How To Not Be A Birther, By Kathy Weppner
In both, Weppner downplayed any interest she had in the birther movement.
Weppner took a keen interest in the “birther” movement, which raised questions about whether Obama was born in the United States and, therefore, eligible to be president.
Weppner hosted Orly Taitz, one of the founders of the movement, on her radio show, and questioned the credibility of Obama’s birth certificate both on that show and on a 2010 Blog Talk Radio appearance in which Weppner said: “What Obama’s campaign has put out is not a birth certificate.”
Weppner was referring to a short-form birth certificate issued by the Hawaii Department of Health and released by Obama’s campaign in 2007. Obama later asked Hawaii for a copy of a longer version of his birth certificate and then posted it to the White House website in 2011 in hopes of quelling the controversy over his qualifications.
Asked about her involvement in the birther movement and whether she still believes that Obama may not have been born in America, Weppner wrote: “That question has already been decided.”
She also wrote: “I believe, at that time, Mr. Obama’s submission of a ‘short-form’ birth certificate was a topic of conversation nationally as there were many lawsuits attempting to see his long-form birth certificate. I found it interesting that there was such resistance to produce this when it should have been simple. Mr. Obama Is our President.”
In her online rant, Weppner addresses the matter thusly:
Q1) You have repeatedly questioned Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency. For example, in a 2010 Blog Talk Radio appearance, you said: “What Obama’s campaign has put out is not a birth certificate.” Do you still believe that Obama may not have been born in the U.S. and therefore may not be eligible to be president?
A1 Kathy Weppner response: “I believe, at that time, Mr. Obama’s submission of a “short form” birth certificate was a topic of conversation nationally as there were many lawsuits attempting to see his long form birth certificate. I found it interesting that there was such resistance to produce this when it should have been simple. Mr. Obama Is our President”
Q2 NEWS follow up: Jerry Zremski wrote:
2) Your answer to my question about President Obama’s birth certificate is inadequate. Yes, Mr. Obama is our president — but do you believe he was born in the United States?
Kathy Weppner response: That question has already been decided. I raised three kids that took an oath under this president. Our family’s willingness to sacrifice for this country is clear period.
Weppner analysis of the NEWS article published: Please note from the questions asked by the NEWS that: I was never asked about my involvement in “the birther movement as Mr. Zremski claims. Nor did I ever claim to be a birther. I am not exactly sure what the “birther movement” means or who is in it”? What constitutes membership?
She also complained that this online radio show had “deceived” her, and “ambush[ed] her with controversy”. It was all an extended version of, ‘I read it in a chain email or at some right-wing freakshow of a website, and didn’t really look into whether any of it was true, because it sounded true and jibed with my already hard-wired prejudices’
Weppner is not sure what the “birther movement” is? She was never asked about her “involvement” in it? She never claimed to be a birther?
On January 19, 2010, Congressional candidate Kathy Weppner (R-Cuckooland) appeared on “Reality Check Radio” on an internet streaming service. The show, at the time, was all about the birther movement and questions surrounding President Obama’s eligibility to hold Presidential office.
It was the fad at the time. A right-wing xenophobe’s hula hoop.
What Weppner likely didn’t realize was that the show existed to debunk birtherism.
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/214/show_4214691.mp3
Immediately upon getting on the phone, Weppner was asked about her involvement in the birther movement, and she replied,
One of the reasons why I have always been stuck on the eligibility issue is that my husband is a clinical chief of an OB-GYN department, and very early on when the issue came up, I said, “can you explain to me what a birth certificate is supposed to have on it if you go to a hospital and deliver a baby?” And very early on I came to understand that what Obama’s camp had put out was not a birth certificate.
…the thing about eligibility is, and I think there are three different issues with Barack Obama’s eligibility, and #1 is that the founding fathers said you have to be a “natural-born citizen” and Orly Taitz has done a lot of work in going back and researching what that meant when they wrote that, and that meant that you have to be born in the United States, and you have to born of parents who are citizens, and both of your parents had to be citizens. That certainly is not the case…
…if you go to Orly Taitz’s … and I’ll spell her name for you … she is not only a dental surgeon, but she’s a lawyer. She was from Russia, she has a beautiful accent, and she has taken up the cause of just wanting the President to prove his eligibility. And remember the hundred lawsuits that have been filed would all go away if he authorized the Hawaiian hospital where he says he was born to release his records. Because when a woman goes to the hospital – like he said his mother did, there is a file that’s created for mom and baby. After the baby’s born, there’s a piece of paper that has the delivering doctor, that has the signature of the doctor on it, it has the hospital name, the time of birth, and it’s the official document that the hospital puts together that says, “this baby was born here with these witnesses, and here was the doctor.” So that is the proof that you’re born where you say you’re born, and that is absolutely the document that could make all of this go away. Instead, they’re spending over a million dollars defending lawsuits all over the place, just release the document and it goes away.
Does that sound like someone who isn’t really quite sure what birtherism is? Or that she was just curious or interested in a passing topic of conversation? Or does this sound like someone who was as well-versed on Taitz’s wild conspiratorial nonsense as Taitz herself? The host accused Weppner of being misinformed,
…I’m really, I’m not misinformed. If people wanna go on Orly Taitz’s website. They – all of this documents are fully there, they state all of the…lemme put it this way, R.C., one judge – just one judge – to order discovery, okay, just discovery, to produce the documents, it all goes away, and it’s settled. Why hasn’t that happened?
The host explains that, in order for a judge to order discovery, there has to be a case.
…you have to have standing, right? And nobody has had standing. All of the judges have said, “you don’t have standing, you don’t have standing, you don’t have standing”.
The host of the show argues about the validity of the short-form certificate, and that the hospital record is irrelevant.
…no, they’re legal documents…the hospital birth certificates are sent to the municipality and they certify that the information on it is correct, and you have a legal document. But the municipality is the one, I mean, they pick them up at my husband’s hospital once a week – all the birth certificates of all the births that have happened in this township, and then they take them and they send them to the state.”
…but it’s not the hospital birth certificate. That’s all they want, because it’s proof that he was born there. If he was born in Hawaii, you only needed one relative to present to – and it’s all in Orly Taitz’s – what what was going on in Hawaii at the time – you only needed one relative to come in and say, “I witnessed the birth at home, and he was born here”, and they would give you a birth certificate that looks exactly like Obama’s. And you had up to a year to produce the child.
…I’m serious, this…you have to go, and you have to read Orly Taitz’s documents.
The host brings up at this point that he won’t go on Taitz’s website because Google says it contains malware. Weppner – who doesn’t really know much about this whole “birther” thing, replies,
I’ve gone there many times, I’ve never had a problem.
She changes it up a bit from there when a caller asks Kathy the sources she consults for this eligibility issue.
I actually call the people involved and I interview them. Orly Taitz was on my show for two hours. I’ve called Nathan Deal, anybody that has actually had a lawsuit, if I’m going to talk about it, I’m going to go online to get information, but then I call them, because I want it right from them.
Let me tell you what I do during the week, ok. I read the Wall Street Journal every day, I’ll read the New York Times, I watch Washington Journal, I watch C-Span, the hearings, because I find the hearings, you get all the information instead of just a snippet of it here and there, and anything that I’m gonna talk about, I usually have maybe an inch stack of stuff that goes into the studio with me.
While Weppner now denies knowing much about this whole birther matter, back in 2010 it was all-consuming for her.
Here’s what I find is very interesting, okay. I’m a real common sense person. So, as I’m gathering information, I look at the list of things that the candidate Barack Obama said that he was going to release after the election, as well as Michelle Obama. They said that all of their documents would be forthcoming. All of the law school records, all of his college records, and everything would be released after the election. None of it has been released.
When asked if she has a source for that,
You know what, I’ll find this soundbite, and play ‘em on my show on Saturday. I watched him on television say that.,,I will research that and find the soundbite. Because even Michelle said that all of her college records would be released, because they were interested in what her senior thesis was of something, and they would ask her and she said she’d release it after the election.
But here’s the thing. Remember when President Bush was running, they looked at his college records, he was a C student, they looked at Al Gore’s, he, y’know, he was a C student. They always look at college records. To have no records released about a candidate, to me, y’know, when the Founding Fathers made the press totally have free speech, freedom of the press, they knew that would protect us. Having journalists digging for answers, having journalists digging things up and being in competition with each other, would protect the American people. Nobody did that this election.
Don’t you remember when Bill Clinton released his medical records, they found out that he had V.D.?! I mean, all of the records are released. We don’t even have Obama’s medical records released. It’s standard operating procedure that a candidate…”
To clear things up – the Obamas didn’t make promises about releasing school or medical records. Bush never released his college records (although somebody did leak them). Neither did Al Gore. Whatever information exists about that came from their autobiographies. Bill Clinton didn’t have V.D., and he never released his medical records. Michelle Obama did release her thesis in 2008, but The President’s is gone.
By this time, the topic had strayed from “eligibility”, and a caller asked Weppner why she needs all of this other documentation. Weppner claims entitlement to see,
documents that prove who you are, where you’ve been, what you’ve done, and what you’ve accomplished…
So, if Clinton had VD that’s important to the American public?
No. What I’m saying is if you’re going to be in the public, and you’re going to seek the highest public office, your life kinda becomes an open book.
That must be why we have all of Bush’s National Guard documentation. Oh, wait.
When asked to delineate public versus private information, Weppner responded:
College records? Law school records? Come on. That’s basic.
What’s in the law school record, that has to do with eligibility?
That he took these classes with these professors, and – oh yeah – the professors remember him being there. That he did what he said he has done, and that he is who he says he is, and that he was born where he says he was born, and just scrutiny of who he was – that didn’t happen this election at all.
When asked to cite independent sources for her assertion regarding Hawaiian law, Ms. Weppner brought up Orly Taitz’s website and lawsuit, and promptly hung up.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you prove that you’re totally unconcerned and not involved in the birther / Obama eligibility movement.
Kathy’s people are currently playing whack-a-mole with all the internet footprints she’s left behind
When will these Tea Party candidates figure out that the internet stores absolutely everything?
The same day they learn to deal with reality.
As I am a “birther”. I have sued Obama in court over his presidential qualification and his Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen standings, and Orly Taitz was my attorney. At the end of the day…and I’ll never forget it…the judge said we had shown, “…little, if any, evidence that would contradict Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.”
The reason why I don’t agree with Administrative Law Judge Malihi’s finding is that “little, if any”, is more than none, and none is exactly the amount of independent, corroborative evidence shown on Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate that would substantiate the true facts of his birth.
If you will recall, this is the very reason why all of us “birthers” were calling for Obama “long-form” birth certificate….there was no independent, corroborative evidence contained on Obama’s short-form birth certificate that would substantiate the document’s information as being true.
When Obama’s long-form birth certificate did eventually come out, other than having a doctor’s name on it, with his signature, and the name of Obama’s natal hospital, nothing more was presented as substantiating evidence. Since the good doctor had died in 2003 and the hospital refuses to state whether or not Obama was or wasn’t born there; we birthers find ourselves still asking the same question: Where is there any substantiating proof that the information contained in Obama birth certificate is true?
ex animo
davidfarrar
* Independent of Hawaiian Health Department records
John McCain was born in the Canal Zone. Why aren’t you decrying the fact that he was allowed to run? Ted Cruz is a naturalized American from Canada. Do you think his presidential campaign should be treated as valid?
But “birthers” have been wailing against Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Gov. Jindal. Except for McCain, who also isn’t an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen due to his place of birth, you simply have been listening. None are “natural born” US Citizens, but US citizens at birth by positive (man-made) law
ex animo
davidfarrar
Rubio and Jindal, like Obama, were born on US soil. In their cases it was US states, and Obama was born in Hawaii. McCain was born on a US naval base, where the US flag flew and where the US Supreme Court ruled in its recent rulings on Guantanimo that the US Constitution applies. It is thus hard to say that McCain was not born on US soil. Senator Cruz was born in Canada—and that is that. Some people think that even he may be a Natural Born Citizen simply because of his mother, but that is a more remote possibility.
BUT every rational constitutional expert—with the exception of a few birther lawyers—holds that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders) is a Natural Born US Citizen. Only naturalized citizens, none of whom were born on US soil of course, are US citizens without being Natural Born US Citizens.
The Heritage Foundation has the law right, and you are wrong:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
Conservative organization.]
In point of fact; John McCain isn’t a natural born US citizen. The Panama Canal Zone did not come under US sovereignty until 1937. Before that time the Canal Zone was a “no man’s land,” in the words of Representative Sparkman. In 1937 Congress passed a statute, the Act of Aug. 4, 1937 (now codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1403(a)) granting citizenship to “[a]ny person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904” who had at least one U.S. citizen parent. Although this act was retroactive until 1904, it still occurred after John’s birth by some 11 months, making McCain a ‘naturalized’ US Citizen by positive law.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “In point of fact; John McCain isn’t a natural born US citizen.”
In point of fact, that is YOUR opinion. A US Naval Base, where the US flag files, is under the US Constitution, and hence it is US soil.
Yes, that is certainly true, but not before Congress says it is under US jurisdiction, and certainly only by treaty with Panama.
Succinctly put, there are only two ways to become a US Citizen, either by natural law (natural born) or by man-made law (positive law, naturalized). After the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. “We are,” as first Chief Justice John Jay observed in 1789, in the Chisholm v. Georgia case, “sovereigns without subjects”. It is ‘as sovereigns’ then we must look to find the proper definition of the enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” inserted into Art. II, §1, cl. 4.”
As sovereigns, our children would inherit their sovereignty from their father (partus sequitur patrem), as natural law dictates. As sovereigns, they would also be ‘natural born citizens’ wherever their birth occurs, again, as natural law dictates.
The practical interpretation of this qualification, from the very beginning among US presidents and vice-presidents has been to require both parents to be US citizens and born within the jurisdiction. In fact, 43 out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed this prescription.* This prophetic tradition fits in nicely with the passage of the 1934 Marriage Act (Cable Act), wherein the allegiance of the wife was kept after marriage, thereby observing the sexual equality sensibilities of today, while avoiding the inevitable growing list of resultant dual allegiances at birth.
Under this definition, neither Barack Obama, nor Sen Cruz, are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens. While both are born US Citizens, Barack Obama was born natural subject of the British realm and Sen Cruz was born a natural citizen of Cuba.
ex animo
davidfarrar
John Jay was an expert in THE COMMON LAW so when he wrote his letter to George Washington saying that only a Natural Born Citizen should be commander in chief, he was using the common law—or, if not, he would have said so, and he didn’t.
Re: “As sovereigns, our children would inherit their sovereignty from their
father (partus sequitur patrem), as natural law dictates. As sovereigns,
they would also be ‘natural born citizens’ wherever their birth occurs,
again, as natural law dictates.”
Answer: Those are YOUR words, not those of John Jay—or John Adams or Thomas Jefferson or any of the members of the Constitutional Convention. NONE of them ever said that the citizenship of two citizen parents, or that of the father, or or even of one parent, is required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. NOT one of them did.
Re: “In fact, 43 out of the last 44 elected presidents have followed this prescription…”
Answer: You constantly forget James Buchanan, whose father was never naturalized. And, you claim that Chester B. Arthur hid the fact that his father was not a citizen—-but there is no evidence of that at all. So there were two. Moreover, the first Republican candidate for president, John C. Fremont, PROCLAIMED the fact that his father was not a US citizen in his campaign biography. Sure, he didn’t win—but it was not because of this father’s lack of US citizenship—and certainly if he thought that having a foreign father would make him ineligible, he would not have written it. The mothers of Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were only made US citizens under a law that said they became US citizens automatically when they married US men. They were never formally naturalized, meaning that they never swore an oath or renounced their citizenship in the other countries, and as a result—-since Wilson’s mother was still British to that country—Woodrow Wilson was born a dual citizen. He, like James Madison, who became a dual citizen when he was an adult, remained a Natural Born Citizen because there is nothing in the common law that keeps dual citizens from being Natural Born.
Re: “Under this definition, neither Barack Obama, nor Sen Cruz, are Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens.”
Answer: You MAY be right about Sen Cruz. You are certainly wrong with regard to Obama, as nine appeals courts have all ruled. Here are some of them:
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling: “No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling: “However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling: “Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling: “In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that “children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND.
James BUCHANAN – Article II (NBC) both parents were US Citizens when he was born. James Buchanan was born on April 23, 1791, in Cove Gap, Pennsylvania, to James Buchanan Sr. (1761-1833), a merchant who had emigrated from Ireland in 1783, and was naturalized a US citizen in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. President James Buchanan Jr. was born April 23, 1791 in Pennsylvania. Therefore James Buchanan Jr. was a natural born citizen, born in the U.S. of two U.S. citizen parents.
Chester Arthur took steps to burn all of his personal papers after his birth, and whose presidential qualification were, in fact, publicly questioned during this times. I haven’t been able to find the exact references yet, but one would suppose at some point during this public discourse, Arthur would have mentioned the fact that his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, or that he was naturalized a US after his birth, and that perhaps that might have been the source of confusion of his own birth. I can kind no instance where Arthur publicly disclosed this fact.
John C. Fremont:
Not much is known about John Charles Fremont’s parents. His father, Charles Fremon [sec]. In 1811 he was employed by Major John Prior to teach French to his young wife, Anne. Anne fell in love with her French teacher and the two of them left Richmond and a few months later settled in Savannah, Georgia. Fremon worked in a number of different jobs and Anne took in boarders. On January 21, 1813, their first son, John Charles Fremon was born. Major Prior had tried to divorce Anne but the Virginia House of Delegates had declined to approve his petition so their son was born out of wedlock.
Since John C. Fremon was born out of wedlock to a US citizen mother, he was born of a single allegiance at birth and that was to support and abide by the US Const., in other words, an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen.
As you say, under the Immigration and Naturalization laws enforced at the time, the mothers of both Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover became US citizens upon their marriages to US citizen husbands.
James Madison, of course, was a US Citizen at the adoption of the US Const., he was born in 1751.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: the claim that Buchanan’s father “was naturalized a US citizen in 1788 when the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.”
That is not accurate. NO evidence of Buchanan’s father being naturalized has ever been found.
Re: “Chester Arthur took steps to burn all of his personal papers after his birth…”
It would have been REAL hard to burn them before his birth. Moreover, the evidence that a father has been naturalized or not naturalized is not contained in personal papers. It is stored in the public records where the naturalization would have taken place. So, if Arthur had tried to have those records burned or scrapped, he couldn’t have—–and there is no evidence that he even tried.
Re: “Not much is known about John Charles Fremont’s parents.”
Answer: Your theory that since his parents were not married the citizenship of Fremont’s father doesn’t affect the matter is loony in the extreme. Apparently allegiance only goes where there has been a valid marriage in your nutty notion. The point is that Fremont PROCLAIMED that his father was not a US citizen. IF he had any notion that his father’s lack of citizenship would keep him from becoming the president, he wouldn’t have. By stating so openly that his father was NOT a US citizen, Fremont was showing that he agreed with Tucker and Rawle and Lynch v. Clarke—-that ALL persons born on US soil are Natural Born Citizens, and he was right.
Re: “James Madison, of course, was a US Citizen at the adoption of the US Const., he was born in 1751.”
Answer: Answer: So you hold that he was an EXCEPTION simply because he was born before the revolution to your nutty idea that a person who was a dual citizen would not have complete allegiance to the USA? But Madison was a dual citizen, regardless of when he was born, and he showed that he had complete allegiance to the USA. Andrew Jackson had TWO foreign parents, and regardless of the fact that he was born before the Constitution, the fact that he had TWO citizen parents did not make him disloyal.
The bottom line is, still, that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen came from the common law, and if the writers of the US Constitution had switched from the common law to something else, they would have told us—-and they didn’t.
If I am not mistaken, because of its large ethnic and religious diversity, Pennsylvanian, upon ratifying the US Const took immediate step of naturalize all of its citizens as US Citizens.
One-third of Pennsylvania’s population was German-speaking, and the Constitution was printed in German for the purposes of involving that population in the debate. The chairman of the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, Reverend Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, was the son of the leading German Lutheran minister and grandson to Conrad Weiser (1696-1760), who had been a leading colonial Indian interpreter and German-speaking political leader. The leader of the Anti-Federalist opposition was the Delaware-born Scots-Irishman Thomas McKean. Future Supreme Court Justice and Scottish immigrant James Wilson was the most articulate defender of the Federalist cause.
Pennsylvania drafted the most radical of the state constitutions during the War for Independence. By excluding Quakers and all other pacifists unwilling to take oaths of allegiance to the Revolutionary cause, a fervently anti-British and anti-Indian Scots-Irish faction had seized power for the first time in the remarkably diverse state. Only when pacifists were again able to exercise the franchise in peacetime was it conceivable that the more conservative U.S. Constitution might pass in Pennsylvania.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “By excluding Quakers and all other pacifists unwilling to take oaths of allegiance to the Revolutionary cause…”
And now Farrar is making up lies about the first constitution of Pennsylvania. Have you no shame?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Constitution_of_1776
Notice that the ability to vote was open to ALL men who paid taxes. However, there were oaths of allegiance to the commonwealth of PA required for people who held office, and representatives were required to swear that that the believed in God and both books of the bible.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp
Still pushing this lie? Arthur didn’t “burn his papers” another birther myth. In fact his father’s naturalization papers have been apart of the Chester A Arthur collection at the Library of Congress for over a century. At the time people knew that Arthur’s father wasn’t a citizen until Chester was in his teenage years. Which is why his opponents kept trying to claim he was born in Canada. Because place of birth is what has always mattered, not parental citizenship.
Strauss on this point I have to disagree with you. It is a common misconception that US Military bases on foreign soil are considered US Soil. The state department acknowledges this to be false. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
page 5: Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S.
Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
“(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”
Re: “The state department acknowledges this to be false.”
You MAY be right, but then the Bush Administration argued that Guantanimo (also a US base on leased soil) was not US soil at the Supreme Court because it did not want courts issuing Habeas Corpus rulings for the men who were imprisoned there, and the Bush Administration LOST. So, it would have to be litigated again with that ruling as background.
Actually birthers can’t seem to make up their mind where they stand. Some support cruz like Joseph Farrah I’ve seen many like Mario support McCain’s eligibility. The problem is that the US Presidency was created by Positive law.
The office of the president was, but not its US citizenship requirement. For that they wanted set this qualification in stone, as to speak, to insure, as much as possible, the ideals won on the battlefields, and paid for at so costly a price in the blood of patriots, would not be quickly changed. After all, the first duty of any revolution is to preserve its revolutionary ideals. The founders and framers of the US Const., correctly understood, in order to best preserve these ideals, the awesome power to set the qualifications of the president of the United States, the highest, and, by far the most powerful elected office of the Republic, must be placed in the hands of We, the People, and not in the plenary hands of the state, i.e., Congress, i.e., man-made law: Title 8 USC §1401 (g).
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “After all, the first duty of any revolution is to preserve its revolutionary ideals.”
Answer: NO doubt about it. And the REVOLUTIONARY ideal of the American revolution is that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal…”
And, unless there were any clear stated exceptions to that revolutionary ideal saying that all men are created equal, they are created equal—at least under the law. And NONE of the writers of the US Constitution ever said that the US-born children of foreigners were created less equal than the US-born children of US citizens.
Further to: “”After all, the first duty of any revolution is to preserve its revolutionary ideals.”
Answer. The REVOLUTIONARY ideal is that we Americans get to pick our leaders, not a line of succession or the micro-management of men (even great men) who had died hundreds of years before. That is why we are allowed to vote for natural born criminals, natural born atheists and even, at the time natural born Tories. The REVOLUTIONARY ideal was that WE were supposed to chose. IF the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude Tories or criminals or the US-born children of foreigners, they would have said so—and they didn’t.
Strauss, read what you just wrote….”all men are created equal”, but we aren’t all equal. Some of us, as free, sovereign individuals, have consented to give up some of our sovereignty to become citizens with others, who have like-wised “consented” to be governed by a certain enumerated powers. Therefore, to be an equal among this group one must also consent to support and abide by the same contract. If there is no transfer of allegiance, there is simply no agreement to become a member of this group. This is what Lock refers to as consent-based citizenship, as opposed to the Cokean concept of subjectship, without free choice, based on perpetual allegiance due solely to an accident of birth.
If you had to chose between the Lockean concept of free, consent-based citizenship, or Blackstone’s perpetual allegiance based on jus solis subjectship without free choice, best represented L’ Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence; which form of citizenship would you chose?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “Strauss, read what you just wrote….”all men are created equal”, but we aren’t all equal.”
Re: “ome of us, as free, sovereign individuals, have consented to give up
some of our sovereignty to become citizens with others, who have
like-wised “consented” to be governed by a certain enumerated powers.”
Answer: BABIES do not and cannot fall into that class. In the USA BABIES who are born on the soil are US citizens at birth, regardless of their consent (and the consent of the parents is not that of the children—and never has been). Our law is simple, if you are born on US soil you are a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats) and you have legal allegiance to the USA—and you MUST have legal allegiance to the USA. It’s not a matter of consent. The child can grow up and relinquish citizenship and become a citizen of a foreign country. But unless and until that happens, she or he under US law is a Natural Born Citizen and has allegiance ONLY to the USA (regardless of any dual citizenship).
Re: “which form of citizenship would you chose?”
Answer: The one that we have, Natural Born Citizenship based on the common law, because that makes the US-born children of foreigners EQUAL under the law to the US-born children of US citizens. And, you know, I figure that justices Scalia and Alito and chief justice Roberts (whose mother’s maiden name was Podaraski) would certainly agree. BTW, they probably have had some friends whose parents were naturalized after their birth and other friends whose parents were naturalized before their birth, and they have noticed over the years that both groups of friends are JUST AS GOOD CITIZENS.
Answer: We are all equal UNDER THE LAW, and if the writers of the Constitution had intended that the US-born children of foreigners were LESS EQUAL than the US-born children of US Citizens, THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.
BullSHIT they have.
You haven’t heard peep one out of World Net Daily about Ted Cruz being born in Canada-which, right off the bat, DQ’s him from running for President. Well, except to just poo-poo the whole matter.
You only assume WND is a birth publication. I can show you the record among the largest Tea Party organizations in the country, most of whom don’t see Cruz as a natural born citizen.
ex animo
davdfarrar
Mr. Farrar: I do not ASSUME WND is a birther publication. I KNOW it is a birther publication. I’ve seen enough of their writings, and how they’re trying to change the story mid-stream, to know this.
I, too, have posted many blogs on this subject over at WND, and never once have I read where Joseph Farrah has stated one way or another what he believed. He wanted Obama past known, as do we all. But I have never read where Joseph Farrah believed Obama was born in Kenya. At most he, like Ms. Wappner, has acknowledge Obama’s prima facie evidence doesn’t actual prove anything about Obama because none of it is substantiated by independent, corroborative facts.
ex animo
davidfarrar
“Obama’s prima facie evidence doesn’t actual prove anything about Obama
because none of it is substantiated by independent, corroborative facts.”
__
Thank you for stating your position so succinctly. It proves beyond doubt that you have no idea what the legal phrase “prima facie” means.
I am certainly not the first to point out to you that the meaning you are trying to assign to the term is completely at odds with its legal definition. Why don’t you look it up and make some effort to stop embarrassing yourself?
Obama’s mother, Ann Durham, was a U.S. citizen. That is all the proof anyone ever needed. Please proceed, dummy.
You see; this is exactly what I am talking about. Blind acceptance to something that simply hasn’t been proven by a preponderance of evidence.
In the first place, IF Obama was not born within the jurisdiction, his mother would have been too young to pass on US citizenship. So to even address the issue of the citizenship status of Obama’s mother, we need to know where Obama was born.
But let’s assume Obama was born in Hawaii, that still leaves the problem of his Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen qualifications. Here is where Obama suffers the same problem as Ted Cruz…neither had a US citizen father at the time they were born.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Obama was for sure born in Hawaii, and EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen.
The Heritage Foundation book has the meaning of Natural Born Citizen right, and you are wrong:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children
of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus,
those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
David, you have repeatedly stated your conviction that the President is ineligible to hold office because, even if born in Hawaii, he does not meet your unique definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” even though every court that has considered the issue has unanimously disagreed with you.
So it is completely dishonest for you to pretend that you find his birth certificate to be at all relevant.
And, by the way, the law is clear. Official state documents, like the two birth certificates and the multiple Letters of Verification, are self-authenticating documents under federal law (FRE 902). Your insistence that they require “corroborative evidence” is pure fabrication.
The only thing these self-authenticating documents under federal law prove is that the information contained on Obama webpage image of his Hawaiian birth certificate is the same information the Hawaiian Health Department has in their file on Obama, not that it is, in fact, true.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*Authored by Shiho Imai, State University of New York at Potsdam
Re: “the information contained on Obama webpage image of his Hawaiian birth
certificate is the same information the Hawaiian Health Department has
in their file on Obama…not that it is true.”
Answer: That is how birth certificates work. To prove that they are wrong, you have to PROVE that the person was born somewhere else—and there is no such proof for Obama.
And, EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born US Citizen.
The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong:
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli,
persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known
Conservative organization.]
Obama’s birth certificate is only prima facie evidence, so in order to impeach his prima facie evidence, I would need some prima facie evident to say otherwise; is what you are saying; is it not?
If we use longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, rather than l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, natural born American citizens would be no different than a natural born British subjects; is that what you are saying? If it is, it is certainly not Dr. David Ramsey, an American revolutionary war veteran who served with the South Carolina militia as a field surgeon would tell you.
Here are a few more Dr. Ramsay quotes:
And again,
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “Obama’s birth certificate is only prima facie evidence, so in order to
impeach his prima facie evidence, I would need some prima facie evident
to say otherwise; is what you are saying; is it not?”
Answer: I am saying that it is NUTTY to presume that the birth records kept by a state department of health are wrong, unless you have evidence that they are wrong. Just because you do not like the facts that they contain does not make them wrong. YOU have to show that they are wrong—and you haven’t.
Turning to Dr. Ramsay. He is wrong, and Tucker and Rawle, both of whom were good friends of the writers of the US Constitution, are right:
“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the
different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were
born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such
as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
(Notice that the above refers ONLY to the place of birth, not to the citizenship of the parents.)
“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the
rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
In short, the Heritage Foundation book, which says that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from THE COMMON LAW (hence not Vattel) and that it refers to the PLACE OF BIRTH, not the parents, is right—and you are wrong.
have we had this conversation before? William Rawle was from a family of loyalist antenatus out of Philadelphia, who spent part of the war years in England, studying law, returning to the United States shortly after the war had ended, although before the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty was signed later that year and became a lawyer.
On the other hand, Dr. David Ramsey’s American revolutionary war experience is quite different. He was, from 1776 to 1783, a member of the South Carolina legislature. When Charleston was threatened by the British in 1780, he served with the South Carolina militia as a field surgeon. After the city was captured in 1780, Ramsay was imprisoned for nearly a year at St. Augustine, Florida, until he was exchanged. From 1782 to 1786 he served in the Continental Congress. In the absence of John Hancock, Ramsay served as chairman of Congress, from November 23, 1785 to May 12, 1786. In the 1790s he served three terms in the South Carolina State Senate, and was president of that body.
Even in his own day, Ramsay was better known as a historian and author than as a politician. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights acquired by being personally involved in the events of the American Revolution.
Now tell me, from which perspective would you suppose would come the best reflection l’Esprit de la Révolution as articulated by the Declaration of Independence: Dr. Ramsay or Williom Rawle?
ex animo
davidfarrar
The law on citizenship has changed since the 18th century. Thought you’d like to know.
Precisely so, which is why the founders and framers of the US Const. used “natural law”, as in “natural born” (US) Citizen, rather than a “US citizen at birth” in Art. II, §I, cl. 4.
In their day, the most palpable fear among the delegates to the 1776 Constitution convention was the return of a monarchical form of government. Unfortunately, we don’t have a record of the Committee of Detail’s actual deliberations, but none can deny the immutability of natural law over that of positive (man-made) law. Certainly, placing the awesome power to change the qualification of the president doesn’t belong to Congress, nor to English common law, not even to people who insist on voting for their own candidate, irrespective of his/er qualifications. If such was the case, these qualifications would change depending on the candidate’s qualifications, and not those set by the People. Moreover, if such was the case, yet another self evident truth that of the revolution would be breached, the self-evident fact that are all are created equal, by natural law.
I just thought you ought to know.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “….why the founders and framers of the US Const. used “natural law”, as in
“natural born” (US) Citizen, rather than a “US citizen at birth””
Answer: They used the Natural Born from the common law that they were familar with as mainly lawyers and justices, and if they had switched from the common law meaning—-which, duh, was common—THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, and they didn’t.
Most of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were lawyers, steeped in the tradition of English common law. That is to say; they knew exactly the extent of English common law meant and what it did not not extend. It mostly didn’t extent to throwing off the kings sovereignty and forming a constitutional Republic, based on natural law.
Indeed, over this issue one can say the American Revolution was started, over what was meant, according to English common law, by a free Englishman, and that the consent of a free Englishman needed before he could be taxed. The fact that King George thought otherwise, based on the legal advice of our old friend, Sir William Blackstone, became the battle cry of the Revolution: “NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION”.
There is nothing about William Rawle before the revolution that can be even remotely considered patriotic. Even to the point where he was hold-up in New York during the British investiture, from whence he went to London to complete his studies. While most young mean of his age, and learning, were American patriots, writing their names in blood in countless revolutionary battlefields of the day, only to see antenatus loyalists come back after the fighting, but before the Paris treaty was signed, to claim the US citizenship.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Perhaps you have forgotten, but Quakers are not supposed to fight in wars, and Rawle was a Quaker. The fact remains that he was a friend of George Washington’s—who would not make friends with his enemies, and was appointed district attorney by George Washington, and he was also friends with Ben Franklin. He used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that Natural Born was used in the common law, and that is what Tucker had done too, and that is what the court in New York State did in Lynch v. Clarke, and that is what the US Supreme Court ruled (six to two, one justice not voting) in the Wong Kim Ark case, and that is what ten appeals courts have all confirmed is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen, and NONE said that two citizen parents are required.
Rawle used it to justify his own loyalist ways after the revolution.
After this nation had so recently gone through a costly and devastating war against Britain to establish its own independence, it is unlikely they would have been of a mind to explicitly follow the common law of monarchial constitutional theory.
One last point: English common law is based on the State being the Church, and the government, with the King as the head of the English Church. The common law established in Calvin is based on this fact, and those who were not Christian, were not subjects of the King, but enemies. The common law of England would require that the US establish itself as a church had the founding fathers adopted English Common Law, and that the elected representative to the office of President would be representative as head of the American Church. This principal was resolutely cast aside by the promise made in the Declaration of Independence, to be replaced by a new constitution base on natural law,
The common law of England is not mentioned in the US Constitution. The Law of Nations, however, is. Under the Law of nations, the “naturals”, indigenous population, are the only means through which a natural born citizen can be created. A foreign traveler cannot produce a natural born citizen of a nation to which he/she is not a citizen of. It’s that simple, and in accords with the basis that we know are true. The founding fathers wanted to exclude foreign influence in our government. A foreign traveler in the borders of our country, going to school, is not a member of the indigenous population, and his offspring is not a natural born citizen because of that fact, and by cause of his citizenship in a foreign nation as this influence is passed to his children, those children are not eligible to become our President.
This is the design of the Constitution, which fails to name who shall be a natural born citizen. It was clear to the members of the Constitutional Convention that only natural means could provide such a prodigy. No law of man can create a natural born citizen, and congress was delegated authority over only naturalization, because legislation and laws cannot create a member of the indigenous population, that is already done by means of the natural law.
Congress only has the ability to naturalize those who would become members of our nation.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “The Law of Nations, however, is.”
Since the word THE is not capitalized, and since the Constitution capitalizes words for emphasis, that does NOT refer to Vattel’s book. IF it had referred to Vattel’s book, they would have told us—and they didn’t.
Re: “It was clear to the members of the Constitutional Convention that only
natural means could provide such a prodigy. No law of man can create a
natural born citizen…”
Answer: If they had thought that, they WOULD HAVE SAID SO—but none of them ever did. They were mainly LAWYERS, and they used the legal term Natural Born that they were familiar with from the common law. John Jay, who first used the term in his letter to Washington, was an expert in THE COMMON LAW. If he were using Natural Born to refer to parents and not the common use of the term–that referred to the place of birth—he would have said so, and he didn’t.
As for Rawle allegedly being disloyal–that is a LIE. He wasn’t and neither is the Heritage Foundation, whose book has exactly the same definition of Natural Born Citizen as Rawle used, and so did Lynch v. Clarke and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.
Come on, struss; every word in the US Cosnt. was put there for a reason. A natural born US Citizen is a person who inherits their US citizenship, naturally, under the cloak of allegiance of its US citizen parents. Common law is for subjects, not free citizens, who, collectively sovereignty.
Re: “Common law is for subjects, not free citizens, who, collectively sovereignty.”
First, John Jay, the first chief justice of the USA was the main author of the first constitution of the state of New York, in 1777, and it says that unless and until the common law is replaced by a law of New York state, the COMMON LAW will be the law of New York state. Obviously, he did not think that the common law was not suitable for the citizens of the state of New York.
Second, the common law is referred to about twenty times in the Federalist Papers, and always with praise.
Third, the Constitution uses such common law concepts as habeas corpus and ex post fact.
Fourth even such Supreme Court rulings as birthers like, such as Minor v. Happersett (which does not say what birthers think but DOES REFER to the common law) say that the source of most terms in the Constitution is the common law. The Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling says specifically that the source of Natural Born was THE COMMON LAW.
Fifth, i agree with you that subjects and citizens are different. But they are not different in every single way. Subjects pull their pants on one leg at a time. Citizens pull their pants on one leg at a time. So, if there were a difference in the citizen parent requirements between subjects and citizens, THE WRITERS OF THE US CONSTITUTION WOULD HAVE TOLD US—and they didn’t.
We’ve been through this before natural law doesn’t create nations, natural law doesn’t create presidencies. Natural law doesn’t create the laws of the united states.
Positive law does not create natural political rights. It secures them among Governments of men.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Not one word of what you have quoted from the Declaration of Independence says that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen. BUT, the same Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” And there is NOTHING in the US Constitution or in any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention that says that the US-born children of foreigners are either not US citizens at birth or not as good citizens as the US-born children of US citizens.
The constitution is positive law. You’re deluding yourself.
Re: “but none can deny the immutability of natural law over that of positive (man-made) law.”
Answer: If they were switching the requirement for Natural Born Citizen status from jus soli, the place of birth, which had been used for 300 years, to one based on parents and in turn based on some concept of natural law, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, and they never ever did.
Not to mention the fact that, on several other occasions, David has admitted that he can’t point to any definitive, widely accepted definition of “natural law” that unambiguously leads to his favorite interpretation of natural born citizenship. “Natural law” is simply his code-phrase for ‘whatever it takes to prove that my prejudices are grounded in fact.’
So, he thinks the birth certificate is fake — but he can’t come up with a single piece of competent evidence to prove it. OK, no problem, he’ll tell you the President’s still ineligible on NBC grounds — but the courts disagree, every single one of them. OK, no problem, he’s got natural law on his side.
And what’s “natural law”?
Why, whatever David Farrar says it is, of course.
Any surprise birtherism has fared as well as it has?
“Dictators obtain authority by instilling fear of disobedience in the populace. A theocracy ordained by God arises from religious traditions. A monarchy combines religious traditions and fear of the monarch’s absolute authority. Communists have gained power with a philosophy based upon the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. The United States was founded upon a philosophy of Natural Law as the source of legitimate legal authority for government.”…by David Shestokas
ex animo
davidfarrar
* Source: http://www.shestokas.com/guest-commentary-reflections/natural-law-and-the-legitimate-authority-of-the-united-states/#sthash.w4P1reJW.nQ2nF0AR.dpuf
Oh, please, David, where shall we start?
I challenged you to “point to any definitive, widely accepted statement of ‘natural law’ that unambiguously leads to [your] favorite interpretation of natural born citizenship”
And you give me a quote. Please explain how it is “definitive.” And why you consider it “widely accepted.”
You are totally blowing smoke at this point.
Actually, the phrase is natural born US Citizen. And yes, John Jay, James Wilson, Dr. David Ramsey, and most of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention would have known the difference between a natural born subject of the English realm and a new, natural born US Citizen.
Dr. Ramsey especially, not being a trained lawyer and perhaps not as conversant in English common law as the others were, certainly knew the difference if his opening paragraphs of his, “A DISSERTATION On THE MANNER OF ACQUIRING THE CHARACTER AND PRIVILEGES” is any clue.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “Actually, the phrase is natural born US Citizen. And yes, John Jay,
James Wilson, Dr. David Ramsey, and most of the delegates to the 1787
Constitutional Convention would have known the difference between a
natural born subject of the English realm and a new, natural born US
Citizen.”
Answer: If there were a difference in the citizen-parent requirements between subjects, which require no citizen-parents, and citizens (which you CLAIM requires two citizen parents), they would have told us—-and then never ever did.
In 1787, citizenship was strictly a function of the one-citizenship parent
rule, namely, that of the husband’s citizenship, until the allegiance of the mother was legally recognized after marriage in 1922, with the passage of the Cable Act, wherein dual allegiances became possible.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Legally recognized? Incorrect there was only a gap of about 15 years between the passage of the Expatriate Act of 1907 which removed the right of a woman’s citizenship upon marriage and the repeal of the sections during the cable act in 1922. Are you basically saying that a woman was essentially a stateless citizen up until the time she married?
Each of the 13 original states set their own rules on citizenship, and not one of the 13 ever said that a child born on its soil of foreign parents was not automatically a citizen of that state at birth.
Re: “William Rawle was from a family of loyalist antenatus out of
Philadelphia…”
Answer: William Rawle was a Quaker—and the stuff about his family being “loyalists” is crap, and he was appointed a Federal district attorney of the USA by GEORGE WASHINGTON.
Re: ” l’Esprit de la Révolution…”
Answer: The real spirit of the Revolution is embraced in these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….”
And, guess what, neither the Constitution nor the Federalist Papers, nor ANY of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention or other leaders such as John Jay, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ever said in any of their writings that the US-born children of foreigners were lower level citizens or more to be distrusted than the US-born children of US citizens.
Tucker and Rawel and the Heritage Foundation book and the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and ten appeals courts—-ALL of which ruled that birth on US soil is sufficient to create a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders)—are all right, and you are wrong.
There is nothing equal or self-evident about the fact that under this ruling, the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country are also seen as Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens and, presumably, can take the oath of office of the president of the United States WITHOUT first pledging to support and abide by the US Const.; now is there?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “There is nothing equal or self-evident about the fact that under this ruling, the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country are also seen as Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen…”
Answer: That’s right, they are. If you don’t like that fact, when one of them runs for president, don’t vote for her or him. Nobody born on US soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats or enemy invaders, has to take a special oath to establish citizenship or natural born citizen status. However, when elected president, that person of course has to pledge to support the Constitution.
BTW, were you under the impression that the writers of the US constitution were eager to protect us against the children of illegal immigrants? IF you want to be protected against the children of illegal immigrants, you have to protect yourself by not voting for them. The same goes for criminals (Natural Born criminals are eligible, you know, and the only protection against their becoming president is people not voting for them).
Since the writers of the US Constitution never said that the US-born children of foreigners (even of illegal immigrants) are not equal to the US-born children of US citizens, they ARE equal. And, in fact, in two world wars, the US-born children of foreigners proved that they were just as loyal as the US-born children of US citizens. WE know that today—-and there is absolutely NO evidence that George Washington, Ben Franklin and the other members of the Constitutional Convention thought any differently.
But we all have pledged to support and abide by the US Const., or that allegiance has been naturally transferred from your “sovereign” US citizen parents on to you, just as all naturalized US Citizens have to pledge to support and abide by the US Const., or they cannot become among the “Consent of the Governed”, as Mr. Jefferson promised and share in the freedoms and the liberties the US Const. protects.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Answer: There isn’t a single word about “allegiance being transferred from citizen parents” in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention. And James Madison said that the criterion of allegiance used in the United States is the place of birth. Since the writers of the US Constitution NEVER said that the US-born children of foreigners (even those of illegal aliens) were not just as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens, they ARE just as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens.
I think you will find James Madison said, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”…, as it relates to the William Smith affair.
Again, after the War of Independence, the republican constitutional theory conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people. “We are,” as first Chief Justice John Jay observed in 1789, in the Chisholm v. Georgia case, “sovereigns without subjects”. It is ‘as sovereigns’ then we must look to find the proper definition of the enigmatic phrase “natural born citizen” inserted into Art. II, §1, cl. 4.”
As sovereigns, our children would inherit their sovereignty from their father (partus sequitur patrem), as natural law dictates. As sovereigns, they would also be ‘natural born citizens’ wherever their birth occurs, again, as natural law dictates.
Lastly, Madison was specifically referring to the state of South Carolina’s constitution, which is one of many states within the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
And then you ignore what came after your underline: ” but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States”
Place is what matters in the United States according to Madison not parentage.
The last I checked, South Carolina was in the United States.
Madison here was addressing US senatorial qualifications, not Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen as they relate to the qualifications of the President.
ex animo
davidfartrar
He was addressing what the criterion for allegiance was. Simple words you don’t seem to understand.
Citizenship within the United States consisted of obtaining citizenship in one of the 13 colonies. These Madison referred to as “citizens of the United States, not Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born US Citizens, as a requisite to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.
ex animo
davidfarrar
There is no such thing as a non-natural born Non naturalized US Citizen in the United States
Re: “it is what applies in the United States”..
Answer: It, the place of birth, is what applies. IT is the only criterion that Madison mentions that APPLIES in the United States. What applies in other countries does not affect us. Only the criterion that applies in the United States affects us, and Madison lists only one criterion that applies—the place of birth.
And again we return to the Father of the Constitution, James Madison “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
Place of birth is what mattered according to Madison not parentage. The rule about place of birth is what applies in the United States.
No relevance since Obama Sr wasn’t an “illegal alien” when his son was born.
No, you are right. I didn’t imply that he was. I was simply pointing out there is nothing equal about the offspring of illegal aliens being born in this country being seen as Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens and, presumably, can take the oath of office of the president of the United States WITHOUT first pledging to support and abide by the US Const., as true Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens must, under the cloak of allegiance of their two US Citizen parents.
ex animo
davidfarrar
So again what relevance does it have?
David — “Obama’s birth certificate is only prima facie evidence, so in order to impeach his prima facie evidence, I would need some prima facie evident to say otherwise; is what you are saying; is it not?
If we use longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli…”
__
David, that’s a complete non sequitur, and I think you know it.
Obama’s birth certificate is indeed prima facie evidence, and you can dispute it with evidence of your own.
But you have not even attempted to provide any evidence. All you have offered is a debatable legal theory, one that you’re free to argue at the appropriate point — even though, as I pointed out, it’s been repeatedly rejected by every court that’s looked at it.
To pretend that a legal theory rebuts a manifestly self-authenticating document is sheer nonsense. We can only guess whether you’re actually that remarkably dense or if you’re being deliberately deceptive.
What is clear is that you’re not fooling anyone.
My Prima facie proof:
Written by Judy Dystel, literary agent for Barack Obama.*
Please note: Barack Obama is still under a literary contract with Dystel & Goderich, Inc.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*
Nonsense, David. Hearsay is not even admissible evidence, much less “prima facie proof.” That’s really laughable.
Can’t you do any better?
Under most circumstances that is true, but not here, not under these circumstances, where a hired employee is doing the bidding of the principle, the presumption is not only that it is true, but it is not hearsay, and is, in fact, an exception to the federal hearsay rules.
I cite: Federal Rules of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(C & D).
801 DEFINITIONS THAT APPLY TO THIS ARTICLE; EXCLUSIONS FROM HEARSAY
(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay
(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. (Barack Obama)
(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;
(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed;
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “where a hired employee is doing the bidding of the principle,”
Answer: She worked for the publicist firm, and she was told by the publicist firm to write the bio blurb, not Obama, and she admitted to making the mistake all by herself, and not checking with Obama.
LOL, David. You presented this as your prima facie evidence to contravene the Birth Certificate. Do you have any idea what prima facie means?
All you’ve got is a publication indicating that an employee of the literary agency believed Obama to have been born in Kenya. And we know for certain that the agent now claims to have said it in error.
What’s the point here, David? Do you think that the agency blurb actually establishes factually that Barack Obama was born in Kenya? Or do you believe that the existence of the blurb will be sufficient to cause a judge to question the validity of the birth certificates?
Neither sounds terribly plausible to me. I’d like to know which way you’re looking at it.
I’m wondering if when David presented this he also presented that the agent said it was her mistake and that the information in the blurb wasn’t correct. David omitting this information could cause some legal ramifications against him by the judge.
Thanks david for posting the rules that pretty much discredit the claims you’ve been making. Source fail by Farrar.
Re: “He was born in Kenya…”
Answer: Obama’s publicist admitted to writing that MISTAKE all by herself and not checking it with Obama. The fact that she did not check, BTW, is also the reason that it was not fixed for years and years.
And, duh, a blurb written by a publicist does not disprove a birth certificate. It is not proof of a place of birth, only of her impression of what that place of birth was, and she admitted that what she wrote was a mistake.
Moreover, only 21 people TOTAL came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and according to the INS report for that year, all but one of them came by SHIP—-and there were no regularly scheduled ships from Kenya to Hawaii in that year. So Obama’s birth in Kenya was, to put it mildly, EXTREMELY unlikely. In addition, the government of Kenya said that it investigated, and found in its investigation that Obama WAS NOT BORN IN Kenya.
So, the bottom line is that there is no proof that Obama was born anywhere else than where his birth certificate (and the teacher who wrote home, and the two confirmations by Kapiolani) says that he was born—-in Kapiolani Hospital, Honolulu, Hawaii.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566
Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.
“This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me–an agency assistant at the time,” Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. “There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.”
One year before this blurb that went uncirculated came out:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
“The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”
You mean you’re willing to believe an official State of Hawaii document over a short bio written by a publicist? That’s crazy talk! That’s not how MY America works!
They are both prima facie evidences, which calls for the examination of Barack Obama’s natal records first, as having more evidentiary weight and receiving more judicial notice than live testimony that may have been unduly influenced.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The bio blurb of a literary agent, who ADMITTED making a mistake in writing it, is not proof of anything. The official birth certificate of a state IS proof unless and until you can find proof that the person was born somewhere else—and you haven’t a particle of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than in Hawaii.
I just produced prima facie impeachment evidence Obama was born somewhere else other than Hawaii. Now you want to rely on testimony that can easily be manipulated rather than simply examining the record?
May I remind you we are simply trying to prove a positive here. Unless you, too, think Obama is lying, the most direct, indisputable evidence is the Hawaiian Health Department records, along with his Kapiolani Hospital records.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David — “the most direct, indisputable evidence…”
__
You are of course entitled to your opinions on evidentiary standards, but according to the ones clearly spelled out in the law and observed in Federal jurisprudence, the uncorroborated birth certificate stands unless competent evidence is brought against it.
I’m sending you a dictionary for christmas it’s obvious you don’t understand what the words you use actually mean.
The statement of a publicist in a bio blurb is not “prima facie”
evidence of anything. And in fact it isn’t EVIDENCE at all when the
publicist says that she made the mistake and did not check with Obama.
And the mistaken bio blurb that said that Obama was born in
Kenya would not be taken as evidence by any rational person when:
(1) ONLY 21 people came to the USA from Kenya TOTAL in 1961, and of them only one person came by air—all the others came by sea, and there were no regularly scheduled ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961. (Want to see the US Immigration and Naturalization Service report for 1961?????)
(2) For Obama to have been born in Kenya his mother would have had to have GONE from Hawaii to Kenya, and she would have had to have done it ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout the year [Davis, of course, would not have even been interested in going to Kenya since he had no relatives there]. And she would have had to have gone to Kenya by ship, since ALL 63 people who went to Kenya went by ship. And she would have had to have taken that long and expensive trip at the risk of stillbirth—which was fairly common in 1961 (which is why EXTREMELY few women traveled late in pregnancy). Yet birthers have convinced a few HIGHLY GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the extremely few women who traveled abroad late in pregnancy.
(3) IF she had taken that trip and given birth in Kenya, she would have had to have gotten her child from Kenya to Hawaii, and to do so without any record of his being entered on her passport or getting a US visa, she would have had to have successfully SMUGGLED him because we don’t just allow infants to be carried into the country you know. They require being entered on US passports or visas—-and if either of those had been applied for in any foreign country the Bush Administration would have found that application years and years ago. (Are you saying that the Bush Administration were part of the plot????)
(4) And, in addition to all those three highly unlikely things happening, Obama’s relatives would have had to have convinced the DOH of Hawaii (which was under a Republican governor in 1961) to issue a birth certificate for Obama that said that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital—which BTW, Kapiolani has now confirmed twice (but naturally birther sites did not show their readers either of them). We KNOW that Hawaii did issue a birth certificate for Obama in 1961 because of the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” sections of the Hawaii newspapers, which only the Health Bureau—the DOH—-could send birth notices to, and in 1961 it
only sent out birth notices for children born in Hawaii. And in 1961
Hawaii law did not allow the DOH to issue a birth certificate to a child
that was not born in Hawaii—and the law certainly never allowed the DOH to issue a BC that says “born in Kapiolani Hospital” unless there was evidence that the child was born in Kapiolani Hospital.
And, the Kenyan government has said that it checked, and that Obama was not born there. Here it is:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org… …
Umm no an uncirculated blurb which has been discredited by the author of the blurb is not prima facie. The hearsay text alone isn’t enough to directly challenge the birth certificate which has been verified by the issuing authority. Our laws don’t work like that David you making up claims doesn’t count as a direct challenge and aren’t given equal weight as the document certified and issued by the issuing authority of birth certificates in Hawaii.
Under your system I can accuse you of any crime whatsoever, I could provide the flimsiest of claims to the court and according to you the onus would be on you to disprove the claims.
You’re right in David’s world only the voices in his head should be believed and standards change according to the melanin content of the person in office.
That may be true, or it may not be true. Nonetheless, it is still prima facie impeachment, non hearsay evidence, written under Obama direct authority.
So before, not after, we can hear from Ms. Dystel as to what she did or didn’t do, proper discovery of Obama’s records are in order.
I would not that Ms. Dystel still lists Barack Obama as one of her clients.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “written under Obama direct authority.”
Answer: (1) Baloney. She said that she made the mistake all by herself and did not check with Obama, so it wasn’t under his “authority.” And (2) it is wrong. Obama could not have been born in Kenya because (a) only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961; (b) all but one of them came by SHIP; (c) there were no scheduled ships from Kenya to Hawaii that year, and (3) the Kenyan government said that it investigated and that Obama was not born there.
The bio blurb of a publicist, who admitted to making the mistake, and which CANNOT be true because of the facts stated above, is not evidence that can counter the official birth certificate of Hawaii that says that Obama was born IN HAWAII.
It’s not about being true or not. You said it was a bio by Dystel and Goderich. Well Goderich said she wrote it and that it was a mistake on her part. Thus any claim you might have had for “prima facie” went up in smoke.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSsQTn-3veFlrXvgCrx3mQInsUydS2F5PPzPoENZR_bMym-w7zq
I apologize for the apparent delay in posting my prima facie impeachment evidence. As you can see, I have other threads to respond to as well.
Please see my prima facie impeachment evidence posted above, as Edited by Jane Dystel and printed in 1991.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Even after having lost your own lawsuit, David, you remain inexcusably unclear on the concept. There is a reason we formally have established legal standards for “proof” ahead of time; because absolute proof of anything is an imaginary and unattainable ideal. The system of vital statistics records was created with that in mind, i.e. as a system for establishing what is legally true and sharing that information as needed for all legal purposes. And a state birth certificate is by its very definition the legal standard for what is true regarding the circumstances of a person’s birth.
Now, as self-authenticating documents, they are certainly still vulnerable to rebuttal. But rebuttal requires contradictory evidence of at least equal authority and confidence. And as we all know, after more than five years of birthism, not a shred of such evidence has ever been discovered. To rational people, this is inexplicable were the birther theories true.
And finally, the bizarre and unique birther definition of “natural born citizen” has no traction outside of those suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. I thank you for providing one of the opportunities for US courts to establish that legal fact.
You may have a point of access to the records was possible. But thus far, the only ones with the keys to the record, the whole record of Barack H. Obama Jr., is Barack H Obama, himself, and thus far he wasn’t seen fit to allow public access to those records.
I have listed my prima facie impeachment post somewhere here. The material edited by Jane Dystel, printed in 1991. (see above.)
ex animo
davidfarrar
A hearsay statement from a publication which has since been claimed by the author to be a mistake isn’t prima facie. I don’t think you know what that phrase means.
After all this nonsense, I hope he WAS born in Kenya.
I also hope he jettisons the constitution in 2016 and makes himself King. I then hope he has David put in a stockade in a public square where we can all throw slices of bologna at his ass.
The statement of a publicist in a bio blurb is not “prima facie” evidence of anything. And in fact it isn’t EVIDENCE at all when the publicist says that she made the mistake and did not check with Obama. And, finally, the mistaken bil blurb that said that Obama was born in Kenya would not be taken as evidence by any rational person when:
(1) ONLY 21 people came to the USA from Kenya TOTAL in 1961, and of them only one person came by air—all the others came by sea, and there were no regularly scheduled ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961. (Want to see the US Immigration and Naturalization Service report for 1961?????)
(2) For Obama to have been born in Kenya his mother would have had to have GONE from Hawaii to Kenya, and she would have had
to have done it ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout the year [Davis, of course, would not have even been interested in going to Kenya since he had no relatives there]. And she would have had to have gone to Kenya by ship, since ALL 63 people who went to Kenya went by ship. And she would have had to have taken that long and expensive trip at the risk of stillbirth—which was fairly common in 1961 (which is why EXTREMELY few women traveled late in pregnancy). Yet birthers have convinced a few HIGHLY GULLIBLE people to assume that she was one of the extremely few women who traveled abroad late in pregnancy.
(3) IF she had taken that trip and given birth in Kenya, she would have had to have gotten her child from Kenya to Hawaii, and to do so without any record of his being entered on her passport or getting a US visa, she would have had to have successfully SMUGGLED him because we don’t just allow infants to be carried into the country you know. They require being entered on US passports or visas—-and if either of those had been applied for in any foreign country the Bush Administration would have found that
application years and years ago. (Are you saying that the Bush
Administration were part of the plot????)
(4) And, in addition to all those three highly unlikely things happening, Obama’s relatives would have had to have convinced the DOH of Hawaii (which was under a Republican governor in 1961) to issue a birth certificate for Obama that said that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital—which BTW, Kapiolani has
now confirmed twice (but naturally birther sites did not show their
readers either of them). We KNOW that Hawaii did issue a birth
certificate for Obama in 1961 because of the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” sections of the Hawaii newspapers, which only the Health Bureau—the DOH—-could send birth notices to, and in 1961 it only sent out birth notices for children born in Hawaii. And in 1961 Hawaii law did not allow the DOH to issue a birth certificate to a child that was not born in Hawaii—and the law certainly never allowed the DOH to issue a BC that says “born in Kapiolani Hospital” unless there was evidence that the child was born in Kapiolani Hospital.
And, the Kenyan government has said that it checked, and that Obama was not born there. Here it is:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol …
So in other words David there is nothing you could show that could prove you were an American since documents created by the state on your behalf have no way of being in fact true.
Oh, come on Morgan,
We are talking about one of only 44 people who have managed to reach the exalted position of President of the United States, where literally hundreds of books are even now being written and printed about every excruciating detail of their lives that prove, independently, and overwhelmingly, every detail listed on this state certified birth certificate, save one: Barack Obama, to which there is absolutely none. Now tell me that isn’t extraordinary. In fact, it is so extraordinary it’s not even believable.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I’m just taking your insane position to it’s logical conclusion. You’re basically saying that state issued documents cannot be considered true or accurate. Thus you David Farrar would have a tough time proving you were an American.
Actually David you don’t know how to count. Only 43 men have served as President of the United States. Gee there were also dozens of books written about the life of Obama before he was President as well including two he himself wrote. Tell me how many books there were about Bill Clinton before he was Governor of Arkansas or George W. Bush before he was Governor of Texas? How about Ronald Reagan before he was Governor of California?
Really so how come you’ve never seen George W. Bush’s birth certificate? How come you’ve never seen Bill Clinton’s? Jimmy Carters?
Also most presidents didn’t have birth certificates so like a fool you’ve come to several bad conclusions all in one post. Why not sign your posts with ex anus? It sounds more appropriate.
I don’t have time to argue here. A birth certificate isn’t magic. It’s true value is its probative value, that is how much information contained on the document that can be used to gather other, independent evidence. We don’t even know it the doctor listed was the delivery physician or the attending doctor, of simply the doctor assigned by the Health Department to examine home-births. Since Dr. Sinclair died in 2003, that avenue is closed down as well.
ex animo
davidfarrar
David — “A birth certificate isn’t magic. It’s true value is its probative value, that is how much information contained on the document that can be used to gather other, independent evidence.”
__
You are truly showing your desperation as well as your legal ignorance.
You are free to pursue “other, independent evidence” to your heart’s content, and if you find competent evidence that impeaches the birth certificate, you’re free to use it.
But the burden is yours. Until such evidence is found and admitted into evidence, the self-authenticating document is legally uncontested and presumed to be true.
You birthers have had six year, David, and you’ve come up with absolutely nothing. The law is clear: According to the current state of the evidence, it has been legally established that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and courts have made that judgment.
When it comes to choosing between the legal definition of probative value and David Farrar’s unique personal definition of probative value, it’s much like choosing between the legal definition of natural born citizenship and David Farrar’s unique personal definition of natural born citizenship.
For rational people, the choice is clear.
David Farrar 11 hours ago “I don’t have time to argue here” This has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever heard out of a birther. You don’t have time to argue here? What the hell have you been doing for the last few days on any article that mentions birthers you pop up and make the same false arguments. Of course you have the time to argue. It’s the only thing you seem to have time for.
Your point is that you have no point. You’re basically saying that there is no document the President can produce to prove to you that he’s an American. Using your same lack of rational thinking that would mean there is no way David Farrar would ever be able to prove he’s a true American and not just some clueless asshat. Dr. Sinclair’s widow already verified it was his signature.
I know for a FACT that George Washington was born in Puerto Rico. Does that count?
The evidence for Obama being born in Hawaii is:
(1) the two Hawaii birth certificates (of which the first, the short form, is the official birth certificate, used by thousands of people to get their passports every year);
(2) the repeated confirmations of them by the officials of both parties in Hawaii, including the former Republican governor;
(3) the public Index Data file;
(4) the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (which, BTW, was under a REPUBLICAN governor in 1961, and which at the time sent out birth notices ONLY for children born in Hawaii);
(5) the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley;
(6) Kapiolani Hospital has confirmed that Obama was born there now—twice in fact (naturally birther sites do not show either of them);
(7) no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961;
(8) it was rare for 18-year-olds to have passports or for women to travel abroad late in pregnancy at the time;
(9) the Kenyan government said that it investigated and that Obama certainly was NOT born there (birther sites did not show that either);
(10) birther sites LIED about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said (she never said that he was born in Kenya; she in fact said that he was born in HAWAII;
Since it is the Hawaiian Health Department records on Obama we are trying to substantiate, we can’t use them to substantiate themselves, or other documents that use them as their predicate. So please go back over your list and cross off all of the so-called independent, corroborative evidence from your list that uses the Hawaiian Health Department record as their predicate, including the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961. While you are at it, also cross off any unsubstantiated hearsay testimony; which leaves, according to my count only # 6. Please cite your evidence for #6. Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Re: “Since it is the Hawaiian Health Department records on Obama we are trying to substantiate, we can’t use them to substantiate themselves…”
Answer: Unless you have proof that Obama was born somewhere else—and for sure YOU don’t—the records used in a US state birth certificate are considered accurate.
Regarding number 6, the confirmation by Kapiolani Hospital
Answer: There are actually TWO confirmations, the hospital’s printing of Obama’s letter saying “I was born there” in its 100th anniversary magazine (which is stil online BTW) and this:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol …
Re: “please … cross off all of the so-called independent, corroborative evidence from your list that uses the Hawaiian Health Department record as their predicate…”
Answer: NO.. And no rational person would do so UNLESS and until you show proof that Obama was born somewhere else than the birth certificate records show. Unless and until you do so, the birth records of a state department of health are presumed to be accurate.
Re: ” While you are at it, also cross off any unsubstantiated hearsay testimony…”
Answer: This is not a courtroom, and so people have the right to believe hearsay testimony if they want to, and the statement by a teacher that she had been told that a woman named Stanley had given birth and that she wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about it, fits into that category. In fact, the statement that she wrote home to her father about the birth of a child to a woman named Stanley isn’t even hearsay.
This is prima facie impeachment evidence:
Edited by Jane Dystel and printed in 1991.
Jane Dystel stills lists Barrack Obama as here client.
ex amino
davidfarrar
If a piece of information is misstated or erroneously printed, you prefer to believe it over substantially more evidence to the contrary? Might that be because of the outcome you prefer?
You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Moreover, the judicial notice required to overcome Obama’s state certified birth documents should be set at the very minimum since we are trying to prove a positive here; aren’t we, that Obama is qualified?
ex animo
davidfarrar
That’s nice, David. Now you have shown that your understanding of “judicial notice” is no better than your understanding of “prima facie.”
A number of birther attorneys, yours among them, have attempted to introduce evidence to impeach the birth certificates. None of those attempts have been successful.
You are free in your next case to try to introduce whatever further evidence you’ve got. But, in the meantime, the prima facie evidence is presumed to be correct.
It’s as simple as that, David. The law is clear, and none of your tap-dancing is going to overcome it.
You are as welcome to your delusions and I am to mine, but I have accepted that under present court ruling, Obama has met his burden and will take my case to the People.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Well, that raises another interesting question.
If the President met his burden under the law prevailing at the time of his election (and all the courts agree he was), he was elected legally and legitimately holds his office. Should the People decide to amend the Constitution to agree with your views, that would obviously have no retroactive effect upon the Obama presidency.
Do you agree?
The problem is that you’re the only one with delusions here.
Re: “.all based on Hawaiian Health Department records and cannot be used to substantiate those same records.”
Unless you have actual proof that Obama was born somewhere else than in Hawaii, the records of the Hawaii Department of Health would be considered accurate by any sane person. (BTW, the Hawaii Department of Health was under a Republican governor in 1961.)
Thus when you keep saying that the Hawaii Health Department records cannot be used to substantiate the same records. Yes, sure, but THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE HAWAII DOH RECORDS.
Re the Hospital’s confirmation. I never said that it was a “legal” confirmation—just that it confirmed and that birthers did not show it to their readers (for the obvious reason that the informal confirmation of Kapiolani Hospital would be regarded as additional confirming evidence by any rational person). Birther sites did not show their readers the Obama letter saying he was born in Kapiolani Hospital that the hospital published either—and with the same motive.
What else is good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii? Well for him to have been born anywhere else his mother would have (1) had to have traveled late in pregnancy (earlier was ruled out by the college year) at the risk of stillbirth—and such trips were rare in 1961; and (2) if she had made the trip and given birth abroad, she would have had to have SUCCESSFULLY SMUGGLED the infant Obama back from that foreign country—–we don’t just allow infants to be carried into the country you know. They require being entered on US passports or visas—-and if either of those had been applied for in any foreign country the Bush Administration would have found that application years and years ago. (Are you saying that the Bush Administration were part of the plot????)
Strauss you forgot about the 1961 INS file for Barack Obama Sr from August 1961 saying he had a son named Barack Hussein Obama II born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th 1961. There is also reference to Obama Jr’s birth in the 1967 state department memos regarding lolo soetoro. So again historical documents Farrar won’t accept because he speaks from the anus.
WELL SAID. I had forgotten those. I should add them to the list.
Farrar, and those poor gullible folks who might believe him, those documents—plus what I listed before—are overwhelming proof that Obama was born in HAWAII.
M
I should also mention that the above documents I referenced were found by birthers themselves you know when they did actual research and tried to debunk Obama only came across more information confirming his story.
The Birth announcements from the Hawaiian newspapers were first found by a birther who was searching library archives trying to claim that they bet information concerning his birth wouldn’t be on file only to find the birth announcements. The 1961 INS data was from an FOIA request from a birther. The 1967 State Department memo was found by one Kenneth Allen. in Allen V DHS State. As stated anytime a birther does objective real research they end up shooting themselves in the foot.
My god you’re a moron. Please tell me you don’t have kids.
Based on your evidence, apparently NOBODY born in Hawaii was actually born there.
Farrar is a birther who’s been repeatedly told his cases are junk, his experts are clowns and his theories are ridiculous. But just to show that he is smarter than everybody, including judges, he has to sign his little blurbs of lies “ex animo.”
You see, this is what passes for proof positive in the Obama world. Try and look beyond your blind support for Obama and just ask yourself, “I this a proven fact?”
ex animo
davidfarrar
LAYERS! http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
The birth certificate Obama initially released is a similar form to the birth certificate I have carried in my wallet for the past 35 years. The conspiracy morons got a bug up their ass about the long form, which many state’s department’s of vital records ceased providing in favor of the short form.
What Obama initially produced was completely acceptable to reasonable people. The important word here is “reasonable”.
The most obnoxious thing about all this, was that everybody KNEW that if and when Obama did release the long form, those nuts were just going to find SOMETHING wrong with it….and of course many of them did. Yet again we see the result of trying to reason with idiots.
It would make more sense if he used the salutation “ex anus” instead.
To which any reader should respond: “diligentia maximum etiam mediocris ingeni subsidiu”.
Here is the Birther on Birther audio in all it’s perversity. http://web.archive.org/web/20121120114038/http://str8talk.wordpress.com/listen-to-previous-str8talk-with-kathy-weppner-shows/february-4-2012-show-with-orly-taitz-esq/
Yes, Kathy Weppner was on my show and she was (and no doubt still is) a Birther. She was wrong about Birth certificates and wrong about needing two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Weppner had the crazy dentist/lawyer Orly Taitz on her show as a guest several times. Weppner compared President Obama to Hitler on one of the show when Taitz was on with her.
Holy shit. The guy will be out of office, maybe dead and buried and this minutiae will prattle on. Lost in all of this is that Kathy Weppner is a horrible candidate, one in a long line of tea party horrible candidates.
Thanks. Alan you are very patient.Just reviewing that Weppner’s record must require holding your breath for long periods of time.
These birthers are as truly and virulently relentless. Nutty and often entertaining.
I relish the nuts who take the word of publicists over documentation.
Get me their names I have some Tucker Torpedo stock to sell.
David Farrar it would be easy to make fun of you, but I think you are legitimately mentally disturbed. Please see your primary care physician and get the help that you need.
On February 2, 2012, David Farrar said: “Okay, before Judge Malihi’s decision is published; I will say this much.
If Judge Malihi overrules the plaintiffs case; I will support his
decision and simple consider the fact that candidate Obama has met his
qualifications. ” http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/27/some-cold-water-on-overheated-birther-mania/?cp=8#comment-851493 But, as you can see from his spamming the comment section here, he lied. Birthers will never be satisfied. That’s the key.
David Farrar lying? You’re kidding right? He also said that he would launch a lawsuit against Romney if he was the republican nominee. When Mitt was chosen he never filed a lawsuit against Mitt.
But I do support his decision. I just don’t agree with it. Since that date I have taken my case to the People, where, as you know, the founders and framers of the US Const. firmly put the power to decide the qualification of the President, not the Courts and not in Congress.
ex animo
davidfarrar
“But I do support his decision. I just don’t agree with it. ”
__
Um, David, do you think we can’t read?
The quotation is right there above what you wrote. You didn’t just say that you would support his decision. You said — and this of course is a direct quote — “I will support his decision and simple consider the fact that candidate Obama has met his qualifications.”
Assuming that “simple” is a typo for “simply,” is it true or is it not that you consider the President to have met his qualifications? That’s what you said you would do. Are you reneging on that now?
The courts have rejected my construct, and under the construct that a natural born US Citizen, under a republican constitutional theory, is no different than a natural born subject, under a monarchical constitutional theory, Barack Obama has legally met his burden. I accept it. I don’t have to agree with it. I consider it unconstitutional and I must now take my case to the People, as the next thing the US Const. requires.
One of the things that I have learned during this whole affair is that this is not, by any measure, a new argument, taken up just because of the color of someone’s skin. This argument is, in fact, as old as the country itself. It would seem to me, it’s about time we put this issue to rest once and for all for the common good of the Republic.
ex animo
davidfarrar
“…under a monarchical constitutional theory, Barack Obama has legally met his burden. I accept it.”
__
Interesting. Under that legal theory, Pres. Obama has met his jus soli burden because he was born in Hawaii.
Your acceptance of the fact that he has met that legal burden means you are acknowledging that he was born in Hawaii.
I accept the fact that Obama has met his burden as a matter of law, not as a proven fact, but to the point required by law.
ex animo
davidfarrar
That’s gobbledegook. How can he legally meet the requirement of having been born in Hawaii unless, by legal standards, that is where he was established to have been born?
Oh come one, Trent. Obama has met his burden, as minimally required by law. He hasn’t by any means actually proven by the preponderance of evidence where or when he was born.
Now that you mentioned that point, let’s go back to the list of supposedly independent, corroborative evidence and see just how many are left after we take out all those points to use the Hawaiian Health Department records as their predicate and removed all the hearsay testimony; how many do we have left?
ex animo
davidfarrar
LOL, more pseudo-legal nonsense.
When one side has prima facie evidence, and the other side’s evidence is found to be “of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support [the other side’s] allegations,” of course the matter has been proven by the preponderance of evidence. You are using language that you don’t understand.
And there’s no point in continuing to pretend that prima facie evidence requires “independent, corroborative evidence” to support it. That’s legal hogwash, and I think you know it.
So by that notion no president has. So using birther law no president was ever qualified to be President.
Well lets see here’s two independent documents. The 1961 INS Files for Barack Obama Sr
Page 34
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
The memo was written on August 31st, 1961 just a mere 27 days after Obama Jr was born. “They have one child born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 Barack Obama II, child living with mother. There’s one historical document that supports Hawaii’s records. Interestingly enough this document was released under FOIA and was found by a birther who actually did research.
There’s also the 1967 state department memo filed in the Allen V DHS State case. You’re already aware of it as many people have mentioned it to you. So when you peal back the layers of bullshit that is David Farrar do you have any actual evidence to support your claims?
Re: “how many do we have left?”
The fact that for Obama to have been born in a foreign country his mother would have had to have GONE to a foreign country during late pregnancy (since earlier would not have been possible due to the college year) and such trips were EXTREMELY RARE in 1961 and (2) she would then have had to have successfully SMUGGLED Obama back into the USA—since we do not just allow children to be carried into the country, and there is no evidence that a visa his being entered on her passport ever occurred.
In addition to that, the birth certificate of Hawaii is sufficient. To claim that it is false requires you to show that Obama was born somewhere else. That’s the way that birth certificates work.
Re: “I must now take my case to the People…”
Answer: That is your constitutional right, and I would fighte to the death to protect it. But, you are wrong.
The courts have rejected your construct, the people rejected your construct, the law rejected your construct, the textbooks reject your construct at what point do you consider that your construct is wrong David?
You might want to crack open a dictionary and learn what the word Support means. You said you would support the decision and consider Obama had met his qualifications. You didn’t do that.
Whatever the term “natural born Citizen may mean in theory, its meaning, as a requisite to take the oath of office of the President of the United States must be such that it is commonly understood and supported by the electorate. I think on this score, Congress should act to remove any doubts about the meaning of a Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen in today’s terms by proposing two constitutional amendments, one based on common law and jus solis citizenship and one based on natural law, requiring two citizen parents within the jurisdiction, and let the People decide, as required by the US Const., as the best way forward.
Without such such a course being taken by Congress to resolve this matter, I am afraid you liberals won’t get your wish to have Sen. Cruz around for the general election as the Republican Party’s nominee.
ex animo
davidfarrar
A Constitutional Amendment requires a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and THREE-QUARTERS of the states, and since it is so extremely difficult to get that, it is hardly likely that one amendment would be proposed—much less TWO. There is NO confusion about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. The Heritage Foundation book really has it right. The term really does come from the common law—not from some concept of natural law—and it really does refer to the place of birth. And every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders really is a Natural Born US Citizen.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born
citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He won 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him.
In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote. That is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul).
Why would that be difficult? Sen. Cruz would be supporting it along with all you liberals, along with Ed Meese and the Heritage Foundation. Oh, do you know who else would support the common law citizenship rule rather than natural law citizenship rule? JEB. Under the natural law rule, none of his offspring are Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “Sen. Cruz would be supporting it along with all you liberals, along with Ed Meese and the Heritage Foundation.”
Speculation. Not one of the would waste their time. BUT, you can go right ahead and try. Call your congressman and your senators and ask them to introduce an amendment (or two—since that is what you first wrote), and see what their reaction would be. As for it splitting the Republican Party, well, YOU proposed it, if you’d like to do that—well. go right ahead.
Well, if we can’t get a referendum on the subject, we will just have to build up a consensus without one.
Standing against the sellout of our nation with amnesty of illegal aliens will help resolve the American birthright
ex animo
davidfarrar
That is your constitutional right. Of course, if you insist on telling your loony story that Obama was born in a foreign country and the nutty legal theory that the writers of the Constitution switched from jus soli to some natural law theory WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE—you will continue to be laughed at.
By the way, David, would you mind answering the question that I asked before?
Do you agree that if there were a referendum, even a Constitutional amendment, that repudiated jus soli, it would have only prospective force and could not possibly have any legal effect on the Obama presidency?
Yes, quite so. As far as Obama is concerned, assuming he was born when and where he has stated; he has met his constitutional burden.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Thank you for clarifying that.
I can see you picking up those goal posts and already running with them.
Is there any conceivable scenario where you will accept reality that Barack Obama is legally and lawfully the President?
See here is your problem David you talk about one subject and then switch to another. What does amnesty of illegal aliens have to do with birthright citizenship for their children born on US soil? It’s not the same subject.
It is all connected. US birthright citizenship, that is the natural right to inherit membership into a group that have consented to live by a set of mutually agreed upon rules. If there has been no consent, there is no right to inherit membership into that group.
ex animo
davidfarrar
It’s not connected in the slightest. Amnesty is something totally different than one who is born a citizen. Amnesty creates citizenship long after birth for people here illegally. Those born here of illegal parents cannot by their very nature be here illegally as they have no state citizenship but the place where they are born. Thus birthright citizenship has nothing to do with Amnesty which is why you continue to be confused.
One again you call everyone disagreeing with your stupid ass a liberal with most of us aren’t. Most of us don’t even support the President’s policies nor did we vote for him. We do support his right as the President. Lol The Heritage foundation is a right wing think tank and not even they side with you crazy types. Sorry but Natural law doesn’t control the constitution or our laws. This would be a rather liberal interpretation of our laws to claim such David.
So you agree the offspring of illegal aliens are Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens and can take the oath of office of the President of the United States, if elected?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Re: “So you agree the offspring of illegal aliens are Art. II, §I, cl. 4
natural born citizens and can take the oath of office of the President
of the United States, if elected?”
Answer: YES. Every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen. That includes the children of illegal aliens (whom of course did not do anything illegal themselves).
If you do not want the child of an illegal alien to become president, then if one runs for president—don’t vote for her or for him.
That would be a breach of §5 of the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause. People who come into this country legally, and go through our nationalization, make this pledge as a requisite to US citizenship. But now you are telling me there are other US citizens who do not have to make this pledge, that by simply being born within then jurisdiction, that somehow they have gained this special right that is not given to anybody else, simply on the basis of their parents chose to ignore the US Const.
ex animo
davidfarrar
being born a citizen and being naturalized are two different things. Anyone born a citizen doesn’t have to take a nationality pledge for US Citizenship. You seem to be confused.
Well, perhaps. But follow me here. Jus soli citizenship requires a place to be born. In our constitutional Republic, it is the individual states that have the borders, the soil and the place, in most cases, unless you are born in a national park or in Washington D.C., i.e., somewhere on federal land. The United States exists mainly as a group of mutually agreed upon laws, written on a parchment of paper, upon which each and every state have agreed upon to live by and become a union of states. So actually you can very well become a natural born citizen of one of the 50 states of the union of states that have all agreed to support and abide by a constitution. Inheriting US citizenship, as opposed to state citizenship, is a different thing. It requires a pledge to support and abide by those mutually agreed upon laws rather than simply being born behind a border. This is the difference between a citizen and a subject. US citizenship requires a free individual, making a free choice to support and abide by the US Const. in order to become its citizen.
In the case of infants, this pledge is either inherited as a natural right, or it is bestowed by the state by positive (man-made law).
There is more, but do you follow me this far?
ex animo
davidfararr
Except that you missed the point in the constitution where citizenship no longer belongs to the states. We’re not under the articles of confederation anymore. Umm no there is no longer such a thing as one who is a “citizen of a specific state” you are a citizen of the united states and a resident of a specific state. Citizenship falls under federal jurisdiction. So again this is another example of you not understanding the document you pretend to be protecting. Naturalization citizenship is about someone making a choice. Being born a citizen is something that is based on where you are born when it comes to the United States it is not something within your control. There is no pledge requirement for those born in the United States. You’ll be hard pressed to find anything in US law to support your delusion. There is no pledge requirement for a born citizen. Just as there is no citizenship test requirement for a born citizen.
Well said, and that part of the Constitution, of course, is the 14th Amendment.
Pogue Moran’s answer is correct.
again you make the stupid assumption that everyone disagreeing with you is a liberal. When we’re not. We’re just rational people who laugh at your continued banging your head against a wall. I doubt Cruz would ever be the republican nominee and it’s not for the issues you guys imagined. He’s too divisive and he’s not the establishment candidate. He’s pissed off too many in the republican establishment to be the nominee.
David, I have a question for you.
You said, in another post, “I have taken my case to the People, where, as you know, the founders and framers of the US Const. firmly put the power to decide the
qualifications of the President.”
And here you propose asking the people to choose between jus solis and what you regard as “natural law, requiring two citizen parents within the jurisdiction.”
Here’s the question. What if the people say that jus solis is their choice? Does the will of the people trump natural law? Or is the passage of a Constitutional amendment another form of positive law, which has to defer to natural law? Or does natural law require letting the people decide, in which case it could obviously no longer be argued that natural law requires two citizen parents once the people have chosen otherwise?
Trent,
The People have the sovereignty to adopt natural law as they see fit. There are some aspects of natural law that cannot be used, as you may know. But it is up to the People to decide if they wish to be citizens under a republican constitutional theory, or mere subjects under a monarchical constitutional
theory.
I don’t believe this issue is going away any time soon. As it stands right now, the lack of a definitive definition could very well be used to spark a civil conflict some time in the future. It would be a shame if that happens all for the lack of a failure on our part, on the part of We, the People’s, to act now and to bring the two sides together while we still have a change for the common good of all is all I am saying.
But from the responses I am reading here, it may be too late for even this approach to resolve the issue.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I understand, but I was asking a slightly different question.
If, hypothetically, the people chose jus soli, would that resolve the issue, would you then consider that to be the “definitive definition”?
Absolutely. The founders and framers of the US Const. unequivocally placed the power to set the qualifications of the President in the hands of we, the People, not the plenary hands of the state.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Under NO circumstance will David Farrar concede the Obama citizenship point. It just won’t happen, regardless of any evidence presented. Why feed his OCD on this?
John,
I have been begging, pleading for anyone who believes Obama was born in Hawaii, to give me any proof whatsoever, independent of his Hawaiian Health Department file. Eye-witness accounts is good, though written documents, like an invoice for delivery would be better. OB/GYN appoints records, that could be used to actually prove Dr. Sinclair was the delivery physician.
Who was the anesthesiologist? Was there an anesthesiologist? Did Obama’s mother have any friends during her pregnancy on Hawaii?
Apparently, there is very little independent, corroborate evidence outside of Obama own control, and so far he hasn’t seen fit to allow access to these documents which could settle the matter.
But please, you can’t accuse birthers of not believing the evidence when there isn’t any.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You’ve been given proof time and time again over the last several years. Each time you just ignore it and prattle on with the same long discredited argument.
Who was the anesthesiologist for any President’s birth? Did any president’s mother have any friends there during their pregnancies? A better question is: Who cares?
What exactly do the questions you just asked have to do with presidential eligibility? The answer: They don’t. They just show you have a completely different standard for this president that you’ve had for no other.
You are asking and answering your own questions now? No wonder you can’ seem to grasp this issue at hand.
The value of a state certified document when used to “prove” a birth occurred, lies in its probative value. That is, the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident that would substantiate the information contained in the birth certificate.
In most cases, this is easily and quickly done by the producing of the long-form birth certificate, as it provides much more information that does the short form. This is why there was such a cry for Obama’s long for birth certificate. But, sadly, since Obama’s natal doctor dies in 2003, and the hospital can’t say one way or the other of Obama was born there without Obama’s permission; we lonely, little old birthers find ourselves right back on Square One when it comes to substantiating any of Obama’s ascertains as to when and where he was born.
Do you know of an eyewitness to Obama’s birth?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your position.
Do you know of an eyewitness to President Reagan’s birth? How about Jimmy Carter’s? Bill Clinton’s? Again you’re creating a standard for which you’ve never had for any president before him. Why is that exactly?
The value of state certified documents is described in the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. You remember the constitution right david? That document you claim to be protecting while at the same time not understanding it? The Constitution gives the state final say when it comes to the issuance of their documents. The Department of Health as the issuing authority has final say when it comes to their documents. They verified that the information contained matches the original they have in the vault.
I already pointed to independent information that corroborated the details that matter on the birth document when it comes to Presidential eligibility. I’ve shown it to you earlier and you ignored it just as you’ve done every time it’s been presented to you. You remember the 1961 INS records for Barack Obama Sr and the August 31st 1961 memo regarding the birth of his son Barack Obama II born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th 1961. This is historical information that is outside and independent of the state of Hawaii that confirms the original document. You find yourself at square one because there is no conceivable scenario where you will accept reality that he is lawfully the President.
You ignore the index data, the birth announcements, the 1961 INS data, the 1967 state department data, the verification by the issuing authority. Now imagine applying the same standard to every President before Obama?
How many hospitals have claimed other Presidents have been born there? How many physical long form birth certificates have been released publicly for other Presidents?
But those INS recorders, as well as a the birth announcements, were all taken directly from the Hawaiian Health Department file, the very records we are trying to substantiate!
ex animo
davdfarrar
I’m not the one being silly here David, you are. Several were born with a foreign father. Chester A Arthur had a father that wasn’t a citizen. VP Charles Curtis was born on indian lands and his mother was a citizen of a tribe. How does having a foreign father change your goal post moving? I doubt you even know details about the parents of most of our Presidents. So you’re saying your need for a witness and an anesthesiologist is based on a foreign father? You’re the one being silly.
You’re requiring more from this president than you’ve required from any previous President. The more you push absurdity the more people realize there is no conceivable scenario in which you’ll accept reality. There’s nothing Obama could say or do or release which would make you accept reality that he’s lawfully the President. You’ve pretty much said you’re content in your stupidity.
You mean “Indian Charlie”?
His father was a US citizen at the time he married Ellen Papin, making her a US citizen by marriage. Both were US citizens by the time Indian Charlie was born.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. If you’re going to use a derogatory name at least get it right it was Charley. Again none of this has to do with the rationalization you keep having to do why you continually require more proof from President Obama than you’ve never had from any President.
But it was you who brought it up; not me. This is yet another example of you arguing with yourself.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Ummm no where in that statement on page 34 did they say the information was taken directly from the Hawaiian Health Department file? You just made that one up. So in other words when presented with historical corroboration you just make an excuse and ignore it.
Yes and full faith and credit means that the documents issued by the state on their face have to be seen as valid. They have the final say when it comes to issuing their own documents. It further shows you have no actual argument David.
Are you seriously suggestion US INS officials simply accepted Obama Sr.’s word?
ex animo
davidfarrar
You don’t need any more evidence.
What you do need is a good psychiatrist.
You might not need it, but others do. I would further suggest, if the tables were turned, you just might agree with me too.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Unless and until there is actual proof to the contrary, rational people will say that they are FACTS. Unless and until birthers show that Obama was born somewhere else, the birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii is proof that he was indeed born in Hawaii. (And, guess what, birthers have not even shown that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did in that year.)
‘The value of a state certified document when used to “prove” a birth
occurred, lies in its probative value. That is, the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident that would substantiate the information contained in the birth certificate.’
__
David, you have said this repeatedly, and it’s complete nonsense. State certified documents are prima facie evidence, and are presumed to be true without any “independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident.” All the legal definitions say that. It is Law School 101, not rocket science.
Is this really an issue you’d like to debate? Can you point to a single source that supports your claim?
Your whole position depends on this ridiculous assertion, which you haven’t even made an effort to justify..
…and here, David, I will cite some sources.
“In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.” — Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
“Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning ‘sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;’ e.g., prima facie evidence.” — Cornell University Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie
“Prima facie is a Latin term meaning ‘at first look,’ or ‘on its face,’ and refers to evidence before trial which is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence shown at trial.” — USLegal.com Definitions, http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prima-facie/
Your turn, David. Find us a source that justifies your assertion equating the probative value of prima facie evidence to “the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident.”
ex animo
davidfarrar
OEI- 07-99-00570
Excuse me? Is that supposed to counter the quotations that I cited?
A birth certificate, as prima facie evidence, “is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence shown at trial.”
That’s what one of the definitions I quoted says.
Where’s your source that says otherwise?
For the record, I have posted my prima facie impeachment evidence here on this blog.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You have posted what you claim is “prima facie evidence,” but you haven’t explained what qualifies it as prima facie evidence. It clearly is not, but you’re free to make the case if you can.
But I notice you’ve dodged my question. Where’s your source supporting your position that the probative value of prima facie evidence is “the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident”?
You’ve said that over and over. But the definitions I’ve cited clearly say otherwise. What’s the point of continues to use a definition which, as far as anyone can tell, is one of your own invention?
“A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.”
__
And, by the way, would you like to explain what you mean by that? Are you saying that if a certified copy of a birth certificate says that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, it doesn’t prove that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961?
Does it prove that someone named Barack Obama was born? Does it prove that some unnamed person was born in Honolulu? Does it prove that someone was born on Aug. 4, 1961?
Or does it simply prove that some human being was born somewhere at some time, and the person’s name, birth date, and birthplace have to be proven independently?
According to the law, a self-authenticating document is prima facie evidence of all the information it contains. And you still have presented no cogent argument to the contrary.
Re: “”A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.*
It is important to stress that the above statement is FALSE. A birth certificate is not, of course, only proof that A birth occurred, it is proof that a birth of a child to the people listed in the birth certificate occurred and that it occurred at the place listed in the birth certificate. That is what birth certificates are supposed to do, and that is what Obama’s birth certificate does do—and, unless birthers can provide actual proof that Obama was born somewhere else, no rational person would believe that the facts on the birth certificate are false. And, BTW, birthers do not even have evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961 (and very very few 18-year-olds did).
“It is important to stress that the above statement is FALSE.”
__
Actually, I don’t think it’s false. I think it’s been taken out of context and deceptively misrepresented.
It’s from a report by the IG of the Dept. of Health and Human Services on “Birth Certificate Fraud” (https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf).
But if you read it in context, the point being made is that “Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity.” So, in terms of the example I gave earlier, a certified copy of a birth certificate saying that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961 proves what it says. It does not prove that the person presenting the document is the person named in it.
So, if David wishes to claim that President Obama is not the person named in the birth certificate, he can go that route. But it is dishonest for him to pretend that the birth certificate fails to prove that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.
PRECISELY. It proves what it says.
It PROVES what it says, and it says that a child was born to the Obama family in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. I agree that if birthers could prove that Obama was not that child, that would make the birth certificate irrelevant. But, barring that, it is relevant. So, so long as they cannot prove that Obama is not that child, the birth certificate is evidence of his birth IN HAWAII, unless birthers can prove that he was born somewhere else. (And they have not even been able to prove that his mother had a passport in 1961—and very few 18-year-olds did in 1961.)
There is plenty of evidence: The kind that is used to verify U.S. births under all circumstances, all the time. You just choose to ignore it.
Ignore it! I am trying to substantiate it. Birth certificates are prima facie evidence ONLY (This is stated on the bottom of Obama’s birth certificate). They are not designed to actually PROVE a birth occurred. It’s the document you present, as prima facie proof to get a driver’s license, or a pass port, not to PROVE a person has meet the constitutional qualifications to place their finger on the button that can literally destroy life as we know it.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The birth certificate system works this way. Unless there is actual evidence that someone was born in a place other than where the birth certificate says, the birth certificate is proof of birth in that place. Nobody, and certainly not people who hate the person that is involved, will be able to convince any rational person that a birth certificate is wrong, unless there is actual evidence that it is wrong.
IF birthers could even prove that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961—and there is no evidence that she did, and she almost certainly didn’t—then it would be the start of convincing sane people that the birth certificate is wrong. But there is no evidence that she had a passport, so there is no evidence that she traveled abroad.
In addition to the birth certificate and the absence of evidence that Obama’s mother traveled abroad, there is the statement of the teacher who wrote home, to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley. This Farrar keeps saying is hearsay, but we are not in a court of law here, and it is additional evidence to the birth certificate and the lack of proof that Obama’s mother traveled abroad.
Farrar may claim that this is not sufficient—but of course it is. in fact, the birth certificate ALONE is sufficient, unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. And, of course, the mistaken statement by a publicist that Obama was born in Kenya (which the Kenyan government denies, and which would be nearly impossible according to the INS report for 1961) is not evidence to the contrary.
Farrar may not be convinced, but he will not be able to convince more than a few highly GULLIBLE people.
“Birth certificates are prima facie evidence ONLY … They are not designed to actually PROVE a birth occurred. ”
__
Come on, David. You’re still ducking the question.
(And you’re also contradicting yourself. Elsewhere, you say “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded,” now you say “They are not designed to actually PROVE a birth occurred.” You can’t even keep your own story straight.)
What definition of “prima facie” are you using to justify that statement? Let’s see your source. I’ve shown you mine. Stop beating around the bush.
Either you’ve got an answer or you haven’t. If you can’t show one, any rational person will conclude that you haven’t got one.
A state certified birth document simply means a birth has occurred and that it was recorded. All the information on such a document may be used as prima facie evidence, but it does not prove, as a matter of law, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the information contained therein is, in fact, true.
Birth certificates, in, and of themselves, or not the truth, but can be used to arrive at the truth. To what extent is this true? It all depends on their probative value. Birth certificate that have no probative value are worthless in proving the information contained thereupon.
ex animo
davidfarrar