Posted on 10/07/2009 11:23:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
By Alan Keyes
October 7, 2009
Loyal to Liberty
I just received a call from Orly Taitz, my attorney in the case seeking proof of Obama's eligibility for the Office of President of the United States. Judge Carter has released a statement declaring that the dates he set for the hearing and trial on the eligibility issue are confirmed, and it will move forward as scheduled. Apparently he was not swayed by the Obama lawyer's arguments.
My first search was too quick. The actual numbers on OCLC are: 79 hold some paper copies, 70 have electronic access to whatever is archived on the net (many probably within those 79), and 6 libaries have some issues on microform.
The six listed as having some microform are:
Univ. of Hawaii at Hilo
Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
Calif. State Univ. at Fullerton
Calif. State Univ. at Northridge
Univ. of Central Oklahoma [huh?!]
Nat'l Library of Australia
Again, that does not mean that they all have the microform of 1961. The Univ. of Hawaii certainly would.
Anyone with good interlibrary loan privileges who is interested could have their local libary get a xerox or PDF of that page from Univ. of Hawaii.
I mean lieberries. Sorry for the typo.
Right. The one fact on the COLB that is relevant to Bambi's eligibility was authenticated. What's your point?
If you click on the link I posted, you will find the following:
Location Schwarzman Building (42nd Street & 5th Avenue) -
Periodicals and Microforms - Reference
Call Number: *ZY(Honolulu star-bulletin)
LIB HAS: 1959-Sep (2003), Nov (2003)-Dec(2005).
Latest Received: December 2005
Identity MICROFILM + HOLDINGS
You can also get there if you follow your link, click on the "microform" link on the left, and then click on the second entry.
It's pretty clear from the above that they have the content from 1959 through 2005, with the only gap being Oct. of 2003.
It could mean the library has every issue or that they have only one issue. The World Catalog will not tell you.
That's true. You've got to actually go to the Library's catalogue to see whether they have the serial for the year you are interested. NYPL happens to have it.
I also went in and found that at least one University of Hawaii library happens to have the serial for 1961.
That's, of course, assuming there are amendments, and there nothing to indicate that Bambi's birth record has any amendments.
Can you believe these obamanoids making such claims after days of information from your work proving there are amendments that the State of Hawaii has indicated but will not yet enumerate? Sheesh
I was thinking more along lines of sledge-o-matic from Gallagher.
Incidentally, just about all the old newspapers from before the advent of microfilm and microfiche were eventually placed in either of those formats, so true copies of newspapers became obsolete and largely discarded - except for some private collectors.
Unfortunately, with the advent of computer technology in the last two decades or so, most newspapers have not put all their old editions into an electronic format. With few exceptions, such as the New York Times, it is impossible to get a newspaper article from before 1980 or so electronically. Microfilm remains the chief medium for those older newspaper editions. (That's one of the few positives things I can say about the "Slimes.")
He and R. Lee Ermey have some issues. LOL
Looking at the list you offered from Title 8, I cannot agree with your extended assertion that all of those categorized are considered natural-born, because since 2000 there have been rather focused attempts by both Republicans and Democrats to alter what the Constitution says regarding Natural born status for eligibility. If what you assert were the fact, then these attempts would not have been made for they would be moot int he face of what you assert as defining natural born citizens. I have noticed this at Berg's (your) site and have been in disagreement for some time but have not had an opportunity to address it.
All Presidents subsequent to Andrew Jackson were born within the United States of America and after the Declaration of Independence. The principal issue with regard to the qualifications stipulated by ART. II, Sec. 1, Clause 5 is whether a child born abroad of American parents is "a natural born citizen" in the sense of the clause, or not. It is clear that such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute. 1 Whatever the term "natural born" means, it no doubt does not include a person who is naturalized. Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that ‘‘[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States’’ are citizens. 2 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . ."3 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the crown. 4 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.5 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a case or controversy — as well as how it might decide it — can only be speculated about.
Source:
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution,
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
Senate Document No. 108-17, 2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002
======================================================
Notes:
1) 8 U.S.C. § 1401.
2) Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 886-887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of ‘‘Heads of Departments’’ in the appointments clause (see also id. at 917 - Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered ‘‘naturalized’’ by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702-703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
3) Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672-675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American-citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
4) 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, § 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).
5) See, e.g., Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968).
They remind me of the Undead man in the second book - “Perelandra” of C.S.Lewis’ trilogy that begins with “Out of the Silent Planet”. If you haven’t read those books, I highly recommend them, even though I very, very rarely read fiction.
Many thanks for showing me how to do that!
I also went in and found that at least one University of Hawaii library happens to have the serial for 1961.
I would be surprised if their interlibrary loan and reference librarians have not been asked for this thousands of times. They probably have a stack of printouts and hand them out like candy.
It’s doesn’t matter what they say to me, the evidence speaks and will speak for itself. It already has, Ya Know?
Linden Joesting at the OIP knows there are amendments and records to prove it. I have a strong feeling she was given the duty to investigate their existence when she ruled on the appeal.
She denied them citing §HRS338-18. Both she and the DoH said I didn’t have tangible interest in them.
Again, what state law protects NOTHING? If the records of an amendment didn’t exist, they would tell me so like they have about other requests THREE times now.
I think it’s time to tell doubters to just request the records themselves under UIPA like I did—and shut the * up.
It does not matter what they were doing in 2000, it only matters what WAS in 1961.
(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.
You cannot possibly be this dense to keep missunderstanding the question put to you now by more than just me on this thread. Here again is what you asserted: “Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President.” Again, whose opinion are you quoting with this dubious assertion? Is this your opinion or can you cite something specific rather than vague, in law, that states this same categorization? This is still coming across as only your opinion, and you appear insistent on haveing your opinion stand as if a ruling in law.
However, both parents were NOT US Citizens, the father was Kenyan, the mother a US Citizen. The mother failed to satisfy US Code when she gave birth to her son, so she fails on 2 points. He fails on the 3rd point when he is adopted by an Indonesian National with no reciprocal dual citizenship requirements from his country, so the adoption required that his US Citizenship be renounced. There is no documentation that shows him applying for US Citizenship that can be found yet. There is evidence that he used an Indonesian passport in 1982 at 21 years old..... so...
I have to disagree with you.
What part of reality are you missing here. I gave you the link to US Code, and stated exactly what it said. It is NOT my opinion, it is US Code???
I am at a loss as to your misunderstanding of what I wrote, actually copied, from US Code. Are you unable to go to the link to see for yourself????
The U.S. code does not state that these categories you listed are natural born citizens. Why are you trying to deceive readers? If it is your opinion that these citizen categories are automatically natural born citizens then jsut own up to that instead of trying to dissmble the issue this way. It is obviously someone’s OPINION since the code does not state what you claim and you cannot cite it here.
Confirmation, please .. about this from etraveler13.
Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“In the case of Barack Obama, that was August 4, 1961.
The law stated that the U.S. citizen must have lived in the U.S. for ten [10] years [obama’s Mom did]
but five [5] of those years had to be after the age of fourteen [14].
Fourteen [14] and five [5] = nineteen [19] –
Obama’s Mom was “only” eighteen [18] when she delivered Obama – therefore, she was “not” old enough to convey U.S. “natural born” staus (sic) to Obama.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.