Comments on Advance Indiana™: Kudos To Pamela Geller

Where do you get this stuff??

2009-08-06T23:51:52.351-05:00

Where do you get this stuff??

Dear AI. Why don't you blog this? We had a c...

2009-08-06T21:53:47.798-05:00

Dear AI. Why don't you blog this?

We had a complete fraking nutcase in the White House for eight years, abd you are concerned that Barack Obama might have not been born in Hawaii? For the goddess sake...

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush
JAMES A. HAUGHT

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/gog-magog-and-the-iraq-invasion.html

Some of the Obama folks would like us to convenien...

2009-08-06T12:13:36.185-05:00

Some of the Obama folks would like us to conveniently forget that Indonesian citizenship he acquired after he step-father adopted him. I believe that's at the heart of why Obama hated his mother so deeply. He didn't like the fact that his mother allowed the adoption to occur and his name to be changed to "Soetoro". That explains why he took steps to change his name to Barack Obama, Jr. later. His legal name in Indonesia was Barry Soetoro. That's not conjecture. That's a fact. The complete disinterest of the media in the fact speaks volumes. They were far more interested in exploring whether John McCain was disqualified because of his birth in Panama, even though it occurred while his father was serving in the U.S. Navy.

There's only one person who has complete power...

2009-08-06T10:47:22.522-05:00

There's only one person who has complete power to make this issue go away. He has chosen not to, and instead has employed an army of minions to go forth and cook up cover stories, engage in demeaning namecalling, and generally tell the world 'go F yourself.'

"...At the end of the day, this is what I kno...

2009-08-06T09:31:49.760-05:00

"...At the end of the day, this is what I know. Barack Obama was born in America. He is 48. He resided in the U.S. from ages 0-6, and again from 11-48. His birth in America made him an American citizen by our immigration laws; he never repudiated this citizenship, or upon obtaining the age of majority, became a citizen of any other country. Now, I'd wager that our country has collectively spent probably a million total manhours writing, reading about, and arguing over this "controversy."...

Actually, YOU may know all of this, but the average citizen DOES NOT. Why? Because Obama has spent nearly $ONE MILLION having attorneys HIDE his college transcripts, papers, admission forms, passports, grades, etc. etc. etc.

Why? "He has nothing to hide."

I followed this story from the beginning, hoping i...

2009-08-06T08:24:49.690-05:00

I followed this story from the beginning, hoping it would be mainstream news before the election. It was not.

People need to get it through their heads that we don't doubt Obama to be a citizen, the question is whether Obama is a "natural born citizen".

His refusal to show us the proof is the smoking gun.

Hawaii officials only confirmed the existence of a...

2009-08-06T06:15:20.155-05:00

Hawaii officials only confirmed the existence of a birth record consistent with the published colb; it didn't attest to the authenticity of it. Wong has been covered extensively in prior posts. It doesn't say he's an NBC; only a citizen. Fourteenth amendment only speaks to citizens, not nbcs. You couldn't hold a candle to geller, chris worden.

Also, AI, how come you ignore U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark...

2009-08-06T02:10:21.584-05:00

Also, AI, how come you ignore U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which repeatedly states that a child born in a land is a natural born subject of that land, even if the parents owe allegience to another land? To wit:

"It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore EVERY CHILD BORN IN ENGLAND OF ALIEN PARENTS WAS A NATURAL-BORN subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

Here's another good exerpt:

Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, FOR IF HE HATH ISSUE (a/k/a "a kid") HERE, THAT ISSUE IS A NATURAL BORN SUBJECT.

In short, "natural born" means nothing more than Springsteen's chorus, "Born in the U.S.A." If Congress has designated that being born in the U.S.A makes you a citizen (it does), then you are "natural born citizen."

There's been no contrary definition offered by the U.S. Supreme Court since, so I'd say this issue is pretty well-settled, except for people who want to take down Obama. Of course, we could use the "plain meaning," which is what you conservatives claim to do, except when it doesn't work out for you, like here. Talk about results-oriented judging of an issue!

This is getting so sad. On the political end... ...

2009-08-06T00:53:23.892-05:00

This is getting so sad.

On the political end...

(1) Survey 2000 did a national sample of 2400 Republicans, and 28% said Obama WAS NOT BORN IN AMERICA. So, yeah, sorry if it's easy to mock a party with a quarter of its members believing the State of Hawaii has engaged in a massive conspiracy.

(2) Geller is in that group, which is why she's Palin on a blog. For you to hold her up as an example sullies you. First, you are making this about the law (though you were not at the beginning). She isn't. She writes:

"Obama's refusal to produce his original birth certificate information has produced this "carnival of conspiracy" that has become "a deliberate distraction from the real issues and the real destruction being wrought by the Obama administration."

Interesting how even though she admits Obama was PROBABLY born in Hawaii, she still says he needs to produce a "vault" copy. Why? Because "fo shizzle" there's something embarrassing on it, she says. This isn't about the law; it's about trying to get dirt on a guy the right-wing wants to destroy.

(3) If Geller thinks (and you obviously agree) that this birther issue is being used to distract America from its REAL dangers, here's the solution for Geller, AI, and all the other birthers bloggers. Shut the (expletive) up! Then see if Obama keeps talking about it after you stop. I assure you, he won't. Now, if he has to deal with this bovine feces every day, will he use your rabid paranoia to his advantage? Sure. But I assure you, he'd rather work on healthcare.

On the legal end...

(4) ...you take two quotes from John Jay and George Washington, the crux of which is we don't let a foreigner run our army, and from THAT you glean the framer's intent was that ONLY people born in America who have two American citizen parents can be President? That's a helluva leap. Even you stated there is great uncertainty on this issue, so why do you do continue to use the tone of accusation, as if Obama did something illegal by accepting the office?

(5) At the end of the day, this is what I know. Barack Obama was born in America. He is 48. He resided in the U.S. from ages 0-6, and again from 11-48. His birth in America made him an American citizen by our immigration laws; he never repudiated this citizenship, or upon obtaining the age of majority, became a citizen of any other country. Now, I'd wager that our country has collectively spent probably a million total manhours writing, reading about, and arguing over this "controversy." So I ask you to prove to me that it's been worth it. In what way do you REALLY fear that a "foreign influence" will take over our Army because Barack Obama had a Dad he met once from another country? I know you won't answer this question directly. I suspect, instead, you'll say something like that it's not about Obama, it's about the sanctity of the Constitution.

And you know how I'll know you're full of crap? Because we don't have to rely on a Supreme Court interpretation. We could clarify the Constitution easily with an amendment for all those who come AFTER Obama, that says precisely what "Natural Born Citizen" means, but you and the Republican Party won't even try. You know why? That's outside the parameters of Operation Obamacrush.

Demonstration can be made through reference to one...

2009-08-05T23:21:16.527-05:00

Demonstration can be made through reference to one case, that of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). First, the Supreme Court notes that "[T]he plaintiff's mother ... was born in Philadelphia in 1915, and thus was a native-born United States citizen" without any reference to the status of her parents. 401 U.S. 817.

Then the Court reviews the law, from the inception of the United States:
"Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this "very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray," and observed "that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute. . . ."
Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. at 274 U. S. 660. He referred to the cited English statutes, and stated, "These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.""

401 U.S. 828.

The Court goes on to touch on the views of the founders:
"It is not too much to say, therefore, that Congress at that time [when Rev.Stat. § 1993 was under consideration] attached more importance to actual residence in the United States as indicating a basis for citizenship than it did to descent from those who had been born citizens of the colonies or of the states before the Constitution. As said by Mr. Fish, when Secretary of State, to Minister Washburn, June 28, 1873, in speaking of this very proviso,"
"the heritable blood of citizenship was thus associated unmistakably with residence within the country which was thus recognized as essential to full citizenship."
"Foreign Relations of the United States, Pt. 1, 1873, p. 259."
274 U.S. at 274 U. S. 665-666.

401 U.S. 835.

"We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute."
401 U.S. 828.

Binding majority decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on the definition of native or natural born citizens comprise the great weight of authority, indicating that one born in the US is, and always has been, a natural born citizen. The writings of a 17th century Swiss scholar which were never adopted into either British or American jurisprudence and outdated statutes applicable to those born outside of the United States do not constitute any authority whatever on the question of the citizenship of one born in the United States in 1961.

Wading back into the "birth certificate contr...

2009-08-05T23:20:43.080-05:00

Wading back into the "birth certificate controversy", Gary? Your previous posts have acknowledged that the State of Hawaii, governed by Republican Lingle, has declared that the COLB is legitimate.

I know that you write this post to again raise your pet project, that of the definition of "natural born citizen." Your claim that 'weight of legal authority from the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution suggests that his father's citizenship status disqualified his children from becoming "natural born citizens" eligible to hold the office of President of the United States', however, is patently false. Even the "reasoned legal opinions" Geller refers to, those of Tribe and Olsen, which led to the Senate resolution opining that McCain is a natural born citizen, relied upon application of the 14th amendment to the Panama Canal Zone (even though the statute making that application was only passed after McCain's birth). The 14th Amendment unquestionably applies in U.S. states, so by this
"reasoned legal opinion", Obama IS a natural born citizen, regardless of his fathers citizenship.

More importantly, the basis of your argument are very old laws passed for the benefit of those born overseas to "citizenS of the United States", and were never meant to detract from the status of native born citizens, who are, and have been throughout US history, citizens upon birth solely by virtue of the fact that they were born in the United States. Indeed, such statutes passed subsequent to the emancipation of women make clear that even a person born overseas to a US citizen mother is a U.S. citizen. See E.g. Pub.L. 85-316, § 16, 71 Stat. 644, 8 U.S.C. § 1401b, enacted in September, 1957. Neither have relevance to a person born in the U.S., who is and always has been a native born and natural born citizen. The portion of the law applicable to persons born in the US, however, is applicable: "(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States AT BIRTH:
"(1) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), emphasis added.

(continued)

Heckuva post!

2009-08-05T21:29:58.361-05:00

Heckuva post!

Gery, can you find info on what the law is on Pres...

2009-08-05T19:45:29.309-05:00

Gery, can you find info on what the law is on Presidential gifts and the procedure of recording, documenting,and cataloging of them as required by law? You can reach us at 3867610606 for further info as to why we are asking this.

Thanks

Sinclair Publishing