US Federal Debt July 2, 2016 $19,385,011,022,974.42.
The estimated population of the United States is 323,268,727 so each citizen's share of this debt is $59,965.62. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.42 billion per day since September 30, 2012!
John Adams: Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. 
Aldous Huxley: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. 
Thomas Fuller: Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right, or they will get you wrong.
Obama Lost the Debate on Health Care:Unable to counter widespread concerns of citizens about his health care plans, Obama supporters conduct intense vitriolic attacks on critics. Obama has no rational arguments, and hopes to discredit his critics by character assassination. They are not just racists now they are greedy racists and hate mongers. Maybe that will work. Ya think? Obama-Biden: Stupid is as stupid does. Biden: "We misread how bad the economy was."
Obama: [Correcting Biden]"We had incomplete information." So the US Congress voted for and the President signed a $787 billion stimulus bill without having read it, and with incomplete information? And they say others are stupid? Hello? Then Congress voted for a 1,000+ page "cap and trade" bill that none of them read.
Bloomberg: Daschle says, "Health care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them," while former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm says seniors have "a duty to die." If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that the President, Senators and Congressmen have their own special gold plated health care plan which is guaranteed the remainder of their lives and they are not subject to this new law if they pass it. Reverse the dangerous direction of the Obama administration and its allies.
Obama, The Un-Truman: David McCullough, in his biography of Harry Truman, "Truman" says on page 217, "Harry cared little more for other [than Huey Long] celebrated 'speechifiers' in the Senate. Admittedly fearful of making a speech himself, he seemed to resent particularly those who could and who made their reputations that way. They were the 'egotistical boys' whose specialty was talk." Obama admitted that he can make a speech but that he was incapable of doing anything in the Senate. Where did he gets his special powers during the campaign?
Obama's Mantra: He keeps repeating, "I won the election." He expects all Americans to support what HE wants. "I won," is how Obama implements the post-partisan unification of America. What a guy! See also Rich Lowry's "Sorry, O: 'I won' Won't Cover this," New York Post, February 6, 2009, page 27. http://www.nypost.com/seven/02062009/postopinion/opedcolumnists sorry__o__i_won_wont_cover_this_153839.htm
MIDDLESEX DA: We're too busy to address crimes less than murder. On Thursday June 25, 2009 Marian Ryan, who works for the Middlesex District Attorney in MA, returned my call from the previous day. She heads the unit for abuse of elders and abuse of persons with disabilities. She told me, "We've had four murders this month." That was to explain why she was unable to address 35 years of police abuses of a citizen with a disability now an elder. She said that a police officer making a threat did not rise to the level of a crime. She did not have time or resources to address abuses by the City Manager and the Police Commissioner of Cambridge, and the Harvard University campus police. It was no concern that using police to harass a person with a disability may be the reason for the four murders. MA Civil Rights statute and possession of illegal firearms are felonies, but not murder. Misallocation of resources is easily apparent. If the police focused on criminals instead of harassing elders with disabilities there might be less violent crime. But who was I to argue.
Cambridge Censorship: In October 2009 City Council Candidate Kathy Podgers complained to Attorney Bill August, long term president of the Cambridgeport Neighborhood Association, that her posts to the neighborhood discussion lists were not appearing. Then Bob LaTremouille added his similar complaints. When I chimed in that my posts did n0t appear for many months Bill August accused me of libel. I said he ignored my complaints about censorship. For a lawyer he does not read very well. On one occasion in 2007 I sent a letter via Fedex from one part of Cambridge to another. I used Fedex because of frequent tampering with my mail by USPS employees. Mail was withheld by USPS employees, and some mail was intercepted and never got to where I sent it. The letter sent by Fedex never arrived either. Their tracking system ended before it was delivered. I wrote to the President of Fedex. He sent me a check for $25 to compensate me. What good is money if you can't send a letter from one part of a city to another? In June 2009 I sent a letter to a US Government agency complaining about a mobbed up police officer who was protecting criminals who harass me each day. Two days after I sent the letter the police detective appeared at a market as I shopped. He used a young woman as bait to try to have me arrested. In June 2009 someone opened a YouTube account solely to publish a comment attacking me personally. This is a frequent experience of an ongoing character assassination campaign by criminals and their police associates. A Harvard University attorney told me not to make complaints to their real estate offices but to the office of the General Counsel. The lawyer assigned was trying to deceive me. On June 6, 2009 I noticed a threat from a police officer as a comment under one of my videos posted on YouTube July 7, 2008. The video shows a Cambridge police patrol car parked in a bus stop. The officer was having dinner nearby not on an emergency call. Every day since I complained to the Attorney General about the threat Cambridge police or Harvard campus police follow me and try to provoke me. The Attorney General is married to a supervising Cambridge police officer. I learned on June 15, 2009 that the FBI was investigating me again. In May 2009, my comments on the Boston Herald web pages (a public accommodation) were removed allegedly due to violations of guidelines. When I complained one was restored. Interns referred me to a staff writer when three of my comments about the shooting death at a Harvard dorm were removed. Someone unknown to me posted a picture of a man from the city in my YouTube profile. That means that someone is tampering with my YouTube account. That is a felony under US law. On or about December 12, 2008 my name was removed from two neighborhood discussion lists--Riverside and Cambridgeport. My attempts to be put back on were ignored by the former President of the Riverside neighborhood, Larry Adkins. Cambridgeport moderators opened my new access in February 2009. In May 2009 I received messages from the list but was unable to post messages. Last year I was unable to receive or post messages to the Porter Square neighborhood discussion list. No notice there either. They began a new list this year and I now get messages. But I was the target of personal attacks on the Porter Square list, the Cambridgeport discussions and on the Cambridge Chronicle web pages. An FBI informant who maintains a web site about the City of Cambridge ridicules me and others who he believes have disabilities. My account with YouTube (more than 250 videos posted) was shut in August 2008 and my appeals of Fair Use Doctrine were ignored. On April 15, 2009 my YouTube account was re-opened. Emily Rooney, host of the PBS news show, Greater Boston threatened to have me banned from Boston. Cambridge City Councilor and Harvard lawyer, Brian Murphy, who resigned in February 2009 to take a six-figure job with the state used council rules to silence my expression. These are rules that the Council created but ignore at every meeting. An email account I used specially for discussion lists was shut down with no notice and no reason or warning given. My several emails inquiring why have been ignored. That account was re-opened on February 10, 2009. Google Video flagged and blocked four uploaded episodes of a cable access TV show I produced and hosted on CCTV. When I appealed their decision, they agreed to put it back up. But as of this date one remains blocked. In February 2009 a long term producer of documentaries at CCTV told me "There is no such thing as Free Speech." That was the second time someone in Cambridge said that to me.
13 comments:
The court will in the end rule, as four state courts and one federal court and at least two appeals courts have ruled--that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes all the US citizens who were born in the country. The meaning refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.
And Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii, confirmed repeatedly by officials from both parties and by the birth notices in the newspapers, shows that he was born in Hawaii, which is in the USA.
Your argument refers to "native born" citizens. "Natural born" is a different matter as discussed briefly in the article. The matter at issue is not where Obama was born, but the validity of the birth certificate. Newspaper notices are not evidence. In 1961 in Hawaii all hospital births were identified by long form certificates. According to researchers Obama was likely born at a private home and then a notice put into the newspaper which required no substantiation. If all is as the White House says why did Obama, spend over $1 million to prevent revealing his birth certificate? There are other issues which remain unanswered by the White House.
The Hawaii birth certificate itself is the evidence, but some birthers claim that it does not exist.
However, three things confirm that it DOES exist:
(1) the statements of the officials, both Republican and Democrat;
(2) The "Index Data"--a publicly available volume that has been available for years and that shows that there is a birth certificate for Obama listed under the 1961 entries, and
(3) the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers.
The thing about the birth notices is that they appeared in a section of the paper called "Health Bureau Statistics." And, as the name implies, in that section the listings came only from the DOH of Hawaii, and the DOH of Hawaii at the time sent out the birth notices only for births in Hawaii. The newspaper birth notices exist in the microfilms of multiple libraries.
Thus the existence of a birth certificate in Hawaii has overwhelming confirmation.
Birther "experts", have claimed that Obama's birth certificate is forged. But are these impartial people, people who like Obama who have merely noticed that there is something wrong with the image of Obama's birth certificate? Or, are they strong and zealous enemies of Obama, willing to say anything to make him seem evil?
The latter is what the National Review, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly feel. And, on the other side, there is at least one Tea Party member, John Woodman, who dislikes Obama intensely, and yet who says that the claims that Obama's birth certificate was forged are all phoney.
There are about six other experts who say that the claims by the "experts" quoted by WND and the Sheriff's posse are all phoney. (Want me to quote them?)
Thus, there is evidence that Obama was born in the USA, and discredited evidence that his birth certificate was forged. NO official believes the Sheriff. Romney doesn't. The Secretary of State of Arizona (a conservative Republican) doesn't. No member of Congress is calling for an investigation.
Moreover,the "born in Kenya" myth is entirely made up. Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii in the taped interview. And she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii in another interview. Birther publications have simply not quoted the latter interview and quoted only parts of the former.
Continuing:
Re: "In 1961 in Hawaii all hospital births were identified by long form certificates. "
Yes, and in fact Obama has shown that long form birth certificate. The only difference is that it was reprinted on modern security paper, using modern photocopy techniques and with a modern official's signature on the document. The rest is a photocopy of the original. The current director of health of Hawaii stated that she saw the original being photocopied onto the security paper to make the official physical copy.
Re: "According to researchers Obama was likely born at a private home and then a notice put into the newspaper which required no substantiation.."
The "researchers" are both biased and wrong. As I have said, the section of the newspapers was called "Health Bureau Statistics"---and only the notices from the DOH went into it, and the DOH at the time only sent out the notices for births in Hawaii. Obama's published birth certificate, which the officials have repeatedly confirmed, says that he was born in Kapolani Hospital, not at home.
Re: "If all is as the White House says why did Obama, spend over $1 million to prevent revealing his birth certificate? "
Answer. Actually he didn't. Show me a single lawsuit against Obama that simply asked to see the birth certificate or to see documents. There isn't any. Not one case. There were cases that attempted to stop the election or to have Obama removed from the ballot. Obama fought those cases, and won. But he fought to be on the ballot, not to hide anything.
Actually, like the claim that Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya, the claim that Obama spent $1 million (some have said $2 million) is all made up.
Now that I have shown that Obama's birth certificate does exist and that it says "born in Honolulu" on it, consider the other side of the story-----the claim that Obama's mother went to Kenya to give birth.
The notion of Obama’s mother, late in pregnancy, traveling alone (WND has shown that Obama senior was in Hawaii on August 4, 1961) from Hawaii where there are good hospitals, to Kenya, where there was Yellow Fever and bad hospitals, and doing so without any INS record of her leaving the USA or any record of her arriving in Kenya—is absurd. And the fact that there is a birth certificate showing that she gave birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu makes it even more absurd.
Re Natural Born.
Native born and Natural Born are different, but all native born US citizens are Natural Born US Citizens.
In addition, US citizens who were born outside of the USA to US parents MAY also be Natural Born Citizens. But there some doubt about the latter.
There is NO doubt at all, none in the slightest, that ALL US-born US citizens are Natural Born US Citizens. That is because the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are “natural born citizens” eligible to serve as President …”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
Moreover, his view was not alone:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)–Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
In fact, birthers and two-fers tried to convince the members of the US Electoral College of the parents requirement, and not one member changed her or his vote out of the belief that two citizen parents required. Not one. And four state courts and one federal court have now ruled specifically on Obama’s case that the US Supreme Court defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case and that it said that the meaning comes from the common law and that it includes every citizen born in the USA.
That is your argument, not a court decision. The plaintiffs have a different argument which is what this story is about.
You said that it was my argument "not a court decision." In fact, it is many court decisions.
Repeat: "four state courts and one federal court have now ruled specifically on Obama’s case that the US Supreme Court defined the meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Wong Kim Ark case and that it said that the meaning comes from the common law and that it includes every citizen born in the USA."
Also:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974) (child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
What makes the third child different from her siblings? Nothing but birth in the USA.
There have been MANY cases in which the rulings say that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth. I have already stated that four state courts and a federal court have ruled that way on Obama alone.
Dr Conspiracy has prepared this list of judges who have ruled that NBC refers to the place of birth, and he also points out that no court has ruled that NBC requires two--or for that matter even one--US citizen parent. That is because the meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth.
The list:
Jeff S. Masin – Administrative Law Judge, New Jersey
Clarkson S. Fisher – Superior Court Judge, Appeals Division, New Jersey
Linda G. Baxter – Superior Court Judge, Appeals Division, New Jersey
Philip S. Carchman – Superior Court Judge, Appeals Division, New Jersey
John A. Gibney, Jr. – US Federal District Judge, Virginia
Elaine B. Brown – Indiana Court of Appeals
Terry A. Crone – Indiana Court of Appeals
Judge May – Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Malihi – Administrative Law Judge, Georgia
Arthur Schack – Superior Court Judge, New York
Richard E. Gordon – Superior Court Judge, Arizona
Well, you better send all of your research to the lawyers for the White House so that they can clear this up quickly.
This will not be "cleared up quickly."
Why not? Because birthers have the right to keep on suing even though they lose every time. They have the right to do that, and I support that right.
But, what they also do is that every time they bring a lawsuit, like in the latest in Florida, they claim that there is another chance for them to win. Then, when they lose again, they say that the White House put pressure on the judge or that the judge was a traitor.
They have the right to sue, and to keep on suing. But they are wrong on the law, and they are wrong to say when they lose that the judge was under pressure or a traitor. In fact, it is the law. Judges know it. They know that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and includes every US citizen born in the USA.
So, prediction, birthers will lose the Florida case, as they have all the cases before, and in particular the Natural Born Citizen cases in which the courts have specifically said that the meaning of NBC comes from the common law and includes every US citizen who was born in the USA (only naturalized citizens are excluded). And, when they lose again, birthers will claim that the judge was a traitor.
Re: "So, prediction, birthers will lose the Florida case..."
And that has turned out to be accurate. Birthers lost the Florida case, and that judge--like all the others--has said that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen was defined in the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, which said that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not the parents, and that every child born in the USA is Natural Born except for the children of foreign diplomats.
There are now five state courts (Indiana, Georgia, New Jersey, Arizona, and now Florida) that have ruled this way, and one federal court too, and NO courts--not one--have ruled for the birther claim.
Maybe the SCOTUS will rule in your favor too. Nonetheless natural born citizen is different from native born. Else the founders would have used the same language for both.
http://cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/fred-thompson-on-natural-born-citizen.html
Post a Comment