Birthers at it again

[Grim Reaper]

Birthers Attempt To Remove Obama From New Hampshire Primary

The birther wars continue. Orly Taitz, birther queen of California, personally filed a complaint in New Hampshire on Saturday that challenged President Obama’s U.S. citizenship and argued for his removal from the state’s ballot, reports the Concord Monitor.

New Hampshire’s electoral governing body, the Ballot Law Commission, turned down the complaint in a public hearing via 5-0 vote. It got pretty ugly shortly thereafter.

“Traitors!” screamed the members of the attending public. “Treason!”

“You have no decency! You have no honesty! You’re committing treason!”

The group of birthers, which included several New Hampshire state representatives, erupted after the decision, shouting at the commission attorneys as they tried to exit the hearing room. Another state representative apparently suggested committee members should cover their face with a mask if they ever found themselves in his district.

In her own report posted here, Orly Taitz assailed the commission as corrupt, citing as evidence the fact that all its members were Democrats.

“The level of corruption was unbelievable,” Taitz said. “We found out that all five members of the committee are Democrats. As I was presenting all of the evidence, people were listening and getting more and more angry.”

If indeed all members of the commission were Democrats, New Hampshire would have a major legal problem. Except Brad Cook, the chair of the commission, is a prominent Republican.

See more photos from the event here, courtesy of Concord Monitor.

You'd think birthers would just get laughed out of court by now.

[Guinevere]

They are the ilk that think if you scream long enough and loud enough, someone will finally think you're correct. What Orly and her kiddos seem to continue to ignore is that the very same claims were brought against John McCain in 2000 --- he was born in the Panama Canal Zone -- in NH --- and also dismissed. Pretty even-handed, I'd say.

[rubato]

I thought the courts had slapped her down hard for vexatious litigation?

A doctor who practiced medicine the way she practices law would have lost her license.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

Follow the money.

Somehow, this moon-bat is making money off this scam.

[Sue U]

Hahahaha, Orly Taitz. I wonder if America's favorite dentist/lawyer/real estate agent ever paid that $20k fine for Rule 11 (frivolous pleading) violations?

A doctor who practiced medicine the way she practices law would have lost her license.

Would you go to a doctor whose only training and degree was from an unaccredited on-line correspondence school?

I can't wait 'til she becomes the next United States Senator from California!

[Andrew D]

They are the ilk that think if you scream long enough and loud enough, someone will finally think you're correct. What Orly and her kiddos seem to continue to ignore is that the very same claims were brought against John McCain in 2000 --- he was born in the Panama Canal Zone -- in NH --- and also dismissed. Pretty even-handed, I'd say.

Interesting difference, though: factual question vs. legal question.

In Obama's case, the question is factual: If he was born in Hawai'i, then he is a natural-born citizen. If he was born in Kenya (or wherever else some birther might allege), then he is not. There is no question about the applicable law. So where was he born?

In McCain's case, the question is legal: It is undisputed that he was born in the Canal Zone, so there is no question about the relevant fact. The question is whether someone born in the Canal Zone is a natural-born citizen.

It is an interesting legal question. Anyone born in one of the fifty States is a natural-born citizen. Anyone born in the District of Columbia is a natural-born citizen. But anyone born in the Philippines during the territorial period is not a natural-born citizen. So what about someone born in the Canal Zone?

[Scooter]

Not intendng to give credence to birther claims in any way, shape or form, but isn't someone born abroad of an American parent considered a natural born citizen?

[Joe Guy]

Not intendng to give credence to birther claims in any way, shape or form, but isn't someone born abroad of an American parent considered a natural born citizen?

Generally speaking, if at least one parent of a child is a U.S. citizen and gives birth to a child outside of the U.S. that child becomes a U.S. citizen if he/she comes into the this country. But it hasn't always been that way. In fact, I think that rule went into effect about 10 years ago.

Before then it was a bit more complicated. I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Andrew D]

Many people not born on US territory are citizens from birth by statute.

Even under the Fourteenth Amendment, some people born on US territory are not citizens from birth unless a statute says that they are. Most notably Native Americans: The Fourteenth Amendment does not make them citizens from birth, and for a long time, whether a particular Native American was a citizen from birth was the result of a hodgepodge of treaties and statutes. That was cleared up by Congress in the 1920s. By statute, all Native Americans born on US territory are citizens from birth.)

Some people born on US territory are not citizens from birth, because no statute says that they are. (A child born on US territory to an ambassador (etc.) of another country is not a citizen from birth. A child born to a foreign parent who is on (or in) US territory on a foreign ship is not a citizen from birth. A child born to a foreign parent who is on US territory which has been invaded by a foreign power is not a citizen from birth, at least not if the foreign parent is a citizen or national of that foreign power.)

Lower courts have held that a person born in a US territory, but not a US State, is not a citizen from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, although many such people are citizens from birth by statute. (The District of Columbia is a special case; persons born there have been held to be citizens from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, regardless of any statute.) As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not opined on that question.

The constitutional issue is whether, regardless of what any statute may say, a person born in a US territory which is not a State (other than the District of Columbia) is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not opined on that question either.

Like you, I do not wish to give the birthers' claims any credence. But their claims raise an issue of fact: Where was Obama born?

McCain's case is different: Where he was born is undisputed; the question is whether his having been born in the Canal Zone does or does not make him a natural born citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. The rulings of the lower courts on the citizenship of people born in US territories suggest that the answer is "no," but, again, as far as I know, there is no dispositive ruling from the Supreme Court.

[Scooter]

So there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen from birth by statute? If so, is someone born outside the US of an American parent the latter?

[loCAtek]

Natural born VS, citizen, Snopes

[Andrew D]

So there is a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen from birth by statute? If so, is someone born outside the US of an American parent the latter?

There is at least a conceptual difference: Some people are citizens from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment no matter what Congress says; other people are citizens from birth because Congress says so.

Whether there is a difference for the purpose of eligibility to the presidency is a constitutional question which has yet to be definitively decided. And it is not even clear whether being a citizen by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment is the same as being a natural born citizen for the purpose of eligibility to the presidency.

Whether someone born outside the US of an American parent is a citizen by statute depends on how the particular statute applies to the particular person. No general answer is available.

[Gob]

NOTE: In case you missed the news conference of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse,” WND plans to have the entire event available in 15-minute increments beginning Friday morning at this online location.

PHOENIX – An investigative “Cold Case Posse” launched six months ago by “America’s toughest sheriff” – Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County – has concluded there is probable cause that the document released by the White House last year as President Obama’s birth certificate is a computer-generated forgery.

The investigative team has asked Arpaio, who is at a news conference in Phoenix live-streamed by WND TV that began at 3 p.m. Eastern time, to elevate the investigation to a criminal probe that will make available the resources of his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The posse says it has identified at least one person of interest in the alleged forgery of Obama’s birth certificate.

Arapaio, known for his strict enforcement of immigration laws, commissioned the investigative team after local citizens presented him with a petition expressing concern that Obama might not be eligible for Arizona’s presidential ballot.

In addition to the live-streaming, WND is making available to the public a report distributed to media today by Arpaio’s investigators.
The posse, comprised of former law enforcement officers and lawyers with law enforcement experience, has interviewed dozens of witnesses and examined hundreds of documents. It also has taken numerous sworn statements from witnesses around the world.

Mike Zullo, Arpaio’s lead investigator, said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.

“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.

The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.

The investigation was launched after 250 members of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party, presented a signed petition to Arpaio in August 2011 asking him to undertake the investigation.

The Tea Party members petitioned under the premise that if a forged birth certificate was used to place Barack Obama on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot, their rights as Maricopa County voters could be compromised.

Arpaio believes a congressional investigation might be warranted and has asked that any information relevant to the investigation held by other law enforcement agencies be forwarded to his office.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes ... e-a-fraud/

Living in a country with a foriegn born, female, "living in sin", athiest, prime minister, makes all this hoo ha even more entertaining.

[Grim Reaper]

I wonder how much tax payer money went into this six month "investigation".

[Sue U]

Just when it looked like we might run out of clowns ...

As a nation, we are truly blessed with comedy.

[dgs49]

Clearly, the technology exists to create a forged birth certificate, and the one produced has the kinds of anomalies (type fonts, etc) that would warrant closer investigation.

Clearly, the certificate that was produced was not in any way controversial.

If authentic, there is no rational reason for it to have been withheld for so long, particularly with all the rumbling about Barry's birthplace.

Clearly, no one on the Left side of the discussion has any interest in looking deeper into the point - their "arguments" are on the order of, "If you question this you must a nutball." Rather like their arguments on "global warming," actually.

It would be funny as hell if this document were proven to be a forgery.

[Crackpot]

and clearly it is up to Obama to promptly heed the constanly moving goalposts far beyond the evidence required to satisfy the legal question.

[Lord Jim]

I think what's going on here is pretty obvious...

Obama's Justice Department has produced (what may very well be a largely politically motivated) report highly condemnatory of Arpaio, essentially accusing him of being a racist against Latinos... (The report was released in December, but it's been known about for a long time.)

This obviously infuriated Joe, and this is his idea of "pay back"....

My personal opinion of Arpaio is that he is a figure much like J Edgar Hoover...

A man who has done a lot of good, but who has stayed on so long that he has come to have a very imperious view of himself and his prerogatives...

Apparently now to the point where he feels he is in a position to go toe-to-toe with the POTUS in a pissing match...

I doubt very seriously that Arpaio believes for one minute that Obama really wasn't born in Hawaii; this is just his attempt to get even with Obama for that report.

[Joe Guy]

I was just talking to an otherwise intelligent man about this issue yesterday. He told me that his son in-law is a computer technician and that he told him that the birth certificate released by Obama is an obvious forgery to anyone who knows computers.

What more evidence do we need, folks?

Our President is a foreigner and should be deported.

[Grim Reaper]

Clearly, the technology exists to create a forged birth certificate, and the one produced has the kinds of anomalies (type fonts, etc) that would warrant closer investigation.

If I were the leader of a nation with a questionable history I wouldn't create a forgery so obvious that so many "professionals" could detect the forgery so easily.

Of course there's the alternative that it's a real document, but then that would mean President Obama was legally elected and you just can't stomach that.

If authentic, there is no rational reason for it to have been withheld for so long, particularly with all the rumbling about Barry's birthplace.

The good old, "you have nothing to hide" fearmongering excuse used by people who usually have the most to hide.

Clearly, no one on the Left side of the discussion has any interest in looking deeper into the point - their "arguments" are on the order of, "If you question this you must a nutball." Rather like their arguments on "global warming," actually.

That's because people questioning things like this are nutballs. Reality has a liberal bias apparently.

Our President is a foreigner and should be deported.

Don't forget that we should repeal everything he signed and put a Republican back in charge.