RedState Bans Birthers

By
Friday, February 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm

RedState’s Erick Erickson announces a blanket ban on conspiracy theorists at his site, taking some whacks at liberals and “Clintonistas” for starting the “truther” and “birther” conspiracy theories while announcing that he will “part ways with the individuals and groups willing to share the stage and treat as legitimate the crazies who believe the President was born in Kenya, the crazies who believe our government was complicit September 11th terrorist attacks … two groups, incidentally that increasingly overlap.”

It’s an interesting statement, especially for the focus on how craziness can blow back onto the rest of the conservative movement. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos has long banned conspiracy theorists, but that has not stopped the occasional anti-Zionist diary from appearing on the site, generating a ton of comments and being used against Kos and allies as “representative” of the left.

The whole statement:

We’ve always banned truthers at RedState. Increasingly, we have also banned a number of individuals who think Barack Obama is disqualified from being President because despite the Republican Governor of Hawaii confirming the legitimacy of the Democratic President’s birth origin as a citizen of the United States.

Today I want to reaffirm and make it more definitive. If you think 9/11 was an inside job or you really want to debate whether or not Barack Obama is an American citizen eligible to be President, RedState is not a place for you.

Birfers and Truthers are not welcome here. Period. End of Story.

But I want to expand on this too.

The tea party movement is in danger of getting a bad reputation for allowing birfers and truthers to share the stage. At the National Tea Party, Joseph Farah treated the birfer issue as legitimate. In Texas, tea party activists have rallied to Debra Medina who, just yesterday, refused to definitely dismiss the 9/11 truther conspiracy as crackpot nonsense. If a candidate cannot do that, we cannot help that candidate. It’s that simple.

So we arrive at one of those moments where I am fully prepared to part ways with the individuals and groups willing to share the stage and treat as legitimate the crazies who believe the President was born in Kenya, the crazies who believe our government was complicit September 11th terrorist attacks … two groups, incidentally that increasingly overlap.

This sets us up for attacks from the left and from within that we must anticipate. It is one thing to separate ourselves from these individuals and groups. It is quite another to know that these people are among us. We should be careful. All of us have an obligation to vet those who we ally with. Just because someone is stridently against the size of government does not make him an ally if he also believes the U.S. Army blew up the World Trade Center. Such a person brings disrepute on us all, deservedly so.

On the other hand, it may not be known that someone is a birfer or truther. We should be willing to show each other good grace and a measure of understanding in dealing with the troublesome fringe. We should also remember it was the Clintonistas who started the birfer rumor and the most vocal truthers live in Hollywood and voted for Obama. That is not, however, an excuse for us to associate with the nuts.

The media never runs stories about the Communist Party USA’s routine pronouncements in favor of Barack Obama. The media has never run legitimate stories about Barack Obama’s ties to the communist oriented New Party in Chicago. Obama gets a pass even on radicals whose support he personally solicited and those he personally befriended for years. But the moment a birfer opens his mouth and spouts his stupidity from the stage of a tea party rally it becomes headline news on every news network. Complain all you like that that’s not fair, but it’s the world we live in.

We must be vigilant. We must be willing to draw a line in the sand and stand against fatuous nonsense that opens up the right to attacks by a left-leaning media intent on embarrassing the good people who have developed through the tea party movement a renewed sense of civic involvement.

Birfers and Truthers have no place among us. And they are most decidedly not welcome at RedState.

This sets us up for attacks from the left and from within that we must anticipate. It is one thing to separate ourselves from these individuals and groups. It is quite another to know that these people are among us. We should be careful. All of us have an obligation to vet those who we ally with. Just because someone is stridently against the size of government does not make him an ally if he also believes the U.S. Army blew up the World Trade Center. Such a person brings disrepute on us all, deservedly so.

I’d add that “birthers” often encourage members of the U.S. military not to serve under Barack Obama — it was the saga of a military contractor, Stefan Cook, that pushed the “birther” conspiracy theory into the headlines.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | | |

Comments

557 Comments

chrisjay
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

trying to manage the blow-back
Frankenstein's monster could still trash the 'party' in 2012—-if there's any justice, that is. Maybe Redstate is now ready to cry uncle, but there's a whole new crop of teabaggin' wingnuts running for office now—-they got the memo, but they tossed it straight into the shredder.
Yeehaw!


mantis
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 5:28 pm

Shorter Erick son of Erick,

“We will not tolerate birthers here, who distract from our totally factually assertions that B. Hussein Obama is a Communist Terrorist.


MarxMarvelous
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 6:26 pm

RedState and Cass Susstein should get along fabulously. I love people and organizations who try and dictate what acceptable thinking consists of . Question everything.


uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 12, 2010 @ 6:34 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: RedState Bans Birthers http://bit.ly/de3us0...


RedState Bans Birthers « The Washington Independent : PlanetTalk.net - Learn the truth , no more lies
Pingback posted February 12, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

[...] Go here to read the rest: RedState Bans Birthers « The Washington Independent [...]


RedState Bans Birthers « The Washington Independent | Kenya today
Pingback posted February 12, 2010 @ 7:16 pm

[...] Go here to read the rest: RedState Bans Birthers « The Washington Independent [...]


thesheriffsani
Comment posted February 12, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

OK! I question your intelligence, morality, and sanity.


guppy
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 12:19 am

So they're banning people for expressing different opinions now. Isn't this a wonderful free country we live in, kids?


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 1:40 am

What is the RedState anyways. Reading their announcement it seems that they are engaging similar behavior (abet not as extreme) as they are condemning. Hey, I might must be misinterpreting their words.


RedGraham
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:46 am

This past weekend in Nashville, at the first National Tea Party Convention, the Beltway press ignored Sarah Palin's keynote address, followed a prime-time speech by “birther” Joseph Farah, who over the years has carved out a unique corner of the right-wing blogosphere. Because, yes, at the Tea Party convention, Farah, a proud Muslim-hater and gay-hater, received a standing ovation from the conservative crowd after he presented his birther evidence/theory that Obama is not a naturl-born citizen. Farah bragged in the weeks leading up to the event about his chance to share the stage with Sarah Palin, to associate with her. “Sold out! Palin-Farah ticket rocks tea-party convention,” read the headline at WorldNetDaily.
Worst of all, though, the mainstream press played dumb about the whole thing.
Fact: Virtually nobody in the corporate media said boo about Palin helping to legitimize the birther-movement by sharing the same stage with Farah. She was given a total free ride. Perhaps if the mainstream media continue to ignore likely future President Palin and the birthers they will fade away.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 5:20 am

The word is “journalistic freedom,” which is RedState's right.


Brian
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 6:10 am

Us “birthers” are doing alittle vetting of our own. We'll remember those that call us nuts, and link us to 9/11 truther crazies.


ellid
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:41 am

And do what? Jeer at me?

Puh-LEEZE.


ellid
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:44 am

1. Sarah Palin's speech was not ignored. It was, however, jeered at, and rightly so, especially when she proved herself unable to memorize six simple talking points and had to write them on her palm like a schoolchild cheating on her exams.

2. Farah presented nothing but lies.

3. Bigotry and homophobia aren't something to be proud of.

4. World Net Daily is a total waste of pixels. They need to dump the scam advertisements for survivalist junk and fake diet aids, too, unless Borderraven loses half his body weight using Acai Berries and can prove it.

5. Who'd you steal from this time?


ellid
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:45 am

I”m not sure which is worse, Red State or Free Republic. They seem equally crowded with idiots to me.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 9:47 am

It is hard to understand why he would be proud to describe someone as a bigot and a homophobia. It only re-enforces people view that the birther conspiracy theory is nothing but xenophobia described in the kindest terms.

I ignored as he seem more concerned with discrediting everyone left right and center. That is what conspiracy theory is all about. It is hard not to laugh.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:00 am

RedState is a publication that has the right of journalistic freedom. That is where a a publication decides what to publish, and the opinion that is expressed. It seems that RedState wants to remove what it considers conspiracy theories. Yes, it is a free country.


Brian
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 10:45 am

Yes, we'll Jeer at you. But if one is running for office or trying to sell a book we'll remember how you joined Obermann and Matthews in ridiculing ppl that dared to ask to see a birth certificate.


How to Get Along with People
Pingback posted February 13, 2010 @ 11:04 am

[...] [...]


florida christian
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 11:35 am

Why is it so hard for you Demon craps to understand? Barry was not born in Hawaii.

did you see that documentary on ABC tv called “V” ?

that explains it all! these guys are reptiles from another planet that have fake skin to make them look human.

Wake up people. God Bless Sarah Palin who was sent by God to overthrow the lizard demons!

Vote Republican!


Elim
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 12:20 pm

When I saw the headline at the Raw Story, I thought they were talking about the Daily Kos, not Red State.

Well of course the Red Staters believe the government's 9-11 coincidence theory, they're rednecks! They believe anything that a Republican government tell them!


chrisjay
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

“ridicule” you? we're not merely ridiculing you, we're mocking you, making jokes about you at work, encouraging journalists to bait candidates on the Berfer question then burying said candidate when he/she shows like-cause with you.
And for that you threaten to “remember” me?
You Berfers are nonstop comedy gold.
btw, I pray that Red is right about Palin's endorsement of your, um, cause——that would be a gift from the godz!!!


Steve_X
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

The First Amendment only protects you from government censorship of speech. It does not apply to private entities. RedState is private entity, and they can ban or censor whoever they please without violating a person's right to express his or her “opinion.”


Steve_X
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

Hello birther, my name is Steve X. You people are nuts, and I'm pretty sure you guys are linked to those 9/11 truther morons.

Feel free to “vet” me as much as you want.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 2:59 pm

Ah, I see what you did there.


Swami_Binkinanda
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 5:24 pm

I guess that even without troofers and burfers they still have enough crazy to go around. It's like the mental institution where the paranoids gang up on the schizophrenics because, hey, those guys are NUTS!!
If it wasn't destroying American democracy, the conservative movement would be a barrel of laughs.


chrisjay
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 5:32 pm

Yeah, I especially like that clever quip about the Demon craps.
That's some witty repartee


Antibirther
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 6:49 pm

It looks like Orly's on the verge of discipline by the CA Bar.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26822540/1-2-3-4-5-6-7

feb 26 she has to answer for her actions.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 6:50 pm

If the shoe fits . . . .


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

There is nothing wrong with laughing at someone who instead of look at a birth certificate engages in feeble activities to explain it away. It really isn't that much of a complex concept, it is a doubled sided legal document.

Why do you refuse to accept the state of Hawaii's authentication of the birth records?


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

Please don't endorse the Republicans, they are hurting enough not to have conspiracy nuts undermine their legitimacy.


Anthony
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 8:34 pm

I wouldn't only say on the verge of disciplinary act, but also a major mental break down.


Brian
Comment posted February 13, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

What birth records? Obama released a “cert of live birth” which can be obtained from a box of cracker jacks. A birth certificate is what is will answer my questions and Obama refuses to release it, at great legal expense I might add.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:37 am

And this means what? I already *am* published, and I can't see how a bunch of conspiracy loons will affect sales of a journal on medieval textiles.

*snorts*


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:39 am

He was born on Krypton. Said so himself.

You can go get slain in the spirit at the Brownsville revival now.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:40 am

Wrong in every particular.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:59 am

Are you that illiterate that you don't know that certificate and certification is the same word.

If $20.40 is great legal expense for you then you should start picking the pennies that you pass on the sidewalk.

Is it you refuse to accept the truth.

However, you refuse to answer the question. Just answer it or drop your illiterate conspiracy theory.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 2:07 am

Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning. Which one are you? If you are one of those people out there who thinks that the birthers are nuts, then let’s consider something that is not nuts — which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President regarding his Article II eligibility? Is it by a preponderance of evidence? By clear and convincing evidence? How about by beyond a reasonable doubt?

Once you decide which one applies, and you must pick one if your argument is to be credible, then consider this before drawing a conclusion — Although Hawaii calls the posted Certification of Live Birth an “official” birth certificate, it is nothing more than a digital copy of a summary of a 1961 vital record that derives from one of the six birth records procedures in place at the time of Obama’s birth, five of which arguably lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness because they were fraught with the potential for fraud.

Does anyone know which one of these procedures was used to generate a 1961 birth record for Barack? Barack won’t tell. Was it the one with a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation, or was it from one of the other five, one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC? Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. No independent witnesses are required. Later, the state issues an “official” scant summary of the “original” birth certificate.” The issue is, do you trust that summary? You can read the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961 at birther.com that would have allowed for such a thing to happen.

To date, not one single solitary person in the three branches of government has bothered to subject Obama’s 1961 vital record to any meaningful scrutiny. Furthermore, they have not even identified which burden of proof was applied to reach their conclusions. They have instead chosen to accept his posted Certification of Live Birth, a summary, as conclusive evidence of his alleged birthplace simply because it reads -“Born in Hawaii.” It reminds me of someone who tells another, “Because I say so.”

Now, for those on the Left who like to pretend that the birthers believe that the Hawaii newspaper birth announcement was planted so Obama could run for president 47 years later. Nobody on either side of the fence really believes that scenario. It is nothing but a ridiculous distraction from an alternative, plausible motive — the announcement could have been placed so Ann Dunham would have had documented evidence for immigration purposes should Barack’s birthplace ever be called into question by the INS when he was younger. Even if you are not willing to accept this scenario, in 1961 a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC. The state registrar would then send that information to the papers. So the Hawaii newspaper announcement is not reliable or trustworthy evidence either.

On a closing note, assuming arguendo, that Obama is completely barred from getting a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate, what prevents him from either admitting or denying that his 1961 vital record on file at the DOH Hawaii is the one with a doctor’s signature and supporting hospital documentation?


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 6:03 am

“Many people justify their opinions with the facts and the law, whereas others do not let the facts and the law get in the way of their reasoning.” It is apparent that your arguments fall into the latter of the two.

I really enjoyed it when you wrote “Barack won’t tell,” in reference to the nature of his vital records. This required you to dismiss the fact that he was 2 days old when his records were entered into the Hawaii's vital statistics.
In a feeble attempt to dismiss the “facts and law,” you fail to admit that it is the State of Hawaii that wouldn't reveal this information. Why would that be? It is that Hawaii state law forbids the release of personal information on an individual to anyone who doesn't have a direct relationship with that person.

You have absolutely no knowledge of the procedures that the State of Hawaii uses to enter records into the vital statistics and what safe guards that they have used. So stop pretending you do.

I have absolute confidence in the State of Hawaii in ensuring the integrity of their state records. Birthers are just interested in explaining away the facts with their conspiracy theory.

You talk about the importance of basing ones arguments on law, but at no time do you demonstrate that you actually understand American law.

It is hard to determine if this was meant satire or there needs to be a scrutiny of your sanity.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 9:36 am

Oh, look! It's Mr. “I am a pompous jerk who demands others produce their credentials while making an ass of myself!” And he's still trying to convince normal human beings that he's right!

*laughs and laughs and laughs*


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Having had to read your comment twice it makes even less sense than the previous. There is no reason to address that your entire comment is just conjecture with relying on facts or the law. This is because you have already contradicted yourself by not relying on the the facts or the law.

Certification of Live Birth.
A certification of live birth is a document that summarizes the information that is contained in the State of Hawaii Department of Health's vital records. On the document it explicitly states “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings.” Anyone can read those exact words near the bottom of the document. Prima facie is a Latin term meaning “on its first appearance, by first instance, or at first sight.” Without referring to the Latin term the document explicitly states that it is evidence of the fact of birth. With the term Latin term added the Certification of Live Birth on is evidence of fact of birth.

State of Hawaii Department of Health
It is impossible to believe that someone conspiracy theorist has any knowledge of where or not the Department of health “lacked adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness.” There has been no audit that has questioned the reliability of how the Department of Health keep there records. Just by making things up doesn't automatically true. However, there is one thing that is disturbing. In order to support your conspiracy theory you have to suggest that the Department of Health keeps and accepts records that are neither reliable or truth worthy. Those are your exact words. I am sorry to stay that the State of Hawaii Department of Health does keep reliable and trust worth records as this is absolutely essential. However, a person who is more interested in spreading lies they just don't understand that.

Procedure
The State of Hawaii Department of Health used the procedure to ensure the integrity of their vital records. The State of Hawaii Department of Health isn't a company that is out to maximize its profit. It is an organize that is responsible to ensuring a certain level of standard when serving it citizens, people born or married their. The work they do is a matter of pride. On the State of Hawaii knows what procedures they use for recording births. However, as 100 years before it is strongly believed that any registration of births would be checked. After the war there would have been more stringent standard put in place. Even considering that it is known the Obama was born in a hospital. This would mean that the hospital sent the records to the Department of Health.

Proof.
The Department of Health director has explicitly stated that she has seen the original vital records. This is the sources of the information on the Certification of Live Birth. Even if you don't believe the president, you have to accept that the State of Hawaii is responsible for the vital records. As stated before the document explicitly states that it is proof for the fact of birth. Burden of Proof? The burden of proof lies on the State of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii they Obama is a natural-born citizen. The document also explicitly states that the place of birth in Hawaii. In a court of law Orly Taitz and others have nothing.

Newspapers and a hospital
You enter into a very complicated argument to dismiss one simple fact, Barack H. Obama was born in Hawaii. The documentation for the birth was sent from the hospital to the Department of Health. As the document does state the hospital of birth and attending physician. It was this information that the newspapers have relied upon for the announcement.

Free speech
We are all happy that the government has given you and every citizen freedom of speech. It is always important in a free society to see how wants to engage in honest discussion or those who want to hide their biases. It seems that we now know that you are more interested in hiding your prejudices. You insult the State of Hawaii and the legal system all in the name of your conspiracy theory.

Please, don't make this about left vs right. No legitimate democratic political philosophy needs “conspiracy theorist” support. Health care, unemployment, taxes, government spending, and others are important issues. Lying about a person birth is just gutter politics, where the only collateral are those who encourage such narrow minded thinking.


Birther use terms that doesn't support their argument as they demonstrate their utter lack understand what it means.


Antibirther
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:07 am

new from Orly:

http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2010/0…


Mary Adams
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:50 am

“which one of the three burdens of proof applies to any candidate for President…”

NONE. This is the US of A, not a fascist state where the “facts” are bent to fit the accusation. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

“the six birth records procedures …”

NONE of the supposed procedures applies to President Obama and ALL require documentation, such as adoption decrees or court orders.

“one of which allowed a family member to mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC…”

Um, NO, THERE IS NOT AND NEVER WAS such a procedure allowed.

“Consider this hypo — state A issues a birth certificate to a person who supplies a hand-written note that claims baby B was born somewhere on so and so date. “

Utter bullshait.

“No independent witnesses are required.”

More utter bullshait.

“accept this scenario…”

That is all you birfoons have: scenarios without a single verifiable fact. Like the fascists you make up shait to fit your fantasies not the facts.

“a family member could mail in a form attesting to an at-home birth and receive a Hawaiian BC…”

Once again, an utter fabrication. Repeating the LIE will not make it true.


Mary Adams
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

Hey GrahamCracker, a standing ovation from a bunch of nuts is not a good thing.

Republicans are right to distance themselves from birthers and Palin really made a fool of herself. I think she sealed her fate with that appearance, even without the “palm pilot”.

Hahahahahahahahaha!


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Another day, another batch of stupid birfer bullshit. Sigh…

The only thing you've managed to do is repeat ridiculous, off the wall scenarios because you don't have any proof at all that Barack Obama was born anywhere but Honolulu, Hawaii. Instead, you try to hide your complete lack of evidence and rational argument by asking completely irrelevant and ridiculous questions. Like all birthers, nothing you say has even the slightest basis in fact, law or reality.

And as far as that whole “burden of proof” thing goes, that falls solely on you birthers, as you are the ones accusing the President and Hawaii of being involved in a massive cover-up that's been going on for nearly fifty years.

To put this in words even a birther can understand: Got evidence that Obama was born in Kenya? Show it. Got NO evidence? Shut the hell up, because the only thing you're doing is making yourselves look even more stupid.

Do us all a favor: take the time to actually use some critical thinking skills and stop copying and pasting this debunked garbage from WND and Stormfornt.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

Burden of proof refers to both the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion. Burden of production is the obligation to come forward with evidence to support a claim. The burden of persuasion is the obligation to persuade the trier of fact of the truth of a proposition.

The answer to the burden of proof production question lies with who has this burden of proof, the candidate, or the people? Allocating the burden of proof, is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations. The burdens of pleading and proof with regard to most facts have been and should be assigned to the person who generally seeks to change the present state of affairs and who therefore naturally should be expected to bear the risk of failure of proof or persuasion. Moreover, in most cases, the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists.

It seems apparent that a presidential candidate is seeking to change the present state of affairs by wanting to become the new President. The candidate is also the one who is claiming that something exists, which in this case, is that he is a natural born citizen. Furthermore, he is also applying for a job. As such, the burden of proof rests on him.

It takes no stretch of the imagination to understand that it has been a commonly accepted and expected fair practice for any candidate applying for a job to produce evidence that he meets its eligibility requirements. Typically, he produces a resume, certified copies of education transcripts, documents his work history and residences since age 18, and, in cases of classified government jobs, submits to and produces without reservation, documentary evidence such as a birth certificate for use in an extensive and thorough background check. Since the greater includes the lesser, it follows then that a more important job, like being President, would include at least the aforementioned production of documentary evidence of sufficient persuasion. Arguably then, it follows that a presidential candidate has a similar burden of production and persuasion that he meets the eligibility requirements for President. To create a presumption of eligibility that shifts the burden of proof to the People would otherwise defeat the search for the truth about the candidate’s eligibility. This is especially true when the candidate locks down the evidence of his eligibility.

Turning now to the burden of persuasion question, once some evidence has been produced, the question becomes does the evidence submitted persuade the trier of fact that a candidate meets the natural born citizen requirement of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution? The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition. In this case, the standard that applies should ensure that the candidate meets the eligibility requirements to be President of the United States.

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President's. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation's most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military's nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”

By the way, the next time you apply for a job, try telling your prospective employer to prove that you are not qualified. One more thing, today is Valentine's Day. When your mate says, “Do you love me?” try telling him/her to prove that you don't. See how far that gets you.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

Here are just two of the procedures I talked about. Now tell me where I am wrong about them.

Compulsory registration of births, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-8, enacted 1955, reads:

“§57-8 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the board, a certificate of every birth shall be filed with the local registrar of the district in which the birth occurred, by the physician, midwife or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth, or if not so attended, by one of the parents.”

Did you get that? – “or if not so attended, by one of the parents.” No independendt witness requirement here.

Local registrar to prepare birth certificate, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-9, enacted 1955, reads:

“Local registrar to prepare birth certificate.
(a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided (referring to 57-8), is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

Did you get that about an unattended birth? – “from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”

How about – Certificate of Hawaiian Birth (2010 Hawaii DOH website talks about it), authorized by the 1911 Hawaii law called Act 96, established the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth in 1911 and terminated it in 1972. An analysis of these two documents is made in the Keyes v. Bowen lawsuit. Paragraph 75 of the Keyes complaint reads, in part:

In Hawaii, for births prior to 1972, a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up to one year from the date of the child's birth. For that reason, its value as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained…

My goodness, how about this one? –

Foundling Report, authorized by Hawaii Revised Law §57-10, enacted 1955 reads:

“Registration of foundlings; foundling report.
(a) Whoever assumes custody of a living child of unknown parentage shall immediately report, on a form to be approved by the board, to the local registrar, the following:
(1) Date and place of finding or assumption of custody;
(2) Sex;
(3) Color or race;
(4) Approximate age of child;
(5) Name and address of the person or institution with whom the child has been placed for care;
(6) Name given to the child by the finder or custodian.
(b) The place where the child was found or custody assumed shall be known as the place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by approximation.
(c) The foundling report shall constitute the certificate of birth.
(d) If a foundling child is identified and a regular certificate of birth is found or obtained, the report shall be sealed and filed and may be open only upon order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”

This procedure allowed anyone to fill out a foundling report, walk into the local registrar's office and claim that he or she found or assumed custody of a child. The statute required the state to assume that the birthplace was where the child (of any age) was reportedly found, or custody assumed . Furthermore, the statute allowed the finder to name him, approximate his age and the foundling report itself “shall constitute the certificate of birth.”

Now I am not claiming that BO was a foundling, but this statute does support the argument that Hawaii's vital records procedures at the time were, let's say, not rock solid.

I can provide you with scans of the actual Hawaii Revised Laws at the time of BO's birth if you want to read them for yourself.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 1:03 pm

“This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceedings.” The posted Certification of Live Birth only summarizes the original vital record. Do you know which one of the vital records procedures is being summarized? Each one carries a different weight. Vital records have a history of fraud. You can read about them here:

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

In any event, this reminds me of the person who says, “Because I say so.” Anyone who takes the government's word nowadays without proper scrutiny deserves another AIG, Enron, or other scandal (I did not have sex with that woman.”

You stated, “As the document does state the hospital of birth and attending physician. It was this information that the newspapers have relied upon for the announcement.”

I say, “There has never been any published document with such information. Period.” If you have such evidence, post it here.

You said, “It seems that we now know that you are more interested in hiding your prejudices.”

I say, “Are you trying to play the race card?”


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 1:11 pm

Although I wasn't able to read when I was two days old, I still managed to get a copy of my original birth certificate with the doctor's signature and other hospital documentation.

You said, “It is that Hawaii state law forbids the release of personal information on an individual to anyone who doesn't have a direct relationship with that person.”

It seems to me Obama has a direct relationship here. He can get a copy of the original in Hawaii. The state of Hawaii has admitted that they never destroy such records. It is there, but BO does not want to pursue the matter. Instead, he'd rather spend a lot of money on big law firms defending discovery requests for this very same information.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 1:57 pm

Talking points, speculation, scare tactics, a complete misunderstanding and misapplication of the burden of proof, and absolutely, positively no evidence of any kind that Obama is ineligible to be President.

Congratulations of failing in a way that so few birthers do.


RedState bans birthers, HotAir bans ‘Redstate bans birthers’ : The Reid Report
Pingback posted February 14, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

[...] “9/11 truthers” too. Joe the Plumber: he’s against them. RedState.com has banned them. But the folks at Hot Air, where I first read about the ban yesterday? Why, they’ve banned [...]


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 5:13 pm

So in other words Hawaii, like every other state in the union, has certain laws and procedures in place.

Hawaii's laws and procedures, like the laws and procedures of every other state in the union, have the potential to be either mistakenly applied or completely ignored.

So what?

The only thing you've done is copy and paste…again. Nothing in your comment suggests that there's any evidence that Hawaii either lied or made a mistake. Your argument is basically “The possibility exists for Hawaii to make a mistake, therefore Hawaii probably made a mistake, therefore Hawaii actually made a mistake.” Under your logic, the mere possibility that a law could have been broken means that the law in question was actually broken. That is complete nonsense.

The fact that the potential for wrongdoing exists is not by itself the existence of wrongdoing. Birthers don't understand that, which is by birthers are currently 0-62 at the federal level.

Repeating the talking point that state laws COULD have been broken doesn't prove that those laws have actually been broken. Repeating the talking point that Obama COULD have been born in Kenya does not mean that Obama was actually born in Kenya. You've failed to make a connection between what could have happened and what actually happened.

You still have absolutely no proof that the person or people that reported Obama's birth actually lied to the state of Hawaii about where Obama was born. You still have absolutely no proof that Hawaii lied about the information on the COLB. You still have absolutely no proof that Obama is lying or covering anything up that would affect his “eligibility” to be President.

Fail less, please.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

The burden of proof (production and persuasion) is on Obama that he meets Article II's eligibility requirement to be President. It does not fall on me or anyone else for that matter. Obama has already admitted to having the burden of production by his own actions by posting his Certification of Live Birth. The issue then becomes, does that document satisfy his burden of persuasion?

There are at least three major burdens of persuasion – preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

Preponderance of the Evidence – (lowest level) This is the lowest standard of proof that uses a more likely than not test. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. It is used in civil cases such as personal injury lawsuits.

If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by a little more than the odds of a coin toss. Using this standard also seems to equate the importance of a candidate meeting the Constitutional requirements to become President with giving the right private litigant a chance at winning a lawsuit. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are at opposite ends of the spectrum. This standard, therefore, does not seem high enough.

Even if this standard is accepted, determining which 1961 vital record the Certification of Live Birth is summarizing, the one with doctor and hospital documentation, or the five other ones that lack an adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, would be merely a guess. It is arguable then that none of these vital records is more likely to be the source document than the others, so it does not appear to satisfy the more likely than not standard.

Clear and Convincing Evidence – (medium level) The person must convince the trier of fact that it is substantially more likely than not that the thing is in fact true. This standard of proof is used in the termination of parental rights, and restraining orders, among other actions. If this standard is accepted, then arguably the President elect will get the opportunity to prove that he meets the requirements to be President by the same standards that are used when two people are either fighting over custody of their children, or seeking an injunction to keep the other away by a few hundred feet. The ramifications and consequences of being wrong in each one are again, at opposite ends of the spectrum. Even if one were to argue that the clear and convincing standard should apply, it is inconceivable that one could argue in good faith that a Certification of Live Birth substantially proves that the unknown 1961 source document is credible and trustworthy. This standard, therefore, does not seem high enough.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – (highest level) The proposition being presented must be proven to the extent that there is no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a reasonable person. This standard has been traditionally applied to criminal defendants, but not to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant, but rather to ensure that the individual's freedoms of life and liberty are given the highest protections so that he is not deprived of them. True, a presidential candidate is not a criminal, but the justification for applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to his Article II qualifications is so that the citizens do not lose their lives or liberties at the hands of an unqualified President. For the highest office in the land, and for arguably the most powerful leadership position in the world, it follows that the highest burden of proof that he is qualified to be President of the United States of America should be required.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:30 pm

*starts scratchy 78 rpm Victrola recording of “My Heart Bleeds for You” as played by the Al Bacteria and All-Microscopic Orchestra*

Weren't you supposed to have abandoned this site in disgust a couple of months ago over how blind the rest of the world was to you and your brilliance?


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:33 pm

If you really have a JD, please explain how you missed the part about the burden of proof being on the ACCUSER, not the accused.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:35 pm

Forget the race card. I'm posting the utter and blinding stupidity card. Not even knowing what “prima facie” means, and you claim to have a JD?

*rolls eyes*


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

Based on your writings here and your absurd excuse for a website, I seriously question whether you can read now.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

Like all birthers, your rant does nothing to support your point. All of those burdens of proof that you mentioned apply in court and in trial proceedings only.

A presidential election doesn't take place in court, and a presidential election isn't a trial proceeding. Trying to compare a Presidential election to anything in a courtroom setting is irrelevant at best and ridiculous at worst, because the two have absolutely nothing in common.

In other words, burdens of proof don't exist outside the courtroom, and they certainly don't exist in Presidential elections. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong and cite a Supreme Court case, Court of Appeals case, federal statute, or federal regulation that says otherwise.

So let's see…an irrelevant, ridiculous, comparison between two things that have nothing in common? Check.

A complete lack of any kind of legal authority, logical arguments, or evidence that Obama was born anywhere else other than Honolulu, Hawaii? Check.

Pointless rant about a concept of law that you *seem* to understand, but with no actual idea how that concept applies? Check.

Congratulations! You have failed again. You should be proud!


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

Like all birthers, your rant does nothing to support your point. All of those burdens of proof that you mentioned apply in court and in trial proceedings only.

A presidential election doesn't take place in court, and a presidential election isn't a trial proceeding. Trying to compare a Presidential election to anything in a courtroom setting is irrelevant at best and ridiculous at worst, because the two have absolutely nothing in common.

In other words, burdens of proof don't exist outside the courtroom, and they certainly don't exist in Presidential elections. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong and cite a Supreme Court case, Court of Appeals case, federal statute, or federal regulation that says otherwise.

So let's see…an irrelevant, ridiculous, comparison between two things that have nothing in common? Check.

A complete lack of any kind of legal authority, logical arguments, or evidence that Obama was born anywhere else other than Honolulu, Hawaii? Check.

Pointless rant about a concept of law that you *seem* to understand, but with no actual idea how that concept applies? Check.

Congratulations! You have failed again. You should be proud!


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

Gad. This woman is a trainwreck of truly stunning proportions.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 7:57 pm

If by “box of cracker jacks” you mean the “state of Hawaii” then you're correct.

And even if your questions weren't completely ridiculous and irrelevant, Obama would STILL be under no obligation to answer them. He has no duty to “release” anything to you or any other birther but hey, don't let reality get in the way of your stupid conspiracy theory.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:10 pm

Yes, Obama has a direct relationship to his birth records, but you don't. However, he did get a copy of the original in Hawaii. It is called a Certification of Live Birth, something that you continue to try to argue away.

* Sigh *


Steve_X
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

I get the sneaking suspicion that his JD came from the William Howard Taft “School of Law.”


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

You get an A for feigning ignorance.

Article II's eligibility requirements are not about me, you, the parties to any lawsuit, the judges, the media, or the people in this blog. It is about the Constitution.

The Constitution's Article II specifically requires, in part, that the President be a natural born citizen. It is not a provision that implies that the people must prove otherwise. It is in effect, a guarantee. You need to reread my post above where I talk about burdens of proof.

Burdens of proof do indeed apply outside of a court setting. If I apply for a federal job, although it is not a court proceeding, I do have to prove by a certain standard that I meet the job's eligibility requirements. If the job requires a security clearance, the burden of proof is even higher on that same candidate. At no time am I in a court proceeding, nor does the employer have the duty to prove that I do not qualify for the job.

Let me simplify it for you. I apply for a job that requires a degree, but I don't submit any transcripts. The employer asks for them, and I respond by saying that they are accusing me of not being qualified, so they have the burden of proof to show that I don't have transcripts. I follow it up by saying, “We're not in a court of law, so burdens of proof don't apply here.” We’ll see if I get the job.

It's Valentine's Day. I am going to go tell my girlfriend to prove that I don't love her. Let's see how far that gets me.

You don’t fool anyone; again, you get an A for feigning ignorance.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:23 pm

You are a moron. An utter stupid moron. Why did you even bother quoting the legal statement in your post. It is a kin to saying “Yes your honor I am a pathological liar,” and then continue to lie.

I have more confidence in Government that I have in a little person spreading lies about another person from their computers.

Do you know what a prejudice is.
- It can be on sexual orientation.
- It can be religious belief.
- It can be language spoken.
- It can be occupation.
- It can be education.
- It can be dressing habit.
- It can be political belief.
- It can be ethnicity.

And the list goes on. If there was any attempt to insert race or ethnicity it was you. I don't know what your prejudices are, but you have made yourself into a fool that you are.

A standing O – for silliness.

Clap Clap Clap


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

You have absolutely, nothing to support your position. So just drop it. You are just showing how ignorant you are of law.

Yawn.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:32 pm

When you don't have the facts or the law on your side, you resort to putting me down by feigning that I do not know what prima facie means. That said, so what if Hawaii considers it prima facie evidence of a birth? Do you still trust the government after AIG? Have you ever run across someone who says, “Because I say so.” Do you blindly take their word for it? Do you still think the world is flat? I want to scrutinize what they say further.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

That is not true Anthony. Obama did not “get a copy of the original in Hawaii.” What he got was a Certification of Live Birth, which is a scant summary of his 1961 vital record on file with the State of Hawaii.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:39 pm

Ellid, I understand you completely. You job, your mission, is to feign ignorance and attack the person to deflect attention away from the issues. You get an A for that.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

Burden of proof is only applicable in a court room or a sanctioned hearing.

You an F for ignorance, which is the only mark that can be given for ignorance.

Your analogy is faulty on several levels.
To prove citizenship only a birth certificate or citizenship card is required. That is it.

When applying for a job an employer might ask for a transcript. They may also have a test. If they do ask for a transcript it is for several reasons. One reason is as proof that the person did in fact go to the school, however the word of a professor would suffice. The employer needs to verify that the persons resume matches their academic records. The mostly like reason is that they want the students with the best grades.

Only one can be considers equal to proof of citizenship and that is proof that they attended the school. With the State of Hawaii releasing statements that Obama is a natural-born citizen there is absolutely no analogy that support your position.

As stated before you get a F for ignorance.

* laughter *


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

I don't think he understands. Is there are term for false analogies?


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

forseti you are a hypocrite.

Your job, your mission, is to misinterpret, is misrepresent facts and the law while make personal attacks on a duly elected politician to deflect attention away of your disappoint in an election lost.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 8:56 pm

Now you plead ignorance. Look up what the word prima facie means. You read my comment but refused to see that the meaning of prima facie means. With anything that I post I invite you and other to do their own research. With that said look for the definition of the word. It is really easy on the Internet. Copy the word and paste it into your favorite search engine. You are a fraud.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 9:02 pm

The words on the birth certificate explicitly states that it is a copy. Are you that stupid or are you pretending ignorance.

Look on the document or another birthers have posted to undermined their position.

It could be suspected that you refuse to look at the birth certificate because deep down you know that true will hurt. Yes, the truth is that Barack H. Obama is a natural-born citizen of America and the president of the U.S.


monkey99
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

Let's get to the heart of the matter, shall we?

When RedState (who has made on occasion, some pretty crazy stuff up itself) won't even give cred to birfers, it's bad.

The birth certificate thing is done. Over. Conspiracy proved as….Bulls**t (forgeries didn't help your theory much, either). By your ridiculous assessments, everyone born after 1946-7 isn't really American. That they can't prove it, even if they have the COLB. Furthermore, you argue about the legality of the way Hawaii does it's business in Governmental affairs. Then call into question the way ALL states do their business, not just Hawaii. You can call into question ANY BC, for any prospective President, and get NO proof, don't you toilers see that?

It's why we ridicule and insult you. It's the twisted little circle you birfers spin in that we enjoy watching so much……


LaLee
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

“That said, so what if Hawaii considers it prima facie evidence of a birth? Do you still trust the government after AIG?”

What kind of non sequitur is that?

Not only that Hawaii government has nothing to do with AIG (AFAIK heh heh) but because they are the one being accused as untruthful the burden of proof is not on them.

“I want to scrutinize what they say further.”

Please do, but please don't demand others to provide proof that YOU are obliged to give.

The burden of proof is one the accuser not the accused and that principle does not change even if the accused is Al Capone and the accuser is Mother Theresa.


Anthony
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

I though that it was because the birther conspiracy theory was void of logic. As with conspiracy theory it seems that birthers are more interested in supporting their position that considering the implication of what they are saying. However, I would have to agree with your opinion as it presents a interest perception.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

It does read “copy,” Unfortunately for you, it is a “copy” of a Certification of Live Birth, and not a copy of his original 1961 vital record.


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

Obama admitted by his own actions of posting the COLB on the Inetenet that he had the burden of proof.

As for AIG, strike that, you would focus on anything if it could distract people from the issues.

So what if Hawaii considers it prima facie evidence of a birth? Have you ever run across someone who says, “Because I say so.” Do you blindly take their word for it? Do you still think the world is flat?


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 10:52 pm

You are the one who believes that his posted Certification of Live Birth is an actual copy of his original 1961 vital record simply because the word “copy” is on it.

And what is it with you and “prima facie?” What are you talking about? So what if Hawaii calls the COLB prima facie evidence? A state-issued COLB for an illegal alien who obtains his BC by fraud would be prima facie evidence of a birth, too. Are you going to turn a blind eye to it simply because the state says, “Because I say so.”


forseti
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:00 pm

You said, “It seems that we now know that you are more interested in hiding your prejudices.” When I responded by asking you if you were playing the race card, you lashed back with a laundry list of prejudices. Clever.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:09 pm

Feigning ignorance?

*laughs*

I'm not the one who seems to think that he can wave his magic pixie stick and shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. What *are* you smoking?

As for your girlfriend, she has my sympathy. It can't be easy dealing with someone so in love with his own paranoia.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

Maybe he's an instructor there, which would explain much about Orly Taitz's peculiar belief that she is qualified to practice law.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

And legally they have the same weight, as you would know if you'd been closer to an actual law school or government office than the Internet.


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:18 pm

*pats forseti on his misshapen little skull and sends off to bed with a nice dose of thorazine*


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

1. Wrong. He did so originally to spike rumors that his middle name was “Mohammed.”

2. If someone hands me a document with a state seal, serial number, and authorized signature as proof of identity, of course I would accept it. Why wouldn't I? Because an arrogant, self-important ass tells me to?

3. The President isn't obstructing a damn thing, except possibly his dog's efforts to pee on the White House carpeting.

4. You said a while back that you were leaving this site. Why are you still here?


ellid
Comment posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:30 pm

Oh yes – what “mission” are you referring to? My desire to write a book on medieval quilting? My hopes of paying off my mortgage and my car? The fact that I need to clean the cat box?

Or are you one of the paranoid tizzywits who thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is being paid by a secret slush fund of foreign currency, most of it provided by crazed towelheads who financed the EVIL EVIL BLACK MAN WITH THE FUNNY FOREIGN NAME so that he can control the world on behalf of the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, the Girl Scouts, and a bunch of Star Trek fan clubs? If you are, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the only money I've gotten all year is from my employer, a county fair that asked me judge their quilt competition, and (God willing) my federal tax refund. The last of these will be spent on riotous living in Kalamazoo, Michigan, where the President has his SECRET FORTRESS OF DOOM cleverly disguised as a medieval studies congress…but if I told you more the Black Panthers would have to come and kill you, and I think General Cinque's too busy seducing vulnerable young white women with scratchy Barry White records to take my call.

*blows kisses*

Have funny watching the Vagina Monologues!


Blogger Roundup – Right Wing Watch « The Fifth Column
Pingback posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:37 pm

[...] David Weigel: RedState Bans Birthers.  [...]


Blogger Roundup – Right Wing Watch « The Fifth Column
Pingback posted February 14, 2010 @ 11:37 pm

[...] David Weigel: RedState Bans Birthers.  [...]


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:19 am

Yes, moron. It states “copy” of the original records, the vital record. As it is important the the state of Hawaii keep the original to ensure that any inquiries about the records can be address. Also, to allow the reissuing of the records if it requires.

Next….


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:32 am

That is a lie, and you know it. Why do you bother?


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:44 am

You didn't even take time to look up the word “prima facie.” You are an utter fraud. Thank for taking the time to prove that you reject any facts that undermine your position.

You birthers are really silly.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:53 am

I have absolutely no know of what prejudices you are hiding but it is apparently clear that you are. The only words are those on the page and nothing more. If you don't understand the meaning of prejudices just say so.

Head shake …


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:17 am

You are feigning ignorance again.

An “official” state-issued document that summarizes one that lacks adequate indicia of reliability and trustworthiness is not worth the paper it is printed on.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:21 am

Ah, attack the person and redirect attention away from the issues again. Good one.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:35 am

1. Perhaps you should visit his site again. He stated a reason other than what you just claimed was the reason for posting the COLB.

2. You'd make a good border guard for the illegals.

3. For a transparent government, Obama is certainly doing his best not to release any of the records that would go to the NBC issues.

4. Is that a philosophical question?


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:38 am

Are you kidding me? A computer-generated copy of a summary of an original document does not carry the same weight.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:40 am

So you are suggesting that the State of Hawaii issuing a document that explicitly states that it is proof of the fact of birth is meaningless. Well seems that not only are you engaging in smear tactics, you are ignorant of modern law. I am starting to believe that the reason you ignore the facts is that it is painful to do otherwise.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:42 am

No. It reads nothing about it being a copy of an original.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 6:46 am

And you accuse me of making something out of nothing and assuming too much.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:50 am

What prejudices are you hiding? My suggestions that you have prejudices is that there is absolutely nothing in logic or the law that support your position. I am just stating a fact.

Barack H. Obama has made his birth certificate available to the public. This document is label Certification of Live Birth, and indicates that the issuing agency the State of Hawaii Department of Health.

The state of Hawaii Department of Health through the Hawaii governor's office has issued two statements which are both accessible from their web site. One states that they have seen Barack H. Obama's vital records. The other states that Obama is in fact a natural-born citizen. The latter only re-enforces what the former stated but in more clear words.

With Obama being a natural born citizen of America. What is your reason for attempt to dismiss this legal fact? Is it some bias that you have against the president?

* bias means the same thing as prejudice *.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:56 am

You complain about transparency but at no time have you openly omitted the reason for your support of your silly conspiracy theory.

Why didn't you answer question #4? Honestly, it isn't that complicated. You could have said “that is a misinterpretation,” “it was said in jest.” Honestly, any thing would have been better.

Your own words “redirecting attention away from the issues again.”

Ouch it must hurt being proven to be a hypocrite.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 6:58 am

It must be sad for you to realize that the courts disagree with you. The truth of the law must hurt.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:01 am

It must be great to be in the state of ignorance bliss. Just take a look at the document and drop your conspiracy theory. Other, birther have had to drop your “copy” argument as they see no merit in it. It must be lonely being the last of a dying breed.


Anthony
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:03 am

Are those tears from accepting that you are wrong?


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:30 am

1. Wrong. Check the newspapers.

2. You now seem to advocating that border guards refuse to admit people with government-issued documents such as passports. Does that mean you advocate open borders, such as we used to have with Canada before President Bush II decided that we needed to act like idiots with them, too.

3. The President released the only document that is relevant.

4. You said you were going to leave. You lied. I'm asking why, since clearly none of us here can match you in terms of intellect, education, and insanity.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

Sorry, old cock, but I have used the Pennsylvania equivalent of the President’s oh-so-invalid birth certificate to obtain employment, a driver’s license, and a passport. A state-issued certification of birth, even printed by a computer, is legal proof of birth – unless you’re proposing that only typewritten versions are valid?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

No, I accuse you of being a pompous, self-important ass with no sense of humor.


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:23 am

Anthony,

This has been the heart of the matter since the start. They destroy their own argument by grasping at straws, to build the straw man, then argue their “point” with it. What they can't seem to realize is that they are setting fire to the straw man while they build him, hence, no argument or position to prove.

You're absolutely dead-on about the lack of logic. They're even worse than the UFO people, but then the UFOers do have unexplained evidence, to back their claims. The birfers have nothing. Just dissatisfaction at the outcome of an election more than a year gone.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:35 am

I have addressed the facts and the law on my website. There you can find arguments and links to the actual Hawaii Revised Laws in effect at the time. Try reading them for yourself.

Now, about Hawaii's BCs. They are like any other document that summarizes an unknown source document – suspect. Do you know which source document is being summarized by the posted Certification of Live Birth? Is it the one with the doctor and hospital info, or is it one of the other possible five? No one but Obama knows. All the birthers are asking for is to see it, but instead of spending $10 for an original copy, he'd rather spend big bucks on law firms to obstruct discovery.

The American people have the right to know everything about the President. This includes where he came from, his citizenship, etc. It is not the right of an elected official to obstruct such discovery.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:38 am

Can your tag team engage in a professional discussion without putting the other side down or engaging in name-calling?


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:54 am

Regarding Fukino's statements:

1. She did state that she had seen his vital record. At no time did she ever say that it contained a doctor's signature and hospital documentation. All we can deduce from that statement is that the source document has in it the words “Born in Hawaii.” What we don't know is which of the six procedures was used to generate that document that reads – Born in Hawaii.”

2. Fukino, according to http://hsba.org/resources/1/Status/active.htm#F is not listed as authorized to practice law in Hawaii. She therefor lacked the legal competence to render such a legal opinion. Furthermore, when pressed for how she came to such a conclusion, she refused to state it. So all we know is that she read “Born in Hawaii” on his 1961 vital record and concluded that it equates to being a natural born citizen


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:57 am

Aha, so that's what you're doing! Trolling for clicks for your sadly undervisited web site! How clever! How brilliant! How utterly pathetic!


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:00 pm

It's hard for your ridiculous arguments to go any lower than they already have.

As for this tag-team thing, sorry, but the closest I've ever gotten to being on such a thing is watching Mexican midget wrestling on TV. Where *are* you getting the idea that there's some sort of concerted effort to laugh at you?


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:03 pm

A lie requires an intent to deceive. At the time of my statement, I intended not to return. But sometimes life is fluid.

You are good at ignoring elements that will not help you reach your desired conclusions.

The problem with your advocates here is that all of you look only as far as you want to see. As soon as you get what you came for, you stop the analysis.

Aren't you even a little bit curious as to why Obama won't release his original BC? He could clear up these issues in 10 minutes,


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

I support scrutinizing elected officials. I trust them as far as I can throw them.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

Of course you used those docs for employement, a driver’s license, etc. They are not on the same level of importance as being President of the United States.

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:09 pm

Of course you used those docs for employement, a driver’s license, etc. They are not on the same level of importance as being President of the United States.

The President of the United States is one of the three branches of government. He is the Executive branch. The nation speaks to all people through one voice, the President’s. The President can make treaties, grant pardons, sign and veto legislation, appoint a Cabinet, as well as Supreme Court Justices. In addition to these duties, the President knows the nation’s most important and secure secrets, and as the Commander in Chief of the military, has the military’s nuclear launch codes at the ready, and who can arguably, either take steps to weaken the nation, or even destroy it. In the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, “The president of the United States now for 50 years is followed at all times, 24 hours a day, by a military aide carrying a football that contains the nuclear codes that he would use and be authorized to use in the event of a nuclear attack on the United States. He could launch the kind of devastating attack the world has never seen. He doesn’t have to check with anybody. He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

What if I just present the facts am I a Birther! I don't care where he was born I just want to enforce the constitution!!!

Why don’t you all think, about this highly complex issue regarding Natural Birth! (Joke!)
1. Our country was founded on Natural Law. Not Man’s Law! (Admiralty/Commerce Law)! As, written in our Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris, and our Constitution.
2. Our constitution is Man’s Law! It declares Natural law to be the Highest or supreme law and or power in our land.
3. Natural law is natural rules that are clearly relevant like, Gravity! Man can’t do away with gravity!
So, our country was founded with this order of hierarchy.
a.. Natural Law and or Natures God!
b. The Citizen
c. The State
d. The Federal Government
4. How it works Now!
a. Money!
b. The Federal Government
c. The State
d. The Citizen
e. Natural Law and or Natures God!
5. Still wonder, why everything seems to work backwards from your beliefs.
The word Natural in (Natural Born) invokes Natural Law, If you have to refer to Man’s Law, it is not Natural Law! So, the mere fact that Obama’s father was a British citizen meant he had a choice under under man’s Law, he could chose to be British or American, in making the choice you invoke the use Man’s Law, not Natural Law. It’s like this if I mate a Beagle to a Beagle I get a Beagle, I don’t need a lawyer, or Man’s Law as this is truth in Natural Law. If I suddenly find my dog (the Beagle) had pups and I didn’t know who the father is, I would have to go to the AKC for a ruling, to say its pup, is a Beagle. So, the AKC would represent Man’s Law. It’s really sad, that 300,000,000 Americans don’t seem to know anything about the law our country was founded on! (Natural Law)! Provided, for us by Natures God! The Constitution doesn’t say (Native birth) It says Natural Born to invoke natural law! For the Stupid Americans!!!!
See the quotes below:
a. US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be Natural Born; otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

This means you had to be a citizen WHEN the Constitution was adopted by the founding fathers, i.e.: it applies to people here up to the date of September 17, 1787. It does not apply to anyone AFTER that time. It was made to say that, so that the people of the original colonies, who were not Natural Born Citizens (they were Citizens of Britain and through the adoption of man’s law (the Constitution), Gave themselves the necessary ability to form the new government and with full Knowledge, set out to restrict the Office of President to the higher standard of Natural Law, to their own children. This in-fact requires both standards you will here about from the misinformed or disinformation pundits, often referred to as by blood (Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)) or geographical/Land (Jus soli (Latin: law of ground)) as it requires the parents to have been citizens of the United States and have been born on U.S. soil.
b. When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.”
c. The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Some will argue that, neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship. But given the statement “under no other jurisdiction or authority” they must, be born in or on U.S Soil or Jurisdiction to have that statement apply, So, again in-fact both forms that are generally discussed, are in fact required as evidenced by John Bingham’s definition, our constitution, and the 14th amendment.

6. Look up the meaning of “AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION”
For example, when you go adopt a dog from an animal shelter, the contract you sign will say somewhere, that “AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION” this shelter relinquishes all care of the animal to the ADOPTER. It means WHEN YOU ADOPT SOMETHING, or in other words, the shelter IS NOT responsible for the care of the animal AT THE TIME WHEN YOU ADOPT IT. When you adopt a child, it will say somewhere in the contract that AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION the adoption agency relinquishes certain things or care to the adopter, or meetings will be set up with the parents AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION. Again, it means AFTER SOMETHING IS ADOPTED, something else does or does not apply, and the Constitution CLEARLY states: No person EXCEPT a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION of this Constitution. IF IT DID apply to a person born of one NON-Citizen and one American citizen AFTER THE TIME OF ADOPTION, it would clearly say AFTER THE ADOPTION of this Constitution…Obama is NOT NATURAL BORN, no matter HOW you try to argue it. It’s VERY SIMPLE and easy to understand. Unless you are a complete idiot, Try studying the Constitution. It’s not that hard.
7. But again Stupid Americans!!!! Give away your rights and your children’s as well!
You can try to argue what’s written, but you have no argument! It’s only your liberties, your freedoms and those of your Children’s at stake. All the politicians and judges no this! That’s why they can’t let it go to trial, as then they, and person’s who have taken their oath to support and defend the constitution and are still holding office!, could and possibly should be tried for treason.
8. The Citizens are the supreme authority, as long as the constitution is intact, the citizens don’t need the Courts to correct this issue they just need to say enough is enough you’re fired!, and do it in mass! Then proceed to Trials. Trials based on Natural Law!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:16 pm

The courts have neither examined the evidence nor addressed these issues. All of the cases filed were dismissed because of “standing” issues.. These judges erroneously believed that the People have no standing to challenge elected official’s qualifications to hold office.

Let me ask you something. If a 20 year old got elected as President, and the People did not find out about it until after the election, and Congress and the courts refused to address the issue, would it be OK for him to continue as President even though he has not met Article II’s requirement that a President be 35 years of age?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:16 pm

The courts have neither examined the evidence nor addressed these issues. All of the cases filed were dismissed because of “standing” issues.. These judges erroneously believed that the People have no standing to challenge elected official’s qualifications to hold office.

Let me ask you something. If a 20 year old got elected as President, and the People did not find out about it until after the election, and Congress and the courts refused to address the issue, would it be OK for him to continue as President even though he has not met Article II’s requirement that a President be 35 years of age?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

“You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken – unspeakable! – fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! – of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.”

Winston Churchill


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

“You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. Yet in their hearts there is unspoken – unspeakable! – fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts! Words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home, all the more powerful because they are forbidden. These terrify them. A little mouse – a little tiny mouse! – of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic.”

Winston Churchill


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

Your blathering, deranged, idiotic, fallacious, bizarre attempt at logic and reasoning is incorrect, irrelevant and borderline sociopathic. Your understanding of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law is amazingly even worse. Stop while you're behind, birfer fool.

“I don't care where he was born I just want to enforce the constitution!!! “

Bullshit. And your opinion, like you, is still irrelevant.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

There are many terms for logical fallacies. Birfers use many of them frequently because they are an illiterate, uneducated bunch of paranoid, self-righteous idiots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

You talk about party survival. What about the country and the party’s chances for survival should it come out that Obama was indeed not qualified to be President and both parties stood by and did nothing,


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

You talk about party survival. What about the country and the party’s chances for survival should it come out that Obama was indeed not qualified to be President and both parties stood by and did nothing,


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:27 pm

Make the Pie Higher Why don't you try and address the facts! or can't you!!

But your remarks tell us how you use your own logic and thoughts!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

Utter bullshit.

You paranoid, delusional, self righteous birfer idiots will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence ever. It’s the nature of your mental disease. You’re a twisted, mentally deranged fuck with more spare time than common sense.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

Utter bullshit.

You paranoid, delusional, self righteous birfer idiots will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence ever. It’s the nature of your mental disease. You’re a twisted, mentally deranged fuck with more spare time than common sense.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

No, you support delusional, self-righteous, paranoid bullshit.

Your opinion, like you and your bizarre, fallacious rambling, is irrelevant.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

No, you support delusional, self-righteous, paranoid bullshit.

Your opinion, like you and your bizarre, fallacious rambling, is irrelevant.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

- Relevant, Legal Authority

You are not. Your opinion is delusional, irrelevant and pathetically wrong.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama
was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

- Relevant, Legal Authority

You are not. Your opinion is delusional, irrelevant and pathetically wrong.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

Let the record show that “make the pie higher” has chosen not to address the facts!

Just tries to slander people with out logic! Typical, goyim response Just another sheeple! Obviously incapable of perform independent research by reading the the documents. To lazy I guess?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

It’s a legal document satisfying State Department requirements to prove citizenship.

No kidding, birfer idiot. When did your bullshit, irrelevant nonsense trump the State Department? Who the fuck are you again?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:38 pm

It’s a legal document satisfying State Department requirements to prove citizenship.

No kidding, birfer idiot. When did your bullshit, irrelevant nonsense trump the State Department? Who the fuck are you again?


LaLee
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:38 pm

What facts?

Conjectures and speculations are not facts.

If you (Or Taitz) have facts then why don't you show them?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

“Of course you used those docs for employement, a driver’s license, etc. They are not on the same level of importance as being President of the United States.”

More idiotic, fallacious bullshit.

You truly are a paranoid, uneducated dumbass.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

“Of course you used those docs for employement, a driver’s license, etc. They are not on the same level of importance as being President of the United States.”

More idiotic, fallacious bullshit.

You truly are a paranoid, uneducated dumbass.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

Lalee
Facts are there that's why there quotes read the constitution, the declaration, look up john bingham, do some fricken research on your own people is it really that difficult. Again, blah, blah, blah! argue the facts! Sheeple! Tolazy again I guess!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:47 pm

Screw you, birfer fool. Goyim? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !
Nice generalization there, bigot. You obviously don't have a fucking clue.

Your irrelevant, deranged, birfer dysentery has been asked and answered ad nauseam.

You are far too stupid to understand without a hint of common sense swimming around in your pea brain.

Enjoy:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/

(Get someone to read it to you.)

“To lazy I guess?”

Isn't that libel, hypocrite? Wait, no. You must be asking if I'm traveling “to lazy.”

Fool.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:48 pm

Idiot.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

Make the Pie Higher
Thanks again for proving my point!


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:51 pm

Make the pie higher thanks again, just keep proving my point!11


Steve_X
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:52 pm

So…you don't like people calling you names? You don't like people putting “your side” down? Maybe you should have thought about those things before you decided to be a birther.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

The term I normally use is “fucking bullshit” but that's just me.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

From which anonymous, freeper blog did you plagiarize (ie., no citation) your unfounded, debunked stupidity?

Better yet, was it WhirledNutDaily (wnd.com)?

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndl…

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndo…


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

Arguing with birfers is liking trying to convince a potato only the potato has infinitely more value.

Here's my reply:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/06/response…


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:10 pm

Make the pie highewr are you a parrot? You keep providing linke to oppinion why don't you show me where I'm wrong! Like I am perhaps misquoting the constitution. Again you obviously lack the ability for self thinking! But hey just keep proving my point!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

Question. How did you become an expert in constitutional law?

Birfer Answer. Copy and paste.

Here's information about a former professor of constitutional law. I can give you his address if you'd like to argue your years of education and legal experience with him on issues of eligibility.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/bara…


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:16 pm

Make the pie higher
You really are stupid I didn't plagerize I used the Constitution, the declaration of independence The writings of John Bingham, The Naturalization Act of 1790 Themselves. So just incase your not stupid and your just ignorant! This should give you a starting point for your own independent research. If your not to Lazy?!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 6:17 pm

That is the substance of your arguments – name calling?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 6:17 pm

That is the substance of your arguments – name calling?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:18 pm

I've given you enough answers. And a birfer idiot is in no position to accuse another of parroting.

Your points generally and specifically aren't worth addressing because they are filled with fallacies, rambling inanities and garbage that's been debunked ad nauseam. It's not the fault of sane people that you're a delusional, illiterate lunatic without a scrap of common sense.

Just keep insisting you are right and we'll keep laughing our asses off at your stupidity and irrelevance. I'll go make more popcorn.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

Bullshit.

“So just incase your not stupid and your just ignorant!”

You've proven repeatedly now that you're not nearly bright enough.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

Make the Pie higher you haven't given any answers or even attampted to rebut my sources! Because you can't! All you can do is do a lot of name calling, like the girl you are! To lazy to do your own reseach but Perhaps you're so clever you can bread that beagle with a boxer and get a beagle!

Just keep proving my point!!!
Please send me some photos of those pups. If and when you do it!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:28 pm

P.S. The principle values and laws of the United States of America were founded on the common law of England. But you knew that. Need a source?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

Now you've completely gone off the deep end. WTF is wrong with you?


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

A conflict of interest arises when one gives a legal opinion about his own eligibility issues. In any event, perhaps we should can the Supreme Court and replace it with Obama; you know, with him being a former con law prof and all.

FYI, all constitutional law professors and experts do not share the same interpretations of the constitution. Just how many 9-0 SCOTUS opinions have been handed down recently?


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:36 pm

Make the Pie Higher
There you go! Now you are really showing your ignorance! We invoked Natural law as our supreme law and authority and model our legal structure with british common Law, Need proof see Quote from declaration isf independance!

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:41 pm

Birther.com has no ads to click on. Furthermore, you have no idea how many visitors I get every day.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

You might not know each other, but whenever anyone challenges BO’s NBC status, you all circle in for the kill like a bunch of wild animals.

Now you all like to back Obama, well consider this, no matter who attacks him, he still manages to be professional with his responses. He doesn’t name-call or put people down, now matter how heated the discussion may become. Perhaps you should take notice of this fact and learn something from the man.

Now i don’t agree with Obama’s policies, or how he denies access to his records, but I do respect him for being professional in every setting.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 1:56 pm

There you go again – attacking the person instead of the problem.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

Name-calling again. Can you raise your standards a bit?

Any amount of evidence? The only evidence Obama has disclosed to date is that digital copy of a summary of his 1961 vital record.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

Name-calling again. Can you raise your standards a bit?

Any amount of evidence? The only evidence Obama has disclosed to date is that digital copy of a summary of his 1961 vital record.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:23 pm

Um, the Declaration of Independence is not now and never was the law of the land. Also, British common law is very clear that children born in a country, except the children of diplomats, are natural born citizens. The President qualifies under this since he was born in Honolulu.

Go back to civics class, little one, and learn to write while you're at it.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

Please explain how rolling a dog in bread crumbs is relevant to politics.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

The above is a prime reason why America is going to hell in a handbasket.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:26 pm

You, young person, need to go back to school until you pass freshman English. What an appalling display!


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

Define “Tolazy.” It sounds like a Swiss chocolate bar.


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

WTF?

You invoke(?) natural law? And that last quote…..What in H**L are you talking about? And you call the crap you espouse as “research”? Laughable.

Your quest is null and void. You have already blasted holes all through your own “arguments”, by yourselves. O.K., Obama's BC is a forgery. So is mine, yours, and everyone elses' who was born after 1946-7, and none can prove they were born here even with the documents they do have. How about the state of Hawaii? Don't like the way they do things? Who the H**L do you think you are? How about the other 49 states? They MUST be as incompetent as Hawaii, so why not go after them next? After all, the next President won't be from Hawaii, so the legitimacy question still applies, right? Congratulations! You have proven that none of us is American! It's all a sham! We've been playing games for the last 234 years. THAT is all that you have proven.

You also keep proving OUR point. Now you haven't even a leg to stand on, so goading some into argument is the best you can do. Tsk.

There's no “discussing” anything with birfer morons, because there is nothing to discuss. Obama is President, and will remain President for his term, and maybe another, so get used to it.
Also, for all your bulls**t, you still haven't convinced ANYONE that what you seek has any importance for anyone but you sick, misguided freaks.

But it is fun watching you birfer quacks giving yourselves a reach around…..


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:30 pm

For the love of God, LEARN TO SPELL!!!!!!


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 2:31 pm

Do you moonlight writing advertising copy for Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

The Declaration of Independence in and of itself is a justification for rebellion that calls the anointed King of Great Britain a tyrant and accuses him of attempting to destroy the lives and livelihoods of his own subjects (specifically the residents of Boston, who suffered greatly thanks to the harbor blockade). It’s also less than kind when referring to local native tribes.

As for the Constitution, it confirms chattel slavery and counts those unfortunate enough to be slaves as 3/5 of a person. It also did not allow women, Native Americans, or chattel slaves (or, I believe, free Negroes, although I may be wrong about this) to vote.

None of the above is relevant to you being a pompous ass who tries to lord it over people who know more than you do.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

The Declaration of Independence in and of itself is a justification for rebellion that calls the anointed King of Great Britain a tyrant and accuses him of attempting to destroy the lives and livelihoods of his own subjects (specifically the residents of Boston, who suffered greatly thanks to the harbor blockade). It’s also less than kind when referring to local native tribes.

As for the Constitution, it confirms chattel slavery and counts those unfortunate enough to be slaves as 3/5 of a person. It also did not allow women, Native Americans, or chattel slaves (or, I believe, free Negroes, although I may be wrong about this) to vote.

None of the above is relevant to you being a pompous ass who tries to lord it over people who know more than you do.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

You have shown no respect for the President in of your posts, you damnable liar.

As for “circling in for the kill,” the reason people attack your posts is because they are, without exception, wrong.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

You have shown no respect for the President in of your posts, you damnable liar.

As for “circling in for the kill,” the reason people attack your posts is because they are, without exception, wrong.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

The only problem is your refusal to accept the results of the 2008 election, and your insistence that you are right despite a dearth of evidence supporting even one of your conclusions.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

The only problem is your refusal to accept the results of the 2008 election, and your insistence that you are right despite a dearth of evidence supporting even one of your conclusions.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

Let’s see…

The President released a copy of his birth certificate to the press, the said being confirmed by an independent fact-checking organization AND the Hawaiian Department of Health and at least three officials thereof, one of them the Republican Governor (who supported John McCain). There are two contemporary newspaper notices of the President’s birth in the Honolulu newspapers, using information provided to them by the said Department of Health. There is a contemporary letter from a woman describing her conversation with the doctor who delivered the President. There is the President’s grandmother stating, clearly and unequivocally, that her grandson was born in Hawaii, where his father was a student.

The President may have personally only produced the birth certificate, but everything taken together is proof that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, not Mombasa or anywhere else in Kenya.

As for standards, you deserve no more than you have gotten, you blibbering pixiewit.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

Let’s see…

The President released a copy of his birth certificate to the press, the said being confirmed by an independent fact-checking organization AND the Hawaiian Department of Health and at least three officials thereof, one of them the Republican Governor (who supported John McCain). There are two contemporary newspaper notices of the President’s birth in the Honolulu newspapers, using information provided to them by the said Department of Health. There is a contemporary letter from a woman describing her conversation with the doctor who delivered the President. There is the President’s grandmother stating, clearly and unequivocally, that her grandson was born in Hawaii, where his father was a student.

The President may have personally only produced the birth certificate, but everything taken together is proof that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, not Mombasa or anywhere else in Kenya.

As for standards, you deserve no more than you have gotten, you blibbering pixiewit.


mantis
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:55 pm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where in the First Amendement do you find a restriction on privately owned websites deciding their own content?


mantis
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:55 pm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Where in the First Amendement do you find a restriction on privately owned websites deciding their own content?


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

Monkey99 and ellid!
So, your saying that a legal document ending our relations with britain has no bearing on the development of our constitution, Well thanks for proving my point, again I guess the constitution isn't to be considered a legal document either and what about the The Naturalization Act of 1790 and the 14th ammendment i guess those4 aren't legal either??? Again thanks for poving my point Stupid Americans!!!


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

Ps. I never said Obama's birth certificate was a forgery! So try and preach your disinformation crap some place else! I'm not arguing where he was born. I'm arguing Natural Born as dfined by the laws as quoted! But again you'll keep proving my points! Do some of your own research!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

There are plenty of us here who don’t agree with most of Obama’s policies, yet still have certain standards which make us defend him against preposterous charges. I loathe Palin but I criticize her on the merits of her statements & policies—-not on whether she is a legitimate American. She and her husband once championed a separatist Alaskan political party (until she found it politically inconvenient), yet she is considered an American even by her political enemies. You champion a deranged and misguided cause, my friend, exposing you to lots of justifiable ridicule. Remember, this article is about the rejection of your cause by rightwingers, not by socialist dupes.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

There are plenty of us here who don’t agree with most of Obama’s policies, yet still have certain standards which make us defend him against preposterous charges. I loathe Palin but I criticize her on the merits of her statements & policies—-not on whether she is a legitimate American. She and her husband once championed a separatist Alaskan political party (until she found it politically inconvenient), yet she is considered an American even by her political enemies. You champion a deranged and misguided cause, my friend, exposing you to lots of justifiable ridicule. Remember, this article is about the rejection of your cause by rightwingers, not by socialist dupes.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

There you go again, attacking Obama’s legitimacy instead of addressing his policies.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

ellid please show me the law that was written say America adopted british Common Law! We modeled our laws on that basis we did not adopt it if we had adopted it then the crown would rule here! dufuss!

But again thanks for proving my point!


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

Not quite sure what ridiculous “point” we're making. What exactly would that be? Will we understand it, because we aren't retards, and will it even make sense? Constitutional scholars would laugh at your “research”. I just plain laugh at you.

Obama's BC has been reduced to obscure, misrepresented quotes from 1790?
You have no point that any of us can see….perhaps because we aren't idiots who believe a myth to be true.

All the rest of your comments are nothing but Bulls**t. We laugh at imbeciles like you. You keep coming back to wallow in your own excrement.

You prove OUR point by commenting stupid crap each time you post.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

From the encyclopedia of American History

“Natural rights, according to American tradition, are those rights granted to human-kind by their Creator, or as Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence—essentially borrowing from John Locke's Second Treatise on Government (1690)—the rights accorded by “Nature and Nature's God.” In the Declaration, these are described as “unalienable” rights, and include the recognition that “all men are created equal” and that all have rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

“Locke himself formulated man's basic natural right as “to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate,” and both Jefferson's and Locke's ideas found echoes in some of the early American state constitutions. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 was typical. It declared “That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” The Pennsylvania document added to this enumeration of its citizens' rights, among others, the “natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding,” and it made clear that “the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish government, in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal.” Natural rights, then, protect particular individual freedoms, but also give the community the right to self-government, so long as that government continues to protect and preserve the basic natural rights of individuals. When government fails to protect those rights, revolution—as Locke and the Declaration affirmed—is justified.”


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

Hey, bb,

Your life so empty you can't stop posting stupid comments all day? As if they would make a difference! LOL!

Your “research” and conclusions are so twisted, they cancel out your argument entirely. THAT is OUR point, and you haven't said or done anything to disprove it! You can't even see it! We have done everything in our power to make you consider that you could be wrong, to get you back into the fold of sanity and reality, but insults were all we got, so answer that one, if you can.

If not, be ready for insults and ridicule to not just continue, but get worse (or better, as the case may be). Your “point” died with the legitimacy of the ridiculous birfer quest. See it now?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 9:11 pm

“How he denies access to his records?”

You mean those records that you have no tangible interest in seeing? You mean those records that the President is under no duty or obligation to ‘release’ to you or anyone else? You mean those records that are completely irrelevant to the issue of his natural-born citizenship?

If, at this point, still you wonder why people attack you and ridicule you then go back and read your posts. The only thing that you’ve done is cut-and-paste debunked birther bullshit from websites like WND and Stormfront, all the while trolling for people to click onto your website. All of your arguments and opinions are based on gross misinterpretations of law and a complete ignorance of logic and reality.

There IS no issue as to Obama’s eligibility. Whether you or the other birthers like it or not, the COLB available for viewing on various websites for over a year is all of the evidence that he needs to prove his natural-born citizenship. Don’t like it? Fine. Move to Hawaii, run for a seat on the state legislature, and try to get the law changed.

In the meantime, if you want to people to stop making fun of you because you say stupid shit, then the answer is simple: stop saying stupid shit.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

My life is quite good thank you, in fact so good, I can do what I want when I want! No corporate time clock for me! How about you still slaving away to your master i bet! Well, education makes one independent! I find your silly rants quite entertaining! Like I said to lazy to even self educate! or even attempt to referance legal sources! Your a sad excuse for an american! All any of youy have done is parrot the ideas of others!
You continue to prove my points!


Steve_X
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

“To lazy to do your own reseach but Perhaps you're so clever you can bread that beagle with a boxer and get a beagle!”

(insert uncontrollable, tear-inducing, side-splitting laughter here)


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

I question your response, when your actions prove my assertions to the tee.

I am an Iraq war vet, retired, doing what I want, when I want.

My education appears to be of a higher nature than the idiotic rantings you birfer nuts consistently post, and at least the rest of us can SPELL. Answer this little man, with an “education” such as yours, you still haven't figured out yet that your bulls**t cancels itself out?

Reference legal sources? That would mean that we take birfer nonsense seriously, which we do not (see above). That's a job for toilers, like you.

Fought for your country lately? Or maybe you're another coward chickenhawk like Dick Cheney. You use “sad excuse” and “stupid” in conjunction with “American”, what does that say about you? Or maybe you're not an American, in which case we are done, because there's no point in discussing this rather pathetic quest.

If you are American, you have a lot to learn when it comes to patriotism, quivering little pussy.

You birfer nuts have been the ones parroting each other, what with all the cut and pastes, nonsense websites and outright false claims as well as the famous forgeries. Anyone who would continue on with something discredited numerous times is an….IDIOT!

You have no points (having to be incompetent must be a prerequisite), never did. Silly little man, toiling away in the dark. I laugh at you because you can stop it any time, but refuse to, so it remains enjoyable. LOL!


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:10 pm

I'm very sorry to tell you this, but disability passed on insanity is not the same thing as being independently wealthy.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:11 pm

*claps*

You can cut and paste! That's wonderful!


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

Please state which language this is written in so I can run it through Google translate. Thank you.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:12 pm

I think you need your lithium.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:13 pm

I said that the Declaration of Independence is not now and never was actual law. It's too bad you read as poorly as you write, or you would know this.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 7:15 pm

Not only is this absurd, it's ungrammatical.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:20 am

1. She didn’t need to confirm the minutiae of the President’s original birth records, only that they exist.

2. So Dr. Fukino isn’t a lawyer. So what? She doesn’t have to be.


bb
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

Monkey99
I don't need to stat my service, to try and qualify my stance, the stated legal references, do that for me! As for the military, I feel sorry for those that served under you, if that's the way you trained and led them. I served in alot more places than Iraq! So wave you your flag ( bullshit) somewhere else! Amilitary leader doesn't rely on his service to qualify his points! But perhaps abugrahb!


xcott
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

Good for Redstate. Maybe this will sway mainstream conservative opinion away from this insane and toxic conspiracy theory.


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 9:43 pm

Oooh, his being verses him being. Big deal. When you don't have the facts and the law on your side, you attack the person.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:45 am

Obama’s eligibility is the issue. Where have you been?


xcott
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 9:53 pm

I'm not sure what the point is tho, of all this talk about natural law.

Clearly none of this has any bearing on the president's eligibility, as this issue has now been dragged into court multiple times and judges have unanimously laughed it out.

Likewise, we can argue all day about the historical basis of Newton's laws, but none of that changes the fact that objects fall down.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:54 am

Fraud vitiates consent.

Evidence, your boy has locked down any evidence that is reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.

By the way, did you bother to read the Hawaii Revised Laws in effect in 1961?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:56 am

Please cite a specific passge to which you were referring.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:04 am

Which one of the six procedures was used to generate Obama;s 1961 vital record is not “minutiae.”

Fukino is not licensed to give a legal opinion.

This entire thing reminds me of a person who goes into court to protest a parking ticket and finds that the court only looks to see if the sign was physically there.


NOT_AXJ
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:04 pm

bb – using a moniker to refer to your brain size?


NOT_AXJ
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:06 pm

I hate it when people claim that they're educated but then they continuously use 'your' instead of you're. I do believe that bb is poving [sic] his/her point. bb is a stupid American.


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:08 pm

Took you long enough. Take you that long to come up with that?

Your “stated legal references” mean nothing to any self-respecting attorney, or to us. Just ask Taitz….She'll be doing time soon enough for her waste of the courts' time. Anything you can conjure up by way of obscure reasoning won't mean much, because you are a dinosaur who hasn't got the message your kind are extinct.

You served? I don't believe your Bulls**t. A pussy like you who hasn't any respect for this country or it's institutions couldn't have served (sounds familiar, doesn't it? How's it taste?) in combat. Prove YOUR service, pussy. Until then, that's the name you'll go under from now on……

You see? you can't even stay with the topic of the blog. Haven't from the start. No more horses**t points to waste time with? Getting dissed by RedState is only the start. Fluster you? Do you even know anymore what you are doing here? I could go on insulting pussies like you, but I do have a life, and it's calling for me to enjoy myself with folk I respect and admire (who are too educated and refined for clowns like you), and have fun with.

So stay and spout more nonsense, pussy. There are more here that are up for insulting you…..Bye bye! LOL!


NOT_AXJ
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

The way you write, I wouldn't be bragging on your education. How far did you get? The 8th grade?


monkey99
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

Hey pussy!

I'm now the top post! Hurry! Post one over mine before anybody notices! You don't have to be coherent (not that birfers even know what that is…), just quick! LOL!

HURRY! HURRY! someone's going to see this! LOL!

PUSSY! LOL!


NOT_AXJ
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:15 pm

It is apparent that you have no facts. Is this Orly? Sure has Orly's style of writing.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:19 pm

No, it's a guy with an ego about the size of Mount Rushmore who thinks the rest of us are being paid to conspire against his luminous intellect.


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

Um, that wasn't the grammatical error I was talking about. Thank you for pointing it out, however.

Also, I believe the word you are looking for is “versus.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:23 am

He was born in Hawaii. There is no eligibility issue except in the tiny shreds of protoplasm between your ears.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:25 am

No fraud has been committed, the President is not my son and thus is not my “boy,”* and unnecessary since the President released a legal birth certificate.

You still haven’t explained why you’re here at all after your cute little flounce a couple of weeks ago. Well?

*Also, nice little bit of dog whistling there. I’m sure your buddies at the Klavern think it’s so nifty, you referring to a black man nearing 50 as a “boy.”


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:25 am

*LAUGHS*

Read it yourself, o mighty parser of legal language.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:27 am

1. Not relevant since there’s plenty of other contemporary evidence proving that yes, he was born in Hawaii.

2. Dr. Fukino does not need to be a licensed to give a legal opinion to confirm that yes, the President’s original birth documents are on record in the Hawaiian archives, and yes, she’s seen them.

3. That has to be the stupidest analogy I’ve seen in many moons. Where *do* you find such nonsense?


forseti
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

Big deal. Nobody is perfect on these blogs. Grammatical and other errors, as well as informal writing style, are to/two/too be expected.

When you don't have the facts and law on your/you're side, you attack the person or redirect their/there/they're attention from the issues. Go ahead, knock yourself out.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:29 am

And oh yes – based on your handle, are you Asatru or just a garden variety “Aryan”?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:31 am

Ah, once again when you are asked to cite something,you refuse.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

I love monkey99!! Number One!!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

Kick it, monkey love !!!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:38 am

I knew that you’d play the race card sooner or later.

I got the idea to say “boy” from a Berkeley liberal I ran into years ago. He said, “It looks like your boy is going to lose.” He was referring to Bush.

Geesh, you really like to cling to your erroneous beliefs.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:39 pm

Birfer's would try to defy natural laws if they knew the truth about Isaac Newton (psst . . .he died a virgin and birfer paranoia abounds).


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

Cognitive dissonance is a painful bitch.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:41 pm

“Like I said to lazy to even self educate!”

There's a banner worth printing.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

You've been smoked, idiot.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

WTF? Are you drunk? Again?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:49 am

Screw you, ass munch. You flip-flop more than any politician.

You’re an asshole with VERY low self-esteem. So kill yourself already. No one cares who you are.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:51 am

And your reason for living is desperately and pathetically waiting for an anonymous response?

Ewww. You’re a sick fuck.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:12 pm

I want monkey to be top pussy. Or ellid. Go pussy.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:13 pm

“I don't need to stat my service”

Exactly.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:16 pm

You wouldn't understand the stated legal references if we shoved them up your ass and screamed HALLELUJAH !


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:41 pm

Monkey is a god! So is JohnC!


ellid
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:42 pm

PUT THIS ON YOUTUBE. RIGHT NOW.

Seriously, this would go viral in about fifteen minutes….


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 15, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

: – )


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:15 am

Just waiting for the car to pick me up………(b)itch (b)oy isn't an American. He may state so, but can you believe a birfer?


katahdin
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:24 am

I really don't understand the argument that the possibility of lawbreaking equals the fact of lawbreaking.
President Obama has a valid birth certificate from the State of Hawaii that serves as prima facie evidence of his birth in that state.
Hawaiin state officials have verified that the president has a valid record of birth with the state that states that he was born in Hawaii.
Anyone born inside the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States. This is settled and accepted law and has been for over 100 years.
Now it's always remotely possible that some wrongdoing may have been connected with President Obama's birth–in the wild fever dreams of the imaginative and conspiracy minded.
However, not a shred of actual evidence has ever been presented. It's not enough to say “could have been.” Anyone questioning the president's eligibility to hold office has to be able to counteract a state-issued document that is self-affirming, and prove that it is not in fact genuine or was based on false information.
The birther fantasies and speculation have been going on for more than a year. The only fruit they have borne is a pile of fake documents and a string of failed lawsuits.
Unless and until birthers come up with genuine evidence, they're just spitting in the wind. That's all.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:07 am

In both cases the trier of fact takes only a cursory look at the form, and ignores the substance. Further scrutiny is not part of their critical thinking process.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:30 am

We know all that, of course. It's just fun bashing birfers.

They've shot their own arguments to H**l, and don't even realize it! In fact, they look even worse now than they did before, because of their obstinacy about it.

It only took one ridiculous assertion from a foreign-born shyster-cum-prospective Tomas De Torquemada for the nuts to fall from the tree, but they will never accept truth. That's the problem with conspiracy theories. They can NEVER be proved….so we make fun. It doesn't matter what they say, it's all nonsense, anyway. Anyone engaging a birfer in “discussion” is only playing them. It's the best entertaiment there is.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 5:39 am

Katahdin, since you came late and asked! Please, See the following
the rest of you, just keep proving my point! Native born are those born in country! Hence the term Native Born! Thats why the indians were called natives. So when your born you're native to the land in which you are born or (Jus soli (Latin: law of ground)) The other is by blood as in british Law or (Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)) The British have a monarch who is the Supreme law and religious head of state! Their public servents take their oath to the monarch! We on the other hand invoked Natural Law that's why our public servents take their oath to God (Natures God)!

Why don’t you all think, about this highly complex issue regarding Natural Birth! (Joke! It’s not that difficult!)
1. Our country was founded on Natural Law. Not Man’s Law! (Admiralty/Commerce Law)! As, written in our Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris, and our Constitution.
2. Our constitution is Man’s Law! It declares Natural law to be the Highest or supreme law and or power in our land.
3. Natural law is natural rules that are clearly relevant like, Gravity! Man can’t do away with gravity!
So, our country was founded with this order of hierarchy.
a.. Natural Law and or Natures God!
b. The Citizen
c. The State
d. The Federal Government
4. How it works Now!
a. Money!
b. The Federal Government
c. The State
d. The Citizen
e. Natural Law and or Natures God!
5. Still wonder, why everything seems to work backwards from your beliefs.
The word Natural in (Natural Born) invokes Natural Law, If you have to refer to Man’s Law, it is not Natural Law! So, the mere fact that Obama’s father was a British citizen meant he had a choice under under man’s Law, he could chose to be British or American, in making the choice you invoke the use Man’s Law, not Natural Law. It’s like this if I mate a Beagle to a Beagle I get a Beagle, I don’t need a lawyer, or Man’s Law as this is truth in Natural Law. If I suddenly find my dog (the Beagle) had pups and I didn’t know who the father is, I would have to go to the AKC for a ruling, to say its pup, is a Beagle. So, the AKC would represent Man’s Law. It’s really sad, that 300,000,000 Americans don’t seem to know anything about the law our country was founded on! (Natural Law)! Provided, for us by Natures God! The Constitution doesn’t say (Native birth) It says Natural Born to invoke natural law! For the Stupid Americans!!!!
See the quotes below:
a. US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be Natural Born; otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

This means you had to be a citizen WHEN the Constitution was adopted by the founding fathers, i.e.: it applies to people here up to the date of September 17, 1787. It does not apply to anyone AFTER that time. It was made to say that, so that the people of the original colonies, who were not Natural Born Citizens (they were Citizens of Britain and through the adoption of man’s law (the Constitution), Gave themselves the necessary ability to form the new government and with full Knowledge, set out to restrict the Office of President to the higher standard of Natural Law, to their own children. This in-fact requires both standards you will here about from the misinformed or disinformation pundits, often referred to as by blood (Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)) or geographical/Land (Jus soli (Latin: law of ground)) as it requires the parents to have been citizens of the United States and have been born on U.S. soil.
b. When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.”
c. The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Some will argue that, neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship. But given the statement “under no other jurisdiction or authority” they must, be born in or on U.S Soil or Jurisdiction to have that statement apply, So, again in-fact both forms that are generally discussed, are in fact required as evidenced by John Bingham’s definition, our constitution, and the 14th amendment.

6. Look up the meaning of “AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION”
For example, when you go adopt a dog from an animal shelter, the contract you sign will say somewhere, that “AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION” this shelter relinquishes all care of the animal to the ADOPTER. It means WHEN YOU ADOPT SOMETHING, or in other words, the shelter IS NOT responsible for the care of the animal AT THE TIME WHEN YOU ADOPT IT. When you adopt a child, it will say somewhere in the contract that AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION the adoption agency relinquishes certain things or care to the adopter, or meetings will be set up with the parents AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION. Again, it means AFTER SOMETHING IS ADOPTED, something else does or does not apply, and the Constitution CLEARLY states: No person EXCEPT a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION of this Constitution. IF IT DID apply to a person born of one NON-Citizen and one American citizen AFTER THE TIME OF ADOPTION, it would clearly say AFTER THE ADOPTION of this Constitution…Obama is NOT NATURAL BORN, no matter HOW you try to argue it. It’s VERY SIMPLE and easy to understand. Unless you are a complete idiot, Try studying the Constitution. It’s not that hard.
7. But again Stupid Americans!!!! Give away your rights and your children’s as well!
You can try to argue what’s written, but you have no argument! It’s only your liberties, your freedoms and those of your Children’s at stake. All the politicians and judges no this! That’s why they can’t let it go to trial, as then they, and person’s who have taken their oath to support and defend the constitution and are still holding office!, could and possibly should be tried for treason.
8. The Citizens are the supreme authority, as long as the constitution is intact, the citizens don’t need the Courts to correct this issue they just need to say enough is enough you’re fired!, and do it in mass! Then proceed to Trials. Trials based on Natural Law!


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:22 am

I've finally figured it out. BB is writing in Gibberish, a language as easy to understand as Wendish but far less common.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:40 am

ellid, Wow, another highly inteligent response! gee you obamanuts are really hurting my feelings! (not) by showing your absolute ignorance.

Perhaps, you tell us where George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were born.

Oh and since monky99 says he served, ask him who took his oath to!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 8:45 am

Ah, you're a lonely idiot. How pathetic.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 8:46 am

So much time, too little lithium.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

“When you don’t have the facts and law on your/you’re side, you attack the person or redirect their/there/they’re attention from the issues.”

Yes, you do.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:58 pm

BTW, it was sarcasm and you’re still an obstinate douche bag.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

Psst. Don’t let anyone know that I looked at it and found absolutely no relevance to your argument. I really don’t want you to get to embarrassed, actually I don’t care. Keep the false arguments coming.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:34 am

You can type until you are blue in the facts. It will not change one important fact. According to the laws of America Barack H. Obama is a natural born citizen. Now you can cry yourself to sleep.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:44 am

“bb” (aka tiny, impotent ammunition) wears a long, black robe and prances around barefoot in a crap filled pit singing, “Tra la la , I'm insane but it's okay. I'll throw Jell-O at you anyway! Tra la la, nature this, nature that, I'm as crazy as a crapping bat! La la la la la la la la!


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:47 am

Military personnel take their oath to the Constitution of the United States. So do government officials, from the President on down to the notary at your bank.

If you aren't writing in Gibberish, please state what language you're using. It certainly isn't English.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

Facts. Facts. You are complaining about someone one has chosen not to address the facts!

Here is a fact. You are a moron because you honestly believe that America doesn’t protect their birth records.

Please don’t let the door hit you on the way out.


katahdin
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:56 am

Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. Bobby Jindal is a natural born citizen because he was born in the United States. I am a natural born citizen because I was born in the United States. If you were born in the United States, then you are a natural born citizen.
Barack Obama is not violating the Constitution by being president. As far as court cases go, there is simply no legal issue to try. All your shouting about Natural Law and Man's Law is just some vague mumbo jumbo designed to distract from the real central issue that, for whatever reason, you are unable to accept that Barack Obama is our legal, duly elected, president, and will remain so at least until January 20, 2013. You can rant and rave as much as you want, but you can't change that fact.

And by the way, exclamation points don't make anything you write the truth!


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

Facts. Did you honestly proof read your comments before you posted it. Fact when two people marry they don’t adopt each others children. Do you really how moronic that argument is. That is one point in your argument that lacked fact.

Please keep typing. We like reading your comment that are so logically inconsistent that we wonder if you understand what you actually typed.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

The constitution.
1. 14 years residency
2. 35 years old
3. natural-born citizen

Obama 47 years old, born in Hawaii, and has lived in America for more that 14 years. Yep! He qualifies. End of story. Bye now.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Point? What point? Now, I understand. You are disillusioned about an election lost. Well it seems that your wasting your energy as there is absolutely nothing that can undo that.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:11 pm

You are funny. No. It seems that you are confused. Instead of proving some shred of logic to support your paranoia you try to deflect from a lost argument by typing nonsense. You are a strange puppy.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:12 am

For your info, this is the Military oath!

I, ___________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God!.

Most americans take the Oath on the Bible! But that is not required because It's Not a Religious God! It's Nature's God! Natures Law! And they all end in SO HELP ME GOD!

Keep proving you ignorance! Or go do some research on John Locke!


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

The word is actually “opinion”. However, what is thing is opinion is based on the facts. It is strange that someone who spreads misinformation, distortion of facts, and smears complain about a person opinion. Why don’t you just accept that you are wrong and find another hobby.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

Are you confused? Do you honestly believe that your misrepresentation of the facts are new? Everything that you have type has been debunked. Did you realize that 1790 was over 200 years ago, or is that you think it is 1791.

There is absolutely nothing original about your arguments. They have been found to be misrepresentation, distortions and outright lies. You are really as silly person.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 4:23 pm

Question: Why do you honestly believe that your arguments are original? Please, do some honest research instead of mining birther sites. There is nothing new about birthers arguments. They use strawmen and quote-mining. We have looked at all the information that birthers have provided, and this was over one year ago. Honestly, are you really that slow on the uptake or are you pretending to be stupid?


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:26 am

And this contradicts what I wrote how?


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:26 am

Ha Ha Ha Ha … do you really understand stand what you typed or are you preparing for a test where you have to memory some text.

Wow … Please drink some water it may help.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:28 am

It is 2010. Honestly no one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It is 2010. Please ask your family or friends they will tell you the same thing.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:31 am

This clown sure is a glutton for punishment. Glad they're here, though…..

Still rambling on about natural law?


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:31 am

There is no definition of a natural born citizen in the Constitution, and by law it is defined by anyone who is in possession of an American birth certificate or has a legal right to have one. It really isn't that of a complicated.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:33 am

The more times you time your nonsense the facts won't change. Why don't you understand that?


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:35 am

Now you go back to 1690. Instead of coming 100 years into the future, you decide it is better to go back in time. Why don't you just you to year 2?


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:39 am

Generally speaking people who are interested in learning seek to understand things. This may mean going to university, but it also means independent learning. It is not education, it is the person, and you have proven that you are not interesting in learning new things. You still stick to your disproved position. You remind me of a person who thinks the Earth is flat.

The only person who is ranting is you.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:42 am

You complain about a specific behavior when no one engaged in and now you decide it is best that you do it. You are a silly person.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:44 am

You are utterly confused.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:44 am

ellid , Monkey99 How exactly is a person taking the oath to the constitution? What do you think the statement, “So help me God!” means.

Again, you've done nothing but prove you are beyond ignorant and in fact stupid! Thanks!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:50 am

And you are an essay concerning human understanding but empirically speaking, I'm not entirely sure about the human part.

“It's Not a Religious God! It's Nature's God!”

So, was the U.S. founded by Wiccans or Voduns?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:51 am

“Perhaps, you tell us where George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were born.”

Due south of a uterus and vagina. Every one of 'em.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:53 am

Oh, my last comment for you morons! Since you never answered my question?
George Washington – was Born in Virginia!
John Adams – was born in Massachusetts!
Thomas Jefferson – Was Born in Virginia!
All native Born! So, why the grandfather Clause? They were born here as well?
US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

So, now I rest my case! you have no arguement! You have proven your stupidity beyond a reasonable doubt! Idots!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:54 am

Put down the homemade liquor and slowly back away from the computer. Amen.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:54 am

bb,

You show a particular perversion when it comes to this blog…..

Don't worry, you won't convince anyone here of your bulls**t, and you're starting to sound like you've taken the wrong pills this morning.

Looked up the oath this morning, did you? By the way, I swore my oath at the L.A. induction center in 1978, but what does that have to do with anything? I thought you were here to baffle us with your bulls**t (I would say “acumen”, but that word doesn't quite describe the trash you're typing this morning).

By the way, your “god” can have his time elsewhere. This is a political blog, and as everyone knows, someone spouting off about their “god” hasn't the cojones to address the subject at hand, because they let the “god” do the talking. That's a pretty poor way to espouse your beliefs, and you grouse about my “using” my service record, then insult me because I've been in combat?
You must have been a REMF. Or a desk jockey.

It STILL hasn't a damn thing to do with RedState…….,


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

“Idots!”

I love the smell of irony in the morning.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

“We should also remember it was the Clintonistas who started the birfer rumor . . .”

I'm guessing that's a reference to Philip Berg?
If so, Erick may have good intentions slamming birfers but to my knowledge, Berg's only association with the Clintons was to support Hillary for President from afar.


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:05 pm

No one is disputing that John Adams, George Washington, et al., were born in what is now the United States. Why are you bringing it up?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:06 pm

I had to look up REMF in the urban dictionary.

LMFAO ! ! !

Nailed it, monkey!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

I did answer your question but you're far too stupid and self-medicated to see anything beyond your nasion.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

Can't say I'm entirely sad to see you go….

My, my. Why so mad? YOU never answered our questions either, so what's your argument there, hmmm?

You post all kinds of passages and quotes from the Constitution and elsewhere, but did you actually UNDERSTAND what it was you read? Apparently not, because you depend on us for something YOU should already know, after all, the Constitution WAS written in 7th grade level english.

You've rested s**t (of course, you started s**t, so it's come full circle). Of course we have no arguments…We don't believe the crap you believe, why would we question things proven out as truth? We're here to ridicule you, didn't you know that?
All you have proven is you shouldn't run around with open scissors when you have only one eye.

Another one bites the dust.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

I am still laughing at bb going to 1690 from 1790 to find better support for their argument. It might have been a typo, but it is funny none the less.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:15 pm

Monkey99 I didn't insult you I said Iwas sorry for anyone who served under you! If you ever were in a leadership position! because mindless following it is not desired in the Military and your obvious inability, to espouse thoughts using logic and reason along with facts! Read the oath while you are to follow those orders only when they are in accordance with regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So, you to use logic and reason when following any order! Which also, means you are required understand those regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So, im guessing you served at someplace like Abugrahb Prison as they cleary used not thought and reason when they took those pictures! But thank tou for you service, if infact you served that's still something! P.S. I reenlisted over a thousand people. I know it by heart! My commands had high retention rates due to the leadership examples I stated people in my commands were encouraged to question authority in a respectful way by using logic and reason and when they were right they were honored for their dedication! But again you must not esposed or experienced that type of leadership as you have clearly evidenced here!!! It was fun, but your not worth anymore of my time! Oh! my only particular perversion is to the Constitution I took my oath too!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

Because it's NATURAL. Get it? Nature, nature, nature, nature, nature, nature. Just like spam only much more natural. And Hawaiians eat more spam per capita than any other state, naturally. The rough draft of Article II mentions excluding caesarean and virgin births but only because Madison and Morris were on a three day drinking binge. They giggled and sharted and then crossed it out. Check it out at the National Archives.

http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/

The More You Know.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:16 pm

And Barack H. Obama was born in Hawaii.

So what is your point? Did you get lost some where?


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

Utter tripe. You still can't accept that Obama is a natural born citizen.

You continue to distract from the point that you can't accept that Barack H. Obama is the president of America. What is the reason? Is it that you can't accept that fact that more Americans voted for him than your candidate. I am sorry to tell you that it is just democracy.

So, please stop using your distortions of the Constitution to advance your political smear campaign.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

“but your not worth anymore of my time”

Thank heaven for small favors. It's a shame though. Teasing the idiot was mildly entertaining like Spike or Syfy.

“Oh! my only particular perversion is to the Constitution”

We know why the parchment is soiled now. And I think we knew we were dealing with an obstinate stain all along.


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

PS. should have said this!
Oath to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and So help God! means as go be my witness as well as a request to help me do it!

You would appear to qualify in the domestic sense, as you are not living up to the Oath you took? Good, luck with that!


mantis
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

Obama's birth certificate destroyed the twin towers.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

The poster is deathly afraid of those “evil, dark people.” Naturally.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

Oh, if you only knew what really goes on in the Arkansas state chambers.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:32 pm

Americans are Americans and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about changing that. You want to use strawmen for your arguments that is your right. However, we will see right through them and challenge you on them.

You are a person who likes to talk about defending America, but you believe that good Americans have aren't about defending their country. This includes ensuring that the citizen laws are upheld and that the “vital records” are protect. You have joined a conspiracy theory that tries to indicated that those responsible for protecting America's borders are not doing their jobs.

You sir are a fraud. If you are a military person, you are an embarrassment to your uniform. However, I doubt you clever deception as your words are contradictory.

Bye … watch out for the door as you leave.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

“Perhaps you're so clever you can bread that beagle with a boxer and get a beagle!”

I'll give credit where it's due. That's the single most funny statement of this entire thread.

It may even be worthy of a Fox reality series combining celebrity pets attacking geneticists with stars of the Food Network judging the action.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

Pure and utter genius. I haven't seen such a harsh smack down as that. Birters … their aren't too many ways of debunking them.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

“Troublesome fringe”.

Now there's a dead-on descriptive for you.

Makes one wonder about the things they talk about on their own blogs. It's baffling….How can anyone find that much to say about a birth certificate?

Think I might try one this AM. Should I reply? Hmmmmm.


katahdin
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 12:46 pm

The phrase “so help me god” is not part of the presidential oath or any other. It's just customary to say it, but not needed. After all, the US is not an explicitly Christian nation, being “in no sense founded on the Christian religion” according to George Washington.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

Man do you every get grumpy when you can't prove your point.

One birth certificate issues by the State of Hawaii Department of Health indicating that Obama was born in Hawaii. After being inundated the State of Hawaii issues one press release. This doesn't abate the problem thus the State of Hawaii issues a second press release.

However, you continue to cast doubt about Obama birth certificate and insult the State of Hawaii at the same time.

You sir are a fraud.


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

I have to agree. It is totally baffling the extent they have pushed their conspiracy theory. I have absolutely no doubt that their is more tripe on the various birther sites.

It is only one document and it has been proven to be authentic.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

I thought was mostly an upholsterer's problem.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

; – )


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

Please Show me any of my posts that suggested anything about Obama's Birth? Morons! try reading show me where I questioned the authanticity! So let me post it again for those bandwagoner's that came late! Have fun you just keep proving my point unable to read can't use logic and reason! and I have at least four creditable references Quoted! So again learn to read! Don't assume you know ASS-U etc!

Why don’t you all think, about this highly complex issue regarding Natural Born! (Joke! It’s not that difficult!)
1. Our country was founded on Natural Law. Not Man’s Law! (Admiralty/Commerce Law)! As, written in our Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris, and our Constitution.
2. Our constitution is Man’s Law! It declares Natural law to be the Highest or supreme law and or power in our land.
3. Natural law is natural rules that are clearly relevant like, Gravity! Man can’t do away with gravity!
So, our country was founded with this order of hierarchy.
a.. Natural Law and or Natures God!
b. The Citizen
c. The State
d. The Federal Government
4. How it works Now!
a. Money!
b. The Federal Government
c. The State
d. The Citizen
e. Natural Law and or Natures God!
5. Still wonder, why everything seems to work backwards from your beliefs.
The word Natural in (Natural Born) invokes Natural Law, If you have to refer to Man’s Law, it is not Natural Law! So, the mere fact that Obama’s father was a British citizen meant he had a choice under under man’s Law, he could chose to be British or American, in making the choice you invoke the use Man’s Law, not Natural Law. It’s like this if I mate a Beagle to a Beagle I get a Beagle, I don’t need a lawyer, or Man’s Law as this is truth in Natural Law. If I suddenly find my dog (the Beagle) had pups and I didn’t know who the father is, I would have to go to the AKC for a ruling, to say its pup, is a Beagle. So, the AKC would represent Man’s Law. It’s really sad, that 300,000,000 Americans don’t seem to know anything about the law our country was founded on! (Natural Law)! Provided, for us by Natures God! The Constitution doesn’t say (Native birth) It says Natural Born to invoke natural law! For the Stupid Americans!!!!
See the quotes below:
a. US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
The addition of a grandfather clause in this paragraph says a lot as to the meaning of natural born. The first thing it says is that being born in the US is not enough to be Natural Born; otherwise the grandfather clause would not be necessary. If it were the framers would not have included the clause.

This means you had to be a citizen WHEN the Constitution was adopted by the founding fathers, i.e.: it applies to people here up to the date of September 17, 1787. It does not apply to anyone AFTER that time. It was made to say that, so that the people of the original colonies, who were not Natural Born Citizens (they were Citizens of Britain and through the adoption of man’s law (the Constitution), Gave themselves the necessary ability to form the new government and with full Knowledge, set out to restrict the Office of President to the higher standard of Natural Law, to their own children. This in-fact requires both standards you will here about from the misinformed or disinformation pundits, often referred to as by blood (Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood)) or geographical/Land (Jus soli (Latin: law of ground)) as it requires the parents to have been citizens of the United States and have been born on U.S. soil.
b. When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.”
c. The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Some will argue that, neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship. But given the statement “under no other jurisdiction or authority” they must, be born in or on U.S Soil or Jurisdiction to have that statement apply, So, again in-fact both forms that are generally discussed, are in fact required as evidenced by John Bingham’s definition, our constitution, and the 14th amendment.

6. Look up the meaning of “AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION”
For example, when you go adopt a dog from an animal shelter, the contract you sign will say somewhere, that “AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION” this shelter relinquishes all care of the animal to the ADOPTER. It means WHEN YOU ADOPT SOMETHING, or in other words, the shelter IS NOT responsible for the care of the animal AT THE TIME WHEN YOU ADOPT IT. When you adopt a child, it will say somewhere in the contract that AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION the adoption agency relinquishes certain things or care to the adopter, or meetings will be set up with the parents AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION. Again, it means AFTER SOMETHING IS ADOPTED, something else does or does not apply, and the Constitution CLEARLY states: No person EXCEPT a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME OF ADOPTION of this Constitution. IF IT DID apply to a person born of one NON-Citizen and one American citizen AFTER THE TIME OF ADOPTION, it would clearly say AFTER THE ADOPTION of this Constitution…Obama is NOT NATURAL BORN, no matter HOW you try to argue it. It’s VERY SIMPLE and easy to understand. Unless you are a complete idiot, Try studying the Constitution. It’s not that hard.
7. But again Stupid Americans!!!! Give away your rights and your children’s as well!
You can try to argue what’s written, but you have no argument! It’s only your liberties, your freedoms and those of your Children’s at stake. All the politicians and judges no this! That’s why they can’t let it go to trial, as then they, and person’s who have taken their oath to support and defend the constitution and are still holding office!, could and possibly should be tried for treason.
8. The Citizens are the supreme authority, as long as the constitution is intact, the citizens don’t need the Courts to correct this issue they just need to say enough is enough you’re fired!, and do it in mass! Then proceed to Trials. Trials based on Natural Law!


bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

Oh! don't forget you will have justify these facts as well!

George Washington – was Born in Virginia!
John Adams – was born in Massachusetts!
Thomas Jefferson – Was Born in Virginia!

All native Born! So, why the grandfather Clause? They were born here as well?
US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

So, again, I rest my case! you have no arguement! You have proven your stupidity beyond a reasonable doubt! Idots!


good work bb
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

Do you obamanuts!, get paid well, for try to cover all these blogs to hide the facts!

Perhaps that's why you lost another Senator Today! Or perhaps it's just an example of Obama's leadership in action!


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

You insult my men, same thing. Or didn't that occur to you?

You know no more about what you're regurgitating than a dog knows about brain surgery. Since I'm no longer in the military, I don't have to follow anyone's orders.

So let me get this straight…..I was to read it aloud AND place it somewhere in the UCMJ for reference BEFORE I follow an order? You haven't seen the business end of a weapon, have you? YOU do that while getting shot at.
You've made reference to Abu Ghraib a number of times….Do you have some particular perversion towards that kind of thing, too?

Yup, I was right, you ARE a REMF.

It's funny, for all that you try to cut me down, you're still a pussy (my, my, I'm not being very respectful, but then neither were you) who has lost their way with this birfer crap STILL trying to wrestle cred. While you spout off about oaths and the Constitution, your bulls**t belief has twisted your ideas of “logic” and “reason”. In your diatribe you talk about questioning orders. Do you even have the faintest idea how questioning orders can get you killed? Apparently not.

Again, you birfers cancel out the points you try to make. Still can't see it, can you? You have become one of the anti-American crowd, pussy. You can quote whatever you like, it won't make a damn bit of difference to anyone here. You have only shown that anything you say cannot be trusted. You said you were done, but here you still are, grumbling and grousing about nothing. Again.

Maybe you should give up what you're doing. You aren't American anymore, so you shouldn't keep up the sham. That “oath” you took to your “natural god” doesn't really mean much by now, does it? You dumbass birfers contradict yourselves so much, nobody even knows what it is you whine about anymore. That's why we love to ridicule you so much.

You said it again. Will you actually DO what you SAY this time?

LOL! We're not worth YOUR time? So….You would consider rooting around for stupid points to ponder, or “facts” to “bolster” your “arguments” more important? I guess toiling is what floats your boat, but remember this, you have to have paddles to get anywhere.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:29 pm

See? You're full of s**t AND a liar. Just can't get enough punishment, can you?


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

Another birfer nutcase.

Yup, it's a CONSPIRACY!

I would tell you that making political predictions this early on is a fool's quest, but well, you're a birfer, so…..


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

Bayh announced he wasn't running YESTERDAY, o honored and respected fishwit.

As for me, the only money I'll be getting from the feds this year is my tax refund, which I EARNED.


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

What *are* you talking about?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

And he wins the prize! It’s a copy of *Pomposity for Dummies!”

*wild applause from the adoring masses*


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:51 pm

That should actually read more along the lines of, “Ah. Once again, when you are asked to cite something, you refuse.” It should be two sentences, not one, you see.

As to the probable meaning of your sentence, I am simply applying the time-honored teaching technique of forcing an ignorant, lazy fool to do his own work. I apologize if this is beneath someone of your intelligence, education, and fine analytical skills.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:52 pm

As I am a Massachusetts feminist instead of a Berkley liberal, I was not aware of the West Coast custom of referring to politicians as “boy.” Thank you for enlightening me.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

TRIER OF FACT????

*howls with laughter*


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

And tax refunds are technically an interest free loan to the government. That seems wrong on many levels!

P.S. I've called the van to pick up the top poster for transport to the FEMA camp. I'll pick up our brown shirts from the cleaners before the secret meeting tonight. It's spaghetti taco night again.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

What's more funny and equally disturbing is that bb and good work bb is the same poster. This drooler is now self conversing, pleasuring and congratulating.


aarrgghh
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:22 pm

there was no “united states” when those presidents were born.


aarrgghh
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:27 pm

another “overnight constitutional scholar”.

amazing what wonders a single election can do for people. or not.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:28 pm

I shouldn't think it's unexpected. Most of the birfers have multiple personalities.

You're right, though. The mental picture IS disturbing, AND funny!

They do things like this, and wonder why they can't get traction with their nonsense! LOL!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 2:43 pm

Pesky facts! You try soaking and scrubbing and they still won't go away.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

good work bb, bb, bitch boy or whatever you want to call yourself,

You can always put your “facts” in a metal box, and bury it in your back yard. In a hundred years, some enterprising youngster can dig it up, and wonder what went wrong a hundred years ago. You can put all manner of garbage and nonsense in it, it won't matter, because history will tell of the supposed Americans who started a “conspiracy” over NOTHING, lied, obfuscated and even went so far as forgery to “prove” their claims.

This is the legacy you have built for yourselves.

RedState won't even give you nuts cred. Says something about your “quest”, doesn't it? “Troublesome fringe”, “Birfers and truthers have no place among us.
And they are most decidedly NOT welcome at RedState”.
Kind of harsh (but let's be fair….You earned it!) for folk who have the same political affiliations as you. They are still considered Americans, you are not. Maybe THAT's why you won't engage in discussion about the topic of the blog?

So go back to your dark closet and come up with more garbage to distract with, the next time a birfer blog shows up. After all, some of these good folk work, and can't have as much fun as the rest of us do. Gotta be fair.

Are you sure you don't want to claim the secret about Obama's BC is printed on the bottom of dog food bags? There's a secret code about the “real” BC in all those messages left by skywriters? Or maybe tell us that Punxatawny Phil knows the secret, but he just went back into his burrow, so we have to wait another a year to see it? Or you could stop huffing rattle cans before you post. It would make deciphering your nonsense a lot easier!


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:22 pm

Their theory is imploding from it's own lies and “made-up stuff” (that's from my niece). They're so intent on pushing their garbage, they can't see how it's now a dead issue.

You have to love it, though. Without these nuts, there's only TV.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

PWNED ! ! !

<applause>


Anthony
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

Just by added “good work” to the beginning of your name doesn't change the fact that you have produced absolutely no evidence to support your position.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 9:46 pm

forseti, that first sentence there is BEYOND STUPID!!! President Obama put a copy of his BC on the internet and by doing that, HE NOW IS STUCK WITH PROVING ALL KINDS OF OTHER STUFF!!?? Boy, that’s a new level of birfer stupidity!!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

“1. She did state that she had seen his vital record. At no time did she ever say that it contained a doctor’s signature and hospital documentation. All we can deduce from that statement is that the source document has in it the words “Born in Hawaii.” What we don’t know is which of the six procedures was used to generate that document that reads – Born in Hawaii.”

See, forseti, you move the goal post here. Since you can’t get past the statement that says President Obama was born in Hawaii, you NOW want to know what supposed “procedure” was used to decide that he was born in Hawaii. See how that works?? You stupid birfers will always try to move the goal post away to some point where no matter what ANYONE says, you still want to have your “he ain’t born here” mantra to spout all over the internet……..this is why we mock you fools and why NO ONE can take you seriously.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:04 pm

Everyone, by the statement below that I’ve copied from forseti’s post, we all know that he/she IS NOT NOW NOR NEVER WAS AN ATTORNEY…….you learn the burden of proof thingie the first day in law school. Actually, you don’t have to go to law school – just living in the United States, you know you can’t go around accusing folks of stuff WITHOUT PROOF…….you’d get lauged out of every place you went into, as we are all laughing and mocking forseti.

I mean, why don’t I walk into Neiman’s and tell them that I had a gift certificate for $1000 and they have to prove that I didn’t have it, otherwise, they have to let me shop for that much merchandise……I’d be hauled out in a straight jacket, and rightfully so.


Researched
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

wow, you'll got spanked by this bb person! I read his posts, I didn't see him/her question Obama's birth cert or birth location, his citizenship, he or she never mentioned conspiracy! So how does that qualify the person as a birfer. lets see Declaration, Constitution, naturalization act of 1790, John Bingham, 14th Amendment! Quoted! well quotes checked! Certified acurate, by this reader. I never heard of John Locke, seems an impressive guy, still need to study up on that one! Let me think! oh! yes, lets see, I went up to Andrew Jackson all appear to have been Native born, but may have been some contrversey on jackson, seems he may have been born outside the boundries of North and South Carolina. But again this person bb seems to be correct, the grandfather clause would cover him as he would have been a citizen at the time of adoption!
So, lets see if Natural Born is the same as Native Born? Then why would they have needed the grandfather clause? as they wrote the constitution they were native born on the land which became The US! So if they wrote it why would they need the grandfather clause! Wow for me smoking gun! Because they authored the document once adopted it becomes supreme law of land! they could certainly prove natural birth location via their british documents and local records offices! So, da! this bb person really seems to make the case! Oh the person didn't say Obama's not the president, the says Stupid Americans! You all are a bunch of lazy idiots! maybe you should learn to search words in like google! in sted of looking for hyperlink to be provided! Seemed like english to me Again this person dogged ya! bb thanks for that, I never really got what everyone was talking about!


Researched
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

I'm may have just ben converted! what was the evidence, you guys offered! Nothing! well again Ilooked it up! Still researching some of it but. think he or she may be right! have found anything miss quoted! I liked the Beagle thing too!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

bb, you have a nerve talking to Pie about facts…..you wrote an entire book and there ain’t a fact to be found ANYWHERE in there!!! birfer hypocrit!!!!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

bb thinks he’s doing something by continuously asking the same thing of Make The Pie Higher…….well, bb, you can concentrate on Pie, but he’s laughing all over this board….AT YOUR STUPID BIRFER ASS…..and the rest of us are laughng/mocking right along with him.

And yes, you are misquoting the Constitution and everything else you try to bring out to support your idiotic, delusional, birfer claims.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

Pie, what’s wrong with bb is, and listen carefully, as everyone on this board should – here it is……..HE’S A BIRFER LOONY TUNE WHO WANTED THE OTHER GUY TO WIN LAST NOVEMBER. WHEN HIS GUY LOST, HE WENT, LIKE ORLY, BAT SHIT CRAZY, AND THIS bb IS WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH. Okay…….that is what is wrong with bb.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

bb, seriously, what IS your point………I can honestly say that other than a bunch of birfer loony quotes all over the place, I have no idea……I mean, you’re nuts, tis true……but other than that, I can’t figure out the meaning of anything else you say……..but alas, you’re a birfer loon, so I will scratch my head no longer and go back to pointing and laughing at you.


Steve_X
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:29 pm

Dude, I'm still laughing about it a day later. Do I have any idea what the hell it's supposed to mean? Not in the slightest, but still. This “bb” person is prescription-strength stupid.


JohnC
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:35 pm

That's a lot of meandering blather. Do you have a point you're trying to make, or do you just like to write stream-of-consciousness thoughts?


katahdin
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 6:54 pm

bb, is that you?


JohnC
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

Erick Erickson offers us an instructive peek into the confused mind of the hard-core anti-Obama crowd. He goes to great lengths to argue that people who think Obama was born in Kenya are “crazies,” then offers us a suggestion of what the media should be going after:

“The media never runs stories about the Communist Party USA’s routine pronouncements in favor of Barack Obama. The media has never run legitimate stories about Barack Obama’s ties to the communist oriented New Party in Chicago.”

So, remember, it's not conspiratorial thinking that's not welcome at RedState, it's the wrong kind of conspiratorial thinking. Got it?


JohnC
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

The inexplicable obsession with the Grandfather Clause, the rambling incoherent babble, the indecipherable syntax…

I'd say so.


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

It appears so. Seems he's (I got this from another commenter) self-conversing, pleasuring and congratulating again.

When will they ever learn?


monkey99
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:40 pm

Give it up. There are folk with an exceptionally high level of understanding of the English language here, and changing names doesn't quite do it. It's not even original. See? Parroting again.


JohnC
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

“Do you obamanuts!, get paid well, for try to cover all these blogs to hide the facts!”

Yes, very well. I just cashed a check from President Obama yesterday so I could get that extra Maserati to go along with my Porsche and Bentley.


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

“My Maserati does 185
I lost my license, now I don't drive….”


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

I think this person is unconsciously recreating the least coherent parts of Finnegan's Wake.


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 8:59 pm

I'll drink to that.


JohnC
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:02 pm

Looks like I'll have to break out my old Joe Walsh records…


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:27 pm

Personally I think it's a Korean variation on Iron Chef, with beagles as the secret ingredient.

Allez cuisine!


ellid
Comment posted February 16, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

I think a good wide-toothed comb is the tool of choice.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 3:33 am

Isn’t that the next product from Apple, right after they introduce iTampon with wings for heavy data flow?


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 4:35 am

Are you a moron, or a con man.

The state of Hawaii Department of Health puts great pride into ensure the validity of their vital records. They state that Obama's original records and that he is a natural born citizen. Thus anything that you type is nonsense.

As you are referring to one person it is easy to conclude that you are one on the same person. Honestly, there are other birthers how have typed nonsense. So bb stop patting yourself on your back.


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 4:38 am

What is there to research. Either you accept the State of Hawaii's documents that prove that Obama is a natural-born citizen, or you admit that you are an misinformed person.


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 4:43 am

Yes, it is bb. When someone goes against the overwhelming opinion to select one specific persons comment, it is the same person. The moron would have been more convincing if he just typed his nonsense instead of referring to a person who has been completely humiliated.


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 4:52 am

Cut and paste. An original way make an argue. Your comments reads like you got confused while pasting the text. Yeah. It seems that you added irrelevant information, and got some of the text mixed up.


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 4:58 am

Why? Why? Don't they just understand. 13 words that make more sense that year worth of birther nonsense. If they had one percent of your intelligence they would have given up 2 years ago. Yes, there is no mistake in the time scales.


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 5:01 am

Actually, birfers think it works through osmosis.


Anthony
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 5:15 am

Interesting insight. I ignored that part of Erick Erickson's statement as it seems more contradictory that a substantial opinion. There are “moronic stupid” conspiracy theories and there “guilt by any association” conspiracy theories. I would suspect that they selves-described conservatives who “routine pronouncements in favor of Barack Obama”. Of course he will never be interested is writing about that.


Anonymous
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 12:54 pm

Also, there are two versions of the language. A prospective officer or public official from a religion that prohibits oath-taking has the option of affirming instead of swearing. At least one President (I believe it was Taft but I could be mistaken) did so.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 8:17 am

What's a record?

j/k ;-p


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 8:20 am

LMFAO ! ! !


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

HAR ! !

Try the Singing Menstruals on iTunes.


katahdin
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 10:40 am

Actually, I think it was Obama's birth certificate on the grassy knoll.


ellid
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 10:46 am

That's because it clearly shows that Obama is the son of Lee Harvey Oswald.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 11:12 am

You're talking to yourself again, moron. How massive is that head wound of yours?

You still haven't proven a damn thing except that you're a 100% bonafide idiot, a D minus student in American history and your'e not even a U.S. citizen which means all of this is NOYFB.

Go look that up, birfer drool bucket.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 11:14 am

You can butter your beagle on both sides, bb. And yet, you're still an OCD sociopath with debilitating learning deficiencies.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

There's implicit racism in the idiot's comments hinting at the consequences of interracial marriage with regards to the citizenship status of their children. It's vile, xenophobic and cowardly. Luckily, these racists are literally a dying breed.

Or is it bread?


katahdin
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 12:03 pm

Wait. Lee Harvey Oswald was a natural born citizen. That would make…no, that can't be right. Obama is really the son of an illegal Mexican immigrant who dropped the birth certificate on the grassy knoll while on the way to a meeting with the Texas branch of Al Quaeda athiests international. His mother, of coures was Ethel Rosenberg.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 12:07 pm

Michael and James Lanier?


Steve_X
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

Sweet baby Jesus in a manger, dude…GO BACK TO REMEDIAL ENGLISH!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

There were coherent parts? ;-P

At least Ulysses was almost readable!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 1:38 am

*gasp*

That – that means that his half-brother lives IN MY TOWN!!!! I might have actually SEEN him in the grocery store! Help! Help!


bb
Comment posted February 17, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

I'm back! hey, Researched, nice to see someone using logic and reason and natural law, as a guide!. Thank for your time!! And perhaps, welcome to the club! of Natural law and John Locke thinkers!

To the rest of you, Go to this site! This is a good summary of his views!
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/P…

Or as stated by reasearched; google John Locke! I also recommend the Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel

I would think any American who loves his country, would like to know it's history!

But anyway, I'm back because; I got to thinking about the views you guy's protrayed and silly rants you espoused as well as your petty personal attacks and name calling!

What is it exactly, that seperates you'll from the crazy birfers, birthers!
let's see as you have written:
1. you think, I changed my name: as if no one could possibly agree with my arguements!
2. anyone who questions the Natural Born requirement is part of a birther conspiracy! Or an Obama hater
3. John C, perhaps correctly states; that this erikson guy at red state believes their are good and bad conspiracies! Which would leave one to assume that you believe there are too! and just happen to be on the oposite side!

So, again! What exactly Separates you from crazies, nut jobs ect.

Well, this is what separates me! From you and the birthers, or as I would say Ignorant and stupid! Definitions provided so I don't hurt your feelings!
Ignorant implying – lack of knowlege, but has the ability and desire to learn!
Stupid implying – lack of knowlege, but has the ability to learn and refuses to learn!

Since you probably won't bother to read any of the referenced material here is my definition of natural law!

1. I use logic and reason to formulate my positions based on my own individual reasoning of the facts, while using history and Natural law theory as guide!
2. I'm a Diest so I believe in God! but not Organized Religion! Let's see your probaly confused. It means I've studied most all religions and found flaws in all of them. I use what is commonly known as the scientific method; to find truth in everything!
I deem an answer only to be qualified as an answer, when no ther answer can be reasoned, from any position I may try, which does not require the use of Man's Law! My belief in a higher power comes from the fact, that I understand that I am human, and as such imperfect, as their is much I can't explain when observing Nature!. If I have to look at Man's law I make a reasoned oppinion! I refer to it as my oppinion.
3. I don't beleive in evolutuion, as I find the natural order of things to be far to complex to have happened out of chance and to many natural rules like gravity uncontrolable.
4. I don't generally argue things I can't prove as stated above!
5. I believe all men are created equal, So I don't qualify any persons oppinion to be hire than any other regardless of education until I have reasearched it, as stated.
6. I believe we all learn through our life experiences, via our senses and thoughtful reflections on our expeiences, which leads to further more complex thought. So, everyone can develop bias of thought as we develop intelecually as we don't all have the same experiences!
7. I don't belong to a political party! As my beliefs haven't allowed that, as yet! I act as an individual based on my own beliefs. Party affilliation would suggest that I hold all their views. Also, with the internet I would even question the need for parties.

So, Again what makes you different from those crazy birfers.

Or do you just think you are better than others!

Yes, I have formed an oppinion already! but hey my oppinions are always subject to change via education throught and life experiences! either way I'm sure I'll find your responses entertaining at least!!!!

Some do say Ignorance is bliss!


Anonymous
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 2:57 am

Don’t panic. Just call Sarah Palin’s pastor. He can say a prayer over you to protect you from evil commie witchcraft. And the Gay, of course.


Anthony
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 3:54 am

No only you believe ignorance is bliss. It is the only way that you can enjoy your life after a painful election loss. When you produce something intelligent we would like to hear it.


ellid
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 7:41 am

You wouldn't comprehend John Locke if he came up and whacked you over the head with a copy of one of his books.


Anthony
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 8:55 am

What is “oppinions.” He is kind of a person who no one knew his was missing pronouncing his triumphic return after walking around the block once.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 9:50 am

As posted many times, here it is again for the inbred (or bread) bb, the idiot liar and drooler.

Here's your problem, which has been addressed over and over:

The language you birthers love to quote, the language you have quoted, 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? There was an English translation published in 1759, and one published in 1787. Neither used the term “natural-born citizen.” And the original text in French does not use a direct parallel of “natural born citizen.”

So for the Founding Fathers to have based the phrase “natural born citizen” on de Vattel requires that the 1797 translation travel back in time 10 years.


Anthony
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 9:59 am

I have zero confidence in any legal opinions that people like 'inbred for bread' or any of those conspiracy theorist post. They think they are tricking people by flashing a coin and claiming that it is magic. What silly little people they are.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 11:05 am

The bullshit about natural law is just that. Bullshit.

Amateur, deranged birfers blindly quote mining and pretending to comprehend constitutional law are particularly pathetic.

To state the obvious, our legally elected President is a natural born citizen of the U.S. who fully meets the requirements for eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America.

“I use logic and reason to formulate my positions based on my own individual reasoning of the facts, while using history and Natural law theory as guide!”

This is the most ridiculous, delusional and pathetic lie on this thread so far.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 11:08 am

“you think, I changed my name: as if no one could possibly agree with my arguements!”

We have indisputable proof you changed your name, you lying, steaming sack of shit.

http://disqus.com/guest/9182cb37e42632b8434c0cd…


makethepiehigher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 11:19 am

Well said.


Rightshift
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 12:33 pm

I don’t consider myself a “Birther”… but I do wonder about the legal battles
fought by the Obama folks to prevent any info from being released… i.e. transcripts etc.
I think those are legitimate questions. Do I think he’s legitmate, absolutely unless
proven otherwise.

I posted something to this effect on Redstate and was banned for it… though I did ask
the question about why no one questions why Obama’s folks fight the requests so much?

Frankly, I’ve noted a drift to the left at Redstate, so I’m wondering if they should be more
Purple than Red. Ouch… does that mean that SEIU has taken over?

I wonder if Erick, et. al., are SEIU members?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

That would be amusing, since being in Evil, Communist, Gay-Loving Massachusetts would probably make his head explode.

Also, wanna bet that Sister Sarah never makes a campaign stop in Massachusetts if she actually tries for the Presidency?


Anonymous
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

That would be amusing, since being in Evil, Communist, Gay-Loving Massachusetts would probably make his head explode.

Also, wanna bet that Sister Sarah never makes a campaign stop in Massachusetts if she actually tries for the Presidency?


bb
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

You’ll just keep proving all my points!

http://disqus.com/guest/9182cb37e42632b8434c0cd

See your link above:
Yes, I can confirm they were made under my log in:
So, you just proved you have intelligence and refuse to learn, can’t use logic and reason and are just as nuts as the birfers. As you obviously don’t trust people, perhaps unless they believe, what you do.
So, I would use logic and reason to say, gee I don’t see Researched comments there? Since, I use Logic and reason I would have deduced that perhaps, someone may have got on the computer under his login and wrote the comment. So it doesn’t prove he did anything! Da! So, much for indisputable evidance!!!
In-fact, since you don’t show the comments made by (researched) you have just proven that others agree with my arguments! Thanks for that too!
So, Conversely one could assume, with the knowledge you’ve shown, due to your perverse thinking, You in-fact very likely do what you, are accusing someone else of doing or wouldn't posses that knowledge.
One could also assume, that you would know how to cover your tracks better than someone who doesn’t claim to be an expert on computers.

But hey, thanks again for continuing to prove my points: Especially this one
Stupid implying – lack of knowledge, but has the ability to learn and refuses to learn!

P.S. Laws of Nations was only referenced for thoughtful insight! John Locke is the philosopher the founding fathers used as their inspiration in forming our country, and to use a term they used “it is self evident” as most laws in Nature are! Thanks again!, for showing which definition you belong and confirming my preconceived opinions! Here's that link again:

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/P

And P.S. my friend says thanks for the laughs: *@#%$
Note: I chose not to actually write the rest but we did share a printed copy at the local post! Great laughs!!


bb
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

Oh and I forgot! you're right I am an ametuer and new at this!
So again, since I'm and ametuer one can logically assume that you consider yourself a professional! So, I guess as I or one has no evidence to contradict you, one would havt to assume you are. Which, since most professionals expect to be paid for there time and generally don't give it freely. Exactly, who pays you for your time?

How does it feel to get spanked at everyone of your attemps! that logic and reason is something!!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

For the mentally challenged and delusional drooler:

The bullshit about natural law is just that. Bullshit.

Amateur, deranged birfers blindly quote mining and pretending to comprehend constitutional law are particularly pathetic.

To state the obvious again, our legally elected President is a natural born citizen of the U.S. who fully meets the requirements for eligibility for the office of President of the United States of America.


Anthony
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

What point? You have provided absolutely nothing to support your conspiracy theory. Absolutely nothing. Now you seem to be under the false pretense that by using reverse logic that you will be able to undo all the rebuttals of the birth conspiracy theory. We have yet to see any proof based on logic or the law that clearly demonstrates that Obama's isn't a natural born citizen. Many have come before you most just leave as there is no point to their 'Alice in Wonderland'ish conspiracy theory.


Anthony
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

It is really boring when you have a person clinging to a disproved conspiracy theory where all their arguments have been proved to be false over a year ago. You attempt to present yourself to be a reasonable person. Honestly, I reasonable person who have seen Obama's birth certificate and concluded that he was in fact born in America. In the age of identify thief any other belief was have been silly. However, with the State of Hawaii confirm that they do have the original birth records it is easy to conclude anyone who questions Obama's birth certificate is nothing but a person with something to hide.

What are you hiding?


katahdin
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

Seriously, what is his conspiracy theory? The most I have been able to make out of his posts is that he likes John Locke and thinks that Locke doesn't believe that President Obama is a citizen. At least with the other birthers, I know what conspiracy theories they support. This guy just seem to be nuts.


katahdin
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

If bb's writing seems like English to you, then I have to ask: does a pile of dog mess seem to you like a hot fudge sundae?


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 9:11 pm

This is a seriously disturbed poster with a paranoid, persecution complex and delusions of grandeur. And so was birfer James Von Brunn.

Some fun history:
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to aliens who were “free white persons” and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians.

Our Founding Fathers:

“This country was founded by a group of slave owners who told us “All men are created equal.” Oh, yeah, all men. Except for indians and n****rs and women, right? I always like to use that authentic American language. This was a small group of un-elected, white, male, land holding, slave owners who also suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote. Now that is what's known as being stunningly and embarrassingly full of sh!t.”

- George Carlin


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 18, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

“ametuer”

That's lazy.

“attemps”

Really lazy. Why are you struggling with English?

“one would havt to assume you are”

This is close to non-functional illiteracy and yet the grammar translation suggests an extremely frustrated, native Russian or eastern European speaker.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:16 am

You see REMF?

You say you're done, but here you are, still peddling that noise you think is so important, days later.

You get no traction here because you are a liar. That you are a birfer has it's own pitfalls, which you are too stupid to see. Your quest is dead. accept it.

There is no discussion on the birfer topic. It's been discredited by it's own adherents. You keep doing it every time you post. It's either that, or you get some twisted satisfaction from trying to get a rise out of people. Your life that empty? For all that you call the rest of us, you are the pathetic one.

By the way pussy, it's you who gets spanked. Look over the blog. Your “existential” nonsense will never be answered here, because we're not imbeciles, as you appear to be. Can't get the message that you are a LOSER? Keep on going. It'll come down to no one even engaging you or your crap anymore. Then you'll truly be a toiler!

I'm laughing at you and your “quest”. Out loud.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:17 am

Another child left behind.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:34 am

There is no theory. It's ALL been de-bunked. This clown is just a pathetic hanger-on because he's dissatisfied with the last election, as all the rest were.
I think he's doing it to get a rise out of us. It gives him some sick satisfaction to *think* he's pissing people off. Quite the contrary, but in his twisted little world, HE thinks so. Pathetic.

So much need for mental health intervention, but there's no one in his life to get it to him (or him to it). It's a really pitiable situation. But hey, we're here to goad him on, and laugh at him, as were all the rest. Pretty soon, it'll die. After all, none of them ever realized it had a time limit set on it from the very start.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:47 am

There was a REMF who was a birfer too,
his arguments were a pot of excrement stew.
Futility is his stock in trade,
he thinks with his noise, he's got it made,
The truth is, no one yet has flushed the Loo.

Now it's all about natural law,
existential nonsense is it's only flaw,
trying so hard, begging for cred,
not really knowing the issue is dead,
after all, it WAS made of straw.

Insults vets, never been to war,
nothing but a cheap emotional whore,
doesn't realize it's an empty purse,
illegitimacy is it's curse,
President Obama had settled the score!

In the end, his “quest” won't matter,
all can see he's mad as a hatter,
It's a pity he can't stop,
ridiculous noise he can't drop,
He's full of pointless natter.

Tomorrow's a new day,
but he'll be back anyway.
Argument's the same tired crap,
he hasn't the fortitude to shut his trap,
day will come, when he goes, and stays…..away!

Time's coming, REMF. Tick-tock, tick, tock. Oh, I'm STILL laughing!


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 4:36 am

I have read his comments and they just don't make sense. The term “conspiracy theory” I use only refers to arguments that people who question the presidents birth. I have no where to put him.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:00 am

Here is some logic for you.

The State of Hawaii has explicitly stated that they have Obama's original birth records and he is a natural-born citizen. This was after they research the matter.

A person using logic would conclude that as the it is the State of Hawaii legal authority to issue Hawaiian birth certificates that their word is legal on where Obama was born.

Really, it isn't that complicated.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:01 am

Yes, we can tell that you are an ametuer just like most other birthers.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:07 am

Amateur isn't quote mining he is just engaging in copying what ever nonsense he reads. I just don't understand his point. Deranged birfer is a good description.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:08 am

Anthony,

It doesn't matter to the nut. He's in it only for a rise, nothing more. The clown is so easy to read, it's hilarious that he thinks he's getting somewhere.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:12 am

Yes, we can tell that you are an amateur just like most other birthers. An honest person has two choices when someone lies. They can either call them out on it, or politely tell them to stop. However, with you and other birthers you seem intent on spreading misinformation.

So no pay is required to stand up for what one believes in. And, we believe openly lying about a person is just wrong.


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 8:28 am

Well Okay!
now even more truth comes out! your a racist and hate America! as evidenced, by your writing this!

Our Founding Fathers:

“This country was founded by a group of slave owners who told us “All men are created equal.” Oh, yeah, all men. Except for indians and n****rs and women, right? I always like to use that authentic American language. This was a small group of un-elected, white, male, land holding, slave owners who also suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote. Now that is what's known as being stunningly and embarrassingly full of sh!t.”

- George Carlin


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 8:38 am

Because your so lazy, I have include a summary so others may better judge your views and arguments. As again I think the average person would agree that this man's theories are self evident the writings of the Declaration of Independence and the constitution: Inregards to the subject of Natural Law!

A summary of view of the writings of John Locke 1632 -1704
Introduction, Part 1 to the Life & Works of

Our story has its being in the beginning of the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, a time of our intellectual awakening. The Enlightenment began when the Dark Ages ended, a time when the minds of men were cowed by the great mystery of the universe and their minds, through ignorance, were ruled by fears. The Enlightenment was a time when man, stepping out of his shackles, began to use his rational facilities and pulled himself out of the medieval pits of mysticism and in the process shoved aside the state and church authorities of the day. It was a spontaneous and defused movement which fed upon itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in natural law and universal order sprung up, which not only promoted scientific findings and advancements of a material nature, but which also gave a scientific approach to political and social issues. Thinkers expressed their thoughts in writing and read the thoughts of others, these brilliant lights of the Enlightenment included the likes of: Francis Bacon (1561-1626), Montesquieu (1689-1755), Voltaire (1694-1766), Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-88), David Hume (1711-76), and Adam Smith (1723-1790). One, foremost among their ranks, was John Locke (1632-1704) the life and works of whom we now proceed to briefly examine.

Locke's Life, Part 2 to the Life & Works of

1 John Locke's mother died while he was still in infancy. His father was a “country lawyer” and a captain in the Parliamentary Army during the Civil War; he died while John was still young.
John Locke was elected to a life of studentship at Christ Church, Oxford.
2 As a young man Locke cast about somewhat for a position in life. He might have become a cleric except for the fact that the authorities did not appreciate his anti-Aristotelian views that matter and life was static, was not something to which Locke could subscribe.
3Having studied medicine (he did not receive a degree) Locke was willing to help out those who saw him with a medical problem, indeed, he become known as “Dr Locke.” In 1666, Anthony “Ashley” Cooper was referred to Locke with a medical complaint. (Ashley was Locke's senior by eleven years.) “Dr Locke” successfully operated, much to Ashley's relief, and cleaned out “an abscess in the chest.” This was to be a most fortunate turn of events for Locke, for Ashley was no ordinary man, he was the first Earl of Shaftesbury, a Lord of the realm. Thus, Locke was swept into the halls of power, perched confidently on the tails of Lord Shaftesbury (1621-83). In 1672, Shaftesbury became the lord chancellor and Locke, his friend, was appointed to be the secretary of a very powerful Board.
4 These were interesting historic times; political fortunes would shift in and out (more than once was Shaftesbury sent to the Tower). Locke — he did not subscribe to the “Divine Right Theory” — found it, at times, best to put some distance between himself and the political foes of Lord Shaftesbury; indeed, Locke, during the years 1684-1689, was out of the country, in France and in Holland.
5 Upon his return to England, in 1689, Locke adopted a life style that allowed him to compile his works and make them ready for the press.
6 Thus, we see, in 1690, the publication of Locke's two principal works: Essay Concerning Human Understanding and Two Treatises of Government.
7 On October 28th, 1704, Locke died; he was buried in the church yard of High Laver.
8 I now pass on to Locke's works ; for — as much as the life of Locke may be of interest to us — it is to the study of his books we should turn. Briefly, the core of Locke's beliefs are to be found in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). It is with this book that there was established the principles of modern Empiricism (the human mind begins as a tabula rasa, and we learn through experience). It is in this book, Human Understanding, that we see Locke attacking the rationalist doctrine of innate ideas. His other work naturally follows: Two Treatises of Government (1690). Locke's Treatises were written in defense of the Glorious Revolution: that government rests on popular consent and rebellion is permissible when government subverts the ends – the protection of life, liberty, and property – for which it is established.

Idealists, Materialists and Dualists, Part 3 to the Life & Works of

The elementary question to be asked by all philosophers is, “what is the nature and ultimate significance of the universe.” As things developed in philosophy, three camps emerged: there were those who hold reality subsists only in thought — these are idealists; those who hold reality to subsist in only matter — these are materialists; and those who hold that reality subsists both in thought and in matter — these are dualists.

Tabula Rasa & Empiricism, Part 4 to the Life & Works of

Ultimately, in his acceptance of the existence of God, Locke was a dualist — though only barely so; he did not consider man to be a divine creature fixed with ideas on coming into this world. Locke was an empiricist, viz., all knowledge comes to us through experience. “No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience.” There is no such thing as innate ideas; there is no such thing as moral precepts9; we are born with an empty mind, with a soft tablet (tabula rasa) ready to be writ upon by experimental impressions. Beginning blank, the human mind acquires knowledge through the use of the five senses and a process of reflection. Not only has Locke's empiricism been a dominant tradition in British philosophy, but it has been a doctrine which with its method, experimental science, has brought on scientific discoveries ever since, scientific discoveries on which our modern world now depends.

Locke's Views On Government, Part 5 to the Life & Works of

Locke's views on government, as the title will tell, are expressed in his work Two Treatises of Government. In summary, with this work, Locke defended the proposition that government rests on popular consent and rebellion is permissible when government subverts the ends (the protection of life, liberty, and property) for which it is established.
Locke's First Treatise was a systematic and almost labored attack in detail on Sir Robert Filmer (1590-1653), and especially on Patriarcha, a work published in 1680. Patriarcha was a sustained attack in defense of divine monarchy. It seems that Locke was not so much interested in Filmer but rather was using him as a stalking horse to attack the far more powerful political teachings of Thomas Hobbes, the author of Leviathan (1651).
Locke's Second Treatise, by far, is the more influential work. In it, he set forth his theory of natural law and natural right; in it, he shows that there does exist a rational purpose to government and one need not rely on “myth, mysticism, and mystery.” Against anarchy, Locke saw his job as one who must defend government as an institution. Locke's object was to insist not only that the public welfare was the test of good government and the basis for properly imposing obligations on the citizens of a country; but, also, that the public welfare made government necessary.

Hobbesian Pre-Social Man, Part 6 to the Life & Works of

In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted there existed continual war with “every man, against every man.” A time of “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” On this point Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral.10 The reason man would willingly contract into civil society is not to shake his brutish state, but rather that he may advance his ends (peace and security) in a more efficient manner. To achieve his ends man gives up, in favor of the state, a certain amount of his personal power and freedom.

Lockeian Pre-Social Man, Part 7 to the Life & Works of

Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance. He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights.11 Pre-social man as a moral being, and as an individual, contracted out “into civil society by surrendering personal power to the ruler and magistrates,” and did so as “a method of securing natural morality more efficiently.” To Locke, natural justice exists and this is so whether the state exists, or not, it is just that the state might better guard natural justice.

Raison D'Etre of Government, Part 8 to the Life & Works of

And, so, we have the raison d'etre of government as developed by Locke. Professor W. H. Hutt explains:
“In Civil Government Locke expounds the Individualistic view of private property, and again lays down the quintessence of Individualism. 'The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.' He qualifies his theory of a Social Contract, Compact, or Covenant, by pointing out that 'men when they enter into society give up … liberty of a kind; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property,' the power conferred 'can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure everyone's property,' etc., etc. This artful qualification of the common good, serves as a complete defence of the 'Glorious Revolution,' which gave us effective parliamentary government.”12

I should add that this role of government described by Locke remained pretty well unchallenged until the Fabian Essays of 1889.

The Extent of Government Power, Part 9 to the Life & Works of

Locke in his works dwelt with and expanded upon the concept of government power: it is not, nor can it possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to the legislative assembly, the power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer, to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy, or take away, the life or property of another. Thus, the power of our legislators13:
“… is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects… To this end it is that men give up all their natural power to the society they enter into, and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit, with this trust, that they shall be governed by declared laws, or else their peace, quiet, and property will still be at the same uncertainty as it was in the state of Nature.” (Second Treatise, Ch. 11.)

Separation of Powers, Part 10 to the Life & Works of

The question of whether man would voluntarily put himself under government is but the first question: there then follows along the next, “What form of government is best.” Hobbes, not surprisingly, given his view of the nature of man, preferred that there should be one supreme authority, a monarchy. While Hobbes could tolerate government by legislative assembly alone, as opposed to a monarch, he thought that power in the assembly should be absolute and not to be shared. Locke's view, more consistent with the social contract theory, was that there was no need for government to have great powers, which, in the final analysis, would only be needed to keep people down; at any rate, Locke recognized the real danger of leaving absolute power to any one individual, or group of individuals. Locke thought that government's power was best limited by dividing government up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function.14

The Ends of Government, Part 11 to the Life & Works of

For people to quit to government their natural rights and to give to government “absolute arbitrary power” is, indeed, a very dangerous step; but, take it they do, so that the ends of society might be met. The ends to be met are to better “secure their peace and quiet” and to see that the “lives, liberties, and fortunes” of all citizens, under stated rules (law), might be better protected.
“It cannot be supposed that they should intend, had they a power so to do, to give any one or more an absolute arbitrary power over their persons and estates, and put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them; this were to put themselves into a worse condition than the state of Nature, wherein they had a liberty to defend their right against the injuries of others, and were upon equal terms of force to maintain it, whether invaded by a single man or many in combination. Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases…” (Locke.)

The Taxing Power of Government, Part 12 to the Life & Works of

“It is true governments cannot be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent- i.e., the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government. For what property have I in that which another may by right take when he pleases to himself?” (Locke.)

Revolution, Part 13 to the Life & Works of

If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be deposed; indeed, Locke asserts, revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation. Thus, Locke came to the conclusion that the “ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed.” This was the philosophical stuff which sanctioned the rebellions of both the American colonialists in 1775, and the French in 1789.

Source; BluPete.com


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 8:46 am

Oh and as for you Poem!

Ah! Gee!; sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me! or I'm rubber you're glue!

You really are a sad tool! aren't you!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:18 am

“your a racist and hate America”

Clueless, illiterate twit.

The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to aliens who were “free white persons” and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians.

The 1790 Act also limited naturalization to persons of “good moral character”; the law required a set period of residence in the United States prior to naturalization, specifically two years in the country and one year in the state of residence when applying for citizenship.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:24 am

“The crowd in Nashville cheered as speaker Joseph Farah demanded proof that Obama is a U.S. citizen. “Show us the birth certificate!” Farah cried. But other Tea Partyers were equally delighted when influential blogger Erick Erickson responded to Farah soon afterward by banishing “birthers” from his blog, RedState. “The Tea Party movement is in danger of getting a bad reputation” by courting conspiracists, Erickson wrote.”

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,859…


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:59 am

The lunatic fringe . . .

The majority of the people who e-mail or send letters to Okubo asking for Obama's birth certificate do not challenge her response once she tells them they have no legal right to the information, she said.

But about a dozen people continue to hammer Okubo with follow-up requests.

“They want all of the organizational charts for our Office of Health Status Monitoring that handles vital records and for our health informations systems, our IT office,” Okubo said. “They request from me every single communication or every single document or request every record available related to President Obama's vital records.”

Okubo readily acknowledges that she hasn't always been able to reply to a request within 10 working days as required under Hawai'i's Uniform Information Practices Act, the state's version of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

But she adamantly disagrees with the “birthers' ” interpretation of Hawai'i law.

“They usually say that by not giving out his birth certificate we're breaking the law,” Okubo said.

“But we would be breaking the law by giving out a birth certificate to someone who does not have a right to it.”

When Okubo told one writer they did not have a right to Obama's birth certificate because they were not related to the president, the person wrote back saying they, indeed, had a common ancestor.

“They said they have a tangible right to his birth certificate because they're descended from Adam,” Okubo said, referring to the biblical figure. “We told them they need to provide some type of legal documentation.”

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100…


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:33 am

Look in a mirror lately?

Writing novels again, I see. Just as I said earlier, toiling is YOUR thing, I can't be bothered to read them, because it's just nonsense, anyway. There are those who may be curious, but there is nothing in anything you have previously commented that makes any appreciable sense.

Keep toiling, REMF. It's all a laughfest! LOL!


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 12:54 pm

See you have a problem of differentiating to humor-irony from criticism. I don't remember when George Carlin passed away, but it was before you started typing your nonsense. Crazy isn't a word that can describe your strange behavior. However, I hope your comments are nothing but a cruel joke.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

Let me be more clear. The year is Two Thousand and Ten (2010). A lot has change over the years. This isn't about history but the law.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

I think we have found someone that makes Orly Taitz look like a top notch highly professional sane lawyer.


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

Make the pie higher!
You are a stupid moron, aren't you?
Again:
I did not say anything concerning a conspiracy! I don't care about Obama's Birth Certificate, Eric Erikson and or his Blog! I concede, Obama was born in Hawaii: I can, concede he is Native Born and a citizen of the United states: I'm not arguing that! The process of Naturalization, is a process of which someone gains citizenship under Man's Law, (Because they are not a citizen) it is Law written by Man. Some one who is Natural Born, does not aquire Citizenship by any law of Man! As, Natural Law is (not) dependent on Man's Law!

So, if a person was born of parents who were United States Citizens and Born in the United States: the person can only be a U.S. Citizen! No law need be looked at or consulted, as the Natural order of things, provides; the person can not be seen to have any allegiance to any other power, other than that of the United States!

No one can argue that the person is not a U.S. Citizen or the person has any other allegiance than to the United States, as Natural Law only allows one thruth! The Naturalization Act provides for; a person to be a Citizen, if born in the United States = Native Born. It provides for citizen ship in some cases based on the parents citizenship = Born by Blood = Native Born.

Per John Jay – Although an archaic definition of the phrase “natural born” is “having a position by birth,”[2] there is no record of a debate on the “natural born Citizen” qualification during the Constitutional Convention. This clause was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Convention as a whole. One possible source of the clause can be traced to a July 25, 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention. Jay wrote:
Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

The reason there is no record of debate is due to the simple fact that, they clearly understood Natural Law! as they Invoked it as the supreme law, which authorized them to so politely tell King George where to put his authority and declared themselves to be free and independent of his tyranny!

Hence the reason for the grandfather clause as stated!

US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

Further evidence is as follows:

When asked to define natural born citizen, John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.”

The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.” Some will argue that, neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship. But given the statement “under no other jurisdiction or authority” they must, be born in or on U.S Soil or Jurisdiction to have that statement apply, So, again in-fact both forms that are generally discussed, are in fact required as evidenced by John Bingham’s definition, our constitution, and the 14th amendment.

Obama has admitted his father was not a United States Citizen! Therefore his allegiance to a foreign power can be questioned. As, under British Law! He can be a Citizen of the Great Britain and as Britain gave up control of what is now Kenya, he may even qualify for Kenyan Citizenship! It is not about Obama it is about the Constitution! The issue has never been adjudicated, by any Court! There should be no need too! Other than stupid people like you who don't seem to understand the history of the United States! But hey, Government isn't really taught in our failing schools is it!

So, go read: John Locke's theory and obtain the understanding and intent of the founding principles of the Government of the United States of America!

P.S. Obama hasn't proved anything and why should he? It's not his fault the American people don't know there history or the founding principle's of their own government! If it were found, that he wasn't a citizen, what would happen to him; nothing! He can't be tried for treason as legally; he would have no allegiance to betray! I know of know time, he has claimed to be anything other than born in Hawaii! So he could potentially, do anything he wants in office and be legally unaccountable for anything! Hence the Strong Check on Presidential Power! As stated by John Jay

So as I said – It's the stupid Americans fault! You know; like you!

Perhaps you think John Jay was just another, Dumb Ass! Personally I would have to find that the founding fathers were more highly educated, than anyone holding Public Office today! After all they didn’t need to right laws containing 8,000 plus pages; and then find themselves, unable to explain the law!


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

No you are a dumb ass. Obama was estrange from his father before he turned 3 years old. Are you a utter moron, or are you faking stupidity to further prove that birthers are unreasonable. There is no where in American law that explicitly defines a natural born citizen. American has now only two types of citizens. Those who have been naturalized and those who were born citizens. With the existence of a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii to is proof that he was born an American citizen. At this point your arguments evaporate into the ether where they came from.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

More from Erick Erickson
Thursday, February 18th

“I just got off the phone with Congressman J. D. Hayworth about the birther issue and my post from last night.

He said definitely that Barack Obama is the President of the United States and meets all the legal and constitutional requirements to be President. Period. End of Story.

The Congressman said the issue has come up on his radio show when callers called in and engaged him on the issue. He said he engaged the callers on the issue, but he thinks it is as relevant as whether Chester Arthur met the qualifications to be President.

Congressman Hayworth wants everyone to know that he does not think there is an issue and he suspects the issue is being dug up by Senator McCain’s team as an unpleasant distraction from the big issues facing the people of Arizona.

I believe him. I hope you do too.”

Hayworth flip flops again. How convenient.


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

That's right! is there a U.S. law that defines Gravity?
Is there a U.S. law that defines the SUN!
Is there a U.S. law that defines the Moon!

Perhaps you all should go discuss the issue! With Congressman J. D. Hayworth, so the U.S. can bring them into existance, by writing a Law!

But hey they exist! Like, I said Natural Law supercedes Man Law!

Like I said learn to use logic and reason!

So, I guess you don't believe they exist unless man, writes a Law! Unless, perhaps, Congressman J. D. Hayworth or Eric Erickson has informed you they exist already!

LMFAO, LMFAO!!!!!!

You are a rediculous bunch of idots!

Thanks! for that I'll be LMFAO off for days to come!!!!!

Thanks again, for proving me correct yet again!

The ametuer!!! Ha! Ha! LMFAO!


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:20 pm

I don't want anyone to miss this!
Anthony I agree! That's right!

Is there a U.S. law that defines GRAVITY?
Is there a U.S. law that defines the SUN?
Is there a U.S. law that defines the MOON?

Perhaps you all should go discuss the issue! With Congressman J. D. Hayworth, so the U.S. can bring them into existance, by writing a Law!

But hey they exist! Like, I said Natural Law supercedes Man Law!

Like I said learn to use logic and reason!

So, I guess you don't believe they exist unless man, writes a Law! Unless, perhaps, Congressman J. D. Hayworth or Eric Erickson has informed you they exist already!

LMFAO, LMFAO!!!!!!

You are a rediculous bunch of idots!

Thanks! for that I'll be LMFAO off for days to come!!!!!

Thanks again, for proving me correct yet again!

The ametuer!!! Ha! Ha! LMFAO!

In reply to this!!! Se below!!!

Anthony 42 minutes ago, No you are a dumb ass. Obama was estrange from his father before he turned 3 years old. Are you a utter moron, or are you faking stupidity to further prove that birthers are unreasonable. There is no where in American law that explicitly defines a natural born citizen. American has now only two types of citizens. Those who have been naturalized and those who were born citizens. With the existence of a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii to is proof that he was born an American citizen. At this point your arguments evaporate into the ether where they came from.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

“Birfers and Truthers are not welcome here. Period. End of Story.”

And yet Erick's comments section is filled with the same deranged, paranoid birfer fools. He should practice what he preaches.


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

Hey! Still LMFAO!
Anthony, The government hasn't wrote a law to say my dog exits, but they issued a license! What do you make of that?

Ha! Ha! Ha! STILL

LMFAO!!!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

“The media never runs stories about the Communist Party USA’s routine pronouncements in favor of Barack Obama.”

Because it's irrelevant just like the birfer/troofer stupidity is irrelevant.


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

Anthony!

You stated “Obama was estrange from his father before he turned 3 years old.”

Does that change who his father is?

He could change his Name Dis-own his father under Man's Law!

Can he do that under Nature's Law?

Let me help you this, his birth father is his birth father, Man can't change it!
It's Natural Law! It can even be proven by Man, you heard of DNA Testing!
So that matters how!

Ha! Ha! Ha! LMFAO

The Ametuer! LMFAO!! Ha! Ha! Ha!


jayhg
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

bb is a lunatic whose head has exploded………


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

Yes it has! While I'm LMFAO!! With you absolute stupidty! Ha! Ha! Ha!


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

You got something there.

This one's worse than the others. They at least knew when to quit when they were behind, but this one!

His “natural law” spiel makes me believe he's been on nitrous too long. It makes cars do amazing things…..but it just turns people into raving idiots. We have a prime example here.

Someone should call a mental health center for this clown.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Huffing paint again, I see…….

When the guys with the white coats and straightjacket show up, can't say we didn't tell you so.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:20 pm

Pretty sad, no? A fully grown “man” acting the fool so confidently!

It definitely makes the case for Roe V Wade.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

<crackle> “Clean up on aisle five.” <crackle>


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

“We must be vigilant. We must be willing to draw a line in the sand and stand against fatuous nonsense that opens up the right to attacks by a left-leaning media intent on embarrassing the good people who have developed through the tea party movement a renewed sense of civic involvement.”

Regardless of his disdain for birferism, the problem is the seepage of paranoia and conspiracy that permeates his tripe.


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 3:51 pm

Maybe, this will help you morons!!! This from Meriam Webster!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Inparticular! – 11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society

Let's see Society rights laws! So to use anything that is construed or is a constructed from society or civilization it would be Natural!

Or to be Natural it cannot be a construct of civilization or society! So, why would you write a law! hence the reason ther isn't one! If you did you would null and void it as being Natural!

Still, LMFAO!!! Nothing but Sheeple ! Ha! Ha! Ha!

All those Meriam Webster must be nuts too!

What a bunch of Morons! get that meeting set up with Eric Erickson and the Congressman! So you can bring the SUN, MOON and Gravity into existance!
How is that Beagle and Boxer thing going for you? Did you get a beagle Pup!

Ha! Ha! Ha! LMFAO!!!

The ameteur!!!

Definitions of the word Natural!!

Main Entry: 1nat·u·ral
Pronunciation: ?na-ch?-r?l, ?nach-r?l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French naturel, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
Date: 14th century
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : illegitimate
4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn

6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature

8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature

10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie 11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15 : of an off-white or beige color

— nat·u·ral·ness -n?s noun

synonyms natural, ingenuous, naive, unsophisticated, artless mean free from pretension or calculation. natural implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world <her unaffected, natural manner>. ingenuous implies inability to disguise or conceal one's feelings or intentions <the ingenuous enthusiasm of children>. naive suggests lack of worldly wisdom often connoting credulousness and unchecked innocence <politically naive>. unsophisticated implies a lack of experience and training necessary for social ease and adroitness <unsophisticated adolescents>. artless suggests a naturalness resulting from unawareness of the effect one is producing on others <artless charm>.
synonyms see in addition regular


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 4:02 pm

Oh! I saw a couple of typo's since I know and you have made it obvious you're stupid I wanted to correct them just to try and ensure I don't confuse you! So I am reapting it with the corrections!

Maybe, this will help you morons!!! This from Meriam Webster!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

In particular! – 11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society

Let's see man forms Society and rights laws! So to use anything that is construed or is a construct or constructed from society or civilization it would not be Natural!

Or to be Natural, it cannot be a construct of civilization or society! So, why would you write a law! Hence the reason there isn't one! If you did you would, null and void it as being Natural!

Still, LMFAO!!!

Nothing but Sheeple ! Ha! Ha! Ha!

All those people over at Meriam Webster must be nuts and stupid too!

What a bunch of Morons!

Did you get that meeting set up with Eric Erickson and the Congressman! So you can bring the SUN, MOON and Gravity into existance!

How is that mating a Beagle and Boxer thing going for you? Did you get a beagle Pup Yet? I would really like some pictures!

Ha! Ha! Ha! LMFAO!!!

The ameteur!!!

Definitions of the word Natural!!

Main Entry: 1nat•u•ral
Pronunciation: ?na-ch?-r?l, ?nach-r?l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French naturel, from Latin naturalis of nature, from natura nature
Date: 14th century
1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3 a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : illegitimate
4 : having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5 : implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn
6 : of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7 : having a specified character by nature
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie 11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14 a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15 : of an off-white or beige color

— nat•u•ral•ness -n?s noun

synonyms natural, ingenuous, naive, unsophisticated, artless mean free from pretension or calculation. natural implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world <her unaffected, natural manner>. ingenuous implies inability to disguise or conceal one's feelings or intentions <the ingenuous enthusiasm of children>. naive suggests lack of worldly wisdom often connoting credulousness and unchecked innocence <politically naive>. unsophisticated implies a lack of experience and training necessary for social ease and adroitness <unsophisticated adolescents>. artless suggests a naturalness resulting from unawareness of the effect one is producing on others <artless charm>.
synonyms see in addition regular


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 4:12 pm

sophism, n.
: a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French sophime, via Latin from Greek sophisma ‘clever device’


bb
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:04 pm

Natural Law is truth! as I said we gained our independence by declaring Natrual Law as Supreme to any Man, Including king George! Morons! So no Court No Man, No Court can Judge! Its not a

“sophism, n.
: a specious argument used for deceiving someone.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French sophime, via Latin from Greek sophisma ‘clever device’s”

The definition has been in place since the 14th Century! Again proving the founding fathers new what they were doing! If anyone is attempting a sophism it isn't me!

So again I sit LMFAO as you morons continue to Grasp at anything to I guess justify your stupidity! Ha! Ha! Ha!

The Ameteur! LMFAO!!! Keep trying the truth is undeniable! You have no Arguement except Your Stupid!


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:11 pm

REMF just keeps giving example after example of the definition of insanity.

Were you kicked out of the military for it? If not, you should have been.

Being ostracized by Left AND Right must be particularly tough. Smearing your own excrement on yourself like this isn't looked on very highly by the human race (how's THAT for natural law, dimwit).

You are outclassed. If we were all from RedState, you would STILL be outclassed! Sophistry is an accurate descriptive. Don't know why you would object.

Oh…..That's right, your nuts!

Hey, all, better call your Representatives and tell them to pass healthcare reform. We have one here who is in desperate need of comprehensive mental health intervention.


ellid
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 5:26 pm

The Communist Party still exists? What are they doing, taking orders from the necromantically preserved corpse of Gus Hall?


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

What are you taking about? Are you utterly confused? Are your comments some form of satire? Do you understand what a metaphor is?

You still have not provided proof that remove the State of Hawaii from have jurisdiction over Obama's birth records. No where in your comments are there any references to the definition of “natural-born citizen”, “native-born citizen” or any various of that.

Did you know that it is 2010, or are you writing 1790 on all your checks.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:18 pm

Do you understand the difference between scientific rules and community regulations.

Nowhere in the comment that you quoted is there any reference to the former. At the end of my comment I used a metaphor. It is expected that as you are using English you understand the mean, even if you don't agree with relevance to your position.

It is the community that makes regulations, community laws, to govern that community. It is hard to understand if your comment about scientific rules are meant as irony or that you have lost track of issues. For me I am indifferent and will stand by my original comment.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

The current standard legal requirement for natural-born citizenship is the possession or the eligibility of an American birth certificate. There is no where in American law where this is required, but has become the rule through legal precedents. Chester B. Author a former American president, when he was born his father wasn't a citizen of America. That is a legal precedent.

You still don't understand the mocking nature of those who have rebutted the birthers arguments, do you?


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

It could be argued that this is the current mentality of some members of the GOP in Congress and the Senate. For a GOP member to agree with a issue important to Americans are a bad thing. Irrelevant and stupidity. It seems some just don't understand democracy or the purpose of a democratically elected government.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

Why don't you go even lower and make jokes about his father being deceased? Or, is the fact that you don't realize that? No where in the Constitution does it state the requirement of a presidents parents. However, what makes you silly is that you have taken my comment out of context.

What you quoted was in reference to “Obama has admitted his father was not a United States Citizen! Therefore his allegiance to a foreign power can be questioned. ” Do you understand the comment now?


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:44 pm

The statement was bb is a lunatic whose head has exploded.

There are two meanings of the phrase “head has exploded” both mean mad. One is mad in the sense of gone crazy or has become a lunatic. The other means mad as has gotten upset. With the word lunatic, it is a suggestion that you are crazy.

However, with you consistently refusing to support your position with relevant facts I think that neither is the case. I think that you always have been crazy.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

The others only misquoted the facts or the law. This guy is making things up out of thin air. I have read some of the replies he has made to comments and there is absolutely no connect (logical or otherwise).


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 10:51 pm

Confirmed.


monkey99
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

I'm still absorbing the “natural law” thing…….Even animals do what we do in regard to “insanity”. Call it nonconformity, abnormality, whatever.

Even they try to get the “offender” in line, after that, it's shunning or outright elimination. That's natural law as understood in scientific circles. I have no idea what this nut thinks it means.
There was even a guy at CPAC who put down GOProud, and used the same stupid reference for “natural law” as the nut has.

Have you noticed a trend toward twisting the meanings of words and phrases to refer to the opposite of what they actually mean? Or something totally unrelated? It's all over the place. Even kids do it, but theirs is mostly harmless, just being “cool”.
This sort of thing from adults is confusing people. We have such a shining example in bb. And the guy at CPAC. What, the english language isn't good enough? What is it?

Once it's identified, the medical community should be advised, because the condition seems to be permanent.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:10 pm

Do you honestly understand why we use words? I am in utter shock by your comment. It has absolutely relevance to anything. We use words to convey information to other people. When we quote dictionary entries of words is to explain the means of a word and how it is used. You seem to be shifting your arguments between physiology, law, and English grammar without knowing which is which.

The word natural is a word invented by humans. However, when words are hyphenated they change their meaning such as in English-Spanish and Spanish-English, or even natural-born.

What ever your real intentions please stop and take some time to formulate your opinion.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

As it is important to ensure that the reply is contented to the corrected comment I am posting my reply again as written below:

Do you honestly understand why we use words? I am in utter shock by your comment. It has absolutely relevance to anything. We use words to convey information to other people. When we quote dictionary entries of words is to explain the means of a word and how it is used. You seem to be shifting your arguments between physiology, law, and English grammar without knowing which is which.

The word natural is a word invented by humans. However, when words are hyphenated they change their meaning such as in English-Spanish and Spanish-English, or even natural-born.

What ever your real intentions please stop and take some time to formulate your opinion.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:22 pm

You can make what ever declaration you want to. However, they have absolutely no relevance to laws governing modern democracies such as American. This also applies to any other jurisdiction that makes laws that govern a community of people.


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

Normal birthers do twist or distort the meaning of words, but this guy is absolutely confused,


Anthony
Comment posted February 19, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

I have never read RedState. However, if this is an example of their comments I can see why they were kicked of.


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 1:56 am

Yes. And I've got to tone it down….It's not good comportment to ridicule the mentally defective.


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 2:03 am

They have their periods, but to be dissed like this, you just know that RedState doesn't think birferism is good for ANY cause. bb is a “special” case.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 2:05 am

No, he is really confused. Even being polite to him makes bb think he is being ridiculed. Did you have time to look at his dictionary quotations? Please ridicule him.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 2:10 am

I will accept that bb is a “special case”. The normal birther conspiracy nuts quote mine or use the straw man argument, but this guy acts like a football star. You know the kind of person who runs around the park with a football with themselves, and occasionally spikes the ball. Sorry, even that type of person is more sane.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 2:17 am

So people let the facts get in the way of their arguments.Then there clueless, illiterate twit. There some who just can't accept the fact that it is the 21 first century, more specifically the year 2010 and a man who would have been free black is president.


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 3:15 am

LOL! That's an analogy I would have never thought of!


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 3:23 am

I have a Webster's unabridged for just these occasions, and this nut's understanding of what he's reading is more than questionable.

O.K., You've convinced me.


bb
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 6:25 am

Man you fabian theory guys, just keep me LMFAO!

So, keep showing you stupidity! It takes an ammendment to the constitution to change the constitution! No Ammendment gives any change to the term natural, or Natural Born, the Naturalization Act or any changes made by congress up to present day, due not and cannot be used as legal authority! Again, The Constitution is still Supreme in America! Among the constructs of our Society or Civilization as created by man!

you can't use Blacks Law dictionary as it didn't exist! but hey the first edition 1891 doesn't define the term “Natural” or Natural Born”

The 2nd edition does! and here it is, not that it's relivant! But it does give evidence of the Fabians attempt to construct and or create a sophism as you want to imply I am doing.

So again; Black's Law 2nd edition 1910

Natural – The juristic Meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal;” and then it means proceeding from or determined by Physical Causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.

So again, The definition provided by meriam webster is the vernacular, which according to Merriam Webster has been around since the 14Century (1300's) and apparently up to 1910 pretty much remained the same!

And lets see, the second part, states “as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.”

Oh, that's right it was 1889 when you Fabion theorists really began changing our legal definitions: I know you probably won't understand that either, unless you aren't really stupid, and as you comments suggest a professional Fabian theory, activist and hate America and it's Founding Principles!

So, what? exactly is your arguments?, supported by?, oh!, that's right you haven't provided anything. You just keep talking out your ass, like the sheeple you are! You provide nothing but your mindless rants and childish name calling!

The Ameteur! LMFAO!!! Keep trying the truth is undeniable! You have no Arguement except Your Stupid!

Oh! just to clarify that Fabian theory thing, It's like Communist!

Ha! Ha! Ha! LMFAO!!!

So when are you going to add something that isn't
For you info! Blacks Law Dictionary didn't exist! B


bb
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 6:35 am

So, just so you understand! I can agree Obama is smart! obviously smater than you and all those that voted for him. Unless perhaps your a Fabion, if your not then wake up morons!

Per Obama's own statements and Not an exact quote's nor to be construed as facts: it's just a representation: Got to yuotube for exact quotes!

Someone shouldn't run for president unless he know's what he is doing, and given it great care or thought!
He is constitutional Scholar!

Again, The ameteur' LMFAO!!! Ha ! Ha! Ha!


bb
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 6:47 am

Per John Locke's theories! the natural order as represented by the Law's of Nature and Creator (Nature's God) We find truth! Through observations by using Logic and Reason or put simply the scientific method!

Go to a nice high Building and walk off the rough and see if find the truth ab out gravity Moron's! P.S. Please, use a favor and don't wear a Parachute! I want you to feel the full weight of Natures Law! I take no legal responsibity for yoou stupidity should excercise my suggestion!

LMFAO!!

the ameteur!!


bb
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 6:57 am

Oh! sorry I was LMFAO! and made some typo's!

Per John Locke's theories! The natural order as represented by the Law's of Nature and our Creator (Nature's God), we find truth! Through observations of Nature by using Logic and Reason or put simply the scientific method!

Go to a nice high Building and walk off the roof and see if you can find the truth about gravity Moron's! P.S. Please, do us a favor and don't wear a Parachute! I want you to feel the full weight of Natures Law! I take no legal responsibility for your stupidity should exercise my suggestion!

LMFAO!!

the ameteur!!


bb
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:13 am

Oh, here is another definition! See http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/result…
: showing the historical attempt at a Sophism, you Fabians have attempted to construct to decieve!

natural law
: a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law
Note: While natural law, based on a notion of timeless order, does not receive as much credence as it did formerly, it was an important influence on the enumeration of natural rights by Thomas Jefferson and others.

So, there it is! Obama may me smart, but no one is smarter than the truth!
It is not me, attemting to decieve! So until you pass an ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. He is not Natural Born!

LMFAO!!!

The Ameteur!!


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:21 am

It has been stated over and over again that their is no definition of natural-born in the US Constitution. However, you insist on taking that an amendment to the Constitution to change the meaning of natural-born citizen. Over time those who qualified to be natural-born citizen has changed. This was done through the law and not the constitution. The changes made resulted in women and native Americans to be included in citizens by birth. It is citizen by birth with is what is considered to be a natural born citizen.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:36 am

See you have two choices. You can read the nonsense that the other birther conspiracy nuts are writing, and see that they are wrong. Or, you can abandon birtherism.

I am glad that you have recognized that Obama is a constitution scholar, thus no one more that Obama must know that he is constitutionally eligible.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:38 am

Come on you must know that it is 2010.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:39 am

Making typo's are the least of your problems.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:42 am

Please use more things that are irrelevant. There is no relationship between “natural law” and “natural born.”


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 7:43 am

Do you know what an adjective is, or is every word you use a noun?


katahdin
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 9:05 am

What does any of this Natural Law stuff have to do with the fact that President Barack Obama was born in the US and is therefore a natural born citizen completely eligible to be president.
You see, under the Constitution, the fedral code, and based on legal precedence, Barack Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen qualified to be president.
He was properly, duly elected with a margin of over 9 million votes to an office he is entitled to hold under all the requirements and traditions of our democracy.
It's just that simple.


Anthony
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 9:37 am

I really don't understand the relevance of Natural Law to his argument. I why don't he use natural-bridge? However, doesn't understand the history of the principle.

It seems that they can't avoid the inconvenient truth. That just by his election Obama is an natural born citizen.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 10:23 am

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce anxiety, by repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing anxiety, or by combinations of such thoughts (obsessions) and behaviors (compulsions).

And it's natural and organic but not normal. Witness below.


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

There you go, getting your nonsense from Cartoon Network again.

Better refill your nitrous bottle. And wash your teddy bear. The stink coming from it is affecting your ability to absorb reality.

For someone so enamored of a dictionary, it's amazing you can even look things up. You can't spell for S**t. Always excusing typos…..

What would you know about the truth? You've been denying it for days.


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 1:01 pm

REMF thinks sticking forks into power sockets is a fun thing to do.

And all the crap he has on John Locke must be really sticky by now.

For someone so enamored of “natural law”, he's too stupid to comprehend that all here have been excercising it on him for days, now.


bb
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 8:53 pm

So lets summarize – I explained and provided a summary of John Locke’s theories; To illustrate and show the (self evident) dependence of the founding fathers on his theories and writings, Which again is (Undeniable) in their writing and, or construction of our American Society’s founding documents: to include the U. S. Declaration of Independence and the Supreme Law of the United States Our Constitution!

Notes!

1. The Constitution can only be changed by an Amendment and requires ratification by ¾ or 38 of the states legislatures!
2. No Amendment has been approved that changes or includes a definition of the use of the word (“Natural” or “Natural Born”) as contained in Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution as quoted below!
3. To see the summary of the writings of John Locke at Click here!

With the understanding above, I presented the following facts and arguments:

1. That our country was founded by the authority of Natural Law, as stated in our countries first founding document: The Declaration of Independence. As evidenced; by the following Quotes; along with the source of this theory, as accredited to John Locke 1632 -1704.

a. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

b. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
c. So given that we were founded under the principles of Natural Law and as per the time there was no known legal definition of Natural, Natural Born! As at the time, their was no Society explicitly founded on Natural Law. That in fact is what is unique about the united States.

2. I then addressed the Constitution: Specifically Article 11, Section 1, as quoted below and provided evidence and arguments as stated below.

US Constitution, Article II, Section I – “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

a. Per (1.a.) above: I asked you to explain the need and intent of the phrase as quoted below: You provided; no reasoned opinion or evidence: I provided the following as evidence and arguments:

“Or a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of This Constitution”

1. The statement clearly Grandfathers anyone who was a Citizen at the time of Adoption of the Constitution. I submit the following facts!

President
George Washington – was Born in Virginia!
John Adams – was born in Massachusetts!
Thomas Jefferson – Was Born in Virginia!
James Madison – Was Born in Virginia!
James Monroe – Was Born in Virginia!
John Quincy Adams – was born in Massachusetts!
Andrew Jackson – was born in South Carolina!

Notes:
- All native Born! Why the Clause? They were all born Native to the land, which became the United States? So, let’s see; if Natural Born is the same as Native Born? Why the Clause? Then it must mean that Natural Born is not Native Born! Or the statement: “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” would not be needed! I submit that this is self evident that native born is not the same as Natural Born.
– Certainly, It must be self evident: Those Presidents have proven birth records as, I know of no other country with better record keeping than that of Great Britain. So, again they would have had little problem proving Native Birth!

2. The Clause can only be interpreted to mean that they were exempting the Natural Born Clause, to allow those who fought; “The American Revolutionary War” the opportunity to become President, as they had participated and fought for their freedoms and rightfully, obtained them, via the assertion of their natural rights as claimed under, Natural Law, as a Divine right, given by their Creator (Nature’s God)! Per the Declaration Of Independence of these United States!

Note: It should be equally clear that as you claim, I am attempting a Sophism, it is both self evident and undeniable that many have attempted, to use a sophism to make people believe we were founded on Christianity!

3. Per the Term Natural Born, I provided the following evidence and arguments, while you provided nothing of substance!

a.. It is also, just as Clear, that they did not intend even their own children and or decedents to be anything but, Natural born Citizens, by the mere inclusion of the Clause Natural Born.

b. As evidenced in the writings of John Jay to George Washington, John Jay, was the Presiding Officer of the Convention on July 25, 1787. Per this quote: “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Note: John Jay was President of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1779 and, from 1789 to 1795, the first Chief Justice of the United States. During and after the American Revolution! It should be self evident that he and the rest of the founders involved New the principles they founded our nation on (Natural Law), that they also, clearly understood the definition of the word “Natural” as it is reported to have been defined since the 14th century or 1300’s, Per the Merriam Webster Dictionary. That if it were to be defined by anything other than the vernacular Definition, he certainly would have done that given his status as the Chief Justice! As to assume otherwise, would be to accuse him of incompetence!

c. I argue, the following concerning the clause “Natural Born” as recorded in history: Which, as it was obviously included! I submit; the intent is both Self Evident and Undeniable! To Place a strong check to the admission of Foreigners’, as it should be obvious! That as the people knew, who their patriots of the war were, they had no cause for concern at the time, as they, themselves, would be electing the men who would go into the Office of President! However, they understood that both they and what was commonly understood, at that time would likely be lost to future generations, through their own demise. So, to place the strong check as recommended by John Jay; was placed to both protect the Office of The President, from Foreigners, and to ensure there were no questions of allegiance, for future generations.

d. The Naturalization Act of 1790, also passed by this congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the US shall be considered as natural born, provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been a resident of the US.”

Note: That this is a direct quote and it states Children of Citizens (Plural: meaning both!) Obama has admitted his father was not, and in fact he would likely have been a British Citizen.
It should also be noted, that this provided that under British Law, Obama had a choice to be either British or American: As, under British Law Citizenship may be acquired by virtue of his father; by Blood! I would argue this is exactly what the stated clause was for; and it appears self evident that it has resulted in both his eligibility and thus his allegiance to be put into question! I agree, some arguments are being made, that do not have sufficient evidence. I also note, that it’s undeniable that an honorable man who has the ability to prove his birth, his school records, his Passport travel information having nothing to hide would be expected to produce them, just as the many other Presidents have before him.

e. I provided the following historically recorded quote of John Bingham, as recorded in history. When asked to define “natural born citizen”; John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment which extended the bill of rights to former slaves, stated, “Any human born to parents who are US citizens, and are under no other jurisdiction or authority.”

Note: Some may argue that, neither of these definitions, one from US law, mentions birthplace, only the parents’ citizenship. But given the statement “under no other jurisdiction or authority” they must, be born in or on U.S Soil or Legal Jurisdiction to have that statement apply, especially; given the vernacular definition of Natural as applied in the context of Natural Law.

f. I would argue that given his definition, the fact that nothing is evidenced in the now passed and ratified 14th amendment and as there is no written or adopted language to change or alter the Natural Born statement in anyway than that stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, as stated and quoted above: can only be interpreted to mean that no one dissented, from the definition as recorded to history and provided by John Bingham, the author of the 14th Amendment.

f. I refer to the vernacular meaning of the word Natural, as per the Merriam Webster Dictionary: Click here for complete definition

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
8 a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9 : possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature
10 a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11 a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : UNREGENERATE <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12 a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious
b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13 a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature.

So, I would Argue; that based on the preponderance of the evidence and arguments the Definitions of the word natural, which dates to the 14th century. Showing the inherent link to Natural Law, The writings of John Jay to George Washington, The Naturalization Act of 1790, The writings of John Bingham, The lack of any change being made to the requirement in the approved and ratified 14th Amendment! That President Obama Cannot be considered Natural Born by either Natural Law or The Constitution of the United States and that as there is know amendment that provides for a change of definition from Article II, Section 1, That Obama should be rightfully disqualified and removed from office per the laws of Nature and of our land!

I pointed out that Obama himself has admitted that his father was Kenyan born and not a citizen of United States!

You stated at this point that I was being clever and accused me of perpetuating a Sophism!

I then provided: You with evidence of my own that; it is not I perpetuating a Sophism!

Blacks Law Dictionary First Edition 1891: No Definition! Of the word Natural!

Blacks law Dictionary Second Edition 1910: As Follows:

Natural – The juristic Meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in cases where it is used in opposition to the term “legal;” and then it means proceeding from or determined by Physical Causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than to commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions.

Definition of Natural Law from Find Law:

natural law
: a body of law or a specific principle of law that is held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law
Note: While natural law, based on a notion of timeless order, does not receive as much credence as it did formerly, it was an important influence on the enumeration of natural rights by Thomas Jefferson and others.

So lets see if some one is trying a Sophism as you stated, I would argue it would be Our Honorable (or perhaps not so Honorable) Member’s of our Political, Justice and legal system that now operates a private, for profit prison system! Who also seam to have unequivocally failed to uphold their oaths of office!

Well, I feel sorry for you all, as the people are waking up, just look at the news, people flying planes into buildings, demolishing their own private property! It’s not Crazy! it’s Natural to the Nature of Man, and as great minds have said and I quote “history repeats itself”

But hey! You’re entitled to your opinion; just as those who argued the world was flat because the church and their kings told them so!

Personally, it’s not about Obama it’s about the rule of Law! As without it, there is only Anarchy!

P.S. You might want to stay away from Government buildings though, because I don’t think the crazies, as you call them, have even got started yet! Also, it would seem that some; in authority may even actually want it to happen! As they seem to be preparing in everyway for a major event on the homeland, It’s not the average citizen signing the executive orders, it’s not the average citizen, who set up the for profit prison system and it’s not the average citizen who is reaping the profits in our current economy and it is most certainly not this citizen using sophism’s to deceive. They aren’t hiding it! They do it right in front of you! Just as the founding fathers warned and stated!

But again! You’re entitled to your opinion; just as those who argued the world was flat because the religious leaders and their kings told them so and as stated by our founding Fathers below:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

It certainly, seems that many are reaching the level of Despotism they describe, as some are throwing away their life itself, to make their point!

Just remember; this citizen did his duty! I have tried to warn you! I wish you all the best! Enjoy your ignorance! While you can! As you allow history to perhaps repeat itself! Please, make sure you adequately plan for you children as well! Should you have any?

Good luck guy's it's been fun!


monkey99
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 9:04 pm

Sure you going to, this time?

No one can take you seriously because you're a liar as well as nuts. But if you are, don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out!

We expect to see more of your crap, anyway. REMF.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 9:13 pm

And the clue train still rolls on minus the same clueless birfer fool.

The OCD idiot will never grasp the one biggest flaw to all of the drool posted.
The same obvious flaw applies to every other birfer and their same idiotic opinions of law.

Pathetic losers.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

For the mentally challenged birfer:

ir·rel·e·vant? ?[ih-rel-uh-vuhnt]
–adjective
1. not relevant; not applicable or pertinent: His lectures often stray to interesting but irrelevant subjects.
2. Law. (of evidence) having no probative value upon any issue in the case.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

He Kant think he has a Locke on understanding U.S. constitutional law.
I'm sure there's Moore for him to Russell around and Mill over and possibly even Owen up as he would rather break the rules than the typical birfer who would shamelessly Bentham.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 20, 2010 @ 10:42 pm

“With you absolute stupidty!”

Absolutely.


ellid
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:14 am

I'm convinced he's Dr. Bronner in a clever etheric disguise.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:32 am

Let me summarize you are bat scitte crazy. You call that a summary. I wonder what your long argument is like.

Didn't you say “For you info! Blacks Law Dictionary didn't exist! B”

Please turn on the lights. Turn off the computer. Go outside and find someone to talk you.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:37 am

There is a reason that they are mentally challenged, they believe that relevant means irrelevant.


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:41 am

LOL! That's got to be the best, yet!

I warned that clown he was screwing around with intellects that had a higher grasp of our native language and parlance than he did.

Denial is funny. it can be good and bad. Good if it applies to temptations everyone knows are bad, but bad if applied to verifiable and incontrovertible proof. I think the latter would be classified as….(if we go back to the saying about the differences between ignorance and stupidity) Willful boneheadedness.

BTW, our friend, 24aheaddotdumdum got schooled again…..Passing off “fahr 419″ in an analogy.

The fun never ends with these fools!


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:53 am

His last ozone-steeped dissertation probably took him a couple of hours to come up with, or he just copied verbatim. In which case, it probably STILL took him a couple of hours.

The funniest part? It has absolutely nothing to do with his “quest”. This was the first time I've seen it happen. It's like going to your professor for advice, and discussing only the pitfalls of the “Cat in the Hat” or “Green Eggs and Ham”.


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:57 am

Well,

WHO'S NEXT.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 1:03 am

What the? I just don't understand his point. Many people know that their have been changes to the law. Anyways, it is nothing but tripe.


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 1:14 am

Yeah, he's gone….I think. You know these birfers, can't be trusted with anything they say.

The next blog has been in full swing for a while now. A couple of the “old crew” birfers were there, but absconded the moment one or two of us showed up!


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 1:58 am

No, he has always been crazy ; ).


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 5:37 am

Oh, I thought you meant if he finally slithered off for good to lick his wounds.

Hey! The clown's finally been in combat! Still, a verbal Swiss cheese match isn't the real thing, but a lot more entertaining!

Now he'll be walking around with a new a**hole in the middle of his forehead! Gee, now he'll have three. Well, he was an aberration of nature (what was that thing about “natural law” again?) to begin with, so nothing special, though HE may think so….


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 6:06 am

I will never be a profession or amateur comedian. I was suggesting that he was gone in the sense of being mentally unstable. I should have written.
“From his comments he has always been crazy.”

However, it is amazing how someone can prove they understand nothing after writing so much nonsense.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 6:44 am

Or why he still hops on Pop?

Insert creepy references here.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 6:52 am

And out of league is an understatement. Credentials are a mixed bag on the anonymous net but in this case I have no choice but to LMFAO. No choice.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 11:49 am

So lets summarize your IP address


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

Probably?


monkey99
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

No, the misunderstanding was my bad, don't worry about it.

Your Q and A's to them expose the hypocracy and lies in a succinct fashion. You don't have to be a comedian!

bb WAS persistent, wasn't he? The worst yet.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 1:14 pm

They occasionally pop up here and there. The rookie birthers think that they are being original, and never really think out their lies. Yes, bb is the worst in terms of irreverent information. Never defending his position. However, it is great to see different approaches on the disassembling his and birthers utterly silly arguments.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 4:34 pm

I'm not a physician but only a student of philosophy.


katahdin
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 8:04 pm

In the United States, natural born generally means “born in the USA” so President Barack Hussein Obama, handsome and clever black man is in fact natural born.


Anthony
Comment posted February 21, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

This is the crazy one. He quotes dictionary entries without understand that they have no relevance to the issues.


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 11:47 am

“Passing off “fahr 419″ in an analogy.”

I saw that. Too funny. I think birfer idiots start to burn at room temperature.


monkey99
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 12:19 pm

So that's how all those unexplained house fires get started!


Make The Pie Higher
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 4:47 pm

“Passing off “fahr 419″ in an analogy.”

I saw that. Too funny. I think birfer idiots start to burn at room temperature.


monkey99
Comment posted February 26, 2010 @ 5:19 pm

So that's how all those unexplained house fires get started!


Par: rendre la tarte plus élevés
Pingback posted March 10, 2010 @ 2:25 am

[...] Je ne suis pas médecin, mais seulement un étudiant de la philosophie. URL article original: http://washingtonindependent.com/76563/redstate-bans-birthers/comment-page-9#comment-130517 [...]


mbt shoes
Comment posted May 10, 2010 @ 12:50 am

DO you like it?


nike shox
Comment posted June 10, 2010 @ 1:41 am

Thans for you share the article.


nike running shoes
Comment posted July 11, 2010 @ 2:43 am

nike on sale http://www.mbtshoeslatest.com


Louis Vuitton handbags
Comment posted December 10, 2010 @ 12:10 pm

The Epi Leather, shiny palladium hardware, rolled leather handles with ring attachments, and Louis Vuitton Canvas engraved padlock on the side of the bag make this handbag truly standout. Instantly, I fell in love with the balenciaga bags Speedy in black! It was gorgeous, sophisticated and I thought it would lovely in my collection. I absolutely loved the Speedy Cube, but due to the ultra high price I turned to the Epi collection for a more affordable take on a black louis vuitton belts handbag. At the moment, I have four different louis vuitton clutches in my collection going on a 5th in two weeks and I thought it was quite senseless to even think to getting lousi vuitton Speedy 30. So I change to search for a black Jimmy Choo clutches I came across the Louis Vuitton Leather Lockit and it was love at first sight! I have been eager to own a Louis Vuitton store Outlet in black for some time now. If the Catier bags doesnt interest you in black, it also is available in Cassis, Ivoire, and Red. My personal favorite is the black, and I just may add the Louis Vuitton discounts Epi Leather Lockit to my current wish collection. By the way, if you think the price is high, you can visit our online store to choose some Louis Vuitton multicolor for you. I change to search for MiuMiu tote I came across the Louis Vuitton Speedy handbag. Epi Leather Lockit and it was love at first sight! The Louis Vuitton Epi MiuMiu online have always been a favorite to me, and when I saw that the lockit came in Epi Leather also I was took. For some odd reason,cheap lv handbags sale, I have never taken notice of this particular lockit handbag before and I must say it is stunning.The features of this handbag are absolutely beautiful. Written by Louis Vuitton Trunk On Sale.


investment property
Comment posted August 19, 2011 @ 8:32 am

This is a very good weblog. I have been back more than once within the last few days and want to subscribe to your rss feed making use of Google but cannot work out the best way to do it accurately.


640872
Comment posted September 5, 2011 @ 9:55 pm

640872 beers on the wall. sck was here


Cheap Jordan shoes,Nike air max shoes,Supra Shoes,UGG Boots,CL pumps,Polo,Lacoste t-shirts,True Religion Jeans,LV,Coach handbags,brand name sunglasses,NFL,NHL,MLB,NBA Jerseys
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:40 am

Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed! Very helpful information specifically the last part I care for such information much. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. I will keep the attention of your blog. Thank you and have a good day.


Tobias Pulice
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 3:08 am

Hands down, Apple’s app store wins by a mile. It’s a huge selection of all sorts of apps vs a rather sad selection of a handful for Zune. Microsoft has plans, especially in the realm of games, but I’m not sure I’d want to bet on the future if this aspect is important to you. The iPod is a much better choice in that case.


Cheap Jordan shoes,Nike air max shoes,Supra Shoes,UGG Boots,CL pumps,Polo,Lacoste t-shirts,True Religion Jeans,LV,Coach handbags,brand name sunglasses,NFL,NHL,MLB,NBA Jerseys
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 3:18 am

Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Very helpful information specially the last part I care for such information a lot. I was looking for this certain info for a long time. I will keep the attention of your blog. Thank you and have a great day.


volleyball
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:24 am

After examine a number of of the blog posts in your web site now, and I truly like your means of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site record and will likely be checking again soon. Pls check out my web site as well and let me know what you think.


monthly websites
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:45 am

This has definitely sparked up an thought in my brain. That is a wonderful web site publish.


hotels in halstead
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 5:03 am

Thanks a lot for giving everyone a very memorable possiblity to read articles and blog posts from this website. It’s usually so nice and as well , jam-packed with a good time for me personally and my office colleagues to visit your blog the equivalent of 3 times a week to find out the newest guidance you have got. And lastly, we’re usually satisfied concerning the excellent tips you give. Some 4 ideas on this page are without a doubt the best we’ve ever had.


dvlc
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 5:12 am

My husband and i got quite joyous that Louis managed to round up his investigation via the precious recommendations he was given out of your web site. It is now and again perplexing just to find yourself giving away helpful tips which usually some people may have been selling. We really keep in mind we now have the website owner to thank for this. These explanations you have made, the easy website menu, the friendships you can help engender – it’s got mostly excellent, and it is facilitating our son in addition to our family believe that the concept is enjoyable, and that is rather vital. Thank you for all the pieces!


Ultras shop
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:39 am

The best hooligans shop


neath port talbot opticians
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:54 am

Oh my goodness! an amazing article dude. Thanks Nonetheless I am experiencing situation with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anyone getting identical rss drawback? Anyone who is aware of kindly respond. Thnkx


Chaya Agne
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 8:26 am

Great written content and great layout. Your blog site deserves all of the positive feedback it’s been getting.


free amateur sex tube
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 9:44 am

I must appreciate your time and efforts you earn in publishing this blog post. I hope the identical best write-up by you later on also. Truly your creative writing expertise has encouraged me to start my extremely own blog website now. In fact the blogging is spreading its wings rapidly. Your write-up is a fine style of it.


pandoras box
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:08 am

What I discover difficult is to discover a weblog that may capture me for a minute but your weblog is different. Bravo.


click here
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:25 am

Hey – nice weblog, simply looking around some blogs, seems a pretty good platform You Are using. I’m at the moment using Drupal for a couple of of my sites but looking to change one in all them over to a platform very a lot the same to yours as a trial run. Anything in particular you’d suggest about it?


tinnitus cure
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:45 am

I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you? Plz respond as I’m looking to design my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from. thanks


celebrity interviews pavlina
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:46 am

I like what you guys are up also. Such smart work and reporting! Carry on the superb works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to my blogroll. I think it’ll improve the value of my site :).


Green Tea Weight Loss
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:27 pm

Now i’m truly fresh to wordpress blogs. even so what you post on this site is definitely quite excellent and very beneficial. I believe it would assist me in the future. Thanks for the exceptional function.


best place to pick up girls
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 12:55 pm

My associate and I really loved reading this weblog put up, I was simply itching to know do you commerce featured posts? I’m always trying to find somebody to make trades with and merely thought I’d ask.


law firms in tamworth
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

I have to show some appreciation to this writer just for rescuing me from such a circumstance. As a result of searching throughout the the net and finding principles which were not beneficial, I thought my entire life was over. Being alive devoid of the answers to the issues you have sorted out through your main short article is a critical case, as well as those that would have negatively affected my career if I had not noticed your site. Your actual understanding and kindness in playing with the whole lot was very helpful. I don’t know what I would’ve done if I had not come upon such a solution like this. It’s possible to at this point look forward to my future. Thanks a lot very much for this impressive and result oriented guide. I won’t hesitate to endorse the sites to any person who needs to have support on this situation.


site hoster check
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

I haven’t checked in here for some time because I thought it was getting boring, but the last several posts are great quality so I guess I’ll add you back to my daily bloglist. You deserve it friend :)


size
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

My husband and i were absolutely joyous when Jordan could finish up his reports through the entire precious recommendations he discovered while using the site. It is now and again perplexing just to continually be offering techniques which the rest may have been trying to sell. We understand we need you to appreciate for that. All the illustrations you have made, the simple blog menu, the friendships your site make it easier to create – it’s got most remarkable, and it’s really helping our son and us believe that this matter is satisfying, and that is quite indispensable. Thanks for all the pieces!


soil ph meters
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

My husband and i felt now more than happy when Peter managed to complete his survey through the entire ideas he discovered through the web site. It is now and again perplexing just to always be giving away thoughts that many the rest have been selling. And we all do know we have got you to appreciate for this. All the illustrations you’ve made, the simple web site navigation, the relationships you can help create – it’s got many awesome, and it’s assisting our son and our family believe that that subject is awesome, and that is exceptionally indispensable. Thanks for everything!


High Class Escorts
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 4:50 pm

Many thanks for sharing this information, I definitely recognize the perform and time you’ve acquire to create these information. Sustain the great work and I would much like to say that immediately after I arrive household from operate I actually look forward to reading your thoughts and opinions on these issues. I will be subscribing on your weblog, many thanks again.


lavorare miami
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:26 pm

I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own blog and was wondering what all is required to get set up? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very web savvy so I’m not 100% certain. Any tips or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks


compro oro
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

Hmm it seems like your website ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog. I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new to the whole thing. Do you have any points for novice blog writers? I’d certainly appreciate it.


Leontine Skutt
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So nice to find somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for starting this up. this website is something that is needed on the web, someone with a little originality. useful job for bringing something new to the internet!


outreach
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:39 pm

A person necessarily assist to make significantly articles I might state. This is the first time I frequented your web page and up to now? I amazed with the analysis you made to create this particular publish amazing. Fantastic task!


Magaret Bettinger
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:41 pm

An impressive share, I just given this onto a colleague who was doing a little analysis on this. And he in fact bought me breakfast because I found it for him.. smile. So let me reword that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thnkx for spending the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love reading more on this topic. If possible, as you become expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more details? It is highly helpful for me. Big thumb up for this blog post!


Song Hogle
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet for the issue and found most individuals will go along with with your website.


Micha Yoney
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 7:49 pm

Would you be interested in exchanging links?


Girls from Facebook
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 9:13 pm

You have noted very interesting points! ps nice internet site.


Pdf to epub conversion
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

Very interesting points you have observed , thanks for putting up. “These days an income is something you can’t live without–or within.” by Tom Wilson.


celebrity
Comment posted September 6, 2011 @ 11:34 pm

Some genuinely nice and utilitarian info on this site, too I believe the style has got fantastic features.


MBT Sport shoes
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:03 am

The following time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as a lot as this one. I imply, I do know it was my option to learn, however I actually thought youd have something fascinating to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about one thing that you may fix for those who werent too busy searching for attention.


cheap mbt shoes
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:42 am

I wanted to send a brief remark to be able to express gratitude to you for those great tips you are giving out here. My rather long internet investigation has now been rewarded with reasonable facts to talk about with my contacts. I ‘d claim that we site visitors actually are unequivocally fortunate to exist in a fabulous place with so many brilliant people with very beneficial secrets. I feel extremely grateful to have discovered your weblog and look forward to really more entertaining minutes reading here. Thanks once again for all the details.


merson thorpe
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 1:02 am

I’ve learn several just right stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how so much effort you place to create such a wonderful informative site.


android phones
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 1:21 am

naturally like your web site however you have to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. Several of them are rife with spelling issues and I find it very troublesome to tell the truth on the other hand I’ll certainly come again again.


MBT Sandals Shoes
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 1:55 am

The next time I read a blog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as much as this one. I mean, I do know it was my option to read, however I really thought youd have one thing interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about one thing that you might fix if you happen to werent too busy searching for attention.


debimetre
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 10:00 am

Thank you for helping out, great information. “The health of nations is more important than the wealth of nations.” by Will Durant.


Discount Moncler Sweater
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 10:12 am

hear all relating to the lively manner you give priceless


iphone 4 exchange 2003
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 10:32 am

Perfectly indited content, thanks for entropy. “No human thing is of serious importance.” by Plato.


Florida Real Estate
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 11:19 am

This website is my inhalation, rattling superb pattern and Perfect subject matter.


Get twitter followers
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:41 pm

You are my intake, I possess few web logs and occasionally run out from brand :). “To die for a religion is easier than to live it absolutely.” by Jorge Luis Borges.


Sex toys
Comment posted September 7, 2011 @ 12:45 pm

Simply a smiling visitor here to share the love (:, btw outstanding style and design .


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.