“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!

This entry was posted on October 24, 2011 at 1:44 pm and is filed under Presidential Eligibility. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

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

Agent Smith Says:
January 14, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Mr. Anderson,

In the context of his campaign promise, transparency is more about things like putting the wars on the books (correcting a very dishonest practice of the Bush administration) than things like releasing his birth certificate (which he did before any questions were raised in any case–the only major party candidate ever to do so, by the way). We’ve got serious problems in this country–wasting time trying to pretend the the president is ineligible is frivolous and making the straw man argument about breaking a campaign promise in support of that is even more so.

You said:

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.

He “released” the documents in the only reasonable way to do so–let anyone who wanted to come to his office take a look and post images on the internet. None of the images are suspicious and they are all consistent with each other (and the accurate versions of statements made by various officials regarding the issue). Furthermore, they have been verified as authentic in official statements and sworn testimony by two heads of the only agency qualified to determine the authenticity of Hawai’ian birth certificates. Finally, he has never been asked for his birth certificate by a court of competent jurisdiction–why was he subject to demands (which he had already fulfilled in any case) that none of his predecessors were? It seems likely that the COLB (or the LFBC) will be introduced into evidence in Georgia on the 26th–and the court will be forced to recognize it as prima facie evidence* of natural born citizenship (and age) and dismiss the case.

* to do otherwise would violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution and you wouldn’t want to do that, would you? (except in the case of judicial standing–I still don’t understand why you want the courts to disregard what the Constitution says about standing…).

Again, as we all know, what Obama “released” was a multi-layered PDF that many people think is a forgery.

No credible expert thinks it is a forgery (no expert** would give an opinion without examining the physical document. Nothing in any of the released images was inconsistent with valid Hawai’i birth certificates (although the LFBC is a one-of-a-kind document, it is also a valid BC).

** a “questioned document examiner” would have the appropriate expertise in this case, by the way–some guy that used an Adobe product once, not so much…

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.

All of the proper procedures were followed (the same procedures followed by all of his predecessors). Congress had the opportunity to object (if one Senator and one Representative did so to Dick the war criminal in writing–which is exactly what happened in 2004) and did not do so. Can you show anything which was done in the case of President Obama’s predecessors that was not done in his case? If not, why should anyone take the eligibility movement seriously?

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

So what? They said so under oath. They repeatedly said the documents posted online were copies of his BC. These documents can be verified in any court and will meet or exceed any relevant evidentiary standards (not to mention that there is no credible evidence to refute them whatsoever).

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”?

She testified under oath that an image of President Obama’s birth certificate had been posted on his website. HR 593 didn’t cover that.

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.

Why should anyone care about your baseless speculations? Besides, there’s no need for a conspiracy unless President Obama isn’t a natural born citizen and the only judicial precedent*** extant says he is (Ankeny).

*** it may not be binding on other courts, but it is most certainly a precedent that would be impossible for a even good lawyer to overcome (because a rebuttal to the decision could not be supported in law), let alone the incompetents that pass for lawyers amongst the eligibility movement. I would guess that it would be the second thing that a defense lawyer would enter into evidence (after the COLB).

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.

Why should he want to put it to rest? It’s a political winner for him–something that drives a wedge between independents and the right. (That being said, he tried to lay it to rest for the good of the country–and was fairly successful when he whipped out his LFBC…) Furthermore, as he has fulfilled all of the Constitutionally mandated requirements and been more forthcoming than his predecessors****(we don’t know nearly as much about his predecessors’ past as we do about President Obama).

**** Holding President Obama to a higher standard than his predecessors is hypocritical–didn’t anyone teach you that double standards are wrong?

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.

First off, I don’t believe that President Obama was a natural born British subject (a matter of abstruse British law), but, more importantly, what says the two are mutually exclusive? The laws of England determine who her natural born subjects are. Are you suggesting that the US Constitution and law is unable to determine who is or isn’t a natural born citizen without referring to British laws? I kind of thought we fought a war over that…

Rather than keep his promise of transparency,

He has kept it (much better than most politicians keep their campaign promises at the very least). His very first executive order overturned a Bush-era order and returned to the more transparent standard for official papers of former presidents (not the current president) that existed under President Reagan. He’s made a lot of governmental information available on the web–something I heartily approve of. There are things he could do better on, but, all-in-all, I think he’s done a good job with transparency (and you were never going to vote for him anyway, so why should anyone care about your opinion regarding his campaign promises?)

Obama prefers to hide his original birth certificate

He released what everyone gets from the DoH–why isn’t that sufficient?

(which he claimed, in his book, that he found as a young adult, so he should still have it)

This argument is inane–he may or may not still have it, but in any case he has no obligation (or reason) to show it. If presented in court it would be equivalent to the COLB or the LFBC as prima facie evidence of birth in Hawai’i–I don’t understand the mystical significance you seem to imbue it with.

SECRET, and have attorneys shoot the messenger (Orly Taitz in this case).

All of Orly’s wounds are self-inflicted via her legendary incompetence. After the hearing on sanctions in Hawai’i and her upcoming “trial” in Georgia I think you will see that she doesn’t have a clue about how the legal process works (which is okay unless you’re pretending to be a lawyer…). The woman is a disgrace to the legal profession and the California bar and the damage she’s done to the eligibility movement is incalculable. Even if the movement had merit, Orly’s antics would probably insure its marginalization.

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

I broke down the logic in the relevant quote from Minor v. Happersett formally and proved (not a word I use casually) that Leo Donofrio’s interpretation leads to a contradiction. Even if the dicta in Minor said what Leo believes it does it would have been superseded by the holding in Wong Kim Ark. If Leo believes in his legal theory (which is demonstrably faulty), then why is he unwilling to file a case in court and argue it? This (along with his moderation policy, his interactions on various blogs, and his behavior in chess tournaments*****) smack of cowardice to me.

*****If he loses in the early rounds he withdraws so the losses don’t hurt his ranking–it’s not against the rules, but I certainly wouldn’t call it “brave”…

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

It should be presumed true due to the absence of credible evidence to the contrary and any compelling reason why it would be a lie.

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

No. Jus soli implies NBC (diplomats, enemies, yada, yada yada).

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.

Since President Obama is a natural born citizen according to the State of Hawai’i and the US Constitution requires every other state to give full faith and credit to Hawai’i's determination, the fraud you speak of doesn’t exist, but, even if that wasn’t true, you would be unable to show a fraud, as that would not only require demonstrating that he knew about the errors, but also that he was complicit in events which began with his birth–a ridiculous assertion.
The Conservative Hill Billy Says:
January 20, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Reblogged this on theconservativehillbilly and commented:
Your coA Republic is ruled by the Rule of Law.
A Democracy is ruled by the Rule of the Majority.
A Republic is ruled by the Rule of Law.
A Democracy is ruled by the Rule of the Majority.

A Republic is ruled by the Rule of Law.
A Democracy is ruled by the Rule of the Majority.
itooktheredpill Says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:22 am
I’ve got Georgia on my mind…

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/01/27/blow-by-blow-account-of-obama-ballot-challenge-in-georgia-courtroom/

http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/obama-eligibility-hearings-to-be-broadcast-thursday-jan-26/
Agent Smith Says:
February 1, 2012 at 9:40 pm
You might not want to get your hopes up for a frogmarchin’ quite yet…

Here’s my prediction for what will happen (and contingencies if I’m wrong):

Judge Malihi will recommend that President Obama remain on the ballot and the inevitable appeal will be tossed quickly on the merits if the lawyers can overcome procedural hurdles (not likely). If the ALJ recommends against President Obama then the SoS will likely just ignore the recommendation, but if he doesn’t then he will be quickly smacked down by the courts for his meritless position.

If you’d like a second opinion…

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/27/some-cold-water-on-overheated-birther-mania/?cp=all

Anyway, just wanted to mention that before the judge’s recommendation–I’ll stop by afterwards to see how I did…
itooktheredpill Says:
February 9, 2012 at 12:58 am

—

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn%3A7556989

I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)