How To Not Be A Birther, By Kathy Weppner

26 Mar

This past weekend, the Buffalo News’ Jerry Zremski brought WNY a wonderful expose on Ms. Weppner’s colorful history, and she responded on her campaign website, complaining about “yellow journalism”

In both, Weppner downplayed any interest she had in the birther movement. 

Zremski writes

Weppner took a keen interest in the “birther” movement, which raised questions about whether Obama was born in the United States and, therefore, eligible to be president.

Weppner hosted Orly Taitz, one of the founders of the movement, on her radio show, and questioned the credibility of Obama’s birth certificate both on that show and on a 2010 Blog Talk Radio appearance in which Weppner said: “What Obama’s campaign has put out is not a birth certificate.”

Weppner was referring to a short-form birth certificate issued by the Hawaii Department of Health and released by Obama’s campaign in 2007. Obama later asked Hawaii for a copy of a longer version of his birth certificate and then posted it to the White House website in 2011 in hopes of quelling the controversy over his qualifications.

Asked about her involvement in the birther movement and whether she still believes that Obama may not have been born in America, Weppner wrote: “That question has already been decided.”

She also wrote: “I believe, at that time, Mr. Obama’s submission of a ‘short-form’ birth certificate was a topic of conversation nationally as there were many lawsuits attempting to see his long-form birth certificate. I found it interesting that there was such resistance to produce this when it should have been simple. Mr. Obama Is our President.”

In her online rant, Weppner addresses the matter thusly

Q1)  You have repeatedly questioned Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency. For example, in a 2010 Blog Talk Radio appearance, you said: “What Obama’s campaign has put out is not a birth certificate.” Do you still believe that Obama may not have been born in the U.S. and therefore may not be eligible to be president? 

A1 Kathy Weppner response: “I believe, at that time, Mr. Obama’s submission of a “short form” birth certificate was a topic of conversation nationally as there were many lawsuits attempting to see his long form birth certificate.  I found it interesting that there was such resistance to produce this when it should have been simple.  Mr. Obama Is our President”                                                                                               

Q2 NEWS follow up: Jerry Zremski wrote:
2) Your answer to my question about President Obama’s birth certificate is inadequate. Yes, Mr. Obama is our president — but do you believe he was born in the United States?
Kathy Weppner response: That question has already been decided. I raised three kids that took an oath under this president. Our family’s willingness to sacrifice for this country is clear period.   

Weppner analysis of the NEWS article published:  Please note from  the questions asked by the NEWS that: I was never asked about my involvement in “the birther movement as Mr. Zremski claims. Nor did I ever claim to be a birther.  I am not  exactly sure  what the “birther movement” means or who is in  it”?  What constitutes membership? 

She also complained that this online radio show had “deceived” her, and “ambush[ed] her with controversy”. It was all an extended version of, ‘I read it in a chain email or at some right-wing freakshow of a website, and didn’t really look into whether any of it was true, because it sounded true and jibed with my already hard-wired prejudices’ 

Weppner is not sure what the “birther movement” is? She was never asked about her “involvement” in it? She never claimed to be a birther? 

On January 19, 2010, Congressional candidate Kathy Weppner (R-Cuckooland) appeared on “Reality Check Radio” on an internet streaming service. The show, at the time, was all about the birther movement and questions surrounding President Obama’s eligibility to hold Presidential office.

It was the fad at the time. A right-wing xenophobe’s hula hoop. 

What Weppner likely didn’t realize was that the show existed to debunk birtherism

http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/214/show_4214691.mp3

Immediately upon getting on the phone, Weppner was asked about her involvement in the birther movement, and she replied,

One of the reasons why I have always been stuck on the eligibility issue is that my husband is a clinical chief of an OB-GYN department, and very early on when the issue  came up, I said, “can you explain to me what a birth certificate is supposed to have on it if you go to a hospital and deliver a baby?” And very early on I came to understand that what Obama’s camp had put out was not a birth certificate.

…the thing about eligibility is, and I think there are three different issues with Barack Obama’s eligibility, and #1 is that the founding fathers said you have to be a “natural-born citizen” and Orly Taitz has done a lot of work in going back and researching what that meant when they wrote that, and that meant that you have to be born in the United States, and you have to born of parents who are citizens, and both of your parents had to be citizens. That certainly is not the case…

…if you go to Orly Taitz’s … and I’ll spell her name for you … she is not only a dental surgeon, but she’s a lawyer. She was from Russia, she has a beautiful accent, and she has taken up the cause of just wanting the President to prove his eligibility.  And remember the hundred lawsuits that have been filed would all go away if he authorized the Hawaiian hospital where he says he was born to release his records. Because when a woman goes to the hospital – like he said his mother did, there is a file that’s created for mom and baby.  After the baby’s born, there’s a piece of paper that has the delivering doctor, that has the signature of the doctor on it, it has the hospital name, the time of birth, and it’s the official document that the hospital puts together that says, “this baby was born here with these witnesses, and here was the doctor.” So that is the proof that you’re born where you say you’re born, and that is absolutely the document that could make all of this go away.  Instead, they’re spending over a million dollars defending lawsuits all over the place, just release the document and it goes away.

Does that sound like someone who isn’t really quite sure what birtherism is? Or that she was just curious or interested in a passing topic of conversation? Or does this sound like someone who was as well-versed on Taitz’s wild conspiratorial nonsense as Taitz herself? The host accused Weppner of being misinformed, 

…I’m really, I’m not misinformed. If people wanna go on Orly Taitz’s website. They – all of this documents are fully there, they state all of the…lemme put it this way, R.C., one judge – just one judge – to order discovery, okay, just discovery, to produce the documents, it all goes away, and it’s settled. Why hasn’t that happened?

The host explains that, in order for a judge to order discovery, there has to be a case.  

…you have to have standing, right? And nobody has had standing. All of the judges have said, “you don’t have standing, you don’t have standing, you don’t have standing”.

The host of the show argues about the validity of the short-form certificate, and that the hospital record is irrelevant. 

…no, they’re legal documents…the hospital birth certificates are sent to the municipality and they certify that the information on it is correct, and you have a legal document. But the municipality is the one, I mean, they pick them up at my husband’s hospital once a week – all the birth certificates of all the births that have happened in this township, and then they take them and they send them to the state.”

 …but it’s not the hospital birth certificate. That’s all they want, because it’s proof that he was born there. If he was born in Hawaii, you only needed one relative to present to – and it’s all in Orly Taitz’s – what what was going on in Hawaii at the time – you only needed one relative to come in and say, “I witnessed the birth at home, and he was born here”, and they would give you a birth certificate that looks exactly like Obama’s. And you had up to a year to produce the child.

 …I’m serious, this…you have to go, and you have to read Orly Taitz’s documents.

The host brings up at this point that he won’t go on Taitz’s website because Google says it contains malware.  Weppner – who doesn’t really know much about this whole “birther” thing, replies, 

I’ve gone there many times, I’ve never had a problem.

She changes it up a bit from there when a caller asks Kathy the sources she consults for this eligibility issue.

I actually call the people involved and I interview them. Orly Taitz was on my show for two hours. I’ve called Nathan Deal, anybody that has actually had a lawsuit, if I’m going to talk about it, I’m going to go online to get information, but then I call them, because I want it right from them.

Let me tell you what I do during the week, ok. I read the Wall Street Journal every day, I’ll read the New York Times, I watch Washington Journal, I watch C-Span, the hearings, because I find the hearings, you get all the information instead of just a snippet of it here and there, and anything that I’m gonna talk about, I usually have maybe an inch stack of stuff that goes into the studio with me.

While Weppner now denies knowing much about this whole birther matter, back in 2010 it was all-consuming for her. 

Here’s what I find is very interesting, okay. I’m a real common sense person. So, as I’m gathering information, I look at the list of things that the candidate Barack Obama said that he was going to release after the election, as well as Michelle Obama. They said that all of their documents would be forthcoming. All of the law school records, all of his college records, and everything would be released after the election. None of it has been released.

When asked if she has a source for that,

You know what, I’ll find this soundbite, and play ‘em on my show on Saturday. I watched him on television say that.,,I will research that and find the soundbite. Because even Michelle said that all of her college records would be released, because they were interested in what her senior thesis was of something, and they would ask her and she said she’d release it after the election.

But here’s the thing. Remember when  President Bush was running, they looked at his college records, he was a C student, they looked at Al Gore’s, he, y’know, he was a C student. They always look at college records. To have no records released about a candidate, to me, y’know, when the Founding Fathers made the press totally have free speech, freedom of the press, they knew that would protect us. Having journalists digging for answers,  having journalists digging things up and being in competition with each other, would protect the American people. Nobody did that this election.

Don’t you remember when Bill Clinton released his medical records, they found out that he had V.D.?! I mean, all of the records are released. We don’t even have Obama’s medical records released. It’s standard operating procedure that a candidate…”

To clear things up – the Obamas didn’t make promises about releasing school or medical records. Bush never released his college records (although somebody did leak them). Neither did Al Gore. Whatever information exists about that came from their autobiographies.  Bill Clinton didn’t have V.D., and he never released his medical records. Michelle Obama did release her thesis in 2008, but The President’s is gone

By this time, the topic had strayed from “eligibility”, and a caller asked Weppner why she needs all of this other documentation.  Weppner claims entitlement to see, 

documents that prove who you are, where you’ve been, what you’ve done, and what you’ve accomplished…

So, if Clinton had VD that’s important to the American public?

No. What I’m saying is if you’re going to be in the public, and you’re going to seek the highest public office, your life kinda becomes an open book.

That must be why we have all of Bush’s National Guard documentation.  Oh, wait. 

When asked to delineate public versus private information, Weppner responded: 

College records? Law school records? Come on. That’s basic.

What’s in the law school record, that has to do with eligibility? 

That he took these classes with these professors, and – oh yeah – the professors remember him being there. That he did what he said he has done, and that he is who he says he is, and that he was born where he says he was born, and just scrutiny of who he was – that didn’t happen this election at all.

When asked to cite independent sources for her assertion regarding Hawaiian law, Ms. Weppner brought up Orly Taitz’s website and lawsuit, and promptly hung up. 

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you prove that you’re totally unconcerned and not involved in the birther / Obama eligibility movement. 

Advertisements

209 Responses to “How To Not Be A Birther, By Kathy Weppner”

  1. Thomas March 26, 2014 at 8:48 am #

    Kathy’s people are currently playing whack-a-mole with all the internet footprints she’s left behind

  2. Matt March 26, 2014 at 9:14 am #

    When will these Tea Party candidates figure out that the internet stores absolutely everything?

    • Lamont Cranston March 26, 2014 at 10:00 am #

      The same day they learn to deal with reality.

  3. David Farrar March 26, 2014 at 10:08 am #

    As I am a “birther”. I have sued Obama in court over his presidential qualification and his Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen standings, and Orly Taitz was my attorney. At the end of the day…and I’ll never forget it…the judge said we had shown, “…little, if any, evidence that would contradict Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate.”

    The reason why I don’t agree with Administrative Law Judge Malihi’s finding is that “little, if any”, is more than none, and none is exactly the amount of independent, corroborative evidence shown on Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate that would substantiate the true facts of his birth.

    If you will recall, this is the very reason why all of us “birthers” were calling for Obama “long-form” birth certificate….there was no independent, corroborative evidence contained on Obama’s short-form birth certificate that would substantiate the document’s information as being true.

    When Obama’s long-form birth certificate did eventually come out, other than having a doctor’s name on it, with his signature, and the name of Obama’s natal hospital, nothing more was presented as substantiating evidence. Since the good doctor had died in 2003 and the hospital refuses to state whether or not Obama was or wasn’t born there; we birthers find ourselves still asking the same question: Where is there any substantiating proof that the information contained in Obama birth certificate is true?

    ex animo
    davidfarrar
    * Independent of Hawaiian Health Department records

    • Mark Andrzejczak March 26, 2014 at 11:16 am #

      John McCain was born in the Canal Zone. Why aren’t you decrying the fact that he was allowed to run? Ted Cruz is a naturalized American from Canada. Do you think his presidential campaign should be treated as valid?

      • David Farrar March 26, 2014 at 11:52 am #

        But “birthers” have been wailing against Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Gov. Jindal. Except for McCain, who also isn’t an Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen due to his place of birth, you simply have been listening. None are “natural born” US Citizens, but US citizens at birth by positive (man-made) law

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm #

        Rubio and Jindal, like Obama, were born on US soil. In their cases it was US states, and Obama was born in Hawaii. McCain was born on a US naval base, where the US flag flew and where the US Supreme Court ruled in its recent rulings on Guantanimo that the US Constitution applies. It is thus hard to say that McCain was not born on US soil. Senator Cruz was born in Canada—and that is that. Some people think that even he may be a Natural Born Citizen simply because of his mother, but that is a more remote possibility.

        BUT every rational constitutional expert—with the exception of a few birther lawyers—holds that EVERY child born on US soil is a Natural Born Citizen (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders) is a Natural Born US Citizen. Only naturalized citizens, none of whom were born on US soil of course, are US citizens without being Natural Born US Citizens.

        The Heritage Foundation has the law right, and you are wrong:

        “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.]

    • EricSaldanha March 26, 2014 at 11:29 am #

      Obama’s mother, Ann Durham, was a U.S. citizen. That is all the proof anyone ever needed. Please proceed, dummy.

      • David Farrar March 26, 2014 at 11:59 am #

        You see; this is exactly what I am talking about. Blind acceptance to something that simply hasn’t been proven by a preponderance of evidence.

        In the first place, IF Obama was not born within the jurisdiction, his mother would have been too young to pass on US citizenship. So to even address the issue of the citizenship status of Obama’s mother, we need to know where Obama was born.

        But let’s assume Obama was born in Hawaii, that still leaves the problem of his Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen qualifications. Here is where Obama suffers the same problem as Ted Cruz…neither had a US citizen father at the time they were born.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 26, 2014 at 12:12 pm #

        Obama was for sure born in Hawaii, and EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen.

        The Heritage Foundation book has the meaning of Natural Born Citizen right, and you are wrong:

        “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.]

    • Trentonian March 26, 2014 at 11:56 am #

      David, you have repeatedly stated your conviction that the President is ineligible to hold office because, even if born in Hawaii, he does not meet your unique definition of “Natural Born Citizen,” even though every court that has considered the issue has unanimously disagreed with you.

      So it is completely dishonest for you to pretend that you find his birth certificate to be at all relevant.

      And, by the way, the law is clear. Official state documents, like the two birth certificates and the multiple Letters of Verification, are self-authenticating documents under federal law (FRE 902). Your insistence that they require “corroborative evidence” is pure fabrication.

      • David Farrar March 26, 2014 at 12:07 pm #

        The only thing these self-authenticating documents under federal law prove is that the information contained on Obama webpage image of his Hawaiian birth certificate is the same information the Hawaiian Health Department has in their file on Obama, not that it is, in fact, true.

        Upon declaring independence from Great Britain, the leaders of the new republic aspired to create a distinct American nationality and minimize the risk of another monarchy. When they drafted the 1787 Constitution, they did not define what they meant by “natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States” and said very little about immigration. As historian Rudolph Vecoli notes, “one became an American by choice, not by descent,” through a common commitment to the doctrine of natural rights. Consequently, the only distinction between “natural born” and naturalized citizens it made was that the latter were to be ineligible for the presidency. It did authorize Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of naturalization” and allowed for the “migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing.”*

        ex animo
        davidfarrar
        *Authored by Shiho Imai, State University of New York at Potsdam

      • smrstrauss March 26, 2014 at 12:15 pm #

        Re: “the information contained on Obama webpage image of his Hawaiian birth
        certificate is the same information the Hawaiian Health Department has
        in their file on Obama…not that it is true.”

        Answer: That is how birth certificates work. To prove that they are wrong, you have to PROVE that the person was born somewhere else—and there is no such proof for Obama.

        And, EVERY child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born US Citizen.

        The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong:

        “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.]

      • David Farrar March 26, 2014 at 12:39 pm #

        Obama’s birth certificate is only prima facie evidence, so in order to impeach his prima facie evidence, I would need some prima facie evident to say otherwise; is what you are saying; is it not?

        If we use longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, rather than l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, natural born American citizens would be no different than a natural born British subjects; is that what you are saying? If it is, it is certainly not Dr. David Ramsey, an American revolutionary war veteran who served with the South Carolina militia as a field surgeon would tell you.

        Here are a few more Dr. Ramsay quotes:

        “At twenty-one years of age, every freeman is at liberty to choose his country, his religion, and his allegiance. Those who continue after that age in the allegiance under which they have been educated, become, by tacit consent, either subjects or citizens, as the case may be. In this manner, young men are now daily acquiring citizenship, without the intervention of an oath.”

        And again,

        “Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens.”

        ex animo

        davidfarrar

    • smrstrauss March 26, 2014 at 12:00 pm #

      The evidence for Obama being born in Hawaii is:

      (1) the two Hawaii birth certificates (of which the first, the short form, is the official birth certificate, used by thousands of people to get their passports every year);

      (2) the repeated confirmations of them by the officials of both parties in Hawaii, including the former Republican governor;

      (3) the public Index Data file;

      (4) the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961 (which, BTW, was under a REPUBLICAN governor in 1961, and which at the time sent out birth notices ONLY for children born in Hawaii);

      (5) the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley;

      (6) Kapiolani Hospital has confirmed that Obama was born there now—twice in fact (naturally birther sites do not show either of them);

      (7) no evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961;

      (8) it was rare for 18-year-olds to have passports or for women to travel abroad late in pregnancy at the time;

      (9) the Kenyan government said that it investigated and that Obama certainly was NOT born there (birther sites did not show that either);

      (10) birther sites LIED about what Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said (she never said that he was born in Kenya; she in fact said that he was born in HAWAII;

      • David Farrar March 26, 2014 at 12:21 pm #

        Since it is the Hawaiian Health Department records on Obama we are trying to substantiate, we can’t use them to substantiate themselves, or other documents that use them as their predicate. So please go back over your list and cross off all of the so-called independent, corroborative evidence from your list that uses the Hawaiian Health Department record as their predicate, including the birth notices sent to the “Health Bureau Statistics” section of the Hawaii newspapers by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961. While you are at it, also cross off any unsubstantiated hearsay testimony; which leaves, according to my count only # 6. Please cite your evidence for #6. Thank you.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 26, 2014 at 12:41 pm #

        Re: “Since it is the Hawaiian Health Department records on Obama we are trying to substantiate, we can’t use them to substantiate themselves…”

        Answer: Unless you have proof that Obama was born somewhere else—and for sure YOU don’t—the records used in a US state birth certificate are considered accurate.

        Regarding number 6, the confirmation by Kapiolani Hospital

        Answer: There are actually TWO confirmations, the hospital’s printing of Obama’s letter saying “I was born there” in its 100th anniversary magazine (which is stil online BTW) and this:

        http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/kapiol

        Re: “please … cross off all of the so-called independent, corroborative evidence from your list that uses the Hawaiian Health Department record as their predicate…”

        Answer: NO.. And no rational person would do so UNLESS and until you show proof that Obama was born somewhere else than the birth certificate records show. Unless and until you do so, the birth records of a state department of health are presumed to be accurate.

        Re: ” While you are at it, also cross off any unsubstantiated hearsay testimony…”

        Answer: This is not a courtroom, and so people have the right to believe hearsay testimony if they want to, and the statement by a teacher that she had been told that a woman named Stanley had given birth and that she wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about it, fits into that category. In fact, the statement that she wrote home to her father about the birth of a child to a woman named Stanley isn’t even hearsay.

  4. Methusaleh March 26, 2014 at 11:45 am #

    Farrar is a birther who’s been repeatedly told his cases are junk, his experts are clowns and his theories are ridiculous. But just to show that he is smarter than everybody, including judges, he has to sign his little blurbs of lies “ex animo.”

  5. Reality Check March 26, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Yes, Kathy Weppner was on my show and she was (and no doubt still is) a Birther. She was wrong about Birth certificates and wrong about needing two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen. Weppner had the crazy dentist/lawyer Orly Taitz on her show as a guest several times. Weppner compared President Obama to Hitler on one of the show when Taitz was on with her.

  6. jimd54 March 26, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

    Holy shit. The guy will be out of office, maybe dead and buried and this minutiae will prattle on. Lost in all of this is that Kathy Weppner is a horrible candidate, one in a long line of tea party horrible candidates.

  7. HapKlein March 27, 2014 at 8:03 am #

    Thanks. Alan you are very patient.Just reviewing that Weppner’s record must require holding your breath for long periods of time.
    These birthers are as truly and virulently relentless. Nutty and often entertaining.
    I relish the nuts who take the word of publicists over documentation.
    Get me their names I have some Tucker Torpedo stock to sell.

  8. Marc Rebmann March 27, 2014 at 9:36 am #

    David Farrar it would be easy to make fun of you, but I think you are legitimately mentally disturbed. Please see your primary care physician and get the help that you need.

  9. HGTomato March 27, 2014 at 9:47 am #

    On February 2, 2012, David Farrar said: “Okay, before Judge Malihi’s decision is published; I will say this much.
    If Judge Malihi overrules the plaintiffs case; I will support his
    decision and simple consider the fact that candidate Obama has met his
    qualifications. ” http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/01/27/some-cold-water-on-overheated-birther-mania/?cp=8#comment-851493 But, as you can see from his spamming the comment section here, he lied. Birthers will never be satisfied. That’s the key.

    • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 11:28 am #

      David Farrar lying? You’re kidding right? He also said that he would launch a lawsuit against Romney if he was the republican nominee. When Mitt was chosen he never filed a lawsuit against Mitt.

    • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm #

      But I do support his decision. I just don’t agree with it. Since that date I have taken my case to the People, where, as you know, the founders and framers of the US Const. firmly put the power to decide the qualification of the President, not the Courts and not in Congress.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 3:20 pm #

        “But I do support his decision. I just don’t agree with it. ”
        __

        Um, David, do you think we can’t read?

        The quotation is right there above what you wrote. You didn’t just say that you would support his decision. You said — and this of course is a direct quote — “I will support his decision and simple consider the fact that candidate Obama has met his qualifications.”

        Assuming that “simple” is a typo for “simply,” is it true or is it not that you consider the President to have met his qualifications? That’s what you said you would do. Are you reneging on that now?

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 3:43 pm #

        The courts have rejected my construct, and under the construct that a natural born US Citizen, under a republican constitutional theory, is no different than a natural born subject, under a monarchical constitutional theory, Barack Obama has legally met his burden. I accept it. I don’t have to agree with it. I consider it unconstitutional and I must now take my case to the People, as the next thing the US Const. requires.

        One of the things that I have learned during this whole affair is that this is not, by any measure, a new argument, taken up just because of the color of someone’s skin. This argument is, in fact, as old as the country itself. It would seem to me, it’s about time we put this issue to rest once and for all for the common good of the Republic.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 3:49 pm #

        “…under a monarchical constitutional theory, Barack Obama has legally met his burden. I accept it.”
        __

        Interesting. Under that legal theory, Pres. Obama has met his jus soli burden because he was born in Hawaii.

        Your acceptance of the fact that he has met that legal burden means you are acknowledging that he was born in Hawaii.

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 3:53 pm #

        I accept the fact that Obama has met his burden as a matter of law, not as a proven fact, but to the point required by law.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 3:55 pm #

        That’s gobbledegook. How can he legally meet the requirement of having been born in Hawaii unless, by legal standards, that is where he was established to have been born?

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 4:02 pm #

        Oh come one, Trent. Obama has met his burden, as minimally required by law. He hasn’t by any means actually proven by the preponderance of evidence where or when he was born.

        Now that you mentioned that point, let’s go back to the list of supposedly independent, corroborative evidence and see just how many are left after we take out all those points to use the Hawaiian Health Department records as their predicate and removed all the hearsay testimony; how many do we have left?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 4:11 pm #

        LOL, more pseudo-legal nonsense.

        When one side has prima facie evidence, and the other side’s evidence is found to be “of little, if any, probative value and thus wholly insufficient to support [the other side’s] allegations,” of course the matter has been proven by the preponderance of evidence. You are using language that you don’t understand.

        And there’s no point in continuing to pretend that prima facie evidence requires “independent, corroborative evidence” to support it. That’s legal hogwash, and I think you know it.

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

        So by that notion no president has. So using birther law no president was ever qualified to be President.

        Well lets see here’s two independent documents. The 1961 INS Files for Barack Obama Sr

        Page 34

        The memo was written on August 31st, 1961 just a mere 27 days after Obama Jr was born. “They have one child born in Honolulu on August 4th, 1961 Barack Obama II, child living with mother. There’s one historical document that supports Hawaii’s records. Interestingly enough this document was released under FOIA and was found by a birther who actually did research.

        There’s also the 1967 state department memo filed in the Allen V DHS State case. You’re already aware of it as many people have mentioned it to you. So when you peal back the layers of bullshit that is David Farrar do you have any actual evidence to support your claims?

      • smrstrauss March 27, 2014 at 7:34 pm #

        Re: “how many do we have left?”

        The fact that for Obama to have been born in a foreign country his mother would have had to have GONE to a foreign country during late pregnancy (since earlier would not have been possible due to the college year) and such trips were EXTREMELY RARE in 1961 and (2) she would then have had to have successfully SMUGGLED Obama back into the USA—since we do not just allow children to be carried into the country, and there is no evidence that a visa his being entered on her passport ever occurred.

        In addition to that, the birth certificate of Hawaii is sufficient. To claim that it is false requires you to show that Obama was born somewhere else. That’s the way that birth certificates work.

      • smrstrauss March 27, 2014 at 3:58 pm #

        Re: “I must now take my case to the People…”

        Answer: That is your constitutional right, and I would fighte to the death to protect it. But, you are wrong.

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 5:13 pm #

        The courts have rejected your construct, the people rejected your construct, the law rejected your construct, the textbooks reject your construct at what point do you consider that your construct is wrong David?

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 5:12 pm #

        You might want to crack open a dictionary and learn what the word Support means. You said you would support the decision and consider Obama had met his qualifications. You didn’t do that.

  10. David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 3:08 pm #

    Whatever the term “natural born Citizen may mean in theory, its meaning, as a requisite to take the oath of office of the President of the United States must be such that it is commonly understood and supported by the electorate. I think on this score, Congress should act to remove any doubts about the meaning of a Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizen in today’s terms by proposing two constitutional amendments, one based on common law and jus solis citizenship and one based on natural law, requiring two citizen parents within the jurisdiction, and let the People decide, as required by the US Const., as the best way forward.

    Without such such a course being taken by Congress to resolve this matter, I am afraid you liberals won’t get your wish to have Sen. Cruz around for the general election as the Republican Party’s nominee.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • smrstrauss March 27, 2014 at 3:56 pm #

      A Constitutional Amendment requires a two thirds vote in both houses of Congress and THREE-QUARTERS of the states, and since it is so extremely difficult to get that, it is hardly likely that one amendment would be proposed—much less TWO. There is NO confusion about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. The Heritage Foundation book really has it right. The term really does come from the common law—not from some concept of natural law—and it really does refer to the place of birth. And every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders really is a Natural Born US Citizen.

      “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.]

      Birthers and two-fers were not able to convince a single member of the US Electoral College to change her or his vote to vote against Obama in either the 2008 or 2012 elections. Obama won 356 electoral votes in the 2008 general election, and 356 electors voted for him. He won 332 votes in the 2012 general election, and 332 electors voted for him.

      In short, not one single elector changed her or his vote. That is because not one of them believes the nutty birther claim that Obama was born outside of the USA or the loony birther constitutional theory that two citizen parents are required. And ditto for the US Congress, which confirmed Obama’s election UNANIMOUSLY twice, and that included the votes of Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Ron Paul).

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 4:13 pm #

        Why would that be difficult? Sen. Cruz would be supporting it along with all you liberals, along with Ed Meese and the Heritage Foundation. Oh, do you know who else would support the common law citizenship rule rather than natural law citizenship rule? JEB. Under the natural law rule, none of his offspring are Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm #

        Re: “Sen. Cruz would be supporting it along with all you liberals, along with Ed Meese and the Heritage Foundation.”

        Speculation. Not one of the would waste their time. BUT, you can go right ahead and try. Call your congressman and your senators and ask them to introduce an amendment (or two—since that is what you first wrote), and see what their reaction would be. As for it splitting the Republican Party, well, YOU proposed it, if you’d like to do that—well. go right ahead.

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 5:27 pm #

        Well, if we can’t get a referendum on the subject, we will just have to build up a consensus without one.

        Standing against the sellout of our nation with amnesty of illegal aliens will help resolve the American birthright

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 27, 2014 at 5:33 pm #

        That is your constitutional right. Of course, if you insist on telling your loony story that Obama was born in a foreign country and the nutty legal theory that the writers of the Constitution switched from jus soli to some natural law theory WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE—you will continue to be laughed at.

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 5:40 pm #

        By the way, David, would you mind answering the question that I asked before?

        Do you agree that if there were a referendum, even a Constitutional amendment, that repudiated jus soli, it would have only prospective force and could not possibly have any legal effect on the Obama presidency?

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 11:37 pm #

        Yes, quite so. As far as Obama is concerned, assuming he was born when and where he has stated; he has met his constitutional burden.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 11:38 pm #

        Thank you for clarifying that.

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 11:44 pm #

        Is there any conceivable scenario where you will accept reality that Barack Obama is legally and lawfully the President?

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 6:03 pm #

        See here is your problem David you talk about one subject and then switch to another. What does amnesty of illegal aliens have to do with birthright citizenship for their children born on US soil? It’s not the same subject.

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 11:35 pm #

        It is all connected. US birthright citizenship, that is the natural right to inherit membership into a group that have consented to live by a set of mutually agreed upon rules. If there has been no consent, there is no right to inherit membership into that group.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 11:43 pm #

        It’s not connected in the slightest. Amnesty is something totally different than one who is born a citizen. Amnesty creates citizenship long after birth for people here illegally. Those born here of illegal parents cannot by their very nature be here illegally as they have no state citizenship but the place where they are born. Thus birthright citizenship has nothing to do with Amnesty which is why you continue to be confused.

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm #

        One again you call everyone disagreeing with your stupid ass a liberal with most of us aren’t. Most of us don’t even support the President’s policies nor did we vote for him. We do support his right as the President. Lol The Heritage foundation is a right wing think tank and not even they side with you crazy types. Sorry but Natural law doesn’t control the constitution or our laws. This would be a rather liberal interpretation of our laws to claim such David.

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 5:23 pm #

        So you agree the offspring of illegal aliens are Art. II, §I, cl. 4 natural born citizens and can take the oath of office of the President of the United States, if elected?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 27, 2014 at 5:47 pm #

        Re: “So you agree the offspring of illegal aliens are Art. II, §I, cl. 4
        natural born citizens and can take the oath of office of the President
        of the United States, if elected?”

        Answer: YES. Every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders is a Natural Born Citizen. That includes the children of illegal aliens (whom of course did not do anything illegal themselves).

        If you do not want the child of an illegal alien to become president, then if one runs for president—don’t vote for her or for him.

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 11:22 pm #

        That would be a breach of §5 of the 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause. People who come into this country legally, and go through our nationalization, make this pledge as a requisite to US citizenship. But now you are telling me there are other US citizens who do not have to make this pledge, that by simply being born within then jurisdiction, that somehow they have gained this special right that is not given to anybody else, simply on the basis of their parents chose to ignore the US Const.

        ex animo

        davidfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 11:41 pm #

        being born a citizen and being naturalized are two different things. Anyone born a citizen doesn’t have to take a nationality pledge for US Citizenship. You seem to be confused.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:13 am #

        Well, perhaps. But follow me here. Jus soli citizenship requires a place to be born. In our constitutional Republic, it is the individual states that have the borders, the soil and the place, in most cases, unless you are born in a national park or in Washington D.C., i.e., somewhere on federal land. The United States exists mainly as a group of mutually agreed upon laws, written on a parchment of paper, upon which each and every state have agreed upon to live by and become a union of states. So actually you can very well become a natural born citizen of one of the 50 states of the union of states that have all agreed to support and abide by a constitution. Inheriting US citizenship, as opposed to state citizenship, is a different thing. It requires a pledge to support and abide by those mutually agreed upon laws rather than simply being born behind a border. This is the difference between a citizen and a subject. US citizenship requires a free individual, making a free choice to support and abide by the US Const. in order to become its citizen.

        In the case of infants, this pledge is either inherited as a natural right, or it is bestowed by the state by positive (man-made law).

        There is more, but do you follow me this far?

        ex animo
        davidfararr

      • Pogue Moran March 28, 2014 at 12:18 am #

        Except that you missed the point in the constitution where citizenship no longer belongs to the states. We’re not under the articles of confederation anymore. Umm no there is no longer such a thing as one who is a “citizen of a specific state” you are a citizen of the united states and a resident of a specific state. Citizenship falls under federal jurisdiction. So again this is another example of you not understanding the document you pretend to be protecting. Naturalization citizenship is about someone making a choice. Being born a citizen is something that is based on where you are born when it comes to the United States it is not something within your control. There is no pledge requirement for those born in the United States. You’ll be hard pressed to find anything in US law to support your delusion. There is no pledge requirement for a born citizen. Just as there is no citizenship test requirement for a born citizen.

      • smrstrauss March 28, 2014 at 9:19 am #

        Well said, and that part of the Constitution, of course, is the 14th Amendment.

      • smrstrauss March 28, 2014 at 9:17 am #

        Pogue Moran’s answer is correct.

    • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 5:08 pm #

      again you make the stupid assumption that everyone disagreeing with you is a liberal. When we’re not. We’re just rational people who laugh at your continued banging your head against a wall. I doubt Cruz would ever be the republican nominee and it’s not for the issues you guys imagined. He’s too divisive and he’s not the establishment candidate. He’s pissed off too many in the republican establishment to be the nominee.

    • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 5:26 pm #

      David, I have a question for you.

      You said, in another post, “I have taken my case to the People, where, as you know, the founders and framers of the US Const. firmly put the power to decide the
      qualifications of the President.”

      And here you propose asking the people to choose between jus solis and what you regard as “natural law, requiring two citizen parents within the jurisdiction.”

      Here’s the question. What if the people say that jus solis is their choice? Does the will of the people trump natural law? Or is the passage of a Constitutional amendment another form of positive law, which has to defer to natural law? Or does natural law require letting the people decide, in which case it could obviously no longer be argued that natural law requires two citizen parents once the people have chosen otherwise?

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 11:11 pm #

        Trent,

        The People have the sovereignty to adopt natural law as they see fit. There are some aspects of natural law that cannot be used, as you may know. But it is up to the People to decide if they wish to be citizens under a republican constitutional theory, or mere subjects under a monarchical constitutional
        theory.

        I don’t believe this issue is going away any time soon. As it stands right now, the lack of a definitive definition could very well be used to spark a civil conflict some time in the future. It would be a shame if that happens all for the lack of a failure on our part, on the part of We, the People’s, to act now and to bring the two sides together while we still have a change for the common good of all is all I am saying.

        But from the responses I am reading here, it may be too late for even this approach to resolve the issue.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 27, 2014 at 11:24 pm #

        I understand, but I was asking a slightly different question.

        If, hypothetically, the people chose jus soli, would that resolve the issue, would you then consider that to be the “definitive definition”?

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 11:40 pm #

        Absolutely. The founders and framers of the US Const. unequivocally placed the power to set the qualifications of the President in the hands of we, the People, not the plenary hands of the state.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  11. John Wilcox March 27, 2014 at 7:11 pm #

    Under NO circumstance will David Farrar concede the Obama citizenship point. It just won’t happen, regardless of any evidence presented. Why feed his OCD on this?

    • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

      John,

      I have been begging, pleading for anyone who believes Obama was born in Hawaii, to give me any proof whatsoever, independent of his Hawaiian Health Department file. Eye-witness accounts is good, though written documents, like an invoice for delivery would be better. OB/GYN appoints records, that could be used to actually prove Dr. Sinclair was the delivery physician.

      Who was the anesthesiologist? Was there an anesthesiologist? Did Obama’s mother have any friends during her pregnancy on Hawaii?

      Apparently, there is very little independent, corroborate evidence outside of Obama own control, and so far he hasn’t seen fit to allow access to these documents which could settle the matter.

      But please, you can’t accuse birthers of not believing the evidence when there isn’t any.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 27, 2014 at 11:39 pm #

        You’ve been given proof time and time again over the last several years. Each time you just ignore it and prattle on with the same long discredited argument.

        Who was the anesthesiologist for any President’s birth? Did any president’s mother have any friends there during their pregnancies? A better question is: Who cares?

        What exactly do the questions you just asked have to do with presidential eligibility? The answer: They don’t. They just show you have a completely different standard for this president that you’ve had for no other.

      • David Farrar March 27, 2014 at 11:52 pm #

        You are asking and answering your own questions now? No wonder you can’ seem to grasp this issue at hand.

        The value of a state certified document when used to “prove” a birth occurred, lies in its probative value. That is, the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident that would substantiate the information contained in the birth certificate.

        In most cases, this is easily and quickly done by the producing of the long-form birth certificate, as it provides much more information that does the short form. This is why there was such a cry for Obama’s long for birth certificate. But, sadly, since Obama’s natal doctor dies in 2003, and the hospital can’t say one way or the other of Obama was born there without Obama’s permission; we lonely, little old birthers find ourselves right back on Square One when it comes to substantiating any of Obama’s ascertains as to when and where he was born.

        Do you know of an eyewitness to Obama’s birth?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 28, 2014 at 12:03 am #

        Just pointing out the ridiculousness of your position.

        Do you know of an eyewitness to President Reagan’s birth? How about Jimmy Carter’s? Bill Clinton’s? Again you’re creating a standard for which you’ve never had for any president before him. Why is that exactly?

        The value of state certified documents is described in the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. You remember the constitution right david? That document you claim to be protecting while at the same time not understanding it? The Constitution gives the state final say when it comes to the issuance of their documents. The Department of Health as the issuing authority has final say when it comes to their documents. They verified that the information contained matches the original they have in the vault.

        I already pointed to independent information that corroborated the details that matter on the birth document when it comes to Presidential eligibility. I’ve shown it to you earlier and you ignored it just as you’ve done every time it’s been presented to you. You remember the 1961 INS records for Barack Obama Sr and the August 31st 1961 memo regarding the birth of his son Barack Obama II born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th 1961. This is historical information that is outside and independent of the state of Hawaii that confirms the original document. You find yourself at square one because there is no conceivable scenario where you will accept reality that he is lawfully the President.

        You ignore the index data, the birth announcements, the 1961 INS data, the 1967 state department data, the verification by the issuing authority. Now imagine applying the same standard to every President before Obama?

        How many hospitals have claimed other Presidents have been born there? How many physical long form birth certificates have been released publicly for other Presidents?

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:19 am #

        But those INS recorders, as well as a the birth announcements, were all taken directly from the Hawaiian Health Department file, the very records we are trying to substantiate!

        ex animo
        davdfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 28, 2014 at 12:24 am #

        I’m not the one being silly here David, you are. Several were born with a foreign father. Chester A Arthur had a father that wasn’t a citizen. VP Charles Curtis was born on indian lands and his mother was a citizen of a tribe. How does having a foreign father change your goal post moving? I doubt you even know details about the parents of most of our Presidents. So you’re saying your need for a witness and an anesthesiologist is based on a foreign father? You’re the one being silly.

        You’re requiring more from this president than you’ve required from any previous President. The more you push absurdity the more people realize there is no conceivable scenario in which you’ll accept reality. There’s nothing Obama could say or do or release which would make you accept reality that he’s lawfully the President. You’ve pretty much said you’re content in your stupidity.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:34 am #

        You mean “Indian Charlie”?

        His father was a US citizen at the time he married Ellen Papin, making her a US citizen by marriage. Both were US citizens by the time Indian Charlie was born.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 28, 2014 at 8:22 am #

        Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. If you’re going to use a derogatory name at least get it right it was Charley. Again none of this has to do with the rationalization you keep having to do why you continually require more proof from President Obama than you’ve never had from any President.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:51 pm #

        But it was you who brought it up; not me. This is yet another example of you arguing with yourself.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Pogue Moran March 28, 2014 at 8:16 am #

        Ummm no where in that statement on page 34 did they say the information was taken directly from the Hawaiian Health Department file? You just made that one up. So in other words when presented with historical corroboration you just make an excuse and ignore it.

        Yes and full faith and credit means that the documents issued by the state on their face have to be seen as valid. They have the final say when it comes to issuing their own documents. It further shows you have no actual argument David.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:58 pm #

        Are you seriously suggestion US INS officials simply accepted Obama Sr.’s word?

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • John Wilcox March 28, 2014 at 7:22 am #

        You don’t need any more evidence.

        What you do need is a good psychiatrist.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 1:00 pm #

        You might not need it, but others do. I would further suggest, if the tables were turned, you just might agree with me too.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 28, 2014 at 1:28 pm #

        Unless and until there is actual proof to the contrary, rational people will say that they are FACTS. Unless and until birthers show that Obama was born somewhere else, the birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii is proof that he was indeed born in Hawaii. (And, guess what, birthers have not even shown that Obama’s mother even had a passport in 1961, and very very few 18-year-olds did in that year.)

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 10:45 am #

        ‘The value of a state certified document when used to “prove” a birth
        occurred, lies in its probative value. That is, the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident that would substantiate the information contained in the birth certificate.’
        __

        David, you have said this repeatedly, and it’s complete nonsense. State certified documents are prima facie evidence, and are presumed to be true without any “independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident.” All the legal definitions say that. It is Law School 101, not rocket science.

        Is this really an issue you’d like to debate? Can you point to a single source that supports your claim?

        Your whole position depends on this ridiculous assertion, which you haven’t even made an effort to justify..

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 11:24 am #

        …and here, David, I will cite some sources.

        “In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.” — Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

        “Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning ‘sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;’ e.g., prima facie evidence.” — Cornell University Legal Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prima_facie

        “Prima facie is a Latin term meaning ‘at first look,’ or ‘on its face,’ and refers to evidence before trial which is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence shown at trial.” — USLegal.com Definitions, http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prima-facie/

        Your turn, David. Find us a source that justifies your assertion equating the probative value of prima facie evidence to “the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident.”

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:39 pm #

        “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.*

        ex animo
        davidfarrar
        OEI- 07-99-00570

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

        Excuse me? Is that supposed to counter the quotations that I cited?

        A birth certificate, as prima facie evidence, “is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence shown at trial.”
        That’s what one of the definitions I quoted says.

        Where’s your source that says otherwise?

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

        For the record, I have posted my prima facie impeachment evidence here on this blog.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 1:05 pm #

        You have posted what you claim is “prima facie evidence,” but you haven’t explained what qualifies it as prima facie evidence. It clearly is not, but you’re free to make the case if you can.

        But I notice you’ve dodged my question. Where’s your source supporting your position that the probative value of prima facie evidence is “the amount of information it contains that can lead to other independent, corroborative testimony or documentary evident”?

        You’ve said that over and over. But the definitions I’ve cited clearly say otherwise. What’s the point of continues to use a definition which, as far as anyone can tell, is one of your own invention?

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 1:14 pm #

        “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.”
        __

        And, by the way, would you like to explain what you mean by that? Are you saying that if a certified copy of a birth certificate says that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, it doesn’t prove that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961?

        Does it prove that someone named Barack Obama was born? Does it prove that some unnamed person was born in Honolulu? Does it prove that someone was born on Aug. 4, 1961?

        Or does it simply prove that some human being was born somewhere at some time, and the person’s name, birth date, and birthplace have to be proven independently?

        According to the law, a self-authenticating document is prima facie evidence of all the information it contains. And you still have presented no cogent argument to the contrary.

      • smrstrauss March 28, 2014 at 1:24 pm #

        Re: “”A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded.*

        It is important to stress that the above statement is FALSE. A birth certificate is not, of course, only proof that A birth occurred, it is proof that a birth of a child to the people listed in the birth certificate occurred and that it occurred at the place listed in the birth certificate. That is what birth certificates are supposed to do, and that is what Obama’s birth certificate does do—and, unless birthers can provide actual proof that Obama was born somewhere else, no rational person would believe that the facts on the birth certificate are false. And, BTW, birthers do not even have evidence that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961 (and very very few 18-year-olds did).

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 1:35 pm #

        “It is important to stress that the above statement is FALSE.”
        __

        Actually, I don’t think it’s false. I think it’s been taken out of context and deceptively misrepresented.

        It’s from a report by the IG of the Dept. of Health and Human Services on “Birth Certificate Fraud” (https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf).

        But if you read it in context, the point being made is that “Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity.” So, in terms of the example I gave earlier, a certified copy of a birth certificate saying that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961 proves what it says. It does not prove that the person presenting the document is the person named in it.

        So, if David wishes to claim that President Obama is not the person named in the birth certificate, he can go that route. But it is dishonest for him to pretend that the birth certificate fails to prove that someone named Barack Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961.

      • smrstrauss March 28, 2014 at 1:53 pm #

        PRECISELY. It proves what it says.

        It PROVES what it says, and it says that a child was born to the Obama family in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. I agree that if birthers could prove that Obama was not that child, that would make the birth certificate irrelevant. But, barring that, it is relevant. So, so long as they cannot prove that Obama is not that child, the birth certificate is evidence of his birth IN HAWAII, unless birthers can prove that he was born somewhere else. (And they have not even been able to prove that his mother had a passport in 1961—and very few 18-year-olds did in 1961.)

      • John Wilcox March 28, 2014 at 7:21 am #

        There is plenty of evidence: The kind that is used to verify U.S. births under all circumstances, all the time. You just choose to ignore it.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 12:33 pm #

        Ignore it! I am trying to substantiate it. Birth certificates are prima facie evidence ONLY (This is stated on the bottom of Obama’s birth certificate). They are not designed to actually PROVE a birth occurred. It’s the document you present, as prima facie proof to get a driver’s license, or a pass port, not to PROVE a person has meet the constitutional qualifications to place their finger on the button that can literally destroy life as we know it.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

      • smrstrauss March 28, 2014 at 1:17 pm #

        The birth certificate system works this way. Unless there is actual evidence that someone was born in a place other than where the birth certificate says, the birth certificate is proof of birth in that place. Nobody, and certainly not people who hate the person that is involved, will be able to convince any rational person that a birth certificate is wrong, unless there is actual evidence that it is wrong.

        IF birthers could even prove that Obama’s mother had a PASSPORT in 1961—and there is no evidence that she did, and she almost certainly didn’t—then it would be the start of convincing sane people that the birth certificate is wrong. But there is no evidence that she had a passport, so there is no evidence that she traveled abroad.

        In addition to the birth certificate and the absence of evidence that Obama’s mother traveled abroad, there is the statement of the teacher who wrote home, to her father, named Stanley, after hearing of the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley. This Farrar keeps saying is hearsay, but we are not in a court of law here, and it is additional evidence to the birth certificate and the lack of proof that Obama’s mother traveled abroad.

        Farrar may claim that this is not sufficient—but of course it is. in fact, the birth certificate ALONE is sufficient, unless and until there is evidence to the contrary. And, of course, the mistaken statement by a publicist that Obama was born in Kenya (which the Kenyan government denies, and which would be nearly impossible according to the INS report for 1961) is not evidence to the contrary.

        Farrar may not be convinced, but he will not be able to convince more than a few highly GULLIBLE people.

      • Trentonian March 28, 2014 at 1:47 pm #

        “Birth certificates are prima facie evidence ONLY … They are not designed to actually PROVE a birth occurred. ”
        __

        Come on, David. You’re still ducking the question.

        (And you’re also contradicting yourself. Elsewhere, you say “A certified copy of a birth certificate is proof only that a birth occurred and was recorded,” now you say “They are not designed to actually PROVE a birth occurred.” You can’t even keep your own story straight.)

        What definition of “prima facie” are you using to justify that statement? Let’s see your source. I’ve shown you mine. Stop beating around the bush.

        Either you’ve got an answer or you haven’t. If you can’t show one, any rational person will conclude that you haven’t got one.

      • David Farrar March 28, 2014 at 3:27 pm #

        A state certified birth document simply means a birth has occurred and that it was recorded. All the information on such a document may be used as prima facie evidence, but it does not prove, as a matter of law, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the information contained therein is, in fact, true.

        Birth certificates, in, and of themselves, or not the truth, but can be used to arrive at the truth. To what extent is this true? It all depends on their probative value. Birth certificate that have no probative value are worthless in proving the information contained thereupon.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: