Oily Titz is a Branum-level moron
(NOTE: Leaving tomorrow to go to Washington State, so you won’t have me to kick around anymore….until Monday.)
I loathe birthers. Think they are intellectually dishonest, and tactically moronic. They hurt the conservative cause by aligning themselves with us. But the reality is they are just lunatics. They don’t honestly care where Obama was born, if it wasn’t this, they would start on something else. But, they’ve carved out their little niche, and now are all acolytes to the Great Law Dentist from On High.
But, in addition to being a crackpot, Titz is a total liar, or an idiot, or both. Case in point: yesterday someone that I truly respect, but who unfortunately halfway buys into this nonsense sent along the lattest Dentistry legal update from Oily. Seems she is filing some thing now to have the usurper brought low:
DC Quo Warranto statute §16-351-§16-3503 allows removal from office of any federal officer, Writ of Quo Warranto to be issued in the name of the United States of America against a person, who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.
Now, I don’t know a single thing about Quo Warranto, and seemingly not many other folks do either, because when I looked it up, it was only Oily and her sycophants talking about it. But, either way, I read on in her extremely long and poorly written “Memo on Quo Warranto applicability and enforcement.” I don’t have a link for you since it was sent via email, and when I went to her site, my Norton Anti-Virus about had a complete meltdown. But, let me draw your attention to one thing she writes:
6. Definition of the Natural Born can be found in the Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel, legal treatise and legal dictionary, quoted in the Constitution and widely used by the framers of the Constitution.
7. According to the Law of Nations, Natural born Citizen needs to be born in the country to two parents, citizens of the country, not owing allegiance to any other sovereignties. Law of Nations, Emer de Vattel Vol 1, Chapter 19 §212.
Now, how many of you have read “Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel? Yeah, me either. I found that odd, since I don’t remember any of his stuff from any of the 4 Con Law classes I took. So, I started looking in my library at home. I looked in my “Liberty’s Blueprint” book that Caro got me for my Birthday. No reference in there to either Hamilton or Madison being influenced by him. Then I went to my 3 Con Law text books. Nothing. Then I went to this book I have on great legal philosphers, nothing.
How can that be, not only was he “widely used by the framers” but it was quoted in the Constitution. I didn’t remember any footnotes to other sources in the Constitution, so I set out to find out where it was quoted.
And I shit you not, this is what I found on an Oily Titz sycophant site:
Many scholars have said that “natural-born” is not defined in the Constitution, but that we must look to the laws that subsequently developed. However, this is a wrong premise. The Constitution actually does define the requirement, by incorporation of the Laws of Nations. Vattel’s Laws of Nations is referenced in the Constitution, and through legalese, the precepts of the Laws of Nations are incorporated into the Constitution.
But where is that you ask?
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8:
The Congress shall have Power…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations
Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress has the power to create and enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
Hiding in plain sight! That’s right, the framers in their infinite wisdom cited to a book and didn’t tell anyone! Of course, one might also note that in addition to Law of Nations being capitalized, Power, Piracies, Felonies, Seas, and Offenses were all CAPITALIZED as well. which means, that not only were they citing to the book by Vettel, but they also were making Nostradamian references to Obama. It’s all right there! READ A BOOK PEOPLE!!!!11!! The Paulians know what I am talking about.
BTW- Just to give fair warning, since “Law of Nations” is the law of the land now, I found a few problems. For one thing, did y’all know we were supposed to have a Prince all along? I didn’t either. And you know that seperation of Church and State horseshit? Yeah, all lies.
§ 129. Public establishment of religion
But we should take care not to extend this liberty beyond its just bounds. In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society.(52) The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. § 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.
Now, I suppose it is possible that this guy is just a lunatic, and that Oily Titz has some other reason to believe that Emmerich’s philosophies are the law of the land. If so, I am sure her droogs will show up en masse to enlighten us.
Category: Politics
Lumping everybody who questions Mr. Obama’s past as “birther’s” is a liberal method to discount those seeking some background. He has never satisified the request to prove he was born in Hawaii. Records from his college days, papers he wrote, or even his grades are not allowed to see the light of day. Why?
I find it highly offensive to be categorized as a “birther/lunatic/etc” just because I think he’s covering up his birth place, his academics in all his places of higher education, where the funding for those came from, etc. That the left demands to know much more about the candidates on the right means that we can ask about their candidate/President; correct? That everything this man did, until being elected to the Senate is mysteriously absent in the public view shows he is less than honest.
If you want to say that those questions are the ravings of a lunatic, then I’m guilty as charged. I don’t, however, subscribe to the Titz manifesto or operations. I just would like some questions answered. Questions that the media couldn’t find time to answer because they were pouring all their resources into digging up anything and everything they could find or fabricate about the opposition’s number 2.
Agreed, OldTrooper, and I’m not on the BC bandwagon, either. But, the fact that he’s spent $2M covering up his past makes me wonder, what exactly is he hiding? Mostly, I’m interested in seeing his school applications, grades, the papers he supposedly wrote, his appointment books, how he managed to travel to Pakistan when, allegedly, American citizens couldn’t go there, who financed him. I too find it offensive to be categorized as a “birther” because of the information I’d like to see.
“Mostly, I’m interested in seeing his school applications, grades,”
Why would he have to spend money covering that up? That’s already covered under privacy laws. A college prof can’t tell a student’s parents anything about them. Why would you be different?
Anyway, TSO you don’t know anything about “Quo Warranto” because you didn’t go to Internet Law School. They teach about it there. Also about furries.
I knew this would be a hit.
I’m just waiting for the Ronulans and ‘Nirthers to show up and start spamming the place. What a hoot that was the last 14 times they did it.
Well, so far no one has addressed the point of the post, so I hope they do too.
I also find it interesting that having questions about Obama’s shooling, trip to Pakistan etc are now part of the definition of Birther, because that would also make me a birther, and a self loathing one. I am happy to see my comment about how discovering his true birth wouldn’t appease anyone to be oddly prescient, since we’ve already moved on to a laundry list of other stuff, and the morning isn’t even up yet.
Golly Gee Whiz TSO!
I do think maybe you’ve overstated your case just a bit.
You could have dropped your first paragraph and still made the point easily.
Reckon you graduated from the Don Rickles school of interpersonal relationships?
Glad I had coffee before reading this. Probably should’ve had a bourbon too. I can’t wait for the Ronulans to show up. Make my friggin day, those clowns do.
OK, two things with regard to that Pons.
A) I started the post with “I” and “Think.” Insinuating that that first paragraph is what I personally believe. I thought that is what a blog was for?
B) all these folks who are insulted because I called them birthers, I would like to know where. Did I say that folks with questions about his background are birthers? I don’t remember saying so. If you are not an acolyte of Oily Titz, than how does that first paragraph apply to any of you? Read it again and explain that to me, since apparently I am from the Don Rickles school of relationships and the Branum school of writing if I was so unclear.
Well, if truth be told; I know I’m a lunatic, but to be thrown in with the birthers, who give us real lunatics a bad name, is hurtful. I demand reparations in the sum of a case of Spaten Lager for your slight. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go have a good cry.
TSO said: I am happy to see my comment about how discovering his true birth wouldn’t appease anyone to be oddly prescient…
Hmmm, that is a curious turn of phrase. And rather contradictory, I think.
Any number of folks would be appeased if the truth about his birth would show that he is in office illegally.
And I’d argue that several here have addressed ‘the point of the post’.
Anyone who questions Obama’s origins is a loathsome, ignorant, shithead.
I disagree, ponsdorf. I think TSO said anyone who hitches their little red wagon to Oily Titz is “a loathsome, ignorant, shithead”. She appears to have all of the legal expertise of those earthworms that Iran fired off into space today.
When she started inducing members of the military to fore go their responsibilities for her nefarious purposes, she lost me – anyone who manipulates military service for underhanded political purposes demeans that service.
Wow.
I can’t even possibly respond to that.
You addressed A paragraph of a 17 paragraph post. I listed one example of her being crazy and a liar, and you all assume I am implicating you. I say you wouldn’t be happy with just the birth info, and people comment that they also want to see his school transcripts, his trip to Pakistan, and all his other files.
And I apparently accused “Anyone who questions Obama’s origins is a loathsome, ignorant, shithead” when in fact I aimed at accusing those who would engage in repeated legal tactics led by a woman who is a dentist of that.
That is precisely what I was trying to say. I assumed “Birther” or someone who identified themselves as a “Birther” was by definition one of her minions. I didn’t realize I would have to provide a definition that excluded folks that I actually like.
Oh, and the reason that Obama’s lawyers are spending money to keep his grades and birth certificate concealed; it makes Republicans look like the lunatics who crowed about Bill Clinton’s “Black love child” and the multitude of other crazy theories that didn’t pan out in the 90s. It drives voters away from voting against Obama.
TSO said: Did I say that folks with questions about his background are birthers? I don’t remember saying so. If you are not an acolyte of Oily Titz, than how does that first paragraph apply to any of you?
I’ve read the first two paragraphs several times now, and may have an idea. Define Birther please.
Let’s go the other way, since I am too tired to argue this.
1) Are you a birther?
2) what is your definition.
If you do not consider yourself a birther, then I am done discussing this, because I explicitely stated in the opening that I loathe birthers. If you are not a birther, than I don’t need to defend myself from allegations that you are one. That doesn’t even make any sense.
Well, it all goes to the original meaning of “birther”. With that, anyone who questions his birth certificate cover up has been automatically labeled a “birther”. I, and others, were pointing out that that isn’t the only thing we question. I accept your definition of what a “birther” is, in your context, but the vast majority of people who degrade those that question it have labeled all of us “birthers”. Just as the left has labeled anyone who supports the tea party movement as “teabaggers”, in an effort to marginalize and dismiss anything that the movement stands for.
I will accept my case of Spaten, now 🙂
Why do you loathe a group that has a valid request?
Why can’t we ask to see an actual birth certificate? Hell, they made Bush II show everything about his NG (pseudo)service. They ask and are granted almost anything they request from a public official. Hell, I bet Bryd would show you his white sheet if you said please.
If it were only that the ‘birthers’ were interested in seeing PrezBo’s birf’ certificate, I could see their point. But that’s not the sum total of their argument and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or they’re….lying. The birthers have concluded that Barry’s no citizen, and as a result seek to reverse his election (in the hallowed name of Constitutional integrity no less), and that is the motivation for demanding to see his birth records. It’s a perfect example of a conclusion in search of the evidence to prove itself true. The fact that Obama or his handlers have been able to successfully hide a significant portion of his personal documentation (be it birth records or his 3rd grade report card), is of no great surprise. In fact, I’d consider it an anomaly if it were the opposite.
Re: “Questions that the media couldn’t find time to answer…”
You mean like this one that the Wall Street Journal found time to answer:
“Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”
Re: “Why can’t we ask to see an actual birth certificate?”
Because Obam has posted and shown to both Poltifact and FactCheck the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only one that Hawaii issues. It no longer sends out copies of the original (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
The Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof if birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. In addition, the two top officials of the Department of Health of Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration) have said twice that the facts on Obama’s Certification were confirmed by the original document in the files.
Re: “Yes, Law of Nations is CAPITALIZED, meaning our framers were citing a proper name. ”
No they weren’t. If the were citing the name of any book, we would have learned about it in High School. They simply used a lot of capital letters.
For example: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The United States of American is a proper name. But why capitalize Blessings and Tranquility and People? (Certainly not because they were books.) That was the way that they did things in those days; they capitalized things that they thought were important to stress.
In the section you are referring to, they stressed Law of Nations, not because it was a book (the real name was THE Law of Nations) but because they wanted to stress that the Congress had the right to make laws to enforce international law, meaning the Law of Nations. And in this case, the international law referred to is only to punish offenses at sea.
Vattel was a Swiss monarchist who never recommended elections and never said that the leader of a country should be a citizen of that country, much less a natural born citizen. He gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that doing that is a bad thing.
The meaning of Natural Born does not come from Vattel. It comes from Blackstone and from the common law. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the phrase Natural Born was ALWAYS used to mean “born in the country (except for the children of foreign diplomats).”
Because I am kind of bored and do not really want to work, I did a little look see at the “law school” Ms. Taitz attended. It is, in fact, a correspondence school. Students can take the California Bar Exam (it appears that Ms. Taitz did take the bar and is a member of the California Bar in good standing – for the moment anyway). However, graduates can’t necessarily take the bar exam in other states. A quick review of the faculty shows an unhealthy number of (a) their own graduates and (b) graduates of other marginal schools – particularly Western State University College of Law which only received ABA accreditation last fall. What this means is that Ms. Taitz received a fourth rate legal education and thus does not seem to know that she is walking malpractice. Her behavior, particularly the disrespect she showed Judge Land of the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, shows that she should be disbarred soonest.
My main problem with this moron is the way she seems to inflict collateral damage – much like Mr. Branum – on servicemembers. As a lawyer, I am even more embarrassed by these two than by the slip-and-fall guys on tv, and that is saying something because they make my skin crawl!
There are a host of legitimate reasons to believe that Obama should not be President. However, this is not one of them and elections have consequences. Accept that we have to live with the One for 3 more years and just move on!!!
We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.
Montana; ho does it feel, since you won the election? Are ya feeling all hopey-changey and shit? How’s that $787 billion stimulus working out; are you feeling “stimulated”? How about the $400 billion omnibus (porkulus) that was handed ou; are you swimming in cash from that? How about that $1.4 trillion deficit; ya gettin a warm fuzzy over that?
The reason I ask is; What, exactly, did you win?
TSO:
It’s your own damn fault. You knew that they would come out of the woodwork from the start, you brought it on yourself.
I wan’t to know all that other crap too, but I’m not holding my breath for a response from the current occupier of the White House.
Dear Montana,
I do believe you are missing the point. One should not have to sue to know about the president’s past, if you want the top job your life should be an open book.
Susan said: There are a host of legitimate reasons to believe that Obama should not be President. However, this is not one of them and elections have consequences. Accept that we have to live with the One for 3 more years and just move on!!!
Well said.
There are a number of folks getting all het up about being labeled “birthers”. The “I’m no birther…BUT I have problems with…..xxxxxx (insert bollocks of choice). Basically, if you don;t have the intellectual honesty to dissect ALL the birther crap, you’re a birther. You have bought into some or all of the Birther Big Lie, the main root of which is Obama presidenting whilst being black Lets see, some of the “You may be a Birther if you believe….” Its not a real Birth certificate This is the only form of BC that Hawaii issues to an individual and is legally accepted, recognized and sufficient for all the states and the federal government. It denotes birthplace and citizenship. is self authenticating and legally binding. The details have also been confirmed as whole and accurate by the government of Hawaii Even if the BC is real, he’s not a real American Multiple variations here, only had one citizen as a parent, his mother was too young to “give” him citizenship, when she married an Indonesian he lost his citizenship etc. All interesting and all nonsense. Constitutional and municipal law is very very plain….You are born in the USA, you are a citizen, that’s it, nothing else, no more requirements. In addition, citizenship granted from another country has NO effect on your US citizenship, the only person who can rescind their citizenship is the person themselves and as a conscious, well recorded act by an individual who is legally regarded as competent. No children under the age of majority need apply. If he had nothing to hide why has he spent X million dollar hidimg it HUH. Ahh the magical mysteriously mutable millions in legal spend, varying from 1 to 2+ million. This started when some muppet birther went and had a look at the PUBLICLY AVAILABLE breakdown of Federal Election Commission reported expenses from the Obama campaign. They then went AH HA, there’s all this legal money spent during the campaign….It MUST be to hide something. These folks obviously fall into the bucket of those who have never balanced a check… Read more »
Re: “when she married an Indonesian he lost his citizenship etc.”
NO HE DIDN’T. Both the US State Department and the Indonesian government have said that Obama never was a citizen of Indonesia.
SMR,
Read my post…8-)I quite “All interesting and all nonsense.”
I said it was one of the multiple fails posted by such honest and balanced nutters as WND, Patriot Harts etc.
Bovril.
I didn’t want to give the impression that you were a birther. I just wanted to say that there is proof that WND was wrong and that Obama was never a citizen of Indonesia.