Ken Bennett, Arizona Secretary of State, Plays to the "Birthers"

Categories: Birthers (sigh)
ken-bennett.jpg
Photo by Matthew Hendley
Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett
UPDATE: "Mr. Bennett wrote that email," Bennett's spokesman Matt Roberts says. "With respect to the story, a constituent requested him to request a verification in lieu of certified copy. They have yet to respond."

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who just recently filed the paperwork for an exploratory committee in the 2014 Arizona gubernatorial race, appears to be the latest Arizona politician to play to the "birther" crowd.

In the mess that is Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "investigation" into President Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi has already courted the likes of state Representatives David Burnell Smith, Jack Harper, and Carl Seel as well as state Senator Lori Klein and others into making appearances at "birther"-related press conferences.

Now, Corsi claims to have some support from Bennett to deal with the Obama birth-certificate issue.

Here's what Corsi posted on the "WorldNetDaily" about communicating with Bennett, as Corsi claims he has an "assurance" from Bennett to check it out:

"Because of the importance and profile of the president's case, and at the request of many constituents, I have gone the extra step of asking the state of Hawaii to verify the facts contained in his birth certificate," Bennett wrote in response to concerns last month. "Hawaii is bound by their own statutes to provide such verifications to other state officials in their official duties.

"With all due respect, the [Arpaio] investigation has not proven anything other than raised probable cause that the birth certificate posted on the White House website 'may be' a forgery. The next lawful step would be for the sheriff's office to turn their findings over to the county attorney for prosecution," he continued. "Evidence would be brought on both sides and a judge should issue a decision.

"Whether or not that happens, if Hawaii can't or won't provide verification of the president's birth certificate, I will not put his name on the ballot," he wrote.

"I can tell from the tone and language of your letters that the only acceptable outcome for you is that his name not be on the ballot, period. That may be what happens, but under my watch, it won't happen based on opinions, petitions, probability or pledges to support or oppose me in the 2014 governor's race. My oath of office is to uphold the Constitution and laws of our state and country, and I'm going to do that by following the law," he said.

We reached out to Bennett's spokesman to verify/explain what we just read, but he didn't immediately respond.

Of course, Bennett's purported emails could just be his way of appeasing the "birther" crowd with the easy route, as Hawaii's Director of Health already put out a press release -- in 2008, when most people gave up on the conspiracy theory -- stating that he had "personally seen and verified" Obama's birth certificate.

Still, the number of politicians still willing to play Corsi's games is incredible. We'll give you an update if Bennett's spokesman gets back to us.

My Voice Nation Help
97 comments
davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Who won the American Revolution?

Citizenship by jus soli means we didn't win the American Revolution, and that we are still merely subjects to a sovereign power, the federal government.

When, in fact, English common law also supports the Vattel's natural law of jus sanguinis inheritance, not for its subjects, mind you, but for its sovereigns. If the queen of England gave birth to her first male child in a foreign land, that child would directly follow Vattel's observation of natural law of inherited citizenship that we all share as sovereign Citizens, and as declared by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: the natural right to inherit membership in the society of one's father, is a self-evident, unalienable right that we all share as sovereigns.  The child born would be next in line to the English throne, irrespective of where it was born.

In this country, we won the American Revolution, and as Thomas Jefferson declared: we are all entitled to our natural unalienable rights as free sovereign Citizens.

ex animo
davidfarrar

AlCum
AlCum

Wrong, David. I suppose you're also upset that after the Revolution the Founders still spoke English instead of switching to French.

You've been proven wrong by every single piece of evidence. There is no path through the evidence that you can follow to maintain your fantasy.

Edward
Edward

So unless SCOTUS rules in favour of the Great David Farrar, the American Citizens lost the Revolution and thus the Queen of England is still the boss of everyone?

Yes, apparently disagreeing with the omniscient wisdom of the Great David Farrar apparently now has the power to rewrite history. Good to know.

Arthur
Arthur

"In this country, we won the American Revolution..."
__

That's true, David. And when you win the Farrarian Revolution, you can include all those lovely theories that are self-evident to you but, sadly, to no one else.

Nino
Nino

He's a moron

nosedigger
nosedigger

Can we hurry up and sell Arizona to Mexico please?

Lillian Kaufer
Lillian Kaufer

I bet Arizonans are just thrilled to learn that taxpayers have paid for Zullo and Arpaio's "Threat Investigator" to go to Hawaii on vacation, I mean investigation.

Lillian Kaufer
Lillian Kaufer

Oh, now it was "a" constituent.  He said it was 1,200 constituents.  Was he lying then or now?

HebrewHammer
HebrewHammer

Citizen of not his reign is coming to a fast end and we can all be thankful for that. We can't afford another $5,000,000,000,000.00

AlCum
AlCum

Then don't vote for Republicans anymore. Most of the national debt is due to Republicans, who added most of it.

Edward
Edward

 If you want the President gone, vote for someone else. In fact, getting someone who is Romney's campaign co-chair in Arizona involved in this stupid conspiracy theory could help the President be re-elected.

HebrewHammer
HebrewHammer

What's wrong with this? If obama was born in Hawaii they have egg on their face, If not....

Edward
Edward

 Birther's have had egg on their face forever. Hasn't stopped their bizarre Sisyphean quest. Really, the state of Hawai'i has posted online several press releases that the President was born in Hawai'i. I'm sure I recall that Connecticut had to do that for George W. Bush.

The goal posts keep moving. Right now the demand is for the microfilm of the birth records because that apparently must be forged. Makes me pine for the good old days when people like Joseph Farrah were saying that if he just released the LFBC it would all be put to rest...

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

AlCum

"Courts have told us that Vattel is irrelevant to the natural born citizen clause."

Please cite source.

Vattel's natural law of inherited citizenship is just that, only citizenship. It has nothing to do with economic status.....EVERYBODY has this right. This is what ensures the ruling class will always be with and from the People.  If we allow the courts, and Congress, to define a natural born Citizen...they will be only too glad to create the 'Ruling Class" for us.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Arthur
Arthur

(AlCum)"Courts have told us that Vattel is irrelevant to the natural born citizen clause."

(David)Please cite source.
__

David, have you honestly forgotten this or are you just pretending not to know?

Footnote 3: "Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause.

The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth."

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Defining citizenship, either by naturalization or at birth, is positive law of the plenary authority of government. It cannot define an Article ll natural born Citizen. Article ll natural born Citizen represents Vattel's observation that we all share an unalienable right to inherit membership in our father's society.

ex animo
davidfarrar

AlCum
AlCum

Holy cow, David, there's no SCOTUS case that accepts Vattel. None. Wong proves it. Case is closed. You lose.

AlCum
AlCum

<sigh>

David, please supply us with a citation that the Founders referenced Vattel in writing the natural born citizen clause.

Vattel had nothing to do with it. This is not in dispute. SCOTUS has ruled on this. Your father doesn't matter, unless he was a foreign ambassador.</sigh>

Arthur
Arthur

 So now you are being snarky and dishonest.

The exchange was "Courts have told us" ... "Please cite source." Even though the source had been cited to you repeatedly.

Now you are trying to move the goal posts and demand specific wording from a SCOTUS ruling. That's not the way our system works, and you know it. The lower courts have the authority to interpret SCOTUS rulings, and their interpretations are the law until SCOTUS rules otherwise. Your opinions are your opinions; the facts are the facts.

Sorry, David, you have now proved yourself to be a liar.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Fine. I'll make it easier for you to understand my point: Please cite one SCOTUS case that ignores Vattel's observation of our natural, unalienable, right to inherit membership in the society of our father's.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Arthur
Arthur

David, it pains me to say it, but you are being dishonest now.

We know of your theories about plenary authority and we know that you disagree with the previous judicial rulings.

But it is a simple, undeniable fact that those previous rulings have been issued. To pretend that you need someone to "cite [a] source" to establish that fact shows a shameful lack of truthfulness.

AlCum
AlCum

Wong.

Vattel had nothing to do with our natural born citizenship clause. He never wrote the phrase, and the continental practice was not followed in Britain or her colonies. SCOTUS makes this crystal clear when it declared Wong to be a natural born citizen with two alien parents. Case is closed on this. Your claim results in inherited citizenship and as I said before, that is unAmerican.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

I think you had better read Wong Kim Ark again. Wong never said he was an Article ll natural born Citizen. It was Ankeny that made that totally unconstitutional leap.

ex animo
davidfarrar

AlCum
AlCum

Let me say THIS again: You are factually, legally and historically incorrect. Your claims do not exist in real life but are figments of your imagination. These issues have been decided well over a century ago. Obama is a natural born citizen.

Arthur
Arthur

David says, "It is self-evident."

Which is always the last refuge of those with no factual or legal support behind their theories.

Face it, David, it is self-evident only to you. And you are totally without influence in the real world -- in fact, your worthless Georgia case is now being used by other attorneys in their own cases as an example of what an empty, frivolous, fact- and law-free legal presentation looks like.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Let me say this again: Since the context of Article II is a political context, and the office of President is supposed to be one in which the President is the sovereign representative of the Sovereign People in order that the consent to the laws can be obtained, the natural sovereign political right to be President can only be inherited from another sovereign citizen and therefore, does not fall under the plenary authority of government to define. It is self-evident. 

ex animo
davidfarrar

AlCum
AlCum

You are of course completely incorrect and proven to be so. Wong settled what had been the tradition and practice of jus soli as enunciated explicitly by James Madison on the floor of Congress. Vattel was rejected and was never a factor in natural born citizenship in the US. This is well known legal and historical fact that none of your dissembling can ever change.

Dr. Blue
Dr. Blue

David:  I could just make up stuff like you do, but I don't see the point. You can say, until you're blue in the face, that the SCOTUS and all of the courts in the land are wrong because they don't understand your theories, but it isn't going to make any difference at all. The law is clear, and by the law that prevails in this country you are wrong, and that's all that matters as far as eligibility for the presidency - your philosophy might make interesting conversation in some quarters, but it means diddly as far as real legalities.

Arthur
Arthur

David says that "the natural sovereign political right to be President ... does not fall under the plenary authority of government to define -- Wong, the 14
Amendment and Ankeny included."

And there you have it. It's not clear why he would even bother to take this to the Supreme Court, since according to FarrarLaw even SCOTUS lacks the power to rule contrary to King David's theories.

From someone who originally claimed he would accept the ruling of a Georgia Administrative Law Judge, David has now shown his true colors. He's right, and even if the Supreme Court rules otherwise, he knows better.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Actually, we all share an unalienable right to inherit membership in the society of our father's at our birth. While being born of two citizen parents is the norm, natural law and Article ll natural born Citizen only requires the father be a US citizen.

The reason this is so is in order to recognize that political rights, like Sovereignty, and Liberty, are natural rights that can only be inherited from other humans (see Supreme Court case Yick Wo v Hopkins). Since the context of Article II is a political context, and the office of President is supposed to be one in which the President is the sovereign representative of the Sovereign People in order that the consent to the laws can be obtained, the natural sovereign political right to be President can only be inherited from another sovereign citizen and therefore, does not fall under the plenary authority of government to define -- Wong, the 14 Amendment or Ankeny included.

AlCum,

If it is such a well known legal and historical fact, perhaps you would care to share it with me?

ex animo
davidfarrar

AlCum
AlCum

If it weren't for unsupported dictum, David, you wouldn't have anything to post. Minor v Happersett ring a bell?

AlCum
AlCum

 David, the Supreme Court ruled on this more than a century ago. Wong Kim Ark was declared to be a natural born citizen. Case is closed.

Arthur
Arthur

 @davidfarrar:twitter  -- "Wong is all about the 14th; didn't you know?  The same nonsense."
__

LOL, compounding your lies with doubletalk. I can't imagine who you think you're impressing with this drivel.

Edward
Edward

 Yes David, you are right. The entire court system is wrong. Since 1898. But don't worry SCOTUS will understand. You know that in your heart to be true, just like you know that the President is somehow ineligible, you just need to figure out exactly how to convince a court of that.

Edward
Edward

 David, you mean the case you lost to an empty chair in Georgia? The one where your "attorney" Orly Taitz offered herself as a "witness"? That one?

I've read Mahlihii's decision.  It's  @ImaAZgal:disqus  http://www.scribd.com/doc/8042... in case you actually wish to read it.

Now I've looked through the decision for the words "in tandem." This is the only match I've found "The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem and held that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."

Maybe I missed it. (You have a citation for that phrase right? You just omitted it for good very good reasons that you can't share with us right?)  I did find the part where Judge Mahlihi said "The Court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiffs' allegations." or "The Indiana Court determined that the two provisions "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution." Id. (citing Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 654)."

Aw shoot, common law. Not Vattel. Oh well, I await the news from the Great David Farrar that both Judge Mahlihi and the Supreme Court in 1898 are really wrong but the Supreme Court will really and truly know this and defer to his unbounded understanding of the constitution.

Dr. Blue
Dr. Blue

That's a complete lie, David.  Malihi did not even remotely say that you had to read Ankeny "in tandem" with WKA.  He said that the Ankeny decision said that WKA determined that people born in this country, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US, were natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. The Ankeny court was just saying what the WKA decision provided - it did not say anything at all beyond that, and broke absolutely no new ground. Malihi simply said that he agreed with their reasoning - that the WKA case applied and the SCOTUS decision in that case implies that President Obama is a natural born citizen.  THAT is what Malihi said. What you claim he said - that's a lie.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Wong is all about the 14th; didn't you know?  The same nonsense.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Arthur
Arthur

"He, too, said Wong does not establish a "natural born" Citizen --  but that we have to read Ankney case "in tandem" with Wong, or some such nonsense, to reach an Article ll natural born Citizen."
__

Total BS, David. You are lying again.

What ALJ Malihi said was, "The Indiana Court first explained that the U.S. Supreme Court has read the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II (natural born citizen provision) in tandem...", and that's the only place in the decision where the phrase "in tandem" occurs.

And he also said, "This Court finds the decision and analysis of Arkeny (sic) persuasive" and concluded that "President Barack Obama ... became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen."

So, you are welcome to refer to it as "some such nonsense," but that's the way judicial decisions are made in this country. Ankeny was decided by a unanimous vote of the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court refused to reconsider it, and the plaintiffs for some reason chose not to appeal the decision to SCOTUS.

It's sad to see how your only remaining arguments are based on lies.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Edward,

I am simply going by what Judge Malihi stated in my case. He, too, said Wong does not establish a "natural born" Citizen --  but that we have to read Ankney case "in tandem" with Wong, or some such nonsense, to reach an Article ll natural born Citizen.

So this is the unconstitutional line in the sand, a line I am unaware of at this time that the SCOTUS has thus far crossed. They know better than to try an usurp our unalienable natural right of inheritance of citizenship.  It will be their biggest mistake since Dred Scott

ex animo
davidfarrar

Edward
Edward

 David, I've read Wong Kim Ark. I've read the dissent. Sorry, Wong Kim Ark doesn't say naturalized at birth. That appears nowhere in the decision. I am quoting not my words, but those of the Chief Justice who presided over the case in his very dissent to the decision. Frankly, I think his words have greater weight than my own or of those of the Great David Farrar, but hey, I'm an obot. I guess I just like following the constitution.

You seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS has to directly refute every single new angle and use the words you magically dream up to explain to the world that somehow the 44th President of the United States of America is not eligible for his position. The court doesn't work that way. The law doesn't work that way. The constitution doesn't work that way.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Fine. Don't take my word for it, read his statement for yourself and try and find the legal precedent he uses to support his statements.

Hint: There is none. It's simply dictum.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Edward
Edward

 Yeah, what does the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America know about a case he ruled on compared the wisdom and knowledge of the Great David Farrar?

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Unsupported dictum, nothing more.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Dr. Blue
Dr. Blue

David:  Every single legal authority that has said something on this says that WKA was declared a natural born citizen. It's absolutely unanimous. But you disagree. 'cause you're just sooooooo smart, right?

So the legal system will continue with sensible rulings, you'll spin your wheels for a while, President Obama will not be affected in the least, and your entire contribution will be posting meaningless claptrap on the Internet. Why don't you do something useful with your life?  You're heading nowhere except to a world of hurt the way you're going now. Do you want to end up broke and on the verge of homelessness like a certain other birther up in Madisonville, Tennessee?

Edward
Edward

 I guess I need to post this again David. Quit lying!

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

Chief Justice Fuller, in his dissent in United States v. Wong Kim Ark http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup...

Again the dissenting Chief Justice saw that the ruling made Wong Kim Ark a Natural Born Citizen. Sorry, I know  you really don't want this to be the case and wish it with all your heart for it not to be, but your wishes do not make the law.

AlCum
AlCum

Wrong, David, SCOTUS declared Wong to be a natural born citizen. Ankeny was no "unconstitutional leap," it is precisely in keeping with Wong and with US history and tradition as enunciated by James Madison and other Founders. Jus soli, solo!! This is not in question. One would think that the unanimous string of losses suffered by birthers in every forum in every case would have taught you this. When all the headlights on the freeway are headed TOWARD you, David, it's not they who are wrong. It's you.

Conservative American
Conservative American

No, there is also the subject to the laws portion.  Not everyone born within the United States is a citizen. Think: children of diplomats.

Obama is a citizen, that much is clear.Also, McCain was born in Panama, but is considered a natural born citizen (look it up ...)

Dr. Blue
Dr. Blue

davidfarrar said:  "This will be the legal basis for my next Georgia challenge as soon as the DNC convention is over and "officially" designates candidate Barack Obama as their presidential nominee."

As I'm sure you're very aware, many courts have ruled that Barack Obama is indeed eligible to be president.  Including your very own case - Malihi didn't say that his decision depended on this being about the primary.  He didn't say that he was rejecting some specific narrow argument.  He said, and I quote, "Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny], he [President Obama] became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen."

The Indiana court has ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president. The courts in Georgia have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.  Courts in Virginia have ruled that Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president.

Do you know what it's called when you're aware of these rulings (seeing how one of them was in your case, you can't claim otherwise) and you file the same crap again, in a different phase of the election?  It's called "a sanctionable frivolous lawsuit."  I hope Orly will share some of the birther-bucks with you, because it might be pretty expensive for you.

davidfarrar
davidfarrar

Judge Malihi did make that connection...that is what I am objecting too this next time around. "Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny (sic) [Ankeny], he [President Obama] became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen."

My position now is intended to address the judge's point, but this time through Vattel's natural right to inherit membership in the society of the father.

Plenary authority cannot create citizens that can be Presidents or Vice Presidents. Plenary authority cannot create natural born citizens; it can only create naturalized citizens.

ex animo
davidfarrar

Dr. Blue
Dr. Blue

The correct way to "address the judge's point" is through an appeal.  Oh wait, you did that.  And failed.
The INcorrect way to "address the judge's point" is to file another complaint, in another court, hoping to shop around for a judge who will buy your claptrap.  That's abusing the courts, and you'll end up paying dearly for that (at least you should!).
Oh, and I forgot a good one when talking about sanctions and your birther crew:  Looks like Chris Strunk, one of the witnesses in your Georgia hearing, is being nailed pretty hard - looks like it will be well into a 6-digit bill for him.  How healthy is YOUR checkbook David?

AlCum
AlCum

Malihi was correct. You are wrong. Case is closed on this. Vattel had nothing to do with it. Jus soli. Case closed. No inheriting your rights from your father but by virtue of your birth in this country. That, David, is the American way.

Arthur
Arthur

[directed to David:] "As I'm sure you're very aware, many courts have ruled..."
__

Yes, he is aware, and you know what? He doesn't care! Those judges were just wrong. And David is the Ultimate Arbiter of Natural Law.

Now, he's also expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will rule his way, but -- you know what? He doesn't care! Because even the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to rule in a way that David disagrees with. Because they represent only plenary law, while David represents Natural Law.

Understand? Good! I just wanted to make it clear whom we're dealing with.

Dr. Blue
Dr. Blue

That's cool.  He's marginally entertaining.  Aggravating that he's wasting taxpayer money and goverment time though, but if he goes forward with that I'm sure they'll rectify that.

Look at the folks that were involved in the Georgia challenge:  Van Irion is on the road to sanctions for his preposterous actions in Tennessee.  Taitz is on the road to sanctions for her preposterous actions in Mississippi.  And Farrar could claim sanctions in Georgia for a southern triple-crown of birther sanctions.

Hey, if we could include Alabama, we could have a nice contiguous region of sanctions from birther suits.  And, in fact, if Hendershot keeps going the way he was going, he might add that piece to the puzzle as well.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...