text:
Whitehall Man Aiming to Remove Obama from PA Ballot
Letter to the state secretary argues that Obama is not legally allowed to run for president.
Barack Obama does not have the legal right to be President of the United States.
Such is the claim of Thomas Barchfeld, a Whitehall Borough resident from Glen Elm Drive and a member of the Whitehall Borough Republican Committee. And Barchfeld says that he has proof.
The 56-year-old former Democrat—he switched parties in 2011—has been going to the homes of registered Republicans in Whitehall (a Pittsburgh suburb) with a letter that he has written to Pennsylvania Secretary Carol Aichele claiming that Obama's natural-born citizenry is in serious question.
In fact, to Barchfeld, there is no doubt.
While Barchfeld does not directly question Obama's birthplace—the president was born in Hawaii in 1961—he instead focuses on Obama's parents. That's parents with an "s," and according to Barchfeld, that's extremely important.
Barchfeld points out that the U.S. Constitution requires the country's presidents to be "natural born citizens" (or citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution) but that the document does not detail exactly what that means. While common understanding has held that those born in the United States qualify to be president, Barchfeld objects, pointing to an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Minor v. Happersett that has never been overturned in which the court ruled that a natural-born citizen can only be someone born in the United States to citizen parents.
As text from the Minor v. Happersett decision reads, "The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, was born in Kansas, but his father, Barack Obama Sr., who was born in Kenya, was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his son's birth and never became one.
"The founding fathers never defined the term 'natural born citizen,'" Barchfeld argues, which he then says allows only for court precedent—such as the Minor v. Happersett case—to be used when determining the lawfulness of Obama's presidency.
"The Supreme Court defines it as both parents being U.S. citizens," Barchfeld says.
Barchfeld has been taking his letter around to residents in Whitehall's Third Precinct (the Snyder Park area, roughly, including Par and Southvue drives, among others) in hopes that Obama does not appear on Pennsylvania's presidential ballot in 2012. The letter is designed for each resident to sign his or her name on it and send it to Aichele.
Barchfeld is doing this as a private citizen, he says, not as a representative of the Whitehall Republican Committee.
A similar attempt to remove Obama's name from the presidential ballot in Georgia at a hearing in that state on Jan. 26 can be viewed on YouTube.
Neither the president nor his Georgia attorney, Michael Jablonski, showed for that Georgia hearing, but Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi, of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, still ruled that Obama's name should be eligible for Georgia's ballot.
"He (Obama) became a citizen at birth," Malihi wrote in his decision on Feb. 3, "and is a natural born citizen."
That hasn't stopped Barchfeld, who says that he voted conservatively even when he was a Democrat, from trying in Pennsylvania.
"I don't like his policies," Barchfeld said of Obama, but he maintained that his personal feelings aren't as important as upholding the law. "It is a constitutional issue."
But Bruce Ledewitz, a professor for the Duquesne University School of Law for over 30 years, is not convinced.
"It doesn't matter," Ledewitz said. "Since the 1870s, we've treated people born here as citizens ... That's been the understanding."
Ledewitz was asked if Barchfeld's argument over the "natural born citizens" aspect holds any water.
"No," Ledewitz said. "And I'm not speaking about whether he's a good president or a bad president or anything else. It's just accepted law that people born in the United States are natural-born citizens. That's just been the understanding for a long time.
"It has nothing to do with Obama you understand. If you were born here, you're a natural-born citizen."
Barchfeld takes issue with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney running for the presidency, as well, since Romney's father, George Romney, was born in Mexico. (George Romney's parents, however, were both U.S. citizens. In fact, George ran for the U.S. presidency in 1968.)
Nevertheless, Barchfeld has not taken action on his concerns over Mitt Romney's candidacy as he has with Obama's.
The last paragraph of Barchfeld's letter (available in the media gallery near the top of this page) sums up his thoughts on Obama's candidacy in Pennsylvania.
"I am saddened that it seems very possible that the largest hoax in American history has been perpetrated on the people of America, undoubtedly this is just the tip of the iceberg in a very sordid tale. I am just a citizen of this State, and I only needed mere hours to find this information which is readily available. Now I call on each and every member of both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature as well as the Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth to uphold the Constitution that you have sworn to protect."
Thoughts on the legality of Obama's candidacy? Share them in the comments section below.
Follow the Baldwin-Whitehall Patch on Facebook and Twitter.
Sign up for the daily Baldwin-Whitehall newsletter.
Nancy Robinson
8:03 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Straining at gnats. This fellow apparently just doesn't like President Obama and just had to find a way to delegitimize him. If this is all he can come up with, I'd say the President is on solid ground.
10:55 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
People have the civil right to make asses of themselves so long as they don't make the same of us. Obama is a citizen of the US and has been since his birth in Hawaii. No amount of gyrations will make it any other way. Obama is also a man of color, which is probably what the coded message behind the citiizenship flap is indicating. If you can't stand that a man of color is in the Oval Office, citizenship is the only "gentlemanly" way of using the "N" word.
Kathy Smelser
11:31 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
i think that we have already met enough crazy people from PA ....just some tool wanting 10min. of fame ...this is just stupid
Bob Foley
11:37 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
If the idea that both parents have to be citizens. Then what will we do with all the Mexican Women who come here on the 8 month of pregnancy have thier baby here ? Then the baby is declared a US. Citizen and recieves welfare benifits from taxes we pay into and the Mother never did before
William Eib
1:03 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mr. Barchfield missed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), This ruling negates the earlier ruling of Minor v. Happersett. I hope this guy has deep pockets and an ego that can take some crushing. Why do they spend their time on this crap. Orly Taitz should be lesson enough on the fools errand these people go on in their attempt to get rid of the Negro in The Oval Office.
Hot-Rod Diggty Johnson
1:24 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mick205 your suggestion is to depot actual children who are actually citizens. My wife is from Poland. My children are just as American as you are. (Slippery Slope). Your suggestion (in fact Barchfeld's suggestion) is that Americans cannot marry (or have children) with none Americans cause the resulting offspring have no citizenship. I believe that is called crazy.
Hot-Rod Diggty Johnson
1:30 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
And no Mick205, my wife was not a citizen when my children were born. If Obama's dad was in the country legally (which I presume he was on a student visa), then there is absolutely no reason that children he (or any other foreigners visiting this country) might have would not be citizens if one of their parents is a citizen. We actually give legal status to anyone born here (even if both their parents aren't). I believe you refer to them as anchor babies. Barchfeld's desire to have a president he likes is not a good legal argument.
1:33 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mr. Eib, may I make a small correction?
Wong Kim Ark does not negate Minor. The two cases address different questions. Minor is about voting rights and was overturned by the 19th Amendment to our Constitution. Wong Kim Ark affirms that birth in the US defines citizenship.
Mr. Barchfield missed United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), This ruling negates the earlier ruling of Minor v. Happersett. I hope this guy has deep pockets and an ego that can take some crushing. Why do they spend their time on this crap. Orly Taitz should be lesson enough on the fools errand these people go on in their attempt to get rid of the Negro in The Oval Office.
2:20 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
the fact that he didn't include Romney in this shows that it's purely prejudiced against President Obama--but that's the repub way--half truths if any at all to get what they want
5:20 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I don't give a crap whether he hates Obama or not...
It's a whole different realm when it comes to being president. There absolutely SHOULD be a law requiring both parents to be citizens at the time of birth to run for president. And just to remind you that Mitt Romney's parents were BOTH citizens at the time of his birth so Barchfeld shouldn't even be attacking Mitt in the first place!
Mary Prange
12:42 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The following American presidents had parents who were NOT born in America....
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,
James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother was born respectively Canada.
Does this mean those people were never president either????
Tommy Thompson
12:50 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
wow I can't believe the complete lack of understanding of the issue in these comments. There is a difference between "citizen" and "natural born citizen". The president and vice president are the only two offices in the land that require this special natural born citizenship status and it was done for a reason by our founding fathers. I also read here that Wong Kim Ark overrules minor v happersett...that is beyond ridiculous. Get your facts straight before you make a comment...please. Wong was declared a "CITIZEN" not a natural born citizen....read the case...not what someone told you it said.
Peter Fuller
11:32 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Hey Tommy T, it is you who needs to get your facts straight.
The founding fathers could have easily stated that to be able to be president both your parents had to be citizens. But they did not.
A natural born citizen is a person who gains citizenship by birth.
In the Wong Kim Ark case he was declared a citizen because he was born in the United States and he obtained his citizenship by birth, therefore he was a natural born citizen.
I know the arguments people make about the Wong case, specifically that there are other types of citizens but I disagree, you are either born a citizen (natural born citizen) or you obtain citizenship after birth,
11:51 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@Tommy Thompson: Yes, there is a difference between citizen and natural born citizen. Citizens is comprised of two types of citizen, natural born(Obama) and naturalized(Schwarzenegger). That's it, only 2 types of citizen as per SCOTUS. President Obama is eligible, Arnie is not. That's why that phrase is in the constitution, so naturalized citizens couldn't be President. Easy as pie.
1:38 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Nancy....I lived durting the Bill Ayer's era, the killing of John Kennedy, his brother & Martin Luther King...An AGENDA for America has been in place since the 1930's...If you think that politics hasn't been in "play" for decades to provide something other than the Freedom & Liberty of America, then you haven't done YOUR homework. Look up George Soros, One World Order &, Foreign Trade Zones for starters. If this doesn't show you what's been going on in this world since before you were born, then you'll have to considered one of the "Convenient Idiots" who unfortunately can vote. The wonderful thing about today is that so much information is available in an instant...24/7/365! So while you're at it, look up "The Apollo Group"....THEY wrote the Health Care Bill which explains why NO ONE READ IT IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY before they rammed it down the throats of the American people. But, Nancy, as an American Citizen, which I presume you are, YOU HAVE A DUTY, OBLIGATION AND A RESPONSIBILITY AS AN AMERICAN TO DEFEND THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES! THE "REPUBLIC" that has made the United States of America the greatest nation on the face of this earth. I also suggest that you start reading the Constitution of the United States as well as the Bill of Rights.& one more thought ..the "Ten Commandments" are NOT the "TEN Suggestions" for a meaningful & fulfilling life....wouldn't it be great if people actually lived them.. there would be NO CORRUPTION IN OUR GOVERNMENT!
11:50 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Everyone here believes that they have some semblance of the TRUTH....how about this truth....OBAMA IS NOT THE FIRST "BLACK" PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.........HE IS THE FIRST "BI-RACIAL" PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.....but when you read his books, he adamantly refutes his "WHITE" heritage......imagine that!....especially since he flew to Hawaii to be by his WHITE GRANDMOTHER'S SIDE as she was dying and she "raised him" ....these are HIS words, NOT mine! Read it! If CAIN was elected, HE WOULD BE THE FIRST TRUE BLACK PRESIDENT....not OBAMA.
8:04 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
William...when someone yelled "FIRE", they TOLD YOU IN 2008 where the EXITS WERE, but you were convinced that those who love America hated her. You are so predictable....so "GOTTCHA"...game on! From everything I've read that you've written, you wouldn't recognize the "exit doors" if they were standing wide open with lights shining on them! What part of a 16 trillion dollar deficit and it's effect on AMERICA'S National Security do you not understand. Whether you're an open SOCIALIST, as you state you are, or not! What part of an unacceptable UNEMPLOYMENT number, which has been verified by the top economist that really is 19.2%, NOT 8.3 %, after billions of taxpayer dollars (YOURS & MINE TOO!) were infused into the economy do you not get? What freedom have you lost you ask?...How about your freedom to have your own relationship with your own doctor for one...does Obamacare ring any bells? Are you from a state in our great nation that the FEDERAL Government is suing? ..if so, what happened to your STATES RIGHTS now being trampled on by this over reaching administration telling the State that you pay taxes into that they can't enforce their laws!
8:15 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
cont'd..What about YOUR rights to NOT be subjected to VOTER INTIMIDATION like those poor voters in 2008 that were starred down by the billy clubs of the New Black Panthers…what happened to their rights?…YOURS might be next!
What is the ROLE of Government that you want in your life William??? Please don't bother telling me…just think about it in a mature rational way, if you can. Unfortunately, it appears that you have way too much time on your hands to put your "Hatred" down in writing. Of all of the people on this "comment of opinion" site, you're the most mean spirited & demonstrate such lack of respect that I have read. Obviously you didn't understand that CDR meant "Commander"..Someone who served in the Service of our Government to preserve the right of your free speech. You should be totally ashamed of yourself,but your comments reflect a total lock of respect for not only the rights of others but for yourself as well. On the other hand, William, GAME OFF! I have far more important things in life to be doing rather than having any interaction with YOU! BTW, A decorated military commander in my great state just filed a lawsuit against Obama's eligibility to be on our state's ballot! TOO BAD WE'RE NOT ALL AS SMART AS YOU WILLIAM! But I think you might be like the fox that OUTSMARTED himself! LOL
8:25 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
William…take a Chill Pill or I guess the next thing you'll be doing is finding out who I am so you can sue me like the guy who just had a heart attack at the 'Heart Attack" restaurant that NO ONE made him go in to!….LOL!
8:25 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
You're Off the Reservation William! The TRUTH hurts doesn't it!
8:27 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
But Since you refered to someone as "Elderly"....I'd bet you're just a young whipper snapper still green behind the ears, aren't cha!
8:28 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
keep up your "rant" and I'll bet that you'll never be OLD....someone will bring your smart attitude and mouth to an END...and one I'm sure you won't like!
William Eib
10:08 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
This is the kind of person who goes outside and gets wet to see if it's raining, regardless of haw many people have come in from the rain with wet umbrellas and shoes. He also could use a life. Get out more. Have some fun, get away from the propaganda that encourages this behavior. Most people who are researching an issue will, if they care, read the opposing point of view and the most updated circumstances surrounding the issue. Orly Taitz lost to an empty table in Georgia with the same information this guy is using. United States v Wong Kim Ark settled this back in 1896.
William Eib
1:21 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mike205: Classic simple solution, send them back where they came from, the babies are from here. And like every other baby in America, we hope that given the opportunity they will grow up and earn an income and therefore pay taxes which will be used for future babies of America. Obama, is in for 4 trillion of that deficit. Wars don't pay for them selves, nor does the pentagon, congresses salaries and health benefits (for them and their families for life) Can't run a country on nothing although the Teahadists seem to think you can.
William Eib
1:46 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
ROALD: Thank you for the correction, my intention was to show that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) negated the position Mr. Barchfield took based on Minor. Thanks for the comment. Gave me an opportunity to clarified and taught me about the difference in the 2 rulings. Cheers.
11:19 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Oh, Cathy.....Thomas Barchfeld has a life and is standing up for his belief in our US Constitutiona.
1:21 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Cathy....while I may or may not agree with "Thomas Barchfeld" it is YOUR RHETORIC that attempts to SILENCE opinion & true debate in America. Shame on YOU!
Jeff Kress
8:13 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Thomas Barchfeld, you need to get a life! You Republicans are so scared that Obama is going to be re-elected that you will do ANYTHING to prevent that from happening! Your desperation is showing. You are only embarrassing yourself.
1:59 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Jeff..did you MISS the 2010 November Election when the Republicans took back the House & 114 State Houses all over this nation changed from Democrats to Republicans. Yes, we are SCARED and you should be too! Do you enjoy higher food & gasoline prices? 17% + unemployment? Dependency on Foreign Oil when America has plenty? do you WANT to be told who your doctor will be and what services you can have? or if you are a religioius person who is "pro-life", do you want the GOVT. to provide a service (abortion & the morning after pill) that YOU personally do not support? Do you want to send 700 Million + dollars to rebuild Mosques in foreign countries? Do you want the government to tell your child or grandchildren what they can bring to school for LUNCH? Do you want our legislators to have insider trading information so that they can make Millions of Dollars while we,the little folks our here in America, who have invested in AMERICA...stocks, bonds, etc. LOSE our money? Do you want to Bail Out ANY Business that made bad investments so that they can continue on using YOUR MONEY? Do you think that I should pay your monthly mortgage if you DEFAULT due to your poor decisions? You would be absolutely SHOCKED to learn how many "UNION FOLKS" are NOT for the continuation of this administration & certainly NOT for supporting policies that have cost them their JOBS, their homes, their health care insurance. Please look up George Soros, One World Order & Foreign Trade Zones! You'll see!
2:16 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Jeff....Ask yourself just one question....WHAT IS THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT? I have immigrant friends who are SCARED to DEATH that America is going to turn into the countries that they LEFT for a better life here in America. Seek them out Jeff....they'll be happy to tell you! Why do you think people want to come here in the first place? THINK ABOUT IT! I am not a Republican or a Democrat...I an an independent CONSERVATIVE...I am willing to stand up to what I have already seen happen in my lifetime & in the country that I fought for....This is NOT the America I grew up in...TRUST ME....YOUR life, if you are a young person, WILL NOT BE LIKE MINE WAS...tHIS IS THE FIRST GENERATION OF LEGISLATORS THAT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PASS ALONG A BETTER AMERICA FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. Look at what is happening in Europe, Greece specifically. One of our problems is that we have MORE VOTERS THAN WE HAVE TAXPAYERS...all standing in line for Government Handouts...Remember, the government makes NOTHING & EARNS NO MONEY TO PAY IT'S BILLS, all of their money comes from the TAXPAYERS...YOU & ME! & WITH THE RISING 15 Trillion dollar DEBT, WE ARE GOING TO BE TAXED FROM CRADDLE TO OUR DEATH! ...This isn't how America became the greatest nation on the face of the earth, a WORLD SUPER POWER! I urge you to become a CONSERVATIVE INDEPENDENT & restore our great nation to the principles & values of our Founding Fathers, the wise men that they were.
NB resident
8:29 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Cathy made me lol seriously with that comment
9:24 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
LIFE ? We have no LIFE now ! Only government MANDATES !
Whats next ? Speak now or your Constitutional Freedoms will be lost forever - one way or another !
Take your pick - They are! VOTE
Rene Thomas
1:12 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
so your answer to preserving constitutional freedom is to take Obama's from him. that's the problem with republicans...the hypocrisy. you only believe in freedom when it benefits you or supports your belief system.
Hot-Rod Diggty Johnson
1:36 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Billee, I'm sure you can only name one government mandate. Guess where the ideal came from? It was a Conservative scheme hatched to make people take (I believe they called it personal responsibility). Most Liberals preferred a government run system. Anyway, this Conservative scheme was first tested by Republican governor Mitt Romney in Massachusetts (where I hear that it seems to mostly be working well). So Obama, being appreciative of all good ideals, got the same people that helped Mitt and crafted the same plan for the whole nation. I'm sure that if Bush had implement ACA, that you'd have no problems with government mandates.
12:01 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Billee...you are in fact correct! Why do you think the TEA PARTY came to life and is to this day "ALIVE & WELL"! PEOPLE have engaged in the political process not because it's "fun"...it's not! PEOPLE have engaged because it's a matter of Life & Death.....the LIfe of our Constitution & the Bill of Rights....OR IT'S DEATH! While many will go back to the "comforts or discomforts" of their every day living after the 2012 Election is over, the majority of Americans will realize that that won't be possible....AMERICANS will have to STAY ENGAGED for many years in order to undo the destructive path that our nation has been on "under the radar". The Tea Party groups instinctively know that America has strayed from the morals, values & principles of our Founding Fathers...and it is this CONSERVATIVE UPRISING that RESTORE AMERICA. For those out there like "William" who openly state that they are a SOCIALIST, please go to those Nations that are under a SOCIALIST government where you'll be free to practice SOCIALISM.......AMERICA is NOT SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST OR MARXIST....AMERICA IS A "REPUBLIC" AND HAS BEEN FOR OVER 200 YEARS! In AMERICA, you can VOTE for what you believe in and the majority of America wants a REPUBLIC....and so do those suppressed under SOCIALISM & COMMUNISM.
12:20 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Hot Rod Diggity Johnson...."Conservativism" DOES require PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY...as it should. Are YOU responsible for YOUR NEIGHBOR if they kill someone?...or if they decide to have 20 children...are you responsible to financially support them? If they decide to NOT pay their mortgage, is it YOUR responsiblity to pay it for them? If they decide to SMOKE, DO DRUGS, DRINK ALCOHOL IN EXCESS, are YOU responsible for their health choices? IF ANY business makes bad financial decisions, is it YOUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBLITY to "BAIL THEM OUT"?... Personal Responsibility should be the goal of EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN AMERICA....regardless of race, color or creed. Unfortunately, many of the government programs, originally designed to truly help people in their time of need, have turned into the programs that actually create the "let the government help me" mentallity....the "ENTITLEMENT" that is falsely understood. The PRIME example of the "unintended consequence" of the continuation of these policies is GREECE. ....this is coming to AMERICA unless we get our fiscal house in order...and the first place to start is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! I have NO problems helping people, but I don't want to HELP THEM to take FINANCIAL OR MORAL ADVANTAGE of those who have HELPED THEM!
William Eib
6:03 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
BILLEE: I think your comment is a might bit alarmist. If you're going to yell fire in a theater, at least have the common decency to tell us where the exits are.
It would help me, in order to heed your warning, to know specifically what the "only government Mandates" means/are, also if you could, which Constitutional Freedoms am I losing? It's very difficult to absorb the serious of your warning by your use of captalized words and exclamation marks. You have broadcast quite a profound warning, and I am not being facetious, I truely want to know.
10:10 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
I always like how they leave out the very next sentence "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
So, as you can see, it does NOT limit it to only 2 citizen parents. And, in that same case, they go on to state that there are only 2 types of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. So, he's running around and actually proving the President's case that he's eligible. Wonder if he'd be working so hard if he realized he was working for the President and not against him?
7:53 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Minor vs. Happarsett did not rule on the question of natural born citizen. It ruled only on a State's right to limit voting to men only. The comments on citizenship were just that:comments and have no legal standing as they were not part of the Court's ruling..
The reference to legal writings in the mid 1800's have no bearing on the Constitutional meaning in 1787 of natural born citizen. The United States lived under English Common Law, which among other things, defined a citizen ( or subject in Britain) as one born within the country. The parentage has no bearing on citizenship, as it did in many European (non English ) countries. Colonial Americans were very possessive of their English Common Law and in the Declaration of Independance charged the king with " abolishing the free system of English law in a neighboring province" referring to Canada and the Kings allowing French law over English law.
So in compliance with the than understood and intended meaning of natural born citizen, anyone born within the US is a natural born citizen. End of story !
10:21 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Ledewitz, you are an idiot. Turn to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in your pocket constitution. Clause 5 introduces 2 distinctions. First, it distinguishes between
a) people alive during the adoption of the constitution and b) everyone else. Second, it distinguishes between a) citizens--which the Framers surely were themselves since who would set up a country and not make themselves citizens???!!!!--and b) natural born citizens? Answer that question you idiot Ledewitz!!!
The distinctions found within Clause 5:
1A) Citizens alive during the adoption of the constitution
1B) Everyone else
2A) Citizens (see 1A)
2B) Natural Born Citizens
These idiots like Ledewitz keep referring to laws and rulings which clarify plain citizenship as if it were relevant to natural born citizenship. That is stupid on stilts. If the Framers intended plain citizens to be eligible to be president, they wouldn't have created the grandfather clause allowing themselves to be President. Because obviously THEY WERE CITIZENS!!!!!! THEY CREATED THE GOVERNMENT!!! Yet, they found themselves to be ineligible to be President because they weren't natural born citizens.
Additionally, the people painting this as a purely partisan issue are incorrect. Challenges to Romney and Santorum (and even Paul) have been filed with the courts.
11:38 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
If you want truth see Arkeny v. Governor, 916 NE2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). It is completely on point and clearly states that President Obama is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the US Constitution. Don't become Orly Taitz. Life is too short.
1:02 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
So good to find someone who understands. I shall add to yours.
People no one is sayinf BO is not a citizen because he is, I'll show you.
BOs mother born in US and is a citizen=BO is a US citizen
BOs father born in Africa under United Kingdon of British=BO is UK citizen
BO was born with two (2) citizenships .. he has dual citizenship
Now in order tp be president of US The US Constitution requires "natural born Citizen," not just a citizen. In order to be a "natural born Citizen both parents have to be US citizens. This is upheld by the US Supreme Court ruling in Minor V Happensett which has never been over ruled.
The US Constitution requires only to be a citizen for all the other offices but wants the highest office of president and vice-president to be by "natural born Citizens" not hard to under stand, now is it.
When Dem submitted BO in last election they did not confirm him as a confirmed candidate for the office of president and no body caught the wording so his name was placed on ballots across the US and guess what...the biggest lies ever told has occured. There is a cover up in place. Judge in GA understood about natural born citizen and had planned on not allowing BO on the ballot, someone changed his mind.
That is happening all around the States. But as more and more citizens like you and me come to understand what has happened....We The People get stronger and stronger and we will be able to right this wrong!
Hope I was able to help.
1:10 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
thats where the 14 year rule played in....after the Revolution, in order to run for president, your parents had to have lived in the former colonies for at least 14 years....and later that rule became moot as they died out.
Rene Thomas
1:18 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
silly question....weren't most of the founders the offspring of at least one non-citizen?
2:14 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Don, the 14 year requirement exists because the age of majority used to be 21 21+14=35, the minimum age to be president.
Robert Gamble
3:35 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
My understanding: The framers of the Constitution wrote the "NATURAL BORN citizen phrase to be eligible to be President because they didn't want some rich Englishman coming, getting his citizenship, and buying his way into the Presidency.
Since Obama's mother from Kansas was an American citizen, her son was an American citizen wherever he was born. Obama might have a problem about presidential eligibility if born outside the USA rather than Hawaii.
Living in Poland, I know situations where the father is a USA citizen, so the children have their American citizenship. But (especially if there is a divorce) they may grow up more Polish than American, and I think there's good reason why they shouldn't be eligible to be President of the USA (I don't think they'd try anyway.)
Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, that makes him a "natural born citizen". And we elected him President.
Peter Fuller
11:34 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
To Betboo
"Now in order tp be president of US The US Constitution requires "natural born Citizen," not just a citizen. In order to be a "natural born Citizen both parents have to be US citizens. This is upheld by the US Supreme Court ruling in Minor V Happensett which has never been over ruled. "
The problem is that is not what Minor V Happersett ruled. They did not rule on what the definition of a natural born citizen is. If you read the actual decision you would see this text just below the discussion of natural born citizen.
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
The decision makes no attempt at defining natural born citizen.
7:59 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
According to your logic a fellow from Germany comes to colonial America in 1773, married another German immigrant and has a son born in 1789. Therefore he and his son are qualified to be President. But when he has another son born in 1791 after the Constitution has been adopted, this younger son can not be President? .
Tommy Thompson
12:04 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
betbooo, I feel for you trying to explain this ineligibility issue to those who refuse to understand or either it's goes right over their heads. Here's an excellent response from Apuzzo to an Obot who is doing the same thing as these people are doing who think they know what they are talking about. http://obamaballotchallenge.com/attorney-mario-appuzzos-response-to-obot
10:29 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
I think Obama answered it when he said he wasn't gonna go around with his birth certificate stapled to his forehead. He has a sense of humor, so do I. All I can say is what the judge told Orly,,I'm gonna fine you 20,000.00 if you file that frivolous lawsuit. She did and he did. Orly is 20K lighter. AND I'M LAUGHING MY ASS OFF!
1:19 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The only thing that birth certificate proves is (1) BO is a US Citizen from his mother who was a us citizen (2) BO was born in the US and most important (3) BO father was born in Kenya Africa a UK citizen (not a US Citizen) so therefore BO was born with 2 different citizenships and therefore IS NOT a "natural born Citizen" as required by the US Constitution.
William Eib
1:24 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Betboo: Try United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
1:38 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
betboo, have you found that copy of a civics textbook that covers that yet? Have you found the smoking gun that explains how the founders valued an obscure Swiss legal theorist over the English common law they studied in law school? BTW, that obscure theorist also held views exactly opposite the revered second amendment.
Asi Kaufman
1:08 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Betboo, i think you should take more English comprehension classes, so you'll be able to understand what is written here, what judges say, what is the law of the land for generations, even the conservative controlled supreme court doesnt even think of this birther nonsense and so on. As a proud American citizen it's about time to start to understand the probably single language you speak, sorry for being so pompous, I had too, but I apologize if it's not the case, ( it's aloud to apologize sometimes, its not a shame). After some English classes, I promise it wont hurt, you can take some legal/constitution classes, but it seem you have a few more years of English first. Its really a great advice for you to go and learn, community collages has great education possibilities, yes this institutions supported and paid by the Obama administration and with our tax money, that we are so proud to pay, to strengthen America through our education system, and not stay behind china- all paid education, Europe free high education, high level and cheap health treatment and so on, or behind Israel which has free education and public health care and push for excellence through education and entrepreneurship with a lot of government help, as japan does, etc. Lets push for more education, science, and real bi-partnership.
Asi Kaufman
1:14 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
They are a funny bunch.
Obama is a great president, in a very dire times, that was left from irresponsible ideologies, great financial collapse, 2 un-managed wars that cost billions, and enrich iraquies and afgans, instead of giving health treatment here to all, to vetrans, to seniors, and kids. Corporate/financial power hoses that control the political game, owns the GOP, sadly- corporation are people, so lets run MacDonald, or GE for the president. is it, it, or HE, first? or maybe she, naturalized though, right?
William Eib
1:36 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Betbooo,Etal: Try United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) It covers everything. Actually both parents don't have to be citizens as long as they are not in the USA illegally, which The President of the United States of America's parent were not, and one was a US Citizen. Don't like that do ya, Ducky.
Rita Geller
10:57 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
So this means, according to Mr. Barchfield's logic, that: a) John McCain should never have been allowed to run for President, since he was born in Panama outside of the US portion of the Canal Zone and b) Marco Rubio is not qualified to be chosen as VP running mate since his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Rene Thomas
1:21 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
And what about . . .
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,
James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada.
1:39 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Let's not forget that the clause applies to vice president and allow Spiro Agnew.
2:18 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Actually, under U.S. law ath the time he was born, Spiro Agnew's mother was not an American citizen either.
Charles Hughes was another VPOTUS who did not have two citizen parents. His mother was an American Indian.
Jay Morton
10:58 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
There's always a schmuck who has nothing better to do!!
William Eib
1:50 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
BETBOOO: Still haven't bothered to check United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) give it a shot, I think you'll like it.
Rita Geller
10:59 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
So this means, according to Mr. Barchfield's logic, that: a) John McCain should never have been allowed to run for President, since he was born in Panama outside of the US portion of the Canal Zone and b) Marco Rubio is not qualified to be chosen as VP running mate since his parents were not US citizens at the time of his birth.
Rene Thomas
1:21 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
And what about . . .
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England,
James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers,
Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) whose mother was born in England.
Herbert Hoover (1929-1933),mother were born respectively Canada.
Charles Kerchner
8:56 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Rubio, Jindal, McCain are not constitutionally Article II eligible. A Senate Resolution SR511 does not a constitution amend.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
10:59 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
If this pans out then the whole anchor baby conspiracy is gone. Then what will the Repuklicans fear monger about.
William Eib
1:40 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Never worry about the Right being able to come up with some paranoid conspiracy.
They have 3 in house experts; BECKY/FATTY & HAMMITY to crib together some fantasy and pass it along as fact. These guys are the Xerox machines of misinformation.
11:04 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
President Obama is our 7th President with at least one foreign-born parent.
Thomas Jefferson - English mother.
Andrew Jackson - Irish mother and father.
James Buchanan - Irish father.
Chester A. Arthur - Irish father.
Woodrow Wilson - English mother.
Herbert Hoover - Canadian mother.
Rebecca Britt
11:43 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
but none of them were "scary black people" that's what they are REALLY saying when they question President Obama's citizenship. Anyone who continues down this path is simply a racist trying to wrap himself in the Constitution. He probably also whispers the word "African American" and says he doesn't have "anything against 'those people.'"
The birth certificate issue is code for 'I'm a racist but I don't want to admit it.'
1:43 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Rebecca, you are a bit harsh. Some of the people who make that claim merely want to make money from the 'I'm a racist but I don't want to admit it.' folks.
5:00 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
This is a list of Presidents whose parents NATURALIZED prior to being elected. It doesn't matter where the parents were born, it matters if they became citizens of the USA prior to giving birth.
Natural Born Citizens are citizens born in the USA to citizen parents. Unnaturalized persons born in the USA are merely citizens. Chester Arthur fell into this situation but he concealed the facts and was never contested. His Supreme Court appointment, Justice Gray then tried to cover over Arthur's problem with his Wong Kim Ark decision.
Corruption, deceipt and fraud.
Kevin Davidson
6:27 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I think President Arthur was the only one whose parent hadn't naturalized before his birth. Arthur's situation is identical to Obama's.
Now some folks have claimed a great conspiracy to cover up Arthurs' father's lack of US Citizenship. However, we find that in 1905 no less than Theodore Roosevelt wrote about the fact that if President Arthur had traveled to England, they could have drafted him into the Army. So there was no secret about President Arthur's dual citizenship. Thomas Jefferson was a dual US-French citizen when he served as the US President! Obama, however, is no longer a dual citizen.
However, just because a question has been long settled doesn't prevent it from being raised again in a new generation.
Charles Kerchner
9:01 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The early president had a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1 exempting them from the natural born Citizen clause. And for later ones, it was not that a parent was foreign born that is key it is whether they became a U.S. Citizen before their child was born in the USA. Foreign born women gained instant naturalization until c1922 upon marriage to a U.S. Citizen father. Read this article about the 44 president and their eligibility or lack of it per Article II. A key point about Obama is that his father is a pure foreign national who was never even an immigrant to the USA let alone never being a citizen. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama's father was NOT one.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
David Rothmiller
11:05 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Poor journalism... To begin the article with - "Barack Obama does not have the legal right to be President of the United States." - only attempts to highlight the drama and add to the controversy of a non-issue.
Badly done, Robert Edward Healy, III.
11:07 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Barchfeld is a total Moron! He obviously doesn't know that we have already had a president that was born AFTER the Constitution was drafted... who had a foreign born parent that WAS NOT a citizen at the time of his birth. That President was our 25th President Chester Arthur, whose father was born in Ireland and did not become a US citizen until Chester was 15 years old. So... if he knows anything about Prescedents being set in the Law... he would know that the Pres. Arthur case had in fact set a "prescedent". "Meaning that Natural Born Citizen... does NOT mean both parent must be US Citizens at the time of birth for someone to ascend to the Presidency." And being that Thomas Barchfeld is a total freaking Moron, I will give him an education in the meaning of... "Precedent":
"In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."
In other words precedent can be defined as "an already decided decision which furnishes the basis for later cases involving similar facts and issues."
1:45 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Let me add Spiro Agnew, whose qualifications for vice president are the same as those for president. His father was not a US citizen at the time of Spiro's birth.
Kevin Davidson
6:31 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
There are what appear to be conflicting census records on Agnew's father (showing him not naturalized in years following him shown as a citizen. The best information I have is that he had naturalized before the Vice-President was born.
I don't think anyone has yet produced his naturalization papers to be sure.
8:11 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Precedent is not necessary. In Colonial America (previously known as British America)English Common Law was the law of the land. Under English law, citizenship was determined by country of birth and not parentage, which was more common in many European countries. A"natural born citizen" was anyone born within the country, regardless of who their parents were. And the US does not recognize dual citizenship. If you are born in the US you are a US citizen unless at the age of majority you renounce your US citizenship and accept the citizenship of a non US parent. Since President Obama was born in the US State of Hawaii and did not renounce his US citizenship, he is a natural born US citizen.
Gene Koveski
8:09 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
Chester Arthur never defended himself because a suit was never brought against his eligibility, therefore precedent was never set.
11:18 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Hey Barchfeld, your president is Black. Get over it, son.
William Johnson
11:20 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
I suppose we will be hearing about his bid for public office soon.
11:22 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
This minor Republican official and this article both leave out the most important part of Minor v. Happersett "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. " So as precedent for the issue in question, Minor v. Happersett means nothing at all, as the opinion clearly says that it was not deciding that issue. Anyone, who can read the English language (and you don't have to be a law professor) can see that. But it should also be noted that President Obama's eligibility isn't "just understood", an Indiana Appeals Court specifically ruled on this "issue" and ruled that he was qualified in 2009. See Arkeny v. Governor, 916 NE2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). It's all very nice that the mere administrative judge in Georgia got involved, but his "decision" was just to follow Arkeny.
4:22 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
This doesn't even take a legal scholar. Simple reading comprehension settles the matter as you say. There are two types promulgating this nonsense about Happersett - the wilfully ignorant who blind themselves to the truth due to their bias and the demagogues who deliberately misrepresent the ruling by omitting the key detail.
I have never understood why people insist on by fighting with idiots on this one and resorting to citing Wong Kim Ark unneccessarily to try to refute a claim that is foolish on its face.
Why didn't the journalist even do this basic fact-checking, instead parroting this clown's claims *as fact* as opposed to a claim? This merely serves to perpetuate this nonsensical myth.
Clearly Happersett indicated parentage of two citizens was a SUFFICIENT condition, the decision never said it was NECESSARY.
11:24 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Why don't all these people who keep questioning Obama's right to the Oval Offce cut the bull. This has nothing to do with Obama's citizenship but everything to do with his color. It sticks in their craw that a black man occupies what has always been the realm of white men. To them Obama should only be in the White House if he's carrying a mop and a bucket. Well, deal with it, he's the President and guess what? you may have him for another four years. So yes, get ready to locate a very high bridge you can all jump off of!
Mama D
11:24 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
really? this is all they can come up with. First of all, this person is deluded and I can't imagine that this is what gets him up in the morning...this is how he chooses to spend his time. What a waste of human energy. Another person not participating in solutions, just adding to the noise. Get a life. But, the opposition always tries to dig up some kind of dirt on the current President, so I have to kind of sit back and laugh at how they just have nothing on the guy....he's probably got the least amount of scandal, as in none, in his background as anyone before him. I mean, this is all they've got? Good luck with that.
Theresa Lee
11:25 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mitt Rommey's father born in Mexico, mother born in Wales. Why has no one challenged whether he is a natural born citizen. Oh yeah, he is a wealthy middle aged white man.
Joan Turner
12:31 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The Repubs will certainly address and rectify, right????
5:01 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Of course he has been challenged as he should be. There are multiple cases so far.
Kevin Davidson
6:34 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Questions about Romney, both father and son, have been raised. They just have not been raised with the same intensity as the opposition to Obama.
Prof. Charles Gordon wrote a major article in the Maryland Law Review back when George Romney was running. However, George Romney was out of the race pretty early and the subject was dropped.
Some of the same people challenging Obama are challenging Mitt Romney, but these are crank conspiracy theories at this point claiming that George Romney himself was not a citizen, and that is unlikely.
Brad M
11:33 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
This is just another racist who can't believe a black man is President.
11:33 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Brad M Are you so insecure that you blame everything that you don't agree with as racist? I don't believe any one on here cares if Obama is green, yellow red, blue, white, orange, black, pink, tan, or any other color you can think of. Obama is a man, and that is all he is just like any other man in the USA. He is a citizen of the USA, but he is not a NBC as required by our Constitution.
aaa aaa
11:41 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Dang, so because I was born elsewhere my son or daugther can't run for President even though they were born here? The dream is gone! I'm sure Mr. I just made Mr. Barchfeld's day :)
Alistaire Sardinia
11:48 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
Republicans. Always good for a chuckle.
Joe Myers
11:55 am on Friday, February 10, 2012
When are you idiots going to give up. Every Court that this has been taken up has called it a frivolous lawsuit. If this fool's logic is right ,then, Mark Rubio has to go, Jindal has to go. As usual the rethugs want to stamp their little feet and whine. They don't care about anything but their Fascist agenda. They have declared war on women ,poor people ,sick people and anyone that doesn't have a million dollars.The chance that Mr Obama would carry Georgia are slim and none. So this is a waste of time and money.
Richard Vaughn
12:25 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Most of us are perhaps ignoring the obvious. In this day and age of the Internet and 24-hour news cycle, one way to be famous (not for the previous 15 minutes but the new celebrity span is now five minutes only) is to do or say something outrageous, idiotic, or sensational. Barchfield knows exactly what looking like a total dork will get him.....his five minutes, maybe a mention on Rachel Maddow, maybe Bill Maher will roast him for five minutes, FOX News won't say anything...but Barchfield can be the newest hero on WorldNetDaily. The more looney-tunes who pop up for the Conservative/Tea Party/Republican silly-walking contest the better it is for Obama's second term. God bless the crazies.
12:29 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
We know Willard Romney's dad was born in Mexico and I just heard Rick Santorum say his parents were immigrants, so is this fool trying to get them kicked off too?
2:21 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Do we even know who Newt's REAL father was?
What if his biological father was not a citizen?
valentine 56
12:37 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Is it not ironic that all the GOP'ers have to say are negative things.....they are the biggest hypocrites......right wingnut christian conservatives......HAS ANYONE HEARD ONE POSITIVE SOLUTION FROM THEM TO EASE THE PROBLEMS THAT GEORGE W. LEFT OBAMA WITH?????? All they do is spew hatred and bigotry and as Joe pointed out...they have declared war on anybody that does not believe as they do......I was raised catholic and I'm pretty sure I was taught to accept people for who they are, not who you want them to be????
Markie Bee
12:42 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
My mother was born in Germany but I was born in California. Hey Barchfeld, you punk, try telling me I'm not an American. Seriously, come to my door and try it.
Kevin Davidson
6:36 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The distinction Barchfeld is making is about the citizenship of the parents, not their place of birth. The distinction has no legal basis, but it's what he's saying.
12:56 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Martin Luther King - I Have A Dream ... Free at last, Free at last, Free at last!
It's not about RACISM! It's about FREEDOM - not mandates of slavery!
Liberty and Justice for ALL!
Endowed by - Our Creator
3:28 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
betbooo did you know that it was MLK SENIOR and NOT JUNIOR was a GOP???
In "The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.," which was published after his death from his written material and records, King called the Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a "frenzied wedding ... of the KKK and the radical right."
"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction and extremism," King said in the book.
In a statement released through the King Center, Martin Luther King III said, "It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African-American votes in Florida and many other states."
In 2008, Steve Klein, the center's communications director, told the National Journal that "there is absolutely no confirmation that (King) was a Republican. ... Klein noted Coretta Scott King's recall of a 1960 phone call from Kennedy when her husband was in jail. In her book, My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr., she wrote that she took the call but was later unsure what to say about it. "My husband had a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates," her book says. "And at this point, I did not want to get him or myself identified with either party."
3:27 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
To the ELITE - How many are on your RESISTANCE LIST so far? I hope the ELITE CHANGE AGENTS FAIL! However if the elite do not fail, they will show no MERCY and make public EXAMPLE of you! GOD SHED HIS GRACE ON ME!!! CORINTHIANS 12:9 But he said to me, " My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weakness, so that Christ's power may rest on me.
Think of me what you will - I would rather be wrong than right in this nightmare and beg on my knees for forgiveness to all my brothers and sisters for my wrong thinking than to live trough another attempt at a One World Order. A mental ward of today would be a walk in the park by comparison. Please think before you VOTE!
Peter Fuller
11:35 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Barchfeld is the one who is being dishonest here. He conveniently ignores the text right after the text he is relying on.
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Clearly this case is not about what the definition of a natural born citizen is and makes no attempt to answer that question.
1:01 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Hmmmmmmm let see...Hillary Clinton, The Secret Service, The FBI, the Republican Party and John McCain, Donald Trump, the Democrat Party, the NSA, and whatever else orgainziation with unlimited funds and a vested interest in keeping Obama off the ticket FAILED to prove he is not a citizen. So now we have these little bugs flying around on their own claiming that THEY and only they, know the real story and the letter of the law and Constitution..... and newspapers give them a platform.....
1:02 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I am almost sure that the researchers in the following article had Barchfeld in their study.
"Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism"
Tamera Shanker
1:07 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Let's just call this tangent for what it is: RACISM. Sadly racism is alive, thriving, and continues to rear its repugnant head in this country. America, if we are to be "leading" country, then lets put a stop to this idiocy now. Otherwise, embrace our ignorance, and stop posing.
1:08 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Why are these idiots allowed to even question the President of the United States citizenship? This is really beginning to piss me off because McCain was born in Panama but you did not hear one person question his legality. It's time to bury this issue and not give credence to every bigot out there who can not acknowledge they have a black man as Commander In Chief. Stop the stupidity!
Susan Nichols
1:14 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
What is it about Obama that so irritates the crazies? Could it be because he has such a beautiful smile?
1:16 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Such is the claim of Thomas Barchfeld, a Whitehall Borough resident from Glen Elm Drive and a member of the Whitehall Borough Republican Committee. And Barchfeld says that he has proof. The 56-year-old former Democrat—he switched parties in 2011—
Sure you were a Democrat ....and somehow managed to get on the Republican Borough Committee immediately...I guess by denouncing Obama, right? I wonder how many people are slamming the door in your face.....
James Hicks
1:26 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Anymore proof needed to show that the right has gone over the deep end and is trying to bring the voters with them
vitra monday
1:36 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
To follow Barchfeld's logic, at least the first 7 presidents did not qualify to be president, since their parents were not US citizens.
Kevin Davidson
6:44 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Think about it. John Jay wrote to Washington during the Constitutional Convention suggesting that only a natural born citizen should be commander in chief. That suggestion is widely believed to be why we have the phrase in the Constitution.
Does anyone think John Jay meant that Washington himself shouldn't be Commander in Chief? If a natural born citizen must have citizen parents, and Washington's father was a British subject all his life, how could Jay have intended the phrase to involve parents without excluding Washington -- which is absurd?
However, Washington WAS born in the United States. That makes him a natural born citizen.
1:39 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
And it sure did not take long for many on this board to call this guy names or claim that his reason is because he is against Obama's race. For those who say Republicans are hypocrites or racists, I have concluded that the meanest, truly racist, and the biggest name-callers are those who complain about the evil GOP. Jusy look at some of the comments on this blog.
Roy Rolison
1:45 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Besides Romney, did not Santorum say his grandparents migrated here as foreigners? That would mean his parents were not natural born citizens, which means he was born from people who were not "legal." So he's not qualified.
Now we need to go through all presidents. George Washington was born in England. But continue up the ladder in the line of presidents, and we will need to remove at least the first third from the history books, but probably more. In the past, it was common for all people to have both sets of grandparents, or at least one of their parents, not born on American soil. I think Reagan is in this grouping.
8:17 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
George Washington was born in Colonial (British ) America.
1:56 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I simply cannot tell you in polite society what I really think about people who waste their time disavowing our president. He is a good president.
William Eib
1:57 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
BETBOOO: Don't hurt yourself stumbling over the facts.
1:59 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The stated supreme court case is taken out of context in this article. The two parent requirement included in the decision pertains to children born outside of the US. Obama was born in hawaii 2 years after hawaii became a state. That guy watches too much fox news/glenn beck
2:16 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Birthers are idiots. It's all there is to it
It's all about the scary black man in the White House.
2:16 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mr. Healey,
This article would have benefited from more pointed questions.
First of all, you have a 56-year old who's been a Democrat all of his life but does not like the policies of his current President, so he switches parties. Oh yeah, he said he voted conservatively; my question would have been, "when, the 2008 presidential election, perhaps?" Next, what policies of President Obama doesn't he like and what Republican policies does he like? And lastly, is he also challenging the birthright of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum?
Robert Edward Healy, III
2:23 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Jones, actually, it's Healy (with no second "e").
Mr. Barchfeld said that he switched parties in 2011.
As for his Republican of choice right now, he said that he supports Rick Santorum.
As for Romney, see the fourth and third paragraph from the bottom.
Robert Edward Healy, III
2:59 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Thank you for reading and engaging, Jones.
Jonathan C Davis
2:18 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Incredible how the color of a persons skin can cause such a divide in the country! You can not feed your family on bigotry or lies anymore all those old tactics to scare or impede progress won't work b/c we live in the information age where ppl can check the facts for themselves!!!!
William Eib
2:28 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
BETBOOO: You voted for him and allowed your self to be scammed by fear of your right wing peers in to joining the noise machine on the Right, You have no proof of your Constitution allegations, all you have is your ability to repeat such nonsense. One little fact of your allegation re: The Constitution. Just one sliver of a fact, please. I'm tell you, you need a break from; BECKY-FATTY & HAMMITY.
2:30 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
This is a last gasp attempt at discrediting a president they hate. For all the supposedly impeachable offenses many who are birthers attribute to President Obama, why don't they pursue those offenses as vigorously as this 'citizen or not citizen' junk?
Allan P
2:31 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
This has dangerous implications. Since the Constitution does not say that Native Americans are citizens (and I don't think that the founding fathers intended them to be either) anyone that has any Native American heritage would not be considered citizens. Where does the constitution grant African Americans citizenship for that matter. We could very quickly be a nation where a citizen is a minority.
2:34 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Excellent point, does Barchfeld intend to unravel all current citizens who've been wrongly considered US citizens since 1875?
2:41 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Nah, Allan. Only if you are proven to be 50% or better of the recognized indian nations (cherokee, navajo, cree, souix, ,...). With grandparents or better, you fall under the same rules as anyone else.
Besides, the 14th amendment states that all people born in the US are US citizens ... period. This fooforaw is about "natural" citizens needing to have citizens as parents. Born or naturalized, all are citizens for this purpose.
Just not for idiots like Barchfield.
Mary Jo Hagen
2:39 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I wonder how many Presidents had parents who were not citizens?
Jill Quaney
3:16 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Andrew jackson, for one. BOTH of his parents were born in Ireland.
Jon Ponder
2:51 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico and Rick Santorum's father was born in Italy, so neither of them eligible either, by the standards of this nutcase.
3:12 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Why isn't this character seeing a mental health professional?
Jill Quaney
3:14 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The Chief Justice knew of the president's background and still swore him in- not once, but twice (he screwed it up).
So, is CJ John Roberts culpable?
William Eib
3:45 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
CammieB: good for you re: BetBooo. I have been wasting my time trying to engage him in a real discussion, he just doesn't want to hear any opposing point of view. I think you found the way to approach him. I give it a shot next time he offends this thread with his inanity.
Joyce Robinson
3:49 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I think people should go to his street and leave OBAMA 2012 posters!
4:12 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
take santorum off the ballot too. his dad was born in italy
Clavell Jackson
4:13 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
These nuts keep weakening the brand of the GOP by flogging this dead horse. Obama is a citizen, and it has been proven multiple times. End of story. People who keep bringing up this issue show they are out of the mainstream and racist, Yes, I said it, because this issue was never brought up for McCain, who was not actually born in the United States!
Michael Aiken
4:26 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Thomas Jefferson's mother was born in London in 1721. This would make Thomas Jefferson, in the words of Thomas Barchfeld, "the largest hoax in American history that has been perpetrated on the people of America." I've got a better one, Thomas Barchfeld is the biggest idiot in American history that has been perpetrated on the people of America." Can someone in the wingnuttia world pick up an actual US History text somewhere? Anywhere? Geez,......
5:27 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:
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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
No person except a natural born Citizen
No person except a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
Thomas Jefferson exempted himself from the rule. See how easy that is?
4:33 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
So Fellow Americans, search your heart for the truth. Do you think for a moment if Obama was not eligible to be POTUS Hillary would have found the PROOF?? The Clinton machine, the supreme court, the RepugliKKKlun party, the john birch society, the white citizen council, trump money, the cia, nsa, heck the girl scouts all would be turning over every rock to find dirt on Obama. THINK! You have been blinded by prejudice. A Black POTUS?? Like the Black sheriff in "Blazing Saddle" Accept it. GBA
5:48 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Chazz, your attempts at manipulation will fail.
Charles Tisdale is an African American residing in Virginia who has challenged President Obama and Romney, Santorum and Ron Paul's candidacy based on the NBC issue depicted in this news article above.
You won't read about that case in the press. I wonder why. It's because Tisdale is an African American.
Karen Kempler
4:49 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
By this idiots "logic" Rick Santorum isn't eligible to be President, either. Santorum's father was an immigrant from Italy.
5:22 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Santorum's candidacy is subject to challenge because he hasn't released details on his father's naturalization. If it occurred after Santorum was born, then he is not eligible to be President.
The idiots logic you refer to ensnared the framers of the constitution themselves since none of them were NBCs. To address this, they grandfathered themselves in in Article 2 Secton 1 Clause 5. Read it some time.
Clavell Jackson
4:54 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
This rule only works for brown-skinned people, they are also going after Rubio.
4:55 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
This would not be happening if Obama was a white guy.
5:25 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
It happened to George Romney. It happened to John McCain. It happened to Mitt Romney. It happened to a Rockefeller. Barry Goldwater, Lowell Wicker, Charles Evans Hughes.
None of these guys weren't white.
Thomas Lee Brown
5:02 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The only people who think Minor v Happersett has any bearing are those who cannot read. It did not address children born here of alien parentage. It even said so. It said that it is beyond doubt that those with two citizen parents are, but others are subject to debate. That debate was put to rest by the Wong Kim Ark decision.
How do we know this? Because in one of the two dissenting opinions, the Justice wrote that the implication of the decision was that a child of alien parents could conceivably be elected President. Which he thought was a bad idea, but that's how the decision came down: anyone born here (except children of diplomats) are Natural Born Citizens. If this were not the case, the dissenting opinion would be nonsensical.
Anyone at any Consulate can tell you there are two types of American citizens: natural-born and naturalized. Say you need to prove you are a citizen while abroad. You will be asked for birth certificate OR naturalization papers. Two kinds of citizen. In addition, this information will be found on your passport.
Try as you might to argue that there are more than two types of citizen, nobody in any official capacity will have any idea what you're talking about. They will ask "were you born a citizen, or were you naturalized?
The judge ruled by the legal standards used by everybody but a handfull of racist lugnuts who will believe any shred of bogosity that might get the scary black man out of "their" White House.
5:19 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Let me explain something to people encountering this issue for the first time. There are a group of people on the Internet doing whatever they can to steal your democracy. Here is what the manipulators will say:
1) Challenging President Obama is ultimately racist in motivation
2) Numerous courts and legal procedures have declared Obama a natural born citizen
3) All of the court actions clarifying the definition of 'citizenship' apply to 'natural born citizenship'
4) Anyone pursuing this issue is crazy like Orly Taitz
5) This issue is pursued for purely political purposes not out of respect for the Constitution or Rule of Law
6) CRS is an unbiased congressional research service and they concluded President Obama is a NBC
7) Judges have fined Orly Taitz $20,000 for filing a frivilous lawsuit
8) Lots of Presidents had parents born in foreign countries (not the issue)
5:55 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Let me explain IJWT's reasoning in simple forms for you to
1)Some is racist, some is ideological, and some is just plain scam artists getting gullible people to send them money to "keep up the fight"
2)ALL,. that's it, every one, court proceedings have gone President Obama's way. People bringing this up are 0-99 and counting. They have lost every proceeding, Appeal, and have been rebuffed by SCOTUS every time
3)IJTW doesn't know what he's talking about. Citizenship involve 2 types of citizens in this country, you're either born a citizen or obtain your citizenship through naturalization. Naturalized citizens are not eligible for the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. If you are born a citizen, you are.
4)No, some are pursuing just to make money off people. Some, for pure hatred. To each their own.
5)The courts say different, and there is no proof the courts have not ruled following the laws, the constitution, and court precedence.
6)CRC is unbiased...you have not proven they aren't
5:55 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
7) Judge Law fined Ms. Taitz $20,000 that is a fact. Also, in his finding he stated about the evidence she presented, "Unlike Alice in Wonderland, saying something is true, doesn't make it so". This was also upheld on appeal and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. So it is a FACT.
8) President Obama was born on American soil and is as natural born citizen, as per Wong Kim Ark:
In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:
"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."
Referring to our history and heritage.
Thomas Lee Brown
12:06 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
So, basically... now let me get this straight... IJWT gives a list of true statements that he attributes to the "manipulators," and he wants to tell you the Truth, presumably the opposite of these 8 true statements?
OK.... That makes no sense whatsoever.
12:58 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@Thomas Lee Brown: he claims they're manipulations, as if they are not true. And, he misrepresents what these facts are. I just clarify there's more to it than his simple mind can handle.
William Eib
8:36 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Truthy: Your stuck in a rut, Jim's point was not an attempt to manipulate at all. He diligently found the facts (Which you judge are not) that you obviously are not interested in. And you just offhandedly dismiss Jim's findings as manipulative, I am just guessing, you don't like them. Again, I am only guessing; they blow a gigantic hole in what you think is real. Now admitting being wrong may be a difficult thing for some folks. I am one of them. But, I make you a promise, if you can refute Jim's list of facts. I will eat crow and admit I am wrong to the whole entire comment thread, Try, unless you are afraid. And by the way, your 8 points well researched, NOT? Just tired old BECKY-FATTY & HAMMMITY talking points, Google great devise to find info, visit and get some new material.
5:19 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Beware of the above 8 items. All of these statements are intended to manipulate your opinion and swallow severe damage to our democracy. At any time between now and the election, a court may declare President Obama ineligible to be on the Democrat's ballot. The Democratic Party knows this is the case but they will continue to push Obama. In the meantime, the honest Democrats seeking a viable candidate are at SEVERE RISK of being disenfranchised by this reckless decision on the part of the Democratic Party. When all of the primaries are over and President Obama is declared ineligible, are Democrats going to get a "do over?"
William Eib
5:40 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
You should change your name to: I wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit me in the face
Or IWRTTIIHMEITF for short. I have never before seen so many people throw the word Constitution around with no idea what is says. And yes Virginia, there is racism in America. Orly Taitz is Nuts. She can't get passed 1st base without being tagged out by the Constitution. No court is going to declare any thing other than Orly Taitz is a nuisance. Keep on dreaming. The President of the United States of America, the leader of the most powerful country in the world will be re-elected. Sorry, Ducky.
8:26 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
You seem to be living in some strange alternate universe where 2 and 2 equal whatever you want it to equal , and facts are outlawed. President Obama will be our president until 2016 so get used to it.
5:20 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The reason we know that this is a genuine issue that citizens everywhere have a right and in fact a duty to protest and to contest is because Congress has tried to change the law concerning NBC 24 times including several times in the last 8 years.
Familiarize yourself with the congressional actions laid out in this article:
When people try to say you are crazy for pursuing this issue in the courts, kindly point out to them that you are as crazy as congress and congress wasn't crazy.
Don't let these manipulators steal away our democracy. The Rule of Law has a process and we are going down that path right now. Eventually a case will go before the Supreme Court and they will rule on this matter. All of these small court challenges mean nothing. The Supreme Court will eventually rule one way or the other. Until that time, everyone who has a cause to do so, should challenge the issue because damage to our constitution and democracy is at stake. Is it the biggest issue in the world right now? No. Should we ignore it? No.
Whatever the Supreme Court says will be the final word on the matter. We can celebrate together when that happens--regardless of outcome
5:42 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Sorry IJWT, there is just no controversy here fot the Supreme Court to step in. They've already had their say, via Kim Wong Ark, and Obama is a natural born citizen. They've also stated time and time again that there's only 2 types of citizens in this country. Either you're born a citizen, like President Obama, and eligible...or you become a citizen through naturalization, like Shrwartzennager, and are ineligible. It's just that simple. There is no super-secret 3rd type of citizen with a secret handshake and special designation. So, if you're waiting on the SCOTUS, you'll be long gone and buried.
4:03 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Of course, the problem is that Obama supporters know he is ineligible, they just seem to have more allegiance to him then they do our Constitution. What these people are supporting is very dangerous. If Obama is allowed on the ballot, it's setting precedent that gives way for any leader of an enemy nation to impregnate a woman and have the child born on US soil then declare them an NBC. The framers did not want a CIC to have foreign allegiances/loyalties. I think it's very safe to say that we are seeing first hand the fruit of not heeding their wisdom. We, for the first time, have a man in the oval office that has no allegiance to the United States and is clearly and intentionally crippling this nation.
1:02 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@Elegy: You are incorrect on so many points, I'm not sure where to start. First off, everyone knew about the President's background, so it's not like he some how snuck in the backdoor. Second, how would the world leader manipulate the child all through his life? And, if the world leader was known, then the child would not be born a citizen because foreign diplomats are excepted. And, being as you have to clue to what allegiance is as per SCOTUS, that becomes a non-issue for the President.
William Eib
8:50 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
And flying saucers are real because people say they have seen them. And there is a tooth fairy, because parents put money under their children pillows. And there is an Easter Bunny because there are so many replicas of him made of Chocolate at Easter time. That has to be one of the silly ripostes I've read. They have been attempting to over turn Roe v Wade but it still the law of the land. As is the 14th Amendment and United States v Wong Kim Ark. And the ruling still stands today: BORN IN THE UNITED STATES = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. i know it's just the Constitution and the Law, Their just a nuisance. Who needs facts, those nasty manipulative things. 1+1=2. Incredibly manipulative. Could it be that 2 might be black?
Cindy Faulkner
5:32 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Um his mother is american so what is the problem ?
3:59 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The problem is that his father was a Kenyan national(a British subject). It really is no coincidence that every single President, other than the 1st ten who were " a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", was born on US soil to 2 US citizens. It is no coincidence that Obama nor anybody near him that has commented on this issue has ever once referred to him as a "Natural Born Citizen". It's no coincidence that the certifications of nomination that the DNC sent out to the individual states left out that he is "Constitutionally eligible" like the RNC certifications and every other DNC certification stated in previous years. Obama even co-sponsored Sen Res 511 stating that McCain is a NBC because he was birthed to "citizen parents". This guy knows he is ineligible and I'm sure he is getting a kick out of people defending him. If Obama is allowed onto the ballots, our Constitution is effectively dead, Article II was the last portion of the document that had not been circumvented until 2008.
5:39 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
If POTUS Obama's father had been a Black man, a natural born citizen of the US, undoubtedly, there would have been members of his family who had been enslaved. The Birthers would have then pulled out the section of the Constitution that says a slave is not only NOT a citizen but also only 3/5's of a man and used that as evidence that Obama is ineligible to be President because his lineage contained people who weren't really people.
Kevin Davidson
6:57 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Some who share Mr. Barchfield's views argue that the US Supreme Court wrongly decided US v. Wong, and if that were undone, they might go back to the infamous Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott. THAT decision said that no former slave nor their descendents could be a citizen and that Congress had no authority to make them citizens.
The argument in Dred Scott was that parentage matters: the slaves were not part of the founding society, so neither were their children, whether born slave or free. Further the Congress had no power to naturalize them because naturalization only applied to persons born outside the Country.
The 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott and made everyone born in the country a citizen; however, the anti-Obama crowd want to create a special class of citizen that is immune to the 14th Amendment a class who is born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen. The problem with that gambit is that the Courts have rejected it over and over. If you're born a citizen in the United States, you're unquestionably a natural born citizen, and so it has always been and ever will be.
Gary Hjelm
5:43 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Betbooo, you can run, but you can't hide! President Obama is going to find-out who you are ram a basketball where the sun doesn't shine. They call that a slam dunk! Seriously, your just upon this thread for the aggravation from your remarks. However, it is quite telling of your maturation level as a child. If you use childish tactics to gain communication with adult people, then expect someone to stoop to your level with their remarks.
William Eib
5:46 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Was Obama President 8 years ago, or did the paranoid conspiratorial Wing Nuts have a crystal ball and saw he was coming to the White house. Your off your rocker, amigo.
Will never get to the Supreme Court, if you think so, it should have been there already, it's you right wing court, why haven't they taken it up? Because it is silly and would be embarrassing for them as grownups.
Kevin Davidson
6:03 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Challenges like this are springing up all over, and the courts are repeatedly saying that folks like Mr. Barchfeld have it wrong. Associate Professor Joseph Hylton of Marquette University Law School recently wrote:
"To cite Minor v. Happersett as the definitive statement of the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' is to exhibit an unfortunate lack of understanding of the Supreme Court's 1874 decision in that case."
Administrative Law Judge Michael Malihi in Georgia cited the Indiana Court of Appeals in the 2009 case of Ankeny v. Governor that said Obama and those like him are eligible. The day before that, the Illinois Board of Elections acting on the recommendation of its legal counsel and Hearing Officer reached the same conclusion.
In January a federal judge in Virginia ruled on yet another of these ballot challenges, saying:
"It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens."
– US District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.
– Tisdale v. Obama
I appreciate that there are dozens of Internet web sites repeating arguments that "sound good" to folks who are uninformed about history and don't know how to read judicial opinions. I don't blame Mr. Barchfeld for getting it wrong after hearing some of the persuasive, but legally bogus material out there.
However, none of these challenges is going anywhere because the judges who rule on them know the law a lot better than the cranks who raise them.
William Eib
6:14 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Bravo Kevin: Everyone on this Thread should read Kevin's comment. It is about as informed a list of facts to settle just about everyone's need, but unfortunately not those who wish and dream that what they believe will be true someday. Sorry, Duckies not gonna happen. Thanks Kevin.
Kevin Davidson
7:00 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
William, thanks for the kind remark. However, folks who hold views like Mr. Barchfeld wear Kevlar armor. Nothing gets through to them. Trust me --I have vast experience.
Joseph Glackin
6:06 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Is there some strange gas leaking from old mines in this man's neighborhood? Something that might distort perception of reality?
Ginnie Bonbon
6:08 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
At what point does the child of an immigrant (who never become citizens), become a citizen if the child is born in the US? Are the child's children and grandchildren citizens or are they in limbo too?
3:51 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
If children are born on US soil, as of right now they are citizens. But, citizen and natural born citizen are 2 completely different things. The lawsuit is not based on Obama being a citizen, it is based on the fact that he is not a natural born citizen which is a citizenship status that only 2 people in the nation have to adhere to, the President and Vice President. Natural born citizen is a child born on US soil to 2 citizen parents, a citizen is simply a child born on US soil.
6:27 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
To get this over with, it would be better to amend the constitution and demand a natural born citizen to be born in the US to parents who are natural born citizens themselves ;-)
William Apel
6:55 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
This man needs to get a life> He's hiding his dislike of a black president by using a constitional arguement. Typical Republican. Watch out for a Zelot like Rick Santorum too.
William Apel
Lord Acton
7:15 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
"It is a principle of public law universally recognized and acted upon, that all persons born within the realm or 'extent of government,' owe natural and unqualified allegiance to the Government under which they are born, except those who are the children of persons owing allegiance to a foreign State or potentate." ~ James Alexander Hamilton (1863)
James was the third son of Alexander Hamilton. He graduated from Columbia University, was an officer in the War of 1812, and served as acting Secretary of State to Andrew Jackson. He then became a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It is also important to note that Alexander Hamilton suggested that the President be a "native-born citizen", only to have "natural-born citizen" adopted in its place. ---Think that might have been a subject discusses at the Hamilton dinner table?
Lord Acton
7:19 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
It sickens me to read so many comments that lack any understanding of the constitutional restriction, nor address the difference between those who are born on the soil of parents who are citizens, and those whose parents pass along an allegiance to a foreign power.
And for those who think all of this is something pulled out of thin air; Here's a quote from an 1845 publication of the New Englander and Yale Law Review:
"The expression 'citizen of the United States' occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term 'natural born citizen' is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases, the word 'citizen' is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. The discussions in the convention furnish no indication that there was any other distinction present in the minds of its members."
The readers should notice that the recent court decisions (and those who support them) don't even bother address the effect of having an allegiance to a foreign power would have on the Commander in Chief. It's obvious that they would rather not have anyone recognize that taking up arms against a sovereign to which you owe allegiance is a treasonous act. ---Is that something you think our Commander in Chief should need to consider before going o war in defense of the nation?
el patone
7:37 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
I don't think the United States is bound by the opinions of a 150 year-old college newspaper.
12:10 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Allegiance, as defined by SCOTUS means that if you are born in the country, you have that allegiance. The only ones not under the allegiance are foreign diplomats and invading armies...which makes sense since those are the only ones who do not follow the country's law when they are within their borders.
From Wong Kim Ark
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
As you can see, President Obama falls within the definition of allegiance to the US when he was born.
3:46 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I'm pretty positive that Obama supporters realize that he is not eligible, but it seems most of them have more of an allegiance to him than they do the Constitution. There is not one shred of documentation that supports the view that a natural born citizen simply means being born on U.S. soil. We are watching the U.S. Constitution being totally discarded right before our eyes, whether it be with Obama's ineligibility or NDAA. I'm stunned that people have no problem returning to the same type of tyrannical gov't that the founding fathers fought to leave.
el patone
7:33 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
In today's extreme ideological climate, words like "hoax" and expressions like "tip of the iceberg" carry no significant impact. Without further explanation, they merely intensify the foul political weather.
Lord Acton
7:38 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Thomas Lee Brown said; " It said that it is beyond doubt that those with two citizen parents are, but others are subject to debate."
You're wrong Thomas! Perhaps you would do well to go back and read what the Court said.
Those born here of parents who were citizens, were definately citizens. They were the natives or natural-born citizens. The Court said there were questions as to the CITIZENSHIP of those born here without reference to their parents.
When people say "These are the biological parents"; "These are shoes he was wearing"; "These are the tread marks left by the tires of his car", do you generally expect that they really meant to say These (and maybe some others)? "These are the" is a limited identifier. The only thing the Minor Court left open was the possibility that those born here of parent who were not citizens, might also be consider to be citizens.
12:16 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
That is correct. But Minor also stated that there are only 2 kinds of citizens in this country, either born a citizen or gain citizenship via naturalization. Wong Kim Ark cleared up the part about being born to non-citizen parents and even the dissenting opinion recognized that Wong Kim Ark could become President even though it was illegal at the time for Chinese citizens to become naturalized at that time.
William Eib
7:48 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Mr. Barchfield:The court decision is in: http://www.scribd.com/...
Orly Taitz represented one of four plaintiffs challenging President Obama's eligibility for placement on the Democratic ballot in Georgia. The President and his counsel were subpoenaed to appear in court to defend against these challenges, but the President's attorney issued a nice letter to the judge stating that the Court had no business or jurisdiction even hearing the case and therefore the defense would not be in attendance. So Taitz and her fellow attorneys presented their best arguments without challenge from the defense, and requested a summary judgment on the merits. And the Court's judgment: the plaintiffs have no case and no credible evidence, and there is no law to support their claims. Judgment for the defendant, represented only by an empty table, on the merits. Or in this case, utter lack thereof.
Lord Acton
7:52 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Many people here have jumped to an irrational conclusion, that is most likely the product of confirmation bias.
If I were to say that trucks can only be added via domestic production (birth) or imports (naturalization), the majority of people would easily recognize that some of those domestic trucks are "all American" (built here by American automakers), and some of the other domestic trucks are not "all American" (built here by foreign automakers -Toyota, Honda, etc).
The Minor Court indentified the "all American" citizen. They were born here of parents who were citizens. These were the natives, or natural-born citizens. That same Court recognized and identified another "class" (the word used by the Court), that may be citizens. That class consisted of those born here of parents who were not citizens.
Those who consider the trucks manufactured (born) here, regardless of the corporation (parents) who produce them, to be the same as the "all American" ones, just because that is the only way it can fit into their preconcieved notion, are only fooling themselves. I'm sure every Chevrolet, Ford and Dodge truck owner would agree.
8:37 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
The Minor court did not rule on natural born citizenship. It ruled only on whether a State could limit voting to men. Under English common law which was the law of Colonial American and subsequently the United States, a person born in the country was a "natural born citizen", unlike many non English countries which assigned citizenship by the father's citizenship.
Lord Acton
9:06 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
If ignorance is truly bliss, you must be one happy camper.
Not only did Minor rule on natural-born citizen, by specifically identifying Article II and then stating "These are the natives or natural-born citizens", the Court then went further and stated that it had to determine her citizenship for jurisdictional purposes.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance by stating "Under English common law which was the law of Colonial American and subsequently the United States". The common law of England was never by any method, acceptable to our form of government, adopted as the law of the United States.
The extent to which the common law of England may be used to interpret our Constitution ends at the year 1606. See Chisolm v Georgia (1793). As such, your reliance on Calvin's Case (birth within the dominions) is rejected.
I'll now do you the courtesy of directing you to an article about Justice Gray and his opinion in WKA that was published by a legal scholar without a dog in this fight.
Peter Fuller
11:33 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Hey Lord, maybe you should re-read the judgement, they discuss natural born citizen but they clearly do not define it "For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts"
12:34 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@Lord Acton, you do realize that his whole argument in the Buchanan article would still leave President Obama a natural born citizen eligible to hold office even if the congress agreed to make the changes he's arguing for, don't you?
Lord Acton
10:10 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@Jim (below) -The discussion format here needs to be improved so as to permit replies to responses.
"@Lord Acton, you do realize that his whole argument in the Buchanan article would still leave President Obama a natural born citizen eligible to hold office even if the congress agreed to make the changes he's arguing for, don't you?"
I disagree! Obama's father was not permanently domiciled in the U.S. He was a student, whose visa specifically prohibited him from changing domicile. Obama was born with allegiance to Kenya/Great Brittain. It is the fact of that foreign allegiance that makes him ineligible.
11:34 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I'm with you there LA, the format could be improved. However, in the Buchanan article he's stating that to be a citizen at birth, you should have at least one citizen parent. President Obama's mother was a citizen at his birth making his point mute for this argument. And, you have absolutely no idea what allegiance means to SCOTUS. If you are born in this country, you are subject to the laws and protections therefor allegiance. .
II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
Tommy Thompson
12:51 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Acton, I filed one of the ballot challenges here in Alabama. Even though it was dismissed like a hot potato, the final decision is really up to the Sec of State, Beth Chapman. I've listened to Obama's attorney Barry Ragsdale in the three cases in Alabama in a two hour interview on the radio. The man is clueless about this eligibility issue and admits he gets his information from...."Fogbow". I also read very carefully attorney Jablonski's motions in Georgia....this man is also clueless. What I can see happening is that when this does reach a Supreme Court, even if it's the Georgia Supreme Court, the merits will ACTUALLY be examined. Jablonski had no answer whatsoever in Georgia, that's why he didn't show up. I see people here on this "Patch" still keep quoting Wong Ark and are still showing a complete lack of understanding of "citizen" versus "natural born citizen". They have been reading Fogbow so much that it's embedded in their brains. You and I and others on here would prefer to actually read the cases and the law and not rely on what someone (Fogbow) tells them it should say.
William Eib
7:57 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
BetBooo: Give it up!!! The longer you keep stringing this out with more and more junk evidence that has been trashed by the facts, the bigger the BOOB you are becoming, I would even say you are approaching Boob-osaurus. You may want to change your name to Orly Taitz, who just lost with evidence you believe to be true. Knock it off. Or you may have your red rubber nose and big clown feet taken away.
9:04 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
So sorry you can not carry on a normal conversation with out name calling. Oh, by the way I agree with you about Orly Taitz and I have never paid any attention to her at all. Her issues are not anything like mine that is for sure. If you can have a normal conversation I will join in.
William Eib
8:11 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
If BetBooos: BS was helium it could fill a blimp 10 times over. The guy's a gas bag, wind bag, dolt, etc.
9:07 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Eib, if you can carry on a coversation without name calling I will talk with you, I have no personal battle with you.
Lord Acton
9:08 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Why am I not surprised to see so many here gladly accept the role of subject to a monarch? It is likely due to a poor public school primary and secondary education. Had any of you ever read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, you would have noticed the primary author's pseudonyms of choice (Publius and Brutus). To recognize the importance of that particular choice of names, you would then need to know that Publius and Brutus were two members of the aristocracy who overthrew the monarch in order to create the Roman Republic. The names were chosen by those educated enough to know their relation to our new republic.
11:36 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Monarch? Wow. He was duly elected by the people, accepted by congress, and will run for re-election where the people may or may not vote him out. You really have no clue what a monarchy is, do you?
9:51 pm on Friday, February 10, 2012
Who the hell let Orly's brother out of his padded cell?
lynn mac
1:27 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
None of our first presidents were even born American citizens: they were English until we established independence.
3:21 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
No kidding, that is why Article II provides a grandfather clause. Our first 10 Presidents were " a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ". Every single President from Polk(11th Pres) to G.W.Bush were born on US soil to 2 US citizens. It really isn't a coincidence, the guy has knowingly disregarded the Constitutional requirements for President. The American people should be outraged, instead the people that actually care about the biggest attack on the Constitution in this nations history(besides NDAA) are insulted and ridiculed. It's pretty sickening that there are people have no regard for the document that millions of men/women have died supporting and defending.
3:16 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Reading through these comments, I am astonished how many people have such little regard for the Constitutional eligibility requirements for President. It does not concern you that the man sitting in the Oval Office defrauded the American people in 2008? It doesn't concern you that our Constitution is effectively dead if Obama is allowed to be on the ballot this year? Article II was the last portion of the Constitution that had not been circumvented by the federal gov't until 2008.
Obama isn't and could never be eligible for POTUS as he is not a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter where he was born, his dad was a Kenyan national, a British subject. Barrack Obama was born a British subject. The definition of natural born citizen is and always has been defined as a child born on U.S. soil to 2 U.S. citizens. That's the way the framers of the Const. defined it, it's how the USSC defined it, and it's how Obama himself defined it when he co-authored Sen Res 511 stating that McCain was a natural born citizen because he was birthed of "citizen parents". John Jay inserted the NBC clause to prevent having a CIC with dual allegiances or loyalties, we are seeing first hand the fruits of not heeding the founding fathers' wisdom.
His non-NBC status disqualifies him from the start but this man is also using a fraudulent SSN and every expert that has examined the BC he put on the internet verified that it is indeed fraudulent. People, time to wake up.
Robert Christopher Laity
5:09 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
McCain,born in Colon,Panama is ALSO NOT an NBC. Colon ,Panama as well as Panama City,Panama were specifically EXCLUDED from the Panama Canal Zone Treaty and were NOT US Soil.
Previously Chester Arthur violated the NBC provision. HE was NOT an NBC.
I was not alive at that time,so I could not Object. However,I AM alive NOW and I do OBJECT! Obama IS disqualified.
BTW,Obama now stands accused of TREASON,another encumbrance to his being POTUS:
See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381
Pennsylvania is where the constitution was penned. It behooves the State to protect it.
1:05 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Elegy (3:16 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012) I agree with you and it isn't only the Art II, Sec 1, Clause 5 but also lack of knowledge of Amendment XIV. Do they not teach this in schools any more? Hopefully they will learn something here or at least go out and get a copy of the Constitution to read. Think you can get one free at
7:45 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Many of the court cases have failed due to lack of standing. What this ultimately means is that any person on earth can be potus with enough money.
After all who can challenge eligibility? That's the thank you damage from the courts on this.
11:40 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Well IJWT, you really should read the constitution. That answers all of your concerns. Oh, and btw, did you realize the Schwartenegger can't run for President, and he has a boatload of money? Your argument is ill-conceived, ill-informed, and totally out of the realm of the truth.
7:49 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The truth about Wong Kim ark is at Leo donofrio's blog.
People claiming that mere citizenship equals NBC have failed to show how it counters foreign allegiance.
The press has covered this up.
Would someone kindly post the Tisdale v Obama complaint? I can't find the link. I think everyone should read it.
7:55 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
One of these days his African born birth certificate will show up.
8:24 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I really had my hopes on GA. Judge Malihi seemed to understand. What would have happened if Hatfield or Van Irian had let Malihi issue a default judgment like he wanted?
Cindy O
8:31 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
When I was in grade school and taught about US gov't, I learned that:
1. To be a NBC, one has only to be born on US soil. (Yes, this means that any non-US citizen can birth a baby on US soil and that child is automatically given the rights of an NBC)
2. If a child is born on non-US soil, to ONE US citizen, that child is considered an NBC. It does not matter to the US gov't that the non-US parent claims that the child is a citizen of his country, too, and, if the other country does not require the child to renounce his US citizenship, then he has dual-citizenship.
3. If a child is born on non-US soil to non-US parents that child is not an NBC. To become a citizen, he must apply to the US for citizenship. He is required under oath to renounce citizenship to the other country. (The State Dept, is not as strict on this as it used to be and does sometimes allow a 'New" citizen to hold dual citizenship).
4. Any NBC can hold dual citizenship if the other country does not have laws requiring the renunciation of the US citizenship.
5. Any US citizen (NBC or not) can renounce his citizenship, if he chooses.
Obama, McCain, Santorum, Romney are all NBCs.
Cindy O
8:39 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I should have added for clarification that the child in item #3 above can become a citizen, but never hold office of Pres or VP.
9:18 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Obama born in USA to a mother who was a citizen and a father who was not therefore Obama is a "citizen" not a NBC. To be a NBC BOTH parents. mother & father have to be US citizen (father was not US citizen)
Cindy O
9:20 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I should also add that if two non-US citizens come to the US to seek citizenship AND get it, then move back to their country of origin and then have a baby, that baby is considered an NBC. That child, if he meets the other eligibility requirements for becoming president, such as the age and residency tests, can run for President!
Cindy O
9:25 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," including any child born "in" the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]
Kelly Sullivan Joyner
8:59 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Thomas Jefferson acquired French citizenship prior to being elected president. He was a dual citizen and no one said a word.
9:47 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
In the early years of US there were no NBC yet, therefore the framers of the Constitution wrote a grandfather clause into ART II so the President at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution did not have to be NBC just a citizen. Our first 10 Presidents were citizens of the US as the constitution provided for. The 11th President, Polk was the first NBC President and every President since Polk to G. W. Bush were born on US property to 2 US citizens. Some of their parents were not born on US property but they did become US citizens before their son (who would become President) was born. McCain was born on a US Navy Base which is property owned by the USA and both his parents were US citizens.
Lord Acton
10:18 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Why the efforts to be dishonest? Is it your intent to confuse?
Thomas Jefferson was presented with "honorary" French citizenship. He did not swear allegiance to France, nor was he under any obligation of allegiance to France by having that honor bestowed upon him.
Lord Acton
10:31 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Cindy O,
What text book was your gradeschool teacher teaching from? Surely, you don't expect us to believe that you recall what you were taught, in such precise detail, and not know the name of the text from which it was deduced!
It became blatantly obvious that you were making this stuff up on the fly when you stated "The State Dept, is not as strict on this as it used to be and does sometimes allow a 'New" citizen to hold dual citizenship".
As usual, your ignorance has betrayed you. Since 1929, the Naturalization Oath was not only administered, but also became a signed document. It starts off with "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."
What you claim to recall is the product of your own fantasy mind. It has no basis in law or reality. The yarns you spin, are just that -Yarns.
Tommy Thompson
10:03 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
I find it strange someone using the name "Squeeky Fromm"...member of the Manson family? I feel for you Lord Acton, you've nailed it time and time again and still it goes right over their heads. I'm getting tired of them quoting Wong Kim Ark: The Wong Kim Ark case does not directly apply to Barack Obama's presidential eligibility, for three reasons:
The Supreme Court did not rule that Wong was a natural born citizen. It merely ruled that he was a citizen. Even if Barack Obama's circumstances at birth were identical to those of Wong Kim Ark, the Court's ruling would, at most, only confer citizenship to the President. It would not confer natural born citizenship, which is what the President needs in order to be eligible to hold office.
The Court ruled that Wong was a citizen because, at the time of his birth, his parents had "permanent domicile and residence" in the United States and was "carrying on business" in the United States. President Obama's father did not meet these conditions. He was not a permanent resident. He was visiting the U.S. temporarily, to obtain an American education.
10:24 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
@Tommy, so sorry to burst your bubble, again. SCOTUS has ruled time and time again that there are ONLY 2 kinds of citizens in this country. Either you are born a citizen, or you acquire citizenship through Naturalization. Obama was born a citizen. Arnold Schwartzenegger is a naturalized citizen. President Obama is eligible, Arnie isn't. It really is VERY simple...you just can't stand it.
Tommy Thompson
11:33 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
@Jim, let's see now...there's "born a citizen" as was first written in the constitution then they changed it to "natural born citizen" and then there's of course "naturalized citizen"....I count three types of citizens. Now I don't want to confuse you too much but do you understand the difference between "Constitutional natural born" and "Statutory natural born"? The department of Foreign Affairs warns people not to get confused about the two. 1. natural born citizen-born on US soil to two citizen parents. 2. born a citizen- born on US soil but not to two US citizen parents (as in WONG KIM ARK!!!) 3. Naturalized citizen- foreigners who go through the naturalization process
12:01 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
@Tommy: Show me where they say that. Because I'll bet you've taken that totally out of context for your own use. However, Minor, whom you folks like to point at so much at this time, is VERY clear on Presidential eligibility.
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
Can you show me something that clearly states different in regards to Presidential eligibility? No? Didn't think so.
Cindy O
10:47 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
A person renounces his loyalty to the other country, while taking an oath of allegiance to the US, but if the other country does not accept that renunciation, that person is still considered a citizen of that country, through no choice or fault of his own. In the early days after the Naturalization Oath of 1929 was put into practice, the State Dept. would renounce the citizenship of any naturalized citizen that maintained dual citizenship. Today, the State Dept, is less strict with this rule. You can go US State Dept.'s site here http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html or here http://www.richw.org/dualcit/faq.html# to read more about it.
Lord Acton
11:10 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Cindy O,
Do you consider the readers to be fools? You must, or you would not direct them to a state department web page that does nothing to support your claim. And even the private blog/website you provided does nothing more than assert a claim that lacks any foundation or support.
All you have managed to point out is that the nation to which a naturalized citizen previously came from may not recognize the renunciation of allegiance, and, as such, if that person travels back to that state, the U.S. cannot provide them protection.
This is not a relaxation of the oath's requirement. It is merely a recognition that the laws of the United States are not binding upon a foriegn nation. In general, the ability to renounce the foreign allegiance and become a U.S. citizen is provided for by treaty between the U.S. and that foreign nation.
There is no such thing as "Today, the State Dept, is less strict with this rule". That would be because this isn't a "rule". It's a law! The oath is provided by statute. There is no provision in that law that imparts discretionary power upon the State Dept.
Jerry D. Keene
11:03 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
So basically the 'Obama is eligable' crowd base their theory on the 's' at the end of parent. Well guess what, that dog don't hunt..
Jerry D. Keene
11:06 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
should be 'obama isn't eligable' Patch really needs to come up with a better tool for their forum. Delete doesn't work.
11:57 am on Saturday, February 11, 2012
What of Willard Mitt Romney? His father was born in Mexico!
Lord Acton
12:10 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The place of birth of the parent doesn't matter, It's the citizenship status of the parent when the child is born that matters,
Jerry D. Keene
12:25 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@Lord Acton
"It's the citizenship status of the parent"
Thanks for conferming that only one parent need be a citizen.... ;-)
Lord Acton
12:35 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
It's really pretty simple: If born on the soil, the citizenship is presumptive. If BOTH parents are members of the state/nation, the citizenship is conclusive.
This really shouldn't be that hard to understand. Nor should it be difficult to recognize the reasons why we would only want someone who has conclusive U.S. citizenship, at birth, to be the commander in Chief of our military.
Jerry D. Keene
1:26 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
LA, "It's really pretty simple:"
So it's a word game now. presumptive vs. conclusive
Yes that is simple....simple minded of Mr. Barchfeld to think that his attempt (a presumptive opinion that he believes President Obama isn't eligible for the PA ballot) will have any more success than the multitude of lawsuits by Orly Taitz, and other (cough, cough) lawyers who have challenged the Commander in Chief in court (multiple states), now in ballot hearings (so far GA and IA) and have been denied every time (conclusive outcome); the President is, was, and will be eligible for office when he repeats his oath of office next year. I know I'm being presumptive about that last, but then I'm working with reality rather than fantasy.
Squeeky Fromm
3:04 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Oh, I just swear these silly two-citizen parent Birthers are like cockroaches. If anybody has any serious doubts about what it takes to be a natural born citizen, here is a short Internet Article about it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
7:06 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Any attempt to read SF's article should be followed by this one.
Lord Acton
3:37 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
"Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt . Law Nat. p. 101" ~City of Minneapolis v Reum, Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (1893)
For those who are interested in reading what Page 101 of Vatt . Law Nat. (cited above by the 8th Circuit) says;
It's pretty clear that the Eighth Circuit understood the holding in Minor, and they understood where that holding came from.
Peter Fuller
11:32 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The above case you quoted was about whether or not someone can unilaterally declare themselves a citizen. The court was stating the obvious in that the person in question was born in another country whose parents were both subjects to the state,
If you read Vatt he does mention that other jurisdictions, England for example had different case law regarding citizenship.
Carl Swensson
10:43 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Are you seriously asking this Obot crowd to read AND understand. Novel thought but you can only educate the ignorant. Stupidity is hopeless and the girls of Obama land do fall in this later category.
Have fun trying though.
3:40 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Mr. Barchfeld has really improved the number of readers to the Patch. Bob Healy of The Patch should give him a continuing column judging from the number of people interested in his thinking.
4:07 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Obummer never should have been pres in the first place, therefore he should not be allowed on the 2012 ballot...period.
6:34 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Cindy O,
What branch of govt is your grade school?
Squeeky Fromm
7:31 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Perhaps this Internet Article will help you discover the "truth" you seek. You know the "truth" in this particular Universe in which we actually live:
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm
7:39 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Well, if the World had ended in 1875, you might have a point. However, existence continued well past that point and --- GEE WHIZ!!! -- there was this whole 'nother case in 1898 called Wong Kim Ark which set forth the meaning of natural born citizenship. This meaning was reaffirmed in Ankeny v. Governor in 2009, wherein somebody born in the Good 'Ol USA is a "natural born citizen."
The Ankeny case was found PERSUASIVE a few days ago in Georgia, and in Illinois. Here is the short and sweet version, wherein the Two Birthers went into the court with all their bah blah blah, and got sent out the door with their tail betwen their legs. I call it, - - The Case The "Two Citizen Parent" Birthers Just HATE!!!
OH, and I just bet you will be seeing a whole lot this year as the Birthers flounder on the Rocks of Reality!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Charles Kerchner
7:52 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Leading a Group of Citizens in Pennsylvania to File a Ballot Access Challenge/Objection to Candidate Obama
For the past several months CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) has been researching and planning for a ballot access challenge/objection to be filed against candidate Barack Hussein Obama II in Pennsylvania on the fact that Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen of the United States" since his father Obama Sr. was a FOREIGN NATIONAL. Natural born Citizen was defined in the renowned legal treatise of the founding era and which was used by the founders and framers to create our new nation and the founding documents, "The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law". Obama Sr. was never a U.S. Citizen, and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Obama is the first person sworn in (illegally and unconstitutionally) as the President and Commander in Chief of our military since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen requirement via a grandfather clause in the Constitution) whose father was a foreign national, was never an immigrant to this country, and was never a Citizen of this country. This is outrageous.
To donate to help this battle see this link: https://secure.piryx.com/donate/Owri7yAp/Article-II-Legal-Defense-Fund/PA
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
William Eib
9:07 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Chucky: Hate to break it to you; United State v Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme court ruled neither parent needs to be a citizen. BORN IN THE USA = NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. There is no conspiracy, courts have throw the Orly Taitz charges out of Court, she lost again in Georgia. The reason it gets no traction is because the courts know the law. If you have such concrete proof, why haven't you taken it to court.. Supreme Court has rejected hearing it. A GOP Court no less, why would they not take it? You have to do your research. And don't stop when you think you found it because it supports your opinion. The Supreme Court will never take this case. NEVER!!!! They already ruled on it in 1898. It's the law of the land. Sorry, Ducky
Charles Kerchner
9:20 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Mr. Eib: Saying something over and over does not make it so. Please provide the direct quote in the "holding" of the U.S. Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark (1898), not dicta or arguments ... but in the holding. You cannot. The holding made WKA a "Citizen", not a "natural born Citizen" of the United States. You saying otherwise shows you are ill advised as to the facts or that you are deliberately deceiving people. Read this essay by a scholarly attorney on the matter:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
William Eib
10:34 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Charles: Reagan's socialist agenda remark, was just political speak, branding Liberals as bad people. He was starting the 30 year march to Plutocracy. Hear me out please. Bush ran it off the rails, Reagan was a pragmatist, his tax cuts didn't work, a recession was setting in, he rolled back the cuts and stopped the trouble.That's why i voted for him. Bush Jr., forewarned that un-paid for tax cuts could cause a problem, unlike Reagan, the Plutocrats on Wall Steer and big Corporations and the Banks owned JR. He had things going his way, the wealthy were ecstatic. He didn't stop, deregulated the banks, ended Glass-Steagle , and started a war. Reagan's plan for America was crushed, although I did not vote for Reagan for a 2nd term, because he was becoming a pawn of the Right and Big Business. Tax cuts, deregulation, Kill the Beast Strategy, cut the safety nets and borrow heavy from foreign countries, these were not Reagan's ideas, he was an FDR democrat and was attempting to bridge the gap between Left and Right. That's why so many democrats voted for him. Just Say No, a massive waste of money, was not his idea. That's why Nancy was angry during his 2nd term, she didn't like the people and their agenda pushing him around. His failing health did not help.
William Eib
11:04 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Re: POTUS being a socialist, that began at FOX. One of sources of news. I was shocked, why? Because I am a socialist and have been my whole life. And from that day forward I heard it constantly.POTUS is so far from socialism, I have to laugh. POTUS is Center Right. And the center has moved to the right, he is farther right and not near what I call the left. He has adopted so much from the GOP hand book it makes me sick! Affordable Healthcare Act.GOP. Insurance mandate. GOP. Cap & Trade GOP. I laugh when he compromises, he is selling the GOP there own bill, and they make him compromise. He has proposed a lot of prior GOP policy. He is playing with them, or thinking they will recognize their own ideas. I don't know. No socialist would put the social contract on the table but he has done just that to help cut he deficit. That drives socialists crazy. Funny part is when I hear Boehner and Cantor beating the guy up over their own ideas, It's Nutz. You need to be concerning yourself with the Plutocrats, they got bailed out but not the mortgage holders, Auto industry bailed out, Banks, Wall Street the headquarters of the uber-rich Plutocrats who have been benefiting from the recession, and now GOPers want to lower their taxes even more. They do not make anything tangible, nothing. They're not job makers. They're money makers. There really is a 1% and 99% divide in this country. This is what you should be worried about, not socialism, take it from me I know. I'd Love it.
William Eib
9:16 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Quick. But Dead wrong. Sorry Thruthy you only get 3 stricks. And you have been out on this NBC thing for a long time. Give me something irrefutable. I BEG YOU PLEASE. Your making it too easy. I feel bad having to correct you over and over. I probably am coming off rude. But, I am at my wits end, I and others on this thread have tried our darnedest to show you the facts. Why not look them up your self. The Supreme Court rulings are public records. If you hate The President of the United States of America, the most powerful job on Earth, why not come out and say it. Would save you and everyone else a lot of time. My guess you really don't know why you hate him. And, please spare me the talking points of BECKY-FATTY & HAMMITY, . Thank you I await you reply.
11:46 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
I don't hate President Obama. I think he's done a pretty good job on the foreign policy front. I was happy for our country when we elected him. I was happy for African Americans and was happy we had turned a page.
I wasn't aware of this NBC issue for quite some time after the election. When I found out about it, I felt cheated by the press since they are supposed to locate relevant facts and bring them before the public for consideration. Instead, they presented a birth certificate conspiracy and used it to cover up the NBC issue.
As for how I feel about President Obama now. Well, he was a constitutional scholar at Univ of Chicago with a specialization in election law. I'm afraid someone of that background owes more to the constitution than this eligibility challenge has revealed.
Many are afraid that all of his actions as President will be rendered null and void if it is concluded he was ineligible since we have precedent for such occurrences in our legislature. That's not what I want. I fear the chaos that could come from that. It would be terribly troubling for our country.
I would be happy if President Obama is taken off of the ballot and another Democratic nominee is brought forward. Hillary Clinton perhaps. Or anyone who is actually eligible.
Charles Kerchner
8:42 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Meet Poppa Birther!
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
William Eib
11:30 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Chuck: America can not be a socialist country, It is a Republic, with a Democracy-Capitalist Heritage. We like to make money here, we buy and sell things here. Wherever you got this notion,or who ever has been telling you this bunk about socialism. It a load of Crap. I told you before in a former comment, I am a life long socialist, I have been professing it for years, ain't no way the USA will ever buy into Socialism. So, you have got to take it easy and stop worrying about us. We've been pounding on the door for years. This is a died in the wool Capitalist country and always will be, unless Socialism becomes profitable and the GOP picks up on it, you need not worry. Alinsky was not a commie or socialist, he hated us.
Charles Kerchner
8:51 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
Squeeky Fromm
8:55 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Lord Acton:
Nice try, but isn't 1893 about 6 years BEFORE the Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898????
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
George Miller
9:08 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
To the people who do not profess to understand why Mr. Barchfield is challengong "Obama's" candidacy:
1. The founders specified that ONLY a natural born citizen could be President, to help reduce the possibility of divided allegiances. One would think that the conduct of the incumbent reinforces that need daily
2.They established a "grandfather" rule, since there weren't any natural born citizens on day one.
3. It was obvious what a natural born Citizen was to the founders, so they didn't write it don in the Constitution any more than they would have defined "soldier" or "militia," other words appearing in the Constitution. To them, it meant born here of U.S. parents. An issues paper was created to bring people up to speed on it: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
4. Chester Arthur deceived the American people and served his term, just like
Obama." The fact that a criminal is not stopped or punished does not legitimize him.
5. There is a difference between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." That is why the terms are used differently in the Constitution and "natural born Citizen" appears but once, in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, -Presidential eligibility.
6. The 14th Amendment addresses ONLY citizenship, not natural born Citizenship.
10:26 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Abe Lincoln's parents were neither US citizens. Thomas was born in 1778, ten years before Virginia joined the union. Nancy was born 1784, four years prior to West Virginia's becoming a US state. In effect, the founder of Republican party was not qualified to be a president by your definition.
10:32 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
In order to clear up George Miller's misunderstanding of our constitution
1) The founding father specified that ONLY natural born citizens could be president so that Naturalized citizens could not, otherwise they would have used the word citizens only. There are only 2 types of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. So simple a child could understand.
3)Correct, born a citizen. As explained in great detail in WKA by SCOTUS.
4)Chester Arthurs father was well known not to be a citizen. This is made-up crap
5)There is a difference, citizen coverts both people born citizens and those that gain citizenship through naturalization...and he is correct, that eliminates naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwartenegger from becoming President.
6)There are only 2 types of citizens, born or naturalized. So if you are born a citizen, you are eligible.
William Eib
11:21 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
George: You must be coming late to this thread. This has been going on for days, seems like years. But, to help catch you up on where we are. First off your wrong.
The Supreme court ruled in 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark. Born in the USA, USA citizen (Natural Born) and on top of that they ruled neither parent needs to be a citizen. Hawaii is the USA ergo: The President of the United States of America is a Natural Born Citizen. Have you ever asked yourself why the Right leaning current Supreme Court has refused to hear this citizen argument? They already knows POTUS, by law, is an NBC. The constitution (14th Amendment) and US v Wong Kim Ark says POTUS, by law, is an NBC. So save your self some time Every angle of this argument has been made, the public record of SCOTUS rulings show and prove POTUS is, by law, a citizen of the USA. That is unless you have something brand new.
Lord Acton
9:09 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I didn't expect you to understand. You're one of those who thinks all vehicles made in America are "All American". Why? Because they are all domestic (born here). And we only have domestic and imports (born or naturalized).
Please tell us the difference between a Toyota (manufactured in the U.S.) and a Chevrolet (manufactured in the U.S.). Are you really willing to go so far as to consider the Toyota to be "All-American"?
10:12 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Toyota's parents are japanese not to mention that the engines were imported from Japan.
Charles Kerchner
9:15 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Far left astroturfing at work here and in DC:
Occupy Protester Claims Union Is Paying '60 Bucks a Head' to Demonstrate at CPAC
Squeeky Fromm
9:51 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Lord Acton:
I understand the law very well. I even have my very own Think Tank. The real question is "what did the Founders mean by natural born citizen." That question was first answered in 1844 in a New York case called Lynch v. Clarke.
It was answered for sure positive on the Federal level in 1898 in the Wong Kim Ark case.(which quoted the Lynch v. Clarke case) It was answered again in 2009 in the Ankeny v. Governor (Indiana case) which quoted a whole lot of stuff from the Wong Kim Ark case. Now, it has been answered 3 more times this year. (Georgia, Virginia, Illinois) Two of those cases reference the Ankeny decision.
In short, if you are born in the United States, the citizenship of your parents does not matter. You are a natural born citizen (unless the child of a diplomat or invading soldier.)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky Fromm
10:12 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
CDR Kerchner
I read that you have started a Birther PAC, and I wanted to tell you that I thought of a wonderful nautical name for your PAC!!! Here it is "People Opposing Obama's Presidency" or POOP-PAC for short. You know like the POOP deck, or POOP like being the news on something.
This is a really good name and I hope you can use it!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thomas Lee Brown
8:55 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
I swear, girl, you are too clever for your own good. I enjoy your wit immensely. The PAC could have a publication, The Daily POOP. And a find-raising gun-range outing, their annual "POOP shoot."
I'll stop now before I spill my coffee.
Lord Acton
10:13 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
There's a reason you refuse the answer the question!
I provided this earlier, but I'll provide it again because you're so special.
Go edumicate yourself.
Rosemary Malloy
10:13 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Well, based on the evidence that we do have, we don't even know if obama was born in hawaii. The forged COLB this unconstitutional usurper released didn't enlighten us either because it was so poorly forged. Hawaii won't release the original because they can't, they don't have it and never did. We don't even know if obama is a US Citizen because he has concealed all of his pertinant documentation from the US Citizens. He was feloniously vetted onto the 2008 ballot by the corrupted pelosi and dnc. obama refused to appear in Georgia because not only was he supbeoned but so was his records, the original birth certificate, micro fiche from hawaii in 1961, the application for his SS# and passports and obama doesn't have this documentation or if he does, it incriminating. We do know that the COLB was forged, numerous professional adobe illustrators have testified and signed affidavites. We do know that the SS# he is using was originally issued to a man that was born in 1890 and it doesn't pass the e verify test. Everything about this man is questionable and all we've received of these questions are lies and denial. It is time for this to be put to rest. It is up to the one running for the positon to show proof of eligibility. obama show yours if you can.
10:37 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
This one issue is what Obama needs to seal his re-election victory, if only one, just one credible republican leader will own the claim. Didn't you get it that it took years before Obama released his long form BC? It only netted the Donald!
10:38 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Rosemary, why must you keep bringing up debunked facts. All have been disproven many times over. Hawaii says he was born there, as per the 10th amendment all other states have to accept. And the Judge who saw all the so-called "evidence" you claim to have thought it was BS...so bad that the defense didn't even bother to show up and they still lost. Now that's some BAD evidence!!! hehehe
Charles Kerchner
10:40 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The forged birth certificates, long & short form, may be a distraction, but they still ARE clear cut forgeries!! What does it say about our Congress and major media when a usurper can put forged documents onto government property servers and give the whole USA and every institution of our government the middle finger. See these reports for expert analysis reports and proof the PDF file put on the White House server is a cut and pasted forgery, not a scan of a paper document. Which came first the chicken of the egg. Which came first the PDF file which is alleged to be a scan of a paper document or the paper copies passed out to the reporters made from same PDF file, not from whatever it is that HI gave to Obama.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
William Eib
12:41 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Rosemary: Take it easy, your going to blow a gasket. All i see as proof of every thing you are saying is this is all opinion based on rumor and paranoid conspiracy nonsense.
I for one would love someone to prove all of what you say is true. I dream of waking up and hear on the news Obama not Natural Born Citizen. Out he goes. And that race war the Right has been talking about will be coming to your front door. Hope you have a gun and lots of ammo. I have researched as much as I can about the citizen thing and I have come up with nothing other than stuff that is not backed up by proof other than it's all a conspiracy. With the millions of people who do not like this guy and a Right wing leaning Supreme Court that will not hear the case, i am really disappointed. I hope you are right, and i am looking forward to the Race Riots.
I am serious about the Riots, I'd love that to happen, then maybe we can get some closure on the whole black-white thing. I'm sure the latinos and Asians would join in.
William Eib
5:15 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Rosemary: I doubt I could get you to look at a clock to prove what the time is. You are in love with the words "Poof" and "Fact" and all you offer are statements based on you desperate belief in them. Let me try this: Why have all the cases filled in court lost. And I can't accept a conspiracy theory, because you will not be able to back that up with anything other than your ill informed belief. I know I am wasting my time here, but I'll give it a shot, everything you have listed has been debunked so many times you could spend a month fact checking it on the internet. Yes, I know conspiracy. All planted by the Obama admin, devils. Let's try the clock thing. it's 5:07 here. if your are in a different time zone, you will be ahead of the time here in the Eastern time zone. It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact, no mater what time it is in another zone, it is still now after 5:00PM here. My point is re: Obama. Your living in another time zone. You are the one who doesn't care, trying to destroy America from the inside, armed with junk info you got from FOX, Fatty, Beck, & Hammity. FOX IS AT WAR WITH AMERICA, and you are but a mere foot soldier in their losing Army. Good luck, SMD
Carl Swensson
10:33 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Were any of you aware that within days of the GA SOS announcing O'Bummer would be on the ballot the boys in DC O.K.'d two Nulcear Plant licenses for GA? First ones handed out in 34 years. But of course that's just an $8.4 billion coincidence, right?
Bribes, threats and coersion is and will be the order of the day and yes, that's bad news but on the bright side, Mr. Barchfield, by your actions, you too can bring a windfall from the Chicago machine for your State too.
Keep up the good fight.
Many more than just you know the truth so ignore the inane banty by the Obot girls, they still think Utopia is attainable. lol
10:42 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Really Carl? WOW! Hey, Illinois found him eligible, what are we getting. Same with Virginia, what are they getting? You know what's really funny, so far the only threats I've heard judges getting were from people who didn't want Obama. And one of those even claimed President Obama was an illegal alien...from another planet!!!
William Eib
12:03 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Carl: You sure are a snarky type of guy, love those little digs, If you put some substance into your comments , things like, let me think, FACTS. You could make an impression. Repeating; BECKY-FATTY & HAMMITY talking points, doesn't work. It just doesn't hold up to a real intelligent comment If you really do think your that smart, why do you post such dumb Parrot talk. Paranoid Conspiracy Freak, answer for everything even if you have to make it up. The Obot girls waste their time trying to inform you, but that's not what you're here for, you came to flat your gums with paranoid BS. Leave the Obot girls alone or you may find yourself embarrassed by their intellect. Familiar with that word, Ducky?
You obviously have absolutely no interest in anything but what comes out of your programmed brain. The Obot girls have been bombing you with facts. And the best you can do as a riposte is insult them. Now i recognize that tactic, Bill O'Really and Hammity, if we were on a phone you could do a FATTY and hang up on them. Man, you better change that dim bulb before you're totally in the dark. If they wanted Utopia they would join your club, suck down some beers, watch FOX, listen to FATTY & BECKY. Not a care in the world, got it all figured out. You know who you like and who to blame.
zydeco jones
10:42 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Thomas Jefferson was president during the lifetime of many of the framers of the Constitution, and he had many, many political enemies. His mother was not born in the U.S. Yet surprisingly, there was no controversy about his election on the grounds of citizenship, either then or now.
Don't be stupid.
Charles Kerchner
10:47 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Of trees and plants and basic logic. A "Citizen" at birth is not necessarily a "natural born Citizen" at birth: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab-are-nbc-2/
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
Charles Kerchner
10:50 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
In carefully parsed statements out of HI they say they have a "birth record" for Obama. That statement is not physical proof that Obama indeed was physically born in HI but instead just simply registered as being born there since HI law in 1961 allowed that with a simply sworn affidavit that a child was born at home. No independent witnesses required. There is no records in any hospital that Obama was born in a hospital other than Obama forged docs. There is not record of pre-natal or post-natal care of the mother or baby in HI. In fact there is no record of the mother Stanley Ann Dunham being in HI during the last two trimesters of her pregnancy. Hawaii half truths/misinfo. Listen to this YouTube audio for more detail:
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
Lord Acton
10:50 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
The birth certificate thing is a ploy to keep the public from looking into natural-born citizen.
I've heard the whole "it's a forgery" thing since last April. Do you really think Obama put out a layered PDF by mistake, instead of just putting up a jpg, bmp, tif image (like the rest of the internet does) by mistake? He put out bait.
Face it, the birth certificate (real or not) is a dead end. As long as Hawaii says that he was born there...period...end of discussion.
If you have proof of forgery, present it. If you have proof of anomaly...do some more investigation. Calling something a forgery, without being able to prove that it is (and you can't because Hawaii is standing behind it) makes you look foolish. You provide all the fodder the Obots need.
Charles Kerchner
10:55 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
@zydeco jones: Did you ever read the constitution? The founding generation was exempt from the "natural born Citizen" clause by a grandfather clause placed in Article II Section 1. Now look in the mirror and ask again whose the funny little guy/gal and deceiver of people I'm looking at.
U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 facts:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened." Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas' and the socialist/progressives' long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government
11:01 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
When I lived in the US, most people I knew believed God existed. Most of them believed they had some proof of it. People believe all sorts of stupid and unfounded things and that is all right. "Proof" however is not something you can have any beliefs about. Proof is Proof.
Some guy believes Obama is not an American. And thinks he has proof. I believe there are at least 3 years since someone like that had any right to news coverage, in a news-outlet that wanted itself taken seriously. The proof has been shown. And Proof is Proof.
zydeco jones
11:08 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
I think "natural born citizen" means a citizen that is not born unnaturally, like being created from the dust from the ground, or like being formed from your hubby's rib, or like being born from a virgin. Now those are unnatural. I don't think being born in Hawaii qualifies as unnatural.
Don't be stupid.
Squeeky Fromm
11:22 pm on Saturday, February 11, 2012
Lord Actup:
Yes, there was a reason I ignored your question. It is irrelevant. To my knowledge, Obama is not a vehicle.
However, the Internet Article was fascinating and I bookmarked it. Thank you for it!!! I wonder why you provided it since it basically set forth the law as being that one born here is a natural born citizen with a few exceptions. I do not think the author is happy about that, but at least he recognizes the current state of the law. I do not expect we will be seeing him filing frivolous eligibility lawsuits against the Prez, or Rubio or Jindal.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
William Eib
12:23 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
JIM: I sympathize. Facts apparently get tn the way of a good argument. I come to comment threads like this to find out what the other side is thinking, and to my disappointment, it's mostly regurgitated FOX, O'Reilly. Hannity, Beck & Limbaugh talking points. I have noticed a lot of people who do their research and try to back up their point of view with facts and available information. How many times has US v Wong Kim Ark been posted, and nothing! not ripple. I come here in to keep my self open to other peoples ideas, but I learned more from the people offering factual info then anyone else on this thread. This is my first time here, is it always like this?
It is really sad. Even the level of insults are lame, high school stuff. I had a guy threaten to beat the crap out of me. And on top of that he never answered my question. Right to violence. Whew.
William Eib
12:42 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Why don't we all change the subject to Flying Saucers. It's a no win/no win. No birth certificates, no pass port, no constitution, no Kenyan grandmother. Just good old arguing about flying saucers, do they exist and has anyone seen one.
Squeeky Fromm
1:41 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
William Elb:
Wouldya believe it??? I actually did a Internet Article about Birthers and Mars:
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
William Eib
4:13 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Very funny and clever. I like your comments. Quite Cheeky,Ducky
David Bongcayao
2:18 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
wow , and you call yourselves Americans who stands for freedom and justice for all...where everyone (us citizen) have unalienable rights...where everyone (except Obama) is innocent until proven guilty. He is President BARACK OBAMA of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA! LIVE WITH IT!!!
William Eib
4:22 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
It comes to that. Frustration in trying to make a point no matter how many facts you present. I'm going nuts reading some of the riposte to all of the facts. Stuff that is public record and the in response you get: the Founding Fathers said, and the constitution says, and the hospital in Hawaii is covering up, and the courts are part of the conspiracy, and the Kenyan grandmother, no mater how many times these things get debunked they always find someone who doesn't research their info. It's like talking to a wall. No matter how correct your comment is, it on extracts an insult, at best.
Lord Acton
10:16 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
"Yes, there was a reason I ignored your question. It is irrelevant. To my knowledge, Obama is not a vehicle."
The reason you want to avoid the analogy regarding domestic trucks is self-explanatory. Your personal bias prevents you from rationalizing your ludicrously myopic conclusion (that all citizens who were born here must be natural-born citizens), As such, you will go to any length to avoid any critical analysis; even to the point of claiming that the analogy is irrelevant because Obama is not a truck.
I don't expect you to be rational. Bigots rarely are. The refuge of the bigot relies on maintaining a particular personal bias. The bigot is willing to go to great lengths in order to avoid exposing the flaws in their belief system. Instead of confronting what is presented, they take any path readily available to avoid it. The primary response of the bigot is an ad hominem attack. The secondary is avoidance. -You make use of both on a regular basis.
Why do you think the Framers limited the qualification for the Office of President to only those who were natural-born citizens? And why did they not place the same restriction on any other office?
Lord Acton
10:43 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
For those who may not be familiar with what has taken place, or what will likely take place in the future; Here's what you should expect:
Even though Obama's father was not a citizen of the United States at the time of Jr's birth, Obama was permitted to take office. At that time, sufficient research into the definition of natural-born citizen had not been performed. As such, no Member of Congress was going to challenge Obama's status as a natural-born citizen. -I doubt that anyone here would dare say that any Member of Congress who would have questioned Obama's qualifications would not have been labeled a racist.
It has taken nearly 4 years to perform the research necessary to provide a meritorious argument. As such, the proverbial genie has left the bottle. We should not expect any lower court judge, or panel of judges, to truly decide a case on the merits. (By "decide a case on the merits", I mean, acknowledge the arguments presented and demonstrate the soundness of those arguments, or lack thereof.)
There were arguments presented in the Georgia case that were not presented in the Ankeny case. Instead of judicially determining the merits of those arguments, the court summarily avoided them. Why? Because no lower court is likely to attempt to put the genie back in the bottle.
So don't expect those arguing that Obama IS NOT a natural-born citizen to prevail in the lower courts. Wait for the case to hit the higher courts.
12:37 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Actanidiot: Sorry. the Supreme Court won't ever take up this case. Why? Because it has been established in prior SCOTUS precedence and the lower courts have followed that precedence in rendering judgement. In fact, you will see Ankey cited in every other ballot case being brought up across the country....simply because it is sound legal argument. You will also find that there was no magic "genie" to put back in the bottle because President Obama's history was well known and well documented BEFORE he even ran for President. Your misunderstanding of what our country is borders on insanity...I can tell you, if there was ANYTHING to this, FOX, Beck, Limbaugh, etc would have been trampling out expert after expert to argue against the President's eligibility. Sorry, but they couldn't find any to agree with you. So, what you're left with is scam artists trying to profit off of your hatred and bias (WND, Orly,, et al) in order to keep it alive. If you want to be a rube, it's up to you...but you have no case and that has been proven time and time again.
William Eib
11:41 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Sir Acton: You can't possibly be that dense. Many on this thread have addressed your misunderstanding of the law, the law is the law not what you want it to be. Also, why won't the current Right leaning Supreme Court take up the case? The answer is; they know the law and the law says he is a citizen, What don't you understand about that? Orly Taitz has presented a meritorious case, the Georgia court accepted it as such and she lost. Why? The law says he is a citizen so he is a citizen, What don't you understand about that. The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. ruled in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, that a person born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen, they also added that the parents did NOT have to be citizens. Now what don't you understand about that? Re; Taitz unaccepted questions. They avoided them because the law over rides arguments that have already been addressed by the law, no need for redundant arguments. You can ask a legal question 10 ways and you will get one answer. Taitz wastes the courts time, another reason the current Supreme Court has passed on her and other's citizenship cases. Why because the law is the law, A child born on US soil is an NBC. When people present a case through tireless efforts to inform you, you should research your beliefs, see if they hold water. Re: Racism; when people ignore the facts it leads to conclude there is another reason for the unreasonableness and the issue of race has overtly risen in people's objection to POTUS.
Lord Acton
12:26 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
"Also, why won't the current Right leaning Supreme Court take up the case?"
You would do well to answer your own question with relevant law before jumping to conclusions based on nonsense. What would give SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear any of the past cases? Are you under the impression that SCOTUS can hear any case they want to hear? Do you think a lack of standing all of the sudden becomes standing when it comes before the Supreme Court?
"The Supreme Court of the U.S.A. ruled in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, that a person born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen".
This further demonstrates your confusion. The Wong Kim Ark Court never "held" that Wong Kim Ark was a natural-born citizen. Had they, you would be able to quote the opinion of the Court which would demonstrate that belief. You can't!
You're obviously a child trying to participate in the adult world. You're not going to understand it, and, therefore, you are left with no choice but to ridicule that which you don't understand. This is further demonstrated by your inability to distinguish a citizen from a natural-born citizen.
"Taitz wastes the courts time". --You won't get me to disagree with you there. However, you need Taitz. She is what permits you to ridicule any efforts that challenge Obama's eligibility. Without her, you would be forced to look solely at the merits of arguments that are based on historical records and prior judicial holdings.
12:50 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
@Lord Actanidiot: OK, from WKA
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: 'The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.' Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.
There it is in black and white...well understood at the time of the signing of the constitution. And, if I must teach you, even though I know you will not learn, there was a very good reason they used the term "natural-born citizen" instead of just "citizen"...they didn't want naturalized citizens to be eligible. Period. End of story. And further, in Minor, the SCOTUS restates that there are only 2 kinds of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. President Obama is eligible, Arnold Schwartzenegger is not. No secret 3rd type of citizen exists. Period. But, you won't learn, because you're incapable or really don't care about the constitution.
Lord Acton
12:55 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
And Billy,
You should notice that no court has rejected the holding of the Minor Court. The latter courts (Indiana and Georgia) merely added to the class recognized to be natural-born citizens. Unfortunately, those courts did not have the courage to recognize the effect of those additions. They went from only having a Commander in Chief with undivided allegiance, to granting access regardless of alternate allegiances. These additions were not made after taking the time to examine the potential ill effects. Your childlike arguments do nothing more than solidify your belief that you did nothing wrong by voting for Obama. You would like nothing more than to see the courts give judicial sanction to practical nullification of the national security measures afforded by the qualification restriction of Article II. After all, you're a proud member of the "whatever makes us feel good" tribe.
1:02 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
@Lord Actanidiot: That is correct, they did not go against Minor. They recognize that minor was not defining what a natural-born citizen was. They also recognized that Minor stated that there was only 2 kinds of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. And they did not add anything, they reiterated what the dissent said about WKA in that case, that the ruling would have the effect of making WKA eligible to run for the presidency. Even back then, they recognized that born in the country made you eligible for the Presidency. It will never be over-ruled and the SCOTUS will never take it up. Because, it's settled law in this country.
Lord Acton
1:22 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
"They recognize that minor was not defining what a natural-born citizen was."
What part of "[t]hese are the native, or natural-born citizens" don't you get?
It's easy for people to come along and claim that the Court wasn't defining the term, but it seems those same people don't have the ability to use the words the Court used to support their position. The Court left open the possibility that those born here of parents who were not citizens, to be considered as citizens, However, the Court did not say that they would be added to the class of citizens identified as natural-born citizens.
Here's exactly what the Court said; "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."
Some authorities go further and include as citizens. Hmmm??? How people come to see that as "Some authorities go further and include as natural-born citizens" is byond me. I suppose this comes about by thinking that you can't be born here and not be a natural-born citizen. However, those same people never provide anything that would prevent natural-born citizens and 14th Amendment citizens from coexisting. Both would be citizens by birth. The difference being (and it's an important one) that one of those classes might owe foreign allegiance at birth, and the other would not.
Lord Acton
1:40 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Quoting Curtis without understanding?
"principle of public law"
Do you know what "public law" is?
"Public law," in one sense, is a designation given to international law as distinguished
from the laws of a particular nation or state. In another sense, a law or statute
that applies to the people generally of the nation or state adopting or enacting it, is denominated a public law, as contradistinguished from a private law, affecting only
an individual or a small number of persons." (Black's Dictionary of Law)
You see, without having sufficient knowledge of the law, it is easy to become confused when reading Supreme Court opinions. As there was no municipal law regarding the citizenship of those born in the U.S., the Court had to recognize what the public law was. (Public law is international law, which was originally called the law of nations.)
Now tell me; Didn't the Treatise on the Law of Nations in which our Framers were familiar include place of birth? I seem to recall that it said "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". It sure looks to me like the public law "referred citizenship to the place of birth".
Lord Acton
1:47 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
"they didn't want naturalized citizens to be eligible. Period. End of story."
Why would that be? Surely you're not going to suggest that we didn't trust our naturalized citizens! Surely you wouldn't think that after 14 years residence those naturalized citizens would not be familiar with our customs!
Naturalized citizens are eligible to hold the highest security clearances. http://www.clearancejobs.com/security_clearance_faq.pdf
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why the we wouldn't want the Commander in Chief of the military to be a naturalized citizen.
1:51 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Actanidiot: Thanks for for ther proving me correct! It's always nice when you poor folks see the light. In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE they state:
"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Those doubts were solved in WKA by the VERY SAME COURT!
Further Minor states: "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
If you are born a citizen, you can become president, if naturalized you cannot. Thanks for proving Obama is eligible...again!
2:33 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Actanidiot says "Now tell me; Didn't the Treatise on the Law of Nations in which our Framers were familiar include place of birth? I seem to recall that it said "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens". It sure looks to me like the public law "referred citizenship to the place of birth"."
Let me get this straight, you are saying that the natural-born citizen phrase was adopted from this treatise by Vattel? The one where the original version written in French does NOT say "natural-born citizen"? The one where the English translation which came out years AFTER the constitution was ratified contains that phrase? You do realize this really makes you look stupid, right? Again, keep on typing, people like you further prove that the President is eligible...and will help get him re-elected.
Squeeky Fromm
11:57 am on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Actout:
I am not biased in favor of my belief, When this stuff started, I didn't know what a natural born citizen was. Sooo, I read the legal cases (Wong Kim Ark, Lynch v. Clarke, and Ankeny) and LO AND BEHOLD I learned what a natural born citizen was, which for somebody born in the United States is simply being born here and not the child of a foreign diplomat or invading soldier. I am confirmed in my knowledge by the subsequent judicial decisions in Georgia,Illinois, and Virginia.
Now, lets look at something YOU said above. YOU said:
"It has taken nearly 4 years to perform the research necessary to provide a meritorious argument. "
Really??? FOUR WHOLE YEARS for you Birthers to figure out what the law is??? That should be your first clue that something is bad wrong with your legal analysis. (Heck, it didn't take me but reading Wong Kim Ark a few times and Ankeny a couple of times and it was obvious to me.) I think if you spent four years on this, it probably fits more into being an Obsession, rather than a legal analysis. Which, BTW, (Which means "by the way") I just wrote an Internet Article about Birther Mental Illness which deals with. . ..drumroll. . ..Obession.
Maybe you should get away from the Birther Echo Chamber for a few weeks and spend some time re-reading the legal cases and some of the writings by non-Birthers???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
12:42 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Me too Squeeky...and it's just amazing how well our forefathers put together the constitution and the checks and balances. Once you understand how these folks are falling for the scam being put forth by WND and Orly and all those right-wing sites for profit from the rubes...you realize why this is kept alive. Wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the anti-Obama posters work for them. Selling their snake-oil as long as they possibly can to separate the rubes from their money.
Lord Acton
1:02 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
If Wong Kim Ark convinced you, then you can quote the portion of the Court's holding in that case that accomplished it. Please make sure to only quote the Court's holding.
1:05 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
@Lord Actonidiot: Please show me in law or court precedence where there are more that 2 types of citizens in this country, born or naturalized. You need to prove your case, not the other way around.
1:03 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
God Bless America - For Our Freedom of Speech!Thanks be to God OUR Creator of the Natural Born no matter where you live! In OUR end, GOD will have the last word of the LAW to say what was RIGHT and JUST! May God have MERCY on us ALL. Peace be with you...
Squeeky Fromm
1:11 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord A:
Okay, easy enough. Here it is from Wong Kim Ark, as cited also in Ankeny:
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.13
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Lord Acton
1:53 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Congratulations Squeeky,
You just proved that you think we are still living under the rule of the English monarch! Nothing you quoted even mentions the phrase "natural-born citizen". Yet, you chose to conflate two dramatically different terms.
I gave you the opportunity and you failed miserably.
1:14 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
1862 Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment (Cong. Globe, 37th Congress, 2nd Session, pg 1639):
"All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 states:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"
Pretty CLEAR! Obama is ineligible!
1:30 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
@KenyanBornObama: Thanks for posting those...they are more proof Obama is eligible. It's so nice when you finally see the light!!!
Squeeky Fromm
1:30 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Hmmm. It is PERFECTLY CLEAR that 1862, and 1866 are BEFORE the 14th Amendment, and BEFORE the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision. This is how people who don't know anything about the issue can see how ridiculous the Birther legal arguments are. Trying to trump Supreme Court decisions with speeches written 30 years before the decision. How silly.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
zydeco jones
2:47 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
I propose that Lord Acton, since the Contitution prohibits the awarding of titles of nobility, is obviously not an American, and is simply an alien (alien being?) trying to subvert our nation. He is not a citizen and nothing he can say, and no papers he can provide will change that because he is obviously lying and any documents he provides are obvious forgeries. This also applies to all other birthers, whether noble or common, and no fake facts or forged documents can change this ruling.
What the hell is wrong with you people.
Don't be stupid.
Squeeky Fromm
3:00 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Actin':
OMG, I just have to lead you by the hand, don't I. Natural born subject and natural born citizen are the same concept in Wong Kim Ark. Here is you another quote from WKA:
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:
Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel (1838), 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26.
My goodness, did you spend any of that 4 years actually reading Wong Kim Ark???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Lord Acton
3:21 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Well Squeeky, It's pretty obvious you don't know the difference between the holding of the Court and that which is examined by the Court.
Your inability to distinguish between the two leaves little doubt as to the reasons you hold your belief.
Squeeky Fromm
3:04 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Actin'
Part 2, because this site doesn't seem to like long quotes. Here is another quote from the Wong Kim Ark case, which was also quoted in Ankeny. I mean this stuff is really pretty simple, so maybe you should just forget what the other Birthers are telling you and start reading and thinking for yourself. Okay???
In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.
1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
William Eib
11:58 pm on Sunday, February 12, 2012
Lord Mayor of the Comment Thread: Yes, Ankeny is an appellate decision, not another Supreme Court pass. Still a defeat, none the less. December 2008, at least 17 lawsuits had been filed challenging Obama's eligibility in states including North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Connecticut, New Jersey,Texas and Washington. No such suit had resulted in the grant of any relief to the plaintiffs by any court.
William Eib
12:23 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Jim: If this issue is the need to be a natural born citizen to be able to run for President and subsequently sit as the President, Then I think 2 cases help> US v Wong KIm Ark and Akeny. Kim; In a 6–2 decision issued on March 28, 1898,[102] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost His parents were not US citizens. ANKENY: "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude, persons born within the borders of the USA are "natural born Citizens,"
12:34 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Thanks Wild Bill! I've got those 2 cases in my hip pocket, but it's much more fun when you can use their own words against them. Nothing is more satisfying than keeping them talking and talking and frustrating them so much that they end up proving the President's eligibility themselves. Which is very easy, since all Supreme Court precedence, laws, and the constitution is on the President's side and they aren't the most intelligent people I've run into. It's good for many laughs and giggles.
William Eib
12:39 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Tommy Thompson: You should read US v Wong Kim Ark: The Supreme Court considered the key question in the case as whether a child born in the U.S, to parents of Chinese descent, who are subjects of the Emperor of China was a natural born citizen. In a 6–2 decision issued on 3/28/1898, the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that the US citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost, since his birth, Including his parents not being citizens of the US. The issue to the Court was Kim's Natural Born Citizen Status. And they ruled he was a natural born citizen. Born in USA = Naytural bornm Citizen, what else could it possibly mean? Ankeny v Gov of Indiana: used the Kim, ruling to arrive at their ruling - "Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude, persons born within the borders of the USA are "natural born Citizens," I don't know how much clearer it can be.
Tommy Thompson
2:03 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Wm EIB and others I want to thank you for your responses but no thanks. I've been listening to obots for the past three years trying to understand your defense of Obama. I've seen every thing and you've added nothing that is new...just a twisted maligned pile of gibberish most likely direct from "Fogbow". You've misquoted case after case...which is ok on a discussion board. However, I will be in court and I need REAL facts. To be honest it's sort of sad that ya'll know more about this subject than Obama's attorney here in Alabama, Barry Ragsdale. However, your twisted version of the facts won't get it in a real court of law. I really hope that Ragsdale or his replacement tries to use Wong Kim Ark or even Ankeny...we will have a lot of fun with that. Or heck, lets go all out and hope he tries to tell the court that there are only two types of citizens...natural born and naturalized...no I don't think so. He's pretty dumb about the subject but I don't even think he would try to use that. After all he did do his college thesis 20 years ago on why the natural born citizenship requirement for president should be changed. BTW, he lost all of his debates. Now ya'll (spoken in southern drawl) have a good day and thanks...but no thanks.
7:27 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Foolishness is trying the exact same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Arkeny v. Governor, 916 NE2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). It is completely on point and clearly states specifically that President Obama is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the US Constitution.
8:26 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
@Tommy...well, since you've continually lost in a real court of law over and over, you might consider that it is you and the birthers who have misquoted case after case and it's YOU who don't have the facts or law correct. I mean really, your case is so BAD that you can't even beat an empty chair! That's BAD!!! hehehe
William Eib
3:17 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Tom-Tom: Ya bin listnin' but ya ain't bin hearin'. There is a difference: like the child who is told it is raining out side, put on your rain coat, but doesn't and, like in your case, the child gets all wet. That's Listening. Whereas the child who puts on the raincoat. That's hearing. Dry as a bone. Try it some time. Take your fingers out of your ears and try a taste of hearing. May, and I mean May, do ya a mite bit of good, Ducky. Bi' now.
Squeeky Fromm
3:10 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Tommy Thompson:
Well, son. It's kinda like Ron White says. "Ya cain't fix stupid." But ahm bettin' you can beat stupid in court. Sooo, just go ahead and git your excuses ready for when the last judge(s) that hear ya'lls Birfer case tells ya:
"Now boys. There ain't but two kind of citizens. And Obama is a natural born one. That's been the law around this here country fer about a couple of hunnert years and we ain't changin' it just cause you good ol' boys don't like Obama. Now ya'll git on outta here and try to act like you got some smarts. Y'hear???"
Tee Hee! Tee Hee!
Squeeky Fromm
Gal Reporter
9:11 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
You can't fix stupid. That is correct. But you can always pretend to be dumb. Case in point: the Wong Kim Ark ruling should have been controlled by the laws in place at the time namely the Burlingame-Seward Treaty of 1868 between the USA and China. Wong Kim Ark and all Chinese Nationals' citizenship & residency was governed by this treaty.
Article 5 of the treaty is crystal clear. However, crystal clear wasn't good enough for Justice Gray. He needed a long winded diatribe to smooth over his attempts to change US law and thereby gain the legitimacy for Chester Arthur's Presidency. Thanks to Leo Donofrio, we know Chester Arthur concealed his non-natural-born status and burned all of his papers at the end of his life. He wasn't a fan of transparency.
10:12 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
IJWT: So, you're using a statement from a treaty preventing slave trade to prove what?
Rosemary Malloy
9:13 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Don't need to rely on court cases, just examine the proof or lack of proof that this fraud has and hasn't presented. The proof's in the puddin.
obana is an undocumented, unconstitutional usurper that is shredding the constitution into oblivion. YOU had better have a care about this because it's also your freedoms that this implant is decimating.
9:19 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
The fear among pro-Obama adherents is that this case will go before the Supreme Court where it will receive a thorough review. No one can predict what that outcome will be but all of the connections between Chester Arthur and Justice Gray will be exposed for analysis.
In the end, we have to live with what the Supreme Court says on the matter. Even if they come to a conclusion opposite mine, I will be satisfied that the Rule of Law was followed. Yes, I'll be disappointed but satisfied. I guess at that point--the issue could become one of those strange historical anomalies that people list as examples of abandonment of the intent of the constitution's framers.
Until we get that ruling from the Supreme Court, all of the evidence suggests very strongly that the foreign allegiance problem the framers were attempting to address through strict Presidential Eligiblity rules is not respected by equating NBC with Citizen.
Additionally, one of the sad outcomes of this controversy is that it appears that ordinary citizens have little or no standing before the courts to challenge presidential candidates not only on the NBC issue but all of the other presidential eligilbity rules. This is the real problem because it means anyone anywhere with enough money can become president. To some, that's a great thing. To others who saw what happened to Poland around the time of our country's founding....it is not a great thing at all.
10:09 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
@IJWT says "In the end, we have to live with what the Supreme Court says on the matter. Even if they come to a conclusion opposite mine, I will be satisfied that the Rule of Law was followed."
Well that's great IJWT! Since the SCOTUS has already spoken on this matter, then you must be satisfied. That's why you're losing in every court this is brought up, by SCOTUS precedence. So glad you're finally seeing the light! BTW, ordinary citizens have been bringing lawsuits, challenges, etc for over 3 years now...and lost every single one. So it's probably because President Obama is eligible.
Robert Edward Healy, III
9:54 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Please be civil, folks. Obscenity will be deleted.
11:49 am on Monday, February 13, 2012
Would someone out there do me a solid and post the Tisdale V Obama *complaint.* I can't find it and would rather not deal with pacer.
Tisdale, as I understand it, is an African American from Virginia who has brought forward a NBC challenge to Obama and other candidates.
The press has not reported on this case. I understand the Judge has made a ruling but I want to get a copy of the complaint.
Please help.
Squeeky Fromm
12:09 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Can't you Birthers decide what your argument is??? One minute you claim that Obama is illegal because the law requires two citizen parents. Then you flip-flop over to "Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly" because Judge Gray back in 1898 was such a bad boy. But if the current state of the law is that two citizen parents are not required (rightly or wrongly) then Obama is eligible. Birthers can't have it both ways.
The abortion analogy is appropriate. You can't say on one hand that people getting abortions are breaking the law because Roe v. Wade doesn't legalize abortion, then turn around and say Roe v. Wade was a bad judicial decision because it legalized abortions. It is one or the other to non-delusional people.
Perhaps that is why Birthers keep meeting "El Kabong" in court??? What was it that Virginia judge just said when he drop-kicked the Birther out the door? Wasn't it:
Moreover, "those born 'in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' … have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding … and thus eligible for the presidency." . . .Thus, Mr. Tisdale's contention that President Obama, Governor Romney, and Congressman Paul are not eligible to be President due to their nationalities is WITHOUT MERIT.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
12:57 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
I don't speak for anyone but myself. My personal opinion is President Obama was probably born in Hawaii and became a citizen at birth. I believe NBC was well known by the framers as someone born in the country to citizen parents unless you were alive at the adoption of the constitution. The rule was designed to reduce foreign influence on the commander in chief. Although not defined, Minor v. Happersett makes it unambiguous that NBC's are exactly that. Since Minor was referenced by two subsequent Supreme Court cases, the precedent was set. I accept all of Leo Donofrio's reasoning on the matter since he's done the most research and produced the most illuminating views.
I think anyone who brings a challenge to President Obama's or Mitt Romney's or Santorum's eligibility is reasonable in the absence of new information. My conclusion on this point draws from Congress' own confusion about the NBC issue. It was not clear to them. They held hearings and discussed and debated it. They tried to change the rule 24 times.
Ultimately, I think the issue has damaged our democracy. Congress failed to clarify the matter leading to these court challenges. The media used the birther conspiracy to cover up the NBC issue. In the end, Democrats are damaged the most since two election cycles have been impacted.
1:02 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Squeeky, you've been following this issue for much longer than me. Can you point to a single media news article or television story on the topic of NBC that doesn't mention the birth certificate conspiracy?
I don't know the answer but I doubt such a work exists. I hope I'm wrong. Am I?
12:09 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Found it myself:
Very interesting reading.
Charlie P Forquer
1:03 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Great discussion. One point missed I believe, this whole thing would be ignored if the republicans could come up with a viable candidate. Seems as though anyone that is nearly electable has been smart enough to wait till 2016.
Squeeky Fromm
1:20 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
I am not aware of any MSM splitting the Birth Certificate issue from the NBC issue. This is probably because most Birthers tend to believe both issues. Believe it or not, I was once a sort of Birther who thought there was no good reason for Obama not to cough up his long form. Any reason he could have had for withholding it was bad, and possibly being from Kenya was the most benign of the reasons. However, when Obama coughed up the long form in April 2011, then I shut up about it. I still think it was pretty cheesy of him to sit on the long form for three years, but he coughed it up so that issue is over. It is way past time to move on from that.
But I was NEVER a two citizen parent Birther. The law just simply did not require two citizen parents. I think a lot of that is just "Plan B" for people who don't like Obama. For example, Jerome Corsi wrote a 308 page book in 2008 called Obama Nation giving reason after reason why we should not vote for Obama. Heck, I have a First Edition copy. But he never mentions the two citizen parent stuff. Because that theory did not get invented until late 2008 from what I can determine.
The MSM will probably not separate the two sides of Birtherism because for one thing, people are still going to court pleading both sides at the same time, ike in Georgia. And, the birth certificate stuff makes the issue look even crazier than it already is.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
2:01 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Hi Squeeky! I've been having fun with this for a long time, They are so entertaining, especially when they prove themselves that President Obama is eligible. President Obama had what millions of Americans have had happen to them, he lost his original BC. So, he sent off to Hawaii for another and they sent him the COLB. Which, is the legal BC for Hawaii. Hawaii then put out 2 statements that he was born there. WND even had an expert look at the COLB and he declared it was valid. Then, they saw the bigots and rubes out there really hated President Obama and there was $$$ to be made! Hence, we are here...again. You won't believe some of the things these folks were demanding of the President...by far the most ridiculous was:
I mean they had an 18-year-old 9 month pregnant woman with no means of support flying from Hawaii to Kenya in 1961 when it wasn't even legal for women that pregnant to fly to have a baby in an inferior hospital away from her family. They had a picture of the President's naked mother and claimed it was taken in July and she's not pregnant, when there's a Christmas tree in the picture! They are just so desperate, they make up things and hope no one will notice. But, they are good for a bunch of laughs and giggles!
3:14 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Thanks. I've never been attracted to the birth certificate conspiracy because it involves physical evidence from so many years ago...it just never seemed like something anyone could prove one way or the other. I can't fault people who don't believe in the Hawaiian birth too much since President Obama seems to have made a game out of it with the coffee mugs and tshirts. (yes, I found that amusing)
I've thought about the one vs two citizen parent requirement. It didn't seem fair to me on a fundamental level. But that's when the foreign allegiance issue was brought to my attention. Do I think President Obama has a foreign allegiance we should be concerned about? No, probably not. His father was never really in his life as far as I can tell. Although a case could be made that he has a penchant for European socialism but that's not my issue. But the intent seems sound especially when it was written...back when borders/countries were slightly more fluid than they are today.
I don't trust the lower court rulings on the NBC issue. I think we're going to need a Supreme Court ruling with some teeth in it to be satisfied.
The main reason I am attracted to this NBC issue is because it demonstrates our country's collective ability to ignore and/or violate our most basic rules. At a minimum, Congress correctly recognized there was an ambiguity problem. But they didn't resolve it. These court cases are the result of that.
4:25 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Well IJWT I'm going to have to tell you the honest truth then. This will never make it to the Supreme Court. It is well established through WKA that if you are born a citizen, you're eligible. It is also well-established through the 10th amendment that President Obama was born in Hawaii and every other state and court, including SCOTUS, must accept that fact as per the Constitution. You will find no judge, appeals court, or SCOTUS that will go against that. Get used to seeing a lot of rulings for the President that use Ankey, because it is solid and won't be overturned.
William Eib
3:03 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Tommy Thompson: Well here we go again, rather than reading the decision, you prefer to stick with your dumbass head in the sand ideological premise, If it is in opposition to what you think, it is already wrong. Why waste your time reading the ruling and risk the chance you might be wrong, heavens no! That would take time and effort and there is that great fear of failure. It's the lamest tactic , and the most ignorant defense of position. They're wrong I'm right. That's it, period. No reason to continue. Over and out. What a weak view of the world. I can picture you with your fingers in your ears, going bla, bla, bla, I can't hear you. Geez, Please, Ducky Why is Ragsdale even going to court the precedent exists in all of the failed attempts, it's like getting the courts to listen to fairy tale. Once again, Ducky, your simpleminded position will lose, and continue losing as long as thick-headed people like you encourage this nonsense. I admire your skill at making up law to defend your point. Such as the incredibly specious position of 3 types of citizenship, you are the only person who believes that, i can not find your position anywhere other than in the fiction in your comment, but no where else. There is the grandparent rule from 1994, if you win on this rule you a a naturalized citizen. It's not a different form of citizenship it's just another way of acquiring it.
William Eib
3:59 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
@Phil Jourdan: Sorry to interrupt you nap. What amazes me is the Certainty with which Wing Nuts state their case. Mostly when they are dead wrong!!
Your words Phil: "Except that is a lie - since the bill was passed under the Pelosi house. Pelosi did not allow any republican input."
We'll Ducky hate to break it you (please notice the date at the end of the paragraph) The STOCK (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) Act was passed by the house on Thursday Feb. 9th, 2012 The house overwhelmingly passed a bill on Thursday to ban insider trading by members of Congress and to impose new ethics requirements on lawmakers and federal agency officials.The 417-to-2 vote occurred less than three weeks after President Obama demanded such action in his State of the Union address. The Senate approved a similar bill by a vote of 96 to 3 on Feb. 2 (2012)
There's more: House Republican leaders eliminated a provision of the Senate-passed bill that would, for the first time, regulate firms that collect "political intelligence" for hedge funds, private equity funds and other investors. Under the Senate bill, such firms would have to register and report their activities, as lobbyists do. That would have been nice to have in the bill, don't ya think, Ducky?
William Eib
4:48 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
@Phil Jourdan: How about a remedial reading course, Ducky. A small reminder: I voted for Reagan for his 1st term, because he had been an FDR Democrat. You missed "had been." No where do I say he ran for President as an FDR Dem, I said I liked him because he HAD BEEN an FDR devotee at one time in his career, and still had great respect for FDR. I did not vote for him in 1984, because he got caught up in the DC GOP world, and lost his way. Nancy saw it as well, if you recall she became a nuisance to her husband's inner circle. To paraphrase you: Your ignorance is inexcusable.
William Eib
4:55 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
@Phil Jourdan: Re: Ronald Reagan. Your first point: #1 - His belief and communication of that belief to the people, of the concept of self empowerment. Yhat was FDR language, why I supported him, right out of one of FDR's fireside chats.
#2 - His belief, manifested through his actions, of the evilness of both socialism and the Soviet empire. His policies lead to the dissolving of that empire.
What is it with the Right's obsession with Evil, no wonder your so negative all the time. It's like there is nothing in the world to be happy about. Re: Reagan and USSR. Don't forget the years our country fought the Cold War, wearing down the USSR economy, and the helping hand from the Pope with the missile defense system in Europe, big issue that helped to bring down the USSR. Check out the Pope & Reagan, fascinating read for a Reagan fan, which I am. Except for the 2nd term.
Rosemary Malloy
6:20 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Kenya Born Senate hopeful barrack obama 2004 AP article with obama's smiling face plastered all over the cover. You can justify this unconstitutional usurper any way you want but even obama knows he was born in Kenya. How do you explain that?
Rosemary Malloy
6:23 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Now he's just trying to do what he was groomed to do and reek havoc on the US and the constitution.
You people that profess this man to be a natural born citizen just can't admit that you elected an undocumented, unconstitutional usurper
Peter Fuller
11:28 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Rosemary, you do realize that the original AP story distributed world wide did not contain that headline. Someone at one newspaper, the Kenyon based Sunday Standard added the headline and changed the AP story, probably to get more readers.
Squeeky Fromm
8:24 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
IJWT: I have a couple of questions. 99.9999% of Conservative lawyers and judges have expressed no two citizen parent concerns. Hillary Clinton didn't. Good conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Mark Levin think Birthers are nutz. Jerome Corsi, PhD from Harvard, nominee of Constitution Party for President, writes a 304 page book (Obama Nation) where he never mentions a two citizen parent problem. Real live judges, like in Ankeny, patiently explain to you what the law is, and give you the historical legal background dating back for centuries. Yet, Then, you believe Leo Donofrio. However, his theories continue to lose in Court. Sooo:
1. Why is it that you chose to believe some guy on the Internet over all these other people, many of whom can't stand Obama and would like nothing better than to see him out of the White House.
2. Do you ever get the feeling that you have been taken in by a CULT, and this is why people laugh at Birthers and accuse them of irrationality.
3. How many times will Leo Donofrio's theories get clobbered in court before YOU will start to wonder if he really knows what he is taking about after all. 5, 10, 20,30???
4. If there is no upper limit to the number of adverse court decisions before you change your mind, do you think you need to reconsider the CULT aspects of Birtherism???
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
9:37 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Squeek, the turning point for me in this whole ordeal was learning Clinton and Obama signed that non binding resolution for McCain. They didn't pass something for all sons/daughters of military but only for McCain.
That's when I knew there was something very very fishy.
All the subsequent research revealed it was worse than fishy in regard to congress. I especially liked seeing the congressman from the Bronx grill the supreme court justices about NBC (since he was born in puerto Rico).
I don't pay too mich attention to the lower courts on an issue like this. I expect them to be partisan just like bloggers.
Donofrio's ideas seem to me to be the most thoroughly researched and rational based on all of the evidence. I think he figured out the Chester Arthur and justice gray issue very well.
You have to hand it to donofrio. He set out to answer questions about NBC but his latest blog reveals answers to questions about plain citizenship. These judges issuing various illogical conclusions seem like a scam to me.
I admit there is a bit of an irrational element among birthers but that's true of most partisan political debates.
9:41 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
It isn't quantity it is quality, sqeek. The quality of analysis of skeptics on blogs seems better than most of what these judges have come up with. It has been disappointing but I guess not surprising.
9:56 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Actually, if you do a little research on Donofrio's blog, you'll find out he's been lying to you and creating facts to fit his conclusions. Of course it makes more sense if you do it that way, don't let the truth get in the way of your conclusions. Judges are bound by the truth, not made up fiction. If you would just do a little research independent of Donofrio at the Library of Congress online, you would see his conclusions and statements about President Arthur are completely off-base and would render his conclusions useless.
William Eib
9:46 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
I don't give a damn for truth: Using your logic and argument Roe v Wade is the rule of the day, and no one has a right to over turn it because it has been on the books for a long time and it has legally guided the law in regards to a women's privacy and in so doing it allows her the right to an abortion. So do me a favor and share some of your well researched and presented point to the Ant-abortion folks who are beating their heads against he wall. Also, tell them to stop searching for a judge to change the law. As you so perfectly put it, we don't need some long winded diatribe to smooth over a judge's attempts to change US law
William Eib
10:04 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Your Truthiness: You could do us all a favor and expose all of your quack ideas all at once. This method of stringing out you argument when faced with facts by throwing out one of your reserve pieces of ammo of silliness. It's a form of torture , one drop at a time. And you keep getting the same answers. Everything you have come up with has either been thoroughly debunked by now and you have been given more that enough legal info to almost qualify your for admission to law school. I am beginning to think you don't want to believe any thing because you would have nothing else to do with your time. Again why not let us have all the defense of your belief all at once. It's scares me to think there is someone walking the earth as dense as you have shown yourself to be through your presentations.
William Eib
10:22 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
Rosemary Malloy: Do you ever read what you wrote before you submit? This is rank amateur rambling. You actually wrote the following:
"Don't need to rely on court cases, just examine the proof or lack of proof that this fraud has and hasn't presented. The proof's in the puddin. obana is an undocumented, unconstitutional usurper that is shredding the constitution into oblivion. YOU had better have a care about this because it's also your freedoms that this implant is decimating."
1. Don't rely on court cases ( that you don't agree with.)
2. Just examine the proof or lack of proof ( Which you have conveniently left out)
3. Obama is an undocumented, unconstitutional usurper ( Where's your backup)
4. shredding the constitution into oblivion. (shear hyperbole, no facts)
5. your freedoms that this implant is decimating. (Wow, that's a Doozy. You made that on up, right?)
I can't believe you had the guts to post this as though you were showing us proof of your beliefs.. You need to get to rehab, your addiction to fiction is getting the best of you.
Squeeky Fromm
11:29 pm on Monday, February 13, 2012
There is nothing sinister in the McCain stuff. The Wong Kim Ark court clearly said Congress had the authority to extend natural born citizenship to those overseas. It was done back in 1790. It was done in Engand before that. The reason it had to be done was simply that those born overseas weren't born here. If they had been born here, they would have already been NBCs.
This stuff will not go up to the Supreme Court unless a lower court or a state legislature ok's this two citizen parent nonsense. There are a gazillion silly legal theories out there. A lot of Birthers were already playing in the "Idiot Legal Argument" playground before Obama. Obama was just an excuse for them to find a new playground. This stuff does not usually wind up at the Supreme Court. I think you are just giving yourself a psychological excuse not to face reality now at this time. Here is a link sooo you can see how screwed up some of these pretend lawyers are:
A lot of these people became Birthers.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
9:26 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Squeeker, we will have to disagree. Congress concluded numerous times that an amendment was needed to fix the NBC problem. Only after persons such as yourself and some flaky judges started equating NBC with citizen, did anyone conceive an amendment wasn't necessary. Go back and look at what Diane Feinstein said about it when Arnold s wanted to be president.
I'm pretty sure this will be back at the supreme court.
These lower courts have a key problem in declaring it frivolous: the supreme court passed it to all judges twice. That implies a measure of credibility.
9:30 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
You've probably heard this before but if this were such a sure thing for your position, I don't think persons like you would spend so much time defending what is supposedly obvious.
I think the purpose of the ridicule is to manipulate would be challengers into not acting. Such a program will unfortunately fail. Hell the northers even have their own superpac. Their ads look pretty good too. See cdr kerchners website.
11:04 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
IJWT: It IS a sure thing. As you've seen by the many posts citing SCOTUS precedence, citizenship laws, and the Constitution. What we've seen from you and others is blogs, misquoted cases, and just a general "this is what I think". There's a huge difference there. But, yes, it will keep going. And, you know why? Because there's money to be made there. Simple as that. The folks keeping this going, WND, Orly, Donofrio, etc. have found if they just keep playing on people's fears and hatred, they'll send money. Now you see they've started a PAC for this, and I have no doubt that they will get donations. And you know what is even better for them? They don't even have to tell you what they're spending the money on. So, if you want to be a rube and send these folks money, be my guest. The case against President Obama is going no where.
Squeeky Fromm
12:23 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
IJWT: Here's the situation. A lawyer gives you legal advice, and 99% of the other lawyers tell you that advice is crazy. . . and you go to court and lose and the judge tells you that your position is crazy. Sooo, assume you are a very trusting and tolerant person. If that happens once, the old "judge is biased" excuse may work. If it happens twice, you ask your lawyer if he is really sure about what he says. If it happens a third time, maybe you ask another lawyer for a second opinion. If it happens a fourth time, then you fire your lawyer and ask for your money back.
But you Birthers don't do that. You keep losing, yet you never accept the possibility that your legal advice is incorrect, that Donofrio and Apuzzo might be wrong and the 99.9999% of lawyers correct. You never accept that your legal theory is nutz and that is why you keep losing. Oh no, for you it is all some big conspiracy.
But when you place that much faith in people who blog on the Internet, that is more like some kind of CULT where the personality of the leader holds a stronger grip on you than reality. I think you Birthers can, and will, lose 100 times and you will still not question your theory. You are just delusional, like the Moon Landing Deniers. That is why people ridicule you. Because you're crazy. It's kinda sad. And funny, too.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
1:11 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Squeek, I grew up around racists and bigots. They used the same logic you are. Give up. You can't win. You will lose etc.
I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now.
Squeeky Fromm
1:35 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Big difference. There is no "moral" aspect to the citizenship question, no "right and wrong." Some nations choose the "citizenship of the parents" approach. Other nations choose the "place of birth" approach. Some countries have various mixes of the two, like we do. it is a nation's own choice to make. Our law, the 14th Amendment ,says that people born in the United States are citizens, and our court decisions make clear this is the same thing as natural born citizenship.
If you do not like our Constitution, and/or the 14th Amendment, then you should start an initiative for a new Amendment to the Constitution. Convince enough people that the "citizenship of the parents" is a better system and work to get the votes.
What is MORALLY WRONG is for you and the other Birthers to lie and make up stuff about what the law is, to try to confuse people. it is particularly DECEPTIVE when you Birthers fail to disclose to people that your legal theories keep losing in Court.
In other words, you Birthers are as MORALLY CORRUPT as the quacks who sell fake medical cures to people. After all these losses, there is no good excuse for you to act like you don't know better. No, you don't "just want the truth." You just want to peddle your lies.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
3:01 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
No, the purpose of going to court is to resolve a legal dispute. Legal disputes have their origin with Congress who makes the laws. When Congress makes unambiguous laws, no one goes to court. I know you understand this but your position seems to be that if you and those who agree with you say so, then no one should avail themselves of the courts if they feel wronged or damaged by observance or lack thereof of some law. That's not how the Rule of Law works.
The Rule of Law affords persons who believe they are wronged the right to file a grievance with the court. This prevents people from trying to resolve their differences outside of the rule of law.
Again, this was mishandled by Congress. That's how we got here. No one is crazy for raising valid questions. Let's let it play out in the courts and shake hands after the Supreme Court rules on the matter. Deal?
3:37 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
IJWT says: "When Congress makes unambiguous laws, no one goes to court."
WRONG! Congress makes unambiguous laws all the time that go to court, sometimes because they go against the constitution.
IJWT: "The Rule of Law affords persons who believe they are wronged the right to file a grievance with the court."
And this has been going to court for over 3 years,and the President has won every one!
IJWT: "Again, this was mishandled by Congress."
No, congress handled it just fine. It's you folks trying to make up laws who have handled it badly.
IJWT: "It would be enough for me that a single military person feels the constitution is being disrespected on the NBC issue for me to take the case very seriously."
And what about all those military personnel who didn't like Bush for one reason or another? You would tear up the military with that attitude...you're one sick individual.
IJWT: "Equating plain citizenship with natural born citizenship attacks the foreign allegiance protection intended by the Framers."
You have not shown the framers have meant anything different than what has been explained to you over and over again. It's what the framers intended to be followed, not your terrible interpretations.
IJWT: "It is a worthy debate. Let's allow the Rule of Law to settle the matter and seize every opportunity to unify the citizenry rather than polarize the citizenry. Good idea?"
And, the rule of law has settled it, over and over again. You won't accept it!
3:06 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I've had the honor of attending a few funerals at Arlington Cemetery over the last few years. It would be enough for me that a single military person feels the constitution is being disrespected on the NBC issue for me to take the case very seriously. The foreign allegiance issue directly impacts confidence in chain of command.
Military professionals respect the Rule of Law. The ones I have spoken to indicate they wish for the NBC requirement to protect the country from foreign influence. This has been discussed extensively but I will continue to defend the principle under dispute.
Equating plain citizenship with natural born citizenship attacks the foreign allegiance protection intended by the Framers.
It is a worthy debate. Let's allow the Rule of Law to settle the matter and seize every opportunity to unify the citizenry rather than polarize the citizenry. Good idea?
Squeeky Fromm
3:47 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
YOU said: "No one is crazy for raising valid questions." The judges keep on telling you that your claims are NOT VALID. Maybe one or two courts might get it wrong. But this is way beyond that. Birthers lose everywhere. Their cases get chunked out for having NO MERIT.
The Supreme Court does not exist to provide Remedial Reading Classes for Birthers or to address frivolous lawsuits. Wong Kim Ark was pretty clear. . .the 14th Amendment was declarative of existing natural born citizenship common law:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . .
. . .the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself). . .
End of story. The Supreme Court did decide this back in 1898. If Birthers are too delusional to understand it, perhaps they would be better off seeking answers at their Community Mental Health Center.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
3:55 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Any issue that has been passed out to all Justices not once but twice is by it's definition NOT a frivolous lawsuit.
The entire Supreme Court has looked at the issue twice. They don't do that for frivolous cases. Sorry. Yes, this means the Orly Taitz of the world can appeal their fines with good grounds.
3:59 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
They called it "The Schwarzenegger Amendment."
"As the departing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hatch boosted the amendment with favorable testimony from academics and legislators at a public hearing Oct. 5. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who will head the committee in the congressional session that begins in January, says he hasn't made up his mind on the issue but will put it on the panel's agenda."
I think the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is in a position to know whether or not a law is ambiguous enough to warrant changing.
"Most Americans have an instinctive distrust of foreigners," says Forrest McDonald, a retired University of Alabama professor of American history, "and this has not changed appreciably in the last two, three, four years, since almost everyone in the world is against us on the Iraq thing."
4:01 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
If the law isn't ambiguous or in need of correction, please alert Sara Herlihy:
By equating plain citizenship with natural born citizenship, you are claiming Sara Herlihy is crazy. She hasn't read enough court decisions I guess. Shame. Poor Sara.
4:04 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Assistant Attorney General Baben testified that "the limitation of eligibility for the office of President of the United States to ''natural born'' citizens in Article II of the Constitution [... ] has never been definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court, and HR 2883 does not and cannot resolve questions as to its meaning, either."
I guess the Asst Attorney General Baben hadn't read enough blog articles or court decisions to eliminate his confusion. All these Squeeky Supreme Court decisions must have slipped past one of the heads of the Dept of Justice.
"You're Crazy. You'll never win. You're court cases are frivolous." Yes, this is exactly how the racial taunts of the past were issued against persons seeking civil rights.
The Rule of Law will settle the issue. I'm happy to do my part to make clear it is rational and worthy of challenging in court. I trust the Rule of Law.
4:19 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
IJWT: Why is it you must continue to prove your idiocracy. The WHOLE statement says:"Naturalized citizens of the United States stand upon an
equal footing, in terms of their rights and privileges, with native born
citizens. See, e.g., Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964).
The only exception to this principle is the limitation of eligibility
for the office of President of the United States to ''natural born''
citizens in Article II of the Constitution."
And everything you've asked us to read further proves our points. Notice that this same person understands that "native-born" citizens may become President. Again, you prove us right and you wrong.
4:29 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Actually Jim, the statement implies there are 3 types of citizenship: naturalized, native born and natural born. This conclusion is further supported by INS:
Quote from Leo Donofrio:
And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides:
"The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss." (Emphasis added.)
Three times in this official INS Interpretation – currently published by the Obama Administration – native-born and natural-born are given separate consideration. And in the third example – from Interpretation 324.2(b) – the INS clearly states that each delineation, "naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen", is a separate status.
4:12 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
While the mainstream media has succeeded for the most part in poisoning the Obama eligibility issue related to whether or not President Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, Representative Jose Serrano from the Bronx in New York has used his position on a House Appropriations Subcommittee to subject US Supreme Court Justices to his own "birther" questions...questions which I find deliciously valid. Because Serrano was born in Puerto Rico, he has questions about whether or not he qualifies to be a Natural Born Citizen and thus President of the United States. Let's hear those questions directly from the distinguished representative thanks to CSPAN's April 2011 coverage. Link to the CSPAN page here. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Court201 Scroll over to start at 1:00:05.
here he is the year before asking more birther questions:
Wonder why the Court was evading the question? Just answer it and be done.
Note two things: Serrano indicated an intention to run for POTUS and secondly, he's the one that wants to end term limits for President. King for Life! nice if you can get it.
Squeeky Fromm
4:24 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
IJWT: It is obvious that Justice Thomas was poking fun at Birthers. As far as your other stuff provided above, it is typical Birfer Blather. It deals with either FOREIGN BORN Americans or NATURALIZED Citizens. it is therefore IRRELEVANT to this discussion because Obama, Rubio, and Jindal were all born INSIDE the United States and are therefore natural born citizens and do not need naturalization or Congressional acts to make them citizens. Once again, if you would spend your time constructively, reading Wong Kim Ark:
Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
Both in England and in the United States, indeed, statutes have been passed at various times enacting that certain issue born abroad of English subjects or of American citizens, respectively, should inherit, to some extent at least, the rights of their parents. But those statutes applied only to cases coming within their purport, and they have never been considered in either country as affecting the citizenship of persons born within its dominion.
Once again, YOU do not have a clue what you are talking about. Why don't you seek to cure your cluelessness???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
4:37 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Congressman Serrano interrupted a budget hearing because he wanted a real answer about his NBC status. He was born in Puerto Rico and he has consulted with scholars about his eligibility. Unsure for certain, he has asked the Supreme Court Justices two years in a row about the issue.
I'll take Serrano's concern seriously. Everyone who reads our exchange and watches the Videos will draw their own conclusions as well.
Congressman Serrano is a long time DC fixture. I will take his conclusion about his own ambiguous status seriously and I won't begrudge anyone for asking valid questions as he has done.....on the record.
Oh my, what's this? More congressional debate/discussion.
"Equally of concern is the new appetite for, and silent acceptance of, dual citizenship. It would be naive at best to believe that neither has any bearing on what used to be unconditional loyalty and commitment to America."
Spot on!
Squeeky Fromm
4:59 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Again, you ignore the clear words of Wong Kim Ark, above. Congress has the right to pass laws on citizenship, and it is my understanding that persons born in Puerto Rico after 1941 are natural born citizens by statute. I think you are just posting whatever you can to try to pretend you Birthers have some sort of valid legal question. Nice try, but the Courts keep on drop-kicking you Birthers out of the courthouses. For example, from the Illinois hearing:
CHAIRMAN McGUFFAGE: "No. No. This matter is — it's a birther objection.These types of objections are not relevant under state statute and we don't need to hear anymore about this. In fact, we're getting sick and tired of having these objections filed every couple of years,and they have no basis in fact or law. If such an objection was brought before a court of law, there would be sanctions imposed. Okay.
And the Hearing Examiner then ruled the Birther stuff to be:
. . .incorrect Legal Interpretation of what constitutes a natural born citizen", and that the Hawaiian birth certificate establishes Obama is a natural born citizen.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
5:24 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
As I've said, the lower courts are confused like bloggers such as yourself and Congress.
1) Wong Kim Ark was not running for President
2) Congress can pass laws having to do with naturalization. They cannot interpret what is a Natural Born Citizen because only the Supreme Court has that right.
3) McGuffage was referring to "state statute" not the Constitution
Plain citizens are not Natural Born Citizens. NBC's are the offspring born in the USA to parents who are USA Citizens. (minor v happersett) President Obama was born Kenyan in Hawaii. He had one USA parent. One Kenyan Parent. The intent of the NBC clause was to guard against foreign influence.
Wong Kim Ark was ruled on a variety of prose written by Justice Gray who should have simply relied upon the in place Treaty with China which was in effect at the time. Regardless, Wong Kim Ark only ruled on citizenship not natural born citizenship.
5:40 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
@ijwt: 1)Wong Kim Ark could have run for President, as pointed out by the dissenting opinion.
2)Congress can and has passed laws on citizenship, and SCOTUS in multiple opinions has stated if you're born a citizen, you are a natural-born citizen
3)You have absolutely no idea about the separation of powers in the constitution, do you?
4)He also says the objections have NO basis in fact or law and if brought to a court of law, they would be basically laughed out.
You misquote Minor v Happersett again, they say they are not there to decide on natural-born status. However, they do say:
"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [Footnote 6] that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President, [Footnote 7]"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."
Only 2 types of citizen. Period. If you're born a citizen, you're eligible, if you're naturalized, your not. You do realize IJWT every time you link or type, you further PROVE the President is eligible. That's why you don't have a case and it will never make it to the Supreme Court.
5:25 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
President Obama is a citizen and has always been one. We need the Surpeme Court to tell us if he is a NBC. I don't think he is.
5:45 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Then you should try reading up, start with Wong Kim Ark because it explains in great detail where our citizenship comes from and how it is derived. Of course, you won't. People who don't believe in the constitution or this great country always refuse to learn.
5:27 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
FREEDOM FOR ALL - March 23, 2013 H.R.-3200, Section 2521 page 1001
paragraph 1 - Abortion is a choice so why isn't the RFID chip? My BODY belongs to me not the GOVERNMENT. The mandate of this RFID chip is a violation of FREEDOM for all. We still have the freedom of speech at this point in time - If you disagree on my line of thinking, please tell me why. I like to learn new ideas. Thank you!
Squeeky Fromm
5:44 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
OH BS!!! You don't have any respect for Wong Kim Ark 1898; you don't have any respect for Ankeny v. Governor 2009; you don't have any respect for the Illinois judge; the Virginia judge; the Georgia judge; and you haven't had any respect for the fact the SCOTUS declined accepting Apuzzo's Kerchner Complaint (as you stated above.)
YOU even linked a video of Justice Thomas supposedly admitting to the SCOTUS "evading" the issue. All of this and all of the Birther whinings about the judges in each decision and you really expect people to believe that if the SCOTUS heard this, and then tossed you out, that you Birthers would be just fine with it???
BS!!! You guys would be calling SCOTUS every name in the book, and Orly Taitz would be trying to get them impeached; Donofrio would be writing some more dumb Internet Articles about how they got it all wrong, based on a vision he had and an obscure letter to the editor from Oswald Florp way back on September 7, 1799.
YOU must think I am as delusional as YOU to believe anything is ever going to change your mind or any of the two citizen parents cult. Particularly a judicial decision. This is not about the law for you guys, it is about DELUSIONS and OBSESSIONS. That is why you keep filing this baloney in court and inventing silly excuses for losing. This is your mental illness at work.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
12:10 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Nice article Squeeky. I especially enjoyed the comments where one of the lawyers in the Georgia case is caught misquoting Jefferson and basically is shown how bad of a lawyer he is by others. He really has no idea what he's doing...the perfect companion for Orly. I will say though, if you really look into this you'll find that this is all about the money in the end. If you do a search at the Washington Independent for Orly or Birthers, you'll see how they were always trying to get people to click on their links...which were pure BS. Then, when I realized that they were getting paid by the visit by advertisers, we put a stop to it by warning people off. WND at first said that Obama's BC was real, then when they realized they could make money off of it, put up some BS and called it a fake and all of a sudden went from calling Orly a crackpot to saying she had it right. Then they try selling all these "Where's the BC" t-shirts, mugs, etc. If you read the complaint from Charles Lincoln(I think) against Orly, you find out she's using the donations she receives for expensive lunches, hair, travel, etc. If the poor rubes who hate Obama so much would realize that they are basically being robbed by the same people that they thought were on their side, they might find some other people to turn they hate to.
William Eib
5:48 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Truthy: There's a saying: Desperate People Do Desperate Things. Many people on this thread have been making a yeoman's effort to direct you to info to answer your concerns, you have taken the info as a personal front. Personally I have tired of the silliness of your mining for tidbits of info that I can only describe as contrariness at best. I suggest to all others to let her be. She will never see or care to see the nose on her face, no matter how clear it is. Best cure is to let her roam about the vast wasteland of Birtherism, It is going to be with us as long as there is contempt for the Black Man in the Whitehouse. And probably as long as the written and spoken word is with us. So Truthy, this is Ta Ta from Ibsyboy, I did my Christian best to get you out in to the sunlight and out of the shadow of darkness, I wish you well, and hope for the best for you. Your the horse that his been led to water. that we couldn't get to drink. Die of thirst, it's your prerogative. Let's try something more pertinent to everyday life next time. This issue has no redeeming value what so ever. Ignorance has proven once again, to be Bliss. Being with my family and eating a great meal, now that is True Bliss.
William Eib
6:35 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
BILLEE: Regarding Radio-frequency identification (RFID). There are a few forces at work here. #1. The privacy issue, this will certainly raise the hackles of the Left; the ACLU, Liberals, Libertarians, Socialists and the anti-totalitarians. #2. This will absolutely drive Right Wing Extremist to the Castle walls, proclaiming a Left Wing conspiracy to control Americans, and turn America in to a Communist/Totalitarian country, to further their Socialist Agenda. # 3. The GOP will come forth that is is a growing industry that could potentially create tens of thousands of jobs. Plus it would give us the opportunity to keep America that much safer.
William Eib
8:56 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
For all Birthers who blame Obama defenders for bringing up Race. BEHOLD
Your Fearless leader ORLY TAITZ speaking to Newt Gingrich
"Somebody who wouldn't be good enough, who wouldn't be certified to pick tomatoes or clean bathrooms is sitting in the White House" Folks I rest my case. Certifiably Nuts and Racist. I know there are you who are going to pretend you don't see it in her words. No surprise, why would you when you share her insane Birther-mania.
It's egregious behavior. She is a Lawyer and a Dentist, with all that education, you would have thought she would have picked up some civility along the way.
After Orly suggesting the Birther issue would help his campaign, Newt replied: "That's a project you should pursue,"
7:06 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
It is scary knowing we have people like burchbeer living in Whitehall. So pathetic that an imbocile like him is walking around knocking on peoples doors. I don't think he wants to knock on mine....thats for sure. barffield needs to spend a few years in an asylum. he kind of reminds me of the republicants candidates for the presidency with a little touch of donal frump and rust limburger. Oh well......after the performance of our newly elected republicant governors and our do nothing congress it seems like our nation has finally caught on and I believe we have seen the last of the republicant party. It took a while but it will be well worth the wait. Good riddance. Keep up the good work Barack. HAIL to the Chief. You are well on your way to being the GREATEST President in the history of our country I truly believe you will bring it back to the heights we obtained before the likes of ronal reegan and george wabbea......and thats no small feat. Long live the KING
William Eib
8:12 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Here's is what we needed (and got) and need more of; Reduction of unemployment, in crease in jobs, Bin Laden and 18 of his top goons DEAD, Dow approaching 13,000, Nasdaq experiencing one of their best days in 11 YEARS, consumer confidence on the rise, health care initiative, reestablishing America's standing in the world, protecting women's rights, great Supreme Court appointments. More than the GOPers planned for and still better days ahead. What more can one ask of the President of the United States of America who was handed a total wreck of an economy. They man earned a 2nd term for sure. We just have to keep our guard up against the Fascists who trying to bring the President down along with the country. They see it as Ideology before Flag and Country.
7:01 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Like the old saying, figures lie and liars figure. Unemployment is not down and the toll it has taken on the older, formerly employed has been breath-taking. The federal government's figures on unemployment are lies. People that drop out of the workforce because they cannot find jobs are not even counted. The Obama adminstration job creation results are abysmal and anyone like Eib who wants this craziness to continue are either left-wing socialists or simply partisan bloggers who think any Republican is evil. If these so-called great results that Eib details were done under a Republican administration, Eib would be calling for impeachment. I remember when the media and people like Eib were crying about how 5 percent unemployment was so terrible under a Republican administration. The waste of stimulus money was staggering. We lost BILLIONS on Chrsyler's bailout and are due to lose BILLIONS more on GM (Government Motors). Obama puts Geithner in charge of the economy when it was Geithner who looked the other way and helped create the bank failures. Obama lied about cutting the federal deficit in half and O's latest budget actually increases the deficit. What a joke we have for a president. I guess I will hear that I believe that because I am racially prejudiced.
William Eib
8:24 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
BD, The truth hurts. Try an independent source for info not Fatty & Hammity you may surprise yourself. Figures lie and liars figure. Nice try. Any unemployment is bad, losing 750,000 jobs a month after giving the job creators a nice big tax break is disastrous. If these details were done by Republican, I would be aghast. 8 years of Bush convinced me the GOP can't govern. I would be impressed if a GOPer were to succeed at governing in any way. Chrysler paid back $7.6 billion of high-interest bailout loans to the U.S. and Canada. It included $5.9 billion owed in loans to U.S. taxpayers and $1.7 billion owed to Canada,"The loans were repaid, six years ahead of schedule, along with accrued interest.". They're still in debt to the US but millions of jobs were saved with the help of the UAW taking cuts to help. That tax stream from workers is a good thing..(Fox News) GM repaid the $8.1 billion in loans to the U.S and Canada. GM got a total of $52 billion from the U.S.and $9.5 billion from Canada. U.S. considered as a loan $6.7 billion of the aid, Canada held $1.4 billion in loans. The U.S.payments, came five years ahead of schedule. The U.S. owns 61 percent of the GM. No racial thing, I find it odd Teahadists are quick to get out in front of that accusation. As if it were warranted. That light at the end of the tunnel to bright for you? You would think any good news would be nice, you guys always find a way to turn good to bad. Like Millions of saved auto jobs.
William Eib
8:47 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
bd: Just in from FOX Business News:
Housing starts rose 1.5% in January to a 699,000-unit rate, topping estimates of a 675,000-unit rate. Permits to build new homes rose 0.7% to a 676,000-unit rate, slightly less than the 680,000-unit rate expected.
More good news for you to sour up.
9:17 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
William...yep! I couldnt resist it...The news, although you think is alway wrong from FOX unless you think it's something you can use for Obama, FAILED TO TELL YOU HOW LOW the housing market was...I'm a realtor! The phony numbers of sales as stated out of the Department of Housing was recently revised....3 MILLION MORE IN SALES THAN THERE ACTUALLY WAS......they would do anything to paint an untrue but "rosey" picture...Can you accept this from someone in the industry William or do you have to read it in the History Books right after the line that Obummer was the worst president even over Jimmy Carter!
Jay Bahr
8:50 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I've been following Patch posts for a couple of years now – I can't prove it, but I am pretty sure this is the longest chain ever. I think that is terrific. Obama is the most polarizing president in modern history – possibly ever.
I completely disagree with his policies, but there should be no disagreement that he finds the Constitution a rigid and inflexible document that is getting in the way of a grander "vision."
Everyone keep up the good work!! He is the greatest threat our country has faced in my generation – he is despicable. Let's keep our eye on the prize in November. That is really what this chain is all about.
Steve Karas
8:53 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
OBAMA is a US citizen. OBAMA was elected in a landslide. OBAMA is the President. You should probably do a story on why Mr. Barchfeld is a moron...
William Eib
9:01 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Jay: The reason theis thread has been going on so long is unsubstantiated remarks such as:
Obama is the most polarizing president in modern history – possibly ever.
He is the greatest threat our country has faced in my generation
It's all most as strong an argument re: his citizenship. Example: He is not a citizen. Substantial point, don't you think? The thread has been elongated by the vain attempt of those who are requesting more info behind the empty blanket statements as yours. So what I'm saying is if your going to jump in and continue the silliness, give us something more that your opinion wrapped in a neat vacant remark to work with.
William Eib
9:16 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
bd: Hot off the presses from FOX Business News:
New claims for unemployment benefits fell to 348,000 last week -- the lowest level since early March 2008 -- from an upwardly revised 361,000 the week prior. Economists had expected claims to rise to 365,000 from an initial reading of 358,000.
Get to stomping on more good news.
William Eib
11:20 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
bd: It just doesn't stop:
Senior military officials confirm to Fox News that the United States, the Karzai government and the Taliban are engaged in three-way talks.
William Eib
11:31 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
db: It's amazing: Jobless claims fall to 4 year low!!!!
The four-week average, which smooths out fluctuations in the weekly data, fell for the fifth straight week to 365,250. The average has fallen nearly 13 percent in the past year. The consistent decline indicates that companies are laying off fewer workers, and hiring is likely picking up further. When applications drop consistently below 375,000, it usually signals that hiring is strong enough to lower the unemployment rate.
Jerry D. Keene
11:36 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
General Motors earned its largest profit ever in 2011, two years after it nearly collapsed into financial ruin.
The 103-year-old company (GM) made $7.6 billion in 2011, up 62% from 2010.
Full-year revenue rose 11% to $105 billion.
Yep, the Obama policies have been a real disapointment. yes sir ree..... ;-)
11:40 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
The people that quote things as gospel that they hear on fox so called "news" programs need to get in line at the lobotomy clinic ASAP.
William Eib
11:41 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
db: It's not all good news:
Republican candidate Rick Santorum has won support from American conservatives for his views on social issues but a habit of hyperbole may lead to stumbles in his White House bid. In Boise, Idaho, on Tuesday, Santorum compared contraception to deodorant and soap when making a point about why he believes birth control should not be covered by health insurers. "Let's mandate that every insurance policy covers toothpaste. Deodorant. That might be a good idea, right? Have everyone cover deodorant, right? Soap. I mean, where do you stop?" This from a guy who thinks he can be President. This is as childish an analogy that can be made by a grown adult male.
12:24 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Keene and Eib : Well, here is the truth about your so-called unemployment numbers. The numbers of unemployed did not drop. It is in the way the liars count the unemployed. When Barack Obama entered office in January 2009, the labor force participation rate was 65.7%, meaning nearly two-thirds of working age Americans were working or looking for work. When the recession supposedly officially ended in June, 2009, the labor force participation rate was still 65.7%.
In the latest UE report which you 2 are dancing about, the labor force participation rate had plummeted to 63.7%, the most rapid decline in U.S. history. That means that under President Obama nearly 5 million Americans have fled the workforce in hopeless despair. The trick is that when those 5 million are not counted in the work force, they are not counted as unemployed either. We now have more people in poverty under Obama than in the entire half century the Census Bureau has been counting poverty. But they are not even counted in that FALSE 8.3% unemployment rate that Obama and cheerleaders like you are celebrating. If these people were counted properly, the true UE rate is 11% which truly reflect the suffering under Obamanomics. The worst president since Jimmy Carter.
Jerry D. Keene
1:46 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
bd, not to beat a dead horse or anything. Just who was it that set up the economy for the recession in the first place. Why of course, Bush and Co. Using that logic, Hoover had absolutely nothing to do with the Great Depression, because the worst years were when FDR was President. Conservatives have absolutely no understanding about cause and effect. Conservative (Republicans) cannot govern. You have nothing to offer that shows any success for the eight years (six with complete control of government) that were the Bush II legacy of leadership.
Then when you manage to gain some power again, instead of focusing on building the country up, you want to tear it down further by bogus hyperbolic screaming about birth certificates, socialism, and other such nonsense about the man you don't like sitting in the White House. Damn patriotic of you. You got nothing to offer or show the American people so you go off into attack mode focused solely on an imagined fear.
And this is just my humble opinion; come November, the American people will reject that kind of thinking, because for the majority of Americans they see through the smoke screen being laid down by Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and every other Republican leader, Tea Party type or otherwise, in DC, and in every state that went Republican in 2010.
A Alvin Twiningham
12:49 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Please define Obamanomics bd. Do they exist in the real world, or only in your fevered imagination? Unemployment claims are down, period, the end. If a bunch of losers have decided to give up and spout nonsense conspiracy theories instead of working for a living that can not be blamed on Obama.
Jerry D. Keene
2:17 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Since you brought up the Labor Force Participation Rate. There is a nice little tool over at
That clearly shows that rate dropping steadly during the Bush II years from a high of 67.2% to the low of 64.6%. A whopping 2.6% decline. Those were Obama fault too?
So now it's dropped a whole nother .9%...... I'm shocked. What I do know is that since President Obama put the brakes on the slide into Depression that was evident in January 2009 there have been far more jobs created than we were shedding three years ago.
2:23 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Alvin, Keene, and Eib - Don't let the facts about the real UE numbers keep you from bleating the greatnes of OBama's failed economy. Obamanomics = Failure if that is a good enough definition for you Alvin. And let us not forget that all of you claiming that it was only Republicans who caused this depression, remeber that is was Barney Fwank A dEmocrat looking the other way as Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae went belly up. And, Pelosi was in charge of the House and Reid in charge of the Senate. Both Democrats. Ans, remeber that Senator Obama voted FOR every Bush economic bill. I would say that BOTH parties booted it. Blaming Bush has become soooo lame dudes.
Jerry D. Keene
2:35 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Opinion is not fact. So far all you've done is post opinion. Obamanomics = Failure... is well….. and opinion. But if that's all you got, then mores' the pity, because; just once I'd like to see some history of facts in the claim that Obama has made the economy worse… just once, just the facts… not opinion, not something regurgitated from your favorite right-wing make things up as we go along news source… FOX NEWS & FOXNATION comes to mind. Just once…………….
A Alvin Twiningham
2:35 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
No bd, that is an opinion, not a definition. That is a big problem with you wingnuts from both sides of the aisle. You all confuse gut emotionial hunches and pretty catchphrases with actual facts. For jebus' sake I wish you would all go off to colonies in Idaho and let the centrists fix a few things.
2:45 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Keene, the facts are there. The books are being cooked in an election year. The only way UE goes down is if people are taken out of the base. But, you might be someone who would only vote for anyone with a "D" behind their names. To conitinue these failed economic policies is the same definition as insanity. Do the same thing over and over and expect different results. Won't happen. Socialism does not work and Europe is proving that.
Jerry D. Keene
3:39 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
That's your answer... "The books are being cooked in an election year." Well, goollliiieee Goober!!! I'm truly impressed with those non facts. You have empirical evidence of this I'm sure?
A Alvin Twiningham
2:51 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
No, Europe is proving you can't have social programs if you don't pay for them. Greece has a strong tradition of tax-dodging, for example. Germany offers a great semi-socialized health care system AND a strong economy.
William Eib
3:09 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
BUSH 8 YEARS = Total Disaster. No facts needed. It's history.
Unpaid for Tax cut for his buds
Iraq, Total mistake, and the Pentagon warned him, so did Daddy.
Deregulating Banks.. Warned of potential hanky panky
Reversal of the Glass-Steagle act. Dumb move. Again warned of potential problem
750,000 jobs lost per month at end of his second term that carried over to Obama's Administration.
A Near Depression Need I say more
Lost face in the eyes of the world.
I spent 3 months in Europe at that time: They showed his speeches on TV full length,the guy could not read, nor get words into his eyes then to his brain and to his mouth in time. They referred to him in Europe as The Cowboy. Never met anyone who liked him. Bill Clinton on the other hand was revered,
During all this time the future Teahadists and Wing Nuts sat on their asses and smiled as the ship of state was severely listing. Now we have an intelligent man who can speak in full sentences and has thoughts that come from his brain, and the Teahadists and Wing Nuts come alive, because the man is a smarty pants, elite, Harvard educated Negro. Oh God, let's go out and demonstrate against the Marxist, Socialist, Commie, Elitist Negro in the White House. I want my country back, do you believe these people, they sat on their asses while Bush and the GOPers pushed the country into a financial quagmire. You should be begging Obama and the country for forgiveness for your lazy ass attitude under Bush.
William Eib
3:32 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
We are the richest country on the planet, the most successful for years and years, but the rest of the world has not been sitting still. While the Right has been wasting time trying to bring down the President of the United States of America, our competitors for the World Market are running by us. The Chinese will be able to sell us the green technology, the Right resists and undermines, when we eventually need it. Why are we waiting to get our butts kicked in the same manner the Japanese did with Cars and electronics, it's embarrassing to be buy our technology back form a foreign country. The right resisted regulating the auto industry and the Japaneses came in and cleaned our clock. The Chinese are selling us products we used to make, because the GOP allowed companies to go off shore to save money and avoid taxes. Everyone around the world have taken our model and are beating us to the punch, they are not our enemies they are our competition. We did the enemy thing with Japan and the Cars and we all see how that worked out. We can keep doing all this ideological infighting. Please respect the POTUS, the contempt for him is not rooted in concern for the country is is just propagandized hatred. Has nothi9ng to do with governance, that's just a ruse.
1:43 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
William...remember when Obama's friend, GATES I think was his name, was arrested by a WHITE police officer because Gates was unable to properly identify himself as the homeowner of a home he was breaking in to???Obama came on national TV and stated that he didn't know the facts of the arrest of his friend but the "POLICE ACTED STUPIDLY"....If you didn't figure out then WHO OBAMA WAS THE PRESIDENT OF..then it's clear to me that you MISSED the entire point....and sadly, many folks did miss the warning signs of this president. States filing lawsuites against this administration for healthcare mandates, immigration issues, and now religiious matters....I've never seen ANY administration at WAR with the states like this one...and I've voted for people in both parties...but after only 3 months in office, this president frightened people enough to take to the streets in protest. The United States has never had an uprising of the citizens like this before..and this president promotes class warfare! I've lived thru recessions before but NONE that lasted this long. The Japanese has what was called a "lost decade" due to bad government policies...America is very similar at this time so LEARN from their HISTORY so that we don't repeat these mistakes.
Tommy Thompson
8:08 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I can't believe this is still going. I'm tired of my email box being filled with "Patch" nonsense. Evidently a lot of you are content with patting each other on the back...I guess this is a good place for obots to convince each other that their weird ideas and misinformed notions about what is real and what isn't is indeed fact. I've always been puzzled about Obama's approval ratings...I know 50% is nothing more than fiction but even at 30% approval I wonder who these people are. It looks like they're all here at the "Patch". That explains a lot....the dumbing down of America has been going on for a long time now. How does it feel backing up the absolute worse President in history. If you don't wake up you're not going to have a country to spread your nonsense to.
8:51 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
You sure don't have the ability to see things as they truly are thats for sure. What can you expect from someone with the same first and last name? Your ranking of president Obama as the worst in history couldn't be any further from reality. One year(2010) after Barack Obama replaced george wabbea as president Obama was rated the 15th best President of ALL TIME and in contrast george wabbea was voted the ALLTIME worst.http://rockrivertimes.com/2010/07/02/experts-rank-u-s-presidents-fdr-first-clinton-13th-obama-15th-g-w-bush-39th/ So my question for you tomtom is..........What in the hell are you thinkin? That was two years ago tomtom. Barack Obama is probably already rated as the GREATEST PRESIDENT of ALLTIME. I am wondering if anybody will EVER be able to catchup with Barack after he completes his 2nd term in office? Anyway tomtom why don't you go down to the bottom og the pits and take your well earned place next to george wabbea. I think we have all had our fill of your garbage here.
Charlie P Forquer
8:19 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wow.. it is still going and I still haven't seen anyone list any details as to why Mr. Obama is the "worst president in history" ! Please list some facts , not opinions. Personally I believe he has done a pretty good job of cleaning up the mess left by...what was him name again? How quickly we forget the unnecessary, costly wars and the unbelievable tax cut for the "job creators" . The only jobs created were for those counting their money.
1:29 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Charlie...does a 16 Trillion Dollar Debt ring any bells? How about a CREDIT RATING DOWN GRADE LAST YEAR AND ANOTHER ONE COMING SOON!...does that ring any bells? Funny how you sling around the word "Job Creators"...I presume that your job has come from a "poor person", right? Reform in this nation is certainly DUE...DEMOCRATS &, REPUBLICANS equally...So just remember that when you're pointing your two fingers of blame forward, there are 3 fingers pointing back at YOU....YOU are just like the majority of us who simply did not pay attention to what our lawmakers were doing....it's called APATHY. Apparently you don't know who held the purse strings for the last 2 years of the "what was his name again" Bush administration...Nancy Pelosi & Harry Ried...Democrats! The 2010 TSUNAMI ELECTION was a mandate to the current administration, as it would have been to ANY OUT-OF-CONTROL SPENDING ADMINISTRATION that was driving the US economy to nearly 100% of the GDP! Greece is going to look like a "cake walk" as the citizens burn Athens & their beautiful country, compared to what America is going to look like when we are a completely BROKE NATION in chaos & riots! Our legislators on both sides of the aisle have not the courage nor the will to tell the TRUTH to the American people....especially in an election year!
William Eib
10:29 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tommy Thompson: God only knows what it is about a man you do not know. The obots you snark at, are just plain Americans who think the Presidency demands a certain degree of respect, I travel the world and meet people, I have a difficult time explaining why so many Americans hate the President. It's embarrassing, they know more about us than we do about them, they're well versed in American politics. I can't explain the contempt there is for the most powerful leader in the world. It shames me to say I do not know. The contempt for POTUS, has never been articulated to me.. It a spiteful hatred. He appears to be an a front to your personal existence. It has become a way of life for people. I have yet to hear an articulate argument, other than repeated statements made by Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. I've never heard an original reason for the disdain felt by descent people towards a fellow human, Socialist, Marxist, Usurper you have never used those words any other time in your life. tThey've been provided for you to express the very rage and anger the providers want you to feel. You have become pawns in a devious game, by those who don't like smart, educated, cultured people in general. it is a cultural war that you are not capable of fighting, your nature is to be nice not angry, but your anger has been stirred by outside forces and aimed at Barack Obama. You have lost control of your freedom to think.
1:16 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
William...again, it's obvious to me that you don't read. People here is America used to wake up in the mornings and be thankful for the things that our Government did FOR THEM, now they wake up in the mornings and wonder what their GOVERMENT did TO THEM in the dark of nightwhile they slept! Smart, educated, cultured people? It's obvious to me that You have no idea of the educational levels of those you speak about. As an American, You should be appalled by the divisive tactics in politics by either party. However, you are part of the Class Warfare Propaganda....in other words..."The Epitomy of the Convenient Idiot"....Obama has aligned himself with the 99'ers...you know, those folks that defacate on the public streets & on police cars, are involved in violent crimes of rape & drug use...Oh, you don't know about these folks? You must be watching too much of "ED" or Chris Mathews, MSNBC or CNN
William Eib
11:43 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Charlie: You never will hear an intelligent articulated explanation for any of the disparaging comments made about our President. This is a cultural war started by powers who are interested in driving a wedge between the citizens of the USA, for financial and political gain. The financial facilitators are FOX, Limbaugh and Beck, the Political facilitators are the Tehadists and extreme right wing. They have declared a cultural war against smart, educated and cultured people who prefer to discuss the issues relevant to all Americans, where as the Teahadist prefer to point fingers of blame at everything they feel is the cause of their personal dissatisfaction.
We now have a class of decent Americans who are identifying themselves with these malcontents who are exploiting the disappointment by propagating hatred towards the symbol, in their minds of all their personal problems , Barack Obama. They have surrendered their freedom of thought to this hate machine.
1:03 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
William...have you ever been to a Tea Party? Do you know what T E A stands for? Do you want a functional government, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, a limited government that works for ALL of the American people, a reasonable tax to support our great nation....if you said "yes" to any of these then all I can say is 'WELCOME TO THE TEA PARTY!". Unfortunatley, your comments above are those I've heard before from the '"CONVENIENT IDIOTS" that speak from the thoughts & phrases of others...not their own....they're sheep that can easily be lead...could that be you? When the United States gets a downgrade in our credit rating & is on the verge of another one, it's hard to agree with you that FOX, Limbaugh & Beck have such powers. And the "Tehadist" delivered a whopping TSUNAMI in 2010 to the OBAMA administration & the OUT OF CONTROL DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS to stop the OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING BY THIS ADMINISTRATION....so are you saying that the majority of your friends, family & neighbors are ''RADICALS"....if so, you'd better start clinging to your bible & your guns...I'd be afraid if I was you! The Conservative Uprising is ALIVE & WELL in this great nation.....but make NO mistake, there is no HATE here....it's simply COMMON SENSE! No household in this nation can PRINT MONEY, therefore, we must all live on a budget.....Perhaps you're one of those "losers" who lives off of the handouts of the federal government and votes for more at the expense of others.
7:59 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Eib - you have to had too much happy juice. Fox, Beck, and Limbaugh started the "culture war?" President Barack Hussein Obama is running on the culture war because he knows that all of the promises he made about fixing the economy have gone up in smoke. He is betting that he can change the focus of the campaign to getting the Middle Class to hate the terrible Rich One-Percenters. That is his entire campaign. The only problem with this class warfare campaign is that the Middle Class that go along with it kill any hope that they have of ever making their lives better. The true class warfare comes from Barack Hussein Obama and the Left.
11:48 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
You can all beat each other up over who is to blame for our economic downturn...the answer is BOTH PARTIES! None of them are innocent of the corruption in our great nation. So while Obama's alledged favorable "poll numbers" are going UP...SO IS THE NATIONAL DEBT! By November, every man, woman & child will have a tax obligation to the U S Govt. of nearly $60,000.00! It doesn't matter who you voted for....We are ALL on the Sinking Titanic! So it's time to stop your foolish bickering and pull your head out of the "dark spots on earth" and figure out how the greatest nation on the face of the Earth..AMERICA...doesn't turn into a GREECE! Did anyone notice that the RICH folks in Greece are NO LONGER WILLING TO GIVE their money to their corrupt Government & that the angry citizens who have been big "takers" from those who actually WORKED for their money are burning the city of Athens! There are more VOTERS than there are people paying taxes....let's see how long that will last! Eventually the money runs out! We all need to BLAME OURSELVES for leaving the foxes in the hen house...but the definition of INSANITY is doing the same thing over & over and expecting a different outcome...SO GET INVOLVED!...IT IS YOUR DUTY, OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO DEFEND THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES! THE "REPUBLIC" OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS THAT MADE AMERICA THE GREATEST NATION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH!
12:18 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
What part of a high unemployment rate, the decline of the American Dollar, a failing housing market, an attack on Capitalism with government OWNED auto & banking industries, bailouts to special interest groups, a SOCIALIST healthcare policy that even the Canadians & England are trying to rid themselves of, a strategy by the current administration to reduce our military capabilities to defend our nation against the advice of the Defense Department, an immigration policy that is bankrupting our country & killing Americans on our southern borders, a tax policy that no one understands in desperate need of reform, more people on food stamps than ever before…46 MILLION! Tax hikes in January of 2013 that will be massive to all taxpayers, legislators, Democrats & Republicans, who have financially benefited from "Insider Trading" information, Inflation is HERE with rising costs of gasoline, food, housing & health insurance…all a decline in the STANDARDS of YOUR LIVING …that YOU don't seem to get?! "We the People" need to stop complaining & pointing the fingers of blame and do what our Forefather's did...RISE UP AND TAKE BACK OUR NATION! YOU are the only ones who can bring the REAL HOPE & CHANGE BACK TO OUR COUNTRY....THE POWER IS WITHIN THE PEOPLE. WAKE UP & SEE WHAT LIBERTIES & FREEDOM'S YOU'VE ALREADY LOST AS YOU WERE "ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL"!!!
12:39 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Has it dawned on any of YOU "CONVENIENT IDIOTS" that COMPANIES have taken their business off shore BECAUSE of the Tax Laws here in AMERICA! Do any of you now that many states in our nation are passing laws to protect themselves FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?! Do any of you know that Chicago recently raised the income tax rate to 65% and that businesses are FLEEING BECAUSE OF IT?! ASK the 25 Million people who are UNEMPLOYED if things are getting better for them. ...the REAL nationwide unemployment figure is 17-22%...not 8.3% as our government would have us believe. Amazing how the Govt. Housing Administration overstated the sales of homes by 3 Million! If you're NOT a ''CONVENIENT IDIOT", you should know that these figures are being skewed to hide what's really happening to ALL OF US, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PARTY YOU ALIGN WITH.
Tommy Thompson
2:40 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Patriot, thanks for trying to explain to these strange people some basic common sense facts. I lived through Jimmy Carter and screamed at the TV when he said he was going to "fix" the economy. I had just started my construction company a couple of years before...the economy was fantastic..but he was going to "fix it". To make a long story short I have made my living understanding the market and during the Clinton administration I was warning people about the coming crash of the economy. It was being propped up on a false foundation...they now call it the "bubble". I blame Bush for not doing enough to stop it...but he didn't cause it. You are also correct about all of these manufactured figures like the unemployment rate, plus the housing market, and then there's the inflation rate and most ridiculous of all, Obama's approval rating. I've spent my life estimating costs, materials, doing analysis. I know pencil whipping when I see it. The pencil whipping going on with Obama's regime is so basic and obvious it can only pass muster with the least educated. Unemployment at 8.3%...are you kidding me? Oh yeah......8.3% unemployment but there are 22% out of work.
William Eib
7:16 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
No we Idiots were looking at the tax avoidance of taking business over seas, sorry we missed the struggle Businesses faced in making that last dollar employing Americans. Our bad. The States should protect themselves from the Federal Government It will make it easier for them to pass repressive regulations on the lives of their citizens, like Right to Enslave Laws to help those multi-million dollar businesses to come to their state and pay minimum wage, no job security, no health benefits, work weekends out of fear of losing your job. They do need laws to stop the Feds from ceasing to treat their citizens that way. They can, allow females to earn less than men doing the same job, no female cops, no teachers rights, tariffs on adjoining states, border wars with adjoining states, sounds like a real good plan.
They can also increase their bureaucratic departments to handle the added responsibility of running their own school systems, court systems, health care systems, highways, environment, national guards and local militias, border patrols and border security guards and tariff collectors, AND how do they pay for all of this???? HIGHER TAXES!!!! Bet FOX and BECK & FATTY didn't think of that eh, Ducky? And if they did they certainly wouldn't dare share it with you. They would assume you couldn't handle it.
William Eib
3:03 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Tommy Thompson: Give it a rest. Where the hell was all this expertise and political know how when your boy Bush was sinking the ship of state, hibernating in some cozy little white enclave, with an 8 year supply of beer and cheetos and FOX on 24/7 and you trusty dog by your side. You sat by and did absolutely nothing, not a peep, not a finger on a key board nothing what so ever. Forget Obama your a lost soul. The real issue here is you sat on your lazy ass and let your party screw the USA over nine ways from Sunday. You should be ashamed to call yourself an American, you would have been one of the people who brought a lunch to Manassas and watched young people die while you chewed on some fried chicken made by your favorite female slave. You're a disgrace, you failed your country and now you think you can redeem yourself by pretending that you know what your talking about while you besmirch the office of the Presidency, no redemption, you sat on your ass and watched our great nation crushed by GOP money grubbing thugs and did absolutely NOTHING. If that was a real war you would have been shot for treason. You opinion is worthless, because your a lazy ass person try to revive your patriotism by pointing fingers, when you are the guilty party. Oh, yeah lets bring back those crooks who robbed us bl;ind so you can part your lazy as on the barcalounger some more and what liberty go down the river with your pride.
Tommy Thompson
9:36 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Wm eib, you obviously are very confused. Before the congress was taken over by Dems in 2006 the yearly deficit was running a horrible 300 billion...what's it now? Unemployment was a staggering 5% or lower. What's it now....and don't give me the bullcrap about 8.3%. Those that know me would laugh their heads off at some of your remarks about being lazy and not doing anything. At age 63 I guarantee you I could work circles around you. While you most likely get your information from other obots who tell you what you should think, I actually do my own thinking and research. When I heard Obama's COLB was fake, I used my years of experience in image work to check it out myself. Yes it's a fake. I've created well over 100 fake COLBs and even created a long form for Obama BEFORE he released his fake. And yes his is so ridiculously flawed I would be embarrassed if I were you if you're still claiming it's not. I would love to discuss this with you more but I've got to go to work and finish up a roof system I'm constructing over a mobile home....so much for my lazy ass being in the barcalounger.
3:31 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
William....Somehow I didn't see YOU out on the STREETS IN PROTEST either! Oh, guess YOU were siting by the fireplace with your trusty dog! The internet has changed our entire world since 2000....and no one is pointing fingers here EXCEPT you...but there are 3 fingers pointing back at YOU....so What was it that YOU DID for Freedom & Liberty?...oh, that's right, you were simply an uninformed SPECTATOR! The book "Throw the Bums Out" has been recently released much to the dismay of many in office...think you shoud read it...can you read? and if so, can you believe your lying eyes?.
A Alvin Twiningham
8:11 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Every econnomic study I have ever read shows that the American economy and job markets were strongest when corporate tax rates and tax rates on the wealthy were higher. The whole "you can't raise taxes on the job creators" is pure BS. First they off-shored the jobs and now that there is no one with a job left here to buy their cheap crap they want to dodge paying taxes to inflate their already huge profit margins.
If I am a convenient idiot you, "Patriot"(is that you, Mel?) are a most inconvenient one because racist idiots like you keep buying the party line BS that is preventing anything from being accomplished to help what is left of the middle class.
I'll leave you with a few inconvenient facts to ignore. "Romneycare" (very similar to "Obamacare") is, according to Repugnicant/ Tea Party talking points, an extremely unpopular and hideously costly policy. Santorum claims it is costing $8 billion in MA. Well, facts were released this week that show that the cost of the program is on par wiuth healthcare costs across the country and %66 of Mass residents actually like it, with only %33 disliking it. The only people paying higher premiums now are those who have more coverage than they used to. Don't let that stop you from complaining what a disaster it will be though.
10:56 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Here's a question -
Wouldn't the US Supreme Court (particularly Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas) have intervened if there was a ghost of chance that Barack Obama was ineligible to be elected president?
Would Justice Roberts have administered the oath?
Jerry D. Keene
1:16 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
[sarcasm on] Didn't you know that they've been part of the grand scheme to put the usurper in the White House since August 4, 1961? [sarcasm off]
2:46 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
@Patriot and Tommy Thompson: I really don't know what alternate universe you've been living in, but President Obama saved us from a second Republican depression. Thankfully, in 2006 the democrats DID take back congress or else this would have become a long, deep, depression because the party of 1 idea (republicans..cut taxes solves everything) would have sat back and watch the country sink deeper into a depression and millions more would have lost their jobs, pensions, retirements and medical. Which party took us from surplus to red ink...again! GOP! The Bush years are so full of mismanagement and lack of leadership it's embarrassing. We could go through so many samples from home (Katrina) to abroad(Iraq) it would make your head spin. Now, we have a leader who will face the problems of the country and try and solve them with more than a gun and a tax cut...maybe we can get this ship back on course to prosperity for all rather than just an elite few!
William Eib
10:14 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
You mean Stupid, specious, sophomoric, single-minded, silly, sad, stunted, slow-witted.
stumped, sarcastic, supercilious?
7:21 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Jim - I may be getting your so called "facts" from the Daily Kos. You claim the Dems "saved us from a second Republican depression" in 2006. That is not based on historical facts. The Recession officially BEGAN in Dec. 2007 (see CNN Money article http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm). Then the housing burst created the perfect storm and many experts claim that the roots of the crisis can be traced directly to risky lending by government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It is well established that irresponsible Dems at the helm like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were twisting the arms of lenders to make loans to people that business rules would routinely reject as a bad credit risk. It was the Bush administration that tried repeatedly to warn the Congress that these institutions were in danger of going bust and called for more regulation of Fannie and Freddie. These calls were rejected and scoffed at by the Dems who controlled the Congress. Anyone can go on YouTube and watch the Dems committee chairmen stating unequivocally that Fannie & Freddie were in no financial trouble at all that these calls for investigations and regulations by the Bush administration were aimed at preventing minorities from achieving the American dream. Less than a year later the wheels came off. So…how is this a "Republican depression" when clearly the Dems were in charge of the money and policies that controlled the housing industry?
Jerry D. Keene
5:29 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Oh yes BD. It's only the DEMS who were responsible for making those loans to people who couldn't or shouldn't have them. Never mind that GWB had a hand in it.
Don't believe me take a look/listen to this. Then get back to me.
Then take a look at the official policy of the Bush Administration.
Ignorance is bliss. But history is real. The history of the housing bubble will fall squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration, and the co-conspirators on wall street. Oh, don't worry. I blame the democrats for letting it happen.
Do a Google of: George W. Bush "A home of your own" This was 2002.. When the government was firmly under Republican control.
As much as you want to rewrite history, there is no way you can ignore the role the Bush administration had in setting up so many 'home owners' up for failure by the very policies you claim the Democrats were responsible for.
10:18 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
This literally may be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life... Get a life guy
10:50 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Thanks Raf. Your comment means that the real facts have caused you to think a bit. It's like Ronald Reagan once said…"It's not that liberals don't know anything. It's that they know so much that isn't so."
Jerry D. Keene
5:37 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
BD, another leak for you to check out.
George W. Bush
Remarks at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia
June 17, 2002
Read more at the American Presidency Project: George W. Bush: Remarks at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62687#ixzz1ms0M0YWL
William Eib
6:18 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PATRIDIOT: Once again, there you go on one of your overly melodramtic rants, which start from nowhere and lead to nowhere. The only point I can ascertain from your comments is the point of the dunce cap you so proudly wear. You continue to reveal your lackof intellect, by your constant use of FOX-BECK-FATTY provided talking points, the same old tired rhetoric of the Teahadists, the alarmist cry that the sky is falling, with out a smidgen of truth to back it up, that bunk you toss around with some self proclaimed knowledge allowing to call others stupid, is SPAM, not real meat. It's a concoction of ad hominems, and loose facts provided to you by the Dynamic Trio of Truth, FOX-BECK-FATTY, your juggling with sharp knives, and you don't know how to juggle. But that hasn't stop you from saying something you don't have an original thought about. eh, Ducky.
William Eib
6:33 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
BILLEE: I am happy to see you're prepared to pray for forgiveness for your transgressions; gross exaggeration , unfair ad hominems tossed around like confetti, and the total lack of original thought. For example: Elites. Now that is a jim dandy of a word, used to stir you up about how unfair it is that there are more intelligent people on earth than you. You're being insulted and you don;t know it. Our military is elite, the cadets at West Point are elite, professional athletes are the elite. The choice or best of anything considered collectively. And this is what you want the children to avoid striving for,because FOX-BECK-FATTY have deemed it a negative attribute, no wonder you think America is on a down turn, you have devalued the Elite element of acheivement. I not going to Mediocre-ville with you, your on your own, Ducky.
William Eib
6:44 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PATRIDIOT: Man, you just can't help yourself. First bi-racial President. Well at least you have enough respect for the man to refer to him as the President. And, you had the temerity to put Herman Cain and the word Presient in the same sentence. Wow, you are desparate. Fact is, if God were that crazy to allow that to happen we would have had the first certifiable IDIOT in the White House. You guys were so desperate to have your own Negro, you lowered the bar so low as to allow Herman to think you were serious that he could be POTUS. You're pathetic.
William Eib
7:04 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PATRIDIOT; Are we talking about the same (moribund) Teahadist Party that sent a bunch of amateur knucleheads to Congress with the sole purpose of gumming up the works to iritate and attempt to bring down the government to get rid of Obama. And the same (moribund) Teahadist Party that forced the GOP to spend all of it's political capital on Obstructing Congress and turning itself into the Party of NO! And the same (moribund) Teahadist Party that brought America the underwhelming cast of characters they thought were Presidential material: Michele Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cane, the resurrection of Newt Gingich, Rick Santorum and the high priestess of digrundlement Sarah "winkie" Palin. Author, Reality TV star, half term Governor (quit her state for $$$$$), salmon catching, deer hunting, grizzly mom of the highest degree, a parmount of motherhood. Yeah, the Teahadist Party is alive and well, can't say the same about the dignity of the USA. Negativity, Pessimism and Self Loathing reign supreme under the brave example of politics offered the unsuspecting by the Teahadist Party.
William Eib
7:28 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PATRIDIOT: Yes I have been to a Tea Party. High Tea at Harrods in London, and it didn't look anything like the Alice in Wonderland version the Teahadist throw. Yes, I know what T.E.A. stands for: Tired Old Americans. All the so called 2010 Teahadist Tsunami brought to the government was a rag tag group of amateurs dead set on mucking up the government, they almost brought it to a stand still, their resistance to raise the debt ceiling cause the USA's credit rating to be downgraded, they are unstable and vindictive kids, screwing around in an adult arena. They also brought us a delightful cast of characters: Ricky "Pistol Packing" Perry, Michele "Eke a Gay" Bachman, Herman "Hi Baby" Cane, Newtron Gingrich, Reverand Rick Santorum and Her Highness Sarah "show me the money" Palin. What a proud cast of charaters the Teahadist said had Presidential qualifications. Really? The code of The Teahadist Party is Pessimism, Negativity, Self Loathing for all, feel free to pass it around. You guys live in the shadows of America waiting until everyone goes to bed so you can run free fomenting anxiety, anger, contempt, divisiveness, low self esteem, and down right un-Christian like behavior. Yeah, I know quite well who and what the Teahadist Party is, something that's shelf life has expired. Best suited to late 1930s Europe.
William Eib
9:01 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PATRIDIOT: Blow it our your butt. Mr. Tit for Tat. That the best you got. How can an ideology that suppoted Dick Cheney's claim/defense of the Bush deficit by claiming deficits did not matter, be trusted? I recogonize a putz when I see one. What part of anything do you understand. Your a product of normalcy. A grand sceme created by large companies in order to sell their goods to people. They knew you may have a product, but with out consumers the product sat on the shelf. With the dawn of the advertizing age companies finally discovered a way of producing consumers as well as the product. Advertizing lead to the normalization of America. Group think. A desire to be with the right tribe, through the right product,, but first Normal had to be established, it wasn't that hard with the help of advertizing. Pictures of perfect families (all white), desire to be normal was in the collective consumerism of the right product to underscore membership in the right tribe.
William Eib
9:31 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PATRIDIOT: Nixon's Mad Ave guys, tried making the GOP the Normal Party. White, Christian, Chevy, and apple pie. No Women or people of color. Nixon got elected. America first and foremost, Mad Ave created a patriotic Normal, it was un-American to not go along. Voting, workers, womens rights, desegregation, anti- war. Un-American, Socialist, Commie Pinko stuff. Sound familiar. Normal is scared of change. Once again Normal is being challanged. Businesses, coming to heel to the Internet age, Free speech via social networking, uncontrolable freedom of expression, Gay marriage, interracial marriage, gays in the military, women in power, working mothers, stay at home dads, a mixed race POTUS, not normal. Normal's equalibrium shaken. Shook Teahadist and you. Scared-don't know what to do. First line of defense: accusations; Socialist, Marxists, Relgion haters, etc. Familiar tactics of the Normal when scared. A majority of people are less normal. Iowa - same sex marriage. More states to follow. The Supreme Court will rule against Prop 8. True Christian ethic is rising. All people are created equal, that's our countries siren call to the world. The Teahadists want their Normal back. I thought we Socialists would have had more to do with it. It was self inflicted, by those dying to maintain normalcy. You're a product of Normal America. Assalam Alaikum.
10:36 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Like I said - EXAMPLE and NO MERCY! I know WHO I AM! You just made a EXAMPLE of me! We each have our own exit - it is our expiration date. Their is nothing wrong with the elite intelligent and the proper chain of command - It's all in how you use it! The elite can be used for good or for evil. I see some who only know example and not mercy. Maybe we could make use of our divisions of thinking and make our country "The Divided States " - We could put each division in their own quad of states instead of having - One New World Order ...
7:14 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Eib - Something wrong with being elderly? An Obama "truth squad" (what a joke) guy like yourself should know that your Chosen One will need all the votes that he can get so you should not try to be cute with "Tired Elderly" comment. By the way. $4 or $5 per gallon gass this year before the election should kill the "ROBUST' Obama econonmic recovery. But that is what you get when you play games with an energy policy.
William Eib
10:54 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
Someone asked me what T.E.A. stood for. I guessed it was Tired Elderly Americans, because they obviously were asleep from 2000 thru 2008. I am considered elderly, by young folk. It's not who or what I am. All issues draw my attention, not just those that deal with my age group. I find it rather strange, and I have addressed it in other comments, the joy found in negative events that effect America, if the event some how shines a negative light on The President of the United States of America. The desire of people to pray for the President's failure, such As Lush Rimbaugh, and the Christian prayer bumper sticker, is immoral to me, to pray for suffering to come down on America to fulfill some desire to rid the country of a man you dislike, hold in contempt, or flat out Hate. I find that world view astonishing, considering, and this is my assumption, all of those who share this view are decent people of a Christian background. I don't find any acceptable reason to wish for or find joy in something with the potential of causing discomfort to our fellow man. And you find it odd that we on the opposing side find that to be wrong. I am sorry to hear, that being an "elderly" person with a Christian background with Socialist political views, is anathema to so many people on the Right. Yes Socialism and Christianity are compatible. God has his hand in everything.
William Eib
11:08 am on Monday, February 20, 2012
BD: I also watched meet the press and i heard the apologist for Rick Santorum counter every comment from the other panelists, with negative, pessimistic remarks, the $4.00 to $5.00 gasoline was his big pessimistic point to throw at Obama's success in November. It is a talking point that will be repeated over and over on FOX, BECK, & FATTY's shows. It will become a drum beat, very well might not happen, but the Right is holding out hope that it will. Pity. Also, no mention of the oil speculators who drive the price, plus check out the increase in gasoline EXPORTS by American refineries this past year, historic in scale. Why is gasoline being EXPORTED? There is a glut of it. Sure isn't reflected in the prices. Here's where we differ, I look for the culprits, not someone I don't like, to blame the theft own. Watch when the president suggests that oil speculation return to the former regulations which controlled greedy speculators who drive the price of oil, your side will find fault with the idea, and rail against big government. We're being screwed by speculators. They have now moved onto food. And you'll find some reason to protect them, because if they a reigned it would be a good thng for Obama. It's all about the Benjamins, always has been and should not be what always will be. That's not Capital ism, that's outright Greed.
12:51 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
John 14:2 "There are many rooms in OUR Fathers house". I hope to see ALL of YOU there- where DIVERSITY will live in PEACE and LOVE will replace TOLERANCE once and for all. You are correct - change is normal when you leave the wrong in the past and do what is right and just in the future.
William Eib
2:23 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
ILLEE: Who pray tells decides what is right and just. People who profess a Certainty about life based on Religious Text? Sounds like Islam. The Bible is not a guide book for a diverse culture, many may believe in a God, but their beliefs vary, that's one of the reasons the Founding Fathers believed that law was man's domain and there was no need for Divine Providence.
3:35 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Constitution override with implementation of Martial Law and NO MERCY would be a great blessing from Almighty God if a man like yourself were ever to become our president and decide the LAW of the LAND. I serve one MASTER not two...
Put that on your list!
3:41 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Eib - What is stopping the Chosen One from reigning in the gasoline speculators? After all, all he has to do is wave his magic arms and he can (for example) tell private insurance companies that they must provide contraceptives WITHOUT charge. Imagine that. The Constitution must say that a President can dictate what private firms can charge. So, what is keeping Obama from stopping the gasoline speculators? It cannot be the evil Republicans because President Barry can simply issue an executive order. He does not need an elected Congress. Maybe it is because it is people like his ally George Soros who would be hurt by an end to energy speculation. Also, Obama likes the price of gasoline to be high so that his Left Wing Liberal environmentalist base will kiss his behind. What this poor excuse for a President should be doing is to try to make this entire Western Hemisphere free from the ties of Arab oil. We should be partnering with Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and even the crazy dictors in South America. We deal with crazy Arab leaders for their oil so why not deal with Chavez? Either we help South America develop oil fields or the Chinese will. We should also keep all of our Westen Hemisphere oil off the global market and use it here cutting off Arab oil. Your man could do that. He won't because he likes to have a gasoline price crisis. Never waste a good crisis. There is no telling what Socialist policy he can get through with a good crisis.
Robert Edward Healy, III
11:40 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
"Author Revives 'Birther' Theory in Morristown (NJ)": http://patch.com/A-skkq