Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
David Weigel has an amusing post at the Washington Independent about Orly Taitz, the chief lawyer for the Obama birthers, and her penchant for misstating the truth. Taitz keeps coming up with reasons why her innumerable lawsuits against Obama are going well even though they all end up being dismissed. Her latest was in the Worldnutdaily:
She told WND that at today's hearing, the judge issued no orders, but promised that the case would be moved forward and he would address the merits of the dispute. He said there would be no dismissals based on "procedural issues."The judge said as a former Marine he recognizes the importance of having a constitutionally qualified president ... Taitz told WND, "For first time, we have a judge who's listening."
Turns out this is highly inaccurate wishful thinking:
Unfortunately for Taitz, an actual reporter from The Los Angeles Times followed up on the story.Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said that "the judge did make a bunch of comments about having the matter correctly and thoroughly aired, once and if they got to the merits of the actual lawsuit, which was not the subject of today's discussion."
The key word is "if," Mrozek stressed. "We're literally at procedural grounds at this point in time," he said.
At a previous hearing, Carter had ruled that Taitz had not properly served the case on Obama. In Monday's hearing, both Taitz and DeJute tried to prematurely argue the merits of the case. Carter, a former marine, told both parties that the case could easily be tied up for months or another year on procedural technicalities. A better approach would be for Taitz just to file the paperwork so that the case could proceed without more delays, the judge said.
Weigel concludes correctly:
The underlying fact here is that Taitz has no idea what she's doing, and consistently files garbled, incoherent lawsuits stuffed with assertions and debunked rumors. Sometimes, after she does this, a judge will humor her and kick the can down the road. That happened again in California. But in the Birtherverse, this is being treated as a breakthrough.
A few months ago, Taitz went to a book signing for Chief Justice John Roberts to harangue him about the birther nonsense and all the suits filed. Roberts gave her a perfunctory "we'll give the matter all due consideration when it gets to us" answer and Taitz immediately ran to the Worldnutdaily and said that Roberts had agreed to hear her case. I don't know whether she's just such a crazed fanatic that she can't distinguish between a polite blow off and real interest, or whether she's just a congenital liar.
Wanna see just how crazed Taitz is? Take a look at this statement:
Obama "truth" squad and people like Secretary of State of Ohio Jennifer Brunner and all the others that have been collaborating with this Gestapo-SS establishment, they all should and would be tried in Nurenberg style trials for harassing, intimidating, blackmailing and terrorizing fellow citizens, for defrauding the whole country. Patriots of this country didn't fight and defeat Nazi Germany to end up with Obamas, McCuskill, Soros, Brunner and the rest of this squad. I hope that the men in this country, particularly in our military will finally revolt against this travesty of Justice. If our government and our elected officials and our judiciary have failed us, then it is time for the new government, new elected officials and a new judiciary.
Politics
Comments
Sounds to me like Orly Taitz is advocating armed overthrow of the U.S.Government. Isn't that, like, dislegal?
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 9:21 AM
Demo: So you're also one of THEM? You're on the LIST now.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 16, 2009 9:27 AM
demo, kersham,
We're all on the list here as we've been laughing at them for a year.
WND has had bither garbage on the front page for weeks. Oddly, they linked to a recent Keith Olberman 'worst person' segment that fingered Taitz and the stupid major she was defending against dismissal for questioning Obama's authority. Olberman tore them up quite nicely. I would have expected WND would have had derogatory comments around the segment but unless I missed something it was a straight up thrashing of birthers and their nonsense.
Posted by: MikeMa | July 16, 2009 9:42 AM
Taitz statements:
On the one hand she claims the judiciary is supportive of the legitimacy of her case, on the other hand she wants to eradicate the current courts off the face of the earth. How is this anything but an argument for tyranny where her group controls the outcomes regardless of the legitimacy of their cause and the rule of law?
I know, I'm trying to rationalize an insane position. Sometimes that's just plain fun.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 16, 2009 9:44 AM
I've heard assertions by this crowd that Alan Keyes' "case" is being heard. Is this complete BS, or has he filed a brand new suit? I thought his "case" was dispensed with long ago.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 16, 2009 9:53 AM
So precisely how bad is it that all I can imagine through this is Taitz popping up in front of a judge somewhere and exclaiming, "Obama isn't a natural-born citizen!"
Only for the judge to raise an eyebrow and reply, "Orly?"
Posted by: Morgan | July 16, 2009 9:58 AM
In that WND article, Alan Keyes says,
1. America, I'll miss ya.
2. Yes, technically it's a side-splittingly hilarious matter. When Alan Keyes gets involved in something, the result is always going to be a comedic tour de force, not unlike Caddyshack or Highlander 2: The Quickening.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 16, 2009 10:03 AM
Imrryr:
I think "Lowbrow 2: The Thickening" would be more like it.
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 10:07 AM
@democommie: Good, all we need is a director. Uwe Boll would probably do it.
Posted by: Imrryr | July 16, 2009 10:11 AM
"We're either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist," he said. "That's not a laughing matter.'
If that's the America that's gotta go, so much the better. "It was a mercy killing" - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 16, 2009 10:20 AM
I read that as Caddyshack 2: The Quickening...
"A former greenskeeper, now, about to become Connor McCloud."
Posted by: NJ | July 16, 2009 10:21 AM
Perhaps the lawyers who comment on this blog can answer this question. How come the California Bar Association is not investigating Ms. Taitz for conduct that has the effect of bringing the legal profession into disrepute?
Posted by: SLC | July 16, 2009 10:29 AM
No, you've got the protagonist all wrong. Its the gopher that's unkillable :)
Posted by: eric | July 16, 2009 10:31 AM
The thing about the Judge Roberts story was that its quoted as Roberts telling Oritz to give his SS detail the documentation. Except the SS doesn't protect members of the Judiciary - Federal Marshals do. So the story is highly suspect on a lot of levels.
Posted by: yoshi | July 16, 2009 10:36 AM
I don't know whether she's just such a crazed fanatic that she can't distinguish between a polite blow off and real interest, or whether she's just a congenital liar.
I've run across this phenomenom in other contexts (specifically, a local perpetual motion nut). The delusional psychology interprets any response short of a loud "Fuck off and die" as enthusiastic endorsement. There are some people to whom it just isn't a good idea to be polite.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 16, 2009 10:37 AM
WorldNutDaily is also crowing about a soldier who had refused to deploy in Afghanistan over the birth-certificate issue, whose deployment orders had been rescinded. No reason was given for the recission, so of course the loonies are sayng it's because the ENTIRE US MILITARY are questioning Obama's legitimacy. Has anyone heard anything ablut this? So far I've heard nothing about it anywhere else.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 16, 2009 11:17 AM
#5- Keyes' lawsuit, Keyes v. Bowen, was tentatively dismissed, Keyes' petition and subpoenas were rejected and Keyes was found ineligible to access Obama's birth certificate by the HI state health department. Keyes is funny-he said Obama had threatend his life and liberty because he was challenging Obama's legitimacy. If there's a new suit, I've heard nothing about it.
Even Birthers have a hard time debunking the short-form certificate's authenticity, and the short-form says that it serves as 1st-hand proof of the birth, so it satisfies any birth certificate requirement.
Even if Obama came out tomorrow and said he wasn't a US citizen and never had been, he'd be removed and he might be charged with perjury, since passport applications and certain campaign statements are made under penalty of perjury. However, since the Electoral College does separate ballots for President & VP, there's no way to contest the legitimacy of Biden's election as VP. Biden's to the right of Obama by a hair, so he'd basically do the same as Obama.
Even if Biden were somehow disqualified from becoming president, Pelosi would become president, since the Speaker is 2nd in the line of succession. Alternatively, since the president-elect and vice president-elect would not have qualified in this scenario, Congress would pick both under the 20th amendment. Since it wouldn't be convening over an Electoral College non-majority, it wouldn't have to pick between the top 2 electoral vote getters-it could pick anyone.
Is Taitz really calling for a military coup? Military coups against democracies lead to dictatorships. Obviously, Taitz wants the kind of democracy where everyone agrees with her and dissent is a capital crime. I call that tyranny.
Liberals aren't Nazi socialist terrorists. If they were, wouldn't they have gone after their most vocal critics, like Rush Limbaugh and Mitch McConnell, rather than people even Ann Coulter thinks are batshit?
Posted by: Matt | July 16, 2009 11:27 AM
I haven't seen that the soldier's deployment was rescinded either. The original story I saw is
here:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1139969.html
There is a "lively" collection of comments after it. You'll also find a lively discussion following the paper's "get over the citizenship stuff" opinion piece.
The backers of this "citizenship problem" and the September 11 folks have two significant things in common, it seems: lack of thinking skills and very poor command of language.
Posted by: dean | July 16, 2009 11:45 AM
Should we take bets on when we'll get the first post of:
If Obama would just produce the original vaulted BC and send it to everyone in the country instead of spending billions of dollars fighting these lawsuits blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada . . .
Posted by: Taz | July 16, 2009 11:49 AM
WorldNutDaily is also crowing about a soldier who had refused to deploy in Afghanistan over the birth-certificate issue, whose deployment orders had been rescinded. No reason was given for the recission, so of course the loonies are sayng it's because the ENTIRE US MILITARY are questioning Obama's legitimacy. Has anyone heard anything ablut this? So far I've heard nothing about it anywhere else.
Olbermann talked about this case yesterday and the day before. Taitz was representing the wing-nut Major who was (obviously) a birther. His argument was that he couldn't be deployed to Afghanistan by the president because he wasn't legally the president ... blah blah blah, Kenya, birth certificate blah...
Reality: The guy volunteered for a tour in Afghanistan (possibly to launch this case?), you can "unvolunteer," by launching this case the military decided that he had unvolunteered and withdrew his deployment orders. What WND probably didn't mention is that the guy's job involved working with the DoD and that they have also effectively stated that he, in his civilian role, is not welcome on any military installations, effectively ending his civilian career. I don't really care for the Huffington Post, but they have a pretty good summary of the case:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/14/stefan-frederick-cook-sol_n_231383.html
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 16, 2009 11:54 AM
@Raging Bee: This case came up on Balloon Juice yesterday. Someone in the comments dug up the Army's motion to dismiss the case (on grounds that the recission of the deployment order made it moot), and it included the statement "The Commanding General of SOCCENT has determined that he does not want the services of
Major Cook, and has revoked his deployment orders." I gather that a General not wanting your services is not good for the military career.
He was apparently also dismissed from his civilian job with a military contractor, and the possibility was raised that he may be facing a court-martial on charges somewhere on the spectrum between "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" and "sedition", since he may have volunteered for deployment for the sole purpose of attaining standing to file the birther suit.
Posted by: Cathy W | July 16, 2009 12:00 PM
I just read Dennett's bit, linked from Pharyngula, about belief in belief.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/16/daniel-dennett-belief-atheism
Seems to resonate in this case as well. I'd guess that people like Keyes and Limbaugh don't actually believe in the facts of this cause, just like they probably accept that the rule against foreign-born presidents is a relic; if their chosen candidate happened to fail that test, they'd aggressively argue the switch-side (and I'd side with them, too; though I wouldn't likely vote for him, I'd support a measure to abolish the rule so Schwarzenegger could run, for example. It's in the best interest of the nation that viable candidates aren't ruled out on a technicality. On the other hand I'm open to arguments that the rule isn't a relic; I just haven't heard anybody make one.) Note the relative calmness of the conversation about McCain's birth in the PCZ; it wasn't that the circumstances of his birth disqualified him--they didn't--it was that few or no serious critics of McCain wanted to disqualify him at all. We think differently and, I think, rightly.
These people don't care how they tarnish or disqualify Obama; they just want to. And, as several people have pointed out above, it certainly doesn't matter what is said in discussion of the subject, whether by reporters or thinkers or chief-justices.
This is the essence of my disgust with the current opposition to the Democrats' control of the government. There are few or no real arguments being offered that would affect the nation's fabric; there are only these ad hoc attempts to overturn or damage the ideas that have been offered. We are somewhat responsible for the problem, because we can't resist engaging them. People like Orly Taitz are irresistible, because we keep judging them by our own standards. She's very poorly educated, for example--we want to point that out, forgetting that she's perfectly happy to concede the point and turn it in to an advantage, a la Sarah Palin's wandering odyssey of undergraduate work. We relish the chance to take swings at her, but she's one of those inflatable clowns that pop back up, still smiling; meanwhile truly dangerous conditions creep up from behind while we chuckle and punch away.
The blurring of response venues is part of this, and again we participate in it. I love Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, et al, but I don't embrace the notion that they are the real reporters; that lets the real reporters off the hook to do their job, and implies that Olbermann's well-deserved mockery of Orly Taitz entirely serves the purpose of putting the lawsuits where they belong. What should be happening is that Olbermann mocks the woman, and at the same time several news organizations with stature pointedly ignore the story. Instead the news organizations take up the story too, because it sells; they fail to use their key power, which is the power to evaluate newsworthiness and to decide in the negative. This also empowers Fox to meet the needs of their believers by reporting the story a couple of increments more sympathetically than ABC or CNN, keeping them in the same cohort when they clearly don't belong.
I've been firing off notes to my local news organizations for years complaining that they are covering stuff they should ignore, but all I've managed to do is get catch-22 all over myself.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | July 16, 2009 12:17 PM
Thanks for that information, Cathy. I hope they leave the fool alone. Pursuing him further will just create a new career for him as a professional martyr and Obama-victim.
Posted by: idahogie | July 16, 2009 12:21 PM
Wow. Here's a sample from the text of a brief filed by Orly:
Gee, I wonder why these get dismissed so often?
Posted by: Wes | July 16, 2009 2:21 PM
Good, all we need is a director. Uwe Boll would probably do it.
It's not video game based. You'll never get Boll onboard.
What this needs is Michael Bay.
Alan Keyes (played by Denzel Washington): I'm angry! I'm angry that my President probably isn't even an American! You do not know how angry I am right now! [pounds on desk]
[Desk explodes. The smoke clears, Alan Keyes is covered in dust and wood chips, but otherwise completely unhurt.]
Posted by: Geds | July 16, 2009 2:59 PM
Hey guys. The grass is getting deep. The birthers will get their day in court. We all are in for an intreating debate some day. Pace yourselves
Posted by: Ken the Waterproofer | July 16, 2009 3:34 PM
Interesting. Dang this Blackberry Storm key board
Posted by: Ken the Waterproofer | July 16, 2009 3:42 PM
Has there been any recent definitive federal ruling on what "natural born" means? Wikipedia suggests ambiguity on the issue. (I know, Wiki's not definitive, but it's a layman's starting point.) I heard on NPR yesterday an interview with a state-level legislator (from Arizona??) who claimed that children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents were not US citizens (and so do not qualify for state aid), because of the "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." clause in the 14th amendment, which was a new concept to me. There also wasn't anything on Wiki about any decision on whether children of US citizens are also citizens, regardless of where they were physically born. There's nothing in the amendment's text about the status of the parents of the person at issue. But if the child of a citizen is also a citizen, doesn't that cut the legs out from under the birthers claims?
(Sorry if I'm late to that discussion, or if this is a rehash of settled issue.)
Posted by: Scott | July 16, 2009 3:46 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but how does it matter where someone was born. As long as one of their parents is a US citizen then they are as well.
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2009 4:37 PM
The birfers already HAD their day in court. They had nothing to offer. Pace yourselves...
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 16, 2009 4:37 PM
Scott: The "Subject to the jurisdiction of" phrase is to carve out an exception for diplomats and their families. The children of illegals are citizens if born in this country (the so-called "anchor babies"). With the exception of diplomats, anyone physically present in the USA is subject to its jurisdiction.
A hint: If the speaker does not state that they are a lawyer who has worked on numerous immigration cases (as I have) thy are making it up as they go along.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 16, 2009 4:55 PM
Scott, the Jurisdiction Clause of the 14th Amendment is for children of ambassadors and other such people whose families have diplomatic immunity. Illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" and as such their children are natural born citizens if born in the US. So long as he was born on US soil, according to the Supreme Court* he is a natural born citizen and the subsequent actions of his parents can't strip him of that citizenship.
*Child of immigrants born in US, the father having become a naturalized citizen the year before, was declared a natural-born citizen and could not have citizenship involuntarily stripped even though parents returned with child to native country and renounced US citizenship
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | July 16, 2009 5:04 PM
What is it with wingnuts and unfortunate names for attorneys? In Ohio we've got "R. Kelly" defending Freshwater and here we have birthers represented by someone who goes by the name of "ORLY".
I don't suppose the DOJ has a "Yarly Lulz" on staff to tap for opposing counsel?
Posted by: DaveL | July 16, 2009 5:06 PM
@Scott
I heard the same claim, and went back and checked the text of the amendment. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems pretty clear that the "jurisdiction" clause is talking about people under the jurisdiction of the US. If one were to argue somehow that illegal immigrants weren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", I suppose you would have to stop arresting them for crimes, deporting them, etc. since US law wouldn't have any authority over them.
As far as the ruling on "natural born", I'm not aware of a ruling. But ... individuals born of American parents, overseas (like myself) are not required to be naturalized. Which suggests that they are "natural" at the time they are born.
Posted by: psweet | July 16, 2009 5:11 PM
kersham, Kevin, psweet: thanks for the update.
So if Obama's mother was a US citizen at the time of his birth, what leg do the birthers have to stand on? Even McCain has less claim to citizenship. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is still a citizen, as much as McCain is.
Posted by: Scott | July 16, 2009 5:33 PM
Scott,
Small correction. As McCain's parents were also citizens, he has no less of a claim than Obama. Nor any more of one, of course.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 16, 2009 5:56 PM
R Bee
Wait and see
Mmmmmmkay
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | July 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Re Ken The Waterproofer
Ho, ho, ho, and need I say ha, ha, ha. President Obama will be declared ineligible to be president when Mr. Ken sees the back of his own ear without aid of a mirror.
Posted by: SLC | July 16, 2009 6:35 PM
SLC
I just took a picture of the back of my ear with my cell phone camera and looked at it. I think declaring President Obama inelible will take longer than that. That is if he is ineligible. I make no claims one way or another. This needs to be heard in a Federal Court and not in the Kangaroo Court of the Blogisphere
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | July 16, 2009 7:23 PM
Ken,
"This needs to be heard in a federal court"? It's been to federal court several times, and rejected each time. It's not as though the federal courts have not yet had a chance to hear it, it's that the cases are wholly without merit.
Geez, previously the birfers would come flocking to this site for such a post, and the best we can get this time is the not-quite-sure Ken? And over at obamacrimes.info, Phil Berg hasn't updated his site in weeks, and his pleas for donations so he can put up signs--BIG SIGNS!--are apparently being ignored.
Could this mean birfer-madness is fading? So soon?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 16, 2009 8:19 PM
What a loon (soon to be ex-Major Cook, I mean). He needs to find a copy of the UCMJ and look up the part about "incitement to mutiny."
Posted by: Shay | July 16, 2009 8:53 PM
"Alan Keyes (played by Denzel Washington)"
I think Paul Warfield might be better for that part, or maybe John Witherspoon.
Posted by: democommie | July 16, 2009 9:08 PM
Re Ken the Waterproofer
Cameras don't count. Of course, if Mr. Ken can come up with a Kenyan birth certificate, we might take him seriously. Until that unlikely situation occurs, he's just another whackjob troll wasting communications bandwidth on his musings.
Posted by: SLC | July 17, 2009 6:43 AM
I'm with Hanley on this: if this post gets only one birfer, and he can't come up with more than five sentences, and isn't even trying to offer a specific case, that pretty strongly implies they're running out of steam.
I'd ask the same question I always ask birfer trolls, but I never got a response from them when they were energized, so I really can't expect a response when they're not.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 7:43 AM
SLC
Changing the rules of the game so you can win. Do you work for The Justice Department? I respectfully wish to appeal your ruling. You said in your previous post, that I was to attempt seeing the back of my ear without the use of "a" mirror. I will resubmit my findings utilizing "2" mirrors.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | July 17, 2009 8:33 AM
I respectfully wish to appeal your ruling.
On appeal, you have been found still irrelevant.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 8:41 AM
And this, ladies and gentlemen, illustrates nicely why birthers will never win a case in court.
Posted by: DaveL | July 17, 2009 8:47 AM
Yo, birfer-boy, why is the number in "quotes?" Uncertain of your ability to count, perhaps?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 8:50 AM
If you're jonesing for more birther nuttiness, here an email a conservative coworker forwarded to me yesterday. I present it to you sans my reply for your own delicious debunking delight.
----------------------
THINK ABOUT IT
!!!!
Very Interesting
questions--
=
More questions, and this time some good questions.
While I've little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi?
So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.
It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's "no travel" list in 1981.
Conclusion:
When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Whatever the truth of the matter,the American people need to know how he managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008.
Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
If you Don't care that
Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the
Constitution, then Delete this and go into your cocoon.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2009 9:25 AM
There have been very few countries to which U.S. citizens are forbidden from traveling, and they have always been enemy states, not allied states.
It's entirely possible that U.S. citizens were warned that travel to Pakistan might be dangerous, but it was not forbidden. Heck, even travel to India--The USSR's client state--was never forbidden.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 17, 2009 9:37 AM
Scopes already debunked this one. There was a travel advisory for Pakistan, related to changes in paperwork for travelers/tourists, but it was not, nor ever has been, on a "no travel" list.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 17, 2009 9:47 AM
Abby - I received your referenced email from every conservative I do email correspondence with, including those that are not overtly religious or "pro-life". What do they have in common? They're all plus 70 years old.
The latest panic in the Loonisphere getting a lot of viral email distribution comes from an Investors Business Daily editorial that claims that after the health care bill goes into effect, if you lose your private insurer for whatever reason, you'll be forced into the public plan. This is quite simply not true.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 17, 2009 10:10 AM
You guys crack me up.
Your prejudice comments continue contribute to global whining and may be subject to further Federal Regulations contingent on the availability the ability of the government to borrow more money
Because you will not accept the use of photography and the use of the ""2"" mirror system
I may have go to the steps of your Kangaroo Court and employ the Vincent Vangogh Method.
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | July 17, 2009 10:18 AM
Re Ken the Waterproofer
Okay, President Obama will be ruled ineligible for the POTUS when the shrimps learn to whistle. That better? By the way, does Mr. Ken side with Orley Taitz or Philip Berg (see thread above)?
Posted by: SLC | July 17, 2009 10:28 AM
That the Ken Doll could see his ear with the aid of two mirrors is not a big deal. What's amazing is that he would pull his head out of his ass for long enough to do so.
Posted by: democommie | July 17, 2009 10:44 AM
And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York, Jakarta, and Karachi, what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?
Wow, this takes irrelevance to ao whole new level. WHO CARES what passport you use at what gate, as long as all your passports are valid? Seriously, there's nothing unusual about this: I've known US citizens with family connections in certain Middle-Esatern countries, who have VALID passports from these countries as well as VALID US pasports. And they use whatever passport gets them where they need to go with the least trouble. Want to visit friends or business associates discretely in Saudi Arabia, which doesn't give tourist visas to US citizens? OF COURSE you'll show them a Jordanian or Kuwaiti passport, if you can get one legally. DUH. If they let you through with it, it's legal.
This objection only proves how clueless some people are when it comes to ANYTHING relating to countries, customs, cultures or laws outside the good ol' USA. These wankers don't even understand how citizenship works, let alone passports and foreign travel.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 11:05 AM
Okay, President Obama will be ruled ineligible for the POTUS when the shrimps learn to whistle. That better?
No. Here's what Ken will probably say: "If I drop a shrimp from an airplane, it will make a whistling noise as it falls, so why won't Obama furnish his long-form birth certificate?"
Dumbest. Conspiracy-buffs. EVER.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 11:11 AM
@Michael Heath
I'm not surprised. Though the person who sent it to me yesterday is in her mid 30's. To her credit she accepted my rebuttal promised to forward the debunking to everyone whom she'd sent the original email. Of course she then immediately spent that credit with more inanity. But hey, that's what make life so entertaining.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 17, 2009 11:13 AM
If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.
Meanwhile, on the distant planet Bolox XII, trouble was brewing.
I believe whoever wrote this chain-letter has crossed over from "wrong" to "not even wrong." Should someone call John Edward?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 11:16 AM
My favourite is the often-made implicit claim that if any government, under their own laws, considers you a citizen of their country, you somehow lose U.S. citizenship.
I'm sure that scenario would have provided endless fun to the North Koreans had it ever been actually true. They could have invalidated every presidential election in the U.S. with very little effort.
Posted by: DaveL | July 17, 2009 11:31 AM
Ed - you really should change the headline, it's insulting to Neolithic farmers.
The birfers' grasp of the 21st century world is closer to that of early Paleolithic hunter/gathers (exhibit 'A' Ken The Waterproofer). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | July 17, 2009 11:50 AM
SLC
Good one. When shrimp whistle
I am not a big fan of Berg or Taitz.
I prefer Mario Puzo's arguments.
Http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | July 17, 2009 12:01 PM
Ken The Waterproofer stated:
Your Puzo argument is equally fallacious. The Constitution has no language that requires "natural born" status to be attributed only to people where both their parents are citizens, nor is there any law that also sets that bar.
Just because Mr. Puzo says that both parents must be citizens does not make it so. The Constitution, the applicable federal statutes, and the Judiciary make that call. Given the Constitution doesn't establish the bar Puzo sets, nor do our laws, nor has the Judiciary, Puzo's argument is the equivalent of my proclaiming that "adults drinking milk on Thursday is unconstitutional" - and equally absurd I might add. For this reason Mr. Puzo and you have the same chance in court I do making it illegal to drink milk on Thursday if one were to use Puzo's argument.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 17, 2009 2:44 PM
No court has standing whatsoever even if you had absolute proof that Obama was a 19 year old Belgian. No court ruling could have any effect. The election is over and certified by Congress. The only way to remove a sitting president is impeachment and conviction by the Congress.
Posted by: Zippy the Pinhead | July 17, 2009 3:41 PM
Re Michael Heath
The problem with Mr. Puzos' argument is that he is operating under the fallacious assumption that there are more then 2 kinds of citizens. Unfortunately for him, there are only 2 kinds, natural born and naturalized. President Obama qualifies as a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii after it became a state. The citizenship of his parents matters not. In fact, they could be illegal aliens and he would still be a natural born citizen. Until Mr. Puzo or Mr. Ken come up with a Kenyan birth certificate, they are shit out of luck.
Interestingly enough, this issue came up in a recent novel by novelist Stuart Woods. In the novel, a proposed vice president, who was nominated to replace a vice president who had died in office, was born in a vehicle as it was crossing the Mexican/US border; his father was an American citizen, who had been living in Mexico for a number of years; his mother was a Mexican national. During the congressional hearing on the nomination, a Congressman from the other party put on as a witness the border guard who was on duty at the time of the proposed vice presidents' birth. He claimed that the border post was in Mexico and the fellow was born as he was conversing with the driver, who happened to be the father. However, it turned out that the border guard was unaware that the border post had been moved a week earlier some 100 feet north so that it was in the US at the time of birth.
Posted by: SLC | July 17, 2009 6:02 PM
Yeah, but at least he's white. (They'll never say it, but you know that's what the birthers are thinking. Well, maybe not Keyes.)
Posted by: Nemo | July 17, 2009 7:57 PM
"Well, maybe not Keyes."
I would bet that deep down Mr. Keyes would prefer a white man in the office.
Posted by: dean | July 17, 2009 9:10 PM
Harsh words will be hard to swallow.
I try to avoid using them.
They have caused me pain ""2"" many times
Posted by: Ken The Waterproofer | July 17, 2009 10:52 PM
SLC,
As I understand your description of the novel, the potential veep's father was an American citizen, so it wouldn't matter which side of the border he was on.
Did I misunderstand your description, or is the author as dumb as the birthers?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 18, 2009 8:58 AM
Re James Hanley
Mr. Hanley has understood the description I provided correctly and I have checked again and that is, indeed, one of the sub-plots of the novel.
On the subject of what is a natural born American Citizen, I have read it argued both ways as to whether a child born outside the jurisdiction of the US to a natural born American Citizen with the other parent not being a citizen is himself/herself a natural born American Citizen. Apparently author Woods thinks that the answer is in the negative. I don't know how much research Mr. Woods does before writing his novels and I haven't found any discussion by him on the issue so I don't know whether he is basing the sub-plot on something he has researched or just pulling it out of his asshole.
Does Mr. Hanley have a link to a discussion on this issue by a constitutional lawyer, who is certainly more competent to discuss it then I am.
Eugene Volokh argues that, in the particular case of President Obama, if in fact he was actually born in Kenya, his mother would have had to have resided at least 5 consecutive years in the US after attaining the age of 14. Since she was shy of her 19th birthday when the president was born, he argues that a Kenyan born Obama would not be a natural born citizen. However, I have also heard it argued that this only applies to someone who, them-self, is not a natural born American Citizen. Since there is no doubt that the president's mother was a natural born American Citizen, under this interpretation a Kenyan born Obama would be a natural born citizen.
I am totally incompetent to make heads or tails out of this issue. However, I think that it is pretty clear that it is irrelevant as all the evidence indicates a Hawaiian birth and no evidence indicates a Kenyan birth; Volokh and all the other constitutional lawyers I have found agree that anyone born in the jurisdiction of the US is a natural born American Citizen; Hawaii being a state in 1961 was certainly within the US jurisdiction.
Posted by: SLC | July 18, 2009 6:43 PM
SLC,
Actually a friend of mine ran into that problem. He was the oldest son of a native born US citizen and a British citizen. Mom was incorrectly informed that there was no problem because she was a US citizen, it didn't matter where he was born, etc. Unfortunately the person at the embassy screwed up, his mother had not resided in the United States long enough to qualify and, because of this, he did not qualify as a US citizen. Really weird situation, I've known the guy for more than 15 years, didn't learn he wasn't a US citizen until he became one. He was actually the only one in his direct family, mother, father, siblings, who wasn't a US citizen.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 18, 2009 6:58 PM
Re dogmeatB
But was the mother a natural born American Citizen or a naturalized citizen?
Posted by: SLC | July 18, 2009 7:20 PM