Video: National Public Radio's Betsy Liley Openly Admitted Obama Birther Cover Up

It’s not a conspiracy theory that Obama has paid millions to hide his past. It’s fact.

One of his first acts as President was to seal his school and other records by Executive Order. Some "transparency".

So first of all, your claim that all of the genuine legal authorities in history, who dedicated their lives to understanding our legal system, aren't worth cold spit, and that YOU are so much more of a legal authority than these esteemed and learned gentlemen (and occasionally, gentlewomen) throughout our American history is complete and total hogwash.

This is a false conflation between one thing and another. My argument as regards these people is that the distinction between what constitutes a "natural born citizen" under English Common Law, and what constitutes a "natural born citizen" under Vattel was trivial in the time period of the 1800s. The VAST MAJORITY of people born here during that time period were born to people who were citizens, or intended to naturalize and settle here. Transient or Temporary Aliens were virtually nonexistent in those days.

As a practical matter, the difference between Vattel's definition and English Common law is not readily apparent. As a result, English trained lawyers could be taught that Citizenship was based on English law, while the Founders (Delegates) could have intended that citizenship be based on the Law of Nations as described by Vattel, and both groups could each believe their own version without serious real world consequences. (Except during an occasional special cases, such as "the Venus".)

You falsely portray my Characterization of those English Trained lawyers who were out of the loop as being tantamount to me thinking i'm superior in intellect or knowledge.

Did the 14th Amendment, which never mentioned the words "natural born," or "natural born citizen," change or modify or alter the meaning of that term in Article II of our Constitution?

No. It did not. The 14th amendment was not intended to alter or repeal the meaning of the article II term of art "natural born citizen" and so it did not. Had it been so intended, it would have been required to explicitly so state. This is a longstanding principle of Jurisprudence.

Madness reigns here. Barack Hussein Obama is the DE FACTO POTUS. The fact that he has achieved the office twice, despite constitutional ineligibility, is pretty damn clear. But Kenny, he is elig...yadda yadda yadda bullshiite)

The question remains, is he the DE JURE POTUS? An ineligible candidate was certified, ran, and won. Just like Chester Arthur, who is now ... 140 years later .... proven to have lied. He was born in Canada and his father was a British Subject. Furthermore, Chet cruised under a false ID, his dead brother's. President Arthur remains in the history book list. So will Barack Hussein Obama. Is that DE JURE enough for us purists?

Was the BC, SS, and Selective Service paperwork forged? Sure was. That was a crime. Who is going to arrest whom? Who is going to indict whom? Who is supposed to try whom?

By now every elected Republican and every elected Democrat with a brain remaining knows as much as we do. Maybe more. And that is still Barack Hussein Obama flying over your house in AF 1 with Reggie Love by his side.

I am quite sure that this cognitive dissonance ... an ineligible candidate elected ... was designed to foster mental chaos in furtherance of the Socialist Revolution.

So what are we to do? Damn good question. My answer is :

DON'T GO NUTS.
WIN CONGRESS IN 2014

If WE (another interesting question there) don't win control of BOTH the House and Senate, The Socialist Revolution will have been advanced by 25 years or more, especially if we come up with another wimp to run against the machine in '16.

That means we can go on discussing the subject of this thread in our spare time in a Gulag for the Politically Incorrect.

I know I am about to be severely napalm-flamed for recommending that we temporarily drop a cause near to our hearts in order to merely save the Republic. But, if you are not cashing a SCOTUS paycheck, I really don't care what your opinion is on Wong King Kong vs Aunt Kenny vs Haberstett und Michelob. And if Sheriff Joe, may Christ keep him close, cannot get even the DA of Maricopa County to listen, I am prepared to backburner The Cold Case Posse for a while, too.

The bandwidth I have just used would, IMNVHO, have been far better invested in winning Congress in '14. Since the rest of the thread is tossing Latin about, allow me to share my new motto with you:

Ad Victoriam in 14
Pari Passu.

There’s no proof that would convince you; of that I’m certain.

After all his twisting and gyrations trying to avoid releasing any proof for the last 4 years? Yeah, you are probably right. Had he simply came out with it in the summer of 2008, it would likely now be a non-issue, but he behaved like someone who had something to hide, and so now the presumption of trustworthiness is gone. I wouldn't say "no proof", but I would say that it would have to be very convincing.

But Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove that he’s eligible.

He doesn't have to prove he's eligible NOW. He DID (past tense) have to prove he was eligible, but because all 50 states (and DC) have INCOMPETENT election officials, they let him onto the ballot because they didn't do their jobs.

"You don't need to see his Identification."

Why do you keep misstating my point? My point is, and has always been that 50 state election officials DID NOT DO THEIR JOB COMPETENTLY. They simply accepted the word of this stupid hag that he is qualified.

You can go on talking about how this court, or that body did this or that, but it continues to dodge my point. My point is simple. We have yet to see any proof that the man is qualified to hold the office which he is currently holding.

After the fact pronouncements by sundry officials do not constitute PROOF. Your argument keeps boiling down to "He got away with it, so there!" Please address my point, and stop gleefully posting all the examples of ex post facto people saying he doesn't have to prove his credentials.

Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961;

378 to 0.

And here's Jeff again, with his "Reality by voting" theory of life. I think congress should vote world hunger away. After all, if voting makes something true, this ought to be a slam dunk.

Not a single one of those people know where was born Barack Obama. Ignorance didn't stop them though.

Looks like a lot of willfully ignorant judges to me, but then we've come to expect such behavior from our Imperial court system.

The Court system runs in wagon ruts established by previous courts. Not a one of them is interested in bucking prior precedent, and they really don't care what is the truth.

To show the courts the proper degree of respect, all you need to know is "Roe v Wade."

This issue is academic. It has no real world consequences regardless of what is stated at this point. It is now just entertainment.

"In other words, you don’t have the right to bring the case before the court because you are not an injured party."

The courts should tell that (that they don't have standing and are not an injured party) to the millions of Americans that were laid off (myself included) right after Obama's selection in 2008 by companies that knew damned well what was heading their way via Democrats. We don't have standing? Looking for a decent job and not finding one in this Obamanation damned sure constitutes "standing and being an injured party" in MY book. Or they should tell the millions of Americans that have lost their homes and their life-savings thanks to Obamanomics. No standing? Bullcrap.

As a practical matter, the difference between Vattel's definition and English Common law is not readily apparent. As a result, English trained lawyers could be taught that Citizenship was based on English law, while the Founders (Delegates) could have intended that citizenship be based on the Law of Nations as described by Vattel, and both groups could each believe their own version without serious real world consequences. (Except during an occasional special cases, such as "the Venus".)

You falsely portray my Characterization of those English Trained lawyers who were out of the loop as being tantamount to me thinking i'm superior in intellect or knowledge.

Okay. So you subscribe to the idea that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention came up with some SUPER-SECRET DEFINITION of "natural born citizen," that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the way that the entire legal profession and the public in general understood the term, and passed that.

Well, it must've been so SUPER-DANG-SECRET that even they themselves didn't know what they were doing. Since it never appears in ANY of their notes, never appears in ANY discussion at all, never appears in ANY mention of the definition after the fact, since even their close friends and colleagues such as William Rawle absolutely believed we used the common law definition, and since even James Madison said that while both parentage and place of birth were useful criteria, place of birth was THE MOST CERTAIN and was WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES.

In short, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support your bs theory. And there is PLENTY of evidence AGAINST it.

No. It did not. The 14th amendment was not intended to alter or repeal the meaning of the article II term of art "natural born citizen" and so it did not. Had it been so intended, it would have been required to explicitly so state. This is a longstanding principle of Jurisprudence.

Congratulations! For the first time that I can even recall, you have gotten a substantial point correct.

Darn. We might actually get somewhere. I doubt it. But who knows?

Okay. So we agree that the 14th Amendment did not alter the Article II meaning of "natural born citizen," for Presidential eligibility purposes, in any way.

That being the case, we are back to what I stated earlier:

According to your own argument, all of your quotes of Bingham, and Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett are all TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE MEANING OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, since the 14th Amendment did not change that definition, and NONE of the above were delegates to the Convention, or ratifiers.

In fact, to that we can add all your quotes from David Ramsay and Samuel Roberts. Because according to you, it's all BS, since neither Ramsay nor Roberts were delegates to the Constitutional Convention, nor ratifiers. >

You see, your argument loses on every level. If we play on the normal playing field of history and law, your BS theory loses disatrously. It's not even a contest.

And if we pay attention to your pleas to move the contest to a playing field of your choice, your BS theory STILL loses. Because there's no good evidence for it at all.

Okay. So you subscribe to the idea that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention came up with some SUPER-SECRET DEFINITION of "natural born citizen," that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the way that the entire legal profession and the public in general understood the term, and passed that.

You just can't help behaving like a child. Again, why do I talk to you? In the weighty matters of the day, the exact meaning of "natural born citizen" was not a prominent issue. It would be a generation at least before the distinction between the Natural law meaning, and the English Common law meaning would become noticeable.

In short, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support your bs theory. And there is PLENTY of evidence AGAINST it.

And here you go sounding like a f***ing idiot again.

Congratulations! For the first time that I can even recall, you have gotten a substantial point correct.

The fault for this lies with your understanding, not with my points. Below is another example.

That being the case, we are back to what I stated earlier:

According to your own argument, all of your quotes of Bingham, and Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett are all TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE MEANING OF "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY, since the 14th Amendment did not change that definition, and NONE of the above were delegates to the Convention, or ratifiers.

No Jeff, you don't get to leave out the comment to which you are replying, and which clarifies the fact that you are special class of dumb@ss. Here is the exchange to which you made your response above.

I wrote:
Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.

And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.

And Here is little child Jeff:
Hahahahaha!

So now you're telling us that all of your quotes of Bingham, and Vattel, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, and Minor v. Happersett are all TOTAL BS, since none of them were delegates to the Convention, or ratifiers?

And Finally, what I said to the childish idiot:
Why do I talk to you? You quote me above with the explicit words "on the meaning of Article II" and are so stupid to ask why we talk about Bingham? Bingham is NOT an authority on article II. Do you know on what he is an Authority? THE FOURTEENTH F***ING AMENDMENT!!!!" When we are discussing *THAT*, he is a legitimate authority.

And for the Record, Jeff Makes three stupid claims regarding the 14th amendment.

1. It was already the law.
2. It only requires birth inside the boundaries.
3. It is the exact same thing as "natural citizenship."

Jeff is wrong on all three of these claims.

1. It WAS NOT the existing Law. If it were, there would be no need to create it.
2. It requires birth to parents without foreign allegiance.
3. "Natural" citizens don't need the 14th amendment to be citizens. If you need it, you aren't "natural."

No matter how much smoke you blow, you can't get away from your own words:

Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.

And it doesn't matter how MANY of them you come up with.

You see, there are two sets of rules: One for you, and one for everybody else.

If YOU quote the overwhelmingly voted-down David Ramsay (36 to 1), the infinitely obscure little judge Samuel Roberts, John Marshall opining on a side matter (the degree to which US citizens permanently residing in England should be treated as US citizens, versus the degree to which they should be counted as members of English society - and using a translation of Vattel that doesn't even include the words "natural born citizens"), or some anonymous letter writer to a newspaper, who himself says he's not sure whether he's right or not - why, that's good evidence.

If SOMEONE ELSE quotes James Madison, or an extremely close associate of George Washington, Ben Franklin and several other delegates the Constitutional Convention, or the half-dozen delegates to the Convention who voted down sore loser David Ramsay, or any of the foremost legal experts of early America, oh my. Why, that's all completely worthless.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You're nothing but a Constitution-twister and a troll.

Your double standard of evidence, where the flimsiest of evidence supposedly makes your case, and where the strongest and best evidence available is supposedly worthless, is a clear illustration of that fact.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3003325/posts?page=90#90

As long as scores of actual, real life, official, statutory Triers of Fact are satisfied with the proof that they’ve been shown, that’s what matters. The Obama campaign posted a Hawaii birth certificate to the Internet in June, 2008. The state of Hawaii issued two confirmations of that document in October, 2008 and in July, 2009.
Obama then posted a copy of the long form birth certificate to the Internet in April, 2011. Three Certified Letters of Verification for that document were issued for the Arizona Secretary of State, the Kansas Secretary of State, and a Mississippi federal judge.

“The state of Hawaii has said that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—Speaker John Boehner.

Rhodes v. MacDonald, U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land: “A spurious claim questioning the president’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”—US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, September 16, 2009.

Your personal belief that there hasn’t been proof is irrelevant.

My point is also simple, as long as those with standing: the losing candidates in an election, don’t challenge the eligibility of the winning candidate, no court, no legislative body and no state election official is going to overturn the results of an election. If a voter didn’t believe that Obama was eligible, they had the option of voting against him.

To date there have been ZERO statutory, official criminal investigations looking into forgery, identity theft, document tampering or any other alleged CRIME associated with the publicly available vital records for Obama.
There have only been allegations and press conferences by a volunteer posse’ in Arizona.

The Constitutional requirements to be “de jure” President are:
(1) Win a majority of the votes of the Electors;
(2) Have those Electoral votes counted and certified by a Joint Session of Congress without written objection from any one Senator or any one Representative;
(3) Remain alive and not infirmed to the point of being unable to execute the duties of president between the confirmation of the votes of the Electors and noon on Inauguration Day; and
(4) take the Oath of Office.
De jure status is further confirmed by having Congress send bills to be signed into law and by arsenate confirmation of Presidential nominees.

A federal judge spelled it out in 2009:
Barnett, Keyes, et. al. v. Obama, et. al., US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009
http://ia600204.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591/gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.89.0.pdf

No matter how much smoke you blow, you can't get away from your own words:

You're crazy. I absolutely stand by those words! They are exactly right.

Unless you can demonstrate that your so-called authorities were Delegates or ratifiers, it is nothing else. The ONLY people who can opine on the meaning of Article II are the delegates and ratifiers of it. Ex post facto Lawyers are crap evidence.

If YOU quote the overwhelmingly voted-down David Ramsay (36 to 1),

Jeff just can't help working an argumentum ad numerum fallacy into his argument.

the infinitely obscure little judge Samuel Roberts,

And the Entire Supreme court of Pennsylvania! Compiled at the behest of the Entire Pennsylvania State Legislature!

Do you think for one moment that if the book was incorrect that some one of these people would not have stood up and said so? Face it, it was a prominent LAW BOOK in the State of Pennsylvania. It was in such high demand that they had to print a SECOND ADDITION. (1847)

John Marshall opining on a side matter (the degree to which US citizens permanently residing in England should be treated as US citizens, versus the degree to which they should be counted as members of English society...

The Assumption being that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does not know what he is talking about when he is discussing a "side matter". (which it was not. It was the very heart of the case. )

- and using a translation of Vattel that doesn't even include the words "natural born citizens"),

A trivial and irrelevant point even if true, which it is not. It has already been demonstrated that in 1785, an American Translator of a Treaty with France translated "Sujet naturels" as "Natural born Subjects."

or some anonymous letter writer to a newspaper, who himself says he's not sure whether he's right or not - why, that's good evidence.

To a Newspaper in Virginia, where the nom de plume "Publius" was well known, and in any case, the letter accurately represented the position of Ambassador John Armstrong and the Madison Government at that time.

You also left out the Letter from James Monroe explicitly stating that a man born in the US Was NOT an American, but rather an Englishman. You also left out commentary from Bushrod Washington (George's nephew) Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and a whole host of others. You simply don't care about what is true and what is not.

And here is where you take your nonsense to the extreme:

If SOMEONE ELSE quotes James Madison, or an extremely close associate of George Washington, Ben Franklin and several other delegates the Constitutional Convention,

He is talking about British Loyalist and London Trained Lawyer William Rawle who dined in Philadelphia restaurants while the Delegates were working at Independence Hall. Somehow Jeff Conflates the occasional presence of Washington and Franklin in the social company of Rawle, as meaning that RAWLE SUCKING THE KNOWLEDGE OUT OF THEIR BRAINS WITH HIS VULCAN MIND MELD!

Here is an illustration of Rawle's Learning process at work:

You are a F***ing idiot.

Your double standard of evidence, where the flimsiest of evidence supposedly makes your case, and where the strongest and best evidence available is supposedly worthless, is a clear illustration of that fact.

You don't PRESENT any strong evidence! All your arguments keep coming back to Lawyers repeating HEARSAY!!! And then Subsequent Court cites of these same Lawyers!

You have only ONE example of an actual Delegate on your side, and even THAT example is misconstrued as a stark construction, which it is not.

As long as scores of actual, real life, official, statutory Triers of Fact are satisfied with the proof that they’ve been shown, that’s what matters.

What matters in terms of practicality is not the point. As I have mentioned several times, this has become an academic discussion. In terms of an Academic discussion, it is the TRUTH which matters, not the opinions of "officials."

The Obama campaign posted a Hawaii birth certificate to the Internet in June, 2008.

Of what he alleges is a copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate. Not proof, and not presented to the relevant authority.

The state of Hawaii issued two confirmations of that document in October, 2008 and in July, 2009.

They issued confirmations that a document exists. They made no evidentiary supportable claims as to the authenticity of what was posted. Again, Not proof, and not presented to the Relevant Authority.

Obama then posted a copy of the long form birth certificate to the Internet in April, 2011. Three Certified Letters of Verification for that document were issued for the Arizona Secretary of State, the Kansas Secretary of State, and a Mississippi federal judge.

And not a single one of those letters certified that it is the ORIGINAL birth certificate. Given that there is a great deal of evidence that Barack Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, a certification by a state official which does not address the issue as to whether or not the document is an ORIGINAL, is side stepping the issue, and is not in fact, proof.

Yes, the Document may have been issued by Hawaii. Yes, the Document may legally constitute a Birth Certificate. Does this establish that he was born in Hawaii? No, it does not.

It is in fact, a well known fallacy of claiming that because a small part of something is true, then the entire thing must also be true. This is what you are attempting to do with your argument above.

Hawaii has peculiar birth certificate laws. Unlike other states, you don't have to be BORN IN HAWAII to receive a Hawaiian birth certificate. Likewise, if you have been Adopted (Which evidence indicates Obama has) then the Replacement birth certificate can obscure such details as whether or not you were actually born in Hawaii.

The point is, Nothing has been presented which can definitively address these issues, yet everyone ignores this and just goes merrily about their way.

“The state of Hawaii has said that the President was born there. That’s good enough for me.”—Speaker John Boehner.

I am NOT going to address your long litany of opinions by people who have no way of knowing what they are talking about. The only statement that counts on this issue is that of the Hawaiian State Official in charge of Birth Records, and only if they present a copy and put forth a statement attesting that it is an ORIGINAL Document.

Do you not know how logically ridiculous it is to assert that "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii because John Boehner says so!"

Your personal belief that there hasn’t been proof is irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant, it is logically unassailable. "Proof" coming from people who cannot give it, is WORTHLESS. Nancy Pelosi' Opinion is WORTHLESS. John Boehner's opinion is WORTHLESS. Judge Land's opinion is WORTHLESS.

Not a single one of these people have the means to determine the truth, and the people who do, will not attest to it.

G W Bush, Dick Cheney, et al had the intelligence on this evil man. They knew all about him.

GW, Dick and obongo answer to the same globalist.

That’s right and the sooner conservatives understand that, the better. Nothing will prevent them from getting their New World Order.

Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the exact wording of the Hawaii statements, allow me to quote from and provide links to them for you so that you can be better educated for what you think is an academic exercise and I think is a discussion of judicial and legislative processes for the resolution of a constitutional debate.

From the October 31, 2008 HDOH Press Release:
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s ORIGINAL birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” [caps mine].
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the ORIGINAL vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.” [Caps mine]
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

“We hope that issuing certified copies of the ORIGINAL Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’ii Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the ORIGINAL records filed at the Department of Health and ATTEST to the AUTHENTICITY of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further PROVE THE FACT that he was born in Hawai’i.” [caps mine]
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf

From the Arizona Letter of Verification:
http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf

“Additionally, I verify that the information in the copy of the Certificate of Live Birth for Mr. Obama that you attached with your request matches the ORIGINAL record in our files.”
“I certify that the information contained in the vital record on file with the Department of Health was used to verify the facts of the vital event.”
[caps mine]

All the statements above were submitted to the Alabama Supreme Court in an Amicus Curiae Brief as recently as last week. I believe a state Supreme Court (and the other courts that have had this issue before them) to be “relevant authorities.”

La la la I can’t hear you.