Birtherism 2012

Im no denying racism per se exists. Im saying the doubts about Obama were based on different issues even if racism was an incendiary factor in it.

Im not too familiar with McCain upbringing, but I assume that being the son of admirals he must have travelled a lot, but always under the mantra of child of Americans travelling abroad. McCain is also a Vietnam war hero with well documented history and videos of his time serving.

Im not saying one is better than the other as far as their birth or upbringing or whatever, Im saying one has all the typical signals of a typical American and the other not so much. And by typical I mean, simply the more prevalent type (name, religion, parents, service in military, etc).

That Obama has a more unique story doesnt disqualify him, but it's perfectly normal to have some doubts or curiosity about it. Im not birther, so I cant find the stuff you ask me.

I’ll tell you this anecdote. It was an exercise I did with some friends, some are Obama supporters and thus very sensitive about anything birtherism. I told them about my friend Maria Lopez who went to Catholic school in Bogota. I purposely changed the subject to something else, and then one asked me what happened to Maria, the Colombian?

That exactly proved my point. I told them I NEVER said Maria was Colombian. Then I asked them if they imagined how she looked like? Although there are lots of mixes and races in Latin America, the most typical idea of a Latin American is a light colored person, with mostly dark eyes and hair. The names Maria and Lopez are also very typical Spanish names. So my next question was what religion Maria was, and without exception, all said catholic. I never said that either, I said she went to Catholic school.

Maria was an imaginary character, who could’ve been a Jewish from Austria whom escaped the war with her parents, that moved to South America, and that at the time knew that in Bogota the majority of the schools and the best were Catholic. Maria then grew up there, moved to the US and ended up marrying a guy last-named Lopez.

So you see where Im coming from? There was nothing wrong with my friends prejudices about Maria. The mind works that way: when not provided with all the information, it “fills in the blank” with other that was learned before and makes logical sense to the subject. If instead of Maria, I’ve used “Chang Lee” or “Ahmed” or “Hans” , Im sure most people would picture an Asian, Arab or German person, and so on.

So when we first hear about a guy named: “Obama – Hussein – Barak”, who grows in Indonesia and Pakistan, goes to a madrassa (it doesn’t matter if its secular or not), what is the most natural thing to think of? He is a middle-eastener of muslim faith. America is quite diverse and there are plenty people here of middle eastern ascend, but even those cases are of 2 parents immigrants; the fact that Obama’s mom was a freelancer and the father wasn’t even a resident here but a passing student, makes the whole thing even more uncommon. That’s why.

McCain was born in Panama to 2 citizen parents on a military base. There was some question as to whether that made him eligible, as he was born outside the territorial United States.

I dont disagree with you, but if you told your friends that "Maria" was Unitarian and Born in Chicago Your friends would probably have said "Ahh ok, sure".

Would your friends have demanded to see her birth certificate and claim that wasnt a birth certificate if you showed them it? (Did you ever hear the term "long form" before 2008?)

If you said that her mother was white would they have called her mother a prostitute?

If you had said that she was going to a Synygoge for the past 20 years would you have screamed at you that that means nothing she's a Catholic?

Thats why we think one of the factors behind birtherism is simple racism. Rational people accept documents and proof once presented that their pre-existing information is not valid in this case. Birthers and other RWNJs simply won't in the case of this President.

"but if you told your friends that "Maria" was Unitarian and Born in Chicago Your friends would probably have said "Ahh ok, sure"."

I hear you - of course in the case of POTUS the prove beyond doubts take a higher form.

In the very first post I wrote for this thread I explained how stunned I was to find out that there wasnt a procedure in place to verify elegibility. This has nothing to do with Obama. It shouldve existed for ever, not because one day a person with typical or atypical past says, "ok, Im from Chicago! Oh..ok, cool, so you can be president".

I wouldve sworn that either by the party registring the candidate, or a federal requirement or department or something.

Obama presented the long and short forms of the certificate, I believed him. For me the case was closed.

But in my case I've been very critical of both (birthers and obamacamp) - the formers for insisting in somthing that has been proven false, and the latter for ignoring a concern by US citizens that was legitimate and was shown DURING the campaign. The obamacamp instead of managing the situation like adults, understanding the concerns had some basis to it, went on to simply insult people by calling them "racists".

In my view, the "Obamacamp" dealt with it properly by publishing his Birth certificate in the first place. Thats something no other president has had to do. He was born in the United states. The State of Hawai'i attezted that the document was genuine. That makes him eligible. The birthers didn't accept it.

YOu have to realise that we have been through 4 years of this crap. We (and I'm not part of the "Obamacamp" btw) didn't start calling them racists to begin with, you know. After seeing Birthers rant for 3 years "Oh Obama could put this to bed tomorrow by just releasing a certified copy of his birth records/long form birth certificate" and he did. Guess what happened?

TO be fair, that actually catisfied a good 60% of the birthers but the ones we have now are the hard core fanatics and the new converts that 2 birth certificates were not enough for them.

What would your idea of a good response be?

And let me be clear. I argue on the merits. Look at my posts on this forum. I dont just scream RACIST RACIST at them. I am the one that has to bite my tounge and take it while idiots like KBOA lie and insult me. At most I say "Whats the difference between John McCain (didn;t have to publish his birth certificate) and barack Obama (They want everything right up to his most recent toilet paper to "just answer their concerns")?

This generally has then screaming YOU JUST BROUGHT OUT THE RACE CARD!!! But frankly, the race card is an obvious conclusion to the Difference Between McCain and Obama. Aside from the fact that The President is a Democrat and Republicans smear Democratic Presidents anyway, but they sure are dancing on the racism angle this time.

And remember, 4 years of crap and abuse I have had to read from these idiots.

Birtherism is based on a pack of lies, from start to finish. At some stadge you just have to call a spade a spade. (Birthers response to that SURANIS ISA RAAACIST!!! HE CALLED OBAMA A SPAAAADE!!!)

I don't believe I've ever claimed all birthers are racists, or that all anti-birthers were Obama supporters. I believe SOME birthers are racist, some are Xenophobic, some are anti-immigrant at heart, some are anti-Democrats. Some are a combination of 2 or more. Almost all really hate Obama and want to get him out of office by any means necessary.

I usually don't care WHY someone is a birther. I prefer to debate the facts/evidence/law.

Yup, that's why I'm here (and other places on the web). I enjoy debunking this stuff.

It's also good for people outside the debate to see how cranky the cranks really are.

Yeah, you get folks who admit it's mostly for fun -- Dave Von Pein over in the JFK assassination field, Lenny Flank in the evolution-creation wars. They take no prisoners, and that's the only way to deal with cranks ... when a crank starts complaining about being treated unfairly, he's getting ready to put his boot in your crotch.
However, the cranks enjoy provoking the debunkers just as much; anyone who can't see that the likes of Orly Taitz are nuts is beyond persuasion; and it's hard to understand why anyone who didn't care about the debate one way or another would waste the time wading through bickering on an online forum.
I must concede that Von Pein's big collection of JFK-related videos on UToob is a great resource.

Poor Tracy,

If the height of validation for you is being posted in a RWNJ blog......very very sad...much like yourself in fact

Chris works at the NH Herald. I wrote the article and he called and got all the comments from the people.

Not to worry, we have lots more stories to come. He wants to get into all the Obama ineligibility stuff all and I will eventually attach my name to them. I just wasn't ready to yet!

We are aware that you know all about the Herald, because the fogbow obots are the ones who called all their advertisers, trying to get them to dump the Herald for the Larry Sinclair article http://newhampshireherald.com/sinclairinterview.html

You wanted to put them out of business, but you FAILED and their business is now doing better than before you tried to sabatoge them!

This NOTE FROM THE EDITOR is talking about the fogbow obots who are attacking them and trying to shut them down:

http://newhampshireherald.com/page13.html

Well you sure as heck aren't ready to put your name to an amented complaint, are you? LOL

If you must know, nose bag granny...

My name on my challenge is my LEGAL name at the moment, which I haven't yet changed back yet. Been busy and haven't put in for a name change, so I have to use it on court documents for the time being, whether I go by it or not!

WOMP WOMP WOMP, the sadness will eventually be yours, when the usurper is booted out of our house!

My name is on my original complaint and it's also on my amended complaint...

DOH!

"You wanted to put them out of business, but you FAILED and their business is now doing better than before you tried to sabatoge them!"
From your link
"However, the future of the paper is uncertain as we just don’t know what will happen after this printing. "
They are saying you are lying. Funny how that always happens, isnt it? But then they were using the "editirial" to beg for money, so talking up the threat and poverty is understandable.
I love the fact that a blog on the internet is talking about "printing" though. :D

What amended complaint? No-one has seen it yet, all we have seen is you talking big and annoying people all over the internet rather than focusing on your ballot challange against Obama's name on the primary that is just weeks away.

Someone did tell you that persuing a case actually requires work, didn't they? This isn't like making a crappy video and pretending to write a story for a blog with a whole 12 likes on its facebook page.

Oh, I see. Like Barry Soretoro, then -- using a name for a while without having had it legally changed. Thanks for the clarification.

I'm so sorry Tracy, I didn't realize you had been kicked to the kerbside and divorced, so sad.

Poor Tracy aka KBOA, your divorce is a, by now all to familiar, pathology in Birfoon land of estrangement from their lved ones who simply cannot abide been close to Birthers.

There are examples of separation and divorce, estrangement from children, loss of access to friends and family.

And all over a truly insane delusion without a shred of connection to reality.

So do tell Trace, when the President gets re-elected what ya gonna do....?

Dude, the facts of the amendment are not that naturalised citizens are natural born citizens, but that both the natural born AND the naturalised are citizens. There is no square peg.

Naturalized does not equal natural born. A citizen is EITHER born OR made, not both.

All persons born in the US are citizens. All persons naturalized in the US are citizens. That's the 14th amendment. That's ALSO the rule before the 14th amendment. The 14th made no new category of citizen.

Minor v Happersett.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

This is simple language construction. If you can't understand this concept, you'll never understand how a court decision is constructed.

Dude the 14th Amendment says NOTHING ABOUT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. And that is where your whole argument lies that "All persons born IN the U.S. are citizens" You define citizens there as natural born citizens and you just can't make it mean something that isn't there.

So you are agreeing that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with being a natural born citizen. Which means you no longer can use Ark to claim a person born in the U.S. of non-citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Thanks for admitting what the obvious is: a person born of citizen parents *(plurl) are natural born citizens.

You want simple construction here is simple construction.
2 terms; citizen----natural born citizen
One term is just a noun. The other is an adjective and noun combined
The have separate and distinct meanings. Is that simple enough for you?

So are you going to keep talking in circles or are you going to define "citizen"?

Natural born and naturalized are TYPES of citizens.

Natural born = native born = born a citizen = citizen at birth.

Naturalized = made a citizen = born an alien and made a citizen via some legal means.

This isn't rocket science.

I agree to no such thing.

A person born in the US of 2 citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
A person born in the US of 1 citizen parent and one alien parent is a natural born citizen.
A person born in the US of 2 alien parents is a natural born citizen.

AND likely, but not certain --

A person born outside the US of 2 citizen parents is a natural born citizen, subject to certain residency requirements.
A person born outside the US of 1 citizen parent and one alien parent is a natural born citizen, subject to certain residency requirements.
A person born outside the US of 2 alien parents is an alien and must be naturalized to be a citizen.

That's 2 kinds of citizens -- natural born, and naturalized.

Yes, they have separate meanings. Chess pieces come in 2 colors: white and black. Citizens come in 2 types: natural born and naturalized.

No white chess pieces are black chess pieces and vice versa. No natural born citizens are naturalized citizens and vice versa.

All chess pieces are either white or black. All citizens are either natural born or naturalized.

Talk to KBO about talking in circles. She specializes in it.

A person born of citizen parents is a natural born citizen. That is the only definition recognized in Supreme court records as having no doubt. Any other type of citizen is in doubt as to being a natural born citizen. Your arguement is in doubt according to the Supreme Court of the U.S. My arguement has NO DOUBT.

Interesting you should use chess pieces. 2 colors made up of 6 types of pieces. OK you admit they have separate meanings. So what is the difference between citizen and natural born citizen?
Is citizen used in the Ark case have a different meaning than citizen in the 14th Amendment? Why doesn't Article II just say a President has to be a citizen? Why is natural born used ONLY in describing a qualification for President and V.President? Why does the Constitution not say natural born citizen everywhere citizen is mentioned in the Constitution if they mean the same thing? Surely you recognize the office of President as being the most vital and important position in our government. And because of that why do you not think a more distinct quality of citizen should hold that office. It is like saying anyone who applies to be an engineer meets the qualifications to do that job.

OK, then use Checkers. They are either red or black. You can't be this dense. A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A CITIZEN, because naturalized citizens are also citizens. A + B = C. A does not equal C. (A, B, and C are all non-zero.)

A citizen can be either natural born or naturalized. So saying that the President must be a citizen means that a foreign-born naturalized citizen could be president. The Framers didn't want that, so they restricted the office to the other type of citizen -- natural born. They didn't want to restrict who could hold the other offices as the foreign influence would be diluted and less of a threat. Yes, a more qualified person should be president. That's someone born a citizen. That leaves out everyone born an alien.

There are 2 types of citizens mentioned in the 14th Amendment. Born in the US and naturalized. That's natural born and naturalized. WKA talked EXTENSIVELY about both types of citizens.

Well of course the 14th cays nothing about Natural Born. The 14th dealt with citizenship as a broad term to overturn Dredd Scot Vs Sandford. Natural Born is a common law statement about a state of citizenship. Look up your Minor VS Hasperat where it says that

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar..."

So we have to look at common law and other sources for the defintion of NBC in the constitution, not just the 14th amendment.

So what form of NBC definition were the framers familiar with?

James Kent, “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States” (Commentaries on American Law, 1826). James Kent was appointed by John Jay (yes the guy that wrote that letter to Washington) to the New York Chancery. No mention of parents.

James Madison in a speech to the house
“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.”

No mention of Parents

James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection… The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

No mention of parents other than the flat statement that Aliens can produce natural born subjects if born on american soil

But are subjects different from citizens?

Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454, 456, 457 (1813).

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

Yes, citizen is the same as subject And No mention of parents.

So, if you believe in the founders intent and The rulings of common law, and that going back to 1610 in Calvins Case

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm

"3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King's part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant' suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject;"

So natural Norn Had been seen as born on soil without regard for the Citizenship of the parents for it 200 years. If they were going to break from that they would have spelt it out in black and white. They didn;t, so we must enforce the generally accepted definition, born on the soil of the realm.

Ok, since you want a dictionary definition, this is the Cyclopedia of American Government, p.496

NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are deemed natural born citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President.
See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law Of. References: G. W. Garner, IntroN to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, CitizensHp of U. 8. (1904).

Still afraid to define citizen as used in the 14th Amendment aren't you?

The 14th Amendment was passed to give naturalized citizenship to the former slaves who did not have citizenship at the end of the Civil War.

One would think common sense would ell you both parents must be citizens of the nation their child is born in.

What was the definition of the meaning our founders had when they placed the "natural born citizen" wording in our Constitution before the 14th Amendment?

I did. Your inability to understand the very simple concept does not negate the definition.

From a mock brief on the Natural Born Citizen question:
However, we do know that at the time of the federal convention the term "natural born" was a well known term of art in America, particularly to common law lawyers like those who wrote the Constitution. According to Sir William Blackstone, undoubtedly the greatest legal influence on the founding generation:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the Crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such."

More at:
http://naturalborncitizenshipresearch.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=20...

It seems then, that any of the children born to mothers who are illegal aliens who come to the USA for the sole purpose of having a child to "get it on our payroll" would be legally eligible to take those children back to their personal homeland, raise them to the legal age of 35 and those children born to those illegal alien mothers would be constitutionally eligible to hold the Oval Office as our President.

Maybe congress should pass a law requiring them to at least learn to speak English.

WOW "A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A CITIZEN"
Maybe you aren't so dense yourself. Maybe some intelligence is starting to sink in.
14th Amendment, Born (only implied by you) in U.S. = citizen. Also, naturlized = citizen. That's what it says. Hmmm Your words "A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A CITIZEN" If given your statement to be true then logic would say; Born (only implied by you) in America is not a natural born citizen AND naturalized is not a natural born citizen
So since they aren't the same thing, what are they? Try answering without admitting to the fact that natural born is different because it requires citizen parents. Let me give you some more reasons why needing citizen parents is true to help you out.

1. natural born citizen is defined by Vattel is the definition used by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court = a person born of citizen parents (plurl)

2. According to your definition of natural born citizen which actually is Blackstone's natural born subject definition The Ark case would never have even been a dispute. Ark would have been a natural born citizen no question. But there was a case and there was a question as to whether Ark was a CITIZEN.

3. TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY was written well after Ark and Minor Supreme Court cases. Those cases addressed natural born citizen and declared ONLY "a person born of citizen parents" are WITHOUT DOUBT natural born citizens. Title 8 could have defined natural born citizen to be something other than that but didn't. In fact EVERY single citizen type they listed according to Minor and Ark ARE IN DOUBT of being natural born citizens. Title 8 doesn't address natural born citizen BUT what it doesn't say about it shouts out coupled with the Ark and Minor cases that there is ONLY ONE DEFINITION of natural born citizen being a person born of citizen parents (plurl). And Title 8 does not address the ONLY type of citizen that the Courts say is WITHOUT DOUBT a natural born citizen.

4. Since 2003 Congress has tried 8 times to CHANGE the definition of natural born citizen to mean a person born in America and leaving out 'OF CITIZEN PARENTS'. And then finally Senate Resolution 511 CONFIRMED a natural born citizen was a "person born of citizen parents (plurl)"

Yes, that's correct, once the person had lived in the US for the requisite 14 years. And assuming that that person could get elected, a feat so difficult that every four years, only 1 out of many millions ever manages to do it. (leaving out the line of succession scenarios.)

If the majority of Americans voted for a murderer on death row, that person would be President. If a full-blooded Cherokee got enough votes, that person would be President. Or a man whose second language was English. (Happened already.) Or an atheist, or a transgendered person, or a child of illegal immigrants. Natural born citizen, over 35, 14 years a resident. That's it. Doesn't even need to be registered to vote. Congress can't pass any law that changes that -- it would take an amendment.

Also you are assuming that English will be required at all times in the future. The way demographics are going, that may not always be the case. I believe that is one fear motivating some birthers.

Let's discuss the concept of equivalences. All citizens aren't natural born. Some citizens are also naturalized. So no, a natural born citizen is not the same as a citizen, as naturalized citizens are also citizens. BUT a natural born citizen is a citizen.

Stop playing word games. It's so simple, most Americans know that any child born in in the USA can grow up to be president. (Until it happened, that is.)

Giving examples is not a definition. If you can't do it just say so.

"The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens."
You can not find this in the Ark case or the 14th Amendment or any combination of the two. This statement adds natural born to the texts to get to the erroneous end statement. But the fact is you like to add where something isn't there and leave out when the facts are there slapping you in the face.

Actually you are just looking at the Ruling. The dissent by Justice Fuller complains bitterly that the ruling allows those born of Aliens to become president. For example.

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

The full dissent is here

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

And remember this is the dissent, so this is the side that LOST.

So its not correct that nowwhere in wong kim ark was a decleration that it made children of aliens eligible for the presidency, as the dissent is clear that the ruling does.

Stop playing word games. A natural born citizen is one type of citizen. A naturalized citizen is the other. Period.

1. Wrong.
2. The Wong Kim Ark case was a dispute because the US side didn't want children of Chinese to be citizens. Notice it wasn't a case about Germans or English parents. The SC took many pages coming to the conclusion that the 14th amendment merely affirmed that all children born in the US were citizens, and that there were only 2 kinds of citizens (natural born and naturalized). As those children weren't able to be naturalized as they were born in the US and never were aliens (same situation as the former slaves), that meant that children born in the US were natural born citizens. They didn't say "Therefore WKA is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president" because WKA wasn't running for president. But the only way WKA COULD be a citizen was to be a natural born citizen. The dissent knew that, that's why THEY said it meant WKA could be president -- which they weren't happy about.
3. Title 8 § 1401-- "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

Get real. Only birthers read that as meaning natural born means 2 citizen parents are required. Most people read that as anyone born in the US and (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) is a natural born citizen. 2,1, or 0 parents can be citizens as it doesn't matter.

4a. You are also wrong on what Congress has meant by their attempts to pass amendments changing the citizenship clause. In every case that I know of (feel free to provide a link to any that claim what you claim), the bills/resolutions have been to open up the Presidency to NATURALIZED citizens. I include in this the Hatch amendment, AKA "The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment" AKA "The Arnold Bill" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.j.res.00015: Or this one: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.59:

But here's an amendment to change the 14th TO needing at least one citizen parent. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.42: Ron Paul, the sponsor, obviously didn't believe he was loosening the definition.
And another:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.J.RES.44:
These are to eliminate so-called "anchor-babies"

Both types of bills are from the 108th Congress, but when I hit 4 from just 2003 I stopped looking. Don't you guys do any of your own research?

4b. SR 511 only " CONFIRMED a natural born citizen was a "person born of citizen parents (plurl)" if you also accept that it meant presidents had to be born on military bases in Panama. The SR says "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:". That doesn't mean that a natural born citizen has to have 2 citizen parents. It says that John McCain had 2 citizen parents.

You can't cherry-pick quotes from a court decision: you have to read the case, follow the logic, and understand what the court is saying. You also have to look at the cases cited, how the case itself is cited, and what the dissent says. The court doesn't do sound-bite-worthy decisions.

There is a reason Congress believes that a Constitutional Amendment is needed to address the "anchor baby" issue, why no Congress member objected to Obama's election by the Electoral College, why no one "knew" that 2 citizen parents were required before 2008. Because smarter people than you know what WKA MEANT.

Leo Donofrio is a performance artist and is inventing this 2-citizen parent stuff to see how many people will fall for it. Congrats. You are one.

I almost hate to ask, but I am curious: If Obama is neither a natural born citizen nor a naturalized citizen under your definitions, then what kind of citizen is he? (And my apologies in advance if I missed this somewhere in your posts.)

swantonkid You should never hate to ask a question. Never hate to research the answer either. You are the author of your knowledge and wisdom. Never let someone else take that duty from you. So what I answer you here you check out. Lets assume for discussion here that Obama is in fact a citizen of some sort even tho we have no concrete proof to that effect. But that is not the question you pose. What type of a citizen is a person whose father was a British subject and mother was a U.S. citizen? Given that situation of mixed nationalities 3 things need to be looked at International guidance - British law concerning their subjects' status and American law concerning their citizen status. As far as an international guide de Vattel's "Law of Nations" has long been a respected and guide to citizenship. Here is what that says in regard to a natural born citizen; § 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.THIS IS WHERE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SUPREME COURT DERIVE THEIR DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

How does this fit Obama? Well he was not born of citizen parents. And his daddy wasn't an American citizen but a British subject. Accordingly Obama follows his daddy's condition being a British subject born a foreigner to America. As Vattel puts it "in order to be of the country (America), it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there (America) of a foreigner(BRITISH SUBJECT), it will be only be the place of his birth, and not his country." But then we have America's citizenship law that says in the 14th Amendment, "a person born in.... is a citizen". I see no conflict here. It comes to a dual nationality. You can't say dual citizen because Obama Sr was a 'subject' not a citizen. So at best Obama was born a British subject and due to location (Again assuming that was Hawaii) an American citizen by birth. Now lets's look at that "citizen by birth". Since we assumed Obama was born in a foreign country (America), what guidelines do we have for that and stay true to international and American guidelines. Well Vattel gives us this guideline. "...there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."
Obama would have been naturalized at the time of his birth in America an satisfied both 'subject and citizenship' laws of Britian and America. This is generally what is known to us as dual citizenship. Now how does that apply to 'natural born citizen' as used in the Constitution?

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a STRONG CHECK TO THE ADMISSION OF FOREIGNERS into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

Ask yourself was Obama born of a foreign father? Answer of course is yes. Therefor reason dictates John Jay was warning about a person just such as Obama is. But it goes further besides being born of a foreign father. Obama Sr. very possibly was a diplomat of Kenya (Wikipedia reports this "was a Kenyan senior governmental economist") sent here as a student and then kicked out of the U.S. by the INS Dept of the United States. Obama conveinently leaves that fact out of both his books.

So at best Obama is a naturalized citizen of America. At worst he is an illegal aleign. In either case he IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Therefor he is an usurper of the office of the President of the United States of America and sitting in the People's White House illegally.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. So I guess this means that McCain is not a natural born citizen either?

Another thoughtful question. Your answer is whether he was born under U.S. jurisdiction. What do you think?

Sorry for the questions--I'm just trying to figure out where you draw the line. Your explanation above said plainly "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.".
If you're using Vattel as your guide, I think jurisdiction to be irrelevant. Rather, you should rely on his Book 1, Chap 19, Sec 217, which states that "...children born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country..."
Is that a fair statement? So then McCain would be a "deemed" natural-born citizen?
Does the following accurately summarize your position?
Child born to two US citizens in the US: natural-born
Child born to two US citizens abroad: not natural-born
Child born to one US citizen and one foreign citizen in the US: not natural-born
Child born to one US citizen and one foreign citizen abroad: not natural-born
Child born to two US citizens working in the military or state dept abroad: natural-born

Again no reason to apologize for asking questions. I BELIEVE THAT OUR FOUNDERS AND FOREFATHERS USED VATTEL AS A GUIDE. NOT NECESSARILY WORD FOR WORD BUT DEFINATELY IN PRINCIPAL. HOWEVER THERE HAVE BEEN SUPREME COURT OPINIONS THAT HAVE QUOTED WORD FOR WORD FROM VATTEL. IN THOSE INSTANCES WE CAN BE CERTAIN.
Rather, you should rely on his Book 1, Chap 19, Sec 217.....Is that a fair statement? AS TO THIS NO NOT "RELY" ON SEC 217. BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19, SECTION 212 IS THE "THE" DEFINITION. SECTIONS 215 THRU 217 PROVIDES INFORMATION AS TO JUSRIDICTION NOT A DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN. (THIS ALSO PROVIDES STRONG SUPPORT TO JUS SOLI AND JUS SANGUINIS THE ONLY NATURAL BORN SITUATION WITHOUT DOUBT)
So then McCain would be a "deemed" natural-born citizen? SEE BELOW ANSWERS
Does the following accurately summarize your position? SEE ANSWERS BELOW
Child born to two US citizens in the US: natural-born SEE BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19, SECTION 212 AND SUPREME COURT CASES VENUS, MINOR AND ARK WHICH BACK THAT UP.
Child born to two US citizens abroad: not natural-born I AM NOT AWARE OF THE SUPREME COURT ADDRESSING THIS BUT GOING BACK TO VATELL FOR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT OF BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19, SECTION 212 AND THOSE OPINIONS WE DO HAVE CONCERNING BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19, SECTION 212--BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19, SECTIONS 215, 216 & 217 WOULD SHED LIGHT ON THAT SITUATION. I WOULD SAY NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Child born to one US citizen and one foreign citizen in the US: not natural-born CORRECT ACCORDING TO SUPREME COURT OPINIONS AND VATELL AS REFERENCE.THIS IS OBAMA'S SITUATION AND EVEN STRONGER AS YOU ADD THE ENGLISH CITIZENSHIP LAW THAT SAYS THE CITIZENSHIP FOLLOWS THAT OF THE FATHER (THE NON-US CITIZEN IN THIS CASE) WHICH THEY GET FROM VATTEL TOO.
Child born to one US citizen and one foreign citizen abroad: not natural-born CORRECT ACCORDING TO SUPREME COURT OPINIONS AND VATELL AS REFERENCED.

Child born to two US citizens working in the military or state dept abroad: natural-born CORRECT IN MY OPINION EVEN THO TO MY KNOWLEDGE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN ANY OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT BUT IS BACKED UP BY THE US SENATE AND VATTEL

"Birthism" and "Birth Party" sounds too much like "Ba'athism" and the "Ba'ath Party". Coincidence?

KBO, you wouldn't know a fact if it walked up to you on Fact Street, wearing a t-shirt that read "FACT" and handed you a business card in the name of "I.M. Fact."

YAWWNNN, WOW, that was SOOO lame that it really didn't deserve a reply.

racist

Wrong. The original case was dismissed and was appealed, And the appeal court decided to make a ruling both on the standing of the case and the facts of natural born citizenship constitutional question, and in doung affirned the lower courts ruling. The Indiana court of appeal affirmed both.

And what excuses are you goinjg to make uop about the other 3 cases that have ruled on Prsident Obamas eligibility?

John McCain was challenged... with Obama as a co-sponser on the bill requiring him to prove his legal eligibility.

So... Why did Obama refuse to be questioned about his legal eligibility? Could it have been because he knew he wasn't?

You need a refresher in reading comprehension 101. Quote direct from The Appeal Court "Thus, it was proper for the trial court to exclude this af-fidavit and handle the Governor's motion as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim ra-ther than one for summary judgment. See Trail v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indiana, 845 N.E.2d 130, 134, 140 (Ind. 2006)
********************** (affirming the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(B)(6) even after the parties "filed several affidavits, exhibits, and briefs").********
Once a case is dismissed for standing there is no hearing. There was no ruling on the merits at the Appeal Court level either as there was no hearing. If you have no standing there can be no court case. Sorry find something else which you will not find any case that has been closed with any rulings on merit. The so-called ruling on natural born citizen then becomes an error of the court since there was no hearing. And even IF that were a ruling it does not trump the Supreme Court cases of Venus, Minor and Ark which included in those Courts written opinions the definition of natural born citizen. Sorry to again burst your bubble.

"You need a refresher in reading comprehension 101. Quote direct from The Appeal Court "Thus, it was proper for the trial court to exclude this af-fidavit and handle the Governor's motion as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim ra-ther than one for summary judgment. See Trail v. Boys and Girls Clubs of Northwest Indiana, 845 N.E.2d 130, 134, 140 (Ind. 2006)"

Thats a blatent lie, becasue I have a copy of the appeal court ruling open in front of me, and a simple text search shows THAT APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE APPEAL COURT RULING, you lying little birther.

Look, I challange the reader. Here is the full ruling from the court of appeals. I challange you and any reader to take what you just posted and find it in the text.

http://obamaeligibility.org/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-b...

GO on. Find it.

This is the second time you have quoted stuff that is not actually in the Ankeny Vs Daniels court of appeals ruling. Cant you make a case without blatently and stupidly lying?

"Once a case is dismissed for standing there is no hearing. There was no ruling on the merits at the Appeal Court level either as there was no hearing. If you have no standing there can be no court case."

Are you stupid or ignorant or just think everyone else is. This was a ruling of the court of appeals. THEY WERE RULING ON WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF THE LOWER COURT ON STANDING AND OTHER ISSUES WAS CORRECT.

In order to rule so they Ruled on buth the standing issue and whether The Goveror was correct to allow president Obama on the ballot. In order to find whether the Governer was correct they had to Examoine and rule on The fact of president Obamas Eligibility.

So They ruled on the standing issue AND president Obamas Eligibility

YOU LOST THE CASE. Pretending it didn't happen isnt going to get you anywhere.

And Ankeny was the olly birther case that make it to the state supreme court level that was NOT appealed to the SCOTUS. IF they had they knew SCOTUS would have affirmed the ruling like they did in the 17 other cases and that would have sunk their whole legal argument.

I'm not going to waste my breath arguing the real Venus and Minor here again, especially to someone who argues that a case dosent exist and claims stuff is in the Ankeny Ruling that isnt there. And who thinks a footnote is a ruling. LOL

You have it backwards. The bill that Obama co sponsored was a simple non binding resolution that John McCain was eliginle as he was a natural born citizen.

And as ever, I can prove this with a link to the actual resolution. Yes thats Barack Obams name on the Sponsors list

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110sres511ats/pdf/BILLS-110sres511ats...

At no time did John mccain have to show his Birth certificate. He was asked to, he refused and that was it. She showed it to a reporter and no phots were taken. Everyone accepted that

So, I'll turn your question around; how come President Obama has to keep showing his birth certificate when John McCain didn't have to do it once? Hmm?

John McCain's eligibility wasn't challenged in Congress EVER. The "bill" you are talking about was Senate Resolution 511, a resolution cosponsored by Sens. Obama and Clinton, affirming that McCain was a natural born citizen. There was no "challenge" at all in that SR. It was McCain's Senate colleagues unanimously saying that he was eligible and none of them doubted it. No proof was ever asked for by Congress, and no proof was ever given -- because everyone in the Senate knew the circumstances of McCain's birth, and birth to US citizens anywhere in the world makes one a natural born citizen.

Here's the actual resolution. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

There's also a House Resolution saying that President Obama was born in Hawaii. That was unanimous, too. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111fEW4H3::

Suranis -- the text is in Footnote 4. Jolly Roger somehow picked up some hyphens so it doesn't come up in a search. But the quote is meaningless anyway. It's in reference to an immaterial affidavit in the original MTD that had no effect.

However --

"The sole issue is whether the trial court erred when it dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the claim, not the facts supporting it. Thus, our review of a trial court's grant or denial of a motion based on Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is de novo. When reviewing a motion to dismiss, we view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant's favor. " [citations omitted.]

So the court had to look at many issues besides the issue of standing. They did, and upheld the dismissal. The plaintiffs could have appealed and didn't.

Was that a fake article I read about John McCain showing his birth certificate when the subject came up before he was taken to answers before the Senate?

And was Lamar Alexander lying to me when he explained to me about the Senate questioning him finding him eligible because both of his parents were American citizens?

One more question: Why did Nancy Pelosi give a different affidavit to the Sec. of State of Hawaii that the one she gace to all of the other Sec's. of State?

You have to provide links so I know what you are talking about. The only articles I've seen about McCain showing his BC refer to this incident: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birth... This was one McCain staffer showing one reporter McCain's BC.

I also have no idea what Lamar Alexander said to you. But there were no Senate or House hearings on McCain's eligibility. There was one exchange between Sen. Leahy and Sec. of Homeland Security Chertoff in a break in a judiciary committee, where Leahey asked Chertoff if he thought McCain was eligible. That was it. The entire conversation, the text of the SR, Leahey's remarks on submitting the resolution are here. http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=fd6db55d-33... Please note how the SR's main co-sponsors, both Democrats, were totally non-confrontational. This was the Senate expressing unconditional support for a colleague, not Democrats fighting to keep McCain off the ticket.

Much as I hate to link to them, WND covers the history of the issue here: http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127362/

If you have other sources contradicting this, please share them. I came into this whole eligibility issue defending McCain's eligibility. I've looked through quite a few Congressional Records looking for any hearings. They don't exist.

You sure are funny. I copied and pasted direct from your comment. Now you are arguing against what you posted. The Lectric Law Library defines standing this way: STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit.
If you do not have standing no lawsuit can be initiated. In other words no hearing no ruling on merit. Sorry you don't understand judicial process. Try reading about it. It's all over the internet.

No I';m not, becasue Standing was just one of the issues by which that the Plaintiffs appealed the lower court ruling. There were in fact 9 reasons which the Plaintiffs cited in Ankeny for their appeal, and one of then was the claim that the governer exceeded his authority y putting an inelligible Person on the ballot.

So the appeals court examined that claim.

The fact that the lower court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing does not make the higher courts hearing invalid, becasue plainfiffs DO have standing to appeal a ruling by a lower court. Half the cases SCOTUS rules on every year would be invalid if it was the case that plaintiffs had no standing to appeal.

You really are clutching at straws.

James Polk was the first President who did not need to use the grandfather clause of the Constitution for Presidential eligibility as both his parents were born in the U.S.
Since then only Chester Arthur and Obama have been usurpers. I am sure several of the Presidents have had one or the other parent born as foreign nationals. But that means nothing as long as they were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of the future President. ALL Presidents (Not grandfathered in) ,again with the exception of the 2 lying usurpers Arthur and Obama, had 2 citizen parents.

William Arthur's naturalization papers are in the Library of Congress. It wasn't a big deal. At the time, no one cared if he was a citizen or not. The major controversy was where Chester was born. That controversy only mattered if it was known that William Arthur was not a citizen. Even then, it was pretty well established that birth to a US citizen outside the US produced a natural born citizen. Only if William Arthur were not a citizen would it matter were Chester Arther was born.

When George McClellan Jr. was being touted as a presidential candidate in 1903, no one doubted that he was eligible, even though he was born in Dusseldorf while his parents were on vacation. http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/01/mcclellans-citizenship/ That's a mere 23 years after Chester Arthur was elected VP in 1880.

Only 43 men have ever been president, a far too small sample to draw too many conclusions about. None have been women -- are women excluded? None have been Asian. Are Asians excluded? Barack Obama was the first with significant black ancestry -- were blacks excluded before 2009?

No one ever cared if Agnew's parents were citizens. Have your checked all the VPs? All the candidates? What about John Fremont, the first Republican presidential candidate?

Nobody thought citizen parents were required to be a natural born citizen until the last few years. Even the dissent in US v Wong Kim Ark knew that the case meant anyone born in the US could be president.

No big deal. You are a very funny person. Chester Arthur furnished the Library of Congress exactly 1 document. After years of requests after his death Chester's Presidential papers contained 1412 documents. The naturalization document of his Dad more than likely came from Aurthur's son. That was approximately 30 years after Chester died. So don't insinuate that the naturalization paper was right there for anyone to see because Chester put it in the Library of Congress because he didn't. He thought he had destroyed ALL his family history papers. He attempted and did a very good job of hiding the fact that he wasn't a natural born citizen.

Dude, he burned his papers one day before his death, as was common in thise times. And His fathers naturalisation papers date from 1848, Chester died in 1986. PLUS all you have is that he wavered on when his father came to america, but unfortunatly the latest date chester gave would put his fathers naturalisation at when Chester was 6.

Lets have a look at Leo donofrios Blog. Leo was the guy that invented the "2 citizen" BS in June 2008 and popularised it after the election for people like you that needed a reason why it hadn't really happened

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-bre...

"By no later than 1824, the Arthur family had moved to Burlington, Vermont. Their second child Jane was born there on March 14, 1824. Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. Reeves established these facts (and the correct date of Chester Arthur’s birth) from the Arthur family Bible.

From “Gentleman Boss”, page 202 and 203:

“…Hinman was hired, apparently by democrats, to explore rumors that Arthur had been born in a foreign country, was not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and was thus, by the Constitution, ineligible for the vice-presidency. By mid-August, Hinman was claiming that Arthur was born in Ireland and had been brought to the United States by his father when he was fourteen. Arthur denied the charge and said that his mother was a New Englander who had never left her native country — a statement every member of the Arthur family knew was untrue.”

Arthur’s mother had lived in Canada with her husband and even had her first child there.

In the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, an article interviewing Chester Arthur about Hinman’s accusations was published on August 13, 1880. In that article, Chester Arthur defended himself as follows:

“My father, the late Rev. William Arthur, D.D., was of Scotch blood, and was a native of the North of Ireland. He came to this country when he was eighteen years of age, and resided here several years before he was married.”

This was another blatant lie. His father emigrated from Ireland to Canada at the age of 22 or 23. William Arthur didn’t come to the United States until sometime between March 1822 – when his first child was born in Dunham, Canada – and March 1824 – when his second child was born in Burlington, Vermont. The youngest he could have been when he came to Vermont was 26.

On August 16, 1880 Chester Arthur told the Brooklyn Eagle newspaper that at the time of his birth, his father was forty years old. Another blatant lie. His father would have been only thirty-three years old when Chester was born.

In that same article he lied that his father settled in Vermont and reiterated the lie that William came here at the age of eighteen. This age discrepancy was exposed in the August 19, 1880 edition of the Brooklyn Eagle in an article written by Hinman ."

So there you have it. The worst lie that Chester gave put his fathers Coming to america 7 years before Chester was born, and would have put his fathers Naturalisation at when Chester was 7. There was no attempt to push Chesters birth till after his father was naturalised. THAT THATS FROM YOUR OWN BIRTHER SITE

And dont give me the "More than likely" BS. The fact is you by saying that you dont know how the heck Arthurs naturalisation papers came to be in the LOC, and you are making stuff up to fit your own narritive.

Back to Leos blog

"Earlier today I was telling my sister that this matter of Chester Arthur having falsified his parents’ personal history might lead to a very important revision of history. I suggested we put together an outline of a book as we might be able to prove that Chester Arthur was a fraudulent President and that would be quite a story. My sister thought I was jumping the gun a bit in that we really needed to define when William Arthur was naturalized before we could get excited.

About an hour later I received an email from Greg Dehler. I’ll let you read it:

Leo,

Needless to say I was more than a little embarrassed that you could not locate the reference in Reeves. I thought that was odd because my note concerning William Arthur was with the Reeves notes. I conducted a more thorough search and found the source. It was in the Chester A. Arthur Papers (what is left of them at least) at the LOC. I own the microfilm reels and made a copy for you which is attached. The Washington County Clerk in NYS dates it August 31, 1843. How does this affect Chet?

Greg
."

Fact is theres no way they wer eint he CHester A Arthur Papers in the LOC if Arther had not donated them himself.

Fact is even in your own world the lies you think Chester told dont add up to lying about the date hisfather naturalised. And I'm proving it with the original source.

You have issues with reading comprehension and research. Chester's Dad wasn't naturalized when he set foot in America. You did find that Chester Arthur was their fifth child, and he was born on October 5, 1829. I appluad you for getting that right. But you failed to go to the original certified naturalization paper DATED AUGUST 31, 1843 WITNESSED BY EDWARD DODD CLERK OF WASHINGTON COUNTY STATE OF N.Y. Now if you can do math that means Chester was 14 years 1 month and 5 days old when his Dad became a U.S. citizen. And by the way it isn't a birther site. There is no mention of a BC now is there? Maybe we just found one of Obama's shovel ready job's because you sure are digging yourself a big hole.

Leo Donofrio runs the site. He put in a lawsuit chalanging Obamas Eligibility. He Lost. His afidevit was ised by the plaintifs in the recent birther law case in Georgia. Its a birther site. He is one of the high priests of birterism.

Leo's whole contention was that Chester Arthur covered up that his father was not naturalised when he was born based on the fact that Arthur gave different dates for his father coming to america. Unfortunatly no date that chester gave would have put his fathers naturalisation at before he was born, the youngest Chester would have been was 6 and a half years of age. Chester didn;t care about the time of his fathers naturalisation and niether did anyone else

And its not like the fact that Arthurs dad was never naturalised was any huge secret or was recently discovered. . See Thonas C Reeves, "GENTLEMAN BOSS, THE LIFE OF CHESTER ALAN ARTHUR 3-4" written in 1975 which talks about it.

Stunningly no-one ever suggested that Chester was ineligible despite the fact of his fathers well known non naturalisation till they had to invent a reason that Barack Obama was not really the president, and The Example of Chester Arthur was in the way.

Of course even Arthur is not the ownly awkward example. VP Charles Curtis (mother American Indian), Eisenhower (German according to their law), Grant, TRoosevelt, Taft and others (French Huguenot), Candidates Dukakis (Greek), Bill Richardson (Mexican mother), Bobby Jindal (Indian parents), etc.

Sorry dude, you are barking up the wrong tree here.

You are correct any tree as uneducated and refusing to acknowledge facts is a wrong tree. So I'll not waste anymore time on you. But I do thank you for purring up all the false assumtion so that I was able to give people the correct information. But I am sorry I have to give you an F in Constitutionmal studies. Study hard and you may get another chance before Nov of this year to pass.

Start looking forward to a year of dissapointment as ever court in the land tells you what you desperatly want to believe is simply not the law.

Well,

You seem to have all of the answers, so tell me: What passport was he using during his "visits" to Pakistan in 1981 when Pakistan would not accept an American passport?

And you mention him "showing" his birth certificate. What "birth certificate" was he showing after 3 years of saying the government would not allow him to show it? How could that birth certificate use a letter style that wasn't even in print in 1961. And why are the letters and numbers not all on the line? Why, why and more why's.

Why was his father identified as an African for his race when African has only been a citizen of the continent of Africa?

Where did he get that name of the hospital on his "birth certificate" when that hospital didn't even exist in 1961? Why is his "birth certificate" number lower than the number of the twin girls born before him in the same hospital?

Why did he find it so convenient to "show" his birth certificate just a week before Jerome Corsi's book was placed on the market?

Why did his wife make her remark about taking those shots when they went through Africa to his homeland of Kenya?

Why did he refuse to honor the American flag by placing his hand over his crotch at the pledge of allegiance?

There is too many why's that he has refused to answer. So my final why question is: Why are so many of the states questioning him?

This may be the most interesting year of your life, Suranis. because it will be one of the most historical years as history has ever been known.

Sorry, those girls were born after him in that hospital and the numbers shown on their birth certificates were lower than the one shown his.

If he was not adopted, where did he get the name Barry Soetoro?

You seem to have all of the answers, so tell me: What passport was he using during his "visits" to Pakistan in 1981 when Pakistan would not accept an American passport?
Woe this is traditional. This was the very first birther lie and the first that was debunked.
Fact is there was no travel ban in 1981. There was a travel advisory but there was nothing stopping US people going to Pakistan. Americans traveled there without incident, as shown by a travel piece that appeared in the New York Times in 1981, dated June 14. Barbara Crossette, an assistant news editor of the Times, told her mostly American readers they could travel to Lahore, Pakistan, by air, rail or road, adding: "Tourists can obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports."
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/travel/lahore-a-survivor-with-a-bitter...
Her article prompted a letter to the Times from the U.S. consul general in Lahore saying he would "welcome an influx of Americans" to Lahore. He cautioned only that in addition to getting a visa for Pakistan, American visitors also should be careful to line up an Indian visa for the return trip if they planned to travel overland. The letter is dated Aug. 23, 1981.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?sec=&spon=...
"And you mention him "showing" his birth certificate. What "birth certificate" was he showing after 3 years of saying the government would not allow him to show it? How could that birth certificate use a letter style that wasn't even in print in 1961. And why are the letters and numbers not all on the line? Why, why and more why's"
The legal Birth certificate was shown in 2008. Despite 4 years of trying birthers have never been able to get a long form for themselves from the Hawaii Department of health and thereby "prove" that anyone can get a long form.
What you see on the BC released last march is the result of a MAC OS X optimisation process for documents from scanners. Thats why the PDF is less than 200kbs in sise. If it was full detail it would easily be over a megabite in sise, probably 2 or 3 megabytes in sise.
"Why was his father identified as an African for his race when African has only been a citizen of the continent of Africa?"
Becasue every african I have ever known calls themselves african. yes even the ones from Kenya. The word Negro was and is unknown outsude the United States. If the guy HAD called himself a Negro birthers would be screaming that is a false flag, and they would be right.
"Where did he get that name of the hospital on his "birth certificate" when that hospital didn't even exist in 1961?"
The Kauikeolani Childrens Hospital was founded by Albert and Emma “Kauikeolani” Wilcox in 1908.In 1978, the Childrens Hospital and the Maternity Home became Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children, NOT Kapiolani Hospital.
2. Queen Kapiolani founded Kapiolani Maternity Home in 1890.
3. The two hospitals (Kauikeolani & Kapiolani) merged in the ’70′s
When Obama was born the birthing facility was named “Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital (as evidenced on the Nordyke twins birth certificates)
Kapiolani hospital was the most popular maternity hospital in Honolulu. If you were born in Honolulu, you were probably born at Kapiolani. It was the only facility that specifically focused on Maternity and Gynecological needs. The Queen founded it as such.
The Nordyke twins were actually born at the Kapiolani “clinic” where their father was a doctor on staff. It seems the father had no reservations of the births being at the clinic rather than the fully staffed Queens Hospital a couple of blocks away.
"Why is his "birth certificate" number lower than the number of the twin girls born before him in the same hospital?"
Becasue they were numbered alphabeticly, not chronologicly.
"Why did he find it so convenient to "show" his birth certificate just a week before Jerome Corsi's book was placed on the market?"
You mean getting it out of the way before killing Osama Bin Ladin? And frankly Sticking it to Corsi after the swift boat lies was probably a very nice bonus.
"Why did his wife make her remark about taking those shots when they went through Africa to his homeland of Kenya? "
The same reason Obama said "I've come home" when he visited Ireland last year.
Continued

"Why did he refuse to honor the American flag by placing his hand over his crotch at the pledge of allegiance? "

Ahh another classic. The actul smear is that he refused to put his hand over his heart at the playing of the national anthem. The truth is that sometimes he does,. See here

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/anthem3.jpg

Obama himself says that "My grandfather taught me when I was 2. During the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing."

IN any case the tradition of hand over your heart is bieng observed less and less these days and is seen as pretty archiac. Lots of people dont do it even those with 2 citizen arents.

"There is too many why's that he has refused to answer."

Why on earth should he? No otpher president has been required to answer such stupid questions. John McCain didn;t have to answer all this crap. Not even George Bush the lesser, who did lie about where he came from. He made out he was a good southern boy when in fact he was born in Cincinatti.

"So my final why question is: Why are so many of the states questioning him?"

The short answer is that no state is questioning him. A bunch of idiots are filing lawsuits against his place on the ballot basec on some very dodgy reading of supreme court decisions, but every state is defending zgainst the lawsuit. So far this year 3 courts have confirmed eligible.

"This may be the most interesting year of your life, Suranis. because it will be one of the most historical years as history has ever been known."

I doubt it. All the Birther lawsuits are going to be thrown out as they have no case.

"If he was not adopted, where did he get the name Barry Soetoro?"

He didn't. His step dad lied on a school registration form, probably becasue he was sick of people asking about the name. Thats all. Thats the only piece of paper that losts him as barry Soetoro, and guess what it lists his birthplace as Honolulu.

*bows to the audiance*

Assuming by "those girls" you mean the Nordyke twins, their bcs weren't registered until 4 days after Obama's was. Are the numbers assigned by birth or by registration date? What about Stig Waidelich, born the same day as the Nordykes? His number is much higher than theirs, but then his name is far higher in the alphabet. Were the bcs alphabetized before assigning numbers? O is before N and both are before W.

The sample space is too small for valid analysis beyond saying they are all in the same range. Had Obama's BC been forged without knowing exactly what range of numbers would work for the specific month and year, the forger should be picking powerball numbers.

More on the numbers:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/obamas-birth-certificate-number/

Where did William Jefferson Blythe III and Leslie Lynch King Jr get their names from for literally years before they changed them? Same place. The difference was their mothers didn't divorce the step-father after a few years.

Are you sure McCain is a natural born citizen? The entire point of this clause in the constitution was to exclude Alexander Hamilton from running for president as he was born in St Croix though at the time of the Constitutional Convention he was a citizen of one of the States.
My point is clear if one side wants to invalidate the ability of a person born in a US state then why not open everyone's "natural born" status?

As this law has never been tested in term of the presidency as the only constitutional test would be for the Supreme Court to rule on eligibility for the presidency it is unclear if legislation determining citizenship also determines eligibility for the presidency.

What state was McCain born in? Those born in territories are not the same as those born in states.

In any case the whole birther discusion is a red herring designed to distract from the rabid desire of the Republicans to destroy the US.

Wong Kim Ark was a supreme court decision. And NBC from birth from 2 citizen parents if born outside US territories has been law for 250 years.

I'm not going to deny McCain his eligibility just becasue the guy is a publican. I am not a birther and I'm not playing footsie with their arguments just becasue I dont like the guys policies.

George Romney was NOT a Mexican citizen. George was born in Mexico to parents were American.

Thatseasy Please post the document of law either in the Constitution or Supreme Court cases that upholds your statement, "ALL Children of immigrants (legal or illegal) BORN in US territory are automatically granted the Natural Born Citizenship." I don't think you can back this up. The Ark case ruled those types of children are "citizens" but NOT "natural born citizens" If you have something else I would like to see it.

Sammy775 Please refrain from making up facts that in no way are true. George Romney the candidate for republican nominee for President was NOT born in Mexico. His Dad was. George was born in Michigan. Start researeching before you posts non-truths.

Suranis You have totally messed up the facts of Ark. Ark ruled that a person born of 2 non-citizens was a "citizen" IF born in the U.S. It did not rule anyone was a natural born citizen. In fact they took pain to not rule Ark being a "natural born citizen". They knew they could not do that. They ruled Ark to be a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment. The case never had any person born outside the U.S. and it didn't deal with citizen parents.

Yup and warning, and you might as well not even talk to Suranis, he gets paid to knock us down and does not care about the facts!

The current candidate is Willard Mitt Romney, born in Detroit. His father was George Wilcken Romney, former governor of Michigan, born in Mexico to US citizens. Sammy775 is correct, you are not.

George was born in Mexico. Was naturalized before he became Gov in Michigan. I called Mitt, George sorry about that. By the time Mitt was born in Michigan both his Mom and Dad were naturalized citizens. That makes Mitt a natural born citizen. I don't like him tho. It would be nice if Jingl or Rubio were NBC but unfortunately they are not. And it looks like the republicans are going to be left with a rhino that only betters Obama by reason he is Constitutionally eligible to be President. Bottom line Mitt's grandparents were citizens. His parents were Mexican citizens that became naturalized U.S. citizens before Mitt was born. That makes Mitt a natural born citizen.

YOu remind me of the birthers who disregarded The head of Hawai'is DOH saying that she had viewed the records and they showed that President Obama was a natural Born American Citizen, becasue she added the word american and didnt use the NBC clause so she was leaving herself an out.

Anyway this was dealt with in Ankeny Vs Daniels I will quote the ruling;

Then, in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898), the United States Supreme Court confronted the question of “whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subject to the emperor of China . . . becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment . . . .” 169 U.S. at 653, 18 S. Ct. at 458. We find this case instructive. The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen of the United States” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.” Id. at 654, 18 S. Ct. at 459. They noted that “[t]he interpretation of the constitution of the United States
is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Id. at 655, 18 S. Ct. at 459 (quoting Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478, 8 S. Ct. 564, 569 (1888)). The Wong Kim Ark Court explained:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called „ligealty,‟ „obedience,‟ „faith,‟ or „power‟-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king‟s allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, „Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,‟-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king‟s dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as „Calvin‟s Case,‟ or the „Case of the Postnati,‟ decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.
* * * * *

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn . . . said: „By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.‟ Cockb. Nat. 7.

...

[14] We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution‟s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation‟s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478."

Basicly, wang ruled that the principles of Engloish common law were still in force as regards the terms and phrasing of the constitution. That means that the ruling from calvins case in 1610 was still in force, that any person born within the boundaries of the kingdom was a natural born citizen. This rule remained in force in England till 1984.

And another much easier to read quote

Wiliams Rawle, “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.” (View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1829).

Rawle was appointed by President Washington to be the United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania.

You wish. The saddest thing you have is the knowlage that I'm just an interested amateur from another country and just kick your ass as a hobby. Also that a forigner knows more about actual American law than you do must be galling, particularly that I'm on the side that actually wins in front of a court.

George Romney was never naturalized as he was born a citizen. That's how he could be a candidate for President of the United States in 1968. George's parents were born in Utah. Mexico at the time didn't allow dual citizenship, so his parents remained US citizens. This is pretty well documented. Mitt is a natural born citizen because he was born in Detroit. Mitt's grandparents have nothing to do with Mitt's citizenship, but are key to George's.

Jindal (not Jingal) and Rubio are natural born by virtue of their birth in the US. And the term is RINO (Republican in name only, as an acronym it's all capital letters).

Suranis Here is the ruling of the Court "Judge Dreyer’s order today says the issue raised by the plaintiffs, Steve Ankeny, New Castle, and Bill Kruse, Roselawn, now is moot. It also says they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that they are barred from bringing the action under the legal doctrine of laches, which means the plaintiffs waited too long to assert a time-sensitive claim." The case was never heard on its merits. There was no court case. It was "Dismissed for standing." Everything you wrote above is totally irrelevant as it was nothing more than a judge talking outside of court. It has no legal bearing nor presidence. There would have had to have been a hearing on the merits for what you are posting to mean anything. Some one once asked why wasn't the case appealed to the Supreme Court with such a bad and obviously wrong ruling. The reason is you can't appeal something that never happened in court. So like many Obama supporters you are grasping at straws trying to make a personal conversation a court ruling. Doesn't work. So if this is the best you got you got nothing.

hahahaha, kick my ass as a hobby?????
It's obvious from my facts all over the place here, that I have whipped you everytime!
Everyone can see the truth and they can also see all yours and the fogblower lies!

I suspect if a vote were taken of the readership of the Economist, only about 5 people would think you've whipped anyone's ass.

Uh huh, you probably would SUSPECT that, but as always, you would be wrong AGAIN!

That explains why you have blocked comments on youtube and on
livewire everyone laughs at you.

Fact is, dearheart, that you lose to amateurs who dont even get paid. Suck it.

Dude. Stop Lying. The phrase you posted there appears nowhere in the ruling of the courd of appeals ruling. You forgot that people can actually check the real sources.

Here is the real beginning of the ruling

http://obamaeligibility.org/2009/11/12/ankeny-v-gov-of-indiana-natural-b...

"In their complaint, the Plaintiffs appear to suggest that the Governor has a duty to determine a person’s eligibility to become President in issuing the “Certificate of Ascertainment” “officially appoint[ing] the electors” who cast the State of Indiana’s votes in the Electoral College, the body which decides the election for the President of the United States (“President”). Transcript at 13. Specifically, Plaintiffs appear to argue that the Governor did not comply with this duty because: (A) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible “to be appointed „Elector in Chief’ in violation of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2′s prohibition that no United States Senator currently holding that office shall be appointed Elector for any State,” and (B) neither President Barack Obama nor Senator John McCain were eligible to hold the office of President because neither were “born naturally within any Article IV State of the 50 United States of America . . . .” Appellants’ Appendix at 11-12, 16-18.

Initially, we note that the Plaintiffs do not cite to any authority recognizing that the Governor has a duty to determine the eligibility of a party’s nominee for the presidency. The Plaintiffs do not cite to authority, nor do they develop a cogent legal argument stating that a certificate of ascertainment has any relation to the eligibility of the candidates. However, we note that even if the Governor does have such a duty, for the reasons below we cannot say that President Barack Obama or Senator John McCain was not eligible to become President. We will handle each of Plaintiffs’ arguments in turn."

Therefore it is clear that the issue of Obama and McCains eligibilty was before the court along with standing, and the court chose to deal with both sides of the Plaintifs claim.

And in any case it was not just one Judge

"For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‟s grant of the Governor‟s motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and MAY, J., concur."

Concur means that is the opinion of all 3 judges.

Says the woman who is on the side that lost an argument with an empty chair.

There ya go, lying AGAIN!

It's quite obvious if anyone LOOKS at my youtube channel here http://www.youtube.com/user/KenyanBornObamAcorn/videos?sort=dd&view=u that you and your ilk from the fogbow forum are all over my videos. I do not block people and it's obvious that 90% of the comments are from you obots bashing my videos. You are not blocked and no one AT ALL is blocked, because I do not believe in censorship like the Fogbow Forum and Dr Conspiracy and your other obot sites.

I dare ya to go try and post a comment...DOH!

By an opinion from a muslim from Iran, who made his decision using Sharia Law! YEAH, that's really gonna stand, NOT!

LOLOL

Tracy, I havent looked at or posted on one of your videos in the better part of a year. I wandered off when you blocked all your videos comments. if you have since reopened them, good for you.

My Youtube account is here so anyone can double check my viewing and posting history www.youtube.com/user/jjoshaugh

And on livewire you ARE a laughing stock ad even you cant deny that. And on youtube I see you get maybe 600 views on your videos. I think thats a comment on how persuasive everyone finds your videos. *rolls eyes*

First, under no part of his ruling did Judge Mahlihi base his judgement on Sharia Law. Second I believe the guy is a Jew. Third he based his judgement on the fact that your sides arguements had no persuasive value.
Fourth and most importantly, whats your excuse in the other 3 cases that have ruled against you?
Finally, if anyone reading this wishes to read your sides arguments, Judge Mahili's decision and the transcript of the court cases and make their own decisions, links to all the documents and transcripts are contained in this thread
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=7178
I have nothing to hide on that case, KBOA.

Sorry, wrong again! My YT channel has been up for several years and I have never once blocked comments on a single video or blocked a single person from commenting. I like to leave their ignorant rants there, for all to see.

So, nothing was "re-opened", thank you very much!

Just because you idiots flock to my LiveLeak NOT livewire channel and post all your garbage, does not mean that my facts are a laughing stock, it just means that ignore the facts and make fools of yourself! BOUT IT!

And perhaps you should LOOK at youtube before you start assuming...600 views???

CALLING ALL GEORGIA PATRIOTS & TE...
6,012 views

The MEANING behind Herman Cain's ...
18,827 views

WHO IS Harrison J. Bounel? Social...
5,162 views

OMGGG! Did Obama create his LONG ...
19,997 views

GUARANTEED Proof that Obama is a ...
18,703 views

Obama's Long Form Birth Certifica...
8,750 views

The American People WAKE UP after...
9,695 views

Explosive NEW EVIDENCE on Obama's...
3,628 views

The Obama Eligibility Issue goes ...
4,549 views

FAIL FAIL and FAIL again!

How about the small fact that I've argued with Obots many times on them getting the Ankeny case SPELLED RIGHT? You all would always spell it aRkeny and I would tell you to get it right. And then all of a sudden, Malihi is citing Ankeny, but HE is ALSO spelling it wrong, JUST LIKE THE OBOTS did!
We all know that you losers are KNOWN for emailing judges with your "INFO" to pursuade them and the stupid judge used your info, but he didn't even look at the friggin case and notice it was spelled wrong! DOH, what an idiot!
And then you have Jill Pryor who he cites on page 6 in the footnotes, I guess you don't know about her either, right? LOLOL, let me help you out...
While looking over Malihi's decision, I decided to look into who he cited in the footnotes and if you go to page 6, the footnotes have a name listed as Jill Pryor.
Now, if you pull up Jill Pryor's "Note" written for the Yale Law Journal titled:
"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty" 1988
http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf
You only need to read the first line, to see she has NO CLUE, what she is talking about, which is probably why Obama WANTS her!
This is in the first line of her "NOTE":
United States Constitution, article II
"Despite its. apparent simplicity, the natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution" has never been,completely understood. It is well settled that "native-born" citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."
I would guess that Obama probably found her article/note through this New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html that was questioning McCain's eligibility back in 2008. Now you know for a fact that Obama probably read this article, because he was involved in the McCain eligibility resolution, plus he had to be following it for his own eligibility reasons.
At the bottom of the NYT article, it talks about Jill Pryor and her NOTE that she wrote 20 years earlier. Obama more than likely looked at it to see what her views were on the issue and after seeing that her allegations fit his story, he put her on his list as people to stack the courts with! Now, remember...he may have heard of her in 2008 from the McCain article, but these GA Court vacancies have been open since August 2010, as stated in this article (Good reading everyone asked has "NO COMMENT") http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=1004504... DATED JAN. 5, 2012
I see that Farrar released the GA pre-trial filing around Dec. 9 and I know that Obama's motion to dismiss was denied on January 4th, so there's a month window between the two in which Obama starts the process of nominating Jill to the Circuit COurt of Appeals. The very next day, after Obama was denied his motion to dismiss, January 5th, there is an article out about Obama choosing Jill for the GA 11TH Circuit Court of Appeals (HOW IRONIC, THAT'S IN ATLANTA, where the Obama eligibility case will go next). Why he is now rushing to fill this vacancy all of a sudden, within weeks after being served, when it's been open for two year? Several others were already being vetted for this position, but Obama moves Pryor ahead of all of them. Then her nomination comes out the day after Obama's motion to dismiss was denied!
JUST A FEW STANDOUT QUOTES FROM THAT ARTICLE:
"it appears the White House has landed on Atlanta litigator Jill A. Pryor as its new choice for Georgia's vacant seat on a federal appeals court."
"Pryor received her undergraduate degree from the College of William & Mary before going to Yale Law School, where she was senior editor on the Yale Law Journal. A paper she wrote there on an obscure topic—the meaning of the constitutional provision that only a "natural-born citizen" can become president—received some attention during the 2008 campaign, when questions surfaced about whether Republican nominee John McCain, born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone, was ineligible for the office."
"According to public campaign records, Pryor contributed $4,500 to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and last year put $2,500 toward his re-election efforts. She also has contributed in recent years to other Democratic senatorial and congressional candidates and the American Association for Justice, formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America."
"Birch, who gave the White House a year's advance notice that he would be retiring in 2010, said he hadn't been contacted by the ABA committee about Pryor. But he said that about a month ago the Department of Justice had contacted him about Pryor and Troutman Sanders partner Mark H. Cohen as possible nominees for his former seat."
"The ABA's inquiries about Pryor for the 11th Circuit suggest the White House decided on Pryor for the appellate court slot."
CONT.

Then another article (Looks similiar with same pic of her, but it's DIFFERENT) Dated Jan 26, 2012 and she is already appointed, over so many objections!
http://www.dailyreportonline.com/Editorial/News/singleEdit.asp?l=1004606...

JUST A FEW STANDOUT QUOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

"The White House and Georgia's U.S. senators may agree that Atlanta lawyers Jill A. Pryor and Mark H. Cohen should be federal judges—but they apparently differ on which lawyer should fill an opening at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and which one should serve on Atlanta's U.S. District Court."

"The letter, on Isakson's stationery but signed by both senators, notified White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler that the senators would return "blue slips" to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Cohen for the 11th Circuit and Pryor and Walker for the district court. A blue slip is the Senate's traditional indication that a nominee has received the approval of his or her home state senator."

"Former 11th Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., whose resignation opened the available appellate seat, said earlier this month that in December the Department of Justice had contacted him about Pryor and Cohen as possible nominees for his former seat. Another member of Georgia's legal community, who asked not to be named, told the Daily Report on Wednesday that Cohen was being vetted late last year for the 11th Circuit post by FBI agents and the U.S. Justice Department."

"Sources familiar with the process have told the Daily Report that the Obama administration has chosen to have judicial candidates vetted by the FBI and the DOJ before submitting the name of the prospective nominee to be rated by the ABA. That process suggests that the White House considered Cohen for the 11th Circuit but then decided to tap him for the district court instead. The White House's apparent shift took place around the time U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a Dec. 13 speech in Austin, Texas, according to people familiar with the nomination process. In that speech, Holder—quoting Democratic U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta—said that voting rights are under attack across the country."

On Wednesday, Darden said someone in Georgia with White House contacts recently approached Chambliss about a potential slate of nominees for the appellate and district court posts. But he declined to identify that individual, saying only, "It was not I." "I'm aware there were discussions," Darden said. He declined to elaborate, saying, "This is between the president and his counsel and the senators."

"Elberton civil rights attorney John Mell Clark, who said he has been advising the NAACP in Georgia, told the Daily Report, "What we see happening in Georgia is a total disregard for the president." The nominees should be who the president selects and should reflect his philosophy," Clark continued. "If they don't accept the president's choice, he shouldn't fill the vacancy." "With all respect to the senators, it is not their call," Clark continued. "They don't dictate to the president who to put in the slot. … It's not right for him to be denied the people he wants on the bench. If that's the case, we might as well have a Republican president."

IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF FRICTION WITH PEOPLE THINKING PRYOR WAS THE WRONG CHOICE, BUT OBAMA WAS NOT GOING TO LET THAT STOP HIM!

Not sure when she was put in, but her webpage says she is now admitted to the GA State Circuit of Appeals.
WILL THIS BE THE JUDGE IN THE GA APPEALS TRAIL? I can almost guarantee it!

Contributions from Jill to Obama, out the ying yang!
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qind/ On this page, you see all the people and pacs.committees they contributed to. You will notice LOADS of Obama contributions and if you click on the donation says "GEORGIA FEDERAL ELECTION COMMITTEE" YOU GET THIS PAGE: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_detail/C00041269 THAT PAGE SHOWS WHO THEY GAVE TO, WHICH IS THIS LIST, LOOK AT ALL THE LOSERS HER MONEY IS GOING TO: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C00041269/ Oh Look, you've also got MoveOn.org, Oh yippee, look at who gets MoveOn's money: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C00341396/

WOW, that could be enough to get her removed from the case IF she's on it, ya think?

"Sorry, wrong again! My YT channel has been up for several years and I have never once blocked comments on a single video or blocked a single person from commenting. I like to leave their ignorant rants there, for all to see.

So, nothing was "re-opened", thank you very much!"

Liar. Anyone can go into your comment history and see the gaps where you shut comments down if they have the interest. Its your sounding like a 12 year old word vs mine. I think I know wh sounds the more believable

"Just because you idiots flock to my LiveLeak NOT livewire channel and post all your garbage, does not mean that my facts are a laughing stock, it just means that ignore the facts and make fools of yourself! BOUT IT!"

Last time I looked at your Liveleak site your dreck had very few comments and they were all laughing at you. It seems even the people ar liveleak, who are mostly europeans, know your stuff is stupid. Europeans know more about American citizenship lawthan you do as people actually have family members who emigrated to america so its fairly will known.

"And perhaps you should LOOK at youtube before you start assuming...600 views???"

I did. Your older videos where you actually argue your case, all over a month old, were showing as having less than 600 views.

The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - 2 months old. 521 views

NH Ballot Law Commission holding unlawful hearings to decide Obama's eligibility for Presidency - 2 months old - 672 views

KenyanBornObamAcorn & Theresa Cao protest at the White House INCL Call to Action Rally in DC - 3 months old - 320 views

Part 6 Orly Taitz Rebuttal to US Attorney Obama Eligibility Transcripts 9th Circuit Ct May 2, 2011 - 9 months old - 323 views

Yadda yadda. Hardly the most watched source of news is it Hell even your most recent work isnt exactly packing rthem in when you mention the word eligibility in the title

Part 6 Orly Taitz Rebuttal to US Attorney Obama Eligibility Transcripts 9th Circuit Ct May 2, 2011 - one month old, 439 views.

Yout not the huge superstar you think you are and you are not getting the level of attention you want. Most of your higher viewed vids are other people talking, not your fake computer voice.

And someopne is proud of getting a few thousand views on a youtube channel in the middle of an election cycle. Heh

"How about the small fact that I've argued with Obots many times on them getting the Ankeny case SPELLED RIGHT? You all would always spell it aRkeny and I would tell you to get it right. And then all of a sudden, Malihi is citing Ankeny, but HE is ALSO spelling it wrong, JUST LIKE THE OBOTS did!"

Liar

Links please. because you never ever did that. In fact we most often corrected your spelling. And in fact a google search for arkeny vs daniels actually reveals the opposite that those who misspell the case are actually (surprise) birthers

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=99713161

"Let's play along for a moment...

BUT JUST FOR A MOMENT....

YOU can cite Arkeny vs Daniels until you are blue in the face...

THE TRUTH IS that Barry has never proven where he was born....

So Arkeny is as useless as useless can be as far as actually upholding Article II...."

http://www.coachisright.com/tag/arkeny-v-daniels/

Etc etc.

"We all know that you losers are KNOWN for emailing judges with your "INFO" to pursuade them and the stupid judge used your info, but he didn't even look at the friggin case and notice it was spelled wrong! DOH, what an idiot!"

You mean the fact that jablinski citeded Ankeny in his motion to quash? And if we had sent Malihi info we would have the right spelling. Not only that but Malihi cited from the case so he actually read it, which meant he saw the right spelling.

And where in this whole thread where I have mentioend Ankeny several times did I call it Arkeny? Come on, find one instance.

I'm sorry you are now inventing arguments to make your proofs seem plausable, but the fact is you are changing yoru own memories around based on a spelling mistake is really rather silly

"And then you have Jill Pryor who he cites on page 6 in the footnotes, I guess you don't know about her either, right? LOLOL, let me help you out...
While looking over Malihi's decision, I decided to look into who he cited in the footnotes and if you go to page 6, the footnotes have a name listed as Jill Pryor.
Now, if you pull up Jill Pryor's "Note" written for the Yale Law Journal titled:
"The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty" 1988"

Well yes of course I know about her. She penned that article, which was one of the 4 articles I cited for people to refute the one article you posted, penned by Herb Titus. You know, the post you didn't respond to.

And I'm not going to respond to the rest of your drivel as we have already established you will make crap up. But I'll respond to the last line

"WOW, that could be enough to get her removed from the case IF she's on it, ya think?"

The fact that Malihi relied on a widley read article on eligibility does not mean that the woman who wrote it is handling the case, and no sane person would even think that. Especially since the fact that malihi cited her in a footnote is 100% of your evidence to suspect it. And aside from the fact that her opinion is more widely regarded than yours (feel the jealousy) the fact that she wrote such a good and respected article in the first place leads to the conclusion that she was an excellent choice for the job that she got.

My 10 year old nephew is more mature and makes better arguments than you.

Oh and where did you dig up your claim on sharia law, and whats your excuse on the 3 other case? And I see that orly is heading for another trainwreck fail in Indiana, where Ankeny was decided. Lets see if her "evidence" persuades the court to overturn Ankeny, shall we?

Heh.

DOH, if you actually LOOK, you will see that most of those you listed, were put on the KBOA channel, but had bad graphics, so they were re-uploaded on my other YT channel, LmmortalDyad and the lower number ones you posted LINKED to the fixed graphics one and the views speak for themself!

EXAMPLE:
The American People WAKE UP after the Library of Congress proves Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - 2 months old. 521 views

WAS MOVED HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbtOoX3exk
The American People WAKE UP after Congressional Records prove Obama NOT to be a US Citizen. - 9,695 views

NH Ballot Law Commission holding unlawful hearings to decide Obama's eligibility for Presidency - 2 months old - 672 views

WAS RE-UPLOADED HERE BECAUSE GRAPHIC PROBLEMS:
The reason Orly Taitz's NH Ballot... - 4,161 views

So, try to twist as you may, but it won't work!

Also, if you look through MOST of my videos, you can see that at a certain date and time, I would record the views and then in a comment days later, the views have decreased, there are even other commenters saying the same thing, that they watched the views drop in seconds. I've known for years that YT censors my views, because after uploading a video, I sometimes embed it immediately, so that when I get views on that video, it adds to the views of the original and I can compare them.

Considering that, how can the embedded video have loads more views that the original says came from that embed? It's because YT is censoring the views on YT, but they can't on the embedded video.

This video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=381_1323479550

is an embed of this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dbtOoX3exk

Now you tell me why the video embedded FROM the YT video has 1430 views, but when I look at the statistics of my views from the original video on YT, the views from LiveLeak say 587 (shown in link below), that's only one third of the REAL views being recorded by YT, so you can assume that this video should is REALLY around 30,000 hits!

http://i42.tinypic.com/25fmttf.jpg

The stats don't lie, but you DO!

"Liar. Anyone can go into your comment history and see the gaps where you shut comments down if they have the interest. Its your sounding like a 12 year old word vs mine. I think I know wh sounds the more believable"

PROVE IT THEN, go into my comment history and all my statistics on EVERY video are public, so PROVE IT! YOU CAN'T because there are NO GAPS!

LIAR LIAR LIAR! LOLOLOLOL

Yeah Youtube is in on the conspiracy now *rolls eyes*

Fact is that you are not increasing yoru vewership. its the saer. me old wame old less than 10000 who watch them

Second when you imbed a video on youtube it s recorded on the youtube servers. Youtube and Liveleak have nothing to do with one another. I'l really sorry that one on liveleak only has ever gotton just over 1000 views, but thats just showing once again people on liveleak think you are a joke. Hell all the 47 whole coments (remember the obots are supposed to be inundating every one of her comments on her videos!) are laughing at you and your crappy presentation. And none of them were me.

Its great to be you,. every self inflicted disaster is all the Obots fault. Nothing like personal responsibility eh?

"PROVE IT THEN, go into my comment history and all my statistics on EVERY video are public, so PROVE IT! YOU CAN'T because there are NO GAPS!

LIAR LIAR LIAR! LOLOLOLOL"

Yeah real mature there sunshine, concidering that by your own admission you put up videos on other accounts. And You are expecting me to go back to when you blocked them the better part of a year ago in the notoriously difficult to use Youtube comment sections of videos which you deleted and uploaded several times, erasing their comment histories. And really I have better things to do with my time, especially if I did find the discrepancies you would never reply to the thread and you would just pretend I never found them.

Besides, its your word against mine, miss "Oh I kept telling obots to stop misspelling Ankeny and then the Judge did it the same way and that PROOOVESSS IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!! I DID I DID!!!"

As I said, I think I leave it to the long suffering reader to figure out who is closer to the truth. And for something more entertaining than your videos, heres some Phil Collins from my youtube favorites list. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egJR3K6UIJY

Sharia Law? Really?

I would think that under Sharia, jus soli is meaningless. It's the paternal line that counts.

Oh, look!
Saudia Arabia: Birth within the territory of Saudi Arabia does not automatically confer citizenship.
Egypt: Birth within the country of Egypt does not automatically confer citizenship.
Syria: Birth within the territory of Syria does not automatically confer citizenship.

So what was the specific Sharia law that was applied?

Ok I read those 2 articles. First its the same picture of Mrs Prior, despite you saying that ITS DIFFERENT! Second your whole argument is that one of Obamas appointees is bieng opposed by Republicans. Have you actually been looking at whats been going on in the US Senete the last 3 and a half years? Every one of Obamas Judicial appointments has been opposed and blocked. They have been letting them through a bit more this session but seriously, if any of Obama's appointments went though without opposition at this stage it would be an event. Sheesh.

And Mrs Prior looks like an excellent choice for the court of appeals.

"How about the small fact that I've argued with Obots many times on them getting the Ankeny case SPELLED RIGHT? You all would always spell it aRkeny and I would tell you to get it right. And then all of a sudden, Malihi is citing Ankeny, but HE is ALSO spelling it wrong, JUST LIKE THE OBOTS did!"

Ok Someone checked the fogbow for Arkeny

In the course of years, only 17 times has the word "Arkeny" appeared here. The majority are references to the Georgia court's misspelling. One of them is from Nosworthy, a birther. One is a quote from some Freeper. At most, Hektor misspelled it that way once.

Liar.

"Liar
Links please."
SURE:
1. http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=10572
August 7, 2011 Arthur B comments and brings up ANKENY...
"It's the same question regarding why Ankeny wasn't appealed to SCOTUS"
You will see my comment after his and then you will see Patrick, who is Patrick McKinnion from the fogbow (PatGund on fogbow) and he MISSPELLS it as ARKENY!
2. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/waiting-for-the-paracle...
RoadBurner another Obot spells it as ARKENY on January 12, 2012
There are more, but I will have to get them later, heading out..BUT, either way, I proved you WRONG!

Uh, prime roasted nutball, I don't see you correcting the spelling in either case like you said you constantly did. You even posted right above the guy in the first instance but you never corrected him.

Remember "How about the small fact that I've argued with Obots many times on them getting the Ankeny case SPELLED RIGHT? You all would always spell it aRkeny and I would tell you to get it right. And then all of a sudden, Malihi is citing Ankeny, but HE is ALSO spelling it wrong, JUST LIKE THE OBOTS did!" So you nave found 2 cases in the 4 years of birtherstan where someone made an easy misspelling, and niehter time did you "argue with Obots" to get it right. What a surprise.

And by the way you were not "heading out" as you have been are buzy posting on that blog articleyou tried to pretend was a newspaper for the past hour.

Liar.

"You mean the fact that jablinski(sic) citeded(sic) Ankeny in his motion to quash? And if we had sent Malihi info we would have the right spelling."

At least Jablonski corrected your typo before submitting, but he forgot to tell Malihi to correct it...hahahahaha, that is too funny! Oh and did you see the (sic)'s above, it's obvious that you constantly making typos!

FYI, I never said you said in in this thread, I said you Obots have said it over and over, ALL OVER THE WEB, for the past year and I remember correcting you all, over and over and when I read it Malihi's decision and saw WKA, It made me think, but then when I saw the typo, I was like "THE OBOTS", it's the obots, I've corrected them on that typo many times and the reason you all do it over and over is because you all copy your lies from the same "fogbow database of dilusions"!

Thanks, but I'm not inventing anything and I have already posted proof below, that the Obots have posted the typo aRkeny, many many times and many months ago!

"Well yes of course I know about her. She penned that article, which was one of the 4 articles I cited for people to refute the one article you posted"

LOLOL, so you had her info too and that was in your report to Malihi...LOLOLOL, open mouth insert foot!

What about the fact that the position Obama put her in had been open for 2 years and right after Obama is served the GA papers, Obama wants here to be placed in the Court of Appeals in GA?

Then, there are articles saying other people are already being vetted for the position, but Obama says NO, I want her! Obama has nothing to do with State appointments and should not have had his nose in it!

Then the NEXT day after Obama finds out that his motion to dismiss is denied Pryor's appointment is confirmed. Why so fast, when that position was open for two full years?

I don't know why, but whatever the outcome with these GA cases and if we have to appeal the case again, I just get the feelin that Jill Pryor, will get the case...

How much you wanna bet?

FYI, I never said you said in in this thread, I said you Obots have said it over and over, ALL OVER THE WEB, for the past year and I remember correcting you all, over and over

I never said that you said I did, I said in the only cases you can dredge up you didn't correct the misspelling of Ankeny at all. Nowhere, not on fogbow, not anywhere do we have any evidence of you doing it.

In short you lied. Again. I'm sorry your emergency google search for Arkeny could not get you more than 2 instances of Obots doing it and none of you correcting them *rolls eyes* Granted I probably didn't help by finding 2 BIRTHER instances of the same misspelling, did I? :D

As for the rest, suure the fact that I knew about a treatise written in 1988 proves everything. I'll leave you to your delusions. Laughs.

Duuuh, I guess that's the first you heard of YT and censoring...LOLOL, you are VERY SLOW!...Do some research, ther eis proof all over. YT is owned by Google and Obama has at least 5 people from Google, in his administration...I wonder why???

DOH, I showed the liveleak views and I showed a pic of the views that YT was SAYING the liveleak views were and they are no where near each other, which is proof they are censoring my views!

I saw that the Youtube video had about 9000 views and the Liveleak one had around 1000 views. Thats from going to both sites. If you think that they both should show the same amount of views you need to learn a few things about the internet. Such as, why would Youtube show the amount of views that a compeditors videos had? Such things would require the 2 sites to be communicating info between one another, for no good reason whatsoever. And that depends on Youtube reading its competitors protocols accuratly, and Liveleak sending over its viwership ratings to youtube on a regular basis. Which for a small low priority user like you would be once in every blue moon, if that. It would take days and huge amounts of expensive bandwidth to send the view stats of every video by every pleb on their sites to one another, to no good purpose.

You also need your head examined, as the people on liveleak kindly said.

"Yeah real mature there sunshine, concidering that by your own admission you put up videos on other accounts."
The original videos are STILL THERE and they redirect you to the other channel, where anyone can see that the graphics are better on the redirected video, that's because YT also messes with my graphics on the KBOA channel, but funny how I upload the exact video to another channel and it works fine...
It was your claim that I block comments and I know that I don't...you claimed it, so you prove it or it's just another lie! You just like to use manipulated lies, that you can't and won't prove, but you want everyone to believe them, just because YOU SAY SO! Ain't gonna happen with all the lies you've been caught in here!
And as I said, nothing is deleted, no videos and no comments have been removed. Every comment is there from day one, unless the commenter removed it themselves. If you can prove otherwise go ahead, or you are just lying again, as always!
Yeah, ramble on about how you could prove something but gives the excuses why you can't...talk about mature...LOLOL
And my word, the one who has proven every claim here that I stated, against your word, the one who is a proven liar, not hard to figure out!
EEEEEEWW, no thanks, I hate Phil Collins. Figures you have sucky taste in music too!

You didn't prove that you had long arguments with Obots correcting the name of Arkeny, did you?

Liar.

Krikey, do I have to you teach English Comprehension as well?

I said: "Then another article (Looks similiar with same pic of her, but it's DIFFERENT)"

which means...I have another article, the article looks similiar, because of the same picture being used, but it's not the same article (as I thought at first because of the same pic) meaning it's a different article, NOT PIC, you dunce! Get in the dang corner and put that had on!

NO, my point is that Mrs Pryor was not even thought of, there were 3 positions needing filled and 3 people were being vetted...the position had been open for 2 years...but all of a sudden, Obama learns a case in BEING HEARD, he finds here article, that FITS HIS LIE and she is then raised above 3 people, who many in the srticles claim, were better candidates, but Obama has to jump in and say...NO, I want this woman and that's that.

He should have NOTHING AT ALL to do with state appointments, so why is he all up in it, sending people to GA to GET THIS DONE?

And the day after Obama hears that his dismissal is denied, Pryor is put in place...

OK, MOVE ALONG PEOPLE, THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE ~ Officer BarBrady

Of course she's and excellent choice, because she a part of your lie! She will be void along with all Obama's other illegal appointments, once the truth is out!

And what conspiracy theory are you pulling out of your ass to explain Tisdale V Obama, Ankeny V Daniels and Jackson v Obama II? Not to mention the upcoming failure of your own case in NH, whenever you manage to sit down and actually produce your amended complaint that is.

Face it Tracy, while you are sitting down at night desperatly trying to get attention from some nobody in Ireland, in the real world here's the list of states that have taken President Obama off the ballot so far;

1:

Which means I and the truth wins.

And nothing you are doing is gonna change that. Your "facts" are going to be laughed out of court and that will be that. For one thing they will tell you what the actual definition of "juristiction" and "alliegence" is, and yelling at the court that it isn't true in favour of the definition you made up won't help.

Wow are you anul retentive...

I stated I remembered many many times where I had this conversation, where an obot said arkeny and I corrected them. I'm sure it's im my comments too on a video or two, because I remember it happening there once or twice, but anyways...

The links I posted, was you all spelling it wrong in many places and very spaced apart times, I didn't say I posted a link to one where I told you of the spelling it worng, because I am not wasting hours looking through links to find that damn comment. EVERY time it happened, they were all at least3 months ago from what I remember and that misspelling is ALL over the web now, and I get much better things to do, that play your game of strawman theories...DOH

I proved you guys posted aRkeny 4 times (there are loads more), long before Malihi used it and we know your case of choice is WKA and you admit to being aware of Pryor before Malihi's footnote was published, Pryor get moved ahead of much more deserving judges...you must think people are dumb or something????

Oh, and for the record...I sent that comment and when I came home, it was still sitting here, waiting for the 5 digit security code...so I put it in and the comment was posted a couple hours after I actually left. But, to make sure, you can check for the 1 1/2 - 2 hours before that comments time and you will see that I was NOT ACTIVE...

So, nice try!

Tracy, you came up with a total of 2 times someone posted arkeny. I came up with the other 2 and those were from BIRTHERS. You came up with 0 times where you corrected anyone on it despite claiming to "many times" You laughed at me and said I was lying when I said I wasn't going back 9 months to the find videos that you ahd deleted and now you expect to be believed when you are making the same excuse for yourself?

I said I was aware of Prior becasue of her discussion of natural born citizenship which she cunningly wrote in 1988. I did not say I was aware of any of her career since then. And as for "Pryor get moved ahead of much more deserving judges" your own article says the contraversy is over her and ONE OTHER LAYWER, not many judges, and both sides agree that either would make an excellent choice for the role, they just disagree on which of 2 posts they should be put forward for. Stop lying about your own sources when the truth is a click away, you demented fool.

And that lie about the timing of your posts is pretty damn pathetic. plus its after 2 in the morning where you are and you are making shit up to in a pathetic attempt to one up me, a randon from the internet. Do something sane for once in your sad little life and GO TO BED.

Yeah, 2 instances...

a google search for "aRkeny Obama" gets:
724,000 results (0.21 seconds)
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=arkeny+obam...

You are damn skippy I ain't looking through 3/4 of a million results to find a friggin comment...you certainly ain't that important for me to have to prove it!

SEE WHAT YOU OBOTS HAVE CAUSED, TOTAL MISINFORMATION ALL OVER THE WEB, SAME WITH ALL YOUR BOGUS QUOTES, THEY ARE LITTERED EVERYWHERE AS WELL!

I'll give ya that one for free, cause I ain't looking....there you finally won one!

"a google search for "aRkeny Obama" gets:
724,000 results (0.21 seconds)"

Of which only the tot 3 reference Arkeny. The rest reference Ankeny

My serch for Arkeny Vs Obama got About 2,550,000 results (0.25 seconds) Of which the top 4 refer to Arkeny and the rest refer to Ankeny, and 2 of those are frem Sean Hannitys forums for Obama hatred.

Now go to bed for the love of God.

Dude, you need to start reading the comments like 5 times before answering them, I'm really getting tired of explaining everything to you. You're like a little kid.

The embedded video on liveleak was like 1400 or something views, if you go to the YT video http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_909301&src_vid=hCs... that it is embedded from, which says 9000+ views AND you click the little meter thingy next to the view count (that is the video view statistics), now what does it say for the liveleak embed? It says 587 and it has been stuck there for weeks.

So don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, because I know how this stuff works. I've been on YT forever and I know what they do to censor stuff they don't want seen!

Wake up Mr. Gullable!

Nope, and I don't plan to either with 724,000 results for "aRkeny Obama", but go for it...
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=arkeny+obam...

I try to stay out of the strawman arguments!

Tracey, Liveleak and youtube have different servers. What you are seeing is where it was the last time LK shared your information with youtube, which concidering you are a noboby means maybe once every 3 months. No sodding conspiracy needed to hide the truth of how little your videos are viewed, expecially since all anyone has to do to disprove the number is look at the videi in liveleak. There is no real time information sharing between the 2 companies. Get it?

And you are still at this after 2 in the morning. For the third time GO TO BED

Tracy, you only got 3 matches for "arkeny obama". The rest are for "Ankeny Obama" as its the nearest match. Thats the way google works, you know.

Sod it, stay up all night for all I care. You would think a married woman would have better things to do at 2am than making up lies to impress a computer screen.

I haven't really looked into those cases, I've been kinda busy with my business lately. I make invitations and a lot of my time is printing, so I need to be here...
I comment while I am waiting, so don't flatter yourself about taking up my time, because it couldn't farther from the truth. I get bored waiting for these things to print, so I waste time by getting your panties in a bunch and proving you are a liar...and I get to make money while I am doing it.
For some reason the invitation stuff has been picking up, but I ain't complainin.
And sorry, but I don't live in NH and there is a reason I haven't filed my amended complaint yet, but it is done and has been for a while...You don't need to know the reason why it's not filed yet, but it will be, soon enough.
I know what I'm doing, so don't you worry yourself about it!
LOLOL, I'm trying to GET ATTENTION??? hahahahaha, sorry slacker, I am killing time, waiting for things to print...LOLOL and thanks, but I don't need attention, I'm not one of those kind! I'm pretty much the exact opposite of an attention seeker!
I have proof from the framers on allegiance and jurisdiction, so they won't be needing to LOOK for the answer, they can just go to my cites.

Well, I'm not looking through 4,110 results either!

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22arkeny%22+obama&psj=1&o...

for something that I could care less about.

But you go right ahead!

Well, I'm not looking through 4,110 results either!

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22arkeny%22+obama&psj=1&o...

for something that I could care less about.

But you go right ahead!

Sorry, but there is not a month lag time. I have many other music videos on the ImmortalDyad channel and they are embedded all over the place and I checked many of them an the ones I checked, were right on or a few numbers off...NOT thousands of views off!
And I will go to bed, when my invitations are done, gotta make that money!

I guess you get your info on me, from the same database you get your facts...

I'm not currently married...lolol, and as I said, I am working to get a project done by morning, so I can get it shipped out tomorrow, so mind your own business, nosebag!

Tracy, I know that you are going to be real dissapointed, but theres no-one running a database on your personal life and I neither know nor care about it. Remember, all you are doing is losing to interested amateurs who laugh at people like you as a hobby. And even in the hirarchy of birthers you are less important than the doorman. Especially since your NH challange seems to be going nowhere, quell suprise.

And your "project" apperently was starting to posting snarky comments on your "newspaper" at 3 in the morning after I stopped paying attention to you. Now that's pathetic.

So, wheres your oft promised but never delivered amended complaint? :D

Dude No lie You like to leave out the part that dismissed the case before it was heared. Try a course in reading Comprehension.

Section 2 of the Corut approval to dismiss:
[2] The trial court also granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we find that Plaintiffs FAILED TO STATE A CLAIM upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address the trial court’s alternative grounds for dismissal.

NO decision on the merits. No merits were heard. It was dismissed for STANDING. If there was no standing there was no hearing. If there was no hearing there was no facts presented for the court to decise merit.

Try presenting ALL the facts and quit trying to mislead people because of what you don't understand.

Dude. THAT IS A FOOTNOTE! It's not the ruling!

Here is the full context including the line that the footnote came from

"Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana(“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2

[1] We note that pro se litigants, such as Plaintiffs, “are held to the same standard as licensed lawyers.” Novatny v. Novatny, 872 N.E.2d 673, 677 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). This court will not “indulge in any benevolent presumptions on [their] behalf, or waive any rule for the orderly and proper conduct of [their] appeal.” Foley v. Mannor, 844 N.E.2d 494, 496 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

Thus, we will attempt to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs. To the extent that Plaintiffs raise additional issues, the Plaintiffs fail to develop a cogent argument and cite to authority. Consequently, the arguments are waived. See, e.g., Loomis v. Ameritech, 764 N.E.2d 658, 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (holding argument waived for failure to cite authority or provide cogent argument), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

[2] The trial court also granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we find that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address the trial court’s alternative grounds for dismissal."

In other words, The court of appeals found that Ankeny (who was one of the plantifs) failed to put forward a convincing argiment in his appeal why the docterine of mootness should be waived. Therefore they didn't bother ruling on it other than saying that the plaintiffs argument was hordeshit.

The doctering of mootness has nothing, zip, naada to do with the argument on The Eligibility of President Obama, as anyone with any reading comprehention would attest.

And what are your arguments that Tisdale v Obama, Jackson V Obama and Farrar V Obama was not heard on the Merits. The Weather? Becasue the weather has about as much relevence to a ruling on the Eligibility of President Obama as that FOOTNOTE.

Dude Do you read what you post? "[2] The trial court also granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we ****THIS WOULD BE THE APPELLaNT COURT**** find that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we ****AGAIN THE APPELLANT COURT***** need not address the trial court’s alternative grounds for dismissal."

The lower court dismissed for 'standing'. The Appellant Court upheld the dismissal for 'standing'. No standing no hearing on the merits. Find another case... oops I forgot there are none that has heard the case on its merits.

Alow me to point out the word you are trying lit to see. Also.

Also

it means in adition to

When you put ths FOOTNOTE in CONTEXT It reads, in clearer languadge, just for you

[2] In addition to the reasons above, The trial court granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1)...

So when you put the whole quote togetther...

Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), pro se, appeal the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss filed by Mitch Daniels, in his official capacity as the Governor of the State of Indiana(“Governor”). Plaintiffs raise nine issues, which we revise and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting the motion to dismiss under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(6).1 We affirm. 2 <--- thats the number of the footnote

You look for the footnote number at the beginning here --->[2] In addition to the reasons above, The trial court granted the Governor’s motion to dismiss on the bases of mootness under Ind. Trial Rule 12(B)(1) and the equitable doctrine of laches. Because we find that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under T.R. 12(B)(6), we need not address the trial court’s alternative grounds for dismissal.

So its clear that there was a minor issue here that the court also agreed witm, stuck it in a footnote as it wasnt worth putting in the text of the ruling, and got on with the real issues of the case, which didn;t involve what was in the footnote.

Stuff in a footnotw is not part of the main ruling. Sadly

So whats your excuse for Farrar V Obama, jackson V Obama and Tisdale V Obama also all ruling him eligible on the merits? Thats 3, court rulings, plus Ankeny. So even if you scream and shout and say ankeny is wrong. theres still 3 other cases you have to explain away. What will be your excuse next time?

"Are you sure McCain is a natural born citizen?"

Yes. While you can check all the details in the US.gov or wikipedia or whatever, I know this has been the case for many years. Children of US serving the country abroad (military personnel and diplomats) obtain the status of NBC. McCain was born in Panama. It doesnt matter if Panama Canal was or wasnt property of the US. He was still the son of 2 Navy officers serving their country. Imagine if children of Diplomats or Military people were excluded from that right? I assume no Americans would like to take the chance of serving (THIS country) abroad only to have their children born while in duty be excluded from this benefit.

"Are you sure McCain is a natural born citizen?"

Yes. While you can check all the details in the US.gov or wikipedia or whatever, I know this has been the case for many years. Children of US serving the country abroad (military personnel and diplomats) obtain the status of NBC. McCain was born in Panama. It doesnt matter if Panama Canal was or wasnt property of the US. He was still the son of 2 Navy officers serving their country.

Imagine if children of Diplomats or Military people were excluded from that right? I assume no Americans would like to take the chance of serving (THIS country) abroad only to have their children born while in duty be excluded from this benefit.