Obama Birthers Claim Victory in DC, Sort Of

This latest effort, like all birfer plans, will amount to little more than another epic fail! Birfers have no learning curve, so, I doubt they will learn anything from this newest failure.

Mr. Holder, it's time for lunch. Go have lunch before the birfers arrive. You might need to indulge just this once. LOL!

http://twitter.com/TalulahStarr

Too bad ole Carl didn't just give the Secret Service his pile of poo when they paid him a visit in GA! Could have saved himself airfare and hotel fees!

Isn't this the day Obama was to be brought out of the White House in handcuffs, if not chains? The earth was supposed to stop spinning. There was to be rioting in all major cities across the nation, but the Constitution would have been saved and a white male would again be president. All's right with the world and so forth. I think it was today.

Isn't this the day Obama was to be brought out of the White House in handcuffs, if not chains? The earth was supposed to stop spinning. There was to be rioting in all major cities across the nation, but the Constitution would have been saved and a white male would again be president. All's right with the world and so forth. I think it was today.

At least that's one nut on the “list.”

Thank you for being an objective reporter! Explain why Mr. Obama has spent over $1,000,000 this year in legal fees fighting lawsuits about his eligibility. What hospital was he born at and who was the doctor? A true birth certificate would show that, not the certification of live birth that has been on the internet.

I suggest you find out what you are talking about before you look foolish any further. The people you are making fun of in your article are dedicated Americans who want answers, I praise them for their dedication.

This site sounds like a very independent, non-biased site that looks at all information objectively free of any prejudice or pre-judgement. Ya, right!

Julie, Obama has spent ZERO on “legal fees fighting lawsuits about his eligibility” because NONE of those lawsuits ever made it to court.

“What hospital was he born at and who was the doctor?”

Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children

http://www.kapiolanigift.org/centennial.aspx?id…

“The people you are making fun of in your article are dedicated Americans who want answers”

No offense but to me they are sore losers who are still in denial about Obama's election victory.

As a Jewess in the US, I feel the so-called “Birthers” have a very valid point. Hussein Obama has NEVER shown his true long-form birth certificate, which tells the hospital, delivering doctor, has the heel print, etc. , unlike John Mccain. We KNOW Hawaii has issued “Certifications of Live Birth” to people born in Indonesia, like Obama's own SISTER, for example, who does not even deny it. To add to the mess, the Ambassador from Kenya HIMSELF said Obama's birthplace in Kenya is a National Shrine! LOL. And, since Obama's CLAIMED father was a British subject, Obama may not be “Natural Born” even if he was spawned in the territory of the USA, since many lawyers say the to be natural born, one must be born in the USA to American citizen parents. No, this is a case for the Supremes, not for a massive media cover-up.

If Obama was out, think of the empty suit Democrats have given us to replace him.

Obama is a fraud and a phony. The parallels to Hitler are striking. He must present a valid US birth certificate NOW. The damage he has done in six short months is staggering. If he is not stopped, he will destroy everything good about America. Join hands and hearts today and demand he present that birth certificate.

You said: “Hussein Obama has NEVER shown his true long-form birth certificate, which tells the hospital, delivering doctor, has the heel print, etc.”

AHEM.

Associated Press Nov 1, 2008:
“The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night. [...]

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” “

BTW do you have ANY PROOF that “Hawaii has issued “Certifications of Live Birth” to people born in Indonesia”?

“And, since Obama's CLAIMED father was a British subject, Obama may not be “Natural Born” even if he was spawned in the territory of the USA.”

Then how do you explain CHESTER A ARTHUR whose father is CANADIAN?

Nice touch with the “Jewess in the US” bit /Sarcasm.

You said: “He must present a valid US birth certificate NOW.”

He already did.

Associated Press Nov 1, 2008:
“The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

Fukino also was quoted by several other news organizations. The Honolulu Advertiser quoted Fukino as saying the agency had been bombarded by requests, and that the registrar of statistics had even been called in at home in the middle of the night. [...]

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

You also said: “The damage he has done in six short months is staggering.”

Gee i didn't know Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or reversal of ban on stem cell research federal funding or health care reform is so “damaging” /Sarcasm.

Kreep has been battling Obama's California lawyer, Fredric Woocher, to release the president's records from Occidental College on the theory that they might provide information about his citizenship.

Woocher has threatened to seek sanctions against Kreep for pursuing the case.

“This suit, like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama's qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” he said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BF5…

You can see why DKos finally had to establish a 9/11 Truther ban on sight policy. How long before all websites set their filters to auto-moderate all comments containing the words Kenya, COLB, Indonesia, and auto-ban any comments containing the name Orly Taitz or any of the comical misspellings thereof, such as the kind of misspellings of her own name Orly has been known to submit in her various documents? My favorite is Oily Taint. Damn MicroSoft and their spell-check!

Richarddenney invokes Godwins law in 15 comments.

Nice job.

Chester A Arthur hid all evidence of his heritage, just the same as AKA. It is just like the left to use bad behavior to validate further bad behavior. Idiots, they are !!!!!! AKA is a fraud and a traitor. His time is shorter than they think.

It would be advantageous for you to keep your trap shut!! You are uninformed and only vaguely sensient. The proof lies in an entirely different group of evidence. He admits and it is verifiable that his father was a British citizen!!!! Open your ears, dummy. He cannot be a natural born citizen even if God were to appear in his defense. His status is becoming known and he WILL be removed and charged with Fraud and Treason. If he is so smart, how come he doesnt know he is ineligible. HE KNOWS!!!!! Therefore he is a FRAUD!
He aids and abets our enemies while disregarding our allies. He is a TRAITOR!

You said: “Chester A Arthur hid all evidence of his heritage.”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Arthur's father Canadian citizenship is so well known that there was speculation he was born in Canada which is ironically kind of like the rumors that Obama was actually a Kenyan.

The “idiots” are the sore losers who still prefer to believe in such rumors.

You said: “He admits and it is verifiable that his father was a British citizen!”

Robert, his father can be Martian and he would still be NBC because:

A. His mother is American.

B. He was born on American soil (Hawaii).

Do you want to live under a communist regime? Do you even know what socialism is? Do you want to controlled by a tyrant Emporer? That is exactly what this fool envisions. You have drunk the Jim Jones Koolaid. I would bet you dont want these bad things to happen. They are already happening!!! You are just too stupid to understand!! The few of us with understanding of the Declararion of Independence and the Constitution can see exactly the direction he is going with his mania. WAKE UP, you idiots! “Give our country away to illegal aliens….” Either make yourself familiar with the facts or SHUT UP!

WRONG! Read the Constitution. He is NOT Natural born. Both parent must be Citizens of the United States of America.

This will be my last post to you. Dealing with the illiterate is like duelling with an unarmed man. Go Away.

You said: “Both parent must be Citizens of the United States of America.”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Then how do you explain SCOTUS decision on “United States v. Wong Kim Ark” which find Wong as NBC even though BOTH HIS PARENTS ARE CHINESE?

Clearly YOU are the one that does not know anything if you think you will be controlled by a tryrannical emperor (that's the correct spelling by the way) because Obama was elected. And yet, you have the audicity to accuse others of being “too stupid to understand”?? Either that or your tinfoil hat is a wee bit too tight this morning.

How about if YOU make YOURSELF familiar with the facts or SHUT UP?

You said: “The few of us with understanding of the Declararion (Sic) of Independence and the Constitution can see exactly the direction he is going with his mania.”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Hey Robert here's something from the constitution for you:

14th Amendment to the United States Constitution: ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Since Obama's mother is American and he's nor on US soil (Hawaii) Obama is CONSTITUTIONALLY an NBC.

Anyone been tracking the Ebay sale of the Barak H. Obama II's Kenyan Birth Certificate. It has been posted to Ebay and scrubbed numerous times. The most recent was for sale for more than 24 hours and the highest bid that I say was for more than a million dollars. There were approximately 80 bids and then the ad was gone again. So, folks, if AKA Barak Obama is for real why would anyone care about a dumb old Ebay sale? Why would the powers that be yank it off the auction block. I checked the history of the seller and it was clean. I emailed the seller and he responded twice. I believe this is legitimate and I am worried about this person's safety.
This administration is so corrupt. It is a crime what is going on in America. Just look at who this man sides with the Cuban Dictatorship, the Venezuelan Dictatorship, the Iranian regime. Good grief you liberals are crazy.

The person who is running from the insane aslyum in pajamas doesn't fool the guards when he points at an old lady on the street and says, She's the crazy one.

WAKE UP in all caps is a marker of white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Thanks for the 'tell.'

Seriously, Google Wendy Weinbaum if you want to drink straight from the firehose of barking at the moon crazy. “As a Jewess in the US” is her rhetorical throat-clearing tic similar to the way other people start every statement with “basically” or “you know.” How many cats do you own, Wendy? And how many of them told you that Obama is a sekrit Muslin?

Here is a common thread I see constantly. When Liberals cannot agrue a point or a question with fact or reason, they turn to personal attacks. Those of us who have valid questions about Barak Obama's eligibility are ridiculed and treated with disrespect, simply because we question very serious claims. Just because we have an honest sense of reasoning power. It makes no sense that Barak Obama is taking extreme measures to hide his records. There is only one conclusion that anyone with a brain can come to. There is something to hide–why else? But instead of serious review of the facts, these people who are in the tank for Obama and his madness, turn on American Citizens who want to uphold our values and keep our Consitution in tact. But no, they don't have any appreciation for that. They just want to make fun of us because we believe he is a fraud. Well, the truth will be known one day. Not in to too distant future. I just don't understand how so many Americans have become so mean and viscious, simply because they disagree on an issue.

Yes, it's terrible how mean and vicious Americans have become. Let us know when you plan to stop it. Right after you prove that you're REALLY an American and not a Kenyan Indonesian. Oildance? Sounds middle eastern to me…

Allan is a classic example of a Saul Alinsky leftist.

Although quite capable of engaging in serious dialog, this adolescent choses to employ Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. He gets several of them in the two posts I have read.

Alinsky's Rule 5 — “Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Alinsky's Rule 6 — “”A good tactic is one 'my people' enjoy.” They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.”

And of course, Alinsky's Rule 12 — “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” I cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. I go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

I encourage every REAL American to read Alinsky's “Rules for Radicals.” It will help you fight these idiots.

http://www.theobamafile.com/Alinsky.htm

Here's another example of left-think from Allan, a genuine Obot..

“Free expression for me, but not for thee.”

This guy is a perfect example of the Obama supporter. He'd put on a brown-shirt and sing Obama's version of the “Banner Song” in a heartbeat.

He'd enjoy purging the country of those who think differently than he does.

“When Liberals cannot agrue a point or a question with fact or reason, they turn to personal attacks.”

Alinsky rule 12 — these Obots have no free will. They're all slogans and insults.

Can't form their own thoughts.

I thought you died eight years ago in prison for the murder of Medgar Evers.

I'm confused, above you indicated I'm not capable of independent thought, yet here you say I'm quite capable of engaging in serious dialog. Let me know when you make up your mind.

I am actually capable of engaging in serious dialog, but none is to be found among the semiliterate and woefully miseducated acolytes of Oily Taint, DDS and correspondence school JD, who routinely misspells the names of the elected officials whom she bombards with spurious petitions and bits of her used tampons as evidence of some dark conspiracy.

If you dine on Oily's fragrant muff, then you are worthy of nothing but my sneering contempt. Now run along before someone drops a house on you.

And here's an example of Godwin's Law in action. Too bad you blinked first, loser.

Ridiculing the ridiculous existed long before Alinsky wrote his Rules.What, did Aristophanes read Alinsky?

You are ready to believe anything but the truth. A nameless “expert” over the entire U.S. intelligence establishment, who are hardly liberals. They are professional spooks, know a forgery when they see one, and gave Senator, then President Obama, the top security clearance in the country.

He had to show his documentation to them. He doesn't have to show it to every fringe group who wants to spit on it.

I thought Swensson was going to reveal spectacular “new evidence” that was going to force Obama to resign before July 4th. I was looking forward to that, since it would also be the “only” evidence anyone has produced so far to dispute Obama's eligibility.

Free advice to Carl: Next time, form a “Citizen's Supreme Court,” with robes and everything. They'll HAVE to take you seriously — plus, you'll probably get an interview with Jon Stewart, just as soon as you're released from psychiatric observation.

Oh I thought Liberals protected Middle Eastern people. Hummm. Your are showing your colors. That name is the name of my ranch, not my name. And I happen to live in the best state in the US–Texas. So eat your heart out Allan. You just proved how stupid you are with your idiotic remark. Go figure. Why don't you try to get information–real information. Look beyond the nose on your face.

LOL you just replied to your own post instead of to mine. And you still haven't provided proof that you are an American citizen and therefore entitled to comment on US politics. Waiting…

You're goofy. Oh I have a valid Birth Certificate, but that's not required anyway to post on this site–duffas. I'm not wasting another minute on you.

I don't believe you. I am certain that you were born in Kenya. I have testimony that proves it. Your BC is a forgery. Scram before I call ICE on you, African usurper.

Folks, my point has been made. Allan doesn't know how to discuss a issue in an adult like manner. Instead of discussing the issue of Obama's eligibility, he turns the discussion about me. Makes false accusations about me. Takes my screen name and makes fun of it, and accuses me of not being an American.

Now, if there are any others out there that can handle an adult discussion about the issues, I would be glad to do that. But I am finished the Allan who is apparently about 12 years old.

If you care to have an open mind to evidence, read the following: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs…

Just the kind of response I would expect from a non-American poseur like “oildance” or whatever his Kenyan name is.

The issue of who is a natural born American is at the very core of this ridiculous and endless crusade to delegitimize the authority of President Obama. It may not be treasonous to pursue this line of attack against your Commander-in-Chief, but it is completely and shockingly un-American.

Elections have consequences. Until 1/20/2013, Barack Obama is your President. If you can't handle that simple reality, then you are simply incompetent to exercise the obligations of citizenship.

Thanks for posting the analysis of the “forged COLB” prepared by “techdude,” the “forensic document expert” even the Birthers have rejected as an embarrassment and a fraud.

You really need to catch up with the current conspiracy program. It's not about the COLB anymore — it's about de Vattel's 250-year-old definition of “natural born citizen” (the old European definition you won't find in the Constitution or any US Federal law) and Obama's British-subject father whose British citizenship transferred to Obama at birth (except that it didn't, really).

Oh, and failing that, Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcolm X — but keep that one in your hip pocket, just in case Orly gets judge-whipped again at her upcoming hearing on July 13.

LaLee,

I assume that by NBC you mean natural-born citizen. That wasn't the finding of SCOTUS go here and read:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics…

There was no mention of a natural-born citizen it was only ruled that he was a citizen by virtue of his place of birth (heard of the term native-born). Now read the US Constitution and requirements of the Presidential office. You might also read up on the Federalist Papers to see what the founders considered a natural-born citizen.

Or would you prefer not to confuse the issue with cold, hard facts?

Native-born, not natural-born, there is a big difference. Besides his mother wasn't able to confer her citizenship based upon her age at the time of the birth. Native-born doesn't cut it for the office of POTUS.

LaLee,

Think about your response for a second and then read up on the court cases, they did make it to court even though they might not have been heard. Which lawyers representing whom filed for dismissal of the cases? Do you have evidence that those law firms provided their services pro bono?

I have evidence otherwise.

“All that is required for evil to flourish, is for good people to do nothing”

“It is better to remain siilent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt”

Oh and one more thing, the first suit was filed in CA on November 12, 2008 before the election results were even finalized.

You said: “There was no mention of a natural-born citizen it was only ruled that he was a citizen by virtue of his place of birth (heard of the term native-born).”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Here's the SCOTUS decision:

“The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [citizen and natural born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

How's that for COLD HARD FACTS?

You said: “Native-born, not natural-born, there is a big difference.”

AHEM.

Dred Scott v. Sandford:

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

BTW obama's mother can give birth to him when she was 12 and Obama still get the NBC status because he was born ON US SOIL (Hawaii).

You said: “I have evidence otherwise.”

May i see them?

Can you please show me JUST ONE of this so called “evidence”?

Wow! I am shocked at how immature this newsrag is.
Making fun of people who only want to preserve the Constitution?
Are you concerned about upholding the Constitution?
When Obama took the oath, he swore to uphold the Constitutiion. Something he is not doing right now.
Every takeover he has implemented goes against our rights and our Constitution.
If you people think that's something to laugh about, I feel for this country!

I was able to print off a blank Hawaiian COLB from the internet and can use an electronic typewriter to put whatever info I want on it. I understand Obama's sister Maya was born in Indonesia but also has a Hawaiian COLB?

But if you did that, the state of Hawaii would not be able to verify, as they have with Obama's, that they have the original longform on file.

By the way, this thread is days old, and you and your birther buddies should probably move on to some other corner of the internet where your lies will reach more readers.

LaLee,

True, the US Constitution does not define the term “natural-born citizen” but it does make that distinction for eligibility requirement for the office of the President (Article II Section 1 Clause 5) to wit:

“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”

Obama wasn’t alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution so therefore he must meet the natural-born, not native-born or naturalized, citizenship criteria to be eligible for the office of the President.

So we need to find source documents that define “natural-born citizen” close to the time of the drafting of the US Constitution to determine what the founders meant.

We have that information from the First US Congress in 1790 to wit:

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens; Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: …”

Now let’s ignore the fact that the right of citizenship probably descended from his father who was NOT a US citizen. Note the use of the plural word “citizens”, in the first sentence, which in plain English would mean that BOTH parents would need to be citizens of the United States. Barack H Obama, Sr. never renounced his (at that time) British citizenship as a citizen of Kenya and never applied for US citizenship, and was therefore not a US citizen. Obama, Jr’s mother was only 18 at the time of his birth and was not able to confer citizenship as a result of her age. Even if she was old enough, Barack H. Obama Jr. would have been a native-born citizen not a natural-born citizen. As such Barack H. Obama, Jr. cannot be considered a natural-born citizen even if he was born in Hawaii.

Compound that fact, with the fact there is an affadavit that indicates his grandmother, “Ms. Sarah Hussein Obama was very adamant that her grandson, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, was born in Kenya, and that she was present and witnessed his birth in Kenya, not the United States.”

If that is a true statement, then the current occupant of the White House would not even be considered a native-born citizen of the United States as “it is common knowledge throughout the Christian and Muslim communities in Kenya that Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., was born in Mombasa, Kenya.” (from the same afffadavit).

There are your COLD HARD FACTS!

Huh?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Unless there’s a REAL HARD SOLID PROOF that Obama was born outside US beside “testimony” from her grandmother then your point is moot.

Obama’s mother is an NBC since birth and he was born on US soil so she could gave birth to Obama when she was 10 and Obama would still be considered NBC even though his father is Kenyan as proven by the eligibility of Chester A Arthur to run for (And won) presidency even though his father is CANADIAN.

So, where’s the Kenyan or Indonesian BC?

You know, the COLD HARD FACTS evidence which supports arguments /Sarcasm.

The fact were given to you but you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a native-born, not a natural-born citizen as both of his parents were NOT U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

As far as Chester A. Arthur responses, read up on it at this link as it has been revealed that Arthur actively concealed the evidence that he was not a natural-born (not native-born) citizen.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8830185/Wrotnowski-v-Bysiewicz-Supplemental-Brief

“He who laughs last… “

M, you’re the one who refuse to see the fact.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATIVE BORN OR NATURAL BORN.

When a child is born on US soil then that child is a US NATURAL BORN CITIZEN regardless of the child’s parents citizenship as proven by SCOTUS decision on United States Vs Wong Kim Ark.

What do you think the term “ANCHOR BABIES” is about?

Small sized anchor? /Sarcasm.

I’ll ignore your first question as rhetorical, but you make me wonder if you have basic reading comprehension.

As I have already responded, NO, the Constitution does not define natural-born citizen and by the way it also does not define the term impeachment and a number of other terms used there. Speaking of schooling, sounds like you may have failed logic class as you are attempting to argue from ignorance (i.e. “Can you tell me ANY part of the CONSTITUTION, not Vatel, not a book written by some guy who wasn’t even part of founding fathers, but the REAL US CONSTITUTION …”).

I already gave you a direct quote fromt First Congress of 1790 which defined the term, natural-born citizen.

Now let’s look at a direct quote from opinion in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark that you are fond of referring to:

“In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,”

Now I have given you a quote from the First Congress of the US in 1790 and a direct quote from a legal opinion that you are fond of referring and which by the way supports my assertion that at best, Obama is a native-born citizen, not a natural-born citizen.

As far as awards to the defendants in a single court case, you are subscribing to the logical fallacies of hasty generalization and composition.

Why would the awards to the defendants in a single case be representative of the legal costs incurred in all of the cases brought to date?

Ever heard of retainer fees? Oh I forgot, you have to have a definition, well here it is:

“To engage the services of an attorney or counsellor to manage a cause, at which time it is usual to give him a fee, called the retaining fee or retainer.”

By the way, I didn’t write that “close to $1.000.000″ was spent on these cases but “over a MILLION dollars paid to a top law firm since the election.”

Hope that helps but I doubt it will.

Anchor babies, red herring!

Again from SCOTUS decision on United States Vs Wong Kim Ark

“In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were “native-born citizens of the [p662] United States,”

Sure check the Federal Election Commission for Obama For America. The records show over a MILLION dollars paid to a top law firm since the election. That law firm is Perkins Coie and was paid $378,375.52 for the period of Oct. 31, 2008 through Dec. 31. 2008. Additionally another $688,316.42 was paid to the same law firm for the period from Jan. through Mar. 2009.

Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, the top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America, is the same Washington, D.C., lawyer defending President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

Why spend the money if there is nothing to hide?

Why not just produce the valid document as John McCain was required to and save all of the costs?

Native-born, not natural-born as indicated previously, both parents must be citizens (native-born, natural-born, or naturalized) to provide the natural-born citizenship.

M, no offense but did you finish high school?

Can you tell me ANY part of the CONSTITUTION, not Vatel, not a book written by some guy who wasn't even part of founding fathers, but the REAL US CONSTITUTION which states that a citizen HAS TO HAVE TWO parents who are citizens to be considered NBC and if that citizen's parents (Or only one of them) are not citizens then he/she lost his/her NBC status?

Can you?

In the mean time here are some SCOTUS case which support my point, it would be wise if you know about it.

United States Vs Wong Kim Ark.

Perkins Vs Elg.

Oh BTW the case Keyes Vs Bowen has been DISMISSED and the Judge ordered that Obama and Biden to be remunerated each $520.

Not $520.000 or $5200 but $520.

If he really spent “close to $1.000.000″ on these cases wouldn't the Judge ordered the remuneration to be higher than $520?

Conspicuous in its absence is Fukino's assertion that Obama's original birth certificate confirms that he was born in Hawaii.

Secondly, read up again. Arthur's father was naturalized AFTER his birth. William Arthur WAS a Canadian but became naturalized in August of 1843.

However, you do bring up a good point, there is an amazing of similarity between to two cases, namely concealment.

Uh M, if the state of Hawaii has Obama's BC then that means he was born in Hawaii.

The law which allows them to give BC to people born outside Hawaii was enacted on 1982 and their BCs don't get to be kept by the state of Hawaii because they're born outside it.

“On October 31st, 2008, officials in Hawaii released a statement that they had examined the birth certificate, but failed to declare whether it was a Live Birth Certificate generated by a hospital with signatures of the attending physician or a 'Late Birth' Certificate of Hawaiian Birth that could have been obtained (for a child) who is one year old or older after birth by a simple affirmation of a family member,”

Red Herring? Seriously?

Here’s the rest of SCOTUS decision:

“In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said: ‘The first section of the second article of the constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.’ Id. 576. And to this extent no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

Here’s another direct quote from SCOTUS opinion on Wong Kim Ark:

“Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated.”

And:

“Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 577, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States ‘every free person born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.’”

And:

“That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.”

So, do you have ANY proof that Obama ever renounced his allegiance to United States?

As for the retainers fee, ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Unless Obama is the ONLY POTUS to ever have paid such amount to retain the service of lawyers then you might have a point otherwise it’s just an meaningless conjecture.

Uh M, the state of Hawaii didn't “fail” to declare anything.

Because there is only one kind of BC a citizen is allowed to have.

THE COLB ONE.

The “long form” as you put it is only for the government to have and to keep.

Therefore they don't have to declare that the one they have is a “long form” because it's already implied.

But hey if you want to take that as a sign “suspiciousness” then who am i to disagree if you want to make a fool of yourself?

No I have no proof that Obama renounced his allegiance to the United States.

While there is a line of evidence that indicates he was born in Kenya, I am referring to the type of citizenship he has, if in fact he was born in Hawaii (which has not been proven by supplying the long-form Certificate of Live Birth).

You maintain that there is no difference between a native-born and natural-born citizen. I maintain that there is and there is also a third type of citizen which is a naturalized citizen.

So three questions to you:

Firstly,

Does the US Constitution define the term naturalized citizen?

Secondly,

Do you believe there to be a difference between a naturalized citizen and a native-born citizen and a natural-born citizen?

Thirdly,

Do you believe that that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, which was established at the time of its drafting?

Simple questions, I think you can provide those answers.

And last, those legal fees were paid came out of Campaign funds (as reported by the Election Comission) and if the legal fees are being paid for any other purpose than campaign related issues (including defense of eligibility suits), then laws are being violated.

So you have no proof whatsoever?

In that case i don’t need to answer ANY of your question because without proof NONE of those questions are relevant.

You can call me whatever you want for not answering those questions but THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER which is you.

So if anyone has to answer question it’s YOU.

Ad hominem, ad nausea, .etc, .etc, .etc

As you can see from the quoted text of the news article, there are two kinds of long form birth certificates in the state of Hawaii. Additionally the acronym you are using COLB is used for a Certificate of Live Birth (long form) and the Certification of Live Birth (short form) and according to the Dept Hawaiian of Homelands,

“In order to process your application (to verify that you are a genuine native Hawaiian), DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”

So your statement, “The “long form” as you put it is only for the government to have and to keep” is patently false otherwise a person would be UNABLE to comply with the “Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money…” statement from the Department of Hawaiian Homeland.

You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers found on a Pacific island years after WWII ended, still at war with the US. If you come back to respond to this comment, it will only confirm that your life is devoted to beating dead horses.

Allan,

Thanks for your excellent example of 'poisoning the well' and considering most of your responses include personal attacks, you seem to excel (in your own mind at least) at presenting logical fallacies as valid arguments.

No I am devoted to God, my family, the restoration of our Constitutional Republic, and the search for truth, which includes tweaking the nose of those who confuse irrational statements with having meaning and substance.

Ow! Ow! Stop beating me!

Huh?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

The Department of Hawaiian Homelands is a HOUSING PROJECT.

“The legal basis for the establishment of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) is the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended (HHCA). Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Warren Harding on July 9, 1921 (chapter 42, 42 Stat. 108), the HHCA provides for the rehabilitation of the native Hawaiian people through a government-sponsored homesteading program. Native Hawaiians are defined as individuals having at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood.”

I looked for the phrase “certificate of live birth” in the DHHL website and this is the result:

“No results were found.”

And then i just looked for the word “certificate”

And this is the ONLY page that has that word:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/hoap/cm3/case-management…

“If a client is considering bankruptcy, the law requires that prior to filing you must receive counseling from a non-profit credit counseling agency approved by the Department of Justice. Through HOAP, a client is referred to an agency in Hawai‘i approved to provide face-to-face, telephone and/or internet pre-bankruptcy counseling. Upon completion, the service provider issues a certificate valid for 180 days that must be filed with a bankruptcy petition.”

Except Obama’s father was a part-Arab Kenyan Brit which would make little Barry a dual-citizen at best. Later he was adopted by an Indonesian. When we adopted our Korean daughter we were assured she is an American and no longer a Korean national. I don’t believe she can run for president of Korea when she becomes an adult.

Obama’s father could be half Martian Kryptonian and he could be adopted by the royal family of England and Obama would still HAVE NOT LOST HIS US CITIZENSHIP nor his NBC status.

Here are the relevant SCOTUS quotes from United States Vs Wong Kim Ark which support my point.

“Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated.”

And:

“Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 577, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States ‘every free person born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.’”

Oh and another thing.

If your daughter decides to come back to Korea and run for president she would be ELIGIBLE.

You know why?

Because US laws DO NOT supersede Korean law and vice versa.

UNLESS when she is an adult your daughter RENOUNCED her allegiance to Korea or something like that.

You mean he wouldn’t have lost the citizenship he never had. If he has nothing to hide why is he hiding it?

You said: “You mean he wouldn’t have lost the citizenship he never had.”

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

You can believe that all you want but the SCOTUS decisions, opinions and the 14th amendment support Obama’s US natural born citizenship.

Oh and he didn’t hide it, Hawaii State Health Director Chiyome Fukino already seen it (Regardless of the nitpicking of what she did or didn’t say) .

He just doesn’t need to personally showed it to anyone who doubt his citizenship, especially if that someone has no legal authority.

And no just because you’re a citizen doesn’t give you the right, if you don’t believe me you may try asking your next door neighbor (He/she might be offended though /Sarcasm).

So what's with not releasing records from any of Obama's schools or colleges? The Pakistan passport? I'm surprised Granny in Kenya is still alive. She's older than Vince Foster if you catch my drift. And why the gag-orders on Kenyan relatives? Too bad we can't hear from sister Maya.

Your skills at investigation are lacking. The referenced page is:

http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/appl…

That being said it appears that the text has been revised since the publication of the news article where I pulled the quote. Here is the current text:

“Primary Documents

Birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth and Certifications of Live Birth) and Certificates of Hawaiian Birth are the primary documents used to determine native Hawaiian qualification.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands accepts both Certificates of Live Birth (original birth certificate) and Certifications of Live Birth because they are official government records documenting an individual’s birth. The Certificate of Live Birth generally has more information which is useful for genealogical purposes as compared to the Certification of Live Birth which is a computer-generated printout that provides specific details of a person’s birth. Although original birth certificates (Certificates of Live Birth) are preferred for their greater detail, the State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.”

However, the fact remains that there are two forms and the original birth certificate (Certificate of Live Birth) contains “greater detail” (in other words a long form) as opposed to the Certification of Live Birth (or short form).

The Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands is similar to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in that it is chartered to provide benefits and services to persons of native Hawaiian ancestry.

Its requirements for establishing one's right to be considered of native Hawaiian extraction is irrelevant to any discussion of President Obama, whose maternal family is from Kansas and makes no claim to be descended from the aboriginal peoples of Hawaii.

But I do have to tip my hat to you for your dogged determination to beat this dead horse until the last bit of flesh has been flayed from its skeleton. Good job!

EXPOSING THE FALLACIES

LaLee responded:

“So you have no proof whatsoever?

In that case i don't need to answer ANY of your question because without proof NONE of those questions are relevant.

You can call me whatever you want for not answering those questions but THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ACCUSER which is you.

So if anyone has to answer question it's YOU.”

No LaLee, I am not going to call you anything for not answering those questions other than to point out that this is just a tactic to continue in your use of circular reasoning, begging the question, and proof by assertion, which by way of definition are logical fallacies.

The questions I posed which LaLee refuses to answer:

(1) “Does the US Constitution define the term naturalized citizen?”

My answer is no, it is not defined but we can determine what a naturalized citizen is NOT, by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …”. Therefore a naturalized citizen is one NOT born in the United States. It also important to note that the distinction of the phrase “natural born” is only applied to the requirements of the office of the President and Vice-President of the United States. As a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen are mutually exclusive, then a naturalized citizen cannot assume the office of the Presidency or Vice-Presidency.

(2) Do you believe there to be a difference between a naturalized citizen and a native-born citizen and a natural-born citizen?

I can't answer that question for LaLee. I can answer that I believe there is a difference and I would define it as follows: a naturalized citizen is a person who becomes a citizen not by parentage or by location of birth but by naturalization laws, a native-born citizen is a one based upon where the person was born, and a natural-born citizen is a person who is born in the country of parents (two of them) who are citizens of that country.

As a suggestion, try Googling native-born.

(3) Do you believe that that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, which was established at the time of its drafting?

I can't answer this one for LaLee either. I believe that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, that was established at the time of its drafting. I also believe that if the meaning of particular wording isn't intuitvely obvious that referencing other source documents as close to the time of the Constitution's drafting is instructive in determining the Founder's meaning.

Another definition for LaLee: “Ad nauseam” arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality.

Now it is established fact that the Founders were presented with Vattel, “The Law of Nations” as evidenced by this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jmfaceHkyKcC&p…

An extract from (the previously mentioned link) Benjamin Franklin's letter to Charles W.F. Dumas (dated December 9, 1775) is as follows:

“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”

Here is another online link to Vattel's online version of The Law of Nations:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm

And an extract from Section 212:

Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Here is a link to the Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 a letter from John Jay to George Washington:

http://www.archive.org/stream/recordsofthefede0…

The text of which is:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

And from the 2nd Session of the First Congress (1790 Chapter III) “An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”:

http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&f…

The excerpt being:

“And the children of citizens of the United States, that my be born beyond sea, or out of limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…”

And yes the wording “natural born” was removed by the Third Congress of 1795, but the understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” can be determined by these documents.

These First and Third Congress references are also cited in the US v Wong Kim Ark decision.

Lastly review S. Res. 511 of the 110th Congress at this link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./…

The text of which is as follows:

“RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Notice how last year's Senate referenced the “First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'”. This was considered and agreed to on April 30, 2008 and coincidentally submitted by Sen. McCaskill on behalf of Sens. Leahy, Obama, Clinton, and Webb.

The Senate did perform its duty with regard to candidate McCain but not with candidate Obama.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

Thank you Allan, I was ALMOST beginning to miss your editorial comments. Perhaps the “dogged determination” as you have ascribed to me might explain why I have also been referred to as “Mr. Persistent”.

BTW, you seem to right at hand to post the “dead horse” comments.

Pot…. Kettle… Black…. as they say.

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ruled in the case of United States vs. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992):

Rooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history, Hannah v. Larche, 363 US 420, 490 (1960) with J. Frankfurter concurring in result, the Grand Jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the three branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right.

In an article in the Creighton Law Review, Volume 33, number 4, 1999-2000, Roger Roots, Juris Doctorate, wrote:

In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without government influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.

Judges and prosecutors and attorneys began using the phrase “runaway grand jury” to create ridicule and scorn upon a jury that chose to think for themselves, which is the Constitutional Right of any jury. Roger Roots continues:

A runaway grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today's “runaway” grand jury is in fact, the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model for American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact runaways, according to the definition of modern times. They operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.