tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post5976351415704196305..comments2023-10-31T05:19:53.062-07:00Comments on A Natural Born Citizen...Orly?: Another letter from a reader- Jean in ChicagoOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-36180202085405396562008-12-25T12:11:00.001-08:002008-12-25T12:11:00.001-08:00True Patriot, are you addressing your comment to m...True Patriot, are you addressing your comment to me? I did not call Sen. Kyl an idiot. I did say relying on Snopes for verification of Obama's birth certificate revealed his ignorance -- very different from calling him an idiot. Ignorance can be remedied.<br /><br />If you will read my comments on Snopes' reliability further up this thread, I believe they will explain my opinion. It is always better to go to a primary source for verification of anything, instead of relying on secondary sources. Newspaper articles, in this case, are secondary sources; they quoted Dr. Fukino, HI Dir. of Health, but then added their own interpretations of her words. Dr. Fukino's statement is a primary source, and it is important to pay attention to what she says and does NOT say.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-35632956308786676912008-12-23T23:06:00.001-08:002008-12-23T23:06:00.001-08:00No problem. We can safely predict that the good S...No problem. We can safely predict that the good Senators from Maine will join their colleagues (after laughing hysterically at all the armchair "lawyers" purporting to demonstrate some expertise in Constitutional law) and soundly reject your interpretation.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-52659036084523860292008-12-23T23:01:00.003-08:002008-12-23T23:01:00.003-08:00Actually, the Supreme Court, after making referenc...Actually, the Supreme Court, after making reference to Vattel, followed with this rejection of the notion that the Founding Fathers -- acquainted with British and Continental law -- incorporated such:<br /><br />"The framers of the constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin; and there is nothing to show that in the matter of nationality they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated."<br /><br />U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 709, 18 S.Ct. 456, 480 (1898). The Court continued:<br /><br />"As to the jura coronae, including therein the obligation of allegiance, the extent to which these ever were applicable in this country depended on circumstances; and it would seem quite clear that the rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship, because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Doubtless, before the latter event, in the progress of monarchical power, the rule which involved the principle of liege homage may have become the rule of Europe; but that idea never had any basis in the United States." 169 U.S. at 710, 18 S.Ct. at 480. The Court in Wong Kim Ark, following a line of cases, reiterated that there are only two sources of citizenship: by birth and by naturalization. Accord Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 101-102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 45 (1884). Throughout the history of AMerican jurisprudence and more recently, the Court has time and again equated "native born" and "natural born." See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 84 S.Ct. 1187, 12 L.Ed.2d 218 (1964); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320 (1939).<br /><br /> <br /><br />"Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-36144914283296540012008-12-23T23:01:00.001-08:002008-12-23T23:01:00.001-08:00Actually, the Supreme Court, after making referenc...Actually, the Supreme Court, after making reference to Vattel, followed with this rejection of the notion that the Founding Fathers -- acquainted with British and Continental law -- incorporated such:<br /><br />"The framers of the constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin; and there is nothing to show that in the matter of nationality they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated."<br /><br />U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649, 709, 18 S.Ct. 456, 480 (1898). The Court continued:<br /><br />"As to the jura coronae, including therein the obligation of allegiance, the extent to which these ever were applicable in this country depended on circumstances; and it would seem quite clear that the rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship, because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Doubtless, before the latter event, in the progress of monarchical power, the rule which involved the principle of liege homage may have become the rule of Europe; but that idea never had any basis in the United States." 169 U.S. at 710, 18 S.Ct. at 480. The Court in Wong Kim Ark, following a line of cases, reiterated that there are only two sources of citizenship: by birth and by naturalization. Accord Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94, 101-102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 45 (1884). Throughout the history of AMerican jurisprudence and more recently, the Court has time and again equated "native born" and "natural born." See Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 84 S.Ct. 1187, 12 L.Ed.2d 218 (1964); Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 59 S.Ct. 884, 83 L.Ed. 1320 (1939).<br /><br /> <br /><br />"Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-24419141881733917062008-12-23T20:52:00.001-08:002008-12-23T20:52:00.001-08:00Ah, you are hung up on Snowe and Collins, aren't y...Ah, you are hung up on Snowe and Collins, aren't you? I already included in my email portions of what I posted here. When/if I get a reply, I will let it be known here. If the reply is by snail mail, however, it could be a couple weeks before I know; I left Maine on 12/9 because of family emergency, and not sure when I will be back home. So be patient, anon, when I know you will know -- if you are still reading here. But I guess you are having such fun baiting people, you probably will.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-12958423328773668032008-12-23T20:39:00.001-08:002008-12-23T20:39:00.001-08:00Please forward this all to Sens. Collins and Snowe...Please forward this all to Sens. Collins and Snowe and let us all know their responses.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-31205947238397482912008-12-23T19:53:00.001-08:002008-12-23T19:53:00.001-08:00Natural born citizen (part 3)
Another contemporar...Natural born citizen (part 3)<br /><br />Another contemporary of the Framers, Rep. A. Smyth of VA, in Dec. 1820:<br />"When we apply the term ‘citizens' to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him." http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html<br /><br />John Yinger summarizes the thoughts of a more modern writer, Alexander Porter Morse:<br />"He [Morse] writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing 'the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.' In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children 'whose fathers were natural-born subjects,' regardless of where the children were born. Thus, according to Morse, 'the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.'" [Source: Alexander Porter Morse, "Natural-Born-Citizen of the United States: Eligibility for the Office of President," Albany Law Journal, vol.66 (1904), p. 99] http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm#N_5_<br /><br />I realize, anonymous, that if you (or anyone else) are dead set that Obama is a natural born citizen, nothing in this world will change your mind. But you asked for my sources, and I have looked for information contemporary to the Framers, that can help us understand what they understood "natural born" to mean. The most consistent element is the father's citizenship. In the case of Obama, it is a fact, admitted by Obama himself, that his father was a British subject and consequently, Obama Jr. was also a British subject at birth. Based on the definitions and explanations contemporary with the Framers, this makes Obama NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, and therefore ineligible for the Presidency. Whether the courts, the legislators, or anyone else in the government wants to address this issue or not, it does not make it less true.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-12296421206576603562008-12-23T19:29:00.001-08:002008-12-23T19:29:00.001-08:00Natural born citizen (part 2)
John Jay wrote to G...Natural born citizen (part 2)<br /><br />John Jay wrote to George Washington on 7/25/1787, while the Constitution was being written:<br />"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen" (emphasis on "born" in the original). [Source: Max Ferrand, editor, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Revised Edition, Volume III (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937), p. 61. You can find this letter at the Library of Congress web site: "http://thomas.loc.gov." According to Charles Gordon, "Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma," Maryland Law Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter 1968), p. 5, this letter was sent to Washington and "probably to other delegates."] http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm#N_5_<br /><br />Jay does not define "natural born," but since he is concerned about foreign influence, I believe "natural born" would exclude the likelihood of such influence. A child of a foreign citizen, though born within the U.S., could understandably feel some loyalty to his father's country.<br /><br />The Naturalization Act of 1790 was later replaced with the Naturalization Act of 1795, but its language can help us understand what was in the minds of the framers:<br />"And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States." [Source: Charles Gordon, "Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma," Maryland Law Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter 1968), pp.8-9] http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm#N_5_<br />A natural born citizen was the child of citizens, regardless of the place of birth. <br /><br />Another contemporary of the Framers, Langdon Cheves, Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated in Feb. 1814:<br />"The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth." http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html<br />Here again, we see the importance placed on the citizenship of the FATHER.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-82383399120502045182008-12-23T19:13:00.001-08:002008-12-23T19:13:00.001-08:00Natural born citizen (part 1)
To understand what ...Natural born citizen (part 1)<br /><br />To understand what the Framers of the Constitution meant by "natural born citizen," we need to look at what they wrote, or other information that they would have been familiar with. This topic has been covered very well recently, by other writers on line, and I am not going to repeat what they have said. I will only cite a few passages that I feel are relevant and explanatory.<br /><br />One of the books the Framers were undoubtedly familiar with was Sir William Blackstone's "Commentaries on the Laws of England." He writes: <br />"And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once" <br />and <br />"so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;" >http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/natural-born-citizens-or-how-to-beat-a-subject-to-death-with-a-stick/#more-5256<br /><br />Thus, a person is a citizen of the place he is born, but also inherits his father's citizenship; however, he cannot owe allegiance to two nations at once, which source of citizenship takes priority? Since Blackstone comments specifically that children born outside of their father's country, inherit their father's citizenship (rather than being citizens of the place they are born), the inherited citizenship appears to be more important. Applied to Obama, his "natural born" citizenship would be that of his father, a British subject. <br /><br />Another book on law well-known to the Framers was Emmerich de Vattel's "Laws of Nations." In Book 1, sec. 212, he states:<br />"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." http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htmOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-47807132378785890412008-12-23T18:51:00.001-08:002008-12-23T18:51:00.001-08:00Hawaii allows its residents to register the births...Hawaii allows its residents to register the births of their children born out of state, per Hawaiian statutes:<br /><br /> [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.<br /> (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.<br />http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_ 0338-0017_0008.HTMOrly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-62111465549493286262008-12-23T18:46:00.001-08:002008-12-23T18:46:00.001-08:00Reliability of Snopes.com (part 2)
The second so...Reliability of Snopes.com (part 2) <br /><br />The second source is "Obama's Certificate of Birth OK, State Says" by Dan Nakaso in the Honolulu Advertiser, 11/1/08. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081101/NEWS05/811010345/1001/localnewsfront <br />Mr. Nakaso mentions the statement issued by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Hawaii Director of Health, "to try to stomp out persistent rumors that Obama was not born in Honolulu" (Mr. Nakaso's words). He also says that Dr. Fukino and the registrar of vital statistics inspected Obama's birth certificate and found it to be valid. <br /><br />Here is Dr. Fukino's full statement:<br /> "There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.<br /> "Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.<br /> "No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i."<br /> http://healthuser.hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf<br /> <br />Dr. Fukino does not state where Obama was born. Since Hawaii allows its residents to register out-of-state births, Obama could have been born anywhere and still have a birth certificate on file. Mr. Nakaso's article does not prove the authenticity of Obama's certification of live birth.<br /><br />The third source is "State Department of Health declares Obama birth certificate legal," an Associated Press article printed in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin 10/31/08. http://www.starbulletin.com/news/breaking/33670554.html <br />It cites the same statement by Dr. Fukino that Mr. Nakaso did, arriving at the same erroneous conclusion that the state officials verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. <br /><br />Again, no proof of the certification's authenticity. <br /><br />The Mikkelsons apparently accepted the reporters' interpretations of Dr. Fukino's statement, rather than read the statement for themselves. I am not impressed with this type of research; it is always better to go to original sources and documents, than secondhand reports.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-77381220146298152812008-12-23T18:45:00.001-08:002008-12-23T18:45:00.001-08:00Reliability of Snopes.com (part 1)
Snopes.com is ...Reliability of Snopes.com (part 1)<br /><br />Snopes.com is owned and written by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson. Their FAQ includes a questions, "How do I know the information you've presented is accurate?" Their answer: "We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic, which is why our site's name indicates that it contains reference pages.... The research materials we've used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography displayed at the bottom of that page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of our information may check those sources for themselves." http://snopes.com/info/faq.asp <br /><br />I checked the sources they used to determine the falseness of the claim that Obama's Certification of Live Birth is a forgery. <br /><br />First source, "Judge Rejects Montco Lawyer's Bid to Have Obama Removed from Ballot" by Michael Hinkelman in the Philadelphia Daily News, 10/25/08. http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html<br />Judge Surrick did not rule on the authenticity of the birth certification, as far as this article states. The law suit was dismissed because Philip Berg did not have standing and the harm he alleged "did not constitute an injury in fact." The only mention of the birth certificate is the reporter's statements:<br /> <br /> Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there.<br /><br /> Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery.<br /><br /> The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate.<br /><br /> Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4. <br /><br />I do not read any conclusive proof of the birth certificate's authenticity.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-71794080673176805782008-12-23T13:42:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:42:00.001-08:00While I was posting my answer, a far better answer...While I was posting my answer, a far better answer than I could have given was posted. <br /><br />Reindeer games? You talk all this smack and that is the best you can do? <br /><br />I'm almost more impressed with people calling me "Obama scum."<br /><br />Don't forget to tell us all what Sens. Collins and Snowe say.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-40456195495016202832008-12-23T13:39:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:39:00.001-08:00First of all, almost certainly Kyl did not write t...First of all, almost certainly Kyl did not write the letter (only the totally uninformed think they actually get letters from senators). An intern probably did. But make no mistake, it reflects Kyl's opinion.<br /><br />The letter never said Kyl was relying on Snopes. The letter referred recipient to Snopes, in the hope that the recipient would read what Snopes said and be educated. Kyl knows there are important issues facing America and is not going to even have one of his interns spend more than a few minutes on total non-issues.<br /><br />Can you give me the phone number of that logic professor? I'd like to ask him myself whether he thinks that logic dictates that Obama is hiding something.<br /><br />In court or in Congress, I think they might be interested in something a little more along the lines of legal authority.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-79751102013561832452008-12-23T13:28:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:28:00.001-08:00I did. So where is your legal authority to those ...I did. So where is your legal authority to those statements you make with such vigor. Imagine you were in court and the judge wants to know what law or court case says that Obama is not a natural born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii or even if he had a mother who was an American citizen?<br /><br />You made the claim now back it up!Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-89245512844355480872008-12-23T13:12:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:12:00.001-08:00Senator Leahy is my senator and he is an excellent...Senator Leahy is my senator and he is an excellent senator. Thank you. He is also a very knowledgeable lawyer.<br /><br />Senator Leahy has always been an avid supporter of Senator Obama. Sen. Leahy has absolutely no doubt that Obama is a natural born citizen.<br /><br />Leahy would be very surprised about how you misinterpret his findings. <br /><br />Right here and now, you want to make a friendly bet on whether Leahy objects in any way to Obama becoming president? I'll take no, he doesn't object. I'd be willing to give odds.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-36332140007067347772008-12-23T13:07:00.001-08:002008-12-23T13:07:00.001-08:00If you get answers from Collins and Snowe, please ...If you get answers from Collins and Snowe, please share them. So what is your assessment of Collins and Snowe now, not based on their response, but what do you think of them now?<br /><br />Now that you've gotten some rest, let me know your legal authority. I didn't ask for facts.<br /><br />Here are my facts - Obama was born in Hawaii. Source - Certified for the ballot in all 50 states, Certification of Live Birth authenticated by the State of Hawaii says so, officials of the State of Hawaii have stated that they have personally examined Obama's birth certificate and it is valid. Obama's mom was an American citizen. For both those reasons, Obama is a natural born citizen.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-61052039359187934212008-12-23T11:09:00.001-08:002008-12-23T11:09:00.001-08:00I'm not anonymous, but it easy enough to play alon...I'm not anonymous, but it easy enough to play along:<br /><br />Why isn't snopes reliable? Because you, or "techdude", say so? What about the other site (factcheck.org, politifact.com, etc.) All them unreliable?<br /><br />And the statements by the hawaiian officials, acknowledging they have "an original birth certificate"? In on the conspiracy too? (And, yes, parse those words all you want; to make a pretzel that means something other than their plain, obvious reading makes William of Ockham turn in his grave). And the birth announcements; were they placed in the newspapers via a time machine, or "corrected" by the Ministry of Truth?<br /><br />Senator Kyl wrote a dismissive answer to a stupid question; to expect otherwise places entirely too much faith in the government.<br /><br /><br />"Natural born means that one is not only born in the nation, but that one's parents are citizens." If that is the legally binding meaning, it should no problem to cite a legally binding authority explicitly stating that.<br /><br /><br />"If he were born in Hawaii as he claims, why has he spent so much time and money to hide that fact?" How much time and money has he spent? $500,000? $800,000? $1M+? $10,128,293,703,968.45? You have no idea; internet speculation isn't a "fact."<br /><br />As to why, there many possible reasons. For example, the current administration has gone to great lengths to hide relatively mundane information; people simply don't like other people sticking their noses around, and in getting in the way of doing actual work.<br /><br /><br />"In 1961 Hawaii allowed Hawaiian citizens to register the births of their children who were born outside the state and would accept the statement of a relative without further proof." If that statement is true, them it should be very easy to cite the specific Hawaiian statute allowing that.<br /><br />"The fact that he has a birth certificate on file with the HI Dept. of Health ONLY tells us he was born, not WHERE he was born." Other than that whole "Place of Birth: Honolulu" part.<br /><br /><br />"Obama's step-grandmother claims that she was present when he was born in Kenya." Hearsay.<br /><br />"The Kenyan ambassador stated that "President-Elect" Obama's birthplace in Kenya is "already well-known." Again, hearsay.<br /><br />"Obama's birth records "if they exist" have been sealed (how do you seal something that doesn't exist?)." Again, hearsay (and, I don't know, but that's a clue the original statement is false).<br /><br />"Now the Kenyan government will not allow Obama's African relatives to speak with the press without permission." Says who? WND?Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-17989452903598019582008-12-23T10:19:00.001-08:002008-12-23T10:19:00.001-08:00"Here's my proof:
1. Better, more important thing..."Here's my proof: <br />1. Better, more important things to do than play these silly reindeer games."<br /><br />Can't you rebut us any better than this? If you are anonymous, you still haven't offered any factual rebuttals to my post, as I requested; just more questions. I take it that you CAN'T, therefore only more questions, and a silly comment about "reindeer games."Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-73576087524378849212008-12-23T08:52:00.001-08:002008-12-23T08:52:00.001-08:00Here's my proof:
1. Better, more important things...Here's my proof:<br /><br />1. Better, more important things to do than play these silly reindeer games.<br /><br />QED.Orly Taitz, DDS Esq.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09032528086295633238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-91171839176210717792008-12-23T01:23:00.000-08:002008-12-23T01:23:00.000-08:00Anonymous, Using logic, defend Obama’s refusal to ...Anonymous, Using logic, defend Obama’s refusal to provide America and its citizens with this information. <BR/><BR/>Before you answer, you might want to read an article written by Dr. Coambs who studies human reasoning and logic. Read the entire article . . . I will know if you cheated and only skimmed it. <BR/><BR/>Dr. Coambs challenges all of us and I challenge YOU to use deductive reasoning or syllogism to determine Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS. <BR/><BR/>Remember, Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable. It is NOT a subject to debate. These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe. At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.<BR/><BR/>Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe. If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true. If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true. If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct. <BR/><BR/>If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4. The syllogism would also be true. These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.<BR/><BR/>The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy. There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true. The conclusion must be true.<BR/><BR/>The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let's see what Dr. Coambs says about Obama. He says, in part, that Obama is disqualified as POTUS bt virtue of the following deductive reasoning:<BR/><BR/>Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate’s eligibility must be publicly known.<BR/>Minor Premise: Obama’s eligibility is not publicly known.<BR/>Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.<BR/><BR/>(6) How Categorical Syllogisms work<BR/><BR/>When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this. It begins with a Major Premise, like this:<BR/>All humans are mortal.<BR/>Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:<BR/>Socrates is human.<BR/>Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:<BR/>Therefore, Socrates is mortal.<BR/><BR/>This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18–20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.<BR/><BR/>Obama is public official but is secretive about a routine document that the majority of Americans furnish, therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the document would be detrimental to his political career, ie., he is NOT a natural born citizen, or the father listed on his birth certificate is NOT the Kenyan father that is listed in his books.<BR/><BR/>As for Sen. Jon Kyl. You tell me if it is "logical" for a sitting United States Senator to rely on Snopes, an non-governmental entity to verify whether the man that will hold the higest office in our Country is eligible to be President. <BR/><BR/>Totally "illogical" and utterly "ridiculous."<BR/>2+2=Obama has something to hide and Sen. Kyl is just an idiot!Evil Step-Motherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05378134059710585617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-63300496379479976092008-12-22T22:15:00.000-08:002008-12-22T22:15:00.000-08:00Obama's step-grandmother claims that she was prese...<I>Obama's step-grandmother claims that she was present when he was born in Kenya. The Kenyan ambassador stated that "President-Elect" Obama's birthplace in Kenya is "already well-known." Obama's birth records "if they exist" have been sealed (how do you seal something that doesn't exist?).</I><BR/><BR/>H - E - A - R - S - A - Y.<BR/><BR/>But thanks for playing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09543278888292179903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-44695461589872182962008-12-22T22:11:00.000-08:002008-12-22T22:11:00.000-08:00The New World Order is a borderless society ruled ...<I>The New World Order is a borderless society ruled by a central banking system which uses one currency in which individual rights are no longer protected and one govenrment has total control. Many of the "elites" have recognized that a New World Order is needed and neccessary.<BR/><BR/>... I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do not wear a tin-foil hat.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonanceAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09543278888292179903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-5437427179629175322008-12-22T21:01:00.000-08:002008-12-22T21:01:00.000-08:00To: Anonymous December 22, 2008 7:11 PMRe: Senator...To: Anonymous <BR/>December 22, 2008 7:11 PM<BR/><BR/>Re: Senator Kyl<BR/><BR/>"Isn't more likely that Sen. Kyl, definitely a political opponent of Obama, says Obama is clearly a natural born citizen, because that is what reasonable and responsible people believe?" <BR/><BR/>What we understand is that Senator Kyl is not even informed about the findings of the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)<BR/><BR/>The Judiciary Committee that Senator Leahy (D-VT) chairs determined last March that Senator John McCain is eligible to serve as President of the United States.<BR/>This document is easily found on Senator Leahy's website. I suggest you read it. <BR/><BR/><BR/>One of the committee's two criteria was met by the fact that Senator McCain's parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of the Senator's birth. The Judicial Report that is posted on Senator Leahy's website is very clear about this.<BR/><BR/>Using the same "litmus test" on Barack Obama's eligibility proves that even the Senate Judiciary Committee understands that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve in the same office. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Further, these findings were passed as Senate Resolution 511 in April, 2008, without amendment and was co-sponsored by Senator Obama. Surely you know that Obama is a constitutional lawyer, so he surely knew what this bill, that he co-sponsored, meant.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sorry to tell you, but even Senators who are pro-Obama determined Mr. Obama's ineligibility. This has been an open secret on Capitol Hill since at least March, 2008. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I will say this again, this Senate Resolution was co-sponsored by Mr. Obama, who publically admits that his father was a citizen of Kenya at the time of Mr. Obama's birth.<BR/>You will find what you need online.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is there a different set of rules depending on which candidate is being vetted?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>"If citizens want to change this requirement, there is a recognized, legal way to do so. They can use the legal process."<BR/><BR/>Yes, and if citizens want to amend the Constitution to change the requirement for POTUS, they are welcome to start the process to discard the "natural born" requirement.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Don't the Citizens of the United States deserve better than the silence we are getting from our elected officials? And for those of us asking to be heard by our three branches of government, don't we deserve to be listened to?<BR/><BR/>As far as relying on snopes and factcheck, you've got to be kidding! Do your own research.California Baby Boomer https://www.blogger.com/profile/03970864561110082453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1958992492864100930.post-21390574554891637172008-12-22T20:44:00.000-08:002008-12-22T20:44:00.000-08:00Anon says, "Kyl did not say that was why he believ...Anon says, "Kyl did not say that was why he believed that Obama is qualified. He mentioned Snopes as a cite for the writer to refer to."<BR/>And I quote Kyl: "President-elect Obama meets the constitutional requirement for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors." He may not have said IN SO MANY WORDS that Snopes was the reason he believes Obama to be qualified, but he certainly gives them great credence.<BR/><BR/>I've written both Snowe and Collins, and am still awaiting their answers.<BR/><BR/>I asked you to rebut my statements with objective fact, instead you ask more questions. I can back up my statements with facts, but it's getting too late for me (almost midnight, east coast, you know). You make your factual rebuttals, if you can, and tomorrow I'll give you some facts.CalifGirlInMainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09042639656065463539noreply@blogger.com