“It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected.”

It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected.

Spoken like someone who thinks that the U.S.A. is a Democracy, not a Republic.

A Republic is ruled by the Rule of Law.
A Democracy is ruled by the Rule of the Majority.

Governor Perry, when he says, “It doesn’t matter”, is saying that the Rule of Law doesn’t matter. And when Governor Perry says, “He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected.”, he is saying that what matters is the outcome of an election, not the Rule of Law.

Perry may as well be a Democrat. He sure isn’t a Constitutional Republican.

Frankly it’s alarming that he said “It doesn’t matter” whether or not the purported birth certificate for the President of the United States is real. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether or not the man holding the office of President of the United States is Constitutionally qualified to hold the office. It doesn’t matter if he is guilty of forgery, perjury, and usurpation of the highest elected office in this country. All that matters is that he won an election. (with significant help from ACORN)

We are not a Democracy.

We are a Republic, NOT a Democracy!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presidential Eligibility. Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to “It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected.”

  1. Which Government Organization Was The First To Say, “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

    If anyone thinks the answer to that question is “the State of Hawaii”, they are sadly mistaken. The answer to that question is “the U.S. House of Representatives”. And they did so without any documentary proof of the claim.

    Then, Hawaii could use H.Res. 593 as prima facie evidence…

    Federal Rules of Evidence
    Rule 902. Self-authentication

    (10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

    ————————–

    Speaker Boehner, combine the legal requirements of:

    1) Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution

    2) Section 3 of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution

    3) The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:

    All employees, citizens and noncitizens, hired after November 6, 1986 and working in the United States must complete a Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    … and you see that Obama and Biden are legally required to produce hard copy documentation of not only their eligibility to work in the United states but also their eligibility to hold the office of President.

    And Congress has the legal responsibility to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.

  2. Leo,

    I “connect the dots” like this…

    By altering the historical record at Justia, it became possible to feed deceptive information to members of Congress.

    As I mentioned in a comment on July 3, the Congressional Research Service memo mentioned you by name twice, Wong Kim Ark nine times, and Minor v Happersett ZERO TIMES.

    It appears that the game plan was to bury Minor vs. Happersett, elevate Wong Kim Ark, and claim that being born a citizen under the 14th Amendment was sufficient for Obama to be considered a “natural born citizen”.

    Remember that Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site initially claimed his Presidential eligibility was based on the 14th Amendment (“Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”), but that was later scrubbed.

    [ed. Scrub a dub dub... Nice post. - Leo]

  3. tojoflaherty says:

    Perry “doesn’t know.” Perry makes an illogical non sequitur statement about Obama not examining HIS (Perry’s) birth certificate. God, help us. Bring on the Donald-Bachmann third party ticket!

  4. Leo,

    Please write a post that explicitly addresses:

    Congressional Research Service
    MEMORANDUM April 3, 2009
    Subject: Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate
    From: Jack Maskell
    Legislative Attorney
    American Law Division

    This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.

    This memorandum addresses inquiries from congressional offices regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama’s “natural born citizenship” status.

    Most members of Congress are spread a mile wide and an inch deep. They cannot be experts in all things, and instead end up knowing just a little bit about a wide variety of things. When in-depth knowledge is required, they often turn to “experts” and accept what those “experts” tell them.

    Here we have a case where multiple members of Congress contacted (either directly or via their office staff) the Congressional Research Service with inquiries “regarding the constitutional qualifications for the office of President of the United States, and the issue of challenges concerning specifically the questioning of President Obama’s ‘natural born citizenship’ status.”

    Those members of Congress accepted what the Congressional Research Service attorney Jack Maskell told them.

    A search of Jack Maskell’s memo reveals that it contains 83 instances of “v.” (indicating 83 mentions of cases).

    There are two references to “Donofrio v. Wells (Secretary of State of New Jersey)”.

    There are nine references to “United States v. Wong Kim Ark”.

    But there are ZERO references to “Minor v. Happersett”.

    I would like to know your thoughts on Jack Maskell’s memo. And I would love to know the outcome of a discussion between you and him, if possible. Was Maskell deceived by the Justia.com cover-up of Minor v. Happersett, or was Maskell part of the deception?

    Perhaps a memo, sent to all members of both houses of Congress, alterting them to the deception (whether intentional or unintentional) present in Jack Maskell’s Congressional Research Service memorandum dated April 3, 2009, would wake up some members of Congress to realize that:

    1) A crime was committed by Justia.com when they misrepresented state documents, specifically the historical record of Supreme Court decisions.

    2) Members of Congress were deceived by a memo that purported to address inquiries regarding “natural born citizenship” status yet did not contain a single reference to Minor v. Happersett or the 25 cases which cited Minor v. Happersett.

    Given that per section 3 of the 20th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, it is the responsibility of members of Congress to ensure that President and Vice-President have “qualified”, members of Congress should take both this responsibility, and the fact that they were given a deceptive memo by the Congressional Research Service, very seriously.

    Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

  5. —————————————–

    • Leo,

      MEMORANDUM April 3, 2009
      Subject Qualifications for the Office of President of the United States and Legal Challenges to the Eligibility of a Candidate
      From: Jack Maskell
      Legislative Attorney
      American Law Division
      This memorandum was prepared to enable distribution to more than one congressional office.

      I have downloaded that memo from scribd in PDF form, then run Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on them, and then uploaded it here:

      41131059-CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions (with OCR)

      I think it’s worth noting that the Congressional Research Service memo mentioned you twice, Wong Kim Ark nine times, and Minor v Happersett ZERO TIMES.

      It would appear that one of the reasons why references to the precedent in Minor were scrubbed was so that the Congressional Research Service could publish the following lie to members of Congress:

      The court thus implicitly adopted a meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause which would include not only the narrow “common law” (based on apparent British common law) and the later United States constitutional designation for 14th Amendment purposes, that is, one born “in” the United States (jus soli), but also the statutory designation by Congress of one entitled to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth” transmitted from one’s parent or parents (jus sanguinis).

    —————–

  6. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    I’ve been trying to get someone to help me understand a few things. The first is this quote:

    That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: “Allegiance and protection are, in this connection” (that is, in relation to citizenship), reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

    Now, the first part of this seems to me (and to lawyers of my acquaintance) to say that the court in the decision from the Slaughterhouse Cases (whatever they were) weren’t committing themselves to your position (which comes from a bad English translation of Vattel published 10 years after the Constitution was ratified, by the way…). The second part seems to say that while the children of citizens born on the soil (and it isn’t entirely clear to me that President Obama is excluded from this class as the child of an American mother born in America…) are definitely citizens, some people think that pretty much anybody (except the children of diplomats) born in the US is a US citizen and that they’re not going to decide the matter. Furthermore, as this is a case about voting rights, not citizenship*, what you’ve got here is non-binding dicta which specifically says that it isn’t going to answer the question you are asking. Wong Kim Ark, on the other hand, was a citizenship case in which the holding was directly on point — that children born in the US are citizens regardless of the citizenship status of their parents (although not their parents ambassadorial status). What do you make of that?

    * This is most likely the reason why Mr. Maskell didn’t cite the case. You argue that he is either incompetent or corrupt, but the much more likely explanation is that Mr. Donofrio is incorrect (and therefore incompetent) in his interpretation of the above quote.

    The other question I have concerns this quote:

    “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.”

    This seems to say to me that we don’t need to ascertain parentage to ascertain a child’s US citizenship status. Is the person who said this wrong or is Mr. Donofrio? (I don’t think you will be able to make the case that the author of the quote doesn’t understand the Constitution, by the way… he wrote the thing.)

  7. Is the person who said this wrong or is Mr. Donofrio?

    Why don’t you post this to Leo Donofrio’s blog and ask him for his reply?

  8. I’ll come back in a bit and post my personal thoughts, but I wanted to follow up my previous comment with two links.

    1) Leo previously addressed the section of Minor v. Happersett that you quoted. Start here, read what he says there, and follow the link to the larger piece (which includes the Minor quote you referenced).

    2) Leo previously addressed the James Madison quote here.

  9. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    I post here rather than Leo’s blog because you have the integrity to allow unmoderated comments — I doubt that my comments would survive his moderation. I’ll follow the link you provided and respond later (it might take me a couple of days — I’m kind of busy right now…). In the meantime, what do you think of the quote by James Madison:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

  10. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    Sorry, I missed your second point on my first reading — my question would then be (after reading Leo’s response), why is he advocating giving up US sovereignity? Foreign nations have the unfettered right to determine who they consider their citizens (by whatever criterion they see fit), wouldn’t you agree? Nothing prevents another nation from granting citizenship to everyone born in the US (if they so chose). Would this flummox the Constitution? I don’t think so, because I don’t think other allegiances matter (as I have said, neither Jefferson’s or Agnew’s foreign citizenship mattered). What is your position? (I’ll answer the other later)

  11. In the meantime, what do you think of the quote by James Madison:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court said:

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

    Some authorities [James Madison, among them] go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts

    The Supreme Court expressed doubts about the point of view held by those like James Madison.

    Even the later case of Wong Kim Ark disagreed with Madison’s view. The court in Wong Kim Ark paid a lot of attention to the status of Wong Kim Ark’s parents. If his parents had been found to be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power, they may not have ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, i.e., that he was born subject to the same jurisdiction that his parents were subject to. The court ruled, however, that since Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled in the United States, that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As such, Wong Kim Ark was born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and was therefore ruled a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

    Now consider this… assuming that the Obama birth narrative is 100% true… Obama’s mother was born a natural born citizen of the United States, because she was born in the country to parents who were its citizens. However, when she married a British subject, she, too, became a British subject. Did she lose her U.S. citizenship? I don’t think so, but I’m not 100% certain of that. She did, however, become a British subject in the eyes of the British, by way of the British Nationality Act of 1948. So, while Barack Hussein Obama II was born on U.S. soil, he was born to parents who were subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown. Barack’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site admitted that he was born a British subject.

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since he was born a British subject, subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown, he is NOT in the same situation as Wong Kim Ark. There is very good reason to question whether the 14th amendment applies to someone born subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. The first sentence of the 14 amendment states:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    It’s worth noting that Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site initially claimed his Presidential eligibility was based on the 14th Amendment (“Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”), but that was later scrubbed.

  12. …this seems to me (and to lawyers of my acquaintance)…

    Agent Smith (Kevin),
    Please tell me what you and the lawyers of your acquaintance think of JustiaGate.

  13. why is he advocating giving up US sovereignity?

    That’s a straw man argument. Neither Leo nor I are “advocating giving up US sovereignty”.

  14. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and never gave up U.S. citizenship. He was a natural born British subject, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

    And by both natural law and British law, that flowed from father to son at birth.

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British subject, subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown, and his own campaign web site admitted that.

    Anyone who wants to claim U.S. citizenship under the 14th amendment must meet BOTH requirements:

    1) born or naturalized in the United States, and
    2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown. Was he also born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? That’s a good question, as it applies not only to him but also to “anchor babies”. Many people look to the case of Wong Kim Ark to claim that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, unless the parents were diplomats. But the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark in part because his parents were “permanently domiciled” in the U.S. and were considered by the court to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That does not apply to Obama.

  15. OCCUPY JUSTIA!

    Folks, you have the evidence you need to protect the Constitution. And the stakes are as high as they come. It’s really up to you out on Main Street. If you are lazy with this, the Constitution may never recover. Mark my words. A full investigation needs to take place.

    The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia’s bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.

    Protest is in the air. The movement on the streets is supposed to be about ending secrecy and forcing the powers that be to come clean. Tim Stanley made $37 million creating databases from our national body of case law. Then his company took criminal liberties with that body of law, sabotaged the living hell out of it, and probably changed national history in the process too. You want to talk about the 1% vs the 99? Here’s a textbook example, kids. Right on! Power to the people. Occupy Justia.

    That being said, I can only imagine what kind of pressure Tim Stanley is under right now. He almost certainly did not undertake this sabotage on his own initiation. Tim Stanley is now in the very scary position of holding the evidence capable of putting Obama’s administration in true jeopardy. If Stanley was asked, forced or paid to sabotage the cases and/or to maintain them that way after Obama became President, then high crimes were committed. Therefore, Quo Warranto is not the only possible option on the table any longer.

    Impeachment is now in play.

  16. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    James Madison said:

    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

    The U.S. Supreme Court said:

    At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

    You said:

    “Some authorities [James Madison, among them] go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts”

    The Supreme Court expressed doubts about the point of view held by those like James Madison.

    The SCOTUS didn’t express doubts — they noted that others had doubts and said that they weren’t going to address the issue (and later they removed all doubt with Wong Kim Ark). The fact remains that if you and Leo are right, then James Madison was wrong about what the Constitution said — have you ever hear the phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”? You don’t have anything like “extraordinary proofs”, while I have substantial if not overwhelming proof of my very ordinary claim… (that President Madison understood the meaning of the Constitution [having played a large role in its writing]).

    Even the later case of Wong Kim Ark disagreed with Madison’s view.

    No, they didn’t. See Ankeny v. Daniels.

    The court in Wong Kim Ark paid a lot of attention to the status of Wong Kim Ark’s parents. If his parents had been found to be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power, they may not have ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, i.e., that he was born subject to the same jurisdiction that his parents were subject to.

    Please cite a court case which speaks to “jurisdiction of a foreign power” being recognized as obviating US jurisdiction over any person on US soil (who does not have diplomatic immunity from a foreign nation). Who are the people that the United States claims jurisdiction over? All those in its territory save diplomats (who the US claims jurisdiction over outside of its boundaries is a thornier question that isn’t relevant here…).

    The court ruled, however, that since Wong Kim Ark’s parents were permanently domiciled in the United States, that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    No, the court ruled that Mr. Wong’s parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US and were permanently domiciled there. They did say that they were subject to US jurisdiction because they were permanently domiciled there.

    As such, Wong Kim Ark was born on U.S. soil and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and was therefore ruled a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

    You’re standing on very thin ice as legal dictionaries don’t agree with you regarding the definition of “jurisdiction” (nor do any of the Westerns I’ve ever seen…).

    Now consider this… assuming that the Obama birth narrative is 100% true…

    Which, given that we have un-impeached prima facie evidence regarding everything of significance to President Obama’s eligibility, is a pretty safe assumption…

    Obama’s mother was born a natural born citizen of the United States, because she was born in the country to parents who were its citizens. However, when she married a British subject, she, too, became a British subject. Did she lose her U.S. citizenship? I don’t think so, but I’m not 100% certain of that.

    Luckily for you, we don’t have to guess – she had a valid US passport until her death which proclaimed her a US citizen (according to the State Department).

    She did, however, become a British subject in the eyes of the British, by way of the British Nationality Act of 1948.

    Again, we fought a war or two so that British law wouldn’t be binding in the US — you’re trying to give away our sovereignty again.

    So, while Barack Hussein Obama II was born on U.S. soil, he was born to parents who were subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

    Which, even if true (and I don’t think that it is), doesn’t affect the fact that they were both subject to the jurisdiction of (and entitled to the protection of) the United States.

    Barack’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site admitted that he was born a British subject.

    According to the laws of the United Kingdom — according to US law, President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. The two are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, the US doesn’t recognize dual citizenship — according to the US, President Obama’s US citizenship is all that matters…

    When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Which is completely irrelevant to how US law treats the situation — according to James Madison, the 14th Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Ankeny decision, Justice O’Conner, and many more, President Obama is a natural born US citizen. The only SCOTUS ruling which disagrees is the holding in the Dred Scott decision — which cannot be used as precedent due to the 14th Amendment (because the Constitution was rewritten to make clear that the Dred Scott decision was not correct).

    Since he was born a British subject, subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown, he is NOT in the same situation as Wong Kim Ark.

    Why? What were the laws of China? Why didn’t the court consider the laws of China in Wong Kim Ark? Provided China recognized the children of citizens as citizens, then Mr. Wong was in the exact same situation, but your real problem is that the court didn’t investigate it — if it was the crucial issue, why not?

    There is very good reason to question whether the 14th amendment applies to someone born subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. The first sentence of the 14 amendment states:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    It’s worth noting that Obama’s own “Fight the Smears” campaign web site initially claimed his Presidential eligibility was based on the 14th Amendment (“Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment”), but that was later scrubbed.

    So it was not effective against the propaganda of the eligibility movement — that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Besides, “Fight the Smears” doesn’t set any kind of precedent whatsoever — unlike, for instance, the Ankeny decision which set the precedent that President Obama is a natural born citizen — although this isn’t binding precedent, it’s still a pretty high bar for a movement which has never demonstrated any success in court to clear…

    ———————————————————-
    “Some authorities [James Madison, among them] go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts”

    The Supreme Court expressed doubts about the point of view held by those like James Madison.

    The SCOTUS didn’t express doubts — they noted that others had doubts and said that they weren’t going to address the issue (and later they removed all doubt with Wong Kim Ark). The
    ———————————————————-

    Taurus Fimus!
    If the Court in Wong Kim Ark had agreed with James Madison’s view, they would have ruled him a citizen without reference to his parents! But the Court in Wong Kim Ark paid quite a bit of attention to his parents, and only after ruling that his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States did the Court find that Wong Kim Ark was also born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And that, COMBINED with his birth on U.S. soil, made him a 14th Amendment citizen.

  17. Agent Smith says:

    You said:

    Agent Smith (Kevin),
    Please tell me what you and the lawyers of your acquaintance think [the following is just what I think...] of JustiaGate.

    First off, I think that the practice of appending “-gate” to stories to make them appear to be major scandals is far too prevalent in general and completely unjustified (pun intended) in this case. As someone who has written thousands of lines of regex, Justia’s explanation (while it says quite a bit about their lack of professionalism) has the prosaic stamp of the mundane all over it. If someone wanted to prove that Justia acted intentionally to cover up Minor, they would need to show that other cases were unaffected by this bug (or deliberate error) — in other words, that it was confined to this case (or possibly a few others), but that the vast majority of cases were unaffected. Because Leo did not immediately look for evidence of fraud (as opposed to evidence of unintentional error), I am inclined to believe that he knows (or at least suspects) that there is no evidence of fraud. This suspicion is reinforced by the lack of motive for such fraud — why would President Obama have done this? Most law firms don’t use Justia — they subscribe to (much higher quality) pay services like Westlaw and Lexis. Certainly the CRS doesn’t use Justia either (I actually know someone who was formerly in the CRS — it’s more of an “elite” law service than a fly-by-night organization). So basically this is all about Leo… and the “Paraclete” is known to have delusions of grandeur….

    —————

    The changes made at Justia go beyond a simple regex error. It’s not just a replacement of “Minor v. Happersett” with a consistent numerical case reference. Key passages were surgically removed and/or altered.

    Tim claims that the alleged innocent mistake is responsible for the surgical removal of the case name, “Minor v. Happersett”, along with the official citation… across all 25 cases. We are also asked to believe that various references to The Slaughter-House Cases, Scott v. Sandford and Osborn v. Bank of United States were also innocently removed by the same error, despite the fact that those cases are all tied to the POTUS eligibility debate.

    Furthermore, key sentences which discuss points of law relevant to Obama’s eligibility must have also been innocently edited out, even though Stanley stated to Chan in ’07 that Justia didn’t do any programming at all with regard to the full text of the cases. Additionally, we must also accept that at the time of this interview, the miraculously wonderful Google Mini was banging out perfect versions of these cases up until the run up to the election in 2008… when all 25 cases suddenly expunged necessary search terms specifically tied to the POTUS eligibility issue. Timing is everything, right?

    But there’s more… we must also imagine that Stanley’s crack “programming-centric” team, headquartered in the same town as the mighty Google, somehow never found out about the rogue code from 2008 until three years later when I published my first report on the Pope and Boyd cases in July 2011. Can you believe Tim never even wrote to say thank you? A nice picture of Stanley’s dog was called for at the very least. Oh c’mon. Like I’m going to beat those Silicon Valley freaks to the punch on their own damn code. Get the flock outta here.

    But there’s still more…much much more you have to swallow to buy Stanley’s rogue error theory. You must also accept that the “Regex” error could defy astronomical odds in that the “.*” mentioned by Stanley could pick and choose erasure of the missing case components while the rest of the text was left just fine. And that’s where Dianna Cotter’s next report will come in very handy tomorrow. She has interviewed a university professor with a Ph.D. in computer programming who has gone on the record to say that Stanley’s theory is nuts.

    “If someone wanted to prove that Justia acted intentionally to cover up Minor, they would need to show that other cases were unaffected by this bug (or deliberate error) — in other words, that it was confined to this case (or possibly a few others), but that the vast majority of cases were unaffected.”

    You clearly haven’t read what Leo found… it wasn’t “confined to this case”… it was very surgically done to 25 cases that REFERENCED THE PRECEDENT SET IN MINOR.

    The whole point, in my opinion, was to bury Minor… i.e., ensure that searches for references to Minor would not produce results, so that the Article II Section 1 natural born citizen precedent in Minor could be downplayed and the 14th amendment precedent in Wong Kim Ark elevated. Then, falsely pretend that Wong Kim Ark bestows birthright citizenship without considering whether the parents or child were subject to the jurisdiction of another country, AND falsely pretend that birth as a 14th amendment citizen = “natural born citizen”, AND pretend that Obama has proven he was born in Hawaii. (*)

    All of those things are required as prerequisites, and must all be put together to pretend that Obama is qualified to hold the office of President.

    (* Obama has never publicly released what the State of Hawaii sent to him… they did not sent him a multilayered PDF. If the Certificate of Live Birth is authentic and legitimate, then release it directly from the State of Hawaii to members of Congress, and I’ll shut up about the Birth Certificate)

    Also, Leo has proven that the 25 cases relevant to the Minor precendent were altered/scrubbed, and when 2 cases were exposed by Leo, all 25 cases were surgically repaired. He’s proven that. Now you want him to prove a negative… “they would need to show that other cases were unaffected”.

    ———
    “Most law firms don’t use Justia — they subscribe to (much higher quality) pay services like Westlaw and Lexis. ”
    Look Who Cited To Justia For Supreme Court Holding.

  18. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    You said:

    That’s a straw man argument. Neither Leo nor I are “advocating giving up US sovereignty”.

    You suggest that we need to look to the laws of other countries (i.e. who they consider citizens) in order to know who is a (natural born) US citizen — in other words, you are ceding the power to determine who is and is not a citizen to EVERY other nation in the world. Sounds like giving up a piece of our sovereignty to me…

  19. Agent Smith says:

    Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen and never gave up U.S. citizenship. He was a natural born British subject, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

    Mr. Wong’s parents were not US citizens and were forbidden from ever becoming citizens by law — it didn’t matter, the courts determined that he was natural born.

    And by both natural law and British law, that flowed from father to son at birth.

    Sorry, but you’ll have to point out where the Constitution says to interpret citizenship by “natural law”. Also, while by British law citizenship could flow from father to son, the older (and foundational) principle was that those born on the soil were natural born subjects (that’s what Calvin’s case was about — four centuries ago).

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born a British subject, subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown, and his own campaign web site admitted that.

    President Obama was indeed born a British subject (as well as a natural born US citizen), but I was unaware that the British crown had jurisdiction in Hawai’i in 1961 — I kind of thought we fought a war almost 200 years earlier that established that the British Crown had no jurisdiction in the territory of the United States — I guess I was mistaken (or you’re ceding more sovereignty…).

    Anyone who wants to claim U.S. citizenship under the 14th amendment must meet BOTH requirements:

    1) born or naturalized in the United States, and
    2) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    Barack Hussein Obama II was born subject to the jurisdiction of the British crown.

    No, he wasn’t — the Union Jack wasn’t flying over Kapi’olani, old glory was. Let’s put it this way — even if a citizen of Smallville (say Mr. & Mrs. Kent…) were just visiting Metropolis, they would still be under the jurisdiction of the MPD, not the Smallville sheriff.

    Was he also born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? That’s a good question, as it applies not only to him but also to “anchor babies”.

    He was — find a legal dictionary and look up the term “jurisdiction” — the only entities with jurisdiction over President Obama at his birth were parts of the US government. While one could argue that anchor babies are a problem, they are also clearly (natural born) US citizens (commonly also referred to as “citizens at birth” and “native born citizens” [a term which denotes a slightly different group, but commonly used as a synonym anyway]). However, to change that would require a Constitutional Amendment — the Founders didn’t think about anchor babies, they had no concept of illegal immigration, everyone who wanted to come to the country was welcome (if they were white, anyway).

    Many people look to the case of Wong Kim Ark to claim that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, unless the parents were diplomats. But the court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark in part because his parents were “permanently domiciled” in the U.S.

    Again, you make a leap that the court did not — saying that Mr. Wong’s parents were permanently domiciled and that Mr. Wong was a NBC does not mean that he wouldn’t be a NBC if they weren’t permanently domiciled. You are implying a precedent where none exists. However, the bigger problem with your argument lies in what the term “permanently domiciled” means (again, check a law dictionary — please). Your domicile is just where you live — permanent doesn’t mean that you are planning on living there in perpetuity. In the past decade or so, I’ve moved from Michigan to North Carolina (to go to grad school at Duke) and then back again. My “domicile of origin” is Michigan (I’m a natural born Michiganian, although I couldn’t use my birth certificate to prove it to your standards [it lists my adoptive parents, not my birth parents -- do you think that I am ineligible? {I certainly can't prove that I was born to citizen parents -- in fact most people cannot prove paternity at all (certainly not to the eligibility movement's standard)}]). When I moved to North Carolina and got an apartment in Durham, that became my domicile and I was entitled to the privileges of being domiciled in North Carolina (such as getting a NC driver’s license — something that requires proof of domicile, like a power bill or a bank account statement) — just as Barack Obama Sr. was domiciled in Hawai’i when he went to college. He could have had a bank account (even if he had no more than a dorm room) and used a statement from that account as proof of domicile to get a driver’s license (assuming Hawai’i allowed that — I know that my Canadian friends at Duke were able to get legal certification to drive, but it was not as simple as a US citizen getting a DL) or any of a number of other things.

    A still further problem is that the courts (as far as I can see — Justice O’Conner said this explicitly) say that “born on US soil” is enough. As I understand it, if Kim Jong Il’s ninja wife snuck past the guards* at a US embassy, gave birth in front of the ambassador, and whisked the child away (with their freshly printed birth certificate) for 21 years of anti-American indoctrination before sending them to live for 14 years on some Alaskan atoll (under half-Governor Palin’s porch… ;-)), then that person would be perfectly eligible to run for the presidency. Fortunately, the natural born citizen clause (which one might argue has outlived its intended purpose, by the way) wasn’t the only check the Founders put in our system. In an adversarial election system, such a candidate would be vetted by their opponents (as President Obama was) who would use such a background against them to devastating effect (in exactly the way the Clinton and McCain campaigns were unable to use President Obama’s background against him). Provided that the candidates are forthcoming about their origins (like President Obama — I can’t think of a president who’s background was more widely known at his election than President Obama’s was…) or their opponents do their due diligence (as Clinton and McCain did — they both looked into the issue and decided that there was no “there” there), the American people get to make the decision who to vote for (a truly ineligible candidate would also be subject to their opponents suing to keep their name off of the ballot, to keep their electors from voting, and could have the certification of their election challenged by Congress (like President Bush in 2004). All in all, there are pretty strong protections against ineligible candidates — all of which President Obama passed with flying colors.

    You also neglect the fact that President Obama’s mother was a natural born US citizen (and remained a US citizen her entire life according to passport application records) who was clearly domiciled in Hawai’i and under US jurisdiction.

    Finally, you neglect the fact that it was argued in the lower court (and upheld by the SCOTUS decision) that Mr. Wong (assuming he met the other requirements) would have been eligible for the presidency even though his parents were, in fact, barred by law from ever becoming US citizens.

    * That would be the guards from Xe (nee Blackwater), by the way. The Bush administration felt that it was better to pay Xe more money than the Marine guards (and they probably aren’t as good as the Marine Corps, either…) to do a job that the Marines have done well for centuries… Does that seem like a good idea to you?

    and were considered by the court to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That does not apply to Obama.

    If Barack Obama senior had shot someone at the hospital where his son was being born in front of a policeman, the cop would have arrested him — because he was subject to US jurisdiction (as well as Hawai’i and Honolulu’s jurisdictions). If the Kenyan ambassador had done the same thing, he could not have been arrested because the US has no jurisdiction over diplomats. On the other hand, the Kenyan government would have no jurisdiction in the former and clear jurisdiction in the latter…

  20. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    It has come to our attention that you are claiming an employee (one “President Obama”) for whom you cannot produce a form I-9. Please inform us regarding the status of your payment of the penalty you owe for this violation.

    —————

    I fired that employee when he failed to produce the required documents within three business days of his start date.

  21. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    Could you please direct me to the passage in the Constitution which gives you the authority to fire a duly elected POTUS? And can you explain why he remains on the job? Is it possible that you are not his employer after all?

  22. Aaron says:

    “* That would be the guards from Xe (nee Blackwater), by the way. The Bush administration felt that it was better to pay Xe more money than the Marine guards (and they probably aren’t as good as the Marine Corps, either…) to do a job that the Marines have done well for centuries… Does that seem like a good idea to you?”

    1. Nice try at playing the “buh-buh-BOOOSH!!” card, but epic fail when faced against reality.
    2. On average, one contractor replaces TWO military personnel when comparing in the same job and all other things being equal. This includes factoring in the differences in pay.
    3. In addition to the above, the total annual cost per contractor in a combat zone is 50-66% of the cost for a service member. This total cost includes pay, benefits, housing, food, medical, and every other cost associated with keeping them deployed and working in their jobs in the combat zone.
    4. #2 and #3 are cumulative, meaning the total cost of placing contractors in place of service members is about 1/4-1/3 the cost for service
    5. The embassies that US Marines guard are in safe, civilized countries that are not combat zones.
    5a. Guarding an embassy building from potential threats posed by undercover terrorist cells, attempting to strike through the use of dirty methods that terrorist cells use, is one type of security that the Marines assigned to embassy guarding are specialized in. Further, the Marines assigned to guard embassies in civil countries are there for as much show as they are for defense, hence their wear of dress uniforms and emphasis on uniform appearance.
    5b. Providing personal security details to protect dignitaries in hot combat zones and against against open aggression, is something BW guards are specialized in. Marines fight in combat zones, but as a full-on fighting force, not a PSD. The objectives and engagement methodology are not the same.

    Basically, BW Guards are specialists in the work they perform, so are the Marines in combat, so are the Marines assigned to US Embassies in the places they’re already assigned. I suppose you’d prefer to unnecessarily put service members in danger by placing in environments they’re not equipped or prepared for? Yeah, maybe that sounds like a good idea to you, but too many veterans know better.

    When dumbass liberals open their pie-holes, expect the room to start smelling like the sh*t that flows from them.

  23. Aaron says:

    Back on the point, though. I think it would be an exercise in futility to rule out possible support for one candidate based on their spoken stance on one issue. The question of Obama’s eligibility should not be the center focus of any voter as (s)he goes to the poll next November.

    Rather, I’m more interested in hearing more about Perry’s flat tax proposal and how a Federal Government lead by him would repair our *mandatory* spending programs in order to stabilize the government’s financial house. Reducing the federal commitments to Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid, which gobble up more than 55% of total federal annual spending..

    At the same time, I would like to hear what plans ALL our candidates have and more importantly, how are they going to achieve them. The real issues facing this country are what is important,. Not the eligibility of a president who will be on his way out the door anyway.

  24. harvey g says:

    Amen, Aaron. Less slogans and more substance on the important issues at hand would be nice. How does a mandatory spending limit of 18% of GDP strike you?

  25. Aaron says:

    Now I have to get into specifics for clarity.

    1. Are you proposing a mandatory spending limit on all federal annual bedget outlays (both “discretionary” and “mandatory” spending) be no more than 18% of GDP?

    2. Or are you proposing a spending limit on all “mandatory” federal government programs of no more than 18%. I disagree with this one because it would be far too high. Taxes only bring in about 20% (or so) of the GDP as it is.

    As far as #1 is concerned, I think that such a law-binding limit would have unintended consequences. I.e. WHEN another *major* war breaks out, congress will find itself stuck, having to repeal the the limit before they can fund the necessary mobilization and war effort.

    Rather, I would like to see 537 politicians uphold a standard of ethics that precludes scandals such as White Water, Solyndra, Fisker, etc… and a standard of accountability that precludes garbage such as obamacare, federal bail-outs (no corporation is too big to fail), and pet-project funding “stimulus” bills. I think term limits would be a good way to achieve that. Limit to no more than 12 years total time in federal elected office.

    This, along with big steps to reform the “mandatory” spending programs and bring those commitments down to 35% or less would be a better path to financial security for the federal government.

  26. harvey g says:

    I agree with you, especially not holding the military to any spending limit. And what happened to the Republican’s promise not to allow any bill that was in conflict with the Constitution to ever even be submitted to begin with?
    As for discretionary and mandatory spending I don’t know if governor Perry even mentioned “discretionary” but he certainly did say mandatory 18% spending.
    I would favor a MANDATORY EXTREMELY heavy fine for every campaign promise they purposely or willfully break after they are elected ;). I’m sure that would cull a lot of the undesirables from office. LOL!!!! While they are in this process of so called spending cuts why not reduce the wages of all our over -paid office holders to a national average wage?

  27. Aaron says:

    It wasn’t just the military I was thinking of with regards to the spending limit. Other things like natural disasters may call for additional funding, especially when their impact is harder than expected or predicted.

    As for some of the campaign promises being broken. Given what these politicians promise, I would prefer many of them *keep* breaking those.

    As far as taxing is concerned, I would prefer a flat or fair tax setup, with few (or no) breaks, credits, etc… Place a flat [X] (low) percent tax on corporate revenues (not just profits) and simply leave it there. No more tax on profits, no more itemizing deductions or spending valuable man-hours, pouring over lines of tax code, just a flat tax bill and that’s it. There would be an impact on high-revenue, high-expense businesses, but the market will iron those out in due time. Many might think such a plan would be a job-killer, and it could be in a way, but not in the way that most think; there’d be a lot of tax advisors, IRS auditors, tax attorneys and CPAs out of work and I am not against that. There comes a time when old career fields and skill sets are no longer relevant and that time is well overdue for tax professionals.

    When accounting and planning financial outlays, there is a lot of benefit to stability and simplicity and any businessman can easily appreciate that. Knowing exactly how much of your money will go to Uncle Sam when you’re developing financial plans for operations or business expansions, removes a lot of uncertainty from your calculations.

    It also makes the tax field fair for everyone; if a corporate entity can deduct all its fuel, utilities, capital outlays and other expenses, then a family should be able to do the same.

  28. harvey g says:

    I like the idea of putting the IRS out of business. If that should happen, then most likely you would put the Democrat Socialist Party out of business, at least for awhile. But don’t get me started on “national disasters”. For example, hurricane Katrina and New Orleans and all the tax money wasted by FEMA and other government agencies. There are disasters and then there are disasters that some would call “acts of god”.
    New Orleans was not an act of god but an act of men and we are still paying for it. Who in their right mind would live in an area that was once below sea level until the dredges from the Mississippi River was used as fill dirt to raise wet lands to the height it is today where new Orleans was built. Some of New Orleans is still below sea level and only the levees keeps the Gulf from flooding the city. Yet our tax money goes to support the NOLA life styles and our insurance premiums are raised in price to reimburse the insurance claims paid out to people who live in an area that even cray fish can’t survive in.
    I think an 18% or a 20% or a 35% spending limit on GDP would be much more desiribile (spell) than what we now have, like how many $trillion in less than three years???
    I would like to see the age for social security raised to 67 years of age for full benefits. That would raise the age for medicare at the same time automatically. Get all the dead beats off the social programs and sure as heck do not forgive the student loans. Just think how many applicants there will be for student loans as soon as the word goes out NO PAY BACK REQUIRED. Free money.
    I am only being facetious when I say all politicians should be fined when they purposefully break a campaign promise, knowing it will never happen. But a lie should not be tolerated one single day without consequences for the liar. Mohammed said “War is Deception”. Well what is a lie? And we have one of the greatest liars of all time occuppying the oval office today. Whether he is elligibile to occuppy that seat or not does not change the fact he is a liar, and again Mohammed did say “War is Deception”.
    What do you think of the man with the plan–NINE NINE NINE? I think he may in fact be German and he has been practicing how to answer the latest charges brought against him by the two women–NEIN NEIN NEIN or “no” for short in english ;). LOL!!! OOOPS– okay I’m leaving.

  29. Aaron says:

    I’m more interested in seeing what our host thinks about Perry’s flat-tax initiative, or Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. There are a host of other issues to discuss and I would like to see our host post some more on those issues instead of just focusing almost entirely on the question of Presidential eligibility. For example, there were some democrats who actually complained that Reps won’t stop attacking the tax code until out tax returns could fit on a post-card. I was thinking, “What’s wrong with that?”

  30. harvey g says:

    I remember when I was a young man we (people who were not in business for themselves) filed our tax returns or dues on a form that consisted of one sheet of paper. Front and back sides. It took about fifteen minutes to complete if we had our W2 forms or statements from our employer(s). I also remember that I always paid in the maximum amount of social security and would get refunds from the IRS on the same. Some employers stopped with-holding SS after a certain amount was reached.That is to say, I paid the maximum amount SS until the maximum reached the five $$$$$ wage range. They lost me there and I kept paying and paying and paying.
    I do not know enough about a “flat tax” to even comment, but then who does? We have never had that system before.
    I still believe a set base of a certain percentage of GDP would be a great idea for government, National Security Exempted but closely scrutinized. Anything to keep the government from robbing the nation of its treasure(s). As for the elligibility (spell) question I don’t think there is anyone in the elected offices that are interested enough to try and do anything about that. A third party might. Right now a number of republicans are in favor of allowing a candidate born of TWO FOREIGN parents to run for the office of president. The thought of a socialist or communist ruler does make my stomach convulse and irritates me to no end.

  31. Aaron,
    I don’t have time for a very detailed response right now, but I did want to at least give you something in response…

    1) I prefer the Fair Tax, but I understand that Cain’s 9-9-9 is meant to: a) bring the Flat Tax people and the Fair Tax people together, and b) is meant to be a stepping stone to the Fair Tax.

    2) Neither Cain nor Perry have talked about the Constitutional separation of powers as it relates to changes in tax policy. A President can’t really set tax policy. A candidate can run on a platform, and when he or she is elected, they can use their electoral win as political clout for their platform, but the President must wait for both houses of Congress to pass a bill that changes tax policy, and then the President can either sign it or veto it. The powers of the Presidency are much more powerful in their ability to say “No” (i.e. veto) than to say “Yes”. Unless, of course, that President wants to abuse the office and do whatever they want via “Executive Orders”… like Barry Soetoro has been doing…

    3) Hence, to some extent, while it is useful to know what the Presidental candidates think SHOULD be our tax policy, none of them can MAKE it our new tax policy all by themselves. I’d like to hear them clearly communicate that, and educate the public about the fact that if they really want to change tax policy, then they need to elect a majority to Congress who shares their point of view and will actually put those tax changes into a bill, pass the bill through both houses of Congress, and send it to the President for their signature.

  32. Aaron says:

    I would like to see the flat tax, the fair tax and the split (9-9-9) plan put under full detailed analysis to determine which tax format would be the fairest across the board while still providing adequate income for the federal government to operate efficiently and effectively.

    Let’s not forget that there is a place for government in our lives. However, that is a very small place and operates almost entirely in the background. Certain functions like promulgating and enforcing food standards and workplace safety standards; managing the growth, usage and maintenance of public logistical, comms and other infrastructure, etc… However, government must be kept in check to prevent it from getting more responsibility. Government must be kept small to prevent cronyism in business-government relations. If our politicians didn’t have any favors to give to corporate fat-cats, then they would stop trying to curry political favors. That would put an end to scandals like Solyndra, Fisker, GE Wind, etc…

    We need to sweep the house and the senate in with a fresh crop of new leaders who will put the country first and their own careers, second.

  33. Natural Born Citizen says:

    History shows that a popularly elected, but ineligible, chief executive in the executive branch of a government can be legally and constitutionally removed from office. Governor Thomas H. Moodie of North Dakota was sworn in and serving as Governor. Then the North Dakota State Supreme Court ordered Governor Moodie removed from office after it was determined that he was constitutionally and legally ineligible to serve in the office to which he was popularly elected. US Senators Albert Gallatin and James Shield were also elected and sworn in and then later removed from office because they were found to be constitutionally ineligible.

    According to constitutional law expert Dr. Edwin Vieira, “Congress cannot even impeach Obama because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture…. Just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. ”

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

  34. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I agree with Edward C. Noonan that

    Both parents have to be NATURALIZED CITIZENS prior to the birth of the child before that child can claim to be NON-ALIEN but a full fledged native citizen (NBC) of the United States.

    I was not previously aware that there was question as to the naturalization status of Rick Santorum’s parents. I believe that all Presidential candidates should be required to prove that they were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

  35. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    I wouldn’t get your hopes up–Mr. Farrar’s case is apparently going to be decided on its merits… which is not a good thing for Mr. Farrar. Also, his attorney is busy flagrantly abusing the process (as is her modus operandi) and will be lucky to get out of the courtroom without sanctions. In addition you might get judicial recognition of President Obama’s natural born citizenship (or at lest his BC) as well. I’ll stop back by after the 26th to see what happens, but I’ll bet you’re not going to like it…

  36. Agent Smith,
    We meet again. :-)

    I think the historical record (from “Publius”/James Madison
    to the SCOTUS decision in Minor v. Happersett) shows that “natural born citizens” of the United States are born in the country to parents who are its citizens.

    As such, the “Obama birth narrative” disqualifies him, and the only way he could be eligible to hold the office is if the “Obama birth narrative” is not true and he was actually born on U.S. soil to 2 U.S. citizen parents… and in that scenario he would be eligible to hold the office, but he would also be guilty of multiple high crimes and misdemeanors including forgery, perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. and he could be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives (though the Democrat-majority Senate would likely repeat the outcome of the Clinton trial and not convict Obama).

    On the BC issue, which is secondary, it will be interesting to see the response to the subpoena that Judge Michael Malihi issued to the Hawaii Department of Health.

  37. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    I just thought that I would stop by in advance of what I think will be a very active (and fruitless) election year for the eligibility movement.

    Re Leo’s “Publius”:

    You are making an argument that because someone used the same pseudonym a quarter century later that it must be the same person? That doesn’t even pass the laugh test, nor would any sane person even suggest that it was a better representation of President Madison’s views than this:

    “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.”

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

    It will therefore be unnecessary to further address Leo’s ridiculous argument.

    Re Minor:

    The dicta in Minor clearly states that the court did not address birth on the soil to non-citizen parents, much less the circumstances of President Obama’s birth (in the US to one citizen parent).

    Re Judge Malihi:

    I think Orly’s going to get her ass handed to her for abuses of the system. If you think those subpoenas are in any way valid then you are dreaming (maybe you have a problem distinguishing red and blue… ;-)) Even if they were valid, the best they would result in would be a certified copy of the COLB being recognized by the court–hardly a “happy ending” for the eligibility movement.

  38. Agent Smith says:

    Mr. Anderson,

    What do you think of this?

    I don’t think that Orly is going to have a very lucky friday the 13th.

  39. Obama promised transparency:

  40. Obama promised transparency:

    President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history, and WhiteHouse.gov will play a major role in delivering on that promise.

    [archived at http://www.webcitation.org/5wFJjivhF]

  41. And rather than treating his Birth Certificate the same way as this certificate and this certificate were treated (sent under seal directly from the State of Hawaii to Congress), Obama has “released” nothing but .JPGs and a multi-layered PDF that are highly suspicious.

    If Obama truly wanted to “put an end to this fake [very real] controversy”, if Obama really wanted to put the Birth Certificate issue to rest, he would authorize the State of Hawaii to send his Birth Certificate under seal directly to Congress.

    Again, as we all know, what Obama “released” was a multi-layered PDF that many people think is a forgery. He has never “released” the hard copy document to anyone, even though Members of Congress have a Constitutional obligation, under section 3 of the 20th Amendment, to ensure that the President and Vice President have qualified.

    And the State of Hawaii did not say, “Obama was born in Hawaii” until after the U.S. House of Representatives said so first.

    It wasn’t until a few hours after the U.S. House voted in favor of H. RES. 593 (which included the words, “Obama, was born in Hawaii”) that Dr. Fukino (seemly out of the blue) released her second News Release.

    Could Fukino have used H. RES. 593 as “prima facie” evidence to issue her second News Release and finally make the claim “Obama was born in Hawaii”?

    I think the answer is yes, based on

    Federal Rules of Evidence
    Rule 902. Self-authentication

    (10) Presumptions under Acts of Congress. Any signature, document, or other matter declared by Act of Congress to be presumptively or prima facie genuine or authentic.

    H.Res. 593 was authored by Neil Abercrombie while he was a Representative. Was he rewarded with the Governorship of Hawaii?

    The whole thing is more than just a little fishy.

    Again, if Obama really wanted to put the Birth Certificate issue to rest, he would authorize the State of Hawaii to send his Birth Certificate under seal directly to Congress, just as was done with the other two certificates that were relevant to his election.

    Then, we could “move on” to the issue of being born a natural born British subject is mutually exclusive with being born a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

  42. Rather than keep his promise of transparency, Obama prefers to hide his original birth certificate (which he claimed, in his book, that he found as a young adult, so he should still have it) SECRET, and have attorneys shoot the messenger (Orly Taitz in this case).

  43. And the issue of the Birth Certificate is a sideshow in comparison to the legal questions regarding Minor Vs. Happersett.

    The Obama birth narrative is either true or it’s not.

    If it’s true, he’s not a natural born citizen.

    If it’s not true, then the possibility still exists that he is a natural born citizen, but if that is true, then he is also guilty of forgery, fraud, obstruction of justice, etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s