Some More Clarity on Hawaiian Birth Certificates

Tell you what, birthers. You find a Hawaiian around Obama's age, and get that person to go to the Hawaii Department of Health and request their “long form” birth certificate. If they succeed, I'll join in on the call for Obama to request his. Of course, since Hawaii doesn't do that, he/she won't succeed, but I encourage you to give it a try. You can find at least one birther nut in Hawaii, can't you?

Yes, Obama’s grandparents covered up for Obama’s parents by applying for a birth certificate and sneaking it past the authorities, BECAUSE THEY KNEW HE WOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT SOMEDAY. Obama's grandparents psychic? Film at 11.

NO NO NO!! NOt only did they know Obama was going to run for president one day, the also knew that he'd WIN!!! They, along with everyone from Hawaii to the presently seated SCOTUS, are perpetrating the biggest conspiracy and coverup since Roswell!! Yup….

…hey…wait a minute…maybe Obama is the alien they rescued from the spaceship! THAT'S WHY HE DOESN'T HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!

I'm sorry..I just peed my pants laughing…buncha friggin' nutjobs!!

why spend money hiding the full one then?

why have the military revoked someone's orders following his query? would the military usually do this, and forget about it?

why does obama claim birth in queens medical center in one of his books and then write a letter to another hospital congratulating them and mentioning he was born in that hospital? see world net daily for that one. the letter has been removed from elsewhere on the net but wnd have screen shots.

the fact is, the full birth certificate may or may not confirm where he is born. either way though, it doesn't matter – both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child for natural born citizenship to be conferred. i could sit here and write all the details and facts out behind that statement but tbh i've done it so many times (and im not even american or live in america, just someone reading law) i can't be bothered. do it yourself! do some actual journalism! vattel's The Law of Nations may help you if you can be bothered. and this ignores other restrictions like the age and length of time his mother spent in the usa before his birth (ie she may not have been a citizen).

obama admits when he was born he had dual nationality with britain. as such he cannot be an nbc – if the author would like to do some serious research on the subject perhaps visit leo donofrio's blog. leo pretty much ignores the birth certificate, because the proof is out there without it.

the icing on the cake is the birth certificate if it doesnt say hawaii – but it is quite possibly being used to distract from the real issue as above.

question to the author. will you apologise to all who you ridiculed when the truth comes out?

to add, mccain isnt eligible either. lol. i look forward to watching you eat that humble pie at a later date.

In order addressing your stupidity:
1-What money hiding it? He hasn't hidden anything.
2-He lost his clearance as soon as he sued the government, depending on his job in the reserves: he might have required that clearance to do his job. And the Fed judge still tossed out his lawsuit.
3-It doesn't matter which hospital he was born in as long as the state says he was born in state. This is a red herring since the birthers ran out of crap on whatever they were pushing last.
4-He was born in Hawaii, he's a NBC regardless of where else he held citizienship(and any kenyan or british citizenship expired when he turned 18 and refused to renew it, if he ever had it)
5-The Law of Nations isn't binding law in the US. Neither is Magna Carta.

I suspect that Stanley Ann Dunham and/or her parents purported by affidavit that Barry's birth occurred at home. Therefore, any document on file with the Hawaii Department of Health would reflect that and not a hospital birth. It still begs the question: if Obama was born at either Honolulu hospital (even his half-sister has flubbed that one!), that hospital would have generated a birth certificate with a near-universal format; i.e., attending physician name and signature, date and time of birth, etc. To date, as with the state of Hawaii, such documentation is sealed subject to Obama or his assignee authorizing its release ('tangible interest'). That is the proverbial elephant in the room. Why you obfuscate in this matter is beyond me, other than to protect a president who has usurped the office. Obama makes Nixon look like a piker. Indeed, Obama appears to have greater control over his minions (including the MSM, something Nixon obviously lacked) than Nixon could ever have imagined or exerted. Bear in mind that the break-in at the Watergate occurred in June 1972. Nixon resigned in August 1974. Those of us patriots who believe in the rule of law and the Constitution, while seemingly impatient, will persevere and ultimately prevail. Pray that our great country will survive such a cataclysmic event as the resignation or impeachment of Obama.

jimmy, you couldn't be more wrong. The US Constitution states very clearly that anyone born in the US “and subject to its laws” is a citizen. There is no requirement that either or both parents be naturalized.

Since you claim to be “reading law,” I suggest you brush up on the distinctions between jus soli (the traditional US basis for citizenship) and jus sanguinis (the rule followed by most other countries). Of course, I don't need to remind you that nationality is to be determined by each nation as a matter of its own domestic law, so there is no contradiction between being a natural-born US citizen and having a claim to citizenship under the law of some other nation. Dual citizenship is not unheard of (I once knew someone who said she had triple citizenship, but that's another story).

you're actually wrong abuot a number of points. thx for the insults though. didn't expect them :) showing through your string debate skills it seems.

in reverse, law of nations and magna carta do actually apply. your statutes and constitution is complimentary to them, and had to be to be valid given your common law jurisdiction (same as uk canada australia new zealand etc). supreme court settled a case just last year based on law of nations. go learn something.

natural born citizenship – it's all about loyalty. founding fathers created this term because they did not want someone in control who may hold allegiance to a foreign power in case he tried to subvert from within. there is plenty of evidence of this amongst correspondence documented as having passed between them.

regarding which hospital – you're right, it doesn't matter. but something doesn't add up. he is lying either in the book or in the letter. which is it and why? are you happy that he lies? is it ok for a prez to lie in that way?

there are more law suits. these guys wont stop – so the court will have to have an evidentiary hearing to establish the facts at some point. it will happen i am certain – that's what all this noise is about in the media – to get you ready for it. so get ready to accept it if it does. it if doesnt, then you are right and i am wrong, nothing more.

regarding money – he is defending numerous lawsuits. one whole law firm is dedicated to it lol. i should imagine it's at leasst 7 figs now. im sure you will find the evidence on the net somewher if you look – he had to disclose tax records so you will see which firm he paid.

enjoy :)

oh, and one more thing, check out leo donofrio's blog like i said before. what do you have to lose??

feel free to post some more insults up to me. i wont be responding again – said my bit.

i see you're talking about citizenship, and the constituional stance on citizenship.

you must be forgetting we are discussing Natural Born Citizenship. the term only applies in the constitution the one time, in the clause saying one must be on in order to be eligible. interestingly in the same clause they said unless the man was alive when constitution is penned (ie themselves). they did this, because the fathers were british subjects at birth, just like obama. is obama over 300 years old and therefore excluded like them?? i think not.

To date, as with the state of Hawaii, such documentation is sealed subject to Obama or his assignee authorizing its release ('tangible interest').

Wrong. The COLB can be issued by the citizen or his assignee authorizing a release with tangible interest. No one can get the original. It stays put. That is the law. The COLB is the only certificate the state will issue to anyone, for any reason.

That is the proverbial elephant in the room.

Only for birther nuts.

We need this fundamental Constitutional and factual question be resolved once and for all – and sooner rather than later.

Also, like many of you I have followed this drama since it first started to unfold nearly a year ago. I am a Dem. I am not racist. I want the truth. That’s it. Name calling or fingering the R’s with pushing for the truth about this very serious issue only shows your lack of understanding about the laws that govern our society. I’d ask you to stop but know better. Name calling seems to be what many of you do best.

First, because Barack Obama Sr. was a subject of the British Crown at the time Barack Jr. was born, Barack Sr.’s children, all of them, became subjects of the British Crown. Barack Jr. has stated this very clearly on his former “Fight the Smears” website which has since been srubbed. If you wish to read what his campaign wrote visit just about any blog covering this story and you can pull it up and read it with your own eyes.

What this means is that Barack Sr’s loyalty lied with the Brits. Ann Stanley Dunham, Barack Jr’s mothers, loyalties lie with the USA. When Barack was born to these two individuals he became a citizen of the US by virtue of his mother’s citizenship AND a subject aka citizen of the British Colony aka Kenya.

This status of citizenship is known as “Dual” citizenship. Note: some argue that if Barack Jr was born in Kenya then his mother was to young to pass on US citizenship, hence, why folks want to see his original vaulted long-form birth certificate.

To complicate matters further, Barack Obama Jr was adopted by an Indonesian citizen named Lolo Soetoro. If he was adopted under the age of 5 he would have automatically become a citizen of Indonesia regardless of a legal adoption. Note – the US gave deference to sovereign territory laws regarding dual citizenship, ie., American and Indonesia or British and Indonesian, etc. Indonesia, at that time, did not recognize dual and only recognized Indonesian citizenship. Therefore, Barack Jr through adoption became an Indonesian citizen. No, he did not ask for this but as a minor child he was under his parents guardianship.

If Barack Obama Jr. went to Indonesia at the age of 6 he would have had to have been formally adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesian court. The citizenship status, as noted above, would still apply.

Now, we already know that Barack, by birth, was a dual national, British and American, which means he can only be a “native” citizen, that is, if he was born in Hawai’i as he has stated AND if when he returned from Indonesia he applied for and received his status as a naturalized citizen. If he did not apply for naturalization then he is an illegal alien. Few question whether he didn’t apply for naturalization but there is no record of it to date so it cannot be ruled out.

Our Founding Fathers made it clear in Article II of the US Constitution that the President must be NOT may be a “Natural Born Citizen” for a reason. They wanted this leader to have loyalties ONLY to the USA rather than divided loyalties such as the USA and Britian – remember these good men gave blood and treasure during the Revolutionary War to secure freedom from the British Crown. They did not want the leader of this country to be loyal to any other homeland.

The definition of a “Natural Born” citizen is two “natural born” parents of the USA. It’s nothing more complicated than this. For example, someone below stated their family dwelled in Virginia and had roots that went back to the 1600s. If you were to marry another natural born individual and the two of you had a child in the USA or abroad at a military base or embassy your child would be a NBC.

Barack Obama Jr., by birth, never had the citizenship status of a “natural born” child and is therefore ineligible to serve as the President of the USA according to the laws that govern our nation.

Now if you want to direct your hostility to the appropriate parties who looked the other way then please look no further than the DNC, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Diane Feinstein. These are the culprits who signed off on the eligibility documents required by individual state’s Board of Elections. The Party is the sole determiner in vetting their candidates eligibility. No federal agent is required by law to vet said candidates.

Barack Obama Jr is by definition under our laws a “native citizen” AND NOT a “natural born citizen”. This is fact as he has clearly stated himself. Because people are scratching their heads and saying to themselves this guy isn’t eligible doesn’t mean we are racists or any other derogatory name some of you wish to hurl. If we look the other way and dismiss this then why should any citizen obey the law? Furthermore, we should not be setting a precedent for anyone to be ABOVE the law either. My goodness, if Dems look the other way what makes you think the Reps wouldn’t try to pull the same charade. Obama is NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

Sorry, “can be issued by the citizen” should be “to the citizen”.

to Mantis- My wife is older than BHO and was born in the Territory of Hawaii. Thirty-six years ago we called the State of Hawaii from Detroit, asked for a copy of the full birth certificate, and got a xerox copy in the mail ten days later. This in spite of the fact that the nice lady helping us had to go to the Territory storage warehouse, dig out an old copy, make a new copy, and mail it to us (no charge, by the way). But then again….she isn't running for president and has little or nothing to hide.

to Mantis- My wife is older than BHO and was born in the Territory of Hawaii. Thirty-six years ago we called the State of Hawaii from Detroit, asked for a copy of the full birth certificate, and got a xerox copy in the mail ten days later.

36 years ago! They've changed their laws and procedures since then, bucko. Tell you what, have your wife try again. See what happens. I dare ya.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Citizen at Birth (CAB) does NOT equal Natural Born Citizen (NBC)

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-o…

Bye bye Barry! haha

Wrong again. Law of Nations and Magna Carta don't apply at all. The US constitution clearly states who is a natural born citizen. Just because a book or a philsophical document opines on what they think should be the case doesn't make it law. Whether you it or not, Law of nations is just a book. The Constitution says that Obama is a citizen. The law of nations might not, but its not law, nor does it matters.

If the Founders wanted to exclude citizens holding duel citizenship, they would have written that. They didn't. Tough shit.

I can't find any proof of your “mixing up the hospital” routine, so im not going to respond to this nonsense until you do.

Courts have examined their cases. Multiple Federal and State courts and the Supreme Court. They've found it to be without merit. If there was even a shred of potential truth to the allegations, there would have been a full hearing on it. The birther brain donors can keep filing lawsuits, but until they have anything other than “He won't release the document I want released,” no court will hold a hearing on it.

Anyone can file a lawsuit at anything for anything, doesn't mean that spending money to defend yourself from any lawsuits gives it any validity. I could file a lawsuit against you accusing you of conspiring to kill everyone of dutch heritage in the United States, and keep refiling the suits in every state in the Union, making you defend yourself against my frivolous suits, and the amount of money you spend on it doesn't give my accusation any merit.

Leo Donofrio is a fraud and a loser.

I insult you because you deserve it. Anyone who believes this birther nonsense is a moron.

You're quoting a law from 1982. Don't be lazy, do the research.
The laws were different in 1961, as you'll see if you care to do the research.
BTW, ask Okubo if she has laid eyes on the original long form birth certificate.

Correction: Whether you like it or not

Yada, yada, yada. Says nothing about the discussions on presidential qualifications and your interpretation is twisted. They so distrusted the common man to elect the President that they inserted the Electoral College to fix any issues that the great unwashed masses missed. THAT is the body who has failed us in this past election by ignoring their duty to validate the candidate. Now that the damage is done, it is the function of the judiciary to determine if what was done was Constitutional. As I have said, hopefully we’ll soon get that determination from the SCOTUS.

Fine, release a *copy* of the 'original,' which is 'vaulted,' never to see
the light of day. I live in Los Angeles County. I have procured a copy of
the original birth certificate generated by the hospital in which I was born
in Whittier, California in order to process a passport application. I have
seen the format of the 'long form” birth certificate that the state of
Hawaii has on file for presumably millions of persons, certainly since
Hawaii became a state in 1959.

Please stop the obfuscation. The 'vaulted' document on file with the Hawaii
Department of Health is not the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) to which
you refer. Please join us in demanding the release of a 'copy' of that
document.

I note that you have not refuted my suggestion that Obama's
mother/grandparents might have sworn that his birth occurred at home rather
than at a hospital. However, the Kapiolani Medical Center
has publicized a letter from Obama shortly after his inauguration
acknowledging that hospital as his place of birth. Why not release the
hospital records that comport with that assertion? Predictably, those
records, are sealed as are Obama's academic records going back to high
school, college (Occidental College and Columbia University), Harvard Law
School and the Illinois State Bar. Speaking of the Illinois State Bar, what
is the status of Michelle Obama's law license? I understand that she stopped
practicing law in 1993, pursuant to a court order (presumably the Illinois
Supreme Court).

I welcome your comments.

Where is the PROOF that Obama or ANYONE ELSE has spent money, in your words, “hiding” ANYTHING?

If you're referring to money spent defending frivolous lawsuits, like the ones Orly Taitz has been filing, then that is definitely NOT hiding. That's right out there in plain sight.

But please do answer this (if you can)…

In what way can “hundreds of thousands of dollars”–a commonly made claim by 'Birthers'–be spent on HIDING anything?

Payoffs?
Hiring Armed Guards?
Purchasing Safes and Locks?
Building Bomb Shelters to Put ALL the “Secret” Documents?

These unsubstantiated claims are made by anti-Americans who want to stir up emotions in a small segment of the population desperate to grasp onto ANYTHING that will de-legitimize our President.

Fortunately, most people see through this and see it for what it is… racism and prejudice.

If Barack Obama didn't have a Black father, an unusual name, and an atypical childhood experience, NO ONE would be questioning his citizenship.

Fine, release a *copy* of the 'original,' which is 'vaulted,' never to see
the light of day.

That's not how it works in Hawaii. They issue a COLB. That's it. Deal with it.

I live in Los Angeles County. I have procured a copy of
the original birth certificate generated by the hospital in which I was born
in Whittier, California in order to process a passport application.

How nice for you. Find someone who can get one in Hawaii and you get a cookie.

The 'vaulted' document on file with the Hawaii
Department of Health is not the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) to which
you refer.

The COLB is what the state issues. That's it.

Please join us in demanding the release of a 'copy' of that
document.

As soon as you find a Hawaiian around Obama's age who can get the state to copy that document, I will.

I note that you have not refuted my suggestion that Obama's
mother/grandparents might have sworn that his birth occurred at home rather
than at a hospital.

Then the hospital is lying about Obama being born there. Stupid suggestion.

No, the USA does NOT give deference to any foreign territory in citizenship matters.

ONLY the person themselves can forfeit their citizenship and then ONLY if they are not a minor.

Mr Obama's parents could not renounce his citizenship for him any more than they could renounce yours for you. To allow them such power violates natural law.

Mr. Obama at the time he lived in Indonesia was a minor and could not then himself have renounced his citizenship; nor could anyone related to him do it for him, and the Indonesain government policy would not have been considered whatsoever.

Just ask yourself the reverse: what if Indonesian law declared him to be an American citizen- do you imagine for one moment the USA would feel the least bound by that? Of course not.

All your commentary about Indonesian citizenship is totally without merit.

In point of fact the USA allowed minors to have dual nationality; and unless the person THEMSELVES actively by word (as Lee Harvey Oswald did when he went to Russia) or deed (as the American flyers that joined the RAF before the USA entered WW2 and served in the British military) renounced their American citizenship would keep it. Nothing that Mr. Obama has done would meet that criterion.

The definition of natural born does not require TWO parents as you assert: one and one alone is sufficent. It's as simple as that, you are wrong about needing two.

Mr. Obama is most certainly a natural born citizen because you have mis-defined the term and applie dcompletely inaccurate interpretations of US policies and practices.

I am a Dem. I am not racist. I want the truth. That’s it.

You are also profoundly ignorant of how the law works. This isn't just calling names. It's clearly evidenced by the asinine drivel you've written above.

The definition of a “Natural Born” citizen is two “natural born” parents of the USA.

Wrong. You're simply making this up. There is no controlling statutory of common law basis for this definition of NBC.

Therefore, Barack Jr through adoption became an Indonesian citizen. No, he did not ask for this but as a minor child he was under his parents guardianship

Whether Indonesia recognized him as a citizen when he was adopted has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the status of his birthright US citizenship claim. Further, there is no action a parent or guardian can take which would affect the status of a birthright citizenship claim.

Obama is NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

You're quite correct. He is not above the law. But your goofball legal analysis does not demonstrate that he is in fact illegitimate.

FYI
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?p=1317093

It will be interesting to see how Taitz's case proceeds with Judge Carter in
Santa Ana, CA. Also, Apuzzo's appeal in NJ should provide grist for the
anti-Obama mill.

Frankly, I'm disappointed at your sarcasm. What are you defending, exactly?
Obama is a fraud and a usurper. I think it quite sad that the political
process has allowed such a charlatan to rise to the apex of governmental
ranks in so short a time. You are obviously emotionally (as opposed to
rationally) invested in the man. I pity you.

You failed to comment on the pattern of deception that Obama has pursued
vis-a-vis documentation of his pre-presidential life, both as an adolescent
and as an adult, not to mention Michelle Obama's loss of her law license.
Perhaps those topics are too radioactive for even a bold blogger such as
yourself!

Prepare for President Biden (not my first choice, not by a long shot)!

Obama has spent over ONE MILLION DOLLARS combating and prolonging over 45 court cases questioning his eligibility.

Here's a letter written by his power lawyer Robert Bauer:
http://wnd.com/images/misc/hemenwaytwo.jpg

Notice he represents the International Law Firm, Perkins Coie.

Now let's visit the Federal Election Commission's website, reporting on Disbursements by Payee, Obama for America:

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q1/C00431445…

Scroll down to Perkins Coie. Well look at that. $688,316.42 paid out to the law firm with campaign contributions from January and March 2009. Obama and company paid an additional $378,375.52 October 2008 to Dec. 2008. But I'm sure this was all for furbishings right? No lawsuits here right?

Lawsuits filed to date: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

Actually, there is no “definition” of natural born citizen. The U.S. Supreme Court has historically treated “natural born citizen” as a stylistic synonym of “citizen by birth” (see Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark). “Citizen by birth” does have a meaning under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. A person born on U.S. soil, subject to its jurisdiction (meaning not a child of diplomats), is a U.S. citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The number of citizen parents is totally irrelevant to this determination.

A person not born on U.S. soil may be a citizen by birth by virtue of federal law. Depending on the circumstances and location of his birth, the requirements may vary. This is the area of law where the number of citizen parents may come into play, but this has no relationship to persons born on U.S. soil, like Barack Obama or anyone else born in the States.

you must be forgetting we are discussing Natural Born Citizenship. the term only applies in the constitution the one time, in the clause saying one must be on in order to be eligible. interestingly in the same clause they said unless the man was alive when constitution is penned (ie themselves). they did this, because the fathers were british subjects at birth, just like obama. is obama over 300 years old and therefore excluded like them?? i think not.

The reason, moron, why those born before the creation of the Constitution are explicitly exempted from the requirement of being a natural born citizen is because you can't have been born in the USA prior to USA having existed. The USA only came into existence with the declaration of independence and thus the first generation of Presidents had to necessarily be exempted from the requirement that they be born within the USA.

Were things as your fevered imagination assumes them to be (ie, NBC refers only to those born to two parents both of whom were themselves born in the USA), then Martin Van Buren would never have been eligible to be President as: 1) he was born after the declaration of independence and thus he was not himself subject to the exemption from the NBC requirement; and 2) neither of his parents were citizens from birth as each had been born prior to the creation of the USA.

But Van Buren was in fact President and there was no question of his legitimacy at the time. Indeed, by the standard you suggest, every President–save William Henry Harrison, the last President to be born prior to the declaration of Independence–from Van Buren to Buchanan was illegitimate. Lincoln was the first President to be born to two parent who were themselves born as US citizens.

I think it quite sad that the political
process has allowed such a charlatan to rise to the apex of governmental
ranks in so short a time. You are obviously emotionally (as opposed to
rationally) invested in the man. I pity you.

And the rest of us find it unfortunate that we have to share this country with degenerate filth such as yourself.

Yes, the law WAS different in 1961. That is because before 1982, there was no law on the books similar to §338-17.8. If you can find one, name it, and we can see what it says.

Absent such evidence, in 1961, when Obama's birth was registered with the State of Hawaii, only children born in Hawaii could be registered by the State of Hawaii.

Now, of course it may argued – as Ms. Okubo points out – that the parents or the doctor or the hospital may have lied about Obama's birth. But if that's what the Birthers are arguing, why would showing them Obama's actual Birth Certificate satisfy their suspicions?

“Now, we already know that Barack, by birth, was a dual national, British and American, which means he can only be a “native” citizen, that is, if he was born in Hawai’i as he has stated AND if when he returned from Indonesia he applied for and received his status as a naturalized citizen.”

This is simply wrong. The law on the books at the time of Obama's birth and childhood provided that Obama could only lose his U.S. citizenship if the parent effectively renounced it while living overseas (such as through marriage to a foreign national) AND he failed to establish permanent residence in the U.S. before age 25. Even the most ardent Birthers admit that Obama returned to the United States from Indonesia in 1971, at age 10. Thus Obama never lost his natural born U.S. citizenship, and is fully a U.S. citizen in every sense of the word.

“This is, unsurprisingly, totally wrong. Here’s the relevant section of Hawaiian law.”
——————

You are, unsurprisingly, totally wrong. While your cite is applicable today, it was NOT applicable when Barry was born. You're a columnist rather than a reporter – right? I sure hope so.

Whether a person is a dual national has no effect on their natural born citizenship. The United States Supreme Court, in cases like Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) has treated “natural born citizen” as another term for “citizen by birth.” The court has never recognized a distinction between the two. (If you can point to language to the contrary, let's see it.)

It is settled law that under the Fourteenth Amendment a person born on U.S. soil is a citizen by birth (unless his parents are diplomats). Whether either of his parents are U.S. citizens is simply not part of this analysis. You may wish the law were different – if so, go write your congressman and tell him to support a consitutional amendment.

The only time the citizenship of one's parents matters for purposes of citizenship by birth is when that person is NOT born on U.S. soil. In that case, the person's citizenship is dependent on the laws passed by Congress relating to the circumstances of that person's birth. But since Obama was born on U.S. soil, these laws do not apply to him.

It would not. The birth certificate is irrelevant. Barry was a British subject at birth whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya; the precise condition which led the forefathers to write the words 'natural born' into our Constitution in the first place. Assuming he ever had American citizenship, he was forced to relinquish it up when he got his Indonesian citizenship in order to go to school as a child. Indonesia only allowed citizens to attend school and they did NOT acknowledge dual citizenship so Obama had to relinquish his American citizenship in order to become an Indonesian citizen. When he returned to Hawaii, he would have had to go through the naturalization process which is why we need his passport/visa records. If he failed to go through the naturalization process, that would make him an illegal alien.

I do hope you're wrong, John. That makes any child from whatever illegal alien born in the U.S. or its territories eligible to be the POTUS and completely destroys the both the intent and the words of the founding fathers and our Constitution.

“natural born citizenship – it's all about loyalty. founding fathers created this term because they did not want someone in control who may hold allegiance to a foreign power in case he tried to subvert from within.”

The Founding Fathers adapted this term from “natural born subject,” which under English law applied to anyone physically born in English territory. Both of these laws are the expression of jus soli – citizenship by location of birth, in which geography is used as an empricial proxy for “loyalty.” Not surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has used the terms “native born citizen,” “natural born citizen,” and “citizenship by birth” interchangeably. See Minor v. Hapersett (1875).

It will be interesting to see how Taitz's case proceeds with Judge Carter in
Santa Ana, CA. Also, Apuzzo's appeal in NJ should provide grist for the
anti-Obama mill.

It will be thrown out of court by yet another judge. The only question is whether this judge will ridicule and admonish the plaintiffs lawyers, as have so many in similar frivolous and baseless cases.

Frankly, I'm disappointed at your sarcasm. What are you defending, exactly?

I'm defending rational thought against the rising tide of insane stupidity.

Obama is a fraud and a usurper.

If you say it enough times it might be true!

I think it quite sad that the political process has allowed such a charlatan to rise to the apex of governmental ranks in so short a time.

I on the other hand like our Constitution very much. Perhaps another country would suit you better?

You failed to comment on the pattern of deception that Obama has pursued
vis-a-vis documentation of his pre-presidential life, both as an adolescent
and as an adult, not to mention Michelle Obama's loss of her law license.

Oh no! I've failed to respond to each and every crazy thought bouncing around in your little mind. How dare I?

No good deed goes unpunished, Dave. I appreciate your trying to bring some reason to this discussion, thankless task that it is.

The entire point of a Constitutional Amendment is that it changes the Constitution.

Birthers are impervious to both logic and fact. No matter what you write or demonstrate, they come up with a idiotic proposition to challenge any rational, coherent assertion. Farah knows that this is BS. His agenda is to create a controversy no matter how disingenuous.

I only wish that the birthers would challenge what they embrace as truth – no matter how nonsensical – to the extent that they submit the truth to nonsensical challenge.

No, Obama was born with dual allegiances, a situation feared by our forefathers and can only be a native citizen, not a natural born citizen, and even then that is true ONLY IF he was born in Hawaii.

The bottom line is that we will not resolve these issues without the documentation – Kenyan birth certificate if it exists, passport/visa records, naturalization records, Occidental College records, etc.

Fortunately, our military is going to resolve the issue for us. As more and more personnel refuse deployments, cancelling their orders will become too painful – politically – and they'll be forced to take it to trial. That will force release of the documents and all will be revealed.

Wow, birfers are completely impervious to this little thing the rest of us call a “learning curve”–very sad. At least all this stupidity is keeping them too busy to scream and whine about things we are passing such as the Energy Bill and healthcare reform…

I hope they stick with this futile idiocy all the way through 2016…it's the equivalent of a nice, shiny, bauble that keeps them occupied, out of trouble, and out of our way…Any rational person with even a modicum of legal understanding knows these cases will NEVER go anywhere…

You might as well suggest that the half mil paid to Aetna was some form of insurance against this claim. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that President Obama has spent anywhere near these sums. Campaigns expend considerable legal fees on election law.

“Robert Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP. In Bob's 30 years of practice, he has provided counseling and representation on matters involving regulation of political activity before the courts and administrative agencies of national party committees, candidates, political committees, individuals, federal officeholders, corporations and trade associations, and tax-exempt groups.”

Taitz is not a member of the ABA because she did not attend an ABA accredited law school.

You are correct, Jimmy, he isn't. Feel better?

>>not to mention Michelle Obama's loss of her law license.<<

Michelle Obama did not lose her law license. She was licensed to practice law in 1989 by the State of Illinois Supreme Court. In 1993, she stopped practicing law.

“Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 1993″

There were no disciplinary proceedings against her license of any
kind:

“Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None”

http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=108340621

“Obama has spent over ONE MILLION DOLLARS combating and prolonging over 45 court cases questioning his eligibility.”

Obama was not even a named defendant in the majority of the birther cases.

Like most things in WND, the millions of dollars spent is made up.

Hey birfoons, do me a favor and go read this:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpaper…

You may learn something. Hamilton says about the mode of electing the President, in the link I provide above:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
———————-
In other words the people collectively elect the Pres, and the electors are chosen by the people from ordinary folks for the sole and temporary purpose of electing the Pres, this was done EXACTLY for the purpose of avoiding foreign influence, the thinking being that IF this was left to the people it would require far too much effort to successfully compromise all or a majority of the electors.

The power of verifying pres qualifications is left to the people exactly because the Founders believed it was the best way to guard against foreign influence. Notice that the Constitution designates both the House and the Senate to check qualifications of its own members, but designates no one to do such for the Pres.

This idiot birther cases will never be heard, Verifying the Pres's eligibility is left to the people in the election process…it is NOT a power of the Judicial branch and they will NOT get involved in this crap. Give it up already and move on.

“Where is the PROOF that Obama or ANYONE ELSE has spent money,”

Get a life (and a bit of common sense). Dozens of lawsuits have been filed which have required dozens of responses. Those things don't happen in a vacuum nor are they free. SOMEBODY is spending money – it's either Obama or us. Guess which one.

“in your words, “hiding” ANYTHING?”

Clearly things are hidden. We can't see his Occidental College records. We can't see his Kenyan records. We can't see his passport/visa records. Everything has been sealed. I'd say that's 'hiding' something.

“In what way can “hundreds of thousands of dollars”–a commonly made claim by 'Birthers'–be spent on HIDING anything?”

You're a real piece of work. The money has gone to lawyers to file motions and answer accusations.

“If Barack Obama didn't have a Black father, an unusual name, and an atypical childhood experience, NO ONE would be questioning his citizenship.”

You're absolutely right but then if he didn't have a FOREIGNER for a father, a MINOR for a mother, an atypical childhood experience including a questionable birth place and adoption by a foreign nation, hiding of public documents, hiring private (and government) law firms to defend against petty accusations, then, as you say, “NO ONE would be questioning his citizenship”.

Given that Barry has nothing to hide, the charges against him are petty and easily (cheaply) resolvable. So why doesn't Barry simply open the PUBLIC records and get it done? The problem is only getting larger, is garnering increasing press coverage and is becoming uglier in the courts and the military. Why is he doing this? It makes no sense.

prsmith,

I don't think you're getting it. Weigel isn't claiming the law existed in 1961 – in fact NO such law existed in 1961 – but that if Obama tried to revise his birth records after the law was passed, it couldn't be done the way Birthers claim Obama did it.

Of course, the fact that Obama's birth was registered on August 8, 1961, at a time when a foreign-born child could not get a Hawaii birth certificate, is really all you need to know. Weigel's argument about the 1982 law is just icing on the cake.

I suspect with some evidence that you are a loony. You have made up (or really glommed onto) a completely fact free story that has less verifiable factual evidence than flying saucers and ghosts and psychic powers. You simply desire to slander someone who is black and successful. If you were a real patriot you would accept that Barack Obama was legally elected. That doesn't mean you can't bitch about him, or complain, or disagree with his policies. But after the Supreme Court threw out stare decisis, honor and dignity to put Bush in office in 2000 (and when it was revealed there was no way he could have won the recount), and when further evidence of vote count manipulation was found in Ohio and other states (e.g. why Mike Connell had to die in a mysterious plane crash), this is a political smear from the lowest of anti-American scum, people who took their 8 years in office and wiped their butts with the constitution with lawlessness, wiretapping, political murders, torture, corruption greed graft and whoremongering.
How much clearer does it have to be for you birthtards? Your choice was continued corruption, demonstrated and undeniable, or the first black president. Now you are smearing the new guy with the old guys' crimes and acting like whiney little babies having a political pity party. Grow up and move on because every limb you go out on puts you further out into loonyland. There are real problems that need to be solved and negotiated with honest, partisan brokers. That's democracy. Making up elaborate fantasies so you can rationalize taking your ball and going home is antithetical to the democratic process. And it's weak and lame.

You have got to be kidding. This is precisely why anti-immigration activists dislike the current definition of “natural born”, because John is *exactly* right. Search Michelle Malkin's site for the term “anchor baby”.

The records are sealed. 'Under court order' is not voluntary. Speculation is
that she committed insurance fraud. No disciplinary proceedings are pending
because she surrendered her license. Most lawyers would attempt to get back
their license by completing ethics courses, etc. However, a paper trail
would have been created had Michelle done similarly. She was already well
connected to the Chicago political machine and soon went to work for Mayor
Daley. She then managed to land a six-figure job with the University of
Chicago Medical Center.
It begs the question. Why stop practicing law after having been graduated
from Harvard Law School? One might allow the license to lapse (as Jerry
Brown had done before running for California A.G. in 2006, a political bone
of contention because the A.G. must be an attorney in good standing; he did
re-activate the license prior to being sworn in.). Contrary to Obama's
recent rhetoric in Russia, he met Michelle at a law firm and not at Harvard
Law School. One can make a career change in this regard without surrendering
one's law license under order of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Ultimately, Michelle Obama is not my concern, only to say that her
background was deliberately obscured, unlike the Clintons who insisted
that the American people were getting a 'twofer' (two Yale Law School
graduates with Hillary being touted as one of the 'Top 100' lawyers in the
U.S.). Similarly, Obama's Illinois State Bar file has also been sealed.
Something about failure to disclose name changes (Obama to Soetoro and back
to Obama), etc., not to mention possible fudged citizenship status. In
short, perjury in applying to the practice of law. Not pretty.

Cheers.

Under US law, there is no way a minor US citizen can renounce their US citizenship, nor can the parents renounce for the child. Under Indonesian law, Obama was one year too old to gain Indonesian citizenship even if an adoption took place (no credible evidence exists to support this claim)

So under US law, Barack Obama could not give up his US citizenship as a child
Under Indonesian law, between age and US citizenship, Indonesian citizenship could not be granted.

End result, no naturalization process needed, because he was and is a Natural-Born US citizenship from birth, and could not lose said US citizenship as a child

*WASH OUT YOUR FILTHY MOUTH!*

Your first assertion is incorrect. Although Barack was a British subject at birth (although this converted to Kenyan citizenship from 1963 to 1982), this is totally irrelevant as to whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States provides that all persons born in the U.S., subject to its jurisdiction (thus not children of diplomats) are citizens by birth. The U.S. Supreme Court has used the terms “citizenship by birth,” “native citizen” and “natural born citizen” to refer to the same thing. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). (If you can point to contrart langauge, please identify it.)

Thus, Obama was a natural born citizen/citizen by birth by virtue of his birth in Hawaii, regardless of the citizenship, or lack thereof, of either of his parents.

Your second assertion, that Obama was “forced to give up” his U.S. citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen, is also incorrect. Under U.S. law in effect at the time of his birth and adolescence, he could only lose his citizenship at age 25 if the following provision was satisfied:

[A] person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by –

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday…

Obama returned to the United States in 1971 when he was 10 years old, at which time he re-established his permanent resident in the United States. Obama never lost his citizenship; he returned to the United States before he could ever lose it.

Therefore, as a U.S. citizen when he returned to the U.S. in 1971, Obama was free to enter the country as any other U.S. citizen, and has remained a U.S. citizen to this day.

Are you high? Mentally challenged in some way? Gotta be something like that to explain your complete inability to see that these cases will NEVER be heard…NEVER.

Get used to hearing the word “dismissed” and the word “denied”–I see a lot of both in your future.

Proof? Got any?

What disbar_the_birfer_lawyers said — plus this:

You're going about it all wrong! It may be true that eligibility for office is reserved to the People. But fraud is a crime.

If you're really convinced that Obama's guilty of some kind of document fraud or some other kind of fraud, get your evidence together! (Hint: get someone more credible than Polarik.) But if you come up with real, valid evidence, I guarantee you that some prosecutor will bring a case.
They're not all obots, you know!

My guess — you haven't got a shred of valid evidence. But go ahead, prove me wrong.

Mario Apuzzo does NOT equal competent legal expert on this subject…I believe he actually does personal injury law and the like…LOL

He's no constitutional scholar, my friends, sorry.

Proof is only required of people who live in reality. Looneytown residents only need their imaginations.

MM is on the money. Conservative activists have been making the argument for years that the Constitution should be amended to prevent the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil from automatically becoming U.S. citizens. But as the Constitution is currently written and interpreted, ANY person born on U.S. soil (with the exception of children (1) born to diplomats and (2) born to nationals of hostile foreign powers under occupation of U.S. territory by that power) is a U.S. citizen by birth/natural born citizen.

Frankly, I don't think any of this alters the meaning or intent of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers, in my view, had an overly constricted view of what it meant to be an American. Over the past two hundred years, we have come to embrace foreigners who come to this country to pursue the American dream. We don't think of people like Bob Hope, Rupert Murdoch or Arnold Schwarzenegger as “foreigners,” and to the extent that they had foreign births, we don't see that as placing their patriotism in doubt.

ragtagone? Did you call the Hawaii Department of Health yet? Here's the number: (808) 586-4539. Let us know how it goes, mmkay?

The thing that cracks me up the most is that these birfoons cannot find ONE competent attorney who agrees with them and will take their cases…not ONE! They are pinning their hopes on a rag-tag bunch of lawyers with seemingly no litigation experience, no understanding of Constitutional law issues, and absolutely ZERO success collectively among them of ever raising a constitutional claim.

I would not hire any one of these lawyers to defend me on a parking ticket, nevermind bring suit against the Pres for the “biggest constitutional crises EVAR”!!!! Why don't these birfoons start a new website, raise some pay-pal bucks, and try to find and hire an attorney who might actually have some level of competence and experience bringing constitutional claims such as theirs.

This is like hiring a dermatologist's janitor to perform your open heart surgery…what a mess!

the 14th? It changed noting as far as definitions are concerned – certainly not the definition of 'natural born'. All that did was make us serfs of the federal system rather than citizens of the States.

McCain's birth in the Canal Zone was endless fodder for Democrat posturing as far back as April '08, including McCaskill's ugly & transparent attempt to extend the non-extant controversy. But that's politics, and in reality, now just as then with McCain, nothing but good things can come of these questions about Obama, unless of course partisanship overwhelms common sense…

Every American should take, at face value, an act by the First Congress, which resolved that “The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States.”

That alone would make Obama a citizen regardless of whether he was born in Kenya, Canada, or anywhere outside Hawaii.

Yet one must consider the possibility that if the latter — out-of-country birth — did in fact happen, Axelrod & Co. realize that they would have a hard sell proving the former and thus 2012 could be a disaster, even if Obama's eligibility is Constitutionally sound viz our First Congress.

It's all interesting, and those who would denigrate discussion and the open exchange of ideas and the rewards gained by diverse people offering their honest opinions and feelings regarding this subject are, well, consistently getting pwned. It's not going to just go away.

It is true that we dislike anchor babies but that has nothing to do with 'natural born'. I would define 'natural born' as did our forefathers in their discussions on the subject – born on U.S. soil of American citizenS (plural) – having no foreign influence or sovereignty. I believe that similar qualifications should be placed on the vice-president and Speaker of the House since they are in line for the Presidency and would support an Amendment to that effect.

Watch this video to see why we're so concerned about the 'anchor baby', illegal immigration and even legal immigration. . .

Immigration_by_the_Numbers

Roy Beck's celebrated demonstration of the population consequences of current U.S. immigration policies has entertained and shocked audiences across the country. This video is packed with the facts and analysis that make moral and practical sense of a complex and highly contentious issue.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926…

It's all interesting, and those who would denigrate discussion and the open exchange of ideas and the rewards gained by diverse people offering their honest opinions and feelings regarding this subject are, well, consistently getting pwned.

Yeah, we're so pwned. Everyone thinks you're all lunatics, but we're totally pwned.

It's not going to just go away.

We know, but there will always be someone there willing to point out what braindead crazies you all are. And to be pwned, of course.

“Although Barack was a British subject at birth (although this converted to Kenyan citizenship from 1963 to 1982), this is totally irrelevant as to whether Obama is a natural born citizen”

I disagree with that but that's the crux of the argument, isn't it? The definition of 'natural born'.

We'll see.

Discuss it all you want, scream it from the damn rooftops, we could care less– just stop clogging up the court system by filing baseless, frivolous lawsuits that waste the courts' time and the taxpayers' money.

To the extent that the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the definition of “citizenship by birth” to include virtually all persons born on U.S. soil, the definition of “natural born citizen” WAS changed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That is because “natural born citizen” and “citizenship by birth” are two names for the same thing, at least so far as the Supreme Court has suggested.

I have yet to see one case where any court in the U.S. makes a substantive distinction between these terms.

“but that if Obama tried to revise his birth records after the law was passed, it couldn't be done the way Birthers claim Obama did it.”

I don't know of anyone who has made such a claim. There are questions as to the authenticity of the photocopy of the COLB posted on various web sites (it appears to be photoshopped) but that has to do with anomolies in the document itself and the question of his ethnicity being listed as 'African' which is wrong in any decade – it's hard to believe that happened in any official records office.

Weigel's argument is complete, irrelevent nonsense and poorly researched gibberish.

It is the whole argument. And, as I have said elsewhere, I have yet to see a case in which any court has said or suggested that “natural born citizen” means one thing and “citizenship by birth” means something else. Until I do, I have no reason to believe that a person who is a U.S. citizen by birth is not also a natural born citizen by definition.

You might read what the forefathers had to say on the subject. I realize that their words aren't codified into law but, when they do take a look, judges put great weight on such documents. Hopefully we'll get a SCOTUS opinion in the near future – the fate of the country hangs on it.

You're overreaching. No definition has yet been determined. If it had, we wouldn't be here.

There would be no internet? Oh noes!

Where is “here” exactly. Do you mean we would not have a bunch of maroons running around filing idiotic frivolous lawsuits that have all been dismissed by the courts?

This issue will NEVER be heard by the courts..there's that whole separation of powers thing, ya' know?

Hey birfoons, do me a favor and go read this:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpaper…

You may learn something. Hamilton says about the mode of electing the President, in the link I provide above:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
———————-
In other words the people collectively elect the Pres, and the electors are chosen by the people from ordinary folks for the sole and temporary purpose of electing the Pres, this was done EXACTLY for the purpose of avoiding foreign influence, the thinking being that IF this was left to the people it would require far too much effort to successfully compromise all or a majority of the electors.

The power of verifying pres qualifications is left to the people exactly because the Founders believed it was the best way to guard against foreign influence. Notice that the Constitution designates both the House and the Senate to check qualifications of its own members, but designates no one to do such for the Pres.

This idiot birther cases will never be heard, Verifying the Pres's eligibility is left to the people in the election process…it is NOT a power of the Judicial branch and they will NOT get involved in this crap. Give it up already and move on. Obama is and will remain President of the United States, likely until 2016.

Birthers have correctly pointed out that subsequent permutations of that law passed by Congress omitted the term “natural born citizen.” Now, whether this means anything substantive is anybody's guess, but the fact is Congress left no clue indicating that the change was in any way linked to some important legal theory.

As it turns out, the claim that McCain isn't a natural born citizen is actually more legally interesting than that about Obama. Unlike Obama, McCain wasn't born on U.S. soil, so his natural born citizenship/citizenship by birth is determined entirely by federal law, not the Constitution. The problem is, at the time of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, there was no U.S. law which made him a citizen. Congress rectified this situation in 1937 by passing a law conferring “citizenship” on persons born in the Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen. The law applied to persons born from 1905 (I think).

The question is two-fold: (1) did the statute itself retroactively make persons citizens from the time of birth? and (2) even if it did, can “natural born citizenship” be conferred retroactively? Although the Senate passed a resolution in 2008 stating its sense that McCain should be considered a natural born citizen, the courts have never firmly looked at the application of that statute.

Was this a serious problem? No. If a court had issued an adverse ruling, Congress could have always passed a law making the law in question retroactive. Would the Supreme Court buy it? That depends. It would have been more likely for the court to dismiss challenges for lack of standing. If it did accept the case, the political sensibilities of the justices probably would encourage them not to overturn a presidential election over an arcane interpretation which could go either way.

YOU might read what the Forefathers had to say…
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpaper…

Then read the US Constitution, ALL of it, then read it again, then try it a third time.

Then read the relevant case law.

Then watch these and maybe you will learn something about separation of powers and Presidential elections. These are about your speed, so, hopefully won't be too confusing for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5I2KFENjS8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaPlIcQw_dg

And, this would sum up when you will get a SCOTUS ruling on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwOiC8aJrs

The courts will NEVER get involved in this issue…none of these plaintiffs have standing and further this is what is considered a political question– all these frivolous cases will continue to be dismissed.

Whether or not people claim the COLB was Photoshopped, the plain fact is that officials for the State of Hawaii have publicly vouched that the document is authentic. So if some official is participating in fraud, let's see Taitz, Berg and the rest of the gang descend on Hawaii and start filing lawsuits against Janice Okubo and everyone else conceivably involved in the cover-up.

{sigh} That's false. They have only verified that they have a birth certificate on file. They have said nothing at all about the contents thereof – they can't by law.

I am truly impressed that you can do superficial Internet research. Congratulations.

I doubt the Supreme Court will get involved. First of all, the suits so far advanced have been comically pathetic in their shallow constitutional reasoning and vague arguments. Perhaps someone will make a better-reasoned argument about the distinction between “natural born citizen” and “citizenship by birth,” but I haven't seen it.

Second, the courts as you have seen tend to impose a narrow definition of taxpayer standing and other cases based upon a person's general participation in society. It's unlikely that most suits will ever make it past summary judgment unless some former rival candidate to Obama can make a serious argument about how he was wronged.

Third, the fate of the country ISN'T at stake. Even IF Obama were declared ineligible for office, under the consitutional presidential succession laws, Vice President Biden would fill any presidential vacancy. His election as Vice President by the electors can in no way be considered unlawful, and so he would be in position to take over. And I doubt he would be converted to conservatism as a result of what would be the single most controversial (and activist)court ruling in American history.

Ok, I'll cut directly to the chase. Obama was born in Hawaii.

The issue with the COLB is that since it was completed by his mother, it states his race as “White”.

If disclosed he loses his historic standing as the first “Black” president. And becomes just one the boys.

So there you go.

Actually, the Court has ventured to define “natural born citizen.” But it has done so in the very same discussion where it was distinguishing between “citizens by birth” and “naturalized citizens.” See Minor v. Happersett. In that case, the Court frequently reverted between “natural born citizen” and “citizen by birth” and “native” in making a contrast with “aliens.” You are free to draw your own conclusions, but as I read cases all day long for a living, it strikes me as another example of a court getting clever with its language by excessive use of synonyms.

Your opinions are noted. Let's wait and see what happens.

That's not what I'm saying. Officials for the State of Hawaii have vouched that the COLB is an legitimate, official document issued by the authority of the State of Hawaii. Those people who claim that the COLB is Photoshopped are disputing that it is a legitimate, official document. That sounds like a pretty serious allegation.

As for the contents thereof, of course officials can't comment about them. To do so would be to reffectively eveal the contents of the Birth Certificate on file, which would be a violation of state privacy laws. As it stands, I'm sure Ms. Okubo has probably revealed more about the document than the she should under the law, but this will never be enough for Obama's critics (or her critics).

But this doesn't change the fact that the COLB itself is a legitimate, official document. Those people who are busy peddling Photoshopping theories either need to file a lawsuit or get a life.

I am truly disappointed that you cannot.

Orly Taitz and Alan Keyes just made total fools of themselves on CNN…

Priceless..

Well, what about the Hawaiian DOH? obviously they have the original records, or they can generate a new COLB. If it doesn't match the one posted on line, then Obama has violated Hawaiian law.

———-

§338-30 Penalties. (a) Except where a different penalty is provided in this part, any person who violates this part, or neglects or refuses to perform any of the duties imposed upon the person by this part, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Any person who wilfully makes or alters any certificate or certified copy thereof provided for in this part except in accordance with this part, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

—-Obama has spent over ONE MILLION DOLLARS combating and prolonging over 45 court cases questioning his eligibility.——

O really?

I hear Obama spent $1,490,740,789.34 as of today @ 2:00 pm (CST)

Aw, c'mon. Fact? Logic? The fact is that there are millions of American citizens who doubt the “natural-born” status of Barry Soetoro.

Logically, Mr. Soetoro (or his handlers) could put a *res judicata* stop to every one of the dozens of lawsuits he and his representatives have had to quash through expoitation of the Kabuki theater rituals of courtroom procedure instead of substantive proof that he is, in fact, a “natural-born” citizen.

Fancy lawyer tricks and the issue of a clumsily doctored computer graphic (JPG) image in June 2008 are all we have of Mr. Soetoro and his backers to address the reasonable and pressing concern of American citizens who have increasing reason to credit the very frightening probability that the chief of our federal government's executive branch is, in fact, a criminal guilty of such offenses as should put him into prison for most of what remains of his life.

Moreover, he has knowingly in the commission of these crimes precipitated a constitutional crisis the likes of which this country has not seen since the War of Southern Secession. For an individual trained as a constitutional lawyer, that's altogether remarkable, wouldn't you say?

I'm sorry. I think you're on the wrong discussion board. This is a discussion about Barack Obama…

I'm sure there are millions of American citizens who don't think Obama was born in the United States. There are also plenty of people who think the moon landing was a hoax, Elvis still lives, the Cubans shot Kennedy, and the Jews blew up the World Trade Center. But safety in numbers is not the same thing as proving your position.

As I've said to others, if you think the COLB was a forgery, you should sue those Hawaiian officials who claim otherwise on the grounds that they have committed fraud. Otherwise, it's just a lot of talk.

I'm afraid the only constitutional crisis exists in the minds of those who don't understand the law or how it operates.

FACT: No Hawaiian official has ever said that the COLB publicly seen online is different than the one they have vouched for.

I hope that none of these unstable individuals who actually believe that President Obama was not a natural born citizen will become so “riled up” or incited to take matters in their own hands by violence. It may be humorous or good for ratings or the conservative talk show hosts to fan the flames, but there are consequences for causing unstable people to become agitated.

Tsk. Get your guano in one grab-bag, putzie. The computer graphic (JPG) image which the people at FactCheck and DailyKos claimed to have gotten as an e-mail attachment from the Obama campaign in June 2008 was a fabrication.

The existence of an originating document – a Certification of Live Birth issued by the government of the State of Hawaii in 2007 to one “Barack Hussein Obama” (whoever in hell he really is) – is in no way proven.

As a matter of fact, discussion with Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii State Registrar and Head of the Office of Health Status Monitoring (OSHM), of which Vital Records is a part included a question whether if Janice Okubo of Hawaii Vital Records had confirmed that his office produced a 2007 Certification of Live Birth, date-stamped June 6, 2007, with Obama's birth information on it, and he quickly replied:

“Absolutely not. No one in our office confirmed it.”

I don't have any reason to believe that there was a forgery of a Hawaii state COLB. My doubts concern the existence of such a COLB in the first place.

What is being stated, JohnC, is that the computer IMAGE (which is all we have as “proof” that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii) is a fabrication, the manifest of an effort to dupe people into thinking that such a real document does exist.

Like Mr. Soetoro (Barry ran by that name as a little boy, didn't he?) himself, that image is a ghost.

The officers of the state of Hawaii have nervously, sweatily, fearfully tried to keep to hellangone out of this minefield sowed by Mr. Soetoro and his co-conspirators, and they have striven well to preserve themselves against both criminal charges and civil actions. Why the devil would anyone want to sue them?

As for whether a constitutional crisis exists or impends, let's not trust the assessment to someone like you, JohnC. Like Mr. Weigel above, your affections for Mr. Soetoro are better consummated in a nice, private room.

Bring a lubricant and condoms, now, y'hear?

See Orly get smacked down for yourself on CNN, video available here:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200907170043

Comedy GOLD!!!

What where the framers intent for 'natural born citizen'? Why did they make it a requirment for the President to be a 'natural born citizen'? 0

They only made it a requirment for Senators and Congressmen to be citizens?

Tuci78,

Thanks for proving that JohnC was right. You are are impervious to both logic and fact.

Of, course it isn't different. The one on-line is the same as what they have in thier records,

If it was different, that would be clear evidence of a criminal act.

Even if any of these cases ever went before a military court (assuming others come about in the future), the issue at trial would be over whether the soldier had the right to act as he did under the UCMJ – that is, whether he sincerely holds certain underlying beliefs, not whether his underlying beliefs are correct.

To suggest otherwise would be like saying that a conscientious objector refusing service on the grounds of his religious belief would have to demonstrate that his religious beliefs aren’t simply sincerely held, but that they are in fact emprically correct. And that, obviously, is utter nonsense.

And a “native” citizen IS a “natural born” citizen. As I have repeatedly said before, if you have evidence that the Supreme Court has taken a contrary approach, let’s see the case and the particular passage.

If you're really convinced that Obama's guilty of some kind of document fraud or some other kind of fraud, get your evidence together! (Hint: get someone more credible than Polarik.) But if you come up with real, valid evidence, I guarantee you that some prosecutor will bring a case.
They're not all obots, you know!

If everything is on the up and up concerning Obama's elegibility, why has he spent upwards of a million dollars and hired multiple law firms to keep his long form birth certificate, passport records, selective service records and college records secret from the American public?

Hard to present evidence when all the “evidence” has been sealed and a million bucs has been spent to keep it sealed

Anyone can argue the law applicable at the time. This will go to court.

Let's looks at some interesting facts.

Here is just a partial list of the documents relevant to his citizenship that Obama REFUSES to reveal or produce:

His parent's marriage & divorce records
His original long from birth certificate (yes please, the actual document)
Adoption records
School records of any kind
Sch. “scholarship” applications and records (he had several scholarships)
Sch. loan records (not listed on his state sen financial records)
Passport apps and travel records
Selective Service records (appeared, then disappeared…odd)
ILL State Bar records (names used?)

It is fair to assume that these records “may” CONFLICT with his statements and claims re his citizenship?

Recently;
- he pulled his “fighthesmears” website(?) (can anyone explain why he did this now?)
- he will not confirm the hosp he was born in(?) (how very odd?)
- his DOB is 8/4/61 – what hospital will have the joyful celebration? (lotsa funding could be gained too).

Sadly, court action appears to be the only means the public can address these overt and ongoing concealments and stonewalling? (as we know, it did not work well for Nixon).

Obama is NOT talking and, in effect he's taken the 5th. Many of us ask why would our president would do this? Is that a fair question under these special circumstances?

Because…. the President happens to be hold the title of “Commander and Chief” (unlike any other gov office) – and the “framers” of our Constitution, in their wisdom, did not want a pres with conflicted or dual loyalties.

Yawn….respectfully you review the Federalist Papers, very relevant to the issues here.

ComradeSki – please try to get a tiny grip on the issues here. The Birthers and Birth Nots are merely having polite discourse and debate. May I respectfully suggest that you monitor, rather than project – your own agitation.

I assume you permit debates re these weighty issues? Patrick Henry has not yet entered the debate.

It might be 'better' if you presented the facts instead of making an effort to confuse the individuals tht read your articles.

You FAILED to provide the law as stated WHEN he was born.

Your quote is from 1982 revision of the law.

You also failed to indicate that ALL information regarding the Messiah has been sealed. All records from the time he was in kindergarden THROUGH Harvard ARE SEALED.

He has effectively 'sealed' any and all records that MAY prove or disprove any issures regarding, race, religion, academic grades, scholarships applied for and received, grants, letters of recommendation and etc. Even his medical records are sealed.

His ORIGINAL birth certificate, if there is one.. would have been either hand written or TYPED.

The Certificate of Live Birth could have been forged with modern software packages.

You might want to investigate.. who has validated that he was a citizen of the United States prior to entering Harvard, and vetted him to be a State Senator. Also try to find out if there was a Security Clearance ISSUED by the CIA, FBI or any Federal Agency. Take a look at his alleged Selective Service Paperwork as well.

You see he has INSURED that there are NO RECORDS to present in a Court of Law. WHY????
.

When you TYPE words in CAPITAL letters it helps a TAD if you ENSURE that you SPELL them CORRECTLY.

Sealing of kindergarten records you say. Wow, I had no idea. And how dare he not provide documentation on what race he is – here we are all just assuming that he is human and not a lizard.

The 1982 law is NOT a revision. There is no earlier version of that law. Prior to 1982, there was no provision in Hawaii law to enable any person not born on Hawaii soil to register his or her birth with the State of Hawaii. Obama's birth was registered in 1961. At that time, to register his birth with the State of Hawaii he would have had to have provided evidence satisfactory to the State of Hawaii that he was born on Hawaiian soil. Since his birth was in fact registered, it stands to reason that Hawaii was so satisfied.

Whatever the intentions of the Founders, all it means is that the President must be a natural born citizen/citizen by birth, while congressmen can be natural born citizens/citizens by birth OR naturalized citizens. Whether that makes any sense in this day and age, the requirements themselves aren't that difficult to figure out.

I doubt this will end up being decided in court, unless someone can successfully argue that he has standing to maintain a suit against the state offical, Obama himself, or whoever else is perceived as the wrongdoing party.

Nonetheless, I do wish it would end up in court to put a rest to these idiotic conspiracies once and for all. Unless the court is seen as part of the cover-up, which unfortunately is more than likely.

But if anyone suspects there has been a criminal act AND a cover-up, as you suggest, then you should support a suit against the Hawaii officials involved in perpretrating the fraud. Let's start seeing some people putting their money where their mouth is. Talk is cheap.

I'll sift through your personal attacks and schoolyard name-calling to get to your point, such that it is…

Name one official who had said, suggested or intimated that the COLB presented by the Obama campaign is in any way unofficial or illegitimate. Just ONE. Or how about one expert on Hawaii COLB's? Not self-proclaimed internet experts – Hawaiian attorneys who practice in family law.

If you think Hawaii officials are “nervously, sweatily [and] fearfully” trying to protect Obama, you must think their cover up is weak. So go after them then. Take them on personally and seek justice. That would do more to advance your cause then to bellyache on discussion boards.

As for whether a constitutional crisis exists, the law favors my argument, as I have cited specifically and repeatedly on this board. What you have on your side are heated passions, baseless assertions, personal attacks and juveline innuendo. I'll take my side of the argument anyday.

Endless? It ended a long time ago. It’s people diving into an endless loop over Obama’s birth certificate that are endless and annoying. Every time something gets debunked they come back with some other BS made up lie or some bizarre postmodern philosophical nugget like ” What is real? What is authentic?”
Hate the guy all you want. He’s still an American. And like many conservatives, the thing they hate most is their fellow Americans.

Actually Andy Martin has a lawsuit in Hawaii seeking a copy of the vault birth records. That should be granted eventually. Obama could have produced the vault records by signing a release and paying $10.00, but he has refused to do so to this date.

1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable: a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961). c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=1703

But why bother when the COLB has all the pertinent information necessary to prove his natural born citizenship?

As PolitiFact reported: “As for the theory that Obama's original birth certificate might show he was foreign-born, [Hawaii DOH spokeswoman Janice] Okubo said the 'Certification of Live Birth' would say so.”

What is this supposed to prove?

Well JohnC you were claiming what was cited below was not the right law regarding the birth certificate and you are correct. The immigration and health laws in Hawaii were rife with immigration fraud in the 1960's following Statehood. Basically anyone could walk in off the street and register a baby, claim it plopped out in the back yard during a BBQ and get a birth certificate on their good word.

Obama claims to have been born in a hospital in Hawaii in 1961 during this chaotic period in Hawaii. That information is only on the vault documents that Obama refuses to sign a release and pay $10.00 to produce. Until that is done we can only speculate on whether Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible to hold the office he is in.

You had cited below that the correct law was not posted. I was simply trying to assist you. The immigration laws that allowed the fraud were first changed in 1972 or 1974.

Not if the person registering Obama lied about it. So if the vault certificate says Obama plopped out at the family BBQ and not in a hospital as Obama claims that would require further inquiry. To start the list of questions:

1. Where was he born if not in a hospital as Obama has claimed?
2. Why would Obama and his family lie about this?
3. Why did Obama commit perjury?
4. Should Obama be disbarred for this perjury?

I could go on.

I am not an attorney..

Just a concerned Vet that is tired of the lies of Obama.

FYI.

The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911,
during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was
one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously
registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was
terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.

Certified copies of a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth may be requested
following the procedures for certified copies of standard birth
certificates (see Certified Copies). The eligibility requirements for
issuance of a certified copy of a standard birth certificate apply to
Certificates of Hawaiian Birth. And the same fees charged for standard
birth certificates are charged for Certificates of Hawaiian Birth.
Copies of the set of testimony used to establish a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth may also be requested, and an additional fee is charged
for each copy of the set of testimony.

Any person to whom a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth has been issued
may submit a request to amend an entry, including a legal change of
name, on an existing Certificate. A request to amend a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth will, however, be considered to be and treated as an
application with the Department of Health for registration of a late
certificate of birth in current use, unless a standard birth
certificate for that person already exists in the vital records of the
Department of Health. Should there be a situation of dual registration,
the requested amendment will be made to the standard birth certificate
on file if the required documentary evidence in support of the
amendment has been submitted and evaluated to be adequate. If there is
no standard birth certificate on file, an applicant is required to
submit documentary evidence of the birth facts necessary to support of
the registration of the late certificate of birth. If approved, the
late birth certificate will be registered in place of the Certificate
of Hawaiian Birth, which must then be surrendered to the Department of
Health.

How to Apply for the Issuance of a Late Birth Certificate in Lieu of
a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth

Upon receiving a request to amend an entry on an existing
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, the Registration Unit of the Office of
Health Status Monitoring will send:
notification to the requestor that the amendment request is treated
as an application for registration of a late certificate of birth,
andinstructions on procedures for and submission of required
documentary evidence in support of registration of a late certificate
of birth.
If the amendment request is subsequently withdrawn, all documents
received in support of the amendment will be returned. If the requestor
elects to proceed with the application for registration of a late
certificate of birth, the documentary evidence submitted in support of
registration will be reviewed and evaluated for adequacy. If the
application is approved, a late birth certificate will be issued and
the original Certificate of Hawaiian Birth issued to the applicant must
be surrendered to, for cancellation by, the Department of Health. No
filing fee is charged for the late birth certificate.

Further Information and Assistance

For information, call (808) 586-4540 during regular business hours
(7:45 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. HST).
Counter service is available Monday – Friday, except holidays, from
7:45 a.m. – 2:30 p.m. Appointments are preferred. 

he following Hawaii state law (Hawaii Revised Statutes S. 338-17.8)
allows children who are born outside Hawaii to obtain valid Hawaiian
birth certificates, depending on the residency of their parents. This
law isn't restricted to those born in the other 49 states; a child
could be born in a foreign country and still get a valid HI birth
certificate. This law was added in 1982, as confirmed by law librarians
at the U. of Hawaii and L.A. County law libraries.
Note the fact that this applies to parents living in the “Territory”
of Hawaii, an entity that was dissolved in 1959. If this law had been
intended to only include children born in 1982 or later, would they
have referred to the “Territory” of Hawaii? Clearly, this was intended
to include those born before 1982 as well.
The source is here, and here's the text of that page:
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon
application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the
director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health
that the legal parents of such individual while living without the
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of
Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of
health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The
director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that
he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent
applications for birth certificates and to require any further
information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth
certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be
established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

You as a rational man… have to ask a question..

Why are all the records SEALED.. because he won, or because he
can.

As a Vietnam Vet… I would like to Know… and as a Captain in the Infantry I would like to know.

Anyone that elects to hid the fact that they were a practicing Muslim, and lived with Muslim room mates in college… I would question.  Having helt a Top Secret Security Clearance as an office… I also question whether or not he has been given a through background check..

You were not around when articles, comments, and adverse information was scrubbed from the internet during the campaign as well..

And oh yeah… I have been a Democrat since 1972 when I was first eligible to vote.  (Note I was 21 at the time… the law at the time dictated that you had to be 21 for the age of majority… the law at the time sad they Obama's mom had to be 19 to pass on citizenship… she just turned 18 and his father..(if he tells the truth) was a British Subject.. and the British Law at THAT TIME passed on British Citizenship to his son.

So what is he hiding. ?????

That’s what drives me bonkers. Look, these folks HATE Obama with all their being. That’s obvious. They hate his ideology, or his mannerisms, or his ethnic background, or his life choices, or whatever, so much so that they can’t even use his proper name. They don’t want to think that a majority of their fellow voting Americans would want him to be president, or that he could be so elected, so they delude themselves by hiding behind these bottomless pseudo-legal theories and factual hypotheses that confort them with the thought that they’re right and everyone else is just wrong or part of some ridiculous conspiracy. In the end, they will believe what they want, but they shouldn’t have the luxury of thinking that there aren’t strong reasons why they are simply wrong on their arguments.

The funniest part was Orly saying, in her best thick Russian accent, “President Obama's father was never a citizen of this country”.

Orly, neither was yours apparently. Your accent sounds as if you arrived here last week.

At least the guy from the Daily Beast was able to call them what they are. “You people are nuts”.

I agree. Congress is cowardly, not to mention ‘conservative’ radio talk show hosts like Medved, Hewitt (who lambasted a listener BEFORE the election to not even go ‘there) and even the ever-popular Glenn Beck (the peroxide blond conservative) who prattles on even when the point was made paragraphs back. I find him particularly nauseating. Talk show hosts who deserve a modicum praise are Michael Savage, Mike Gallagher and even Rush (albeit with humorous passing stabs that his fans consume with relish). Even Dobbs and Hannity are airing the controversy, albeit somewhat circumspectly and at arm’s length.

Indeed, the commander in chief is illegitimate and any soldier, sailor, airman, etc. who obeys his illicit orders and who fail to do what Cook has attempted to do, is abdicating his duty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Add to the fact that Obama never registered for the Selective Service not in 1979 when he turned 18 (even though mandatory registration had been suspended by President Ford), and in 1980 when Carter reinstated registration which was made retroactive.

I believe (but cannot prove at this point) that the top military brass are rapidly losing their patience with Obama. Although the military must subordinate itself to civilian political leadership, officers and NCOs can and must challenge Obama’s authority. Unlike the string of losses incurred in the civilian courts due mainly to ‘lack of standing’ of the plaintiff, active members of the military do have standing (and even retired and reserve members who might be subject to recall) in this regard and would have the ability to subpoena documents heretofore sealed pertaining to Obama’s constitutional eligibility, not to mention his questionable citizenship status. The result will not be a coup d’etat because ignorance of Article II Section 1 of the Constitution is no excuse (even for a Harvard-trained and University of Chicago constitutional law professor). Obama must go like Nixon exited. However, I’m fearful that Obama lacks the decency and humility to stand down.

And now you're asking me to put my trust in “officials” and “Hawaiian attorneys,” eh?

Like they don't have agendas of their own. Ever heard of the “Public Choice” school of economics? Ever gotten any insight into the workings of lawyers and the court systems they've created for themselves?

Well, hell. Barry's a shyster, right? Never heard of “professional courtesy”?

Nah, I don't really trust ANYBODY “official.” The “official” types have proven entirely too willing to steal hot stoves. I'm a big believer in daylight, as in “drag it out, and let's have a look at it.”

And, yeah, I really do “think that their cover up is weak.” Gawd, I've had patients trying to schmooze me for prescription narcotics who've done better jobs of confabulation.

I mean, we've got us a Chicago machine politician (what part about those three words don't you get, John?) who is just too, TOO good to be true, and he's got every bit of his personal records – from Honolulu to Mombasa (or should that be vice versa?) – sealed and locked and hidden away from that daylight I'd spoken about…

And you're not asking “Why?”

Aw, John. You're just making it too friggin' easy, ain'tcha?

Hmmm…let's see.

Orly Taitz was born in Moldava (former U.S.S.R.) and not Russia (therefore
no 'Russian accent'). She then emigrated to Israel (perhaps you're
anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic?), received her undergraduate degree at
Jerusalem University and furthered her studies in dentistry. She emigrated
to the United States and began the practice of dentistry after having passed
all the applicable boards and state accreditations. While married and with
several young children, she attended William Howard Taft Law School in
southern California (California State Bar accredited), by both attending
some classes and receiving instruction in others via the Internet. She then
passed the bar on her first attempt, unlike a politician whom you probably
admire, Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles, who attended the
People's College of Law (has a nice Marxist ring to it, no?) and who
subsequently failed the bar exam four (count 'em) times. Dr. Taitz speaks
five (5) languages. How many do you speak? How many advanced and/or
professional degrees to you hold?
Finally, Orly Taitz would never presume to run for president of the United
States because she honors the Constitution of her adoptive country. Sorry,
but we sadly can't say the same for your Barry Soetoro, our Usurper in
Chief!

You might consider restraining yourself from poking fun at people who speak
with accents. Sounds a bit like the 'Ugly American' to me.

Test post of html codes. italics denoted with arrows [i]italics denoted with braces[/i]
This should be a new line. no codes

New line here with blank line before. no codes

New line with blank line before using “p” between arrows bold?

The only official statement from the Hawaiian State government I know of just verifies that they have a certified copy of 0bama's original birth certificate within their archives, but does not at all verify (or even address) what it contains. If any of you have found an official statement with any more details about the content, please post where you found it (a link would be nice). By the way, 0bama himself claims in his autobiography, Dreams… to have found a copy of his BC while in high school, so there is nothing (other than self incrimination of some sort) stopping him from releasing it.

One of the many problems with the short form COLB is that it could have been obtained simply through the testimony of 0bamamama (perhaps with corroboration from 0bamagrandma) that he was born at home (with no official witnesses, doctor's signature, etc.). Of course, this information would show up on the long form BC.

If indeed, 0bama had been born elsewhere (say, I don't know, Kenya or Canada for instance) such a “white lie” would have been very tempting for zero's mom to have made simply for convenience's sake. It would have been motivation enough in order to get baby zero automatic citizenship without having to go through a bunch of government agency red tape. Either way, there is no question that baby zero was eligible for immediate citizenship, but also either way, he most certainly would not be considered Natural Born in the Constitutional sense.

Another reason 0bama might have for not showing the long form BC is that it might officially reveal his adoption by his Indonesian step father. That, of course, would lead to the potentially embarrassing question, “So, Mr. Soetoro, when did you legally change your name back to 0bama?“

I think the web of lies is spun out and will soon be collapsing on our Deceitweaver-in-Chief. Time will tell.

Think well — see clearly. :)

Regarding the digital COLB, an online image is easily altered and is meaningless as real evidence (legally it is hearsay). As far as I know, no court, judge or government official responsible for certifying the candidates or the election has ever actually touched or seen an official State copy of either zero's COLB or the original long form BC (which he claims in his autobiography to have found while in high school – so why doesn't he show it?).

In the minority of States that even required it at all, 0bama's vetting consisted of Pelosi (as party head) and 0bama signing a statement that the candidate met all necessary qualifications. No state or impartial government official has ever, to my knowledge, done any actual checking or verification. If any of you have any evidence otherwise, by all means, please share it. :)

Think well — see clearly.

How the big zero could make this all stop…

This worth repeating: In the minority of States that even required it at all, 0bama's vetting consisted of Pelosi (as party head) and 0bama signing a statement that the candidate met all necessary qualifications. No state or impartial government official has ever done any actual checking or verification. 0bama, as an employee of We the People, has a responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a Natural born citizen. Right now, the number of people who are coming to have serious doubts about 0bama's bona fides is growing by leaps and bounds every day.

If he were to open up his records to the same degree as prior candidates (for example, McCain), then most people would be satisfied and all this would stop (one way or the other). :)

Of course, since he's been so secretive to date, he would need to be extra open about the process. For example, he could call in impartial neutral experts (perhaps from both sides) such that they could examine and verify his original vault birth certificate, his missing school records, adoption records, passport applications and any other records that may directly relate to his Natural born citizenship status. Further he would probably have to direct the SCOTUS to rule on the definition of Natural born citizen (because he was born with dual allegiance due to his foreign father).

This list is perhaps a little longer than normal, but he has a background that is more than a little weirder than normal and he has been a more than a little more secretive than normal, so this is to be expected.

If he actively and openly faced all these doubts head on and his qualifications actually survived (like all past Presidents surely would have), then no one could reasonably question his legitimacy again. Anything less, and this cancer of doubt will continue to grow unchecked to the detriment of all.

Think well — see clearly.
PS: I am posting this without the paragraph codes – will all run together?

Who is this guy really?

When it comes to hard evidence about 0bama's bona fides, practically speaking, we have little more than his name, which is almost zero:

Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certificate of Live Birth — Web image only — Not verifiable
0bama Sr./Dunham marriage license — Not released
0bama Sr./Dunham divorce — Revealed by independent investigators – not the MSM
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Revealed by independent investigators – not the MSM
Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released — Likely counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Documentation of change of legal name (Soetoro back to 0bama) — None
Promise of most transparent Presidency ever — Counterfeit

0bama is a usurper and he knows it (and so do you).

Think well — see clearly.

I'm not saying the Hawaiian officials are necessarily correct or without an agenda. But suffice it to say I would readily trust their expertise on local Hawaiian rules and regulations more than the armchair experts who have proclaimed Obama's Hawaiian-issued document a fraud.

But if you think you have concrete evidence to suspect an official is lying, you should take it up through the proper authorities. That's why we have a legal system.

John, I don't think that “the Hawaiian officials” come into this at all. They've been scrupulously circumspect, and I don't blame 'em. This meatgrinder has “career death” written all over it.

For that reason (among others), anyone who “would readily trust their expertise” has got to be out of his friggin' mind.

Sorry, but that's so. It's like expecting someone who'd spent a couple of years in a Nazi concentration camp not to break out in a cold sweat when he hears “Die Fahne hoch” being played over a boom-box. If these Honolulu bureaucrats have any priority above self-preservation in mind, it'd be some kind of certifiable miracle.

Look, when I undertake diagnosis, there is NEVER any “concrete evidence to suspect” that a pathology is present.

The same as when a real scientist (as opposed to one of us sawbones) begins investigating any other “Damn. That's funny….” phenomenon.

Always and ever, it's the “Damn. That's funny….” about that loathesome statist sonofabitch, Barry Soetoro, that kindles the investigative interest, and demands satisfaction.

Remember, John, an officer of the government is constrained by law to hold something along the lines of “concrete evidence” before he begins an invasion of a citizen's privacy.

The private citizen is under NO SUCH CONSTRAINT. With regard to his suspicions of the probity, character, qualifications, or lawful conduct of any potentially malfeasant or misfeasant officer of civil government, he's free to dig and delve and peck away all he goddam well pleases, and to shout out to all and sundry other members of the citizenry that something reeks, and warrants attention.

Wrap your mind around that, would you, please?

A private citizen is under no constraint as to need concrete evidence before he should commence an investigation. But no other individual is under any obligation to give his theories any credibility unless he has made a reasonable attempt to explain them based upon ALL evidence available.

We don't simply have the word of Hawaiian officials in support of Obama's Hawaiian birth. We also have TWO microfiched birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers within two weeks of Obama's birth, and within six days of the registration of Obama's birth by the Department of Health. In addition, we have a school document from Obama's time in Indonesia which lists his place of birth as “Honolulu, Hawaii.” If this weren't true, and Obama had in fact been born in Indonesia, why would Lolo Soetero want to complicate matters for young Barack by claiming he was not born in Indonesia?

It is simply not enough to say, “Gee, these Hawaiian officials are not giving me everything I ask for, so they must be concealing something nefarious.” One could use that line of logic anytime someone denies us information we want to know, such as someone's credit report or health records. But we know (or at least should know) that this isn't true.

The totality of the evidence suggests that, even without seeing Obama's “long-form” certificate, we can intuit what would be on it for at least three reasons. One is that we are told that under Hawaiian policy, the information on the short-form necessarily reflects what is on the long-form. Second is that we have at least TWO contemporaneous sources indicating that the State of Hawaii's Department of Public Health had registered Obama's Hawaiian birth. Third is that we have an Indonesian document which lists Obama's birth as in Hawaii though there would be no reason to make such a claim if it weren't true.

So the burden of proof is on you now.

Oh, those microfiched birth notices. Isn't it funny that nothing about Eleanor Nordyke – who was delivered of twin girls in the same hospital that Barry claims to have been born in, on the day that Barry claims to have been born – appears in those microfiche records?

Gee, you'd think news of a twin delivery would make it into the *Honolulu Advertiser*, wouldn't you?

Well, if it had been expunged from the microfiches, there'd be space enough to insert Ms. Dunham's blessed event into the record, wouldn't there?

And I have nothing whatsoever to say about those Hawaiian state government bureaucrats. The statutes of their state clearly delineate provisions to prevent such functionaries from violating the confidentiality of the people whose vital records are entrusted to their care. They're behaving quite properly.

They're scared out of their socks, but they're putting up a proper wall of bureaucratic probity as much in their own protection as in Barry's.

The burden of proof is right where it's always been, kiddo. In the lap of Barry “God, I Hope Something Changes!” Soetoro. Barring a good old court order that he can't quash, the only person with the lawful authority to put up the evidence that will quell these reasonable suspicions is our harried young Fraudulence-in-Chief.

Why the hell can't you get past that, bubbie? Vapor-locked or something?

You claim (or at least insinuate) that the microfiches of the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin have been altered. Well, that claim can be empirically tested. Go to a library in Hawaii and look for the particular spools in question. Ask the library when those spools were purchased. Physically examine them for physical alteration or manipulation. Repeat this at various libraries. Build your evidence, and let's see your cards.

Aside from that, I have absolutely no reason to give the slightest credibility to such asinine theories.

(If the burden is on me to prove you wrong on such a facially bizarre theory, does this mean that if I allege you are a space alien and that your drivers license was actually issued by Russian spies, that YOU would reasonably have the burden of proving ME wrong?)

I'm afraid you're fast coming off the tracks.

Makes for interesting gossip, and you're free to draw from it what you will, but you can't get around the fact that Hawaiian officials have repeatedly stated that the COLB is a lawfully genuine birth certificate in the State of Hawaii, and that the COLB by design reflects corresponding birth information on the original document. And that COLB states he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Obama is a natural born citizen, and he is fully entitled to serve upon his election as president. You can't accept that, and so you're looking for imaginary legal reasons to validate your antipathy.

You're not an attorney, and it shows. You keep citing to a law which is irrelevant to the 1961 registration of Obama's birth. That is not rational, even if perhaps it comforts you in your hostility toward President Obama.

In the unlikely event that your fanciful (but creative) scenario were true, then all we would have is a long-form certificate that says Obama was born at a BBQ and Hawaiian officials who would be in big legal trouble for manufacturing a false COLB. There would not be any need to further inquire on the long-form itself.. (To demand investigation of the original long-form itself would be to question its accuracy, which brings us back to square one, doesn't it?)

And to your questions:

1. How could you prove a negative? Especially if everyone involved is supposedly a liar?
2. If you can't ever hope to determine the truth, you probably can't ever determine the motivation for whatever it was that may have been done.
3. Obama has not committed perjury. The original birth certificate obviously cannot form a basis for perjury, as Obama was no more than days old at the time it was created. Nor is the information on the COLB the product of courtroom testimony or a sworn affidavit by Obama (and there is no rational reason why that should ever be the case.) You should really study up on what perjury is and what it is not.
4. See above.

So let's assume you get your hands on the original long-form birth certificate, and you go to the hospital where it says Obama was born. When you ask for records of Obama's birth, they will most likely tell you to buzz off, and you'll have to be content with what you have (which you probably won't).

On the unlikely chance that the hospital gives you access to their records, let's assume that you can't find a record of Obama. Now what does THAT prove? All you know is that there is a gap in the hosptial records. It does not prove where he WAS born. Perhaps you can try interviewing people connected with Obama's birth – but since you're not inclined to believe anyone who is remotely associated with Obama, how are you going to accept what they say?

The problem with weaving these grand conspiracies about Obama's birth is that you will be forever hamstrung by your own cynicysm, chasing your own tail in circles because you're unwilling to believe anything that may give you rest.

You are way off. It's because Obama is a robot. And you can never prove any of it because Obama-bots from the future will return and change any “proof” that you demand. Terminator is real, dude.

Think better – see robotic.

Dude, write your own article, you've posted about 5x's the original article in comments. You seem very earnest, but if you really want to sway people I'd suggest spelling “0bama” as “Obama” as a start. Also, if you want to get good at conspiracy theory (CT), you need to learn to be more subtle. CT is all about telling only one side of the story, omitting facts, and debunking inconvenient facts by claiming a larger “conspiracy.” You've got it down pretty good, but remember to be more subtle, you want to look authoritative, not partisan.

Oh, you want to discuss “credibility,” son?

I’ve just retailed (regarding the puzzling lack of notification on that “Vital Statistics” microfiche page of the twin delivery of Mrs. Nordyke) a point of interest that had been brought to light by other inquisitive individuals examining the “evidence” brought to light by Obamaphiles bent upon supporting their contention that their Messiah doesn’t belong in a federal penitentiary.

But if you want to focus on “credibility,” how about some examination of Mr. Soetoro’s sealed academic records at Columbia University and Harvard Law, hm?

Isn’t there something of a “credibility” problem in Barry having gotten into perhaps THE most prestigious school of law in the nation on his first try given his self-disclosed lousy grades?

And was he selected president of Law Review at the Cambridge campus of Patrice Lumumba University on his merits – for having written and published, for example, sterling works of student scholarship during his earliest years on the banks of the Charles River (of which he have – surprise! – precisely NO evidence anywhere in the pages of Harvard Law Review) – or was there “influence” exerted on his behalf, as there must have been to get him into Harvard Law in the first place?

Gee, as a fervent Obamaphile, I’d think you’d want to learn that about your Mahdi, wouldn’t you?

I’m happy to discuss possibilities, but when you wish to address the “credibility” of your Mombasa Mulignane….

Well, I’m adaptable. Let’s go ahead with that.

Wrong adjective, elliott; you’re using “impervious to” when what you need is “implacable in.”

Hey, but thanks for reading. Take your blood pressure meds like a good boy, ’cause if you continue reading, I’m pretty sure you’re gonna need ‘em.

This was originally written in response to Weigel's “Birther Movement Still Dogs Republicans,” But given that Weigel's become his own cottage industry of writing anti-Birther screeds, I'm posting it here for his and everyone else's edification.

I've come to the conclusion that if liberals are truly serious about lowering carbon dioxide emissions, they would get rid of windbags like Weigel. Without all of that hot air of his, the impact on the planet would be significant, even more so if we could figure out how to further lessen his carbon footprint. Speaking of carbon footprint, I'd like to plant mine on the derriere of Democrats if I wasn't so afraid of causing them permanent brain damage: something that Obama's Deathcare wouldn't treat, by the way.

Seriously, I don't mean to chide Weigel on his present state of health, as he is already suffering from a rather pernicious disease known as Echolalia, the involuntary parrotlike repetition (echoing) of a word or phrase. Writers like Weigel remind me of what doctors repeat, except that instead of reciting the Hippocratic Oath, Weigel recites the Hippocritical Oath, pledging to belch out as many nonsensical screeds about “Birthers” as inhumanely possible.

HINT: if ever you want to get a liberal writer confused, just present him with facts. Nobody mangles facts quite like the liberal media, and Weigel has shown he's no slouch. If the Olympic Committee ever made Hypocracy a sport, our friend Weigel here would be the Michael Phelps of it. Now, some of us call it a double standard when liberals label their vile, vicious, and foul-mouthed epithets as “humor,” and then get all bent out of shape whenever a Conservative has a rather tame joke to tell.

Forget “double” standard: liberals are a quantum-level higher in standards set by the Whited Sepulchre in the White House.

Just ask Kris Kobach. Kobach is a candidate for Kansas' Secretary of State, who attended a Republican Party barbecue one weekend and mentioned a rather innocuous (but TRUE) one-liner that Rush made famous. He asked, “What do President Obama and God had in common,” with the punchline being “neither has a birth certificate.” The Kansas Dem'Rats were “outraged” by Kobach's comments, and rightly so: God wouldn't forge His birth certificate like Obama, nor enlist Factcheck to lie for him.

Oh, the humanity! Pity the poor Dem'Rat, Kenny Johnston, who accused Kobach of palling around with “extremists who frequently show poor taste” and that Kobach “latest attempt at humor has gone too far.” Maybe Kobach should have copied the tasteful humor of the stand-up comedian and Socialist-in-Chief, Barry Soetoro Obama who said, “Dick Cheney was supposed to be here but he is very busy working on his memoirs, tentatively titled, 'How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People'”

Maybe Kobach should have taken a cue from Wanda Sykes who wowed the liberal lapdog media in attendance with “I hope Rush's kidneys fail,” and “I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight.” Good thing that Kobach didn't call Obama the twentieth hijacker. First of all, there's nothing funny about Obama, and secondly, Obama is the January 20th hijacker of America, and not one of the 9/11 “militants” (he won't use the “T” word when talking about fellow Muslims).

Weigel, on the other hand, has no sense of humor, or American history, for that matter. Let me revise his fallacious statements for truth's sake:

Six months into his presidency, while Obama still refuses to release a real paper birth certificate showing where he was actually born, after paying $688,000 of incriminating legal fees to his personal attorney, Robert Bauer, and who now seeks legal protection from his racist Attorney General who turned the convictions of the New Black Panther thugs who intimidated white voters, into “Get Out of Jail Free” cards, the cottage industry of conspirators who fabricated birth certificates for Obama, lied through their teeth for Obama, and scrubbed for Obama, any and all websites containing the President’s ever-changing place of birth, is showing clear signs of running scared.

The facts are that the birth certificate scam is, indeed, a real conspiracy that has been outted on talk radio and on web sites, such as Free Republic and WorldNetDaily, who are devoted to exposing the truth about the Left's Communistic coup of our government. None of these facts will ever be reported by the slobbering media whores who cannot seem to break free of the suction their lips make on the posterior of the President. If it were not for American Patriots like “Jim Thompson” and all of the freedom-loving FReepers, sending letters to their local papers, enlightening members of Congress at town hall meetings, and having Hill staffers learn about the foreign-born, illegal alien President, who has never done anything to prove his US citizenship, but has attested to his British citizenship, and also his Indonesian citizenship, under which he traveled to Pakistan in 1981.

The only red herrings to be found are in the nets of networked traitors who actively enable the destruction of America by power-mad megalomaniacs in the Democratic Party. The very existence of a non-RINO Republican in one Kris Kobach is enough to give the DT's to Democrats.

If White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was Pinocchio, Weigel could use his nose to do chin-ups. Thank God for Lester Kinsolving, a radio host and correspondent for WorldNetDaily, and one of the only reporters not preprogrammed by the White House to ask only the questions given to them beforehand. In his last Press conference, Obama did his best Alex Trebek impression by giving the answer to HuffPost's Nico Pitney and then asking for her response in the form of a question.

Weigel would never be allowed in any of these press conferences because he screws up both the questions and the answers. I guess it's hard for him to get on Google and do some actual research, what with his head so deeply buried that it would take a CT scan and a surgeon to find it. Politico was the source of the evidence that I posted on the Free Republic, about how Obama illegally siphoned $680,000 out of his campaign donations to pay the legal fees of personal “Birther” attorney, Robert Bauer: the very same attorney who threatened distinguished veteran, John Hemenway, with sanctions simply because John asked Obama to show some genuine proof of his birth. His disgusting letter to Hemenway is right here, in black-and-white for any liberal lowlife to see (providing, of course, that they don't have to visit John Hopkins to have their heads extracted from their colons).

Weigel got one right when he said that “most of the suits have been tossed out of court on technicalities.” Now that one lawsuit will be heard on the basis of its merits, the 'Rats are scurrying off the ship like it was the Titanic with a torpedo.

Ironically, the ‘Birther’ movement began in response to Obama’s own efforts to bury the truth about his origins. One year ago in June 2008, the Obama Campaign launched a website that did a hackjob on reality by converting every truism about Obama into a “Smear.” Of course, that website, FightTheSmears.com, has been deep-sixed by the Obama Administration after being caught in several lies. No, David, this web site was designed to deceive the American public though fraud and slander, and to cover-up the malfeasance of a Marxist Muslim who is everything we conservatives feared he would be, and more. What you call “rumors that he was not born in Hawaii,” are the lies told by liberals that he was born in Hawaii. Obama was not born in Hawaii, and if he had, then Health Director, Chiyome Fukino, would have announced it, and thrown a year-long luau in Obama's honor.

She did nothing of the kind. She did not even say that Hawaii has a physical, paper record of Obama's original birth certificate. What she did say was that Hawaii has his original birth record. If there was any proof of Obama being born in Hawaii, then the Health Department of Hawaii has never seen it. What the campaign reproduced is a forgery: a fabricated image made to look like a COLB, a Certification of Live Birth (not a “Certificate”). On the contrary, the state’s Health Department never produced the document that Obama posted online. Hawaii's DOH doesn't do forgeries.

Lucky for you, Mr. Weigel, treating felony document fraud as if it didn't exist is not a crime, but continuing to lie about this criminal activity serves only to aid and abet it.

If you wanted to quote the much-abused Janice Okubo, DOH Communications Director, you should have printed the one where she says that it's impossible [for her] to tell exactly what “it” is online. When push came to shove, Okubo was smart enough not to label what she never has seen. The media, of which you are apart, are not smart at all for labeling a forgery as the real thing. Now, if you wanted to know anything about the actual COLB document itself, the person to contact is either Director Fukino or State Registrar, Alvin Onaka, as I did. You see, the information I that needed is way above Okubo's pay grade.

Okubo was partially correct when she said that “If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali. You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu.” Her statement ONLY refers to the Certificate of Birth or Certificate of Live Birth, and NOT, I repeat, NOT for the transcript called a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. If I had a dollar for how many times liberals get that wrong, I could retire. A mother of a child born, or adopted, in a foreign country could absolutely and positively obtain a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth showing Hawaii as her child's place of birth. A CERTIFICATION of Live Birth is NOT the long-form birth certificate issued at the hospital.

To prove that even Okubo has gotten the two confused, she said that people who were calling her, were asking questions like, “What if the physician lied?” There is NO DOCTOR'S SIGNATURE on the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. The COLB does not list the names of the hospital where children were born, and at last count, there are three hospitals reported to be the birthplace of Obama! Sorry, but Janice Okubo has confused what “Birthers” are asking to be released: which has always been — now pay attention Mr. Weigel — the ACTUAL, ORIGINAL, LONG-FORM, PAPER CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH.

We are fortunate to have Republicans like Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) and the nine other Republican members of Congress and four Republican members of Missouri’s state legislature who all have a problem with electing an illegal President to the White House, and being permittted to carry the Nuclear Football. The Democrats knew darn well that Obama was not eligible to be President, but they were more than willing to sell their souls to the Devil to get a Democrat elected President. In actuality, three of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalyse are Reid, Pelosi, and Frank, and for their souls, the Devil had them take out a subprime mortgage.

The only ones mocking his bill are the same slugs in Congress who got this usurper elected.

Freshman Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) does not need to hold a town hall meeting to find the conclusive and irrefutable evidence that Obama posted online, a forged image of a nonexistent CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH. All Ms. Lummis needs to do is visit my blog, The Greater Evil. It holds all the “credible evidence” that a Grand Jury needs to launch an investigation. There is no question, whatsoever, that Obama has committed dozens of offenses, each of which is sufficient to remove or impeach him.

Far from avoiding “Birthers,” people are now getting the message that the person occupying the White House has something to hide. There is no reason or excuse to explain away the payment of over $1 million in legal fees just to avoid spending $12 for a PAPER copy of his birth certificate. There is no reason or excuse to explain away why Obama has fought the release of his REAL birth certificate. There is no reason or excuse to explain away why Obama committed felony document fraud, election fraud, voter fraud, Internet fraud, and interstate fraud solely for the purpose of deceiving the American public and members of Congress and the Judiciary, that he was born in Hawaii.

To sum it all up, Mr. David Weigel is just as blind as every other liberal who would rather live the lie and ignore the truth. Weigel thinks he's got something on the “Birthers,” but he's got less than nothing. He has not said a single syllable that the “Birthers” haven't heard a thousand times before, and the more we hear them, the more we ignore them. However, Weigel needs to take this thought away with him:

There were writers in every Communist and Socialist country who refused to believe that their Leader was not who he says he was. They refused to believe that their country had been taken over, that all of the freedoms they cherish would be taken away. By the time they did “get it,” it was too late.

Fortunately for you, Mr. Weigel, we have people here who get it now, even if the media is siding with the wrong side.

Dearest Polarik – I don't feel that we are at the stage where I can call you “Ron” so I should stick with Polarik.

Did you manage to cover the rent money yet so you could make that trip to Hawaii?

Supplementary question – does your passport have the photo all scrubbed out and your signature is XXXXXXXXXX?

Supplemental supplementary question – you mention “hot air”, “windbags” and “derriere” all in the same paragraph. Is this some sort of super secret DoctorofEverythingImaginable code for repressed homero-sexuality?

Trust that all is well.

Sincerely

24WienersAhead

John, got a link on that “Hawaiian officials have repeatedly stated…” line? Not that I doubt your sincerity, but there's that old Russian saying: “Trust, but verify.” Support your assertion, please.

John, you mistake cynicism for skepticism. The former is merely an attitude of no intrinsic liability or advantage. The latter is the basis of sound scientific inquiry.

It seems that you want to approach the question of your Messiah's eligibility to have run for and to continue occupying the office of the presidency in a ritual, legalistic fashion when in fact the problem – as in all real-world problem – is simply a matter of finding fact, and scientific method is the single most effective way of going about such an endeavor.

The skeptical inquirer – which, obviously, you are not – wants to examine EVERYTHING, even material which the credulous might hold fervently to lack pertinence or value, because the trained and habitual skeptic tends reliably to understand that corners left unexamined for the sake of laziness (or wishful thinking, or fear) often holds data which not uncommonly leads to information that proves definitive.

We deal at all times and in all places with a welter of potentially useful knowledge. What is at hazard – what is the harm – if in the matter of Barry Soetoro's qualification to fart lawfully into that big, comfortable chair behind the Resolute desk, we squeeze out of the miserable Keynesian sonofabitch absolutely EVERYTHING he's trying so desperately to hide?

Well, there's a nice question. He's definitely “a human and not a lizard,” wiener. Haven't you seen him sweating?

As for other characteristics…. Well, we know for sure that he's a Keynesian. Looks like he's a Kenyan, too.

[...] [...]

Have you any reliable estimate of the costs (either explicitly paid out by Mr. Soetoro or his sputniki, or in services afforded him by attorneys as a species of “payment in kind” for his later favor) of the legal weaselry undertaken to quash the dozens of lawsuits all over the nation demanding that our faux noir Fraudulence in Chief disclose the multitude of records he has had sealed?

I've had one estimate of approximately $800,000 as of May 2009, and I'd like an update. Where d'you suppose Mr. Soetoro secured such a humongous amount of cash, hm?

JohnC laments about Birther conspiracies, while he defends Obama's conspiracies.

It's all just point of view.

However, there is one fact that no one disputes, and that is, “at birth,” Obama was a citizen of Kenya and a British subject.

Obama himself admits this fact.

Now you Obots please explain to me how a British subject can be considered a “natural born” American citizen.

It's impossible — now STFU — your guy is an usurper and is occupying the Oval Office as the result of a coup.

I've come across the name Polarik before, and am wondering if you”re the person referred to here:

http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/specia…
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/ron-po…

And here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=polarik+de…

Just curious.

In order to sue Obama for damages and have standing, here's a good case scenario:.

The parent, child, widow or any other immediate family member of any man killed in Iraq or Afghanistan since January 20th of 2009 has standing if they sue for damages because that lost family member will have been killed while obeying orders that must ultimately be held to be invalid!

Theoretically, EVERY ORDER issued by any member of the United States armed forces to any and all personnel serving under him derives it's ultimate authority from the civilian at the very top of the chain of command, THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. If that CIC (President) is shown to be ineligible to have been elected to that position, then every military order issued while he was in that position immediately becomes invalid and unlawful.

Once standing (directly adversely affected by damages) is granted by a judge to the plaintiff for the loss of a child, parent or spouse, the case would go forward and the production of key documents would be ordered. Any and all documents that might be used to determine Obama's citizenship status would be liable for inspection in that courtroom. This would of course include any and all birth, immigration or passport records.

That is it and that is all. This will eventually be the end game scenario. Alternatively, we could see a criminal trial of someone charged with a crime under some kind of Obama signed legislation. Same deal. Prosecutors would be obliged to prove Obama had the constitutional eligibility and therefore, the right to sign the bill into law as POTUS. If they are not be able or willing to do that, they would either drop their charges of lose their case. If they decide to produce the birth records they would lose anyway, when it turns out that there is no proof of Obama's US birth.

So all of you who want to fling your pooh and insults and engage in all kinds of other sophomoric, simian behavior, be advised, I don't care and won't waste time responding. I have better things to do. I'll just let you make fools of yourselves. Name calling, insults and personal attacks only demonstrate that you have nothing intelligent to respond with in this debate. But you'll do it anyway. Won't you.

Your understanding of United States law is rather pathetic, Randwulf. Good luck getting to your “end game scenario,” though I imagine you'll have to act it out with G.I. Joe dolls in your Matlock diorama or something, as no judge is stupid enough to waste the court's time on this nonsense.

Sure thing counselor. I rest my case Mr. Mason.

Oh, I guess you don't have anything better to do, do you? At least until you run out of Cheetos and mom won't bring more down to the basement for you.

You see! There you go with exactly the kind of rude and low IQed response I have come to expect from anyone who supports Mr Obama's refusal to prove he can legally be where he is. GI Joe dolls, Cheetos, mom's basement etc etc ad nauseum. ad infinitum. What part of my “understanding of United States law is rather pathetic”? I know you are not an attorney but answer these questions.
Be specific. What do you think was incorrect in what I said in that posting. What rules of evidence are you referring to that I have mis-stated? Are you saying that people who have suffered damages from governmental negligence have no standing or cause of action in a civil case? Are you saying that government records can not be caused to be produced by defense attorney's in a criminal case? Do you understand any of that? Answer my questions and fling pooh somewhere else.

Old internet hoax was knocked out last year….

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…

I thought you weren't responding? Guess you're off that plan within a couple of hours. So much for willpower…

Randwulf above: “So all of you who want to fling your pooh and insults and engage in all kinds of other sophomoric, simian behavior, be advised, I don't care and won't waste time responding.”

Well Sue, I thought I'd give it just one more shot today, you know, just to see if anyone out there in the Obama camp could refrain from their usual, characteristic, even trademark, bad behavior. But alas, I was just a little too much of an optimist in that regard. I notice that you also had nothing to say about the issue. Just my lack of willpower.

Is mother is a US citizen. Period. End of discussion. He is not just a first generation secondary to his father's foreign birth. Leave it to reactionary patriarchal conservatives to forget that he is descended from French Huguenots who settled here in the 1700's.

That's definitely more than Colin Powell.

Is mother is a US citizen. Period. End of discussion. He is not just a first generation secondary to his father's foreign birth. Leave it to reactionary patriarchal conservatives to forget that he is descended from French Huguenots who settled here in the 1700's.

That's definitely more than Colin Powell.

The first nine Presidents were born under the British flag.

His mother was an American citizen, therefore regardless of where on this blue marble he was born he is an American.

I want to see the blog that puts out the torch, or at least temporarilly suspend the participation of anyone whose entries are just hatebombs disquised as intelectual points. Then it would finally be worth reading!

An American woman married to a foreign national man had to have lived in the U.S. 10 years, at least five of which were after the age of 14, to pass along U.S. citizenship. The law in the 1960s said an American mother couldn't transmit citizenship to a child unless she had lived 10 years in the U.S. including five after the age of 14. According to the State Department that's similar to today's rule, which requires a mother to live two years after the age of 14 in the U.S, according to officials.

The first nine Presidents were born under the British flag.

And that is the reason that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United
States Constitution contains the following:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been
fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

His mother was an American citizen, therefore, regardless of where on this
blue marble he was born he is an American.

No question about it. The guy is a citizen. Problem is, he's not a
“natural born” citizen (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United
States Constitution, above).

To be a “natural born” citizen, a person needs to be born to TWO US citizen
parents, and in the US mainland.

According to the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama, “at birth,” was a
citizen of Kenya and a British subject.

Perhaps you would like to explain to me how someone that is a citizen of
Kenya, and a British subject, “at birth,” can be a “natural born” American
citizen? Haven't you ever heard the expression “divided loyalties?”

Obama is THE case study of why the Founders included Article II, Section 1,
Clause 5 in the United States Constitution. We don't want Brits as our
Commander-in-Chief.

You have a nice day now, youngster.

Beckwith . . .

I am now receiving over 200 emails a day, so I may not be able to respond
to each of your emails personally any more. However, I encourage you to
continue with your submissions. They are necessary, appreciated and often
used in The Obama File.

Also, I am only interested in news items that are directly related to
Obama.

—————————————-

Obama was never a natural born U.S. citizen. His father was Kenyan, his mother was underage, his granny swears he was born in Kenya and he was adopted by an Indonesian in Indonesia. That image of a COLB from Hawaii is a fabrication. If Obama has nothing to hide why is he hiding it?

How many so called facts from the Birthers are actually urban myths and legends? Birthers propagate all these conspiracy emails and websites, and often the word “FACT” as they're about to make statement against Obama. For example, one supposed “FACT” states that – Barack Obama must have used a non-U.S. passport to travel to Pakistan in 198, because Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's “no travel” list in 1981. It's very easy to verify that there was NO such list in 1981. So if that “FACT” about a “no travel” list is a lie, how many more related “FACTS” are a lie?

————————————————-

The claim that Barack Obama must have set out on that trip to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport is false: The U.S. State Department did not include Pakistan on a “no travel” list barring Americans from traveling there in mid-1981, and evidence documents that Americans could in fact freely visit that country at that time.

The U.S. State Department issues Travel Warnings (which caution travelers about “long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable”) and Travel Alerts (which caution travelers about “short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens”) but those warnings are purely advisory — they do not prohibit Americans from traveling to the listed countries. The fact that the U.S. State Department issued an informative Travel Advisory for Pakistan in August 1981 (to make American citizens aware of updated visa requirements for entering that country) demonstrates that U.S. passport holders could freely travel to and from Pakistan at the time of Barack Obama's visit there.

Moreover, during that same time period (mid-1981), New York Times assistant news editor Barbara Crossette visited Pakistan and wrote a column about her experiences, a piece in which she offered tips to other Americans who might wish to visit that country. Additionally, her column prompted a follow-up letter from John S. Brims, then the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, in which he “welcome[d] an influx of Americans” who might have been inspired to come to Pakistan by her article and also offered helpful tips for tourists traveling to that country by rail from India.

Many other news articles from 1981 reference either Americans' traveling to Pakistan or the Pakistan government's making efforts to encourage visits from U.S. tourists.

In short, if Barack Obama did visit Pakistan in the summer of 1981, he — like all other Americans — could have openly done so bearing a U.S. passport.

How many so called facts from the Birthers are actually urban myths and legends? Birthers propagate all these conspiracy emails and websites, and often the word “FACT” as they're about to make statement against Obama. For example, one supposed “FACT” states that – Barack Obama must have used a non-U.S. passport to travel to Pakistan in 198, because Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's “no travel” list in 1981. It's very easy to verify that there was NO such list in 1981. So if that “FACT” about a “no travel” list is a lie, how many more related “FACTS” are a lie?

————————————————-

The claim that Barack Obama must have set out on that trip to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport is false: The U.S. State Department did not include Pakistan on a “no travel” list barring Americans from traveling there in mid-1981, and evidence documents that Americans could in fact freely visit that country at that time.

The U.S. State Department issues Travel Warnings (which caution travelers about “long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable”) and Travel Alerts (which caution travelers about “short-term conditions, generally within a particular country, that pose imminent risks to the security of U.S. citizens”) but those warnings are purely advisory — they do not prohibit Americans from traveling to the listed countries. The fact that the U.S. State Department issued an informative Travel Advisory for Pakistan in August 1981 (to make American citizens aware of updated visa requirements for entering that country) demonstrates that U.S. passport holders could freely travel to and from Pakistan at the time of Barack Obama's visit there.

Moreover, during that same time period (mid-1981), New York Times assistant news editor Barbara Crossette visited Pakistan and wrote a column about her experiences, a piece in which she offered tips to other Americans who might wish to visit that country. Additionally, her column prompted a follow-up letter from John S. Brims, then the U.S. Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan, in which he “welcome[d] an influx of Americans” who might have been inspired to come to Pakistan by her article and also offered helpful tips for tourists traveling to that country by rail from India.

Many other news articles from 1981 reference either Americans' traveling to Pakistan or the Pakistan government's making efforts to encourage visits from U.S. tourists.

In short, if Barack Obama did visit Pakistan in the summer of 1981, he — like all other Americans — could have openly done so bearing a U.S. passport.

Apologies for the accidental double posting.

There's definitely been a lot of reaching, Brum. No doubt about it. And I'm the first to acknowledge that they could be doing a better job of it. Among their work, however, has been ample argument – based on verifiable observations – that the Obamaphiles, for all their screeching and howling and dung-flinging, have done nothing whatsoever to refute.

The Obamaphiles' tactic of simply piling up “evidence” (much of it of shaky provenance and dubious authenticity) does nothing whatsoever to directly confront the information presented by the “birthers” you despise so much, and the preponderance of that information is as palpably indicative of criminality on Mr. Soetoro's part as had been the reek of rotting corpses from the crawlspace under John Gacy's house.

I have come to the conclusion that diversion into areas like the supposed British subject status conferred upon Barry through his father, his trip to Pakistan as a young adult. and such are without proximal prospect of efficacy, and should be set aside.

However, the absolutely astonishing refusal of Mr. Soetoro (up to and including his imposition of yet more stonewalling in one of the first Executive Orders he'd signed after he'd slurped criminally into the Oval Office in January) to keep “sealed” and out of public exposure so much of his personal and professional and political records is proof that this constitutional lawyer knows full well that there is something absolutely fatal to his purposes in those records, almost certainly material which calls brutally and inescapably into question his lawful qualification to have run for and to hold the position he today infests.

This must be pursued implacably. We must know EVERYTHING about Barry.

EVERYTHING.

Gawd, Brummie, but don't *you* want to know EVERYTHING about your Messiah?

Thanks Tuci for your reply. I tried to get what you were saying, but it's a but difficult to have a reasonable and calm discussion when pejorative words like “obamaphile”, “screeching”, “howling”, “Barry”, “Soetoro”. You use much of the language of the disgruntled right. I mean, if you can't even accept that Obama was given the name Barack Obama when he was born, then what other established and documented facts about his birth are you conveniently willing to ignore.

You also make assumptions about anyone challenging Birthers, for example saying that I “despise” Birthers, and that I know EVERYTHING about my “messiah”. Personally I don't know everything about Obama, the stuff I posted was simply a copy and paste from a Snopes.com, an urban myth busting website. Because that's what much of the Birther “facts” are – urban legends with no foundation in reality.

What I was simply pointing out is that many of the “facts” posited by Birthers are totally made up, but told and retold as if they were fact. People might take the Birther's claims more seriously if the Birthers weren't already the types of people that went around saying that Obama was a Muslim, or that he was an Arab, etc, etc.

It's so bad that there's actually a whole section on Snopes dedicated to debunking the many urban myths and lies about Obama propagated by the disgruntled right. As you admit “there's definitely been a lot of reaching”.

May I ask, how is it that the most vetted job on the planet has gone to a Kenyan national? How is it that far more resourced and qualified agencies and officials (than you or I) haven't rumbled Obama? Why didn't these agencies, from 2004 at least, and certainly in the primaries, under then President George Bush, investigate Obama when he was an up and coming? Why did the Republicans spend lots of time digging up non-existent dirt about Obama “palling around with terrorists”, but didn't expose the bigger bombshell of Obama's supposed true birth nationality. Why has it all of a sudden been an issue now that Obama is President?

In the end Birthers will believe exactly what they want to believe. Even if Obama humoured them and played the Birther's game and waved is birth certificate in front of Birthers, they'd still say it was fake. Didn't Rush Limbaugh suggest that Obama went to Hawaii to adjust the record?

According to experts in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there's no amount of evidence or data that will change Birther's mind. The more data you present to a Birther, the more they doubt it. Once they're committed,? especially behaviourally committed, the more impossible it becomes to change their mind.

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence.

Now, now. “Obamaphile” is not a pejorative, but a precisely definitive term, isn't it? From the name under which your Mombasa Messiah is currently operating and the suffix derived from the Greek “philos,” meaning love. “Obama-lover.” What, that doesn't work for you?

And I use language for effect. If one of the effects I can get thereby is to cause those of the “Liberal” (i.e., “progressive”/socialist/fascist) persuasion to gibber and scream and howl like a cageful of monkeys, I'm perfectly delighted. Always remember Sun Tzu. War is waged against the enemy's MIND, not his strength of arms.

Given that the purpose of the “Liberal” is to control the functional monopoly on violent force which has been delegated to the officers of civil government and use that lethal force capacity to violate the rights of their neighbors, a state of war can legitimately be said to exist between “Liberals” and those whom the “Liberals” are attacking.

Anything which causes the “Liberals” to show their figurative asses helps better to explicitly expose the moral, intellectual, and praxeological bankruptcy of their motives and means. Which is, of course, what they're trying to disguise in online exchanges such as these.

And it's not that you, Brummie, know EVERYTHING about your Messiah, but precisely the opposite. You DON'T know everything there is to know about your Fraudulence-in-Chief. And obviously neither you nor your brother Obamaphiles really – if the truth be told – WANT anyone outside the coteries of handlers sucking unto your Mahdi to know EVERYTHING about him.

Because knowledge of that EVERYTHING would destroy him.

Except to dismiss your fellow Obamaphiles at Snopes as a ludicrous reference (why the hell do you cement-heads keep expecting that anyone opposed to your Anointed One is going to take the prejudiced blatherings of your fellow Obamaphiles as reliable information?), I'll close. Might come back later, but mucking out the sorts of dung you people heap is tiresome work, for all that it must be done thoroughly to keep the barn from getting buried in your crap.

LOL Tuci, my bad. I hadn't realised you were a veteran Internet commenting warrior. Quoting Sun Tzu no less. Seriously, had I read the other Birther related stories on this site, and noticed your many many comments, I wouldn't have even bothered answering your initial comment. Because unlike you I don't have time (way too much time), to get bogged down in a fruitless libs verses cons back-and-forth.

With regards to Snopes, I quote it simply because it perfectly explains the obvious. Why re-invent the wheel or duplicate effort just to answer birthers? The idea of quoting Snopes is to show how silly and very easily debunked birther urban myths are. Birther conspiracy theory and myth should be treated like any other conspiracy theory and myth (e.g. faked moon landings). Or they should be treated like some other conservative beliefs such as the earth being 6000 years old.

I would have quoted and mentioned the work done by factcheck.org, but you've already got an answer for that haven't you?

By the way, don't be so dismissive of Snopes and factcheck.org. They've quite a few pages that debunk myths and rumours spread about George Bush. It's all just simply about stopping rumours, whoever they're aimed at, and wherever they originate from.

Anyway, like I say, I won't get bogged down in a libs vs cons thing. Politically speaking I'm just not that polarised or ideological.

All the best with your prolific commenting and liberal bashing. You certainly have a way with words. I hope you can put it to good use in real life. So far you're legend in your own home, but I hope that one day you hit the big time when you use those tremendous investigative skills and use your way with words to convince the world that Obama is the “Fraudulence-in Chief”.

Bye Tuci, the pleasure was all yours. Seriously, you seem to derive much pleasure from commenting. Glad I could help make you feel very clever with yourself this evening.

Remember – the truth is out there.

*closes with the X-Files theme*

:)

FactCheck and Snopes and DailyKos and FightTheSmears are dismissible for a number of reasons, not least of which is their provenance – their funding, manning, and obvious purposes ab ovo.

The critical reasons for setting aside their claims is that their claims are not well-supported. Indeed, as we see from Obamaphiles posting here, they continuously reference each other, as if one error or falsehood or unsupported assertion were sufficient to somehow heterodyne upon another mistake or duplicity or groundless claim, and thereby build to some level of reliability.

How the hell do they – or you, Brummie – think that's supposed to work, anyway?

Close with the theme from “The Flim-Flam Man* (1967)

“His father was Kenyan” True

“his mother was underage” False. She was over 18 at the time of his conception and his birth.

“his granny swears he was born in Kenya” False. Not once did she say that, much less swear to it — if you actually read the full text of the interview that's *abundantly* clear.

“he was adopted by an Indonesian in Indonesia” False. No adoption papers exist in Indonesia or anywhere. One line on one form does not make a fact.

“That image of a COLB from Hawaii is a fabrication.” Even if it were, state and federal officials have seen and validated the original.

Give it up.

Hawaiian TV: http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html The DOH director and the registrar of vital statistics verified it personally before the election last fall.

What's funny is that he doesn't NEED to make it stop. The more time and effort you and others you put into stuff like this, the less time you're spending trying to defeat his agenda. You waste your time, his agenda advances. It's a win-win for him (and the rest of us) — so have at it!

Thanks, but all that's found in that reference is what's already been discussed in these exchanges. Specifically, I quote:

–
“Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama's original birth certificate.

“'Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,' Fukino said.

“Fukino said that no state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama's certificate be handled differently from any other.”
–

As I've previously written, this and the other very cautious statements made by Dr. Fukino do NOTHING WHATSOEVER either to confirm or to deny the validity of the computer graphic images released by the Obama campaign in June 2008, nor do they provide any sort of stipulation about WHERE your Mombasa Messiah had been born.

Fukino and Onaka have seen Barry's “original birth certificate.” Do they say that a Certification of Live Birth, if it were issued today (or had been issued in 2007), would put his place of birth in Honolulu?

They do not.

Familiar with the Sherlock Holmes stories, OL? If so, remember “Silver Blaze” (1892)? Remember “…the curious incident of the dog in the night-time,” the fact that “The dog did nothing in the night-time” and how “That was the curious incident”?

Well, hell. You're an Obamaphile. I'm expecting literacy? Nah!

Er, yeah, he does need to make it stop, OL. The more noise he suffers over this “distraction” (which is engaging the interests and efforts of people who ordinarily wouldn't be much interested in throwing rocks into that meatgrinder through which Barry is trying to shove the American people), the more his “agenda” as a whole gets attention that may yet prove fatal to his Keynesian aspirations.

Think of your Barry like the proverbial dead mackerel on the beach under the moonlight. The longer he sits there, with everybody watching, no matter how shiny he may have looked when he first washed up, the more unavoidable is the stink he's making.

They are…Children of immigrants born in the US are Natural Born Citizens. Back then, the USA had open boarders, anyone could move here.

I think the burden is on detractors to find a legal rationale somewhere that says dual citizenship is excluded from natural born, since nowhere does it say so.

I’ve always assumed it meant a citizen by birth as opposed to naturalization. I guess I’m pretty hopeless.

So Tuci78, you must also believe that President Obama is so brilliant that he was able to fool the team of national security experts who conducted the very lengthy and extensive identity verification and national security check on then President-elect Obama. You must then believe that President Obama fooled these top experts into granting him the highest national security clearance level in the nation by his witty reparte and winning smile, and by convincing these experts that it was not necessary to view, review, or authenticate any required original document including his original birth certificate, and that it was not necessary to authenticate his finger prints or anything in his background, right? He just winked at them and said “hey guys, don't bother with all those pesky requirement, just give me the highest level of national security clearance in the nation, I can vouch for myself, don't you trust me?”
If you believe that, you are not only an imbecile, you must be on drugs and certainly not a U.S. citizen yourself! get a life! and yes, I do despise you birthers, you are wasting everyone's time on nonsense just because you can't accept the fact that America has moved ahead and elected someone who was not all white. get over it.

birther, you are retarded and you are quoting something that is totally incorrect. According to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a child born on U.S. soil is automatically a natural born U.S. citizen, regardless of the origin or citizenship of the parents. A pregnant refuge who is on U.S. soil when she gives birth, gives birth to a natural born U.S. citizen–that does not change the citizenship of the parent though, but the child is and always will be a natual born U.S. citizen.
Get your facts straight before you decide to spread incorrect information about our own Constitution.
Parents do NOT pass on U.S. citizenship to their children, children (all children) who are born on U.S. soil are automatically natural born U.S. citizens.
What you are misquoting is an immigration law for foreign born children of foreign born nationals who become U.S. citizens–totally irrelevant in this case! You are also mismashing the immigration laws! The non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen can apply for citizenship after a certain amount of time being married to the U.S. citizen–again totally irrelevant in this issue, Get a life!

[...] View original post here: Some More Clarity on Hawaiian Birth Certificates | The Washington … [...]

Look Randwulf, you must really have a very low IQ to believe that President Obama was granted the highest level of national security clearance in the land without having to produce one legitimate document to verify his birht, place of birht, citicenship or identity. If you believe that President Obama was able to fool the national security experts who were charged with conducting the very extensive and lengthy national security check and identity verification on then President-elect Obama prior to granting him the highest national security clearance in the nation, you are missing several digits in your IQ, parts of your brain or you are simply a racist imbecile–either way, I doubt you are a U.S. citizen, you haven't proved that with your nonsense.

So, it shouldn't be a problem to just go ahead and show all of us what he showed all of them for his “security” checks. Right! And while he is at it, he can show us where he renounced his Indonesian and British citizenships at some point, if indeed he did. And then we can move on to squelching that nasty rumor about him being a foreign student at Occidental College by releasing all those records. You know. Total transparency. Yes, something stinks here.

I'm about to get some answers to some of this stuff personally from the “officials” in Hawaii. I'm just curious you see. Even though I'm just another of the “hate-mongering bubba gump (shrimp loving?) loons” who is often subject to “deluded whims and ravings”. WOW! You guys are getting nastier than a mother bear with cubs. Why are you soooo defensive about this? Me thinks thou doth protest too much! Ever notice how when people are lying or defending a lie, their voices go up a few octaves and they fidget and try to act casual and at ease but it doesn't work (White House Secretary Gibbs when asked about the BC issue)? And then they begin with the personal insults, belittlement and profanity. The signs of deception or defending a lie.

I thought Mr. Soetero died a number of years ago.

How, BTW, would adoption in Indonesia have any effect on a child's prior citizenship? That's an example of something that's just speculation.

I normally ask how Obama managed to slip his supposedly problematic birth certificate past the US Passport office, the social security people, the marriage license people and the DMV in probably at least three states, let alone the sort of vetting he must of been through to acquire security clearance as a senator and probably a diplomatic passport that government officials usually travel with. Let alone the Hillary people during the primaries, the McCain people in the general (probably with any needed assist from the Bush administration's FBI etc.)

But in this case I would like to ask something else. What's the endgame here for the Birthers? Who, in their opinion, is the rightful president right now? I have trouble believing that they would simply accept a Biden presidency. (In fact I'd hope they wouldn't because that would imply it's all about racism and not politics. I'd rather believe that this is just about undermining the party that got power in the last election and providing a platform for the talking points of the (currently) politically disgruntled. I'd rather believe it was simply payback for 8 years of dems not accepting Bush in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore.

But do some birthers think it would somehow make McCain president?

Or are there even some folks who wildly dream of some sort of coup?

What is the endgame?

I have no idea why a possible Indonesian citizenship would be important unless you're part of the contingent that believes that foreign parents, dual citizenship etc. somehow makes you something other than “natural born” even if you were born in Hawaii — the birthplace listed for Barack on the famous Indonesian school registration document that refers to him as Barry Soetero. (I don't remember any such hand-wringing over Michael Dukakis being the son of TWO immigrants. He maybe had dual citizenship, too.)

But as for the British citizenship, he was not a British citizen after toddlerhood, because Kenya became independent when Obama was a small boy. The second citizenship became Kenyan at that time, and it lapsed when he turned 21 and failed to claim it by renouncing his US citizenship (Kenya doesn't do dual citizenship).

Given these circumstances, and the lack of any law concerning dual citizenship, why would he need to have renounced anything. (I think the oath he took as president would kinda cover it, though.)

But WHY would Fukina and Onaka just happen not to mention it if the Hawaii records showed anything other than a Hawaii birth?

Are they “in on it?”

I guess I'm wondering what would be considered proof.

I'm wondering how he got a US Passport, driver's license, etc. and if you think a COLB from Hawaii would be sufficient documentation for other Hawaii-born Americans.

What on earth would an Indonesian adoption have to do with anything? That would have no affect on US citizenship.

So basically, nobody born in Hawaii can prove their citizenship in a way that would be satisfactory to you?

Brilliant? No. Crooked? Oh, hell, yeah.

Not that I for one minute fantasize that any “team of national security experts,/i> [ever for a moment had] conducted [any such] very lengthy and extensive identity verification and national security check on then President-elect Obama.“

You and your fellow fellahin have fun trying to prove the positive proposition that:

“Barack Hussein Obama, Beloved of Allah and Fraudulence-in-Chief of the Great Satan, is qualified by 'natural born' citizen status to continue destroying the economy of these United States instead of laboring in the laundry of the federal penitentiary in Marion, Ohio.“

Ooh, careful, Sheila. Talking about Mr. Soetoro getting dead will see your post removed.

Drs. Fukina and Onaka aren't “in on” anything other than a situation that is flashing “Career Death” in big, bright, red letters. Their careful circumspection is obviously a manifest of how damnably dangerous is the knowledge they hold.

What do you know of the bureaucratic mindset, Sheila? Ever seen the movie How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and listened to the song “The Company Way”?

As for the rest of it, aren't you curious to know how he got through the very expensive Punahau School – perhaps the most elite prep school in Hawaii – or into Occidental College, or Columbia University, or (especially with his lousy grades) into Harvard Law? Or how he got the financial assistance he needed for his education?

Ah, but you're not allowed to learn that, Sheila. Your Mulignane Mahdi has sealed all those records away from public scrutiny.

Snopes , Factcheck.org , then politicheck one by one changed the birth hospital from Queens Medical Center to Kapiolani just after July 4th 2009. Why would they change information that had been there since last summer 2008 when this issue of his birth certificate first came up for debate? bho told everyone he was born in Queens.

you're right Randwulf… it's the Alinsky method of attack. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it”. Direct personalized criticism and ridicule. That is what the o lovers do.

Illegals in Bensalem, Pennsylvania bought their drivers license from the DMV office for various amounts. After a two year investigation by the state Attorney General it revealed they were paying off several employees. They used legitimate numbers from older cards. It happened to my husband and what a tangled mess they made.

As for the passport…bho won't show it; therefore the speculation of a foreign document. But remember, he attended Occidental in California on a foreign student Fulbright scholarship…..did he have a foreign passport?
.

LOL….well said

This idiot works in the Medical field!

Scary huh?

Yeah. Thankfully, none of my kids chose to follow me into this miserable profession. If I'd known then what I know now, I might've taken my college advisers' recommendations and gone for my doctorate in economics instead.

Well, hell. In what line of work – other than prostitution – do you get complete strangers coming to your office, you tell them “Take off your clothes,” they do it, and then they pay you afterwards?

Obama did NOT attend Occidental College or any other college on a foreign student Fulbright scholarship or any other kind of foreign student scholarship. That “urban myth” — or “birther myth” — was thoroughly debunked months ago. You people just keep pulling this stuff out of your asses. It's total fabrication. Don't call yourself ''truthseek” and then proceed to spread lies.

CQ Politics: Somehow, the House got [158] Republicans — Including Nearly All Members of the Leadership — to vote for a resolution last night that declares President Obama was born in Hawaii. But it appears that the resolution wasn’t intentionally aimed at the fringe movement plaguing the Republican Party these days: the people who insist Obama isn’t actually a citizen of the United States.

Instead, aides to Democratic Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii — the sponsor of the resolution — say the impact on the “birther” movement was just an amusing sideshow to a resolution that was just supposed to be a simple celebration of the 50th anniversary of Hawaii’s statehood.

“When we realized that it might stir them up, we just kind of smiled,” said Abercrombie spokesman Dave Helfert.

The resolution, adopted last night on a vote of 378-0, notes that “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” To Abercrombie, who was friends with Obama’s father and knew the president when he was a toddler, any resolution celebrating Hawaii’s anniversary would naturally mention Obama because “it is a matter of great pride in Hawaii that Barack Obama is a native son,” Helfert said.

Well, you do have to admit, y'all do present irresistibly tempting targets. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, really. All anyone has to do to humiliate you is step aside and let you open your mouths. The embarrassing evidence of lunacy then gushes forth unabated.

These people “who will say anything”, are American citizens who watch carefully and guard the highest laws of the nation. You act like they're foreign spies or something.
In addition, not everyone who you label as “birthers” (sounds suspiciously like names Bush and Cheney thought up to call anyone who disagreed with their policies) are anti-Obama. I like Obama and sincerely hope he can extricate us from the numerous inherited pits we've fallen into, but I take strong exception to your labeling anyone seeking answers by what you and many others consider a derogatory nickname. How would you like it if I called you by one of the many derogatory labels that fly to mind?
Anyway, the simple solution to this is that the original vetting committee that validated Obama's citizenship data in the first place, obtains the exact same documentation that it received from McCain; then the whole matter can be put to bed.

Uh, Terrified? That's not what the Obamaphiles want. They are fellahin (“the faithful”), and they want their Mahdi's ascendency accepted by us Nazrany dogs on faith and faith alone.

You haven't got that yet?

Mr. Weigel:

Here is the problem. The so-called 'birther' movement (defined by various individuals and news outlets as people who believe that Barrack Obama was born outside the United States and has a forged birth certificate or something to that effect) are causing confusion, consternation and prolonging resolution of the the legit Constitutional issue that Obama has and continues to face. That is, while President Obama was DEFINITELY born in Hawaii, and thus a native United States citizen, he was born to one US Citizen parent and one Kenyan/British citizen, and thus was born to with dual loyalties whether born on US soil or not. Because Obama has dual loyalties, he is NOT a natural born citizen, and thus should have never been nominated by the Democratic Party because he is ineligible to even run for the office of President as clearly stated in Article II, Section 1: “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” and re-affirmed in 1898 in the King Wong Ark Supreme Court case which as Justice Horace Gray stated in the majority opinion:

“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

Please read more about this case in the excellent research and detail that Leo Donofrio has presented here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07…

Actually I am an attorney and understand perjury. Keep in mind Obama is a Constitutional attorney. He also has an appreciation of perjury as does Bill Clinton. The State of Hawaii could produce a COLB if Obama’s grandmother filed a false statement he was born at home. That is the point. The only real evidence on this issue remains hidden and all we have are some very carefully worded statements that would argue the State has waived the privacy privilege.

Here it is:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11107727/Barack-Obama-Presidential-Candidate-Nomination-Paper-State-of-Arizona-2007

Obama signed a similar declaration in every State. If Obama knows he is not eligible that is perjury.

Here is an informative bit of information on the types of birth certificates available at the time of Obama’s birth. The issues remains the COLB does not prove or disprove where he was born. Again, that will require the vault records the State of Hawaii has announced they are holding.

Exactly what kinds of birth records does Hawaii provide?
Posted by Mijgreb on Thursday, February 05, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Generally, folks don’t know that Hawaii law, even in 1961, provided for multiple kinds of birth records, most of which are not what people think of when they think of birth certificates. The following is a description of those, including certificates for people not born in Hawaii. Go figure!

1. In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were three different birth certificates that were obtainable:
a. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
b. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or mid wife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, an adult could, upon testimony, file a “Delayed Certificate”, which required endorsement on the Delayed Certificate of a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing, which evidence must be kept in a special permanent file. The statute provided that the probative value of the Delayed Certificate must be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. (See Section 57-18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
c. If a child born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult including the subject person) if the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).
2. In 1982, the vital records law was amended to create a fourth kind of birth certificate for children born outside of the Territory or State of Hawaii. HRS Chapter 338 was amended to add a new section authorizing the Director of the Department of Health to issue a birth certificate for a person NOT born in Hawaii either as a Territory or State, upon sufficient proof that the legal parents of such individual had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth of such child.
3. The language of the statute clearly applies to births in the days of the Territory of Hawaii, so also births in 1961.
4. A press release concerning numerous questions raised across the country as to whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen was issued on October 31, 2008 by the Hawaii Department of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
5. In that very carefully worded press release, Dr. Fukino said that she had “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.”
6. The intentional ambiguity of that statement raises more questions that it answered.
7. That statement failed to resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation across the country over the issue of Obama’s birth and qualifications for the office of the President of the United States, including:
a. The specific type of certificate was not identified. Could it be the certificate for someone born outside of the State of Hawaii?
b. Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer database of the department or an actual “vault” original. If the latter, those are the words used to describe what is there. The data base record could have been entered based on a birth record for someone born outside of Hawaii.
c. Therefore, the value as prima facie evidence is limited and easily overcome if any of the allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained and verified with a Court Order.
8. It should also be noted that in the face of all this litigation, the simple presentation of Obama’s vault birth records would put the questions to rest.
9. Obama has not taken this approach to a single one of the cases, but instead has hired legal counsel across the country at no small expense to defend the claims with motions to dismiss on standing and similar procedural grounds.
10. Such response to the request for proof that he is qualified to serve as President of the United States of America only serves to raise more questions about this election.

You are WRONG. I read that section of the law & it confirms that someone could be born in a foreign country & then you could claim you were residents for at least one year & then obtain a birth certificate. Thuis is a huge loophole for fraud.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU READ, BUT THATS WHAT I READ !

Tuci78:

I gather that you and I both believe that Obama should freely release his detailed long form birth record. It also wouldn't hurt if he released any documents related to his return to the US after growing up the adopted son of Leo Soetoro as Barry Soetoro. For example, are there any known facts about when the President legally changed his name back to Obama? Or was there no need to change because he was formally adopted in Indonesia and his legal name never changed in the US? Did he enroll in college as Barry Soetoro or Barrack Obama? We don't know.

But where I must vehemently disagree with you is your dismissal and the Media complete ignorance of the 'natural born citizen' issue. I have never seen so much confusion and revisionist history as when it comes to this very simple yet poorly understood issue.

As I stated above, it is CLEAR based on what we already know, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to his Mother, a citizen of the United States and his Father a native born citizen of Kenya. This makes Barack Obama Jr. a native born citizen of the United States of America, but NOT a 'natural born citizen' because you cannot by definition be a natural born citizen of the United States if you have dual loyalties by birth as Obama Jr. did. In 1961 Kenya was still under British control, so Obama absolutely had the right to obtain a British passport as a child born to a Kenyan/British citizen in Barack Sr.

Further supporting this argument is that Barack Obama has dangled the obvious right before everyone's eyes and the media has remained so defiantly ignorant that the President, the First Lady and David Axelrod must all be laughing each time someone makes a statement about Obama's true location of birth. Obama was born in Hawaii, I'm willing to bet anything on it. But his longform detailed birth record would state in black and white that his Father was not a citizen of the United States.

But if you need further existing proof: show me where Barack Obama or his campaign have issued a formal or informal statement that he is a 'natural born citizen'. The answer is you can't, because I have looked hard and cannot find it. Not on the campaign trail, not in any press releases – no where. And really the best example of how the President has ducked the issue of being a natural born citizen is by looking right at the Fight The Smears website on the page the Obama campaigned published to address the 'birth certificate issue. You'll note that rather than claiming he is a “natural born citizen”, the statement the campaign makes instead claims that he is a “native born citizen” of the United States, which he is, but 'native born' DOES NOT equate to 'natural born'.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcerti…

Beca apparently you have a lot of free time on your hands – demonstrated by the fact that you have plenty of time to respond to people that you believe are wasting the country's time. That position in and of itself is dangerously anti-American. But more to the point, if there is nothing to hide, why shouldn't Obama release everything?

Here is the point that narrow-focused short attention span ignorant folks like yourself miss: Obama is the FIRST President in history to not only have a foreign citizen as a parent AND have had citizenship in another country. The fact that he just happens to be Black is convenient for folks like you who prefer to make the charge of racism and bigotry than to discover your blind loyalty to a politician that you've never met may have been un-justified.

If Obama has perjured himself and perpetrated a fraud on the American people – as I believe he clearly has – who is it then that wasted everyone's time?

BTW, I am not a 'birther' as I have and will continue to state that the idea that Obama was born in a foreign country is very unlikely and I firmly believe that he was born in Hawaii.

John, you need to read other of my posts. I've already stated quite explicitly that I don't “believe” in anything. I may suspect something, and I definitely desire certain actions of a public servant malignantly a-suckle upon the taxpayer teat, and I count as either brainlessly or perfidiously supportive of criminality the Obamaphile insistence that Barry Soetoro has provided to a judge (or any other such competent authority) the physical copy of any record uttered by the government of the state of Hawaii certifying his birth in any part of these United States when, in fact, all his campaign had released had been computer graphic images of what was reputed to have been a Certification of Live Birth issued to Barry in 2007.

As I've written, the image of a thing is not the thing itself.

As for the multiple instances in which Barry Soetoro has attested to being a “natural born citizen,” look you to his signature on every damned document in every damned state where he ran in the National Socialist (née “Democrat”) Party presidential primaries last year.

Such a qualification is on every one of those forms, right above Barry's signature uner the alias of “Barack Hussein Obama II.”

I don't care if Barry was gestated in a glass tank after his DNA complement was composed of fragments from the genetic material of Karl Marx, Malcolm X, George Wallace, and Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.

It's where he was decanted that bears upon this issue, and the allegation that he'd first sucked air into his infant lungs upon this earth in the town of Honolulu instead of the colorful, exotic city of Mombasa is something that can be quickly and without further dispute demonstrated by simply uncorking whatever “long-form” real birth certificate information is held on Barry's behalf in the archives of the state government of Hawaii.

So why the hell has Barry been so astonishingly – better said: spookily – determined to keep this information out of the public eye?

ObamaLover:

*****
“His father was Kenyan” True
*****

You just confirmed the only FACT that matters when it comes to Obama's Consitutional qualifications to serve as President. As affirmed by the 1898 “Kim Wong Ark” Supreme Court case, being a 'native born citizen' is NOT the same as being a 'natural born citizen'. Axelrod and Obama LOVE all the attention that the so-called 'birthers' are getting, because continues to serve as a distraction from the real issue: Barack Obama Jr. is NOT a “natural born citizen'. And lest you think that Obama is not aware of that – show me where he has ever proclaimed that he is. When the Obama campaign posted his legitimate 'short form' certificate to the “FighttheSmears” website (http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcerti…) it was accompanied by a carefully worded passage:

“Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America.”

As you see, very careful not make the statement that he is a 'natural born citizen' because he's not and that would be a clear cut case of perjury. Obama has spoken to this issue in the past, making it clear he thinks the requirement of NBC status is silly. Well silly or not, it is still the law.

How has he got this far without being held accountable? Well first, it was up to the 50 Secretary's of State or legally responsible official to request and verify relevant records to ensure compliance with qualifications. As we found out last Fall, many S.O.S. publicly admitted that they rely on Political Parties to do the vetting for them. Others had no comment. This is why a man born in Nicaragua was able to obtain ballot access as Presidential candidate in several states. Because the officials that are supposed to be checking eligibility AREN'T DOING THEIR JOBS.

So why didn't the FBI and Secret Service catch the fact that Obama isn't a NBC? Because it isn't their jobs. The duty of enforcing the Constitution is shared by the three branches of Federal Government. Congress is obviously controlled by the Democrats, so fat chance they'll take a stand. Which leaves the Supreme Court, and there is any number of reasons why the issue may never get before them. And even if it does there is no way for us to know how they will decide since SCOTUS has now become an activist interpreter of the Constitution rather than of protector of original intent.

None of this changes what we know as of this minute, that Barack Obama is not and has never been a natural born citizen as defined in the majority opinion by Justice Horace Gray:

“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ “

Beca, your statement about the 14th Amendment and natural born citizen status is a complete falsehood. At least make an attempt to understand the facts before you accuse others of inventing them as you have done with the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment was a response to the idiotic Dred Scott decision which basically gave States who chose to the ability to deny “negroes” citizenship no matter what. The 14th Amendment effectively set the Dred Scott case aside. Nowhere in the 14th Amendment did the term or subject of 'natural born citizen' rise.

You make the same ignorant un-informed assumption that people who are ignorant and uninformed make, that is, somehow magically being a native born citizen is the same as being a natural born citizen. It is not, and no matter how much you like President Obama doesn't change that fact. Even Obama magically avoiding being held accountable to this point doesn't change the fact that Barack Obama Jr. is not, hasn't been, and never can be a 'natural born citizen' a designation admittedly somewhat vague as it is written in Article II, Paragraph 5:

“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;”

That passage is the ONLY place the term 'natural born citizen” exists in the Constitution. The term was not defined, but neither were many terms explicitly defined in the Constitution. The Framers knew exactly what it meant, however, and when we examine the history of those who have served as President we quickly discover that Barack Obama is the only person elected President who is NOT a 'natural born citizen' – that is a person who is born on US soil or territory to TWO CITIZEN parents. Why two citizen parents? Because a child born of one US citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent has by birth DUAL LOYALTIES and the Framers wanted a clause would secure against the possibility that an individual could never ascend to the Presidency and have loyalty to any other country.

The fact that Barack Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen does not mean that he is out to get the US or is mal-intentioned, but it does mean that he was never legally qualified to be President and as ugly as the term sounds, Obama is a usurper. He knows this, so does most other folks in Congress (including Democrats), but there is very little that any of them can do because of political pressure. Obama knew this when he dove in head first to the race. And it is why he has been very careful not to perjure himself.

Name: I feel sorry for your misinformed, horribly misguided position on this subject. Birth to one US citizen parent and one foreign national on US soil confers citizenship, but does not allow for designation of natural born. That is a fact, and the President is more than aware of it which is why he has been careful to never state that he is a natural born citizen, because he is not. And no matter how many times folks like yourself regurgitate falsehoods from ignorant pundits, won't change the reality that Obama has demonstrated that there is a MAJOR hole in the vetting process.

President Obama was absolutely able to prove that he is a US citizen and born in Hawaii, because that much is true.

However it is not the job of the Secret Service or FBI to make a determination about Obama's 'natural born citizen' status. That is left to the parties and Secretaries of State and we have plenty of examples over the last several elections that the SOTS are not doing their jobs properly.

This writer misses the biggest point.The statute allows the issuance of Hawaiian birth certificates for children born out of the state. Does it really matter so much who applies for it?
I award David Weigel the annual “Missing The Forest For The Trees Award.”

[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.

It's amusing – and pathetically sad at the same time – that there are so many delusional Americans, incapable of rational thought. Such people will ultimately destroy any semblance of democracy.

They are ecstatically thrilled to spout inane nonsense for which there is exactly and precisely ZERO evidence, while claiming that the ONLY evidence which the state of Hawaii will EVER produce regarding someone's birth is obviously false when it is obviously and OFFICIALLY correct, true and valid as well as being corroborated by copies of birth announcements in two Honolulu newspapers and by every sane person with any direct involvement. Oh, and BTW, no other state will produce anything more than what Hawaii has released.

For the benefit of those who are completely and utterly clueless, the entirely fragmented system of personal identification in the U.S. prior to 9/11/01 has been streamlined and updated by federal law in order to produce exactly what the braindead are whining, sniveling, stamping their feet and otherwise throwing childish tantrums about. Original identification documents are no longer being copied and handed out, precisely in order to prevent the kind of fraud which is being perpetrated by the birther lunatics. Oh, and if you want to place blame for that, talk to the Republicans who wrote and passed the legislation…one of the very few things they did during the last 8 years which was not completely irresponsible.

Thank you, Ronnie RayGun, for de-funding psychiatric care in the U.S. I know he preferred mental patients in his professional circle, but the result will eventually be a death sentence for the republic.

You are patently wrong in your assumption of his natural born citizenship.

Name is correct, you are not, John.

Congratulations, Mr. Fleming, for posting a completely schizophrenic comment. Your first paragraph states a complete (deliberate?) misunderstanding of citizenship vs natural-born, and how it relates to eligibility for the US Presidency, and your second paragraph, which you cite in an attempt to back up your first paragraph, actually states why your first paragraph is wrong.

Here are the facts, as established in US courts: everyone born on US soil, or territories, is a US natural-born citizen, not “just” a citizen. The citizenship of the child's parents are considered irrelevant. And, there is nothing in the Constitution that states anything about dual citizenship as disqualifying someone for the Presidency, so there's nothing in the Constitution that states someone with dual citizenship (especially granted only by virtue of the fact that one of one's parents is not a US citizen) has “dual loyalties”, and no law, court case, etc. has ever ruled that a natural-born US citizen, with dual citizenship granted by one or the other parents' citizenship in another country, has his natural-born status annulled. Certainly, your second paragraph doesn't cite anything like that, and in fact affirms what I've just said.

Your comment that this non-issue is “prolonging resolution of the the legit Constitutional issue that Obama has and continues to face”, is just your attempt to be a birther by taking a different approach, one that's easily shown to be phony.

Your Justice Gray quote describes what constitutes a US natural born citizen: born on US soil (or its territories, as stated in other court opinions). If Obama was born in Hawaii, as you state you believe, that would make him a natural-born US citizen, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, and therefore he would meet that qualification to be US President. I think you're misconstruing the last line in the quote: “…is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…” to mean “but is not the same as”, when in fact that line DOES mean “the same as”. Other court cases have specifically stated that the citizenship of the parents of a natural-born US citizen, have no impact on, and take nothing away from, that child's natural-born status. So you're citing statements from a court case whose meaning can be construed your way, only if one misconstrues them, and also ignoring all the other court cases which confirm what I've pointed out.

There was debate between some of the founding fathers as to whether someone born on US soil, or its territories, should be considered a natural-born US citizen, since they were concerned that a couple with loyalties to another country could have their child in the US, raise him with foreign loyalties, and then prep him for US public office. At the time, worries like this seemed (or were) relevant, given what the US Revolution was all about.

But, after this early debate, US courts ruled that anyone born on US soil is a natural-born US citizen, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. There are real court cases that state this explicitly. I wish I had the references, but you seem (I would hope) able to find them yourself.

That should read “…someone MERELY born on US soil…”

Mr Sawyer,

The mistake you and your fellow revisionists continue to make is this absurd claim that somehow the 14th Amendment, Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases related to citizenship has anything to do with the natural born citizen clause. I've yet to see any logical argument that attaches the two.

If you knew your history you'd be aware that the concept of 'natural born citizen' was not a new one to the Framers. In fact, one of the influential contemporary political texts of the time was the Law of Nations (published in 1752) which stated the ancient common law of 'natural born citizen'. If the specific issue of Article II, Paragraph 5 of the Constitution ever comes before the Supreme Court as it pertains to a candidates eligibility (which to date, it has not), they will undoubtedly start with the origin of the term and why the Framers included it. Well, in Law of Nations, Vattel defined it clearly: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

In fact, Mr. Sawyer, if you go back and research the birth record of each President and Vice-President you will find that each one from Martin Van Buren to present day was born on US soil to two US citizen parents, with two exceptions: Chester Arthur & Barack Obama. It has recently been revealed that Chester Arthur not only was born of one US Citizen and one Canadian citizen (his Father), but that he lied on his candidate filings that his Father had been a naturalized citizen at the time of Arthurs birth. Why would Arthur have lied about such a thing under penalty of perjury if all that mattered was he was born in the US? Because Arthur just like every President and VP before and after him right up until Barack Obama knows that the natural born citizen clause has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or any subsequent rulings on citizenship. This is the question that all you living Constitution struggle with: how can someone be born with dual citizenship and be a natural born citizen of either country? The answer, of course, is you can't be. Barack Obama is unquestionably a native born citizen – just as his campaign tacitly states on his FighttheSmears.com website. He is not, however, a natural born citizen.

See, the problem here is that no such court case exists. Because the concept of natural born citizen as nothing to do with the rights and privileges accorded a citizen. Being a natural born citizen is something more than standard citizenship and as you stated was conceived of and implemented as a safeguard (yet another on of those tricky little checks and balances). There are literally hundreds of millions of natural born citizens in the United States of all races, gender, elasticities, religious affiliations, etc . . . but Barack Obama Jr is not one of them.

jham710: No, I'm right you're not!

C'mon at least make an attempt, huh?

Here is a real life attorney to offer you some historical perspective as to why you and blind sheep had better find a way to see the light . . .

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/05/natural-born-…

“That passage is the ONLY place the term 'natural born citizen” exists in the Constitution. The term was not defined, but neither were many terms explicitly defined in the Constitution.”

So many of the terms that were explicitly defined in the Constitution were not explicitly defined?

Thanks for the exercise in logic.

Better to say that Barry Soetoro is not proven to be one of those “hundreds of millions of natural born citizens in the United States.”

He may be. In spite of my complete and merry hatred of the socialist sonofabitch, I'm perfectly prepared to accept his lying lawyer protestations (over his signature on every goddamned paper he signed in every goddamned state where he ran in the National Socialist [usta be "Democrat"] Party presidential primaries last year, claiming that he was a “natural born citizen” of these United States) when he coughs up his “long-form” birth certificate and shows it to the whole, wide, wondering, eager, worshipful world.

Meanwhile, of course:

What the hell is that slimy bastard HIDING, anyway?

You are misinformed and most Constitutional scholars agree with me on that point.

Here's a much more recent case:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President.” Schneider v. Rusk, 1963. This makes it clear that citizenship is the same for both native-born (certainly jus soli , not certain about jus sanguinis) and naturalized citizens. The distinction is only drawn between the former and the latter when introducing the term “natural-born,” which is treated as equivalent as “native-born” but not naturalized citizens. What that passage does not make clear is whether “native-born” can be extended to cases of citizenship by descent (jus sanguinis). But that's irrelevant to the present case as there's no evidence Obama derived his citizenship merely through descent, as he was born in Hawaii. And other cases, such as Perkins v. Elg (1939) decided that even infants born in the U.S. and taken elsewhere do not lose their status as “natural-born citizens.”

You're misusing the Ark decision. That case applied to the Chinese Exclusion acts, and the majority ruled that Ark was born a citizen of the U.S. The exceptions historically cited for citizenship by birth in the U.S. were children of foreign diplomats, children born to enemy combatants held in the U.S., and Indian tribes. However, the Indian tribe case was later reinterpreted in 1924, where it was affirmed that Indians were native-born citizens even if born on reservations. There is no indication in the Ark case that implies that Ark would have been ineligible to run for president or vice-president. Indeed, since the court recognized there was no clear definition of natural born in the Constitution, they pointed to English Common law, which is a common practice in U.S. cases since it predated and influenced U.S. laws, which historically held that any child born in England was a “natural born subject.” By analogy, the court reasoned that natural born in the U.S. applies in a similar manner. The same point was also made with Napoleonic law, wherein ” mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil.”

Also:
” The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State — both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.” Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 18b; Cockburn on Nationality, 7; Dicey Conflict of Laws, 177; @ 28 U. S. 155; 2 Kent Com. 39, 42.

Various court decisions, including Elk v. Wilkins, suggest the same thing. Indeed, the Ark case interpreted Elk as:

“The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” (No such limitation would apply to someone born in Hawaii in 1961.)

and:

“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle. “
You're construing “is as much as a citizen” as a point of similar but different from the child of the citizen. But this is a fabrication based on the notion that saying “A is as much C as B.” This need not, of course, imply that A is identical with C, e.g. apples are just as much fruits as oranges are. But it does not imply that the two are relevantly dissimilar in the present case. A natural-born child is a natural-born child, regardless of its parents, because “natural born” has the sense of born within the U.S. (taking into account the exceptions listed above).

This bit from the Constitution:
“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.”
HAD to be included or else NO ONE who was of age and potentially capable of serving as president at the time of the adoption of the Constitution could have been president. They would have had to have waited until 35 years in to the formation of the country to have a president. Therefore, it needed to include the exception to natural born, i.e. those born within the country once formed legally, and this exception was for those who were not technically born in the U.S., though they would have been born in the British Colonies, who were made citizens by statute (the adoption of the Constitution).

I think the real reason the birther movement is as active and volatile as it is has more to do with not liking Obama than with any real evidence. But I doubt that logic will prevail in cases like this.

By the way, the jus sanguinis question I raised WOULD be a bar to someone like McCain if it were construed to deny “natural-born” status to those born on military installations outside the U.S.

Afer some more research, I've found that you're right at least in the sense that it's never been very clear in US law what constitutes a “natural born” US citizen, so my contention that it's been clear for a long time, isn't accurate, and I apologize for the tone of my post (especially since you're one of the few birthers posting here who's trying to maintain some degree of civility, and thanks for not flaming me in return). However, I still disagree with your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark and how it relates to Obama's eligibility to be President–can you examine my reasoning further below in this comment?

Before going into that, I do know some history, including that some of the founding fathers agreed amongst themselves that merely being born on US soil or territories shouldn't make someone a natural-born US citizen; written communications amongst themselves that I've read, shows they were more concerned about usurpation by foreign governments, and not so much by the Law of Nations (as you state, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). But either way, unfortunately a specific statement on the definition for purposes of the Constitution, didn't make it into the Constitution, either explicitly or implicitly. They may have left it deliberately vague, to allow for some flexibility in the future, being a new country, or they may have assumed that the other signers of the Constitution agreed with their position, and that they all had a single definition of what “natural-born” meant to them. I doubt that, but whether or not any of the other founding fathers didn't agree with this definition, nobody clarified it in the text of the Constitution. That determination was left up to others later (whether deliberately or accidentally). As you say, the case you cite, of Wong Kim Ark, states (pretty much) that anyone born on US soil or territories is a NATIVE-born US citizen, but not a NATURAL-born US citizen, but my interpretation of Justice Gray's majority opinion, which also states that such native-born US citizens are “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”, means they're entitled to all the rights held by natural-born US citizens–and, ipso facto, “all” would have to include the right to be President of the US, regardless of the existence of two terms, “native” vs “natural”.

The justices in the cases of Wong Kim Ark, and Minor (1873, a case which Justice Gray relied on during the Wong Kim Ark case), didn't clarify whether anyone born on US soil or territory was a natural-born US citizen, regardless of their parents' citizenry–they restricted themselves to clarifying what constituted a “mere” US citizen, leaving the decision on natural-born for another day (since it wasn't relevant to the case at hand), and simply saying that issue had also been debated in the past without resolution, and further stating specifically that Wong Kim Ark and Minor were not to be interpreted as a decision that anyone born on US soil or territories was natural-born, as well as being a US citizen. For some reason, this has been distorted by some to mean the justices felt that such persons are NOT natural-born US citizens (sort of a different version of the phrase “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”), simply because the justices had “the chance” to clarify the issue. But they didn't clarify that issue, since they didn't have to, so nothing can really be relied on, in either of these cases, to determine anything about whether someone born on US soil or territories, with one or the other, or both, parents not being US citizens, is natural-born or not. An absence of a clearly-stated position doesn't constitute advocacy of any particular position, and certainly doesn't make it established law.

Here again, as you've quoted, is Justice Gray's statement comparing a child born on US soil or territories, one or both of whose parents aren't US citizens, with another child born on US soil or territories, both of whose parents are US citizens:

“…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

I know this can be interpreted in at least two different, and opposite ways, but to me, this is a roundabout way of saying both children have all the same rights, including Presidential eligibility, even if the child born of one or two non-US citizens, is not technically 100% US natural-born (but rather, native-born). If the child born on US soil or territories, of non-US citizens, didn't have the right to be President of the US, then they would NOT, ipso facto, be “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”, and the entire flavor and intent of Justice Gray's statement would be negated. It may (or may not) be as simple as that, but it seems that's been the position that's generally been relied upon when the question has come up afterwards.

It's true that Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur, and as such may have been Arthur's “man”, some say, and so he may have been trying to insert language approving of the right of even native-born US citizens to be President, in order to reduce the heat on Arthur (being otherwise a British subject). But though this might have been undue influence by Arthur, it was the opinion of Gray's court, and hasn't been really challenged, ever since he made the statement. But since his statement wasn't technically part of his court's ruling, it could still be interpreted as making the issue unclear. I agree clarity is required, but it's been taken since then to mean a child born on US soil or its territories, though they may be “just” a native-born US citizen, have the same rights as a natural-born US citizen, including eligibility for the US Presidency.

It's true that the US Constitution doesn't contain any statements that equate native-born, or this concept of “entitled to all the same rights” with its phrase “natural-born”, but that's one thing the Supreme Court is meant to help with, and in Wong Kim Ark, it seems it did, however clumsily. Until that's successfully challenged by the Supreme Court, or by Congress, it still stands.

Some people argue that the rights enjoyed by being a “mere” US citizen, don't automatically include being able to run for US President, and though that's true (otherwise people born outside the US, to two non-US citizens, could run for President, as long as they were “merely” US citizens), Justice Gray's majority statement in Wong Kim Ark, though it's not a part of the court's official position, says that the one category of non-100% natural-born US citizens that (in Gray's opinion, and thus presumably the majority of the court) DOES enjoy all the same rights as a 100% natural-born US citizen (and by definition, “all” must include being able to be President), are those born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

I'd enjoy your analysis of my remarks.

Brad:

I readily admit that I do not like Obama's politics. I also didn't like George Bush's politics, John McCain's, Bill Clinton's, George HW Bush's, there was some of Reagan that I admired, some of Carter and Ford too, but right back to being disgusted with Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and so forth. I freely admit I detest the endless expansion of the Federal government and the runaway corporatism it has allowed. I am not a believer in a living constitution that is open to a new interpretation every time someone (usually big business) finds something they don't agree with.

As I go back and read some of what I have been typing, I realize I've done a bad job of finishing points and have left some things open to attack. My point about Wong Kim Ark was that it didn't redefine the meaning of natural born citizen at all. Gray quoted Horace Binney to illustrate that whether native born or natural born, both are afforded the same rights and privileges of a United States Citizen. But the case and subsequent decision itself did not affect Article II. How could it? Wong Kim Ark wasn't seeking to run for President. The case was whether or not, as you stated, Wong Kim Ark was a United States citizen under existing law and the answer was yes he was.

It is interesting to me that every case that is pointed to in support of Obama as a natural born citizen ignores the historical precedent that every President from Martin Van Buren (the first President born in the United States) through George W Bush was born in the United States to US citizen parents, with the exception of Chester Arthur who covered up the fact that his Father was a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth.

But most of all what bothers me is how many people don't see or won't acknowledge the inherent danger and risk in allowing a person with dual allegiances at birth to be Commander in Chief. I'm not saying Barack Obama Jr is a bad guy, but he is the person who is setting the precedent, if its a legal one at all.

“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.” Jeez, taken literally, there is no one eligible to be President, as we, long ago, ran out of citizens, natural-born or otherwise, alive “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.” (Either that, or, there is, as usual, an excess of commas in the Constitution, as in this posting.) I trust that all you hair-splitters willing to twist yourselves into pretzels in order to (you dream) get rid of Obama in the White House plan to do the same diligence in the future when a Presidential candidate is born of a single mom (father unknown), a product of in vitro fertilization, of a sperm donor, or maybe a surrogate mother. Should keep you busy, it's a whole new world.

Why not? If it works, and Barry Soetoro gets perp-walked out of the White House live on CNN by a squad of federal marshals, who've packaged him in handcuffs and ankle fetters, and those neat belly chains, while the Secret Service guys look all nervous and pale behind their sunglasses and the Marine guards are high-five-ing each other, wouldn't that be just spectacular?

I mean, what better way to get that criminal sonofabitch out of our misery? At the same time, there would be a MASSIVE slap-down of the institution of the imperial presidency, hopefully degrading if not destroying the image of this “Man on a White Horse” bullshit post that it became in the administration of that earlier criminal shitwad, FDR.

It's diseased, evil, rotten, wrong for the citizens of a representative republic like these United States to vest not only so much power and responsibility but so much docile, ovine, abject worship of any man in any public office in any part of our civil government.

Sending Barry Soetoro (alias “Barack Hussein Obama II”) to spend the rest of his life getting folded over a bunk somewhere in the federal prison system, his “Hope” for “Change” this time being pertinent to the prospect of Vaseline somewhere in the next few minutes would be a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Good for the nation, good for our people, and good for Barry's cellmate, who's gonna have such fun with the new fish!

Erm, Obama was born in 1961. That statute was originated in 1982.

Protip: Try to understand the debate before claiming someone else doesn't.

You're welcome.

Nah, if it's Republican sperm, they'll be fine. They've been trained to bark at Democrats, but their true master have the leash well in hand.

I doubt any of these “Constitutionalists” lost a wink of sleep as the 4th Amendment was being gutted. granddaddy GOP told them it was all good, and so it was.

It NEVER ceases to amaze me how tunnel visioned narrow-thought thinkers such as yourself, always assume that someone who doesn't agree with you MUST be a Republican or Conservative.

Despite what the Two-Party Party propagandists preach – the spectrum of political thought is far more colorful and dynamic than simple black & white ideologies.

Many of us terrible original intent folks have long since grown weary of the neo-Conservative Religious right that long-ago hi-jacked the Republican Party.I was already wavering from George HW Bush's 1000 Points of Light New World Order crap, and left for good when Newt's crew gutted the last traces of the Party Lincoln knew.

Remember labels are bad.

John,

All of this would go away in a New York minute if Obama just requested and released the original long-form document.

'Mr. Transparency' apparently can't walk the talk. So great is his sense of entitlement. He thinks he is above the law. He uses the word 'rule' when he refers to his administration. I'm quite sure he uses that word in the way he intends.

Never been a more arrogant SOB in the White House ever!

I dispute that the statute was originated in 1982.

McCain was NOT a natural born citizen!! Hello?? Or did you miss that. And PANAMA, not a US territory or a base, or a diplomatic oupost! NOT………soooo, what does that mean? Your non citizen was allowed to beat my US BORN citizen, because he was……….hmmmm, white ???

That is where all this goes, you know it does…..look at Tuci78, and Mark, all about their fear of the big bad black man. Maybe it has something to do with turnabout being fairplay? or you reap what you sow?? Hmmm???scared are ya, that he'll do something nasty to ya?

Oh, by the way, when you get that new Healthcare card, or the nasty old vicious Medicare card, remember evil people brought that you! Don't go using it or I'll have to report you to the proper authorities……so YOU can be deported. Maybe you and Ms. Taitz the ignorant Israeli hideout can give you a place to stay, in the Middle East. You'll like it there, there's ever so many more Arabs there than in the Whitehouse :)

I just can't help asking: if a child of two Mexicans comes across the border for the day, either by design or happenstance and the wife gives birth to a “Mexican” in the US on US soil, the child, is by all preceding jurisprudence in US History considered, and deemed, a US citizen, or………

Are you saying, that because said hypothetical child's parents are not US Citizens, he/she is NOT a “natural born citizen”? Do we have natural and unnatural citizens?

The US Constitution was created in the late 1700's with and after many attempts to create a union and a nation with a coherent set of laws that would fairly apply to all–even the slaves many held. (they put a hold on dealing with those however).

But do you think they foresaw test tube babies? In vitro, donor eggs, sperm donors, heart transplants, not to mention DNA et al? Do you really think they had any idea what a “natural born” citizen could or might include in the new millenium.

I agree, there needs to be clarification……..but not because of Obama, but because of McCain! In all seriousness, I am well aware of his many years of service to our nation, of the service his forebears gave, but does that mean Obama's sodbusting ancestors gave less, and are entitled to less for their descendant, Mr. Obama?

The truth hurts sometimes, and while I know some……..some people can't understand why he won't release or allow his “long form” birth certificate……..this whole thing is really about a black man, with heaven forbid an AFRICAN, a real genuine to goodness AFRICAN who dared give us a son, who became President.

I wonder if the same people are going to give back their health care cards when they get them. Are they going to give back their extended unemployment? Will they refuse to drive over newer and safer bridges, are they going to burn their Medicare cards?They should. Why the hypocrisy? Evil old healthcare for all! How could he?

Why not bomb the living daylights out of a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9-11 bombing, while Osama bin Laden gets away with murder on a grand scale. Only small minded little undereducated coward and all around creep Tim McVeigh wrought such terror on US soil, even he didn't get away with it.

Are you going to say that mypothetical Mexican is ineligible and is an unnatural citizen?

I say, quite honestly, that despite McCain's service which I never underestimate, he is actually the one who was NOT naturally born. If they expected him to be a Presidential candidate they should have sent Roberta back home to give birth. So yes, there is room for improvement in the clarification, but this, this craziness, is not about that, it's about that doggoned fear of retribution from those who were kidnapped, and who slaved without reward for centuries before calmer heads prevailed and decided to make some basic attempts at decency and reconciliation with their overwhelming majority religion. There were economic reasons too, but at core, it was a festering blister that kept eating away at the nation, and postponing dealing with it, only made it worse.

It really helps if we *don't* feed the crazy, or irrational fear. There really is crazy here………just look into who some of these people are. It's not about reason, or logic, or the failings of the clarity of a nearly 250 yr old statute. It's about base fear, and delusion, and probably not a small amount of projection particularly on the part of those like Ms. Taitz, whose legal status I am very interested in exploring.

Sometimes it's good very good to look at who your bedfellows are.

Tsk. I'm supposed to have “fear” of a guy who's about as “black” as Pat Boone?

Little amy, don't mistake for “fear” what is better explained by hatred, as in “I hate socialists,” and “I hate public servants who shovel out megatons of counterfeit currency,” and “I hate elected officials who set up email conduits so people suspicious of Obamacare can be ratted-out by their 'Liberal' neighbors.”

That's “hate,” amy, not “fear.” A healthy, happy, all-American regard of the slimy sonsofbitches who ooze mendaciously into positions of public trust and then abuse the powers associated (constitutionally and especially unconstitutionally) with those offices to violate the rights of U.S. citizens.

And I don't want Barry deported, amy.

At least, not until after he's served out his prison sentences. He gets parole twenty or thirty years from now, and I don't mind if I&N buys him a ticket back to Mombasa.

Well, it's getting out in the drive-by media now.

From David Hahn, “Publisher StatePaper.com ” August 5, 2009.

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as “racist,” “birther,” or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being “too liberal” or an “Obama lover” by some of our most prolific critics.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.

I guess there are some things that not even a journalism school graduate can stomach.

Okay; thanks for the information. I truly don't have a guy; I think Obama is a better choice than McCain though. My interest is purely from the standpoint of law, and that any constitutional requirements are met by every candidate. The highest laws of our land were ignored during the last administration to our lasting injury, and we will be paying for such losses for many generations.

Okay; thanks for the information. I truly don't have a guy; I think Obama is a better choice than McCain though. My interest is purely from the standpoint of law, and that any constitutional requirements are met by every candidate. The highest laws of our land were ignored during the last administration to our lasting injury, and we will be paying for such losses for many generations.

Tuci78: No offense, but it's bad enough the Democrats and Obamaphiles alike are attaching race to this issue because the seed has been planted in their heads by left leaning mediacrats who got caught with their pants down on the real issue that led us to this uncomfortable point in history (That issue being the 50 SOTS who didn't do their job last election cycle, and it was exposed by bloggers, then many of those same bloggers made idiots of themselves by adding in all kinds of amateur analysis and conspiracy theories, which gave the MSM the out they needed), but to have you then make a statement like: “I'm supposed to have “fear” of a guy who's about as “black” as Pat Boone?” positions you at best an ignorant bigot. Now perhaps you aren't, but that statement doesn't leave much room for people who don't know you to interpret. It's, in fact, completely irrelevant whether Obama is black or whited or both.

What is relevant is that we have a vetting process which is completely broken. Let's leave McCain and Obama out of it. How the hell did a Nicaraguan born and raised naturalized US citizen, not once BUT TWICE get on the presidential ballot in some states? This past election I believe it was 7 States, including my home State of Connecticut? And when SOTS Bysiewicz was called out on it and sued, the Atty General filed a motion to dismiss on her behalf! I happen to like our Atty General (Blumenthal) but he was way outside of his Constitutional authority to be acting on behalf of another elected official, especially being from the same party.

Additionally, you can have all the misdirected hate you want Tuci, but it doesn't win you or me or anyone who wants to see better accountability win any support. Especially since there still is not a shred of credible evidence that Obama did anything illegal. The issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen is unresolved. I have my position, Obamaphiles have theirs – but your words are self-defeating and just plain ugly.

Yes, but President Obama (and he is the President Tucci) and his campaign have been since the beginning verrrrry careful to never state publicly that he is a natural born citizen – instead settling on the different designation, which is “native born citizen” and making the claim that it is one and the same with natural born citizen per the 14th Amendment and a ream of Supreme Court cases with Wong Kim Ark being most prominently discussed.

But again the real problem in all this lays in the lack of accountability that our 50 SOTS or equivalent state election official has had in regard to requesting the appropriate documents, verifying them and examining them. They have largely rubberstamped whatever the party sends them as the nominee – which is why a real genuine full-blooded foreign born and raised socialist ended up on the ballot in 7 States the last two elections.

Additionally, it's really up to the Supreme Court to make a determination on what is or isn't a Natural Born Citizen according to the Constitution, the Framer's intent, previous decisions and US law. And with 17,000 or so cases per year thrown at them – it has to be an airtight argument, with all the right procedures and briefs to get in front of them.

What is the obsession with Obamaphiles, automatically assuming that concerned citizens questioning the vetting process are or were McCain or Bush supporters? It's really annoying. I haven't for a Republican or Democrat for President in 5 Presidential election cycles. And no, that doesn't mean I automatically voted for some perceived right wing party. I'm a Progressive and recognize that they no longer exist in the Democratic Party.

His Republican masters has TAuci78 under their thumb. And you are so pathetic and mean. Bet you call yourself a christian. I dare you to show this vicious rant to the people at your church and the mayor of your town. Unless you live in Alabama or S.C., then it might speak for a lot of people. I had the pleasure (?)of meeting a few of you nauseating people while I was an Air Force Nurse. Turned me into a liberal.

Native born? Natural born? does that mean every person born in the US without two US citizens as parents at the time of his/her birth are automatically barred from becoming President?

There is no jurisprudence for this. The long history of this nation has always been about the struggle to meet the premise that all of us are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights–but also equal under the law, entitled to common rights and priviledges as US citizens, the right to run for President being one. It is not explicit, that is why there is jurisprudence, but……..we fought the Civil War to right the wrong of kidnap, sale and slavery, of humans. We added the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Bill of Rights to protect the ideal of equality under the law.

Are you now telling me we have indeed TWO classes of citizenry, one natural, one native? That would be an interesting argument to make in court. You are equal, in all ways except one. Try that on women, artificially transferred embryos who turn out to grow up and want to become President or any other “unnaturally created citizen” and see what happens.

Reality time: the US like it or not, perfect or not at the time of conception was dedicated to equality of opportunity….even in the right to bear arms, it's about equal access, we do it all the time. No one puts a caveat in fine print on the birth certificates and passports of those born here without two US citizen parents that says, oh by the way, you're 'native' NOT 'natural born' so don't go getting any fancy ideas. People are born here everyday, without *ANY* US parent and are fully recognized as “natural born” citizens.

Do you have plans for them, better get out a notice to them ALL right now, and you might start with John McCain, and he certainly isn't natural born, as he was born in PANAMA!! Not natural born! Or is it ok, to let him in, but not those actually born on US soil??

There is NO proof, and no argument that will quell this hullabaloo, that is why Obama is not providing anything more than the legally binding COLB, that everyone else in the country is required to give, and by the way was approved by the US Election committees and recently accepted and pointed out by Congress in it's declaration of Hawaii's 50 anniversary of admittance to the Union. The argument if you *somehow* managed to miss it, is a moving target.

Allegations include:
1) He was not born in Hawaii
2) He was not born of two US Citizen
3) His father was a British subject-ergo so was he, whether born on US soil or not
4) His mother with a long ancestry in this nation's history was not qualified to transmit citizenship, because she was not old enough AND he wasn't born in the US
5) He hasn't disproved that he wasn't born in Africa–do you have to disprove you weren't born in your most recent immigrant parents last known “old country” even though there is *NOT * a shred of evidence he was born there.

Let's see:

1)He presented and made public the very self same COLB that I and MOST americans have that is good enough to be presented for passport, drivers license, etc and oh, for presentation to election committees! Gee let me see……I think your birth certificate is a forgery, and that the governor of the state where you were born was paid off and the whole US Congress is in on it!!

Sounds funny doesn't it?

Especially when it comes from a woman who Is MOST certainly not a natural born citizen, and barely speaks English. Ms. Taitz certainly doesn't understand the language or the law well enough to quote it correctly or the most recent precendents, (lets' try to discount the ones that are Pre-Civil War). She didn't even understand the language well enough to understand Steven Colbert playing her for the clown she is, and she is not a member of the Calif. Bar, apart from her incoherent ramblings. As a Jew it would behoove her to be more careful of who she accuses of being a “brown shirt” and Nazi as she did when speaking with David Shuster, who obviously was disturbed by the remark and acknowledged that he himself lost relatives in the Holocaust.

The hyperbole is interesting, as projection of the collectictively agreed upon sins of others (Nazis, “racists”) seems to be the only things they can hurl at Obama and his supporters. They have *NO* FACTS–only delusions and fear.

I wish we could let them opt of of citizenry as they seek to opt out the legitimacy of those who are fully entitled to all and full benefits of citizenship. Unfortunately it is the price we pay for our democracy and our freedoms, but the frustration of these malcontents and screwballs is equally the price they pay for living in a democracy. Let that be a lesson to them, they are about to get even more discontented as healthcare, economic improvement, and retooling the American educational system to create a bigger and better, healthier poplulace comes to fruition. Bring on the meds!

OK, all you dipsticks… Government entities don't release the ORIGINAL copy of vital records! Even if you go down to your county public records office to get your birth certificate, you get a COPY. It will be on nice paper – and if you pay a little more (in our state) they will stamp it with a seal and notarize it. It's still a copy. And if you lose it, next week you can go down, pay more money, and get another copy. I surely would hope that the State of Hawaii wouldn't just give over an original birth certificate – even to the President, or maybe ESPECIALLY to the President. It's their job to keep that original safe. Even if Obama did choose to request, and release, a copy of his long-form certificate, all you doubters wouldn't accept that, either. You'd say it looked like the wrong kind of paper, or ink, or a funny-looking seal or whatever. And I don't think that Hawaii is going to allow each of you to travel there and take a look for yourself (especially since they're all involved in this massive conspiracy to lie to us). Or if by some miracle you grudgingly accepted the certificate's validity, it would be on to the next thing. Now a demand for “adoption records” is floating around the internet (difficult to produce when you're not adopted, but hey, anything to make trouble). Really, President Obama has a country to run. Ours. We should probably figure out how to pitch in and help fix our many national problems instead of looking like we're all a bunch of doofuses (racist or otherwise). (And by the way, I was born way before Obama – in Podunk Center – and my birth certificate is typed.)

Well, Carol, here's one thing you might take into consideration.

Back in June 2008, some anonymous flunky at the Obama campaign allegedly scanned a Hawaii state Certification of Live Birth (COLB) supposedly issued to one “Barack Hussein Obama II” and said flunky emailed it to the operators of two Obamaphile Web sites, DailyKos and FactCheck.

Note that FactCheck, for all its overt claims of “impartial” status, is the wholly-owned creature of the same Annenberg Foundation that funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, from which Barry Soetoro and William Ayers distributed tens of millions of dollars to predominantly leftist organizations. In other words, Barry used to be on the Annenberg Foundation payroll, just like the FactCheck people. Keep this in mind, because it demonstrates why no honest person accepts any FactCheck assertions as ipso facto valid in discussions of this issue. They're inextricably conflicted.

Besides, anybody who openly calls him/herself “impartial” is simply denying prejudices and predispositions that no human being can escape. Such a person or group is merely trying to avoid stipulating those biases, and therefore must immediately be assumed to intend deceit, and should not be trusted.

My slant? I'm a moral and methodological individualist. Inasmuch as Barry Soetoro is not only an explicit and well-trained socialist – indeed, a third-generation “red diaper baby” of a socialist – you can see my view of him as hostile in the extreme, and understand my opposition to him and his partisans.

Now, of that “short-form” COLB supposedly generated in 2007 and allegedly used in June 2008 to make those images for dissemination on the Web, nobody outside the Obama campaign and the office of FactCheck has ever claimed – not testified under oath, but merely claimed – to have examined that physical, print-on-paper, signed and stamped legal document.

Nobody hostile to Barry Soetoro. No impartial observer. No officer of any court. No trained, experienced, qualified forensic documents examiners, any of whom might be expected to testify as an expert witness – under oath – as to that document's contents, validity, freedom from unlawful alterations, provenance, and (as one such examiner put it in her sworn affidavit of recommendation) it's “genuineness or non-genuineness.”

You understand that? What we have of Barry's “birth certificate” is a couple of computer graphic images.

The image of a thing is not the thing itself.

So, while many of the “birthers” are merely screaming in rage and hoping to tear down our Fraudulence-in-Chief, who appears to be usurping an office he is not in law qualified to occupy, the fundamental question called is simply one that any citizen can and should demand of any public servant, high or low.

Barry Soetoro (also known as “Barack Hussein Obama II,” though he appears never to have legally reclaimed his birth name after returning to these United States as a youngster from Indonesia, where he had been legally adopted as “Barry Soetoro” by his mother's second husband, Lolo Soetoro) is being asked to prove he is qualified as a natural born citizen of these United States.

If he had a genuine COLB from the state of Hawaii in June 2008, stipulating that he had been born in Honolulu, that might go very far to set this whole “birther” issue to rest.

But though he apparently had it in June 2008, he hasn't put it into the hands of a court officer of any kind. Doing so would render this matter res adjudicata – “a thing adjudicated” – in courts all over America. It would be easy, simple, expedient, and immediately productive of happy results for everyone except those of us who really, really, hate Barry.

Myself included, I proudly admit. Not because of his albedo deficiency, for I could care less about that, but for his socialism. You want me to make that plain? I would MUCH rather see either Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams – both of them black men, both born in these United States – serving as President than any Republican, black or white, male or female, I have ever known or of whom I have ever heard.

It's the quality of the person, not the color of his/her skin that matters to me.

Barry Soetoro is just a thoroughly rotten, evil, malignant excuse for a human being, and a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution itself.

And, fortunately, because he cannot bring forth documentary proof of his nonexistent bona fides as to his “natural born citizen” status, it looks as if this nation will soon be relieved of the suffering Barry has inflicted upon us.

This little thing, this trivial thing, something that the average American simply grumbles and produces upon demand when he has to renew his driver's license in a great many American states – this is going to bring down Barry Soetoro.

Speed the day.

Amy,

I have some on my hands, but I certainly don't have the time to teach US History and Politics.

First and foremost, this notion that natural born = native born as it pertains to the Presidency has emerged in the last 24 months. Why AREN'T the Republicans sounding the alarm bells so much? Because they have a vested interest in the Obama Rule and his name is Bobby Jindal.
That's part of the reason why the Two-Party Party is such a joke. It's like Coke versus Pepsi. It used to be like Sprite versus 7-Up but that might be a little too deep a metaphor for some of you. You can come to the market with your own brand of soft-drink, but don't encroach on that shelf space or you'll bought or locked out.

There are certainly some very creative lawyers and academics (Obama included) that believe somehow the 14th Amendment rewrote Article II, Paragraph V. They also somehow have drawn the conclusion that subsequent lawsuits pertaining to citizenship somehow altered the qualifications to be President. However, neither the 14th Amendment nor the various lawsuits however had anything to do with someone making the claim that they should be eligible to be President.

As for the notion that Article II somehow creating two classes of citizens is bordering on the absurd. There are more than 300 million people who are citizens of the United States, and only 1 gets to be President every 4 years. You have a statistically better chance of winning multiple Powerball lotteries than you do of becoming President. If you really want to point fingers, point it at the media and big business – they pick our candidates for us. There is the working class and then there is the white collar/Ivy League class. We all have the same rights and privileges, but we don't all have the same level of access. If you want to be pissed about a perceived caste system – that's the one to focus your energy on. Personally I don't see Obama's ethnicity: I see a guy who certainly worked hard to get where he is, but I also see the liberal professor and corporate attorney who snapped in line towards the end of his campaign by the deep pockets of the Democratic Party. Their largely the same check writers the GOP has and their agenda has nothing to do with you and me. Obama has flipped on so many campaign PROMISES in his first six months its become hard to keep up. Why? Because you can say whatever the voters want to hear on the campaign trail and hold a big feel good rock concert at the end of the trail – but the second you get sworn in you are a puppet of the multi-national corporate check-writers. And at the other end of the multi-national corporate purse strings there are a group of people who would love to see a hand-picked foreign born CEO someday ascend to the Presidency, someone who really understands the unique problems of a global economy. And if you don't see this coming on the track we are currently on, than I beg you to take a step back, set aside your Demoplican loyalties and ask yourself why the Federal government has grown so large over the last 100 years and it doesn't begin with FDR. Ask yourself if our currency system, that allows the Federal government to magically print money to pay off debts jibes with your own personal budgeting experiences. Ask yourself WHY we are doing business with a country like China.

But back to the natural born issue. Here's some precedent for you: since Martin Van Buren (the first President born on US soil after the previous 7 were European born and grandfathered in as citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution) every single President has had TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS AND BEEN BORN ON US SOIL, with two exceptions: Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. It is a historical fact that Chester Arthur covered up and hid the fact that his Father was a British subject at the time of his birth in Vermont. Arthur's Father eventually became a naturalized US citizen but not until Chester was about 14 years old. The 14th Amendment was adopted before Arthur became VP and while he was the Republican State Chairman, so why would Arthur lie about his Father's naturalization record? Because he knew that if the truth about his Father's naturalization got out he would not have been eligible to serve as VP or President. Interestingly enough, shortly into Garfield's Presidency he was assasinated by a rabid Arthur supporter. Shortly after Arthur took office as President, the Democrats sent an operative to Vermont and Canada to dig up dirt on Arthur. The dirt was published in the form of a book entitled “How A British Subject Became President”. Just like Barack Obama, Chester Arthur was a dual citizen at birth. Except it was the Democrats making the charges of Arthur not being a natural born citizen. Oh my, how times change, huh?!

Jeez, Tuci 78, I seem to have stepped on your tail. Re your Annenberg Foundation/FactCheck assertions, you should know as well as I that the Annenberg Foundation, which started the Chicago Annenberg Challenge education project that included Barack Obama and William Ayers (now professor of education at the University of Illinois) on its board, was established by publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican (and whose widow contributed to the McCain campaign). The publication Education Week said the Chicago Annenberg Challenge “reflected mainstream thinking among education reformers” and had bipartisan support. The project was backed by letters of support from Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, the superintendent of the Chicago public schools, etc. Also included on the board was Arnold R. Weber, a former president of Northwestern University, who had received appointments from Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. The list of mainstream board members goes on.

FactCheck came into existence long after the Annenberg Challenge project was finished. It’s your right to disbelieve anything they have to say, of course – but don’t cherry-pick your facts. FactCheck has aimed some tough criticisms at Obama also.

Regarding “he [Obama] hasn't put it [birth certificate] into the hands of a court officer…”, which court, exactly, has REQUESTED it?? To my knowledge, all these frivolous and time-wasting court filings have been dismissed by the various courts. But maybe Obama should take time out of his busy day to run down to the nearest courthouse and hand them a copy just to try to please, well, people like you…

You also are aware, I’m sure, that the ONLY shred of evidence that Obama was ever tagged with his stepfather’s name was when Mr. Soetoro apparently passed him off as his own in order to get him into Indonesian grade school. (One thing that puzzles me is why anybody thinks we should believe that Obama’s father – still alive in Kenya, and still in touch with his son, a proud tribal leader whose son bore his name – would have consented to an Indonesian man adopting Obama in the first place. They DO ask the other parent, you know.)

At any rate, I realize I will never convince you of anything. I’m a skeptic in many respects myself, and we surely have the right/obligation to ask questions of our candidates and officials. But what most concerns me about this stubborn witchhunt is not its incredible stupidity, but the vicious and vile hatred of those perpetuating it – yourself included. I hated George Bush, I will freely admit. He was incompetent, disengaged, not qualified for the job, and furthermore, he sent our young relative to die in Iraq. However, he was the President, we elected him (sort of), and I NEVER would have referred to him as “a thoroughly rotten, evil, malignant excuse for a human being” (which could be considered a kind description compared to many others out there). I thought the poor guy probably couldn’t do any better.

This sort of ugly hatred will serve to destroy our nation more surely than any leader could ever do.

Dear lady, as for the Annenbergs (publishers of the strongly left-leaning Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News) protestations of personal membership in and support of the Republican Party are not points which you can offer in argument against the overwhelmingly left-”Liberal” activities of their legacy Foundation.

To the “Liberal” left, in addition, their activities, policies, and politics are always “mainstream.” Some of them – hard to tell how many, but probably most – literally cannot see their own prejudices and bigotries for what they are. They are not significantly introspective, never objective, and never seriously consider any opinions other then their own as morally, intellectually, or even factually robust. To disagree with the “Liberal” orthodoxy is, to them, odiously heretical, alien, “fringe,” and even unthinkable.

This is not an attitude conducive to honest discourse, and, indeed, of “Liberals” honest discourse cannot truly be gotten.

This understood, your praises of the Annenberg Foundation and its various excrescences – the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the Annenberg Center for Public Policy, FactCheck, et alia, are moot. Thank you for your effort, but nobody's buying it.

Moreover, as I've written elsewhere, the simple fallacy implicit in your assumption that “if the Republicans approve, it's fine!” fails when it is understood that the true line of political demarcation is not drawn between the Republican and the National Socialist (formerly “Democrat”) wings of the great, bipartisan, permanently incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party but rather between the principles of individual rights and the practices of authoritarianism.

Instead of the false “left-right spectrum,” consider the Nolan diagram.

The U.S. Constitution is not the property – indeed, its defense is not the priority – of either the “Red Party” or the “Blue Party” in these United States today. The functionaries of both wings of the BOYN Party violate that charter of civil government as a matter of course, deliberately, callously, and without respect either for the structure and protections it was designed to impose or for the rights of the individual citizen living under the government these career politicians exercise to commit their daily crimes.

So given that I repose no trust in the Republicans whatsoever, an appeal to me on the basis of supposed Republican allegiance is also wasted.

Now, on to the issue of no court officer having requested that Mr. Soetoro tender a physical, certified copy of his COLB (owing to Fancy Lawyer Tricks that have thus far cost Mr. Soetoro upwards of a million dollars – one observer estimates $1.3 million as of this month – to play in quashing “birther” lawsuits), let's turn this around.

If Barry Soetoro has a true and verified certification of live birth – or, better yet, a birth certificate – which states that he had, in fact, been born in Honolulu, each of these “birther” lawsuits offered him a golden opportunity.

Instead of expensively resisting, Barry could simply have tendered that physical copy of his 2007 COLB to the judge involved in any one of those cases, said: “Here y'go, your honor,” and been done with it.

Nothing more would've been necessary. Bye-bye “birther”:controversy.

But – hatefully, arrogantly, pehaps desperately – Barry Soetoro has avoided every such opportunity.

Now, given that Barry Soetoro is acting hatefully in this matter – evasively, contemptuously, scornfully – can you wonder at the “sort of ugly hatred” he is engendering, and not admit that what he is doing will “serve to destroy our nation more surely than any [honorable, decent, responsible] leader could ever do”?

I'm glad you explained about dem Liberals with their lack of introspection, objectivity, etc. from whom “honest discourse cannot truly be gotten.” Since I gather you think I am one, then no further point in trying here, I'm flawed. From my total lack of objectivity, however, I'd say you don't seem so long on introspection yourself.

Sorry. Gotta call 'em as I see 'em.

Do you see yourself as a “Liberal,” madam? Are you prepared to take the proverbial red pill and look into the difference between authoritarianism – of the right, of the left – and honest commitment to the protection of the individual rights (to life, to liberty, and to property) of your neighbors, your family members, and yourself?

–
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

– Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

Sorry, thought this site was about proof (or lack of) that our President was born in the U.S. Anyway, it's been interesting…

Oh, it's about a lot more than that. Why (do you think) are the Obamaphiles – “Liberals” / socialists / progressives / “velvet fascists” one and all – so frantic to keep their Marxist Mahdi in the Oval Office, wrecking the economy and generally shredding the Constitution into confetti?

And why would a constitutionalist like me – a moral and methodological individualist, whose number-one political priority is the defense of the individual human being's rights to life, to liberty, and to property – be taking such great delight in the prospect of seeing that sad sack third-generation “red diaper baby” socialist sonofabitch perp-walked out of the White House in chains while CNN covers it live and in color?

This manifest of Barry's life of duplicity and criminal intent – his inability to demonstrate his qualification as a “natural born citizen” (Article II, Section 1, U.S. Constitution) with something as simple and commonplace as a birth certificate – is just wonderful.

Think of it as a live, drive-by-media-denied, Civics lesson.

Or, if you're younger than I am, a live lesson in “Social Studies.”

The average American – more and more of them (even the ones who voted against Crash Test Johnnie and the Republicans by casting their ballots in a spirit of “What the hell? He says we need 'Change'” for Barry Soetoro) – are deciding that this conniving, power-grabbing bastard is totally fucking awful, and we need to get rid of him.

And here's the “birth certificate.” Or, rather, there it isn't.

And suddenly Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution turns out to be an “escape clause.” A beautiful, big, “Do Over” button.

And we're hitting that button as hard and as repeatedly as we can.

Ain't that neat?

No, what you people are whining about is he won't do backflips and jump through hoops to let you personally see the documents that had to be approved by several US government agencies just so he could run for president. He doesn't owe you squat, he already proved his citizenship to the appropriate legal authorities. You, however, now have to prove he wasn't born in the US, which you can't

Oh, how the political parties have flip flopped. But please cite to me where in the US Constitution it defines natural born citizen and requires both parents be US citizens?
P.S. The Constitution allows the Federal government to magically print money, check Article I, Section 8

A Certification of Live Birth is the best and only real proof of where he was born. States do not give out “original” birth certificates, they hand out Certifications of Live Birth.

Uhhhhm – see that's part of the problem. All most State's election officials really ask for is the standard candidate affidavit after the nomination that any party that has ballot access does on behalf of it's nominee. So the Party does the 'vetting' as far as verifying qualifications for the office of President. That's what happened here in Connecticut. Also here in Connecticut our scrupulous Secretary of the State allowed a Nicaraguan born and raised naturalized US Citizen on the ballot as a Presidential Candidate . . . . one of 7 States to do so. That should never happen. And if that could happen then whats to say those same SOTS didn't do their job with McCain and Obama?! In my opinion and many others the only legal legit candidates of any legitimacy that were on the 2008 ballot were Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney.

What “backflips,” Sherrill? The arrogant piece of shit is refusing to put his fucking birth certificate on a judge's bench as proof of his contention that he ws born where he claims he was born, and is who he says he is.

If you've got a kid ready to enter school, Sherrill, in most districts you've got to show up with the kid's birth certificate to get him enrolled. If you've got a child trying to enter Little League, you've got to show a birth certificate as proof that he's not older (and therefore stronger, more mature) than the kids against whom he will be competing.

Every goddam American expects to be required to show his birth certificate – the physical, print-on-paper legal document itself, not a computer graphic image allegedly scanned from that birth certificate – on demand.

Hell, in some states, that signed and sealed birth certificate is one of the key points of identification needed for renewing your driver's license. That's been so since the Beltway Sniper used a phony address to gull the New Jersey state DMV into registering the car he used as a shooter's blind to kill and wound all those people.

If you consider it a “jump through hoops” exaction for a government employee – and that's all Barry's been since 2005, a public servant – to show nothing more exceptional than his birth certificate as support of his qualification to hold his job, then you are well and truly fucked up beyond all recovery.

The plain fact of the matter is that he didn't get any sort of approval by any “US government agencies just so he could run for president,” because none of these cement-heads considered it their duty to look for any such proof. They took his word for it.

In other words, the personnel of those “several US government agencies” didn't exert the diligence required of a clerk at the DMV or the lady signing up kids for Little League.

Okay, so now we're trying to correct that omission. And what is your Mombasa Messiah's response? Arrogant refusal to cough up the fucking birth certificate.

Arrogant. Imperious. “I don't have to give you 'civilians' anything. I'm the President.”

Not if he's not qualified to hold the office. And if he entered that office knowing that he wasn't qualified – remember, he's a lawyer specializing in constitutional law (you ever wondered about that?) – he entered that office with full criminal mens rea.

From the White House to the Big House. The next chapter in Barry Soetoro's biography.

Not even under the state laws of Hawaii – until they were revised (surprise!) just recently. For certain government benefits granted only to native Polynesian Hawaiians (not for haoles, the caucasian and black and oriental immigrants and descendants of such immigrants), only the “long-form” birth certificate could be accepted as proof of entitlement.

Sherill, you're swallowing Obamaphile bullshit. In the state of Hawaii, the “short-form” Certification of Live Birth had been – right up to this year – nothing more than a “make-do” to serve the needs of Hawaiians who had no “long-form” birth certificate information on file in the state government's archives.

Barry Soetoro is well and truly fucked. It's just a matter of shoving it all the way up until it finally emerges from the back of his throat and chokes him.

Most of the time when people don't seem able to converse without usin' them 4-letter words in every sentence, it's because they are so borderline illiterate they have no other vocabulary. But, you know words (Latin 'n stuff). So what's the excuse for your potty mouth?

Shit, I know. Ain't it jusf fucking awful? You'd think the stupid bastards could find some other way to express themselves. But no, the sons of bitches just gotta use them common vulgarities in their discourse.

The American language being rich in invective – including emphatic Anglo-Saxonisms condemned by the hypocritical in their pretenses of delicacy as “4-letter words” – the use of the total linguistic package (pungencies included) is rather a mark of greater literacy than lesser, for it cavils not at false sensibilities in the quest for effective conveyance of thoughts and sentiments.

The very essence of what a language is devised to do.

Would it be more to your taste if I used the antique term “aroint” instead of telling you simply, parsimoniously, and with heartfelt sincerity to go fuck yourself?

Ah, what a clustercopulation is the Obamaphile, each in his own little puddle of excrement, finger-flipping his filth in slack-jawed fascination from one spasmodic cluster of digits to another….

Here's my personal scorecard for evaluating statements by Republicans, Democrats, and anybody else (including whatever the hell YOU are): (1) points off if one can't spell, or construct a simple sentence, (2) points off for USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS ONLY, and (3) no credibility whatsoever if one's pronouncements are so bereft of any factual content that they can only be communicated by “common vulgarities.” But, that's just me.

Tuci-

You are such a fucking racist idiot. At least this president was elected by a substantial majority, not imposed on us by the Supreme Court on a totally partisan basis like the last mass-murderer in chief.

Uh no, I haven't – but that could be simply because I'm not imagining things.

Obama is certainly a person who has a Socialist leaning agenda and Democrats need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and wake up to the fact that we have been in the process of gutting our Constitution for the last 100 years in the name of a Daddy State. Nearly every President in the 20th century has had some Socialist leaning programs that they have championed. Socialism is great for re-election: you can claim you made some monumental change, but the fallout and the holes in the plan don't start falling apart until 10-20 years after you are long out of office.

So that all said, I suggest you take a step back HoochyTuci and see things for the way they really are . . . our Republic's foundation document being chiseled away at by banking and corporate profiteers who want a borderless market, errrr uh, I mean world. This concept of course, ignores the human inclination to find and settle within a tribe. The United States once was the greatest of all Tribes, but now it's a falling fallacy at the hands of globalists who use our treasury like a hedge fund.

Shows as “a substantial majority” in the Electoral College, but not in the popular vote. Sorry, Steve, but your Mombasa Messiah simply isn't as popular as you'd like to delude yourself into thinking. Take a look at a county-by-county map tracking the 2008 presidential voting, and the swaths of “red” are overwhelming.

Barry took the “grasshopper” vote. The “ant” vote went all to hellangone against him, in spite of the fact that the productive portion of the population had nothing to vote for but Crash Test Johnnie, probably the most “National Socialist” of the whole damned RINO caucus.

Eventually, as more and more of the “Liberals” get mugged by Barry and his little ACORN compadres, they're turning against him. Already underway.

Hey, you know what the definition of a conservative is, don'tcha? A “Liberal” who's just been mugged.

And watch your Anglo-Saxon. Mr. Wiener – Associate Editor – has emailed me to announce his intention to start throwing people who use “pungent language” off these TWI threads.

Nice try on the “racist” card, by the way. Messiah Central still pushing that bullpuckey to you “left-wing bloggers” or are you just stuck without anything better to say?

Well, I'd say that the “Daddy State” is more the model for the “Stern Father” faction among the Republicans – the ones who feel that the great mass of us civilians are contrary, irresponsible, wear our hair outrageously, dress disgracefully, read naughty books, look at filthy pictures, listen to debauched music, et tedium – who conceive themselves to be the “favored few, booted and spurred, ready to ride us legitimately by the grace of God.”

The National Socialist (formerly “Democrat”) Party is a helluva lot more “Mommy Dearest,” don'tcha think? “Nurturing Mother” image.

“Now, little civilian dearest, put on your sweater and wear your galoshes, and if you insist on smoking, Mommy's going to tax your cigarettes until you bleed from your eyeballs. And – surprise! – you're not allowed to buy foods with any of those nasty trans-fats in them. Isn't that nice? Oh, yes. Mommy's going to be tracking the thermostat in your house to make sure you don't run the air conditioner too much in the summer or the heater too much in the winter. It's all to save the planet, so Mommy knows you'll be a good boy. Or Mommy will be terribly disappointed, and she'll kill you with a bullet right there at the back of your naughty little head. All righty?”

As for “nearly every President in the 20th Century [having] had some Socialist leaning programs”… I'd exempt Taft, Harding, and Coolidge from that list. Corruption, yes, and the usual-and-customary mercantilism that's been a universal failing of the Republicans from time out of memory, but not socialism.

It's not always socialism (“government as Santa Claus”) that's been the incumbent's way to permanence in office, but rather graft plain and simple. Doesn't have to be “you stupid voters are entitled to this cash I've screwed out of your neighbors for you!” but the old American System of Henry Clay back in the early 19th Century.

You should look it up. The fundamentals were (and always have been) currency inflation, protectionist tariffs that horribly screw the consuming American, and pork projects to “redistribute the wealth.”

Y'know. The way Senator Byrd has been redistributing other states' taxpayers' wealth into West Virginia for decades.

(( Richard Byrd dies and the whole state of West Virginia goes bankrupt. Watch for it on CNN. ))

The banksters (“bankers” plus “gangsters”) and the “corporate profiteers” (like if they fail to earn profits they're not out of business? – I mean, unless some politician decides they're “too big to fail”?) aren't what you should be focused upon if you've got reality in mind, putzie.

It's government getting into everything.

Y'know the old saying.

“Politicians are like rats. What they take for themselves is nothing compared to the damage they do in getting it.”

Tsk. Spelling and grammar snarks are passe upon these comments threads, squeekster.

By the bye, you post something of substance instead of a whining complaint about someone “usin' them 4-letter words in every sentence,” and I'll try to give you substantive response in return.

But if all you've got is kvetching about nasty language, orthography, sentence construction, punctuation and the like, then don't be surprised if you get a figurative wedgie along those lines that's designed to express the contempt you've earned.

[...] 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637381997 Toyota Camry Front Door Handle, Toyota Prius Specs Camry Hybrid1997 Toyota Camry Front Door Handle, Toyota Prius Specs Camry Hybrid07 camry headlight bulb 2007 toyota camry solara see 07 toyota camry hubcap 2002 camry xle specs used toyota t100 models camry solara 2011 solara new toyota camry ml55 amg pt camry 2000 toyota camry hubcaps sale 15 steel wheels 2007 toyota camry floor mats prius camry price uk autos buying toyota camry hybrid 1996 toyota camry wheel covers 1993 toyota camry thermostat all trac 2005 2008 toyota camry solara 95 camry sale camry midsize listings search used camry replacement oe toyota camry parts manual oxygen sensor 2001 camry coolant toyota camry grill emblem 1997 t100 for sale toyota venza camry solara 2001 toyota camry door latch driver side outside 1998 toyota camry catalytic converter toyota prius specs camry hybrid 2008 toyota camry exhaust 1999 camry recall 1997 toyota camry xle camry parts online toyota celica corolla 2002 2005 toyota camry sale camry mods exhaust 2001 camry body parts 2000 mpg 1999 toyota camry solara 1998 toyota camry cabin filter 2006 toyota camry xle rims sale 2008 toyota camry solara fj cruiser highlander hybrid 1997 toyota camry catalytic converter picture 2000 toyota camry solara 1993 radiator 1995 toyota camry camry accessories euro tail lights 2002 manual 2007 toyota camry camry portugal toyota camry altise review camry car dealer new toyota solara review 2001 toyota camry honda accord coupe 1998 parts toyota camry accessories pt toyota camry accessories cold air intake discount used toyota camry solara roseville toyota used cars camry hybrid 2010 toyota camry hybrid for sale camry aftermarket accessories door handle covers 2001 toyota camry antenna light used 1995 toyota t100 automotive camry solara 2002 camry colors solera 2nd hand 2005 toyota camry solara car dealer new toyota camry engine automotive camry hybrid 02 camry sale toyota prius fuel economy camry hybrid camry hybrid tail lights se 2005 camry review front wheel drive used mr2 spyder camry solara toyota venza 2005 camry ground effects discount alloy toyota solara 1999 camry hybrid 94 camry headlight switch 2009 solara 2008 toyota camry 2008 transmission toyota camry hybrid camry new car specials coupons receiver hitch toyota camry toyota camry egr valve location 2010 toyota camry pictures ford fusion hybrid baseboard toyota camry 2010 toyota camry floor mats fj cruiser cheap new toyota camry used camry minneapolis toyota dealer toyota camry side marker camry rims 1997 toyota camry front door handle 1996 camry body kits quality toyota camry welsh used toyota camry hybrid msrp listings toyota camry autotrader 2002 camry air filter 2000 toyota camry edmunds 2006 camry accessories 5sfe headlight camry xle 1996 toyota camry transmission fluid change replacement plastic toyota camry catalytic converter 1997 camry body kits toyota camry solara convertible used california 2006 toyota highlander limited sale camry solara 1997 toyota camry transmission 1994 toyota camry value problems with 2010 toyota camry 2001 toyota camry solara se luxury coupe toyota camry air intake camry 2007 keyless entry toyota tundra used camry solara new toyota cars camry solara 200 camry clear tail lights 1992 camry cold air intake Buy Audi E63 | C3500 Supplier 1500 | Reno Full Employment | Freestar Book Ford | J30 Used Pre | [...]

[...] 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132E 150 Econoline Headlight Removal, E 450 Econoline Super Duty Aftermarket Shock Absorber 5.4 L V8E 150 Econoline Headlight Removal, E 450 Econoline Super Duty Aftermarket Shock Absorber 5.4 L V8aftermarket van parts ford econoline buy e 100 e350 click here e 250 econoline club wagon headlight exhaust manifold super duty alternator 1993 ford econoline van fuel system e 350 econoline firefox used e 350 pt 2008 ford econoline econoline 250 episodes ford e 350 econoline headlight head lamp side marker lights buy e550 e350 4matic all wheel drive e 100 econoline club wagon part explorer sport trac country squire e 450 econoline super duty discount explorer sport trac f 350 gvw ford e350 passenger van e 150 econoline bulb assembly club wagon dimensions ford econoline e 150 econoline body kit e 250 super duty radiator ford econoline engine oil cooler e 350 econoline super duty aftermarket shock absorber strut assembly 100 ford e econoline tail light bulbs ford e 150 econoline price explorer sport trac e 450 econoline super duty part shock absorber glow plugs brush mercedes benz e350 e 250 econoline crossman parts exhaust manifold 1962 ford econoline manual ford e 450 econoline super duty stripped parts fog light ford e 150 econoline parts shock absorber kyb gr 2 e 100 e350 replacement buy e class e350 models ford e 150 econoline radiator auto parts catalytic converter 10 passenger van ford e350 e85 fuel e 100 econoline club wagon parts sedan delivery crown victoria e 250 econoline club wagon headlight explorer sport trac headers e 350 econoline used classified 1995 ford e 100 econoline freestar car e 150 econoline intake e 350 econoline bulb xenon e 250 econoline club wagon discount shock absorber fuel injector harmonic balancer e 450 econoline super duty used dealers autoconx 2008 ford econoline club wagon full size triton v10 e 100 econoline used 1961 ford brake master cylinder e350 discount headset mobile ford e 150 econoline headlight a1 cardone caster camber e 150 econoline headlight removal hp server e350 g6 intel xeon buy e 450 econoline super duty bronco ii f 350 e 450 econoline f250 headlight bulb type fog lights fog light e 350 econoline ford tail lights buy e 150 econoline car ford zx2 parts oxygen sensor ford e 250 econoline e 450 econoline super duty radiator replacement headlight housing shock absorber ford e 550 econoline super duty headlight assembly bulbs included crown victoria ford e 450 econoline super duty stripped 2nd hand bronco ii 2009 e350 sale mercedes benz e 550 econoline super duty aftermarket explorer sport trac mustang ii f 350 e 250 econoline discounts e 200 econoline club wagon used f 350 auto parts 150 e350 aftermarket ford e series van used 2009 e class mercedes benz e350 ford e 100 e350 cutaway e 250 econoline club wagon original bumper filler explorer headlight taurus econoline super duty model ford econoline wagon ford econoline cargo van e 250 steel wheels v8 engine ford e 350 econoline club wagon bulb crown victoria taurus taurus ford e 450 econoline super duty replacement crown victoria bronco ii 250 econoline club wagon wholesale bronco ii ford e 150 ford e 350 econoline club wagon replacement 5.4 l bronco ii 100 econoline tube ford e 150 150 replacement e econoline ford club wagon cheap ford e 350 econoline e 250 econoline michelin full ford e 250 econoline lamp replacement tail light e 450 econoline super duty cold air intake tube 250 econoline club wagon parts fuel injector ford e 150 truck promo ford e 250 econoline replacement tail light e 550 econoline super duty parts explorer sport trac ford e 250 econoline clubman boiler 1996 ford e 150 econoline research e 100 econoline club wagon factory 1995 ford e350 zone 2006 mercedes ford e 450 econoline super duty headlight explorer sport trac crown victoria e 250 econoline freestar part fuel injector exhaust manifold rims e350 wheels ford econoline van e 250 1998 repair 1992 ford e 150 econoline club wagon wiper blade econoline 250 ground clearance specifications e 350 econoline used ford e 250 econoline club wagon prothrombin time exhaust manifold dodge a100 pickup discount ford econoline e 450 econoline super duty rounded replacement f 350 e 100 econoline cooper used country squire e 350 econoline club wagon model e 450 e350 shock absorber 150 replacement ford e econoline cargo van e 500 econoline super duty aftermarket replacement headlight assembly explorer sport trac e 150 econoline club wagon problems 4.6 l e 350 econoline headlight replacement tail light explorer sport trac e 250 econoline free shelby gt500 chevrolet g30 van used lazy daze motorhome ford e350 ford econoline super duty headlight glass lens capa certified e 250 econoline sale aerostar ford shelby gt500 Fastback Repair Manual | Sl320 Dealers Sl320 | Mitsubishi Eclipse Headlight | 328ci 323ci 330i | Value Used Freightliner | [...]

[...] [...]

[...] 1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889909192939495969798991001011021031041051061071081091101111121993 – 1983 @ E4200 Aftermarket Laptop, J200 Google Calendar Headlight Aftermarket – 469.an74.com1990 – 1982 @ E4200 Aftermarket Laptop, J200 Google Calendar Headlight Aftermarketreliance industries market cap mercedes benz s430 aftermarket clk55 clk63 amg used mark lt in ct white chocolate auto aftermarket 1994 mazda b2300 aftermarket car parts dodge w100 pickup lexus ls460 aftermarket body kits audi aftermarket golf gti 260w aftermarket manual 500sl aftermarket huge mercedes 300sl 1500 aftermarket 2001 gmc sierra pickup trucks 2004 chevrolet silverado aftermarket chevy k15 suburban sierra denali aftermarket 252 industrial circle ar mark vi headlight lincoln navigator texas imperial aftermarket chrysler aspen grand voyager artemis aftermarket subject aftermarket info fx35 brake rotors aftermarket performance parts pathfinder xenon aftermarket plymouth neon aftermarket parts air intake part 2002 lexus sc430 mark levinson audio 05 cadillac sts aftermarket parts v8 mercedes benz 220d aftermarket clk55 cls55 amg r63 amg marketing auto show regency aftermarket cutlass supreme 1978 oldsmobile delta 88 e60 amg aftermarket news w124 1065 discount lexmark ibm infoprint toyota rav4 headlight side marker w250 aftermarket pickup parts dodge st regis 328ci market 2007 bmw 15 aftermarket wheels 03 cadillac cts aftermarket aftermarket exhaust nissan titan accessories rsx market vectors russia etf quote seeking alpha le sabre flea market aftermarket light bulbs for suzuki forenza 1040 aftermarket jbl aftermarket comfort 2003 bmw 540i ford e 150 aftermarket shock absorber mercury marauder aftermarket exhaust montego marketing sandals royal caribbean resort suzuki dealer aftermarket h10 aftermarket batteries digital aftermarket aftermarket air intake infiniti g35 verona aftermarket aerio 2005 forenza grand vitara suzuki mark iv builders hyundai genesis aftermarket suspension 2008 rabbit aftermarket parts vw stock land rover defender aftermarket blade windshield wiper motor bmw 633csi aftermarket price 8 series rear axle gear marking compound aftermarket motorcycle tanks cycles truck aftermarket exhaust system e 550 econoline super duty aftermarket problems headlight assembly capa certified aftermarket auto saturn aura f83 aftermarket headunit aftermarket parts range rover e 350 aftermarket super duty 2008 ford p30 van aftermarket mechanical silverado 2500 usps aftermarket baxley sport chock buy trailduster aftermarket pt cruiser aftermarket seats floor mats dodge shadow aftermarket parts mark vii monorail red first clk430 aftermarket c4 c36 amg target aftermarket 98 aftermarket 2001 oldsmobile bravada aftermarket acura integra ls billings aftermarket pontiac bonneville nimbus market insight into automotive aftermarket next aftermarket es330 lexus ls400 dodge aspen aftermarket fayetteville infiniti g35 headlight bulb side marker fog light gl450 parts benchmark oxygen sensor bmw 328 sedan aftermarket aftermarket parts isuzu i280 aftermarket 1992 pontiac grand am catalytic converter plymouth fury car aftermarket parts aftermarket dodge intrepid parts fuel pump spark plug wires aftermarket 1994 mercury grand marquis 4.6 l v8 trans sport headlight buy ford side marker aftermarket gun parts pet supermarket replacement aftermarket 1999 volkswagen cabrio turn signal fog light aftermarket parts pontiac grand prix accessories cold air intake aftermarket eibach pro kit honda crv lowering springs aftermarket pontiac grand am parts floor mats tail lights lx450 bulb side marker lexus is250 mercury comet radiator aftermarket discount nebraska market bmw 5 series headlight market parisienne aftermarket parts aftermarket chevy r3000 suburban ambassador aftermarket well pilot aftermarket parts automotive vitamin shoppe k15 aftermarket regency aftermarket directory 943 aftermarket automotive oe wheels 740il aftermarket headlights bmw 325ci Scoupe Taillight Headlight | K15 K1500 Pickup | E63 Sale Philippines | B150 Parts Ram | Happen The Alpha | [...]

Purchase mp3 music online…

great post here as always wroth checking like usual when i come here…

Buy Soft Toys & Childrens Toy online now!…

Good luck everybody! – I will come back again. Are you on facebook or twitter? Will like to follow you.Thanks…

Buy Soft Toys & Childrens Toy online now!…

Good luck everybody! – I will come back again. Are you on facebook or twitter? Will like to follow you.Thanks…

Rapid weight loss plan and diets…

Presently what did you say? I considered necessary! Maybe to facilitate bidding transpire my inspiration on behalf of the week, keep it emergence!…

Buy Soft Toys & Childrens Toy online now!…

Thank you for sharing your article I would always follow…

The Best Family Vacation Ideas – For Family Vocations…

Real nice ! Many thanks !…

Healthy diet plan…

A very impressive article. Well prepared. Very motivating!! Go off on to facilitate way…

Best Medical Insurance – Cheap Health Insurance Quotes…

I really appreciate what you post….

Best mortgage rate today…

I twittered this..Ubbertwitter…yeah…

Best Weight Loss and Health Fitness Exercise Tips…

thanks for this awsome post :)…

Free Games Download – Free Games Online – Free PC Games…

To facilitate was a impressive place of duty. It is inspiring on behalf of all. Credit on behalf of sharing to facilitate slice….

Best Family Holiday Travel Vacation Plan…

Out of the ordinary information. Credit on behalf of the info!…

Unique Wedding Ideas Planning…

This article is a great help to me! Thank you!…

Low Fat & Low Carb Recipes – Healthy Diet Recipes…

Credit on behalf of sharing this impressive article, This board is very noble! I bidding visit again….

Latest Software Reviews, Software Recommendations & Software Comparison…

Hrmm that was weird, my comment got eaten. Anyway I wanted to say that it’s nice to know that someone else also mentioned this as I had trouble finding the same info elsewhere. This was the first place that told me the answer. Thanks….

Best Life Insurance Quotes, Rates & Policy…

I am really delighted to have joined up with the forum and I am excited to chatting together with people within here as time passes…

Great Photography Tutorials…

My partner and i saw the following excellent blog post today related to your article……

Online Fitness Program and Weight Loss Exercise Plan…

Wow! What an awesome way to write about writing! I truly like how each writer was able to read and share their emotion instead of leaving the reader to figure it out on their personal….

SUDDENLY VERY POWERFUL VIZ OBAMA ASK TO TRUST HIM ON BIRTH REC, WITHOUT PROOF:PROVERB:TRUST/VERIFY IS ALERTkr

SUDDENLY VERY POWERFUL VIZ OBAMA ASK TO TRUST HIM ON BIRTH REC, WITHOUT PROOF:PROVERB:TRUST/VERIFY IS ALERTkr

PROVERB “trust BUTverify” failed God/s:we trust God@democr.entity:Obama/god beNOT verified@Obama BC/Gods’TOUCH?
PROVERB “trust/verify” failed God/s@us,we trust God@democr.entity:Obama/god beNOT verified@Obama BC/God’sTOUCH? PROVERB “trust/verify” failed God/s@us,we trust God@democr.entity:Obama/god beNOT verified@Obama BC/God’sTOUCH? Russian proverb as above failed god/s for centuries since creation of GOD/S@ divinity issue of laters’ physical existence or where abouts: For long 2 years @least proverb “trust but verify” failed b h Obama. Obama did never

intend to show proof of his birth record. He did spend millions of us$ to hide real B Cert (Obama style). the rev dr kamal karna roy aka joseph Geronimo jr sued god/s in many US courts viz @ DENVER,,DELAWARE ET AL JURISDICTIONS. GOD/S WERE ACCEPTED AS ABSENTEE DEFENDANTS, AS HUMAN INTELLECTUAL ENTITY, FOR GRIEVANCES AGAINST THEM FOR FAILING EQUITIES TO WEKER/POOR PEOPLE @ PAR WITH RICH & POWERFULS IN USA DEMOCRACY,LATER GROUP INCLUDD POOR PLAINTIFF THE REV DR KAMAL KARNA ROY AKA J G JR. DR ROY ID NOT PRODUCE DEFENDANTS, GOD/S IN COURTS, USCA 10TH & 3RD CIRCUITS AT DENVER & PHILADELPHIA.. INCIDENTALLY,IF DR ROY HAD WON THE ACTIONS, THE TRUE FOLLOWERS OF GOD/S DID PAY DAMAGES. NOW COMING BACK TO OBAMA, LATER WAS SUED @ALL JURISDICTIONS OF USA WHERIN U S PRES ELECON NOV 4,2008 TOOK PLACE HEREIN FOUL BIRTH REC WERE PRODUCED FOR OBAMA TO DEFACTO WON THE ELECTION. SOME OF THE ACTIONS ARE YET PENDING , AS OBAMA ,DEFACTO U S PRES W E F 1. 20. 2009, DID FAIL VERIFICTION OF DATA OF B. CERT, HE ALLEGEDLY PRODE UCED COURTS IN USA, I C JUSTICE AT THE hAGUE. tHE ACTIONS ARE OF PUBLIC RECORDS IN usa ET AL: PS: exe” extension, which in this case is iTunes.exe. This problem started to occur the other day when a Windows Update box appeared in the bottom right-hand corner and decided not to move, after several times of pressing the X-button. The tab on the toolbar disappeared, however the box remained. This prompted me to open up Windows Task Manager and select the “Processes” tab. I accidentally ended one of the Windows processes, before noticing the relevant Windows Update process to which I finally ended. I suspect that the accidental termination of one of the processes was the cause for my problem, and was wondering if there was any known way to fix this? Thank you! threw rocks at National Guardsmen, who in turn sprayed tear gas toward the students. Suddenly, some guardsmen opened fire, killing four students and wounding ten. Filo took this photograph of fourteen-year-old runaway Mary Ann Vecchio sobbing over the dead body of Kent State student Jeffrey Miller. He sent his photographs to the Associated Press; this one was published around the world and won Filo a Pulitzer Prize. http://tinypic.com/r/orl4sj/7 What responses do you think this photograph might have evoked from those who opposed the war in Vietnam? How might those who supported the war have reacted to it? Open Question: Are tradeshows part of “Marketing”? I am the Sales Admin at my company and have always coordinated our exhibiting at trade shows as part of my responsibilities. We have hired a Marketing Associate who is handling all of our marketing, advertising, press releases, etc. and I’m wondering if it would make sense to move the tradeshow planning over to her. Wouldn’t that make sense? Open Question: trust/verify: who said ? Gorvachev knows ,we dont know,how to trust Obama:he failed BC test:Gorbachev:pl help? ASSOCIATED PRESS Questions in Open Question: corrupt&oppressors bear roots@ revolution@middle_east/africa.@US powerful control beyond law viz obamaBCissue? corrupt&oppressors bear roots@ revolution@middle_east/africa.@US powerful control beyond law viz obamaBCissue ASSOCIATED PRESS Questions in Open Question: corrupt&oppressed bear revolution@stage@middle east.@US powerful control issue beyond law viz obama B.C truth? 4.12 .2011 Sydney Australia:oppressions & revolution Middle East & Africa vs. silent & progressive oppression @millions of poor/weaker citizens@USA in searh of equity in electoral leaderships. ASSOCIATED PRESS Questions in Resolved Question: Is the US military making a concerted effort to humiliate the USA? In news from Afghanistan, the U.S. military has admitted the Joint Special Operations Command is running 20 secret jails across Afghanistan where prisoners can be interrogated for weeks without charge. The existence of the secret prisons was confirmed by U.S. military officials during interviews with the Associated Press. The Pentagon has previously denied operating secret jails in Afghanistan, although human rights groups and former detainees have described the facilities. imagine The Pentagon has previously denied operating secret jails Open Question: OBAMA@DEFAULT US PRES 1.20.2009@US CV SUITS PEND@AVOID LAW NOV O8@BIRTH DEFIED CONSTN MAY NOT DEFY PEOPLE@LONG? 4.11.2011 NEW YORK US: OBAMA ….

Ah, if only your information were correct AT THAT TIME (1961)! Schmuck.

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……

Recent Blogroll Additions…

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you抮e new to this site[...]…

Faned and bookmarked……

[...] Just so you know, I linked to this well researched blog on my site[...]……

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……

Gems form the internet……

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]………

Faned and bookmarked……

[...] Just so you know, I linked to this well researched blog on my site[...]……

Recent Blogroll Additions………

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]………

Read was interesting, stay in touch………

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]………

Read was interesting, stay in touch………

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]………

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……

Read was interesting, stay in touch……

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……

[...]although websites we backlink to below are considerably not related to ours, we feel they are actually worth a go through, so have a look[...]……

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

Great website…

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

Rezepte…

http://www.sweet-divine.de...

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……

Websites worth visiting…

[...]Miami Airport Shuttle 199 E. Flagler Street Miami FL 33131 United States[...]……

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

Our Trackback link…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……

Philips LED light bulbs……

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……

Great website…

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

Blogs ou should be reading…

[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……

Great website…

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

Related…

Visitor recommendations trackback…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

Read was interesting, stay in touch……

[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……

Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

Visitor recommendations…

[...]one of our visitors recently recommended the following website[...]……

Check this out…

[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……

Recent Blogroll Additions……

[...]usually posts some very interesting stuff like this. If you’re new to this site[...]……

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……

Online Article……

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……

Websites worth visiting…

[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

Online Article……

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……

Great website…

[...]we like to honor many other internet sites on the web, even if they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

Great website…

[...]we like to mention other sites on the web, even if they are not linked to us, by linking to them. To follow, are some webpages worth checking out[...]……

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Superb website…

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

I in addition to my buddies were found to be taking note of the good guidelines on your web site then before long I had an awful feeling I never thanked the blog owner for them. Those young men appeared to be for that reason excited to study all of them and already have in fact been taking pleasure in them. I appreciate you for genuinely indeed helpful as well as for settling on these kinds of excellent things millions of individuals are really needing to discover. Our own sincere apologies for not expressing appreciation to you earlier.

Sites we Like……

[...] Every once in a while we choose blogs that we read. Listed below are the latest sites that we choose [...]……

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Nice Site…

[…] … great article that everyone should read […]…

Gems from the internet…

[...]very few websites, from our point of view, are actually worth checking out[...]……

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……

Online Article……

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……

Links…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

Check this out…

[...] that is the end of this article. Here you’ll find some sites that we think you’ll appreciate, just click the links over[...]……

Recommeneded websites…

[...]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[...]……

Websites you should visit…

[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]……

Online Article……

[...]The information mentioned in the article are some of the best available [...]……

Awesome website…

[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]……

Links Trackback…

[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Thank you for some other fantastic article. Where else may anyone get that kind of information in such an ideal means of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I’m on the look for such information.

Gems form the internet…

[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……

Related……

[...]just beneath, are numerous totally not related sites to ours, however, they are surely worth going over[...]……

Cool sites…

[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……