Rare Non-Orly Taitz Birther Smackdown

What about Mario Apuzo?

should be noted, at least, that this is about standing, not the merits….hence why Berg is making weird arguments about how he was injured.

Why is a Birfer making weird arguments? That's a weird question LOL

More on Mario:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/kerchner…

LOL

Berg maintains that he has suffered damage to his
reputation as a result of bringing this suit – he claims that he has
been accused of being a racist by unnamed others. This “injury”
is not attributed to the Defendants.

DOH!!!!!!!

LOL

“Berg’s assertion that he has been harmed because he has spent money on this lawsuit fails for the same reason; the Defendants’ efforts to legally defend
themselves cannot cause injury that gives rise to Article III standing or the doctrine would have no meaning.”

LOL.

“you injured me because I'm a nut.”

3rd Circuit confirms the district court's dismissal of Berg v Obama:

“In light of the public's interest in the final resolution of this case – which is one of a series of cases brought challenging the qualifications of the 2008 presidential candidates from both of the major political parties – and the obvious lack of any merit in Berg's contentions . . . “

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22475054/BERG-v-OBAMA…

because the tinfoil just shorted out from the microwave mind control waves. . .

Epic Fail for Berg…

Standing is the first Merit. IF there is no standing…no other merits can be tried.

Birftards across the country will be wailing into the night with this slap down echoing for many days… ;)

So that's what the sparks were…

it's a pity orly's reputation is being tarnished by incompetent people probably getting paid to say so. the conspiracy is about the chief.

All the damage to Orly's reputation is being done by Orly.

“Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

But the decision was written by Dolores Sloviter. She's only been a lawyer for 53 years and a Federal Court of Appeals Judge for 30 years, so I'm sure the birfers can set her straight on her misunderstanding of the law.

There's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause… Or in Orly's case, a fool who thinks they have a cause.

Sloviter needs a good lesson on the law from Orly.

What is wrong with all of these judges? Perhaps they need to attend an Orly Taitz lecture.

In his decision dismissing a lawsuit filed by Orly Taitz late last month, U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carterr mentioned that some witnesses complained that the birther chief urged them to lie on the stand. Now, more details are out, as one of the witnesses has made his affidavit public.

“It began to become clearer and clearer to me that Orly Taitz had no understanding of the law,” he writes. “I came to an exhaustive conclusion that Orly Taitz may be the 'Birthers' worst nightmare. Outside of paying attention to her own voice at length, Orly Taitz has the attention span of a small child.”

Read the whole thing (warning: sexually explicit language):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/birthe…

Reputation as a lawyer? Or dentist? Real estate agent, maybe?

KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA – 90 – NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration – Gov.uscourts.cacd.435

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22340867/KEYES-BARNET…

We've all read it already. It is a truly entertaining read since she doesn't address any thing other than to constantly tell the judge he erred. For some reason, judges generally don't like being told they don't know what they're doing – especially when it comes from an attorney like Orly that apparently doesn't know anything about the law.

Another copy and paste birfer.

And the cries of treason will reasonate throughout the birfer halls!

That was filed on Monday. Old news.

If you thought Judge Carter was tough on Orly in his Order granting the Motion to Dismiss, wait until you see what he does with her Motion for Reconsideration.

Orly needs to read this opinion from the Appeals Court in Indiana regarding a lawsuit brought against the Governor of Indiana regarding his failure to make sure Obama was a NBC or something to that effect. Of course, the ruling is against the plaintiffs.

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

The first person to discover and publicly announce the fact Obama is DEFINITELY NOT a “natural born Citizen” was a retired F.B.I. Field Agent/attorney, who publicly announced his findings in April, 2008.

It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . .” Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of “natives or indigenes” which is later translated to “natives or natural born citizens”); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . .”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”). The term “natural born Citizen” has been clearly defined going back as far back as Aristotle. Obama does NOT meet the standard, which has been recognized and accepted for 2,000 years.

Aristotle, 350 B.C. :
“Part 1: …Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?…Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear…

Part 2: But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens…

Part 3: …It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another)….

Part 5: …Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the qualification for office is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citizen; but a mechanic may, for an actual majority of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens…”

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.th…

The Appeals Court in Indiana disagrees with you, Orly.

And his findings were debunked.

Since Attorney apparently wants to bury the opinion of the Appeals Court in Indiana, I'll post it again.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Perhaps you should read the opinion as well, Attorney…

Orly needs to read this opinion from the Appeals Court in Indiana regarding a lawsuit brought against the Governor of Indiana regarding his failure to make sure Obama was a NBC or something to that effect. Of course, the ruling is against the plaintiffs.

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

Touche' “AJX_SUCKS – It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . .” Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of “natives or indigenes” which is later translated to “natives or natural born citizens”); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . .”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”). The term “natural born Citizen” has been clearly defined going back as far back as Aristotle. Obama does NOT meet the standard, which has been recognized and accepted for 2,000 years.

Touche' “AJX_ SUCKS – Aristotle, 350 B.C. :
“Part 1: …Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?…Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear…

Part 2: But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens…

Part 3: …It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another)….

Part 5: …Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the qualification for office is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citizen; but a mechanic may, for an actual majority of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens…”

“AJX_SUCKS” – You need to go back and perform with “The Village People”, you paid pathological liar and life-long loser.

Search, “The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?”, and discover were all the feeble-minded DOJ paid bloggers are employed. What they are doing is ILLEGAL, plus they have “0″ legal training.

How can posting a ruling from the Indiana Appeals Court be construed as making me a pathological liar? And you're making an assumption that I am being paid. YOU HAVE TO BE OILY TASTE! It's the likes of you that make false claims without any evidence.

“AJX_SUCKS” – The “opinion” you've posted has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on OBAMA'S CASE. Get your facts straight.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Orly needs to read this opinion from the Appeals Court in Indiana regarding a lawsuit brought against the Governor of Indiana regarding his failure to make sure Obama was a NBC or something to that effect. Of course, the ruling is against the plaintiffs.

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

“NOT_AXJ” – Because you KNOW the case in no way relates to the cases against Obama.

Orly declines to pay her sanction…

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/78806.html

And attorney's going nuts when the law proves her wrong…again.

Jim – You've been commenting on these blogs for MONTHS. Now, either you are insane, or you are a paid pathological liar. There is no doubt you are the latter.

You DID NOT READ IT because it does.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors.”

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Attorney is a paid birfer because Attorney is Orly who scams people out of money through PayPal so she can go to her lavish lunches. Hope you're keeping track of the income so you can pay taxes on it.

Vattel’s extensive writings on international law have been deeply influential in terms of U.S. law – for example, he has been cited over 150 times by the United States Supreme Court, including as recently as 2004. (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 731 (2004).Cite Sosa)

Another indication of the significance of the “law of nations” comes from the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations.” Accordingly, the very first Congress passed the Alien Torts Statute, which grants the federal courts jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien for a tort “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”

This statute has given rise to recent Supreme Court discussion of the Framing generation’s conception of the law of nations. As the Court has explained, in passing the statute the first Congress anticipated that the courts would recognize private causes of action for certain torts in violation of the law of nations. ( Originally included in The Judiciary Act of 1789, the Alien Tort Statute is now codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1948).

Really, how do you know I'm the same Jim? Pretty common name. Maybe I'm a secret cartel of Jims…waiting for you blowers to show yourselves. Then allow you to show your own stupidity and bias. Then laughs at your futile attempts to remove our president with forged documents and wild theories through a court system that is the best in the world. Nice moniker, attorney, maybe you should read up on a little somewhere other than Orly's site or WND and their bloggers…

You clearly KNOW that “Wong Kim Ark” is not the only U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . .” Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of “natives or indigenes” which is later translated to “natives or natural born citizens”); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . .”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”). The ruling you cite has “0″ bearing on the cases against Obama, liar.

Attorney: “But it doesn't count because I say so…wa wa wa”

The usual argument when confronted with actual case law.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
“It is the function of a judge not to make but to declare the law, according to the golden mete-wand of the law and not by the crooked cord of discretion.”
(Edmund Burke)

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
(John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770)

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right… and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefensible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers.” (John Adams, 'A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law', 1765)

Our naturalization laws since the beginning of our nation have provided citizenship and immigration benefits to children based on the status of their parents. Did Congress see a problem with proving whether someone was a parent or not of a child when it wrote the 1790 Naturalization Act and the many acts that followed it (1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, 1824, 1855, 1878, 1934, 1940, 1952, to the present at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401, 1403, and 1409) which provide for citizenship and immigration benefits for children based on the parent-child relationship?

Why should we now all of a sudden have a problem with proving the parent-child relationship, raising the specter of hotly contested paternity proceedings and DNA analysis and all the rest, especially for an event that occurs once every 4 years (or every 8 years if re-election is involved)concerning an individual who should be the most vetted human being on the planet? Can you please share your wisdom with me on this?

Orly needs to read this opinion from the Appeals Court in Indiana regarding a lawsuit brought against the Governor of Indiana regarding his failure to make sure Obama was a NBC or something to that effect. Of course, the ruling is against the plaintiffs.

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discussed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Attorney's at the copy/paste crazy again. Whenever proven wrong, try to hide it. That's the blower model.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

So we'll post this Indiana opinion…again.

De Vattel, born in Neuchatel, Switzerland, was a citizen of a Republic. That Republic was over 500 years old by the time he wrote his book, having been founded on August 1, 1204.

He already knew the verdict of history, when a Republic remained true to its Founders.

I am rubber and you are glue. Anything you say to me bounces off and sticks to you.

If indeed you're an attorney, I wouldn't be so quick to boast about it based on what your comments.

Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, repeated Vattel's definition when he said: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866). So as you see, you have failed to recognize the many sources that define “natural born citizen.”

Ohhh, so you're employing Tracy Russo's “Blower”? Now I KNOW you're nothing but a cheap liar working for Obama/Holder/DOJ/Tracy Russo!

Quoting something written by Vattel and attempting to make it look like the law here in the United States is quite deceptive.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Well, if you were to read the opinion from the Indiana Appeals Court, you would find that the justices took those arguments into consideration and found they had no bearing. All justices concured on the opinion.

14JUNE1967, Officially recognized Congressional definition of “natural born Citizen” – http://www.scribd.com/doc/20829167/Natural-Born…

Damned, Jim. Attorney had figured us out…. Everything except about the 'liar' part.

Apparently the justices on the appeals court in Indiana disagree with you.

“NOT_AXJ” – You AND “bearclaw” are obviously INTENTIONALLY ATTEMPTING (very feebly) to cloud the issue by quoting irrelevant and incorrect case cites.

This deserves a repost. From Jim:

Orly declines to pay her sanction…

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/nation/story/78806.html

And attorney's going nuts when the law proves her wrong…again.

NOT_AXJ – Sorry, but you continue to cite cases that are in no way relevant to the issue at hand.

1. The Congressional Record is nothing more than the official record of Congressional business. It is not the law of the land, no matter how much Phil Berg, Orly Taitz, and all the other racists who want Obama out of office may think it is.

2. Hi, Orly!

NOT_AXJ – You are off topic and extremely ignorant. http://www.theobamafile.com/

Hardly feeble. The opinion I am posting today was filed today. And it does address the natural born citizen and they conclude that Obama is because he was born in Hawaii. It doesn't matter if either of his parents were citizens.

Anti-birthers: 9000

Birthers: 0

Just a conservative scoring based on the number of posts in comments from all blogs regarding Orly's cases and related cases.

You lost, Orly. Now go back to ruining people's teeth like a good little foreign-trained dentist.

ellid – You haven't been off crack for long or you would know better.

I'm not citing cases. I am citing a case that was filed today AND IS relevant to the issue at hand.

Birthtards lose.

Also, Switzerland is not the United States. Their law is not our law. Why do you keep bringing it up, Orly? And why the name change? Wasn't “Naturalizedcitizen” good enough?

“The cause is hidden; the effect is visible to all.” (Ovid 43 BC) – A person can ONLY become a “natural born Citizen” at BIRTH, the foremost legal requirement is BOTH PARENTS must be U.S. Citizens at the time a child is born to them in order for the child to become a “natural born Citizen”. Obama's father was here on a student visa, he was NEVER a U.S. Citizen, therefore Obama, according to his own website, “Fight the Smears”, was governed by his father's British/Kenyan citizenship. – The following quote is from “Fight the Smears” AND “FactCheck.org” –
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.” – …….Do you comprehend that a person's citizenship CANNOT be governed by British/Kenyan law at birth, then MIRACULOUSLY convert to a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S.A. at age twenty one?! OBAMA, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, WAS NOT LEGALLY A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” of the U.S.A. AT BIRTH, nor can his status EVER change under ANY circumstances. Do you “get it” YET?! Do you understand what the legal term “confession” means? can you not read Obama's CONFESSION posted on his own website?! WOW! How little you Obama supporting folks comprehend.

You just can't handle the truth.

FACT : Senator Obama served on the Senate Judiciary Committee which investigated the “natural born Citizen” status of John McCain in 2008, and OBAMA IS ON RECORD AS BEING IN FULL AGREEMENT THAT BOTH (TWO) PARENTS MUST BE UNITED STATES CITIZENS IN ORDER FOR A CHILD BORN TO THEM TO ATTAIN THE STATUS OF “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. “110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. RES. __
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
_______________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mrs. MCCASKILL (D) (for herself and Mr. LEAHY (D), Mr. OBAMA (D), Mr. COBURN (R), Mrs. CLINTON (D), and Mr. WEBB (D)”… (The summary of the findings of the Senate Judiciary Committee was communicated by Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont – http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html) – Now, after reading the following quotes from the hearings, the delusional Obama worshippers must admit that Obama, by his own definition, is most assuredly NOT Constitutionally qualified to hold office, and that he is also a self-proven pathological liar. OBAMA KNEW BEFORE HE RAN FOR OFFICE THAT, NO MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN, HE CANNOT EVER MEET THE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED LEGAL STANDARD TO BECOME PRESIDENT. Excerpted quotes from Senate Judiciary hearing : “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen,” said Leahy. “I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate.”
“It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,” said McCaskill. “I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes.”
At a Judiciary Committee hearing on April 3, Leahy asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, himself a former Federal judge, if he had doubts that McCain was eligible to serve as President.
“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
“That is mine, too,” said Leahy….End of quote from Senator Leahy's communication. Note the use of the words “…American parentS”, which is the plural form, thus proving beyond all doubt the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Obama was an acting member, decided that BOTH PARENTS (meaning TWO parents, not one) are legally required to be American Citizens at the time a child is born to them in order for the child to attain the Constitutionally required status of “natural born Citizen”. Obama's father was in the U.S.A. on a student visa and Obama Senior was NEVER a Citizen of our nation.

First, you are not making sense.

Second, the law of the land has been explained to you over and over again. Your English skills clearly are not up to the task. Please go learn to read what is obviously not your native language before bothering the rest of us again.

Thank you.

Vattel is not relevant. Please stop.

Opinion filed today (11/12/09) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

ellid – “Racist”, “racism”, and “homophobic” are totally meaningless “politically correct” terms employed solely by those of extremely low intellectual capacity, who can nether face facts, nor confront reality. Said terms were designed to prevent any meaningful, honest, and open discussion of the subjects of race or homosexuality.

That's because you keep beating a very dead horse, Orly. Have you contacted a real law school yet?

You can post your diatribe all night long. I'll just post over it.

True. And note, whether she's posting as “Attorney” or “Naturalizedcitizen,” Orly *always* stops posting on a particular thread when she's challenged beyond her rote talking points.

AGAIN, Aristotle, 350 B.C. –
“Part 1: …Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?…Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place; nor is he a citizen who has no legal right except that of suing and being sued; for this right may be enjoyed under the provisions of a treaty. Nay, resident aliens in many places do not possess even such rights completely, for they are obliged to have a patron, so that they do but imperfectly participate in citizenship, and we call them citizens only in a qualified sense, as we might apply the term to children who are too young to be on the register, or to old men who have been relieved from state duties. Of these we do not say quite simply that they are citizens, but add in the one case that they are not of age, and in the other, that they are past the age, or something of that sort; the precise expression is immaterial, for our meaning is clear…

Part 2: But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens…

Part 3: …It would be a very superficial view which considered only the place and the inhabitants (for the soil and the population may be separated, and some of the inhabitants may live in one place and some in another)….

Part 5: …Since there are many forms of government there must be many varieties of citizen and especially of citizens who are subjects; so that under some governments the mechanic and the laborer will be citizens, but not in others, as, for example, in aristocracy or the so-called government of the best (if there be such an one), in which honors are given according to virtue and merit; for no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer. In oligarchies the qualification for office is high, and therefore no laborer can ever be a citizen; but a mechanic may, for an actual majority of them are rich. At Thebes there was a law that no man could hold office who had not retired from business for ten years. But in many states the law goes to the length of admitting aliens; for in some democracies a man is a citizen though his mother only be a citizen; and a similar principle is applied to illegitimate children; the law is relaxed when there is a dearth of population. But when the number of citizens increases, first the children of a male or a female slave are excluded; then those whose mothers only are citizens; and at last the right of citizenship is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens…”

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.th…

Homosexuality? Where was that brought up? Certainly not by me!

Aristotle died two thousand years before America was founded. Try again.

Birthtards have to grasp at straws. Only problem is, they're now hanging off of a cliff and hanging onto the branches of a poorly rooted tree. So they will spout anything to attempt to prove they're right even though they know they've been wrong all along.

Here you will find the proper case and law cites : A “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents. It was Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758 French edition) (1760 first English edition), who defined for the Framers what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It was Vattel, who stated in Section 212: “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . . .” Vattel, Section 212 (1797 London edition)(and as translated by the United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (repeating Vattel's definition without citing him); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of “natives or indigenes” which is later translated to “natives or natural born citizens”); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (repeating Vattel's definition and stating in referring to his definition: “The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. . . This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case. . . .”); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (citing and quoting the same Ex parte Reynolds references to natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (citing and quoting Minor and its recitation of Vattel's definition of “citizen” and “natural born citizen”). You folks and the other scum employed by Obama have blown your cover for all time. (What did I tell you 39 members of the Judiciary now viewing his blog would happen as soon as the facts were posted? I know all about the paid bloggers and now I've proven it for you folks. Thank you.)

You have the case wrong because the Indiana Appeals Court that a child born in the country, regardless of if their parents are citizens, is a natural born citizen.

Case closed.

Unlike you – and you are a pathological liar and life-long loser – I am not paid and I am right and you are wrong.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Of course, Attorney, you can continue to spew your lies and even if I don't post over them, others will read what I have posted and will know that you're a liar.

ellid – The records of the Founding Fathers, most notably Justice James Wilson, relied on Vattel and Aristotle for the definition of “natural born Citizen”. Several extremely competent atorneys are now in possession of said records. Game, set, match. Obama loses.

ellid – Larry Sinclair ADMITS having gay sex with crack smoking Obama, thus the subject is relevant.

Yeah, right. Let's see, now we have some new, secret documents in your friends possession that will blow the lid off the Obama Presidency because 200 years of legal precedence will not be enough to overcome it. Dude, whatever you're smoking…you gotta share!!!

NOT_AXJ – Give it up, rulings by the State of Indiana courts have “0″ bearing on federal law, yet you continue to post well-known attempts at obfuscation.

You have posted absolutely nothing but lies and very feeble attempts at misdirection. Indiana courts rulings have NO bearing on federal law.

I'm sure that their ruling will most certainly be taken into consideration when deciding any further lawsuits filed by birthtards. It wouldn't surprise me if the DOJ attorneys have the ruling in their hands.

You have posted nothing but lies and your intent is misdirection. But then, you're a birthtard.

39 currently active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY have been actively monitoring this blog tonight. You DOJ paid liars are being investigated and you will soon be indicted for violating the “Hatch Act”. You have posted absolutely nothing but lies and very feeble attempts at misdirection. Indiana courts rulings have NO bearing on federal law.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

OOOHHHHH! I'm so scared!

NOT_AXJ – Last word. You and MANY others will now face FEDERAL INDICTMENT and PROSECUTION for violations of the “HATCH ACT”.

39 currently active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY have been actively monitoring this blog tonight. Warrants for “I.P.” addresses were issued days ago. You DOJ paid liars are being investigated and you will soon be indicted for violating the “Hatch Act”. You have posted absolutely nothing but lies and very feeble attempts at misdirection. Indiana courts rulings have NO bearing on federal law.

He also admits that Orly told him to lie. Larry has no credibility.

BWAHAHAHAHA…let me get this straight…LOL…they don't care about Indiana rulings…hee hee…but they really give a sh*t about an anonymous message board..LOL…to send 39 people to monitor it..BWAA. Why, were they afraid it was going somewhere and had to be followed. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! You just are so full of it!!!

The records of the Founding Fathers, most notably Justice James Wilson, relied on Vattel and Aristotle for the definition of “natural born Citizen”. Several extremely competent atorneys are now in possession of said records. Game, set, match. Obama loses.

The only problem is, can you prove that I'm being paid by the DOJ OR if I am merely here in support of the president I helped elect? Considering the birthtard's record for deception, I feel pretty comfortable with utilizing my First Amendment right of free speech.

Opinion filed today (11/12/09) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF

PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any

other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for

the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already

discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest

birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude

that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1

purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions

[was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born

in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Attorney. Have a Joy Joy Day!

Opinion filed today (11/12/09) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF

PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any

other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for

the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already

discusssed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest

birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude

that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1

purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions

[was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born

in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Attorney. Have a Joy Joy Day!

FYI, I'm a life-long DEMOCRAT, who is fed-up with the hijacking of my party by Marxist/socialist scum.

FYI, I'm a life-long DEMOCRAT, who is fed-up with the hijacking of my party by Marxist/socialist scum.

Opinion filed today (11/12/09) by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

The relevant facts follow. On December 9, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a “PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OF PROHIBITION” against the Governor3 to prevent the Governor “from issuing a „Certificate of Ascertainment,? or any other document, to Congress of the United States containing any popular votes for Barack Obama and Joe Biden for the appointment as Chief Electors . . . [or] John McCain and Sarah Palin for the appointment of Electors.”

Beginning on page 10, the opinion begins to address the natural born citizen definition much of it already discussed in length here by bearclaw as he has relentlessly attempted to knock some sense into the biggest birthtard naturalizedcitizen. On page 17, the conclusion of the court is this:

Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude

that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/111209…

Guess you should become a Republican then since you're in such a minority.

I like the way Attorney pulled an arbratary number like 39. Why not 40? Or 45? Then I'd be REALLY SCARED.

Hitchcock fan??? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026029/

Here's my IP number. 98.121.129.240

Of course, it's going through multiple proxy servers since I'm posting through the TOR network. They're going to have to trace me through multiple IP numbers that have hopped over to Europe, up the North West, down to Dallas, through a Washington D.C. server, back to Europe and ending somewhere in North Carolina.

http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en

Actually, you are a life-long LIAR, pretending to be a Democrat, who is fed up with the hijacking of his country by people who do not believe that Mr Obama was born on Mars.

Can you PROVE you are a Democrat? Judging by your intemperate and childish language, you are no better than an Orly Taitz acolyte.

This is no compliment.

Actually, you are a life-long LIAR, pretending to be a Democrat, who is fed up with the hijacking of his country by people who do not believe that Mr Obama was born on Mars.

Can you PROVE you are a Democrat? Judging by your intemperate and childish language, you are no better than an Orly Taitz acolyte.

This is no compliment.

Oh! I'm here almost 24/7. I work part time, from 9 to 5 six days a week. But there are huge chunks of the night that I sleep. So, I'll await for LEA to show up and take away my computers.

Ahhh… if only YOU were one of those “extremely competent attorneys”.

Perhaps in another life…

“39 currently active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY” you say.

Name one.

You wrote, “Warrants for “I.P.” addresses were issued days ago. “

Who issued these? Give a name. A title. An address. Exactly when? Where?

Can't do it?

Strangely, we are not surprised.

You are as much an 'attorney' as Sarah Palin is a Professor of Russian Studies.

Tell us, Mr 'Attorney', how many currently INACTIVE members of the Federal Judiciary are monitoring this blog?

47? 83? 109? 2165?

It's very important that you tell us this. Otherwise, we just might not believe a word you say.

“39 currently active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY” you say.

Name one.

Still waiting… just name one. We'll take your word for the other 38. Just one name — that's all we ask.

Name one, or we might think you are as nutsy and delusional as all the other crackpots birthers attempting to subvert our Constitution.

Attorney. You should know this if indeed you are really an attorney. Just got off the phone with my mentor who has been an attorney for 60 years. No longer practicing but maintains his law license. He told me to ask you if you are aware that threatening criminal prosecution to advance yourself in a civil context is common law extortion?

I know I have your IP number. Maybe I'll report you to your local authorities and file a complaint.

HEY ATTORNEY! attorney attorney attorney attorney attorney attorne attorn

Nothing but echos in here. I think Attorney left us. BWAHHHHHH!

Anyone notice a familiar pattern?

A kook calling herself 'Attorney' wrote, “39 currently active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY have been actively monitoring this blog tonight. Warrants for “I.P.” addresses were issued days ago. “

This kook has been challenged — repeatedly — to name just ONE of these 39. Only one. One.

This kook has been challenged to tell us who issued these 'warrants', and where, and when. Just one name.

This kook comes here and, like a visiting parasite, lays his lies and then takes off, desperately hoping that someone will believe what he says.

Sorry to tell you, Miss 'Attorney', but until you name even ONE of these members of the 'federal judiciary', and tell us where and when even ONE of these 'warrants' was issued, no one will be believe a word you say.

In fact, you will continue to look like the chronic, deluded liar we know you to be.

You make Joe McCarthy look like a saint, and that takes some doing.

And posting long comments that quote Vattel are designed to prevent any meaningful, honest, or open discussion on the eligibility of Obama.

The birthers will claim victory when a new president is elected in 2016. All of their hard work will eventually pay.

Hey 'Attorney': 39 active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY, you say.

Name one.

It's been 45 minutes.

Still waiting. Name just one.

Waiting.

Waiting.

You people are such pitiful cowards.

Yup. A paranoid's casebook: 'The 39 Steps', a 1935 Hitchcock movie based on a 1915 book by John Buchan.

What fun! These fools leave the deepest steps in the snow.

Too bad that Attorney is not aware that threatening prosecution to advance oneself is considered to be common law extortion. If it continues, I think we should file a complaint with the police department in Attorneys home town. I'll hold onto the IP number I got and see if there are any further posts under that name with the same IP. If so, then I think a call to the police in Attorneys area is in order to file a complaint.

How many others?

Try to be precise.

Ha ha.

Ha ha.

Ah yes, Aristotle. The well-known Founding Father, and author of “Praxis: a Guide to Confusing the Birthers”. Koine and Sons, New Athens, 267 B.C.E.

Ha ha.

Uhhh… Jimbo.

Still waiting for you to give us the name of even ONE 'member of the judiciary now viewing this blog'.

All you have 'proven' is the seriousness of your mental disorder.

One name. That's all we ask.

Scared to answer?

Hmmm…

Ha ha.

Hey 'Attorney': 39 active members of the FEDERAL JUDICIARY, you say.

Name one.

It's been 65 minutes.

Still waiting. Name just one.

Waiting.

Waiting.

You people are such pitiful cowards.

Oh, my, just reading through the “cites” cut and pasted by attorney. I have been following this closely on the news blogs and am delighted with each bitch slap to the faces of these clowns. It never fails, posts on Vattel, repeated threats, abject refusal to accept truth, virulent attacks on our President's family, repetitive nonsense quoting anywhere from $500K to $2M that either the President has personally spent or is a waste of our taxpayers dollars with nary a shred of evidence such as to where they get these figures, repeating disproven “news” such as “his gramma said” he was born in Kenya, attempting to make it the Obama supporters to prove he is a citizen, and on and on and on… Don't Taitz me, bro!! I watch with the fascination of driving by a fatal car wreck as the dentist flails about waving her arms, adjusting her wig, pointing bony fingers at the conspiracy of “them” corrupting the entire legal system, shouting in broken English, all the while seeping desperation. Remember, the clock runs out tomorrow on the Land sanctions. I for one cannot wait for the next adventure. Its exciting and titillating to read her “witnesses” affidavits about her miscreant sexual secretions and “conservative” attitudes about the kinky stuff. If there are any screenwriters out there that want to collaborate on a screenplay please post. It could happen on a blog, in scenes. I see it as either a comedy or tragedy. It could work either way. The only problem is that an audience would have to overcome such a high bar of the suspension of disbelief. You can't make this stuff up. Post away.

What are the “records” to which you refer? There is no record of a debate on the “natural born Citizen” qualification during the Constitutional Convention. The clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole.

James Wilson was one delegate to the Constitutional Convention. What exactly did he say about the meaning of “natural born citizen”, and when? If it was after the Constitutional Convention, as you should know, it is not considered “legislative history,” any more than one member of Congress can, ex post facto, presume to create legislative history.

And where do you get the idea that our “Founding Fathers” relied on de Vattel for the definition of “natural born citizen”? The language you birthers love to quote comes from p. 101 of the 1797 English translation, published in London, of the French original. Take a look:

http://books.google.com/books?id=z8b8rrzRc7AC&d…

As you should know, that is 10 years after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, and seven years after ratification by Rhode Island (the last of the 13 colonies to ratify). Can you show us a version contemporary to the Constitutional Convention that says the same thing? And the original text in French does not use a direct parallel of “native born citizen.”

As for “game, set, match” — this is law, not tennis. But since you probably aren't really an attorney, you may not know the difference.

You must have failed any course in logic you ever took. Do you understand the difference between “necessary” and “sufficient”? I didn’t think so. And I doubt you are an attorney, unless you got your degree from a mail order school, as Orly did.

The discussion you quote is entirely about whether it is sufficient that both of John McCain’s parents were U.S. citizens.

Nowhere does anyone say that is is “necessary” that both parents be citizens in order to be a “natural born citizen.” That discussion would have been irrelevant, because the only issue addressed in the resolution was John McCain’s eligibility. Not Barack Obama’s.

“Attorney” is possessed of a singularly deficient mind. And the number “39″ must have some special numerological significance to birthtards like “Attorney.” Aren't the birthtards also spouting about 39 social security numbers? Or is it 31 Flavors? Or 11 herbs and spices? It gets confusing trying to follow their “theories.”

Oh, I am so afraid. I have been in private law practice for over 20 years. The last time I got a paycheck from any government agency was when I clerked for the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Malcolm M. Lucas, in the 1980s. So go ahead and threaten an indictment, you silly little person.

Three appellate judges agree with us. That is three more than are on record agreeing with you. You have “0″ judges and published decisions on your side. But you have your opinion, which is based on, well, your opinion.

But you don't have an answer to the Court's reasoning, except to cluck “Aristotle” and “de Vattel.”

If you ever tried this in front of a judge, you would get your head handed to you.

You cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its “recitation” of de Vattel's definition. What you don't mention is that the recitation is in the dissenting opinion, not the majority opinion. Don't you think 's somewhat relevant? The majority looked to English common law, not de Vattel. You are one sorry excuse for an “attorney.”

I thought he wrote “Zen and the Art of Chariot Maintenance.”

Wonderfully said! Very well done. Thank you!!

Anyone else noticed the disappearance of our lie-by-night friend, the 'attorney'?

She comes here and purports that 39 active members of the federal judiciary (sic) are monitoring this blog, armed with warrants!

Then, she is repeatedly challenged to name JUST ONE of these 39. A mere one. Only one.

Are you surprised to learn that she is unable to do so? Refuses to do so? Runs away in order to avoid doing so?

If 'attorney' cannot name EVEN ONE of these 39 juridical types, we are drawn to the inevitable conclusion, so ably spoken by the great Charles Laughton in 'Witness for the Prosecution', “are you not in fact a chronic and habitual LIAR!”

Our poor, deluded, deluding 'attorney' is clearly nothing but a liar, unable to substantiate a single, risible, and subversive claim.

Back to Russia with you!

Name one.

Name one.

Are you nuts?

In correct English, we would write, “incorrect case citations”.

Back to ESL with you, Orly!

Name ONE DOJ blogger.

Liar.

For what? Telling the truth?

Go perform a root canal, Orly.

She already has, if this is who I think it is, and she’s lost every single time. Guess she’s not going to be on William Howard Taft Diploma Mill Rip-Off School of Something Vaguely Approaching Law as Practiced on TV advertisements as a successful alumna….

Aristotle’s philosophical works are not the law of the United States, Orly. Repeating yourself over and over and over again does not make your ravings any less false.

You really are desperate, aren’t you, bringing up the long-debunked words of a liar. Sorry, Orly – Obama is President, he doesn’t smoke crack, and he was born in Hawaii.

Sorry, but the only drug I take is lisinopril.

Give it up, Orly. No matter how many incoherent rants you post, you will still be wrong and Obama will still be President.

I guess I was too tired to pick that up, but you're right. The number of SSN's that Obama has supposedly used over the years is 39. Could it have been we were plagued by a visit by the master attorney herself?

That’s a picture in my mind I could have done without. But amusing none the less.

Just a note. . . Judge Land's sanction order was issued October 13th. Since October has 31 days, 30 days from that point would have been yesterday, Thursday, November 12.

Orly's still threatening not to pay…

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_ne…

Wonder what her reaction will be when the US Marshals show up at her door?

Thank you, thank you! You’ve been a lovely audience! I’ll be here until Friday….

No, that was Epicurus. He was responding to Diogenes’ book “The Dancing Calyx Krater Masters.”

Well, it is very nice of Orly to come here under different monikers and provide the comedy relief. Reminds me of a very famous ditzy blond…Gracie Allen. Wonder if her husband’s going to feel like George Burns when the US Marshals show up and ask for the $20 grand she owes?

Actually, that is not quite true. the appelate court decision can be appealed to the state supreme court. After it is affirmed (i.e. birther lose again) at that level, since the decision dealt with a U.S. Constituional matter, it can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Good luck.

Ding dong

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009…

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Now all we need is Judge Carter to slap her down today, again, and we'll have a very entertaining weekend.

Oops.

More like Jack Benny, I’d say….

Orly should refund all of her supporters that sent in money to pay the sanction. Most likely, she doesn't have the money they sent her since she spent it all on her lavish lunches and other entertainment.

I think her supporters should support her cause by refusing to donate money for a fine they refuse to pay.

That's almost as good as what Jim wrote below. Maybe by the end of the day we'll get some more good news but it is doubtful.

My bet is that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it.

Unfortunately, immediately after the sanction, her supporters were sending her PayPal donations by the droves.

Yep, and just as unfortunately, Orly was spending it like a drunken sailor on first shore leave after 6 months at sea. She needs more!

Not so amazing that they agree with your definition of NBC that you have repeatedly explained to NC. NC has laughed at the opinion and said they’re not right. Does that surprise anyone?

NC had to contort her arguments so badly, she looked like a bizarro pretzel. The best is always the “It’s not right because I say so” argument…like she’s the constitutional authority. LOL

The Indy boys would have to get a “real lawyer” like Orly to file it for them since they went pro se in their own case.

They're so brain washed on her website that I'm sure the donations are flowing in. She even asked for help to pay for a computer support call a week or so ago. The tech charged her $900 bucks. I have my doubts about that amount. More like Orly needed it to buy some shoes.

And don't forget the fake eyelashes and peroxide. It costs a lot of money to look like Sacha Baron Cohen's meth-addicted twin sister.

Of COURSE you're a democrat “attorney.” By the way I'm a life-long republican who's fed up with the hijacking of my party by ignorant, racist fascists but you don't hear me complaining, now do you?

See what I just did? It's fun to play pretend on the internet! You should change your name to “doctor” and then tell us all why putting leeches all over our bodies is the best cure for blood-borne illnesses.

Um, I think she blew all the $$$ on her recent NYC junket: probably told her flock about the “big” O'reilly/Fox protest, so she showed up outside the 30 Rock building for 30 minutes, got her photo taken for the website, then went about NYC on her Berftard fanclub's dime. She may be crazy, but she's smarter than a Berftard LOL

Oh happy day!

I hope the IRS is checking on the money she collects through PayPal.

True, but of course Gracie Allen was a very intellegent woman in real life, unlike Orly!

According to the US Office of Special Council:

Hatch Act for Federal Employees

The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government, District of Columbia government and some state and local employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. In 1993, Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326). (These amendments did not change the provisions that apply to state and local employees. 5 U.S.C. §§ 1501- 1508.) Under the amendments most federal and D.C. employees are now permitted to take an active part in political management and political campaigns. A small group of federal employees are subject to greater restrictions and continue to be prohibited from engaging in partisan political management and partisan political campaigns.

The rest of it, and the detailed lists of what federal employees can & cannot do is here:

http://www.osc.gov/ha_fed.htm

It's eleventy-million-billion-kajillion!

You know, you're right! I left off a zero.

It's that damn Orly Taitz, with the power to cloud men's minds!

Orly apparently failed to realize that an appeal of Judge Land's Order imposing sanctions does not “stay” the effect of the Order. You have to specifically seek a “stay.”

She who represents herself in court has a fool for client. Doubly so for Orly.

I'm a life-long Democrat who is fed-up with the hijacking of my party by glue bogs. Uh, blue dogs. Splitters!

15 hours later, and still waiting.

Name one.

Sounds like Jim speaks from experience

And you call yourself a man??? smells more like pu$$y to me

Hmmm… interesting nick you have chosen for yourself.

“Reds72″ refers, in police parlance, to a variety of Amytal, Downers, Nembutal, Phenobarbital — all of them used in self-medication to control rage and psychosis.

Smells more like “nutsy” to me.

And you call yourself “cured”?

Someone named 'naturalized citizen' enquired about how it was Orly Taitz obtained her degree from an online diploma mill.

This is how it happened:

naturalizedcitizen 45 minutes ago
Where did you get the idea about on-line diploma mill – from comrade trentino's rants?

==========

Actually, Orly, we got it from your own website.

You were too stupid and unqualified to gain admission to an accredited law school; instead, you went to an online diploma mill called The Taft School, recognized as a law school by no one.

Here's what the Taft School says at its own website:

“The Distance Education and Training Council (http://www.detc.org) is a non-profit section 501(c) (6) educational association located in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1926 to promote sound educational standards and ethical business practices within the correspondence field. The independent nine-member Accrediting Commission of the DETC was established in 1955.”

NOTE: “within the correspondence field.”

Since then, they have gone on to award themselves meaningless 'credentials' from other trade associations for correspondence schools.

Here's what the State Bar of California says on its website: “Taft Law School is an unaccredited law school in California.” Unaccredited, Orly. Do you understand what that means?

SOURCE: http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generi…

Orly, you are a quack, incompetent to enter an accredited law school in California. Just ask the State Bar.

SOURCE, AGAIN: http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generi…

And that's how the world knows about Orly's on-line diploma mill.

Thanks for asking!!! We appreciate it!!!

I just figured it out:

Orly is quoting her textbooks from the William Howard Taft Diploma Mill Named After The Only President To Get Stuck in a Bathtub . That’s why some of her paragraphs, like the first one above, sound like idiomatic English, but many of the rest don’t.

I just figured it out:

Orly is quoting her textbooks from the William Howard Taft Diploma Mill Named After The Only President To Get Stuck in a Bathtub . That’s why some of her paragraphs, like the first one above, sound like idiomatic English, but many of the rest don’t.

Now is the time to fly our flags upside-down until The Great Usurper-Obama releases his Birth Certificate and college records and comes clean about his citizenship. Barack Obama is clearly an illegal-alien & has no business even running for U.S. President.

Now let's examine Obama's college records!

impotent rage
crawl out of your windowless basement and get involved in politics–2012 will be here before you know it.
Try acting like an adult for a change

SHOW US YER PAYPURS!!!!!!

WUT ARE YEW HIDING???????

WAKE UP PEEPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Certainly! After we examine yours.

When exactly did you attend Columbia? What was your GPA? What courses did you take at Columbia? What were your grades at Columbia?

When precisely were you the President of the Harvard Law Review? You mean, you weren't President of the Harvard law Review??

Hmm, something's fishy here, Berftard. I think we'll have to sue you to get you to come clean.

Ha ha. Imagine: patriotic advice from someone who calls himself Graham the Red. What a joke.

I assume you have the money to repay the police for all the false alarms they'll answer when well meaning neighbors see the upside down flag and call 911 to help you through your emergency? And that you are prepared for the local police to hate your guts and finally refuse to answer when you have an actual emergency, not just a guy you don't like in the White House?

Why?

It truly amazes me. The 'pubs' are just stomping their feets and having temper tentrums. We had to quietly endure 8 years of a Bush regime and watch as the 'pubs' took a balanced budget and then ran up the debt to astronomical proportions. Then, we finally get an intelligent president that is articulate, and they turn around and blame him for everything that Bush did in addition to calling him a usurper. I know not all of it is racist but some of it is. Yes, I have friends that don't like Obama and I get the email messages that are certainly racially motivated when they use the term 'nigger' to describe him. And I know these people well enough that I am aware that they are not terribly bright. I have to come to the conclusion that ALL of the people posting against Obama here ARE racist and aren't terribly bright. Forgive them God. They know not what they do.

What could possibly be more important than demanding a congressional inquiry into Obama's citizenship status? The man is a complete fraud and needs to resign or otherwise be removed. His own wife publicly proclaimed he was adopted and that his mother Stannie was actually “very single” when she had Barack. In the words of former ambassador Alan Keyes we are in the midst of a “constitutional-crisis”.

One word. Delusional.

Another word. Lies.

Actually the local police chief is a birther and a truther.

1. There is no Constitutional requirement that the President or any other government official be legitimate. Such a requirement would have prohibited Alexander Hamilton from serving as a Cabinet officer, since he was born out of wedlock.

2. If the President's parents were not married, there is zero reason for his mother to have traveled to Kenya to give birth to him. This leaves aside the absurdity of a heavily pregnant teenager traveling to a colony still reeling from the effects of the Mau Mau uprising to give birth.

3. Mrs. Obama clearly was referring to her mother-in-law being abandoned soon after her son's birth and having to raise her son by herself. You would realize this if your reading skills rose above the “functionally literate,” which they clearly don't.

4. Saving the economy, fighting two wars, reforming an inefficient and cruel health insurance system, and cleaning up the mess left by eight years of the most inept, corrupt, and plain incompetent presidency in history is far more important than indulging a bunch of racists who aren't satisfied with a legal birth certificate.

5. Alan Keyes has never gotten over the President beating him in the Senatorial race. Sorry, but jealousy does not count as a Constitutional crisis.

A birther AND a truther? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

You are a disgusting voyeur.

More important?

Well, to begin with, how about a congressional inquiry into your sanity, your compulsive-obsessive disorder, your various eating disorders, your hypertension, and the possibility that Clonazepam just might help even out your mania.

Then, we'll talk about your own mother, and the barely-repressed hostility that led to gender identity issues for you, poor dear, and then we'll get to the REAL subject of fundamental Constitutional importance: where and why were you with Glenn Beck on that dark night in 1990?

Please file all documents NOW, in triplicate, including your college (no, strike that) your junior high school records, including all late slips.

Plus, of course, your birth certificate. And all of your SSNs.

Do it NOW, or we'll know you're trying to cover something up!

We are in the midst of a “constitutional-crisis”, according to Alan Keyes, whose own daughter is a lesbian, which tells you something about his parenting skills, if you ask Graham the Red.

Someone named 'naturalized citizen' enquired about how it was Orly Taitz obtained her degree from an online diploma mill.

This is how it happened:

naturalizedcitizen 45 minutes ago
Where did you get the idea about on-line diploma mill – from comrade trentino's rants?

==========

Actually, Orly, we got it from your own website.

You were too stupid and unqualified to gain admission to an accredited law school; instead, you went to an online diploma mill called The Taft School, recognized as a law school by no one.

Here's what the Taft School says at its own website:

“The Distance Education and Training Council (http://www.detc.org) is a non-profit section 501(c) (6) educational association located in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1926 to promote sound educational standards and ethical business practices within the correspondence field. The independent nine-member Accrediting Commission of the DETC was established in 1955.”

NOTE: “within the correspondence field.”

Since then, they have gone on to award themselves meaningless 'credentials' from other trade associations for correspondence schools.

Here's what the State Bar of California says on its website: “Taft Law School is an unaccredited law school in California.” Unaccredited, Orly. Do you understand what that means?

SOURCE: http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generi…

Orly, you are a quack, incompetent to enter an accredited law school in California. Just ask the State Bar.

SOURCE, AGAIN: http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_generi…

And that's how the world knows about Orly's on-line diploma mill.

Thanks for asking!!! We appreciate it!!!

Perhaps my one-quarter Cherokee wife would agree with you as I have referred to her as a redskinned savage during intimate interludes and petty quarrels. Fortunate for me she refuses to fight at night unless I prime her with firewater.

Birthers & truthers are two sides of the same coin. They don't trust the government, believe the media or get swineflu shots.

Don't feel bad because your trailer doesn't have a basement! As long as there's not a tornado you'll be fine. Perhaps you should walk away from the computer once in awhile and get involved going door-to-door for ACORN, QweerNation or PETA.

Don't look here! The joke's in your hand.

My goodness, Graham, that was quite … funny. Yes, I believe you were trying to tell a joke. Nice try, boy!

So you are a hater & think there's something wrong with being a lesbian?
Maybe you're just a hypocrite?

I suppose she's not really a dentist either. At least she isn't trying to hide her citizenship.

And Obama isn't trying to hide his either. He proved it before he ran for president. You just don't want to accept it. That's your problem. Not ours.

I'm just inspired by your moral example, Graham the Red, who wrote, “Perhaps you should walk away from the computer once in awhile and get involved going door-to-door for ACORN, QweerNation or PETA.”

Speaking of… ahem, hypocrisy.

Think there's something wrong with being 'qweer', as you so ably mis-spell it?

Except for the 22 people who have sued her for dental malpractice, no, we have not heard anyone challenge her credentials to pull teeth.

In fact, it's much the same when she gives a speech.

If Obama's parents weren't legally married it doesn't change who the father was or effect the birth-citizenship of the baby. A baby born in Kenya to a Kenyan father would be a Kenyan-Brit in 1961. A baby fathered by a Brit in 1961 in the new state of Hawaii to a minor who hadn't had 3yr residency would be recognized as a Brit in Great Britain and possibly as a dual-citizen in the U.S. That baby could not possibly be an NBC no matter how you slice it. But that was all before Obama became an Indonesian-Moslem.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Just because you get a jackass to move don't think you can make him fly!

I have a BS in Military Science. My wife has a year of college so we homeschooled our kids a couple years. The gov't school didn't mind because they still got paid by the state because we lived in the district & filed with the state. We didn't have to show the BC for our adopted daughter only the adoption record.

Yeah I do. It's just not natural. I'd go so far as to say its an abomination. Never claimed otherwise.

There have been over 50 lawsuits challenging the Obama's citizenship so it isn't just “my problem”. Every congressman has been told to form a congressional inquiry at least once on this matter.

President Lincoln didn't even have that.

I'm grouping all birthers in to 'your'. Considering the fact that there have been over 50 lawsuits challenging Obama's citizenship and each has been thrown out, I don't think your cause is worth. Amusing but not worthy. Congress isn't going to do anything about your cause because they all think you're nuts – with the exception of a couple of the real nutcases like Michele Bachmann, even though she voted on the resolution declaring Hawaii the State that Obama was born in.

I'm glad you all don't get swine flu shots. Maybe enough of you will get the swine flu and die.

Just remembering in processing when I joined the Navy, they had us walk butt to nut in a line while we were innoculated for numerous things like yellow fever. I didn't get anything from those innoculations and I had no fear when I recently got my swine flu shot in addition to my regular flu shot. I am living proof that it does not kill.

What's more our country needs Obama for some strange reason now and the powers that be will keep him in office as our country would get even more fractured if he were removed for just cause. I'm afraid we're stuck with this imposter for at least a full four years. God allowed him to gain power for a reason(punishment?) but in time the truth will surface about what this usurper is hiding.

You know. I watched the almost 2 hour movie about Obama on YouTube that is linked to ObamacornLies moniker. It was very cleverly done – especially since they start off with the claims that President Kennedy was the last real president we had. But, after watching it through about half way, I began to pause it and read up on each point. By the end of the movie, I was less than convinced.

Go ahead and call Obama a usurper. It's your Constitutional right. However, I've been around long enough to know that we're not going to lose our guns and the only time our Constitutional rights were trampled on were under the Bush/Cheney administration.

You're afraid you're stuck with Obama. I'm proud to be 'stuck' with him. I didn't vote for him because he is black. I voted for him because he is intelligent and it was clear that he was the only president that could bring back our nation's credibility.

No, Lincoln just studied with a qualified lawyer before being called to the bar, which was the custom nearly two hundred years ago before there *were* law schools. Today, unless he lived in Vermont, he'd have to attend an accredited law school, clerk in a law firm, and then sit for the bar exam, just like every other law student.

*rolls eyes*

What's your next suggestion from Possum Lodge, old sport? The humoural theory of disease?

What, only the men? Aren't the women in Congress good enough to participate in your ravings?

Here's your modem, what's your hurry?

Bigot.

He was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. FAIL.

Perhaps you'd care to prove this by posting non-Photoshopped copies of your wife's tribal membership card, your daughter's amended birth certificate showing her *legal* adoption (that is, if you bothered to adopt her at all and didn't simply snatch her off the street), and a copy of your daughter's boyfriend's parents' original Mexican identification papers AND their green cards proving that they have the right to be in the United States. Failure to post any or all of the above will be proof that you are simply lying to show that you're not *really* a racist despite all your other postings indicated that you're a bitter, undereducated, racist who cannot accept a black man in the White House.

I repeat:

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Ah, the folksy wisdom of the trailer park….

Please prove it by posting copies of your diplomas AND your daughter's adoption records on-line. Right now we only have your word that any of this is true, and quite frankly, why should we?

comparing Orly to Abraham Lincoln

somewhere in heaven, yet another angel has had a brain aneurysm

…yeah, and there are well over 50 people out there who have complained publicly about being abducted by aliens

Maybe you Berfers & the abductees could join forces. I guarantee you Red, it would be a net gain for Berfer credibility

You have stated elsewhere today that Obama was appointed by a 'mysterious international brotherhood'. So how does that square with 'usurper'?
You stated that all US Presidents are appointed in this fashion, so what's special about Obama?
Why the urgency?
They'll just appoint another puppet to replace him. Why do hate THIS puppet so much?

Bigot, hypocrite, bats**t crazy, to be precise

SHOW US ALL YER PAYPURS!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT ARE YEW HIDING??????????

WAKE UP PEEPUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Coward.

Your challenge the was meaningless as is everything you post.
“So you are a hater & think there's something wrong with being a lesbian?
Maybe you're just a hypocrite?”

You're babbling to yourself again, dumbass.

You're a DISGRACE and a traitorous pig bigot.

Like Philip Berg – the subject of the above article.In October 2004, Berg filed Rodriguez v. Bush, accusing the President of the United States and 155 other parties of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.
This 237-page civil lawsuit[7][8] included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against The United States Of America, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld,and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This lawsuit made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of “controlled demolitions;” that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from “pods” affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create “American Gulag” concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government’s plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were “faked” by the government using “voice morphing” technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex.[8]
The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005.[9] On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed the claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave the plaintiff until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants.[10]
The plaintiff failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of the claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006.

From wiki:
In 2001 he demanded the disbarment of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas due to their participation in the case Bush v. Gore.[2] In 2004, Berg filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit on behalf of a World Trade Center maintenance worker against President George W. Bush and others alleging that the Bush and certain government officials conspired to bring about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.[3] The federal district court dismissed the suit. He challenged President George W. Bush on his right to conduct a war against terror and another against Saddam Hussein with only a congressional authorization.[4]

Birfers are swine flu.

All birfers are pathological liars, cowards and traitors.

I think I see a pattern here with Mr. Berg….

Sorry, the only property I own is a three bedroom split level ranch, and the only time I put up a yard sign was to stop a Stop & Shop from taking over a local golf course. I do live near a tornado alley, though. Does that count?

Question: how can you be a life long Democrat if you were born in Moldova and lived for several years in Israel? I thought the political parties had different names there, Orly?

May I remind folks that, over a day ago, someone calling herself 'Attorney' was busy posting here?

Among her many mad accusations was one that caught our attention. According to 'Attorney', 39 members of the “Federal Judiciary” were monitoring these boards, armed with search warrants for our IPs, and ready to jail us for alleged violations of the Hatch Act. Immediately.

Curious about this bizarre assertion, we asked 'Attorney' to name EVEN ONE of these 39 Federal judges. Not three. Not two. Not all 39. Just ONE.

Well, more than a day has rolled by and, guess what? Yet another insane birther has flown the coop. This lie-by-night parasite zooms in, lays lies, and flies away again. Not one name was provided. No evidence. No proof. Nothing. Just another ridiculous lie.

Anyone notice a pattern?

These cretins will say anything, lie about anything, make anything up, invent panels of fictitious Judges, forge Kenyan birth certificates, suborn perjury, purport to act on behalf of clients who have already fired them, claim to know the names of “paid DOJ bloggers”, insist on a “mysterious international brotherhood” that actually runs the world, and do anything else it takes to keep their egos stoked with self-importance.

These cretins are caught with their lies and forged documents time and again, and seem to imagine that the world takes them seriously.

The world does not.

'Attorney' has been caught telling another whopper, as was 'Ernie', 'Graham the Red', 'AXJ Rocks', 'Naturalized Citizen', 'ObamaCorn', and so many other con men before them.

Guys, face it: your track record is so horrible, so laughable, so provably false that you should really enter another line of work.

Perhaps running an online, unaccredited law school? That would be good for you. Good luck!

A coward, and a nut case.

We'll have that with cheese and fries, please.

Really? Be precise.

When? Where? By whom? In what form?

If you can't be more exact about these matters, we will conclude you have once again gone off the deep end. Please take it up with your “mysterious international brotherhood” of space aliens while you're at it.

Perhaps something to do with skin color? Maybe?

But what about your sister, Mabel? The one who works in the motorbike shop?

Can you PROVE a word of what you said?

Until you post notarized documents, long-form only, we will continue you name you for what you are: a crackpot, a racist, and a liar.

PROVE what you said or, as ever, we will suspect that you are yourself a double agent in the service of the “mysterious international brotherhood” you told us about.

PROVE it.

Here's what it's like for the sane people on this board to deal with the nuts, the loons, the conspiracists… in other words, the birthers.

They will never, EVER be satisfied. It is the nature of their fetish that they CANNOT be satisfied. Every fact is simply proof of an even deeper cover-up. Their lunacy is a bottomless pit.

CONSIDER: the great mathematician, Nobel Prize winner, and skeptic, Lord Bertrand Russell, was once giving a public lecture on astronomy.

He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said, “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle.”

Lord Russell asked, “What is the turtle standing on?”

“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “It's another turtle!”

“And what,” asked Lord Russell, “is THAT turtle standing on?”

“Easily answered,” said the old lady. “It’s turtles all the way down!”

Ahhh, crackpots.

Just show us the BC like we've been asking for and release the college records and we'll put on our tinfoil hats and return to the windowless basements of our trailers near the Walmart.

Actually, you'll just call it a fake and continue to ask for more. Your better opportunity is Congress. You need to contact EVERY congressperson from the pub party on Orly's facebook page and DEMAND they have hearings calling for the BC. I also recommend that you contact the Pub's head, Michael Steele, he can give you the names of the pub congressmen who are afraid of blacks…they'll be happy to become part of your movement. Good Luck!

Jesus Christ himself can show you silly birfers his birth certificate, and you'd STILL whine it's fake.

You are quite the idiot, RedGrahamCracker … Obama's mother was a US citizen, therefore, regardless if his father was Kenyan, a Who from Whoville, or an elf from Santa's workshop, his mother was a US citizen. Immigration law CLEARLY states that only one parent need be a US citizen for said citizen's offspring to acquire (Main Entry: ac·quire: Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ac·quired; ac·quir·ing
Etymology: Middle English aqueren, from Anglo-French acquerre, from Latin acquirere, from ad- + quaerere to seek, obtain
Date: 15th century
1 : to get as one's own: a : to come into possession or control of often by unspecified means b : to come to have as a new or added characteristic, trait, or ability (as by sustained effort or natural selection) <acquire fluency in French> <bacteria that acquire tolerance to antibiotics>
2 : to locate and hold (a desired object) in a detector <acquire a target by radar> / http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquire) US citizenship. It's called “citizenship by acquisition”.

Findlaw.com states this fact. Unfortunately, since there aren't pictures to define said law, perhaps your mommy or daddy can help you get through it.

Damn! Why, I do believe I felt that massive bitch-slap that the Appeals Court gave Berg all the way up here in CT … DAMN!

NOT_AXJ your attempted propaganda is noted.

The Indiana Court of Appeals did not decide on NBC and SCOTUS never declared Wong Kim Ark an NBC.

My future son-in-law lives in Ogden(Little Mexico), UT & was a gangmember before being born-again at age 17. My wife grew up on the reservation in Four Corners. Before we adopted our Korean daughter her first name was Yumiko which I believe is really Japanese and her last name was Kim which in South Korea is like Smith or Jones. I have over 4yr of college and I would be extremely happy if Alan Keyes, who I once voted for, was president and he is much blacker than the Usurper will ever be. Your “undereducated racist” nonsense don't work with me.

LOL ! !

In a poetic twist, the ship has sunk the berg.

Not good enough. Show us the documents or shut up.

cheap ugg boots

discount ugg boots

ugg classic tall

buy ugg classic cardy boots

sale ugg boots

classic ugg tall boots

ugg classic short boots

classic ugg cardy boots

ugg bailey button

bailey ugg button boots

ugg mayfaire boots

ugg boots mayfaire

ugg argyle knit boots

ugg crochet boots

ugg baby bootie

ugg infant boots

ugg nightfall boots

classic ugg sundance boots

classic ugg nightfall boots

ugg rainier boots

ugg stripe cable nit boot

women's ugg boots

ugg women lo pro boots

ugg classic tall chestnut

ugg grey classic tall boots

ugg classic mini boots

ugg christmas special offer

ugg christmas promotion

purchase ugg boots

1. Already done over a year ago.

2. Not relevant to the question of eligibility.

19 hours and still no sign of your wife's tribal identification card, your daughter's adoption papers and amended birth certificate, and your daughter's boyfriend's green card. Given your new assertion that said boyfriend was a gang member, evidence of same would also be appreciated.

Failure to produce same will leave me no choice but to wonder why you refuse to be held to the same standard you demand of the President, and what you could possibly be hiding. Membership in a militia organization? An adoption handled by a disbarred attorney like Charles Lincoln? A meth lab in your basement? Your wife falsely claiming tribal membership to claim educational and health benefits? All of the above are possible, nay, PROBABLE, unless you produce the documents.

The clock is ticking, old sport. What are you hiding?

I would love to see their feeble attempt at that! LOL!!

LOL…good one.

So did a few people down here…

Yep…it's your problem because ALL of the suits were dismissed…and the appeals are being dismissed. Here's a link with all of the actual Court Cases and links to the actual docket numbers…read it and weep…

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence…

Every congressman has been asked? Really? Guess they didn't care about it enough to do anything…maybe because they ALL know what the rest of us know…Obama is a US Citizen and completely eligible to hold the office to which he was lawfully elected!!!

Here's a link to all the cases…including appeals and the actual court dockets.

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence…

Birthers have lost 54 times including appeals. Clocks running…none of the remaining open cases will be ruled in Birthers favor.

Great fun. Great reassurance. Sad news for birthers, losing every single case they have ever brought. Ha!

Thanks for posting.

Even Walmart won't have you. Their selection of lunatics is restricted to Aisle 13.

Only 54 cases so far huh?

That's where you are wrong again. The college records have never been released and the BC from Kenya hasn't been released a year yet.

Possibly before he became an Indonesian & attended college as a Foreign Student.

She should have attended Occidental & Columbia Colleges as a Foreign Student like the Obama did.

Actually, I heard it was Oriental and Columbine Colleges. It was in another failed Orly lawsuit, I believe. One of 54.

“The president is doing himself no favors by spending millions of dollars to block the release of documents surrounding his birth certificate,” said California GOP senatorial candidate Chuck DeVore last week. “As long as the president keeps fighting tooth and nail to prevent the release of such things, people are going to remain skeptical.” The door was left open, said DeVore, because Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign didn’t go after Obama’s qualifications when it had the chance, and because there were no statutory requirements for verifying a candidate’s citizenship.

I see that 'Graham the Red' took my advice, having been utterly discredited by his own remarks, and is now posing as 'Gunny Red'. Well done! We have been deceived.

Meantime time, a good joke at the expense of Gunny, Graham, Naturalized Citizen, Ernie, AJX Rocks in Head, RuPaulMD, Orly Herself, and all the other lunatics here. Referring to the issue of their diminished mental capacity, it has been observed,

“That's because you're bloody nuts. You're so totally nuts that squirrels with food fetishes stare at you in awe.”

Great line. Sad truth.

*yawn*

Where's your wife's tribal ID, old sport? Or any proof that you aren't a racist?

*yawn*

More losses coming…

He doesn't have to spend a dime…current privacy laws prevent anyone from obtaining personal information. The law applies to Obama as much as it applies to you.

Obama was verified…they just didn't bother to clear it with birthers.

That's because he wasn't born in Kenya and no one has to release college records…it's called privacy for a reason!

No, the REAL birth certificate. You know, the one from Honolulu that squares with his grandmother's statement about him being born in Hawaii, the contemporary birth announcements, the anecdote about his doctor and his high school teacher….

As for his school records, not relevant to citizenship.

Finally, where are YOUR papers proving you aren't as racist as your statements about the President? …tick…tick…tick….

1. He didn't attend as a foreign student because he's an American. *duh*

2. Why don't you ask Orly Taitz why she chose to attend an unaccredited diploma mill instead of a real law school?

You'd think they'd find better things to spend their money on than bogus lawsuits. Apparently they're just trying to keep lawyers employed.

Orly is the American. Obama is an illegal-alien.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!! So, a Russian is more american than someone born in america? Man, you fail on SOOOOOO many levels!

Birthers have brought 54 cases so far. They must think Obama is hiding something. Gee, I wonder.

Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

RunnyRed is the one who dropped a whopper & ran a couple of weeks ago: he's the fellow who blogged the lie that one must be an Indonesian citizen in order to attend school there: I debunked it by pointing out that I personally know American citizens who have attended public school in Bali and Jakarta. He never rebutted. He stayed away until he thought I had forgotten him.
Haven't.

RedHam:
Join forces with the Alien-Abduction club: triple your members and profit from the bump in credibility

Gee, you'd think they'd realize that their suits are groundless and give up after 54 straight smackdowns. They must be out of their minds. Gee, I wonder.

Surprisingly enough, you're correct about Orly Taitz being an American citizen. Of course, so is President Obama. Why did you leave that out?

And where are the papers I've asked for at least a dozen times. What are YOU hiding?

I saw Barry Soetoro's(AKA:Saetoro) First Grade records where Lolo is listed as his father and the young usurper is a Moslem with Indonesian citizenship.

Well everyone knows that first grade records determine citizenship.

OH NO!!! My dog ate my homework/records. WHAT AM I GOING TO DO??? Now the blowers will throw me out because it is up to me to prove I'm a citizen and not them to prove I'm not. Darn, and that was over 45 years ago. Think I should dig up the dog and try to recover them?

I picture birthers walking in a line, smacking their heads with a board – kind of like in Monty Python's Holy Grail. The only difference is I picture them walking off the edge of a cliff, one by one, as they follow each other and smack their foreheads.

You can't even spell Muslim. This is where I have a problem with birthtards. Who cares if he was raised in a Muslim environment? Who even cares if he is Muslim? What's the difference? It is not a requirement in The Constitution that the President be a Christian. I wouldn't care if he was an atheist. It just doesn't matter. Problem is, you don't have any facts so you can only make accusations. What a total retard….

He was born in Kenya…SMACK!

He was adopted in Indonesia…SMACK!

He was British…SMACK!

Meanwhile, guiding them off the cliff dressed in a 19th century cossack uniform saying “follow me, I'm the only one who understands, follow me…I'm right behind you” is their wonderful Russian leader, Orly.

Works for me.

And the birftards' logic in attacking President Obama is kind of like the “'burn the witch” scene, which immediately follows the “monks”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

“So logically, if she weighs the same as a duck, then she is made out of wood, and therefore SHE'S A WITCH!!!!”

And the same records state he was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. But you don't believe that part, do you, bedpan?

Where Obama was born matters little, he cannot meet the legally accepted standard, thus he is NOT a “natural born Citizen” because his father was NEVER a United States Citizen. As much as you paid liars working for Obama hate it, that's the LAW and all the irrelevant B/S you post cannot change that fact. You DOJ paid blogging fools have a huge shock coming. The “Hatch Act” is about to come down very hard directly on your necks. Don't worry, Holder and Tracy Russo are going to prison, too.

Interesting…what law are you talking about? The one made up in your mind?

Your astonishly outsized sense of your own self-importance is quite entertaining. You think Eric Holder gives a damn about these silly blogs? You think he feels threatened by a bunch of know-nothing wingnut keyboarders?

DOJ has an unblemished record in court against you birftards, without our help.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? You have been making the same threats and predictions for months, and none of it comes true. Your lawsuits get dismissed. Judge Carter, your savior, kicked your asses out of his court. No one is being prosecuted. No one is going to prison.

Instead of repeating the same stuff, just go away, and come back when one of your silly predictions actually comes true. I won't hold my breath.

Anyone born in the United States, even nonwhites, is a natural born citizen. The citizenship of his parents is immaterial. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. This has been proven. This whole “his dad wasn't a citizen” thing is unimportant.
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana was born in this country of two Indian citizen parents. He is constitutionally qualified to serve as president because he was born here, period.
And it's the law, however much you hate it.

Actually the word cannot be spelled in English and has long been spelled correctly as MOSLEM. It was the Black Muslims of the sixties where Americans first saw the MUSLIM spelling. The Black Muslims are now called Nation of Islam. Moslem women sometimes wear black muslin. Moslems are enemies of everybody else in the world(even other Moslems) I refuse to change the spelling I learned in school to please liberals. In fact I think I'll go back to calling a Moslem a “mussulman”. You are now the retard.

I have never ruled out the possibility Obama may have actually been born in Hawaii & despite his underage mother's residency issues he might have been construed as a dual-citizen in the U.S.
However under British Common Law Obama was a Brit regardless of birthplace. When Kenya gained independence he automatically became Kenyan before being adopted as an Indonesian which he apparently remained thru college. It is possible that when Stannie went to Washington it was to give the baby Obama up for adoption but fortunately for you anti-American Obamanites she changed her mind. The only way you could possibly believe Obama is a citizen is if you pick out which parts of records to believe. It still hinges on the Original Birth Certificate & college records. Until those documents are released I will continue to believe the worst.

The original Birth Certificate might shed some light on the citizenship issue and would indeed prove birthplace like the Kenyan BC does.

Please don’t get a flu shot, please.

The only reason FDR got polio is because he got one of the early vaccines against it.

Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that Barack Obama ever became an Indonesian citizen. Indonesia has no such records, and Occidental College has no evidence of this either.
It's like facts are bullets, and all birthers are Superman's chest.

You're ignorant as well as hilarious, Ernie.
Show us the proof that you are not a paid Palin hack.
I bet that getting paid must be a bitch for you; It's well-known that although the Alaskan grifter is making $$ hand over fist right now, she has a reputation for being a skinflint—–always stiffing her underlings and creditors alike. If you had what it takes to get hired by my bosses Obama & Holder, I'd say 'come on over'. They won't hire ignorant hillbillies, however.

Orly has it on her page that people need to email Palin and ask her to become a plaintiff in the 'case'. Note I put case in quotes because I really don't think there is one. I would actually be delighted if Palin did join in because her credibility would go downhill even further than it already has.

But here are the birthtards, again, writing the same claims and not knowing anything about the law.

They need to do more. They need to start showing up to all her book signings and speeches. Email will not do it. They must show up and force her to acknowledge their cause!

BTW, please make plenty of videos with sound, we would appreciate the entertainment.

Muslim in Arabic means “one who gives himself to God” and by therefore is by definition someone who adheres to Islam.

But Moslem in Arabic means “one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced in English as Mozlem.

Actually, I'm glad that you choose to use the word Moslem because it really shows you're a racist SOB.

Somebody kept a copy of that original BC because the Obama mentions looking at it in “Dreams of My (absentee)Father”. When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.”
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth. Obama's own grandmother stated she was present when he was born in Kenya, three African newspapers printed he was “Kenyan-born” and the Kenyan Ambassador agreed and said “It is common knowledge in Kenya where Obama was born.” and they were attempting to make it a tourist attraction.

Just passin' through and thought I'd look in on the discussion.

I see we are still selectively reading British law so it is impossible to have a fact-based discussion.

I see 'natural born citizen' is being defined using the same rigorous methods used by creationists to define 'natural selection'.

Since my education leans primarily to engineering (you know – math & science), I am not well equipped to have a faith-based debate. Sorry to interrupt. Carry on.

You're a filthy, disgusting liar.
You belong in prison.

You're full of shit.

SQUAWK!

DAMN YOU HAVE TO WORK EXTRA HARD TO BE THIS STUPID…CONGRATS

DO YOU HAVE THE RECIEPTS OF THIS TRANSACTION? OR SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES THAT 12 INCH BLACK DILDO THAT YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS??

DAMN YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID

Obama might have actually been born in Hawaii just not as a natural-born U.S. citizen. His mother was underage and unable to confer NBC status because she was married to a foreigner. His father was a Brit and hence any offspring of a Brit in 1961 was also a Brit. This explains exactly why no Hawaiian BC has ever been released. The college records probably reflect Obama as an Indonesian or Kenyan and that is why those records are sealed. The only BC that has ever surfaced is from Kenya where his grandmother claimed Obama was born. Any way you look at it the man has never been even once for half-a-second a natural-born U.S. citizen and is therefore illegally holding office. Obama is an illegal-alien.

*sigh*

Wrong, as usual. And of course it won't do any good to tell this person that Obama's birth certificate was released over a year ago, that his father's citizenship has nothing to do with him being natural born since he was born in Hawaii, that he never held Indonesian citizenship, and that his grandmother never said he was born anywhere but Hawaii.

*argh*

12-9-2009 Chrysler v. Obama: Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S. bankruptcy court the federal government's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to bail out Chrysler and in doing so may have created a scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama's eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama's own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.
The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.
If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.

Same antibirther nonsense. Different day.

They sounds like a person from the early 19th century. This birthers seems to accept that it is possible to be a citizen by birth, but not a natural-born citizen. Then accepts a known forged birth certificate over a Hawaiian certificate of live birth. By this flawed logic they seem to suggest that a citizen by birth can be an illegal-alien.

I prefer Alice in Wonderland, since their is some aspect of logic in that work of fiction.

They sounds like a person from the early 19th century. This birthers seems to accept that it is possible to be a citizen by birth, but not a natural-born citizen. Then accepts a known forged birth certificate over a Hawaiian certificate of live birth. By this flawed logic they seem to suggest that a citizen by birth can be an illegal-alien.

I prefer Alice in Wonderland, since their is some aspect of logic in that work of fiction.