your library privileges.


labman57
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Every time a birther is shown a web link to, or hard copy of Obama's official birth certificate (you know, the one that is recognized by the federal government when applying for a passport), they pull the equivalent of a 9-year old covering his ears and shouting “nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you!”

You can lead right wingers to the truth, but you cannot make them embrace it.

Each state has its own standard for an official record of birth.

You have to look at the motivations of the majority of the birthers to understand why they simply cannot “let go”. Fundamentally, it comes down to the following mindset: “I cannot accept THAT man in the White House because…. (fill in the blank).”

Just about ANY reason will do — any excuse that will legitimize their race-based outrage. If it wasn't about a birth certificate, it would be about his middle name. (He's a closet Muslim, you know.)

In addition, there are a handful of unscrupulous politicians and pundits who, although not necessarily racist themselves, have no problem capitalizing on the bigotry of others by fueling their fear and hatred of Obama in order to score political points or further a personal agenda.


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Hey 'hoser';

I repeat: Why do “morans” always try to make their point by making moronic statements?

Stick to the issues and answer the questions: Does swearing an oath to protect and defend the Constitution mean anything to you, or not? If not, then leave our Constitutional Republic immediatly, lest you also be tried for TREASON like the rest of this treasonous cabal that has taken over our Government by betrayal, concdalment, deceit, and deception. Go to http://www.AmericanGrandJury.org for your instructions on what to do next, if care one whit for our Constitution and the Republic for which it stands!


elpinche
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

CASE AND POINT!!!

What facts? What issues?? ITS ALL BULLSH!T, YOU WACKO! I'm not going to argue with a coffee table.


elpinche
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

I wonder if there's a connection between birthers/conservatives (let's face, they're the same thing nowadays) and ritalin consumption as children or even shaken baby syndrome? Another case for good public healthcare!

Patriot35, please tell us what happened to you!


hoser
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

Hey Patriot35, as a patriotically “challenged” person I have to say your mastery of words and numbers is most impressive. They make absolutely no sense, but it's all pretty impressive. I imagine you are seated in your public library, where you can be found every day, all day, and the staff has told you that one more disturbance will get you 86'ed permanently. I hope you can hold it together and that you don't lose your library privileges.


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

Hey Patriot, why didn't you answer my two very simple questions to your previous two comments?

What part of Article I and II qualifications to be POTUS state that a candidate has to have TWO US citizen parents?

And if an American has to have “two US citizen parents” to be considered NBC then how do you explain Chester A Arthur who was POTUS even though his father is CANADIAN?


hoser
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Hey Patriot35, as a mentally “challenged” person I have to say your mastery of words and numbers is most impressive. They make absolutely no sense, but it's all pretty impressive. I imagine you are seated in your public library, where you can be found every day, all day, and the staff has told you that one more disturbance will get you 86'ed permanently. I hope you can hold it together and that you don't lose your library privileges.


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Hey 'elpinche' and 'labman57';

Address the issues as stated so often by the Constitutional Patriots ('Birthers' or 'Birfers' to you), and it matters not where he was born, whether it be Hawaii, Kenya, Canada, or on the moon:

The facts are simple and the truth is obvious to anyone but the mentally or patriotically 'challenged' that Mr. Soetoro/Obama does not meet Article I & II qualifications for eligibilty for POTUS and CINC: a 'Natural-Born' U.S. Citizen, born ot two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – with the actual Citizenship to be that of the father.

I await your considered explanation regarding the FACTS of this matter, SIRS.


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

Hey Patriot, why didn't you answer my two very simple questions to your previous THREE comments?

What part of Article I and II qualifications to be POTUS state that a candidate has to have TWO US citizen parents?

And if an American has to have “two US citizen parents” to be considered NBC then how do you explain Chester A Arthur who was POTUS even though his father is CANADIAN?

Oh BTW if you want to reply to someone's post there's a button marked “reply” on the lower left corner of the comment.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Whatever your qualms with Barack Obama, Joe Biden was legitimately elected Vice President of the United States. Denying him his office would be blatantly unconstitutional in any sense of the document.

The fact is, the constitution has no provision about what would happen in the event that a president was “illegitimate.” More likely, assuming such an incredible event came to pass, he would be removed from office at the moment it was legally determined he was ineligible, with his former title changed to “Acting President,” and Joe Biden becoming president. I doubt the courts have the capacity, or the desire, to undo everything that has been done over the past several months. For one thing, many of the courts now have justices appointed by the “illegitimate” administration.

Furthermore, George Bush could not be president after January 20, 2009. His term ended at 12:00 p.m. on that date, and he was neither elected to serve another term or constitutionally eligible to do so. No could Cheney, as his term in office expired at the same time.

As for the military rounding up all the Muslims, to do so would be blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, a threat to basic religious liberty in this country, a would require far more billions of dollars than any health care reform anyone has even dreamed up. We would be bankrupt morally and fiscally. If that happened with the “consent” of the people, the American experiment, as a political entity and as a society, would end for all of us, regardless of political stripe.


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

“Franks said there was not enough evidence that Obama is not an American citizen.”
So, is he saying that, by means of the double negative, that he is in favor of filing a “frivolous lawsuit”?


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

They didn't attack her; they simply repeated her statements verbatim. That was the most damaging thing to her.
And, there's a reason she quit, and it had nothing to do with being some “TRUE reformer.”


Citizen Wells
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

I have an update to this article.
Citizen Wells.


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

FRIVOLOUS? Since when was one's sworn oath to defend the Constitution Frivolous?

Articles I & II: Mr. Soetoro/Obama, having studied Constitutional law, knows full well that Article I, §8, requires compliance with the Law of Nations – which state that to be ‘Natural-Born’ of a country, BOTH parents must be citizens of that country. Also, the citizenship of that child at birth was that of the father (by tacit consent). Therefore, Soetoro/Obama publicly admits that, as to the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold, his citizenship at birth was Kenyan/British, Hawaiian birth or not.

He also knows full well that Article II, §1, requires that, to be President of the United States (POTUS) and CINC, he must be a ‘Natural-Born’ U.S. Citizen (born on U.S. soil – still unproven, and of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – proven and conceded not to be), so he would also know, beyond any reasonable doubt in his own mind – and the minds of his running mate, the Speaker of the House, and the DNC, that his candidacy for, and assumption of, the sworn-to-uphold the Constitutional office of POTUS and CINC was by contrivance and deceit – an act of pure TREASON by a foreign-born domestic enemy, manifesting a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic.

The immediate removal of him and his treasonous associates, plus the vacating of all his appointments, directives, orders, and signings (since Jan 20, 2009) with charges of TREASON – already ‘served’ over 300 times to various courts and Sheriffs across the Nation – are required in order to re-establish and save our Constitutional Republic as originally established by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. New elections must be held within 3 months of his forced removal for Treason!


karim13
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

The most secretive candidate for president ever to be nominated by a major party.


Elsbeth
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

Any time you ask a birfer to support their definition of NBC just using the CONSTITUTION, they shut up. They can't do it.

Unless the birfers can use de Vattell, they have no NBC argument.

Birfers, why do you think a french writers thoughts supercede US law?


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

LaLee;

It's a little late to do anything about Chester A. Arthur, but not too late to save us from the current Imposter in Chief. Article I & II qualifications explained below:

Articles I & II: Mr. Soetoro/Obama, having studied Constitutional law, knows full well that Article I, §8, requires compliance with the Law of Nations – which state that to be ‘Natural-Born’ of a country, BOTH parents must be citizens of that country. Also, the citizenship of that child at birth was that of the father (by tacit consent). Therefore, Soetoro/Obama publicly admits that, as to the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold, his citizenship at birth was Kenyan/British, Hawaiian birth or not.

He also knows full well that Article II, §1, requires that, to be President of the United States (POTUS) and CINC, he must be a ‘Natural-Born’ U.S. Citizen (born on U.S. soil – still unproven, and of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – proven and conceded not to be), so he would also know, beyond any reasonable doubt in his own mind – and the minds of his running mate, the Speaker of the House, and the DNC, that his candidacy for, and assumption of, the sworn-to-uphold the Constitutional office of POTUS and CINC was by contrivance and deceit – an act of pure TREASON by a foreign-born domestic enemy, manifesting a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic.

The immediate removal of him and his treasonous associates, plus the vacating of all his appointments, directives, orders, and signings (since Jan 20, 2009) with charges of TREASON – already ‘served’ over 300 times to various courts and Sheriffs across the Nation – are required in order to re-establish and save our Constitutional Republic as originally established by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. New elections must be held within 3 months of his forced removal for Treason!


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

You assume the birthers are interested in conversation or debate. They are not. Their only purpose is to repeat the same bullshit over and over again in as many forums as possible. This tactic is useful for duping morons into believing their silliness, and is not aimed at people with functioning neocortexes.


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

U.S. Code Title 8, § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

Note: outlying possession would refer to Hawaii in the case of Obama and the Panama Canal Zone for McCain.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

Hey Patriot, WHAT PART of Article I and II qualifications to be POTUS state that a candidate has to have TWO US citizen parents?

How can Chester A Arthur eligible to be (And indeed he was) POTUS even though his father is CANADIAN if what you said about “born of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – with the actual Citizenship to be that of the father” is true?

Someone who made things up on US Constitution and ignorant about US history is NOT a patriot IMO.


Elsbeth
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

See…he uses de Vattell. Patriot35 has NO argument using the Constitution. He/she has to use some french writer's thoughts on NBC and “guesses” that the book was read and used in when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution.

Patriot, do you really think that the Constitution is using de Vattell's book “The Law of Nations” when the Constitution says the phrase “Law of Nations”? Cause it isn't. If the Constitution was using de Vattell's definition of a NBC then the Constitution would specifically state that a NBC had to be born to 2 US citizen parents.

And where in the world does this idea that new elections should be held come from? It ISN”T in the Constitution. The Constitution states that Biden would become POTUS.

And how have those fake citizen grand juries gone? To date, not a single person “served” with your “presentments” has done anything with them. A court slaped your presentments down.

*eyeroll*


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

He also knows full well that Article II, §1, requires that, to be President of the United States (POTUS) and CINC, he must be a ‘Natural-Born’ U.S. Citizen (born on U.S. soil – still unproven, and of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – proven and conceded not to be)

Article II mentions nothing about any requirement that both parents must be U.S. citizens. You won't get very far by posing an argument based on constitutional requirements you pull only from your imagination.


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

You obviously weren't paying attention in 2000…


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

Nixon?


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

Do not argue with the furniture.


Elsbeth
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

Well good for you! Hhahahahahahahahah


LaLee
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

Mister Patriot, here's an excerpt from US CONSTITUTION.

U.S. Code Title 8, § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html

Do you see part where it stated ” a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents ONE OF WHOM is a citizen of the United States”?

Obama's mother is a US citizen so according to U.S. Code Title 8, § 1401 he's a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and therefore eligible to POTUS.


jkuehl
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Does this Representative of our government trust one of these groups. the CIA,the FBI, or the NSA? My question to him is very simple.A candidate for the highest position in our government would be vetted on his qualifications wouldn't he? Then another backer of tort reform would not file a frivolous lawsuit would he? When are the ridiculously uninformed conservatives going to be informed by their representatives. Does anyone take responsibility for either the lack of or dissemination of false information? The lack of respect for the President on this issue is astounding.


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Thanks. I keep forgetting.


matx
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

Please, what will all the birthers do if Piyush “Bobby” Jindal gets the nod in the Republican presidential primary? He may have been born in the U.S. (like Obama) to two non-citizens (unlike Obama) and so the circumstances of his birth should make him ineligible to be POTUS.


SpacelySpaceSprockets
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

Millard Fillmore was my guess…dang.


SpacelySpaceSprockets
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

Yes, as in “Council of”…


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

I hope Stark does file a lawsuit. I also hope the courts take it up on the merits so he can be laughed out of the court on grounds that are unambiguous to the birthers. (I suspect, however, that his lawsuit would fail on the ever present standing issue.)

The birther movement badly needs its own Little Big Horn.


patgund
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Good for you Larry Wells. BTW, how is the bigfoot investigation business going?


macdoodle
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

Form those who brought you *******FEAR and PROPAGANDA*******.

this is another diversionary tactic

DO NOT BE DIVERTED.


patgund
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

de Vattell doesn't equal the US Constitution. Tell me where in the US Constitution it says that “de Vattell shall trump this Constitution”??

Oh, and the “presentments” of the Fantasy Tiddlywinks League (aka the so-called “American Grand Jury”) have no validity in a REAL court of law. Which is why the've been ignored and/or rejected.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

Yes, this is like talking to a dining room table, but such low-hanging fruit is just TOO tempting…

“New elections must be held within 3 months of his forced removal for Treason!”

You talk like you're an expert on the Constitution, but you seem blind to the fact that the Constitution provides only for succession, NOT new elections. But, we'll hold them, since you say so.

“The immediate removal of him and his treasonous associates, plus the vacating of all his appointments, directives, orders, and signings (since Jan 20, 2009).”

There is also no provision in the Constitution for voiding presidential acts, appointments, directives, orders and signings on the basis that there was no legitimate president. The fact is, the Constitution has ZERO provisions for what to do in the absence of a Chief Executive. Your remedy is, again, made up in your own mind. But a court dealing with the real world would never instigate such an existential crisis by taking the measures you seem to think it should. (But then again, your rant is all about opposing Obama's policies rather than any real concern for the Constitution or for Obama's birthplace or supposed foreign allegiances.)

“He also knows full well that Article II, §1, requires that, to be President of the United States (POTUS) and CINC, he must be a ‘Natural-Born’ U.S. Citizen (born on U.S. soil – still unproven, and of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents – proven and conceded not to be)…”

Well, President Obama must be convicted of treason because Patriot35 has determined not only that his theory of “natural born citizen” is correct, but that OBVIOUSLY everybody else knows it, too. If so, why not just convict everyone complicit in this “fraud” of treason, including the entire Obama administration, all the electors, the members of Congress who met to declare the choice of the electors as President, Chief Justice John Roberts (who swore in Obama TWICWE), all the millions of voters who voted for Obama, and all the officials of the Democratic and Republican parties and all primary opponents. At least with some 60 million people in prison, we can solve much of the health insurance crisis by putting them all under government plans.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

Sorry – I meant I hope Franks files a lawsuit. Mike Stark would be the last person on earth to file a birther suit.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

Weigel is, as you should suspect, misleading you.

1. What evidence is there that the Obamas lived at that address? It now appears that BHO's grandmother rented the place and, while Stanley might have lived there at some time, BHO Sr. had a “bachelor pad” several miles away. Not only that, but Stanley appears to have been enrolled in a university in Washington just a couple weeks after BHO was born.

2. It wasn't just “Websites” that were confused about which hospital BHO was born in. In fact, WP, Snopes, and BHO himself all changed their minds on which hospital it was. You'd think those who claim to know for a fact that he was born in HI would be able to keep their stories straight on which hospital it was.

You just can't trust what Weigel tells you.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 12:28 am

U.S. Code=U.S. law…


laughsatidiots
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Oh sweet jesus, this is unintelligible.


Steve X
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

Idiot.


laughsatidiots
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

I would think that anyone who would so voraciously champions Constitutional integrity would have the fortitude to a) actually read (and comprehend, or somehow attain comprehension of) the referenced article/section b) not embellish upon this fair document to justify your own deluded ends.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

old1 says:
August 24, 2009 at 7:46 am

We the People can not survive three and a half more years of this usurper! America will not be “Our” America by then. He is not Constitutionally eligible to set in Our White House! He is not a Natural Born American Citizen as is required by Article 2. Section 1. paragraph 5. of our great Constitution.
His father WAS NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN! He was a Kenyan Brit. Being a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948 Obama Sr, caused Obama Jr. to be born a British Citizen at birth. NO ONE BORN A CITIZEN OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY CAN EVER BE A Natural Born American Citizen! Natural Born = Born of Blood & Soil! That is the blood of BOTH parents who are American Citizens at the time of ones birth and that birth on American Soil. Obama Sr. was not an American and Ann Dunham was only 17 and had not lived in America for 10 years with 5 of those years after the age of 14. She would have to have been at least 19! Whether on not he was born in Kenya or has a Hawaiian Birth Certificate does not matter. He CAN NOT BE A NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZEN as stated above, thus he is not President of the United States today! Call your Senators & Congressmen (& women). Call your local TV station. Demand that some Government agency corrects this most terrible oversight! We can force the Supreme Court to hear these charges if we just raise our collective voices! MAKE YOURSELF HEARD!!!
America’s future depends on “YOU”!
Reply


MrFarRight
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

Here's the official US definition of Natural Born Citizen. Obama clearly does not qualify under our law.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusi…


Rep. Franks may file a lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate « NWO News
Pingback posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

[...] Franks also defended President Bush, saying “Americans will wish Bush was back as president.” (HT: Dave Weigel) [...]


JohnC
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:07 am

U.S. Code does not change the Constitution.

It’s not that simple. Even if we were to completely buy your argument that “natural born citizen” means a citizen by birth born to two U.S. citizens, that still doesn’t define what a citizen is. Many birthers argue that Herbert Hoover is a natural born citizen, because his foreign-born mother became a U.S. citizen by virtue of the then-extant policy of derived citizenship. On the flipside, birthers argue that Obama can’t be a natural born citizen because his father did not become a citizen when he married Stanley Ann Dunham, because the policy of derived citizenship was dropped in 1922 (and wouldn’t have applied to men marrying women anyway).

The difference? Statutory law! Birthers argue that a statute passed by Congress can affect whether a person is a natural born citizen by virtue of how it affects the naturalization of that person’s parents. Now, I don’t agree with the two-citizen parent requirement in the first place, but birthers are hypocrites when they argue that the status of any person as a natural born citizen under their theory is solely a function of constitutional law.

BTW, Article I refers specifically to the Law of Nations by name, so it becomes integral to the Constitution in defining a Natural-Born U.S. Citizen.

Article I does refer to the “law of nations.” But let’s look at the context:

Congress is given the power to “define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations” – in other words, this is about interaction between countries.

But while there was a growing consensus that a “law of nations” governed interactions between countries, it was not even clear AFTER the adoption of the Constitution whether this covered the internal affairs of nations, like citizenship:

“Opinions concerning the extent of the law of nations have not been less defective and inadequate, than those concerning its origin and obligatory force. Some seem to have thought, that this law respects and regulates the conduct of nations only in their intercourse with each other. A very important branch of this law–that containing the duties which a nation owes itself–seems to have escaped their attention.”

- James Wilson, Of the Law of Nations, Lectures on Law (1791) Works 1:148–67.

The point is, Vattel was an important voice on the law of nations, but by no means was the last word on it even in the decades after Law of Nations was published.

BTW 2, McCain may also not meet the requirements of Articles I & II (despite Senate Resolution 511 saying that he does), since he was not born ‘on base in a U.S. facility’ in Panama. He was born ‘off-base’, and therefore would not be eligible for ‘Natural-Born’ designation.

Actually, you’re simply wrong on the facts. The 1937 law passed by Congress in 1937 granted citizenship to people born in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904 if both of their parents were U.S. citizens. It did not distinguish between “on-base” versus “off-base.” The real questions regarding McCain’s natural born citizenship are twofold: (1) can natural born citizenship be conferred retroactively, and (2) even if it can, can a person not born on U.S. soil be a natural born citizen at all?


MrFarRight
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

Here is the official US of Natural Born Citizen. Obama clearly does not meet the requirements to be a Natural Born Citizen.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusi…


MrFarRight
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

Here is the official US definition of Natural Born Citizen. It does require both parents to be US citizens.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17485112/The-Conclusi…


oneproblemoldmagicman
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish. Presidents with one immigrant parent are Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:16 pm

Article II, Section 1 does NOT require that a natural born citizen have two U.S. citizen parents.

Since the Founding Fathers did not clarify who is a natural born citizen, we must turn to the common law we inherited from England to answer this question. For hundreds of years prior to the War of Independence, “natural born subject” meant, at the very least, a person born in the jurisdiction of the realm – i.e. the principle of jus soli. Prior to 1787, the former colonies began using the term “natural born citizen” as an adaptation of the common law concept of “natural born subject.” The Founding Fathers made no statement that this concept had somehow magically changed. For decades afterwards, courts continued to use the term “natural born citizen” as distinguished from “naturalized citizen.” Further, no court has ever articulated the concept that a person could be a citizen, yet neither naturalized or natural born. If Vattel ever provided the meaning behind the constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement, it has escaped the courts of this land since the beginning of the republic.

Birthers like to point to Vattel's Law of Nations as having served as the basis for the term “natural born citizen” in the Constitution, but we have NO evidence of that. In 1787, English translations of Law of Nations spoke of indigenes, which translates from French into “natives.” It wasn't until 1797 that English editions of Law of Nations changed indigenes into “natural born citizens.”

Oldmagicman666 also claims that President Obama can't be a natural born citizen because “Obama Sr. was not an American and Ann Dunham was only 17 and had not lived in America for 10 years with 5 of those years after the age of 14. She would have to have been at least 19!” What he is referring to is a statute that concerned the nationality/citizenship of persons born outside of the United States. Since Obama was born in Hawaii, this statute is irrelevant to his status.

So, go ahead, call your local agency! Call your representatives! I recommend, however, that the sound on your receiver be turned down low so you're not deafened by the laughter from the other end of the line.


shilreysexton
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

Thanks for the add my friend…
Please check out my books, The Possession of David can be ordered online at Amazon.com, B&N.com or many other online stores.
My book, Seduction of the Antichrist will release on Oct 6, 2009 or it may be ordered now through my publisher, Tate Publishing. You can also check out my video for this book at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p3AWUeZpA
Also my newest children book, Fairy With An Attitude can be ordered here at http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/FairyWit…
or at Amazon.com
Thanks a lot,
Author Shirley Sexton


Steve X
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

Idiot.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

Ad spam.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

In fact, WP, Snopes, and BHO himself all changed their minds on which hospital it was.

Such a bald-faced liar should not lecture people on who is “misleading” whom, dipshit.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:33 am

Thank you oldmagicman. Please take over from here. I’ve had enough of this nonsense, and have a Constitution to reinstate.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

JohnC, you mentioned going back to 1787. OK let's take a little time trip. We're back in 1787! Women have no rights. (sorry ladies but that was true) It is only the father that passes on his citizenship! Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a British Citizen at the time of the birth of his son Barrack Hussein Obama Jr. The Law at that time was British Common Law and it stated that a male British Citizen while overseas that marries an alien female will have offspring that are born British Subjects. This was the Law our founding fathers were schooled in. Just change the word “subject” to “citizen” and you have what John Jay wrote about to George Washington in adding Natural Born as a Presidential Requirement for their New Country.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

OK, Jackson, Jefferson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, and Hoover had parents which were born overseas. But these parents were American Citizens at the time of the birth of their future President children, or the children were already born and citizens of the US of A at the time of the adoption of our great Constitution in 1787. ie. Jefferson! Your as tricky as Barry Hussein!


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

It is only the father that passes on his citizenship!

False.

Also, read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, dipshit.


Jon H
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

“The Law at that time was British Common Law and it stated that a male British Citizen while overseas that marries an alien female will have offspring that are born British Subjects.”

So what? He was born in Hawaii, to an American woman, therefore was a natural-born, not naturalized, citizen.

Stupid racists like you ought to just withdraw from all interaction with society.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

You disagree with the truth?


hawaiilawyer
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

The facts are these:
1. Mr. Obama has released an only an abstract of his birth records we call a COLB here in Hawai‘i.
2. Our Dept of Health Director declares that she has seen the original birth records on file and has concluded Mr. Obama is constitutionally qualified to hold office.
3. Obama has defended a multitude of lawsuits nationwide and has been successful in withholding the original birth records from disclosure.
4. The lawyers’ fees charged Mr. Obama for those cases ARE NOT KNOWN, and may be donated by the firms doing the work. The Campaign finance disclosures show a lot of legal fees but they could be for other matters as well.
5. Newspaper birth notices of Mr. Obama’s birth have been located on archive microfilm for Hawai‘i.
6. It is possible to acquire a COLB in Hawaii even if one is born elsewhere; Mr. Obama’s sister has done so. Famously, Chinese president Sun Yat Sen also acquired a Hawaii birth certificate despite having been born in China. There is no reported case of a fraudulent newspaper birth notices.

One can draw their own conclusions based on this limited information.
… There has been a lot of name calling and personal attacks on both sides of the issue. Now both camps may proceed with calling me names, yet neither can refute these objective facts.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

Right, and John was not eligible either!


Jon H
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

You realize, don't you, that while you're on this stupid racist birfer fetish, the Mexicans are invading and taking over?

That was your old fetish. The ILLEGAL HISPANICS! What happened?


Jon H
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

Your parents were siblings, weren't they?


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

If he was vetted on his “qualifications” he would not be in DC!


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

Sir!, You are a true American, Thank You.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

Chester Arthur's father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. You birthers get everything wrong. Most insane people do.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

Not at all. Thank you for playing.

Obama has never claimed to be born at a hospital other than Kapiolani. 24BrainCellsLeft is a serial liar.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

The United States electorate disagree with your assessment.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

A unconstitutional candidate can never occupy the office of POTUS. So seeing that we have spent the last 7 months without a Legal President, nothing has Legally taken place! It is as if the election had never taken place! I guess we will have to get old George to go back to DC and straighten this out until we have a new election. Biden is just a citizen today and has no position in today's government. I guess the Military could take over for a spell and round up all the Muslims and Illegals during the primaries.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:07 pm

Can't stand the truth?


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

14th Amendment only deals with simple “citizenship” ithas nothing to do with one being a Natural Born American Citizen.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

Show me prof.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

I'm afraid you misunderstand what jus soli is. Under jus soli, citizenship is conferred not by the status of one's parents, but the location where a person is born.

Cockburn, in his treatise Nationality (1869), wrote:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.”

References to British subjects living overseas are not relevant to this discussion. Whether a person born overseas was a “natural born subject” was determined by legislation, upon the principle of jus sanguinis (literally meaning “right of blood”). It is still debated (though not particularly seriously) whether such legislation became part of the common law that was carried over by the U.S. through the concept of “natural born citizen” (hence the State Department's fudging on whether foreign-born citizens can be natural born citizens). But it is NOT debated that the common law adherence to jus soli served as the basis of “natural born citizen” as it was understood before and after the adoption of the Constitution with regard to persons born on U.S. soil. The Fourteenth Amendment is nothing more than declarative of this basic principle, and the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark confirmed it.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

True, but the common law from which our term “natural born citizen” was derived equally only had meaning in terms of citizenship. So from you're perspective, we're in a quandary, because the meaning of “natural born citizen” cannot be understood without reference to its common law roots – but those roots were grounded in the context of citizenship, not qualifications for office.

Instead, you have to pretend that the Founding Fathers invented the term “natural born citizen,” even though in reality it had a well-understood meaning in the former colonies after the War of Independence but before the adoption of the Constitution. For example:

Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1784-85, pp. 507-08

An Act for Naturalizing Michael Walsh

“Whereas Michael Walsh, resident in Salisbury, has dwelt within the Commonwealth several years, and demeaned himself well, and has applied to the Legislature to be naturalized:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, That the said Michael Walsh be permitted to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance to this Commonwealth, before two Justices of the Peace, quorum unus, of the county where he dwells; and thereupon, and thereafter, he shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen…”

The Massachusetts legislature implicitly divides citizenship into exactly two categories: naturalized citizens like Michael Walsh, and natural born citizens, with whom he shares “all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.” It would be odd if a naturalized citizen would be given more rights than a native, but non-natural born citizen, assuming such an invisible species of citizen existed. But there is no evidence of the latter.

Courts following the adoption of the Constitution used this same division of citizens into naturalized and natural born citizens, many of which pointed to common law as the basis for their understanding of the concept.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

Those facts are incomplete where correct.

1. Mr. Obama has released an only an abstract of his birth records we call a COLB here in Hawai‘i.

That is all the State of Hawaii issues. It is a legal documented that would be accepted as proof of citizenship by the State Department, Passport Office, and any court in the land.

3. Obama has defended a multitude of lawsuits nationwide and has been successful in withholding the original birth records from disclosure.

False. Obama has not defended any lawsuits. They've all been thrown out of court. No defense required.

4. The lawyers’ fees charged Mr. Obama for those cases ARE NOT KNOWN, and may be donated by the firms doing the work. The Campaign finance disclosures show a lot of legal fees but they could be for other matters as well.

Filing a motion to dismiss is a very easy procedure, and the cost would be minimal. This is all that is required for the frivolous lawsuits filed be people with no legal standing or evidence.

6. It is possible to acquire a COLB in Hawaii even if one is born elsewhere; Mr. Obama’s sister has done so. Famously, Chinese president Sun Yat Sen also acquired a Hawaii birth certificate despite having been born in China. There is no reported case of a fraudulent newspaper birth notices.

One could get a COLB from Hawaii if the person were not born there, but it would state the person's true place of birth. Obama's records show he was born in Honolulu.


David Weigel
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

This is correct — Obama has never claimed to have been born anywhere but Kapiolani, and WND got pretty badly burned by its “investigation” of Obama's letter commemorating the hospital's centennial.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

“Natural Born” citizens are only distinguished from naturalized citizens. So yes, it does.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

You mean proof? Fine. Here's William Arthur's naturalization certificate from 1843, 14 years after the birth of his son and future president of the US.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

It is possible to acquire a COLB in Hawaii even if one is born elsewhere

As that is something of an evasion, I'll have to raise the same question as mantis:

Assuming an individual were born outside of Hawaii, can that person legally obtain a COLB which states on its face that that individual was born in the State of Hawaii?


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

On behalf of all “false” Americans, I would have to disagree with you.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

Does Weigel have some mental conditition where he has to lie? See the screengrabs here, noting that the sources listed have all changed the hospital to reflect the newtruth.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

Assuming an individual were born outside of Hawaii, can that person legally obtain a COLB which states on its face that that individual was born in the State of Hawaii?

I'm not asking that question, I'm stating that definitively no, one cannot obtain a COLB from the State of Hawaii stating the person was born there if in fact that person was born elsewhere.

“They're just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.”

“There's only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it's been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

“When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That's the birth certificate.”

As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama's does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

Who knows what their procedures are? Can we trust Fukino to tell us the truth?

Note also that Hawaii has never authenticated the COLB shown on Obama's site.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

Actually, birthers like Leo Donofrio would agree with you. Therefore, they argue that Chester Arthur was an illegitimate president, and further that the Wong Kim Ark court, despite its lengthy and well-reasoned opinion, only reached the conclusion it did to protect its Arthur-appointed justice from having his confirmation annulled. You see, Obama's conspiracy began over a century ago.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

The problem with sockpuppets like “mantis” is that they'll just pick a new name after they're discredited, but:
1. BHO could get them to release his whole file if he wanted; why won't he do that?
3. I'd definitely call something like this defending a suit; obviously, “mantis” has no idea what that means.
6. Nothing “shows” that BHO was born in HI except a picture on his site; it hasn't been authenticated.


Steve X
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

Excellent job!


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

Only idiots reply to logic by just saying 'Idiot'.


Steve X
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

I agree entirely. Fortunately for me, there was no logic anywhere in that mess of random capitalized words that you call a post. Since everyone else who posted before me picked apart everything that was wrong about your post, there wasn't much left for me to do.


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

Article II comes AFTER Article I, which does refer to compliance with the Law of Nations, which does require that to be 'Natural-Born', one must be born 'in-country' (not proven so far as Soetoro/Obama hasn't even decided which hospital he was born in yet) of parents (plural) who were both citizens of that country. So the Founding Fathers did, in fact, clarify who is a 'Natural-Born' citizen.

The burden of proof that Soetoro/Obama was born in Hawaii rests with Soetoro/Obama, and he has done a pretty poor job of that, you must admit. BTW, forgery and purjur and publicaton of false documents to obtain a job in Government carries some very severe penalties. May justice prevail.


Patriot35
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

That wasn't my post. I was just commenting on …. WHATever!


Steve X
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Now that I look at it, I can see that you're right about that. I called you out by mistake, but the gist of my response remains the same; that post is entirely devoid of logic (not to mention badly written).


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

1. BHO could get them to release his whole file if he wanted; why won't he do that?

Why should he bother? Responding would only give conspiracy theorist nutjobs like you legitimacy you don't deserve. Ignoring your silliness is the only reasonable response.

3. I'd definitely call something like this defending a suit; obviously, “mantis” has no idea what that means.

Oh, did that case go to trial? No? Too bad.

Anyone can file a suit. Problem is getting a court to proceed with it. Berg failed. You don't need to defend against a case that is dismissed without ever getting past the complaint.

6. Nothing “shows” that BHO was born in HI except a picture on his site; it hasn't been authenticated.

Authenticated by whom? You? Who cares. If it's good enough for the Hawaii Department of Health, who have verified the information on it, including Obama's place of birth, it's good enough for sane individuals. I realize that doesn't apply to folks like you.


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:50 pm

He's so damn sneaky!


mantis
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

And by the way, I've been using this name on the web since I first started commenting on blogs and news sites, in 2004. But even if I showed you proof you'd probably claim it was a conspiracy involving Google, The Internet Archive, and a host of other websites all colluding to provide me cover for my supposed “sockpuppetry.”

Dipshit.


JohnC
Comment posted August 24, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

The “law of nations” was used in those days to refer in general to what we call “international law” today. De Vattel did not invent that term, and although the Founding Fathers respected his work, it did not mean they adopted it wholesale, especially in places where it conflicted with long-established common law. A Supreme Court decision from 1814 (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253) went so far as to cite “natural born subjects” as being one category of residents “recognized by the law of nations.” Obviously the jus soli concept inherent in that category flies in the face of Vattel's embrace of jus sanguinis.

Speaking of Vattel, let's look at what he actually wrote, from the translations closest in time to when he wrote his work:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Vattel refers to “natives” or indigenes as “true citizens.” (The term “natural born citizen” was first added to translations of this passage thirty years after his death.) It is is not clear here whether a person who is not a “true citizen” is a “citizen” at all. Let's assume, though, that this is indeed what Vattel meant – a wholesale abandonment of jus soli. That wouldn't just have implications for presidential qualifications – it would impact citizenship as a whole. Thus, persons not born to two U.S. citizens themselves would not even be citizens in the basic sense of the word unless they assented to citizenship – that is, become naturalized.

It is simply preposterous to assume that the Founding Fathers meants one thing for “natural born citizen” under Article II of the Constitution, while using it in a different way in courts across the country with regard to citizenship without making the slightest statement to that effect, either in the Constitution or in the Federalist Papers. The silence of the Founders, combined with the extensive case law applying the principles of common law jus soli, says all you need to know on claims that the Founding Fathers somehow abandoned long-standing jus soli principles on the basis of a paragraph in Vattel's book that didn't even use the word “natural born citizen.”


Rep. Franks may file a lawsuit for Obama’s birth certificate. | Pure Politics
Pingback posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:11 am

[...] defended President Bush, saying “Americans will wish Bush was back as president.” (HT: Dave Weigel) Posted in politics • • Top Of [...]


Pug
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 12:54 am

…yet neither can refute these objective facts.

Refuted.

I'm glad you aren't my lawyer.


Pug
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 12:59 am

You know, you folks are turning the word patriot into a synonym for lunatic. It's a shame.


Pug
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:01 am

Idiot.


Pug
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:02 am

You didn't call him out by mistake. He's an idiot. Maybe a different idiot, but still an idiot.


Steve X
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 3:11 am

These birthers start to run together after a while…probably because they all keep telling the same lies over and over again.


aarrgghh
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 3:19 am

you must be a groucho marx fan:

“he may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. he really is an idiot.”


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 3:44 am

Does Weigel have some mental conditition where he has to lie? See the screengrabs here, noting that the sources listed have all changed the hospital to reflect the newtruth.


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … | Lawsuit Attorney Blog
Pingback posted August 25, 2009 @ 6:20 am

[...] more from the original source:  The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama [...]


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama … | Lawsuit Attorney Blog - Welding Rod Lawsuit
Pingback posted August 25, 2009 @ 7:30 am

[...] rest is here: The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama …SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama [...]


Twitter Trackbacks for The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama Citizenship Lawsuit? [washingtonindependent.com] on Topsy.com
Pingback posted August 25, 2009 @ 8:54 am

[...] The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama Citizenship Lawsuit? washingtonindependent.com/56051/rep-trent-franks-considering-obama-citizenship-lawsuit – view page – cached #The Washington Independent RSS Feed The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks Considering Obama Citizenship Lawsuit? Comments Feed The Washington Independent Biden Time Montana Republicans Love Max Baucus Some Deal Hunters Stung in ‘Clunkers’ Program — From the page [...]


ant_on_a_log
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

There is also the issue of Charles Curtis, Hoover's VP. SInce the VP has to meet the same qualifications as POTUS. Curtis was born on the Kaw Indian reservation in Kansas and had significant Indian blood in him, which under the law at that time, made his citizenship status debatable.


ant_on_a_log
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

That argument conveniently ignores the fact that Wong Kim Ark was argued well after Chester Arthur was dead (12 years, in fact). In addition, since Supreme Court justices are confirmed by Congress, and could only be impeached by Congress, it is doubtful that Congress would have done so after 17 years of service on the Supreme Court.


ant_on_a_log
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

Even more importantly, since the law allowing this, under certain conditions, wasn't enacted untill 1982, how did Stanley Ann do it?


ant_on_a_log
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

===6. Nothing “shows” that BHO was born in HI except a picture on his site; it hasn't been authenticated.===

So, if it is “fake,” then why hasn't the State of Hawaii done anything about it?


ant_on_a_log
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

He realized that a baby born to an illegal Mexican in California can grow up to be POTUS. That's what happened.


ant_on_a_log
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

===”Ann Dunham was only 17 and had not lived in America for 10 years with 5 of those years after the age of 14. She would have to have been at least 19! “===

So in other words, children of teenaged mothers are not citizens.


The Right Side of Life » Franks Not Giving Up on Certificate; Craig v. US and Right to Be President?
Pingback posted August 25, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

[...] rather glumly made reference to my bodaciously kewl site not too long ago — unsurprisingly questions the motives of Rep. Frank (embedded in his article is a reference to the CitizenWells site). And, speaking of, [...]


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 25, 2009 @ 10:42 pm

Some of us Americans will not just set silently by and let our country turn into a 3rd world communist outpost! You must support the attempted takeover!


Anonymous
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

This deals with Nationals and Citizens — NOT NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS! Different words “really do mean” different things.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

VPs are tied to the running Presidential candidate. We never get to vote for a VP! If the Presidential Candidate is ineligible then the votes for that candidate are invalid.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

I keep seeing this Chester A. Arthur BS. So what! Two wrongs still don’t make it right. America has gone almost a year without righting this ineligibility wrong this time. Maybe back in Chester’s time no one worked hard enough to enforce the Constitution. Maybe the MSM of Chester’s time acted just like ours does today and hides the truth. The only reason that this terrible wrong is being discussed today is this forum we are using right now. Thank God there are those of us out there that will not give up until this usurper is shown to be who he has always been, an enemy of all we stand for.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 1:59 pm

Mister Oldmagicman, please excuse me if this looks harsh but the the law is named “U.S. Code Title 8, § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth.”

Do you see the part where it states “Nationals and citizens of United States AT BIRTH,” which is another/longer name for NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS?

Just because they worded differently it doesn’t mean that they mean different things.

If you disagree then please show me ANY PART of US Constitution which states that people who are “citizens of United States at birth” are not or different from “natural born American citizen.”

Please understand that you don’t get to made up your own interpretation of who is or isn’t American NBC.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

Mister Magicman, if Chester A Arthur presidency was a mistake why didn’t he get impeached?

If there is any smidgen of truth to the notion that someone has to have two US Citizen parents to be American NBC then please show me ANY PART of US Constitution which says something along the line of “Only US citizen of TWO US Citizen parents can be called Natural Born Citizen” (With citation, of course).

You are only entitled to your opinion but not your own facts.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

“Please understand that you don’t get to made up your own interpretation of who is or isn’t American NBC.”
LaLee, neither do you get to “make” up definitions of legal terms that define who can and can not hold the office of POTUS. Natural Born = Born of Blood and Soil. Notice the word “and” That is three requirements;
1. Mother a citizen of America at one’s birth.
2. Father a citizen of America at one’s birth.
3. Ones birth on American Soil.
He clearly fails “2″, Possibly fails “3″, and do to the young age of his mother could fail “1″ depending on place of birth.
Failing “2″ he shows that he can never be considered a Natural Born American Citizen and thus President. The founding fathers were for the most part British Lawyers schooled in British Law and drafted our Great Constitution based on the Laws they knew. In 1787 citizenship depended only on Citizenship of the Father. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. being a Kenyan Brit caused, the one day Senator, to be born a British Citizen at his birth. The British Nationality Act of 1948 did not change this. Being a Citizen of a foreign country from birth proves beyond any doubt that he can not be a Natural Born American Citizen. He may well not even be a simple Citizen of our Great Country. The funny thing is that he is quite possibly a Natural Born Subject of Great Britain. Like Tony Blair or Arnold Swarchenegger he can never be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he pretends to hold today. Words do mean specific things!


mantis
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

I think oldangryman got himself stuck in a video game.

Fight those commies, gramps!


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

“Please understand that you don't get to made up your own interpretation of who is or isn't American NBC.”
LaLee, neither do you get to “make” up definitions of legal terms that define who can and can not hold the office of POTUS. Natural Born = Born of Blood and Soil. Notice the word “and” That is three requirements;
1. Mother a citizen of America at one's birth.
2. Father a citizen of America at one's birth.
3. Ones birth on American Soil.
He clearly fails “2″, Possibly fails “3″, and do to the young age of his mother could fail “1″ depending on place of birth.
Failing “2″ he shows that he can never be considered a Natural Born American Citizen and thus President. The founding fathers were for the most part British Lawyers schooled in British Law and drafted our Great Constitution based on the Laws they knew. In 1787 citizenship depended only on Citizenship of the Father. Barack Hussein Obama Sr. being a Kenyan Brit caused, the one day Senator, to be born a British Citizen at his birth. The British Nationality Act of 1948 did not change this. Being a Citizen of a foreign country from birth proves beyond any doubt that he can not be a Natural Born American Citizen. He may well not even be a simple Citizen of our Great Country. The funny thing is that he is quite possibly a Natural Born Subject of Great Britain. Like Tony Blair or Arnold Swarchenegger he can never be Constitutionally eligible to hold the office he pretends to hold today. Words do mean specific things!


mantis
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

Repeating your incorrect assertions over and over again doesn't make them any less wrong, dumbass.


Steve X
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

I think you wrote most, if not all, of this stuff already. None of it had any basis in law or fact then, and none of it has any basis in law or fact now.

You are still as wrong as you have always been, but at least us sane people get to laugh at you for being stupid. We really appreciate that.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

mantis, go away and just read what the adults type!


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

Do “they” pay you minimum wage to type his stuff? Obot Army of disclaimers! How funny!


Steve X
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

Nope, I'm afraid that “they” don't pay “me” anything. To be honest, “they” wouldn't “have to.” I make “fun” of “birfers” for “free” because it's so “easy.”

“Quotation marks” are “awesome!”


mantis
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

I read your lunacy. It's the same old false birther crap, moron.


iaaimbas
Comment posted August 26, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

There are lots of things to disagree with the president about, and this is absolutely the most insignificant thing there is. Unfortunately it is quite hard to dissuade certain sorts of people of preconceived notions, so they can keep making noise while nothing will ever be done about it, while the more important arguments about things like the fiscal future of this nation are being debated down the hall. Hooting and hollering about xenophobic patriotism gains nothing and makes you look foolish and outdated. Obama is an American in every way possible! Foreigners are what make America great! Get used to it! Now let's talk about the ramifications of continued deficit spending, please.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:20 am

Yer mama says you ugly. Hey.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:21 am

yer mama says you ugly. hey.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:21 am

yer mama says you ugly. hey.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 4:22 am

no. yer mama says you ugly tho. hey.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:08 am

you are evil! you should play the skin flute with tuci78. it will turn those 6'es upside down.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:09 am

i am serious! just look at them! one hand on the typewriter, and one hand on the skin flute. tuci78 looks ravenous.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:09 am

spam flute. in tuci78's mouth.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:10 am

I always want to call you expedia for some reason. oh yeah. tuci78. skin flute.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:11 am

we the Skin Flute Players. tuci78 says kthxbai.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:12 am

O rly? skin fl00t. that's the l33t spelling. love toochie78


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:13 am

yer mama says you like to play tuci78's skin flute.


Name
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:13 am

i said good day daddy! i'm off to play the skin flute! with tuci78.


LaLee
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

I'm not the one who make up the “legal terms that define who can and can not hold the office of POTUS,” the US CONSTITUTION does and NOTHING IN IT said that only US citizen whose parents are both also US citizens are allowed to run and be POTUS.

If you disagree then please cite ANY PART of US Constitution which said anything along the line of your “three requirements” to be POTUS because as far as US Constitution is concerned there is only ONE REQUIREMENT which is the candidate was born on US soil (Jus Soli) and it says NOTHING about the citizenship of either of the candidate's parents.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

LaLee, I wish we could both present this argument before the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court today!


ISUer
Comment posted August 27, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

I think I finally understand the problem: In this case, Obama's place of birth is of less concern to the birthers than the nationality/citizenship of his parents. Stanley Ann Dunham was most certainly an American citizen to begin with. No one here will argue that Barack Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan (British) citizen. So here lies the foundational fallacy upon which the rest of the argument is based.

1.) Since both parents have to be US citizens under the “Natural Born” aspect of citizenship law, Obama is incapable of being president based on the British nationality of his father, even if he was born in the United States.

While no one is disputing his British father’s nationality, or even the absurdly inaccurate theorem that Stanley Ann Dunham spent years of her life overseas before she gave birth to Obama, the following law, generously posted by LaLee (whose arguments are entirely valid and based on constitutional fact, not interpretation) should put these issues to rest. If it does not, then I suppose the good ol’ Constitution and our nation’s laws have no real meaning to our nation’s extreme far right birthers.

“U.S. Code Title 8, § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth:

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;”

Upon examination, any lawyer (and I mean any lawyer, this law is clearly written and not subject to re-interpretation) will tell you that this indeed the law by which person’s are determined to be Natural Born or not. Under this law, even if Stanley Ann Dunham had not lived in this country since she was a small child, Obama’s birth in Hawaii would still make him a legitimate citizen. Secondly, there is the 14’th Amendment to consider here, I will not insult anyone’s knowledge of Constitutional Law by quoting it here (many are doing a good enough job of insulting their own knowledge as it is…), but everyone knows, or should know, the significance of its contents, in place since the year 1868. In this manner, it is obvious that since Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, he is automatically a citizen of the United States of America. His birth in Hawaii cannot be contested by any legitimate means, since public records concerning his mother do not show her leaving this country at any point until she was 25 years old and her then-husband Lolo Soetoro was recalled to Indonesia by the Suharto regime. In other words, had Obama been born before 1967 he would be a citizen no matter where he was born (California, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Washington…all places where Ann Dunham lived before Hawaii). Had he been born afterwards, he would have been born overseas, but would be either in his very early forties or more likely his late thirties today…no offense Barack…but very unlikely given your middle aged appearance. In other words, Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

(all the above information can be located on public/gov. archives that have existed for decades)


Anonymous
Comment posted August 28, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

JohnC, your own words;
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
This says it all! Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was never an American Citizen.
America is not the country of Barack Hussein Obama Jr. even if it was shown that he was born in Hawaii.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:18 am

I’m really hoping you won’t “set silently by.” I want you to yell at as many TV cameras as you possibly can. Don’t forget to bring a birth certificate in a ziplock bag!

I want entertainment and I want smoother sailing for Democrats nationwide. Your idiocy is integral to my wishes being fulfilled.

Don’t let me down!


Anonymous
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Come on, oldster, take some ginseng or something. Your memory is fading.

Vattel’s the one who wrote those words, not JohnC. And JohnC was trying to tell you that the founders didn’t base diddly squat on Vattel’s words.

Care to quote what Rush Limbaugh thinks the Constitution ought to have said, as well? It’s exactly as relevant.


Anonymous
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:23 am

You’re the one who can’t stand the truth. That’s why you keep trying to cling to any reed, however slender, and even if it comes from Vattel’s irrelevant Law of Nations, to avoid having to face the reality that the President was born in Hawai’i and thus is eligible to run for and hold the office of President.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 12:54 am

Hey, neat! I wondered what happened to Tuci78. Haven't seen a post from him since I posted a little compilation of his assassination threats.

So he's blowing birther doofuses now? Well, that's a step up for him. At least he's acting on his closet homosexuality. Obama promised change, and here it is. Progress, even for Tuci78.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 12:56 am

On your #6, you should have noted that the COLB will in any event state the actual birthplace; David Weigel has reported on this at TWI.

Janice Fukino explained that you could get a COLB in Hawai'i that says you were born somewhere else, but to get the State of Hawai'i to issue a COLB stating you were born IN Hawai'i, they would have to verify that fact.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:06 am

mantis, I almost always agree with everything you write. I need to quibble with a couple of statements here, though.

on #3, I would contend that Obama has in fact defended the suits, but the defense has not required much effort. He has had representation in suits filed against him, and his lawyers succeeded in getting the suits dismissed for lack of standing. That constitutes defending himself.

I agree that all suits have been thrown out of court. The ones that were tossed sua sponte, meaning on the judge's own motion, did not require Obama's lawyers to do anything, and as to those I would agree with you. The others required responsive pleadings from Obama's lawyers. That, I submit, is a defense. Just a very brief, effective one.

4. A motion to dismiss is not NECESSARILY an easy thing, but in Obama's situation it is. A motion to dismiss in federal court (in California state court we call it a “demurrer”) is filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A so-called 12(b)(6) motion can be a complicated procedure, or a simple one, depending on the situation.

I worked on one motion to dismiss, for example, when I worked at a big firm, that took us two months to prepare. It was a complicated case filed against our client, a computer chip manufacturer, by the opposing party, a computer manufacturer who contended that our client's chip had problems. Our motion required supporting expert testimony, and we had to take some discovery even before answering the complaint to be able to get the evidence in.

But these are just minor quibbles that do not disturb the thrust of your arguments.

Obama didn't have to do much to defend himself, and the motions to dismiss he filed were not complex. I agree that the attorneys fees generated (where the lawyers weren't working pro bono) were minimal. In one such case, Obama got his fees returned to him by the birther plaintiff as punishment for filing suit, and the fees involved were $1,067. Not exactly a budget-buster for a guy who raked in $100 million in campaign contributions in one month.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:09 am

I'm sorry. I couldn't stop laughing after I got to the word “discredited.”

Coming from you, that was just too much. Where in the world do you get off critizing mantis's credibility? mantis is 1,000 times more credible than you.

Can someone please read the rest of his gibberish to me, or at least give me the gist of it?


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:11 am

See, what's funny about you is the freudian slip in your name. You wrote it as “Shirley Sexton” in your post.

But you chose the name “shilreysexton.” As in shill. As in trying to sell something people don't want. Like your Anti-Christ seduction book. Or your Fairy tale with attitude.

Go shill your products somewhere else. We have birthers to mock.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:13 am

Fine, but could you do us a teensy favor and point out any logic in the post that Steve X was responding to?

I would agree that if there is logic, you should respond to it.

If there is idiocy, however, you should identify it and move on. I'm pretty sure Steve X did that.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:17 am

No. Neither Article 1, nor any part of the Constitution refers in any way to Vattel's Law of Nations. That's an absurd lie.

The Founding Fathers were aware of Vattel's work and chose to ignore it. You cannot get around that by pretending otherwise.

Natural-born does not require “in country” birth. It just means you must be a citizen by birth instead of by naturalization. If your Mom and Dad, both of whom are U.S. Citizens, take a trip to Europe and you pop out of your Mom in front of the Eiffel Tower, you're eligible to run for President. As long as you don't say too many nice things about the French. We kinda frown on that here.

Burden of proof is a word that people should have taught you to define as well as spell. It does not in any way rest on President Obama. It is solely on those who contend that he is not eligible.

What is “purjur?” Sounds like a foreign religion. I hope you're not trying to perjure yourself with all these lies you're telling.


stephenperry
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 1:53 am

Let's not drag Arnold “Swarchenegger” into this, since you cannot spell his name.

Let's just bring in John McCain. He was born in Panama. What happened to your 3 requirements?

Oh yeah, I remember. You made them up and we mocked you for it. Not sure how I forgot that. Must have been my amusement at your attempt to spell my Governor's name phonetically.


oldmagicman666
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 2:48 am

You make a perfect Obot! Ever read The Bell Curve? You're on the far left. Oh, in more ways than one I guess. Petty little people that have no reason or understanding of reality. They always hate what they can not have and can not be. So sad!


Russell Wheeler
Comment posted September 5, 2009 @ 12:51 pm

What is our President hiding? Why doesn't he end this discussion by simply presenting a legal,
valid, ORIGINAL birth certificate? Is he purposefully not presenting it for some arrogant
reason or could it be because his real birth certificate comes from Kenya? After all, he does
have a fairly responsible job here in America and being a Constitutional lawyer himself why
does he not simply abide by our Constitution and produce the evidence? Not too hard to do!!


Steve_X
Comment posted September 6, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

I hate to break it to you, but the official document verified by the state of Hawaii is as official and legal as it gets. That document issued by the state is all the proof that he needs to establish his citizenship. If you still believe in some magical Kenyan birth certificate, then you're delusional because no such document exists (see: Taitz, Orly).

Also, I don't know what constitution you've been reading, but the United States Constitution does not require, and has never required, that a president show his or her birth certificate. Before you quote what's in the Constitution, you might want to actually read it for yourself and not just take Glenn Beck's word as to what it actually says.

At least you don't let facts get in the way of a good rant. You have a bright future in talk radio.


Name
Comment posted September 19, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Get a life people, President Obama was born in the USA.


deborahcchen
Comment posted September 19, 2009 @ 5:55 am

Me thinks he (Obama) doth protest too much.


MBBEEE
Comment posted September 20, 2009 @ 8:12 am

Obama filed to run for President TWO years before everyone else, which means all the documents were presented and check and the idoit birthers have a question about the paperwork? You PAST a LITTLE Late for a complaint. I can prove it's race based, McCain was born in Panama BEFORE the canal was a territory of the USA, George W Bush was AWOL,A Drunk, Drug Abuser and there are parts of his LIFE that remain unknown to this day.
Why his father was Ex Director of the CIA, then Vice President, who better to hide a doofus sons actions that would sincerely disqualify him for office of President?


colterrywilliams
Comment posted November 20, 2009 @ 10:49 am

First off MBBEEE, Barack Hussein Obama senior is ARAB!!! os Barack Has about 45% Arab blood, 50% caucasian blood and about 5% Negro Blood, he is a failure, a liar, and a communist, the facts are there, you say it's not about race, well then why even bring it up,,, Obama is destroying this country and our guys are dying overseas while he drags his feet,,,, wake up, Bush did more for the country to fight radical islam, and Obama bows and sympathizes with Islam because he is a muslim,,,, facts can't be hidden, even by our left wing media,,,, sorry but Obama's grandmother delivered him in Kenya,, his mother was too young so he is not a legal us citizen…… who is the idiot now!!!!


wakeupamaerica
Comment posted December 15, 2009 @ 6:41 am

MBEEEE you forgot one important detail. McCain's parents were in the military and both of them were US citizens under the law if both of your parents are citizens and you are serving in the military….a military base is an extension of U.S. soil last time I checked much like having a child at the US embassy so in all technicality he was born on US soil. As far as racism, Obama is the biggest racist I have ever seen…he wants his thugs in the ghettos to have shiny rims on their new rides and the rest of us should pay for it…he gives it a fancy name called distribution of wealth but I call it treason!!!


Gemcutter
Comment posted January 17, 2010 @ 10:38 am

Any question regardingMcCain is moot. He was not elected.


Gemcutter
Comment posted January 17, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

Any question regardingMcCain is moot. He was not elected.


mbt shoes
Comment posted May 10, 2010 @ 12:58 am

DO you like it?


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 2:53 pm

Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it!


mbt sandals
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

so cool!


nike shox
Comment posted June 10, 2010 @ 1:45 am

Thans for you share the article.


mbt shoes
Comment posted June 27, 2010 @ 3:37 am

High Unemployment isn’t a Big Concern for Conservative Republicans


mbt chapa
Comment posted June 27, 2010 @ 3:38 am

High Unemployment isn’t a Big Concern for Conservative Republicans


chi flat iron
Comment posted June 27, 2010 @ 3:39 am

claims that Franks has been answering constituent mail from “birthers” by dismissing them and “pretty much saying that obama has been vetted and all is in order.”


mbt shoes
Comment posted June 27, 2010 @ 3:40 am

claims that Franks has been answering constituent mail from “birthers” by dismissing them and “pretty much saying that obama has been vetted and all is in order.”


mbt chapa
Comment posted June 27, 2010 @ 3:41 am

What could Franks have been referring to? WorldNetDaily has attempted to assemble “conflicting”


chi flat iron
Comment posted June 27, 2010 @ 3:41 am

a constituent who showed up at the meeting


nike running shoes
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 3:58 am

Buy Cheap Football Jerseys from Sport Jersey's Store, Basketball Jerseys, NFL Jerseys,NHL Jerseys, NBA Jerseys,MLB Jerseys,Hockey Jerseys,Cheap NFL Jerseys,Wholesale NFL Jerseys
Cowboys cheap jerseys Steelers cheap jerseys Saints cheap jerseys Vikings cheap jerseys Raiders cheap jerseysYou may need Summer Equipment,Have a good summer holiday:Many kind of Brand Sunglsss ,Puma Shoes,Converse Shoes,Nike Shox Shoes .

Women's Air Max LTD on sale,Men's Air Max LTD Shoes was introduced in 2002,Nike Air Max 95 and Nike Basketball shoes are hot now,Nike Air Max 2009 retail for men and women,Nike running shoes and mbt shoes are the latest stock to hit our shores,with more boots shoes online,Our nike sneakers like Mens Shox NZ and Womens Shox NZ sale online.


mbt
Comment posted August 2, 2010 @ 5:54 am

I’ve started to undertand what it means mbt shoesonly recently chi flat ironbut he’s a good boy after all. Keep doing your best mbt shoes guys, Internet is a real blessing .I have bookmarked mbt shoesyou and will be back soon. How often do you update mbt shoes?


personal injury attorney nyc
Comment posted September 12, 2010 @ 8:12 pm

Obama didn't have to do much to defend himself, and the motions to dismiss he filed were not complex. I agree that the attorneys fees generated (where the lawyers weren't working pro bono) were minimal. In one such case, Obama got his fees returned to him by the birther plaintiff as punishment for filing suit, and the fees involved were $1,067. Not exactly a budget-buster for a guy who raked in $100 million in campaign contributions in one month.


It is 2011, and John Boehner is Speaker of the House
Pingback posted December 15, 2010 @ 10:52 am

[...] is simply wrong for the government to force people to violate their most sacred beliefs,” said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. “Hawaii may or may not be a state; the jury is still out on that important question. Until [...]


No bark dog collar
Comment posted February 21, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

Thanks for the post. This keeps me informed about the topic.


No bark dog collar
Comment posted February 21, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

Thanks for the post. This keeps me informed about the topic.


Check out my FB profile
Trackback posted March 24, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

Better website?…

Hey this is a actual cool website…


http://www.minterest.com/benefits-of-outsourcing-difficult-web-development-projects/
Trackback posted April 12, 2011 @ 3:12 pm

Better website?…

Hey this can be a real cool website…


sample thank you notes
Trackback posted April 14, 2011 @ 2:04 am

Hey {this is a|this can be a|it is a} {real|actual} cool {website|web site}…

Hey I discovered this website to be actually interesting! Bookmarked!…


radiant floor heating systems
Trackback posted April 29, 2011 @ 5:12 am

Hey {this is a|this can be a|it is a} {real|actual} cool {website|web site}…

Hey I found this web site to be actually fascinating! Bookmarked!…


facebook123
Trackback posted August 25, 2011 @ 1:53 am

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……


127066
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

127066 beers on the wall. sck was here


707714
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

707714 beers on the wall. sck was here


4722162
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

4722162 beers on the wall. sck was here


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.