Does Orly Taitz Need Any More Publicity?
Today, the Washington Post published a long profile of Orly Taitz. This is the nut job that's leading the birther movement. Taitz helms a very leaky swift boat. We should be forgetting her right about now.
Taitz was news or newsy this past summer. But why do we need a big story on her in October? Her power is only derived from free media attention. Did I mention that she's a nutjob?
A quick Nexis check reveals that Taitz has been mentioned, chronicled, and/or written about more than 400 times before WaPo decided to profile her. Other newspapers wrote about her more than 150 times. I'm not even going to delve into the number of blog items on this crazy. Let's just say she is very old news.
Meanwhile, there are far more powerful crazies that are worth the Post's attention like Sen. Jim DeMint and his travels to Honduras to support the military coup. The Post has devoted 556 words from one staff writer to the DeMint story.
Why bother with Ms. Taitz when the Daily Show got to her in July?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Born Identity | ||||
|
||||
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
1:41 pm
Jason: Lay off the Post, pls don't anger them, and let's all just be thankful that Sally Quinn didn't invite Taitz to contribute a column to that "On Faith" thingee of her's.
1:55 pm
The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).
2:12 pm
Orly Taitz should be in an insane asylum. The judge in the birther case should have sanctioned her.
Again, the Post is just showing its decline into mediocrity in its news pages & far right-wing irrelevance in its editing. Mrs. Graham would be saddened.
4:47 pm
Whatever you do don't p'o Sally Quinn. She is running the Post now having hoodwinked the new publisher into deputizing her army of inter-office gossips and poseurs.
You've got to hand it to the old broad, she has prevailed. She has cum a long way since she crawled out from under Ben Bradlee's desk, got him to buy the cow in spite of the free milk, and labored intensely to silence anyone who remembered her past as a pass around party favor. Quite a feat for a woman whose only discernible talent is her ability to stifle her gag reflex!
I mean Quinn almost brought the house down with her "salon" idea but some poor sap paid the price and Bradlee recently described the ethical collapse of the Post, in Vanity Fair, as a hiccup! I hear she leads Katherine Weymouth around the office on a leash!
4:59 pm
Jason,
Your personal attacks on Orly Taitz and all "birthers" in general indicates that you have nothing of substance to argue with. What I would like to hear is a fact filled explanation of how Obama meets the "natural born" citizen requirement to be president while having a foreign father. Many (perhaps you too) think that "citizen" = "natural born citizen", but this is not correct. If you will take the time to do some research into what a "natural born" citizen means you might just discover what all the fuss is about. Perhaps you don't care, but some still believe that the Constitution matters and should be followed. The derogatory comments you and others make only reinforces the desire to find the truth.
5:56 pm
Marshall Thompson, what the fuck are you talking about? I hope that you're joking. If you're too stupid to realize that Hawaii was a state in 1961 then you should probably consider taking your rather small skull out of your rather large ass.
You are a pathetic human being. Seriously. Get your suitcase from under your twin bed, put some clothes in it, kiss your mother goodbye, and please take the first flight away from our country. I mean it. Get the hell out of here. You are wasting our time. I hope to never have to reprimand you on this site again.
6:09 pm
Marshall is a birther! Marshall is a birther! Marshall is nuts! Marshall is nuts [& not in a cool artistic way].
Wow - a fucking birther. Who killed JFK, Marshall? Do you believe in evolution? Is the world flat or round? Is up up, or is it down? or sideways? Does gravity exist?
But first answer this - how did the Honolulu Star & the Honolulu Advertiser print a birth announcement for Barack, with his parents & Hawaii address, in 1961? Was it a "plant", placed by some conspiracy 47 years before he got elected, or did someone travel back in time to place the announcement?
6:26 pm
G'damnit Al, why'd you go and feed Marshall like that? Anyway, where did our nation go wrong? I remember fondly the days when the craziest a conservative would get is to claim fluoridated water was a "communistic" plot. Ah, the good old days.
7:46 pm
Are you sure the birth announcement was in 1961? Because the Manchurian Candidate came out in 1962 and, you know, they could have been forged by a copycat. Hey....
8:40 pm
@all,
You prove my case for me. Only personal attacks, no substance! You know nothing about me, but feel free to disparage me. Quit surfing the porn sites and use Google to do something useful and research this subject. Exercise your mind instead of your hormones.
@huh,
Your ability to exercise critical thinking seems to be seriously impaired. The POINT is that to be a "natural born" citizen requires more than to just be born on US soil!!!! You must be born to parents who are both US citizens. Obama, by his own admission says his father was a foreigner. If you would do some research about what it means to be a natural born citizen instead of sitting around scratching your balls thinking of fancy perjoratives to vomit out you might just learn something. I have done that research (checkmate). Your still ignorant of the facts.
@Angry Al Gonzales
It doesn't matter were Obama was born. Be it Hawaii, or Kenya. The important fact is that his father was not a US citizen. International law as well as US law have always recognized that the citizenship of a child follows that of the father. Obama was at best a dual citizen at birth of both Great Britain (Kenya was a British colony in 1961) and the US. Dual citizens cannot be considered "natural born" because they are born owing allegiance to a country other than the US. This is the entire reason for this requirement in our Constitution.
And since you mentioned it. The birth announcements in the Honolulu Star & the Honolulu Advertiser were auto-generated by information from Hawaii's Health Department. There are (at least) 4 ways to obtain a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth (COLB), only one of which involves being born in a hospital in Hawaii. Once a COLB is applied for (e.g. by the declaration of a relative), the information would be fed to the newspapers in the same way as a normal live birth in a hospital. In short, neither you nor I have enough information to say how the birth announcement got into the paper. However, it is a fact that a live birth in a Hawaii hospital is not required. It is also a fact that there are many known instances of foreign born children obtaining a Hawaii COLB. Finally, the image of a COLB that was posted on the Internet is worthless and has not been verified by Hawaii officials (thats right, check it out). The statements by Hawaii officials have always been carefully crafted with just enough weasel words to keep them from being charged with perjury for making false statements. These are politicians/political appointees. Lying is an essential job skill for these people.
8:56 pm
Marshall get a life, your conspiracy theory is getting really old.
9:53 pm
@fedupcitizen
Its not my conspiracy theory. It is fact. And...you still have not offered any "fact" based refutation of what I have said. Are you people brain-dead out there? Take your hands out of your pants and think with your brain for a change. If you don't know enough to debate, go do some reading and get some friggin' facts so you can say something that doesn't expose your ignorance. Every statement I have made can be backed up with references to numerous historical documents, the Constitution, amendments, laws and court rulings can you say the same? I didn't think so.
10:35 pm
And so... John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone (not in a U.S. hospital there either) so how is he a "natural born citizen" if he wasn't born in the United States.
If you undo Obama as president all you will get instead is Joe (Biden, not the plumber).
10:57 pm
@Contrarian
Finally, someone in this thread who actually thinks. John McCain's natural born citizenship is also in question. Although congress passed a resolution before the election declaring him a natural born citizen, I don't think it has any legal validity. The courts would likely need to be involved to resolve this question. I personally think McCain would be considered a natural born citizen after a legal ruling. The US law dealing with immigration and citizenship was passed in 1795 and specifically addressed this situation. It declared a person whose parents were US citizens to be a natural born citizen even if born overseas. This clause was removed after a revision to the immigration law several years later, so it may or may not still hold.
Because the president and vice-president are elected together, it is not clear that Biden would necessarily take over if Obama is determined to be ineligible (they may be treated as a whole rather than individually). It may require going back to the electoral college to choose the eligible president/vice-president pair that had the most votes. Who knows for certian what would happen if this constitutional crisis occurs.
11:12 pm
– the republic itself. But “Dr.” Taitz may be the only “ineligible” player in her little farce.
Although Taitz is a member of the California Bar, she’s not listed as a member of the American Bar Association (check for yourself). Nor is her “law school” (William Howard Taft University) accredited by the ABA. Because Taft is a distance-learning school only, Taitz’s degree entitles her, at most, to practice in California, as her school candidly admits.
Rules of attorney discipline forbid the practice of law without a license – i.e., without sitting for and passing the bar exam, after graduating from an ABA-accredited school. Her correspondence degree is a limited exception, only useful in California. So, any action in which she appeared as counsel of record outside the state would constitute practicing law without a license, in violation of California disciplinary rules. Has “Dr.” Taitz violated this rule? Does her appearance before the Supreme Court, in filing documents for the frivolous, since-dismissed case Lightfoot v. Bowen, therefore subject her to discipline?
6:45 am
@notlizamundy
There you go again. Attacking the person instead of debating the issue. But since you have brought the subject up, Orly recently showed on her web site her letter from the SCOTUS stating that she is accepted to present cases to the SCOTUS (now lets see yours). The source of her law credentials is less important than how she handles her cases. A well argued and supported case is the best any lawyer can do regardless of where they obtained their degree.
9:19 am
Marshall,
You might want to follow your own advice and use Google to research the matter. You might also stick to valid sources of legal information.
I found a case that is still good law on the issue of whether a child born to non-U.S. citizens in one of these United States is a natural-born citizen. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649).
It turns out (surprise surprise) that the child of Chinese subjects (at the time, China was ruled by an emperor) born in a state belonging to the United States was a natural-born citizen. To belabor the point, both parents were from China, still Chinese subjects, and had a child in California, which was even way back then a U.S. state. The Supreme Court found the child to be a natural-born citizen. Jus soli is the rule in England, jus soli is the rule here.
I know that you'll never agree with anything I say, but I wanted to at least show the others on this thread that you really don't have a legal leg to stand on.
Unless HI was secretly not a state in 1961 ZOMG CONSPRIACY
[Disclaimer: the above is in no way meant to constitute legal advice. It is offered merely for the purpose of debate.]
9:19 am
Birthers, deathers, & teabaggers - oh my. The lunatic forest gets more weird every day. Some people just can't accept that a black man is president.
"Natural born" is simple - it just means that the baby falls out of his mother's female parts in the US. Parents, grandparents, nothing else matters - it's just the location of the mom at the time of birth.
I guess the JFK conspiracy was getting too old & losing its glamour, so some people needed a new conspiracy. Ergo: the birthers.
Birthers: a lunatic, racist fringe hate group. Maybe they'll do us all a favor & commit mass suicide like the guys in California with the new tennis shoes & $5 bills in their pockets.
2:51 pm
Oy, the Post. Maybe it's not such a good thing that the Stanley Kaplan money keeps coming in. Prolongs the agony. Seventy-five cents to read Paul Farhi reheat wire copy and Liza Mundy to profile long-overexposed conspiracy whores. Not worth it. Even the online edition is too expensive.
11:55 pm
We are all adults here, and as adults we know there are consequences for are actions, so if you do not agree with his policies, you can a) do nothing, b) support him, c) not support him, d) protest and picket, its your choice, live the dream! As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I would not bet the farm on this one. She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a crazy Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all these legal filings, her travel and all her wigs? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I heard they are now playing the victim card as well. Please, feel sorry for us the “Birth Certificate” that we built our entire case around and that we have been dancing around turn out to be a big “Fake”. Her material might work on “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.
1:20 am
@Marshall and others like him:
The reason no one wants to debate you or Orly Taitz or any "birther" is simple: You will never admit to being wrong. So why bother?
8:00 am
@R
It almost brought tears of joy to my eyes to finally see someone show enough curiousity to do a little research. On the other hand, "Angry Al Gonzales" you are to go to the corner, put on a dunce cap, and are given 10 demerits for your ignorant factless outbursts.
Now starting with your finding:
"I found a case that is still good law on the issue of whether a child born to non-U.S. citizens in one of these United States is a natural-born citizen. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649)."
My research strongly indicates that the SCOTUS pulled a boner on this case and got it wrong. For example see: "Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?"
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
This atrocious decision purposefully ignored all legal precident and created out of thin air a new meaning for the words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I don't think this case will stand up to an unbiased legal review by the SCOTUS. Also see:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Your statement:
Jus soli is the rule in England, jus soli is the rule here.
In response:
"The common law of England is not the common law of these States." -George Mason
It is true that the common law of England considered all born in their domain to be "natural born subjects". However, our founding fathers vigorously rejected that definition in the US. Instead they used the concept of "Natural Law" or "National Law" to define natural born citizenship. In fact, several said they took much of their inspiration for US law from Emer de Vattel's "Law of Nations", not the common law of England. See this article for more details than I can provide in this short reply:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
This article includes numerous quotes from the founding fathers and later representatives regarding the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement and why birth on US soil alone is not sufficient to be considered a natural born citizen. The citizenship of the father (Jus sanguinis) is the controlling factor in the citizenship and allegiance of the child.
Finally to @creativemeat, argue with some facts that are convincing and I might just change my mind. I am not dogmatic about this issue, only convinced (so far) by the evidence that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement.
11:40 am
Marshall,
You are an idiot. You clearly don't know what a natural born citizen means. As others have already noted, it has nothing to do with whether one of your parents is foreign born or not. It has to do with being born in this country.
Again, I will say this: take your small head out of your enormous ass and get the fuck out of our country. Get a life and an education. I pity your small mind and I pity your children.
1:27 pm
@huh?
It appears my response to R. above is awaiting moderation for some reason, so you probably have not yet seen it. So, I'll ignore your defamatory comments about me as spoken in complete and utter ignorance. Your statement about me not knowing what a natural born citizen means is without merit since you don't offer any support for your view. Its just another unsupported opinion/belief. When my previous response is approved and published you will see that I deal in facts not emotion or blind faith.
And again, your personal attack on me shows you have no substance/facts with which to debate. Furthermore, your unnecessary use of vulgarity suggests a low level of education and a poor upbringing (no manners or respect for other people). You know nothing about me or my level of education (but I can assure you it is much, much higher than yours).
2:16 pm
Where are your facts you punk bitch? Where? Where? Did you pull them out of your ass? Make them up? Find them on a blog somewhere? Put 'em up!!! Post your evidence.
You are the definition of a punk bitch. You are beyond ignorant. I don't give a fuck how much education you say you have. Did you get a PhD in ignorance from Liberty University?
Everyone who reads this knows that you are an ignorant fuck. You don't know anything about me, but I know everything I need to know about you to call you a punk bitch.
2:53 pm
While I hate the fact that my hommie McCain screwed up by picking the Idiot Eskimo, I do want to say something about this idiotic birther issue. What the hell has happened to our party? Have we gotten so bitter and petty, that we need to resort to these sort of tactics. This lady is a lunatic and anyone who gives credence to her is as stupid. It doesn't matter if you were born on Mars, if one of your parents is Citizen of the US, you are automatically a Citizen. Marshall, you stupidity confounds me. You're the reason why our party will never be able to get back to Reaganish greatness... you dumbbass. Yes, I got personal but I personally believe that stupidity should be outlawed (I know W would have been in jail for life, but still).
Here is the data. Try reading:
Natural-born citizen
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
-Anyone born inside the United States *
-Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
-Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
-Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
-Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
-A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
3:33 pm
This is an attept to get around the moderation delay, it is cut and pasted from the response that is waiting for approval
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@R
It almost brought tears of joy to my eyes to finally see someone show enough curiousity to do a little research. On the other hand, “Angry Al Gonzales” you are to go to the corner, put on a dunce cap, and are given 10 demerits for your ignorant factless outbursts.
Now starting with your finding:
“I found a case that is still good law on the issue of whether a child born to non-U.S. citizens in one of these United States is a natural-born citizen. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649).”
My research strongly indicates that the SCOTUS pulled a boner on this case and got it wrong. For example see: “Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?”
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
This atrocious decision purposefully ignored all legal precident and created out of thin air a new meaning for the words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. I don’t think this case will stand up to an unbiased legal review by the SCOTUS. Also see:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Your statement:
Jus soli is the rule in England, jus soli is the rule here.
In response:
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” -George Mason
It is true that the common law of England considered all born in their domain to be “natural born subjects”. However, our founding fathers vigorously rejected that definition in the US. Instead they used the concept of “Natural Law” or “National Law” to define natural born citizenship. In fact, several said they took much of their inspiration for US law from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, not the common law of England. See this article for more details than I can provide in this short reply:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
This article includes numerous quotes from the founding fathers and later representatives regarding the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement and why birth on US soil alone is not sufficient to be considered a natural born citizen. The citizenship of the father (Jus sanguinis) is the controlling factor in the citizenship and allegiance of the child.
Finally to @creativemeat, argue with some facts that are convincing and I might just change my mind. I am not dogmatic about this issue, only convinced (so far) by the evidence that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement.
@ANRepublic
Great desciption of how you can be a US citizen, but it still doesn't describe a "natural born" citizen.
3:41 pm
Let me try one more time to get around the moderator delay by modifying the http links (replace h**p with http).
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
This is an attept to get around the moderation delay, it is cut and pasted from the response that is waiting for approval
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@R
It almost brought tears of joy to my eyes to finally see someone show enough curiousity to do a little research. On the other hand, “Angry Al Gonzales” you are to go to the corner, put on a dunce cap, and are given 10 demerits for your ignorant factless outbursts.
Now starting with your finding:
“I found a case that is still good law on the issue of whether a child born to non-U.S. citizens in one of these United States is a natural-born citizen. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)(available at h**p://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649).”
My research strongly indicates that the SCOTUS pulled a boner on this case and got it wrong. For example see: “Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?”
h**p://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
This atrocious decision purposefully ignored all legal precident and created out of thin air a new meaning for the words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. I don’t think this case will stand up to an unbiased legal review by the SCOTUS. Also see:
h**p://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Your statement:
Jus soli is the rule in England, jus soli is the rule here.
In response:
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” -George Mason
It is true that the common law of England considered all born in their domain to be “natural born subjects”. However, our founding fathers vigorously rejected that definition in the US. Instead they used the concept of “Natural Law” or “National Law” to define natural born citizenship. In fact, several said they took much of their inspiration for US law from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, not the common law of England. See this article for more details than I can provide in this short reply:
h**p://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
This article includes numerous quotes from the founding fathers and later representatives regarding the purpose of the natural born citizen requirement and why birth on US soil alone is not sufficient to be considered a natural born citizen. The citizenship of the father (Jus sanguinis) is the controlling factor in the citizenship and allegiance of the child.
Finally to @creativemeat, argue with some facts that are convincing and I might just change my mind. I am not dogmatic about this issue, only convinced (so far) by the evidence that Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement.
@ANRepublic
Great desciption of how you can be a US citizen, but it still doesn’t describe a “natural born” citizen.
4:22 pm
Marshall,
Where the fuck is your evidence. Stop giving us your bullshit analysis of Supreme Court decisions and give us your proof. Blogpostings are not evidence.
Essentially what you are saying is that you want to make up any definition to "natural born" that you want. You are pathetic.
This is my last posting about this because I'm tired of bashing you, though I wish that I could keep it up.
Now is the time for you to formulate a plan for moving out of your mother's basement. Once you hit 50, it will get harder and harder.
4:29 pm
Marshall, well, I guess I wasted my time pasting, straight from US Code, describing exactly what the definition of a Natural Born Citizen is. You arguement hinges of your belief that this means something else. I don't see how you can refute this, since it's essentially US Law, unless you think the Constitution is a just a big conspiracy. I should have known better than to try to reason with an idiot. Republicans are doom... woe is me.
4:42 pm
@Marshall Thompson,
You are correct, when you point out, we have facts and evidence, while they have insults and myths.
We can point to the CERTIFICATION they claim is true, but they can't see the original vital statistic records, which they claim are unnecessary, that can answer the question.
We want the truth, and they trust a liar.
We can point to hard documents signed by Nancy Pelosi, and notarized, claiming she vetted her candidates, while they all think Pelosi, or some mythical entity vetted their candidates.
We have hard evidence from Arizona, signed by Barack Obama, claiming he is constitutionally qualified for POTUS, and they trust him, while he hides his records from scrutiny.
How am I doing so far?
They voted for a person because of his color, we voted for the character with experience and qualifications.
5:41 pm
KEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 83 - MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING EX PARTE
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818334/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-83-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-DENYING-EX-PARTE-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-OF-DISCOVERY-82-Gov
6:30 pm
@ANRepublic
You didn't give a link for your post, so I was not able to verify the information and how it was presented in the original document. However, after reading what you posted, it did not say anything about a "natural born" citizen, it only discussed how to be a "citizen". And yes, I contend they are not the same thing.
The following clipped section from one of my referenced articles is what I think is the correct understanding of "natural born" citizen:
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
-=-=-=-
@huh?
Thanks for agreeing to stop the childish insults. You only missing and socking yourself anyway. The evidence you seem to have missed is in the quotes and links inside the referenced articles, not necessarily the articles themselves (though the arguments and explanations are quite helpful).
-=-=-=-
One final note, when you boil down the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court only declared Wong Kim Ark to be a citizen (I think wrongly, but it is what it is) not a "natural born" citizen which is the question at hand. Here is the pertinent section:
VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for by our law, as solemnly declared by congress, 'the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people,' and 'any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States, which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent wth the fundamental principles of the republic.' Rev. St. 1999, re-enacting Act July 27, 1868, c. 249, 1 ( 15 Stat. 223, 224). Whether any act of himself, or of his parents, during his minority, could have the same effect, is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry, inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about 17 years old, and the otherf or something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States; and 'that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [169 U.S. 649, 705] for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.'
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
6:06 pm
I LOVE BIRTHERS! Their pure, unadulterated insanity just makes the Republican Party so distasteful to the undecided moderates that they push people away in droves. They're like the tax protesters who don't believe the IRS is empowered to impose taxes, or Sarah Palin, who simply offends intelligent women with her dope-speak. The more publicity for Orly Taitz, and Marshall Thompson, the better!
9:38 pm
@Hondo Howard
Come on in and join the fact free crowd. Remember to always attack the person and never debate the issues. This is a constitutional issue not a political issue (I'm not sure McCain is a natural born citizen either). Besides, it was first brought up by one of Hillary's supporters not the Republicans. I'll let you in on a secret, I didn't vote for either Obama or McCain last year because both are kiss'n cousins as far as their philosophy goes (socialism). But even that doesn't matter in this issue. Either Obama is a natural born citizen or he is not. From my research, I think he could be a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. If you've got something meaningful to say I'll listen. Otherwise....
12:03 pm
@Marshall Thompson:
There is no "debating the issues" with birfers. You have proven this. There are no issues. The only reason that this nonsense gets any attention is because it is a welcome distraction, a bit of fluffy gossip before going to work. At least, that's what it is for me. Birfers love to cut and paste non-legal documents "proving" all kinds of things about natural born citizens. And it's hilarious!
Here's a question for you: if a president has to have both parents born in the U.S., how could Andrew Jackson have been president (both parents born in Scotland)?
For a fairly good overview of the "natural born citizen" non-issue, look here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp.
Now I'm going to go do work. But I'll check back some time, because this stuff is just too damn precious!
12:47 pm
@EK
Andrew Jackson was "grandfathered" in to be eligible.
'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president.' Article 2, 1.
Since he was a citizen of the US at the time the constitution was adopted, no problemo. Note that no natural born citizen would have been old enough to be eligible for the presidency until 1824 (1789 + 35 = 1824).
And yes, I cut and pasted that section from the Constitution.
4:04 pm
Yr birther hero just got a huge fine:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/judgement_day_birther_taitz_fined_20000_for.php?ref=fpb
5:25 pm
Wow, this shit is still going on. I can't believe it.
Marshall, I must say you are the most entertaining, ignorant piece of shit that's posted up here in a long time.
It is amazing how you can repeat the same thing over and over and over and believe it's true without a single shred of evidence. Seriously. AMAZING.
3:58 pm
@huh?
It is amazing that you still resort to vulgarity and personal attacks to "try" to make some point (likely a sign of a debased and stunted personality). I HAVE posted links to various references that support my understanding of what the term "natural born" citizen means. Did you bother to read these articles? No need to answer, of course you didn't. The knowledge you might gain may threaten your preconceived notions regarding Obama's citizenship status.
Again, for the mentally slow (yes huh?, that means you), the term "natural born" citizen was clearly understood by our founding fathers and representatives to be a child who is born on US territory to parents are both US citizens. Here is a recent confirmation that this understanding is still correct:
-=-=-=-
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: (Resolution 511)
Chairman Leahy. "We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe-and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind-I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?"
Secretary Chertoff. "My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen."
Chairman Leahy. "That is mine, too. Thank you."
-=-=-=-
The natural born citizen requirement for the president was to ensure that there would no divided loyalties with another foreign country. For example:
-=-=-=-
St. George Tucker:
"That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. ... The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora's Box."
and,
President George Washington:
"passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,"
"Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation, of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill- will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearance of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation."
-=-=-=-
So, it is foolishness to think that citizen = natural born citizen as some do when they bring up the US vs Wong Kim Ark court case. If the two terms meant the same thing, the natural born citizen requirement would not make any sense.